World

Partly Sunny with Showers 14° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Four CIA chiefs said 'don't reveal torture memos'

Agency's ex-directors objected to interrogation techniques being revealed. But Barack Obama went ahead anyway.

By Pamela Hess

Former CIA directors General Michael Hayden (above), Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch fought the White House over release of embarrassing documents

afp

Former CIA directors General Michael Hayden (above), Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch fought the White House over release of embarrassing documents

Four former CIA directors opposed the release of classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed disclosure of the records. Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called "torture memos" would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say.

President Barack Obama ultimately overruled the objections after internal discussions that intensified in the weeks that followed the former directors' intervention. The memos were released on Thursday.

Mr Obama's involvement grew as the decision neared, and he even led a National Security Council session on the matter, four senior administration officials said. White House adviser David Axelrod, who said he also talked to Mr Obama about the pending release of the memos in recent weeks, said the ex-directors' opposition was considered seriously but did not impede the decision-making process. "The CIA directors weighed in and it slowed things down," Mr Axelrod said on Friday.

The memos detailed the legal rationales that senior Bush administration lawyers drew up authorising the CIA to use simulated drowning and other harsh techniques on terror suspects. They described how prisoners were naked, shackled and hooded at the start of interrogation sessions. When the CIA interrogator removed the hood, the questioning began. When a prisoner resisted, the documents outlined techniques the CIA could use to bring him back in line:

* Nudity, sleep deprivation and dietary restrictions kept prisoners compliant and reminded them they had no control over their basic needs. Clothes and food could be used as rewards for co-operation.

* Slapping prisoners on the face or abdomen was allowed. So was grabbing them forcefully by the collar or slamming them into a false wall, a technique called "walling" intended to induce fear rather than pain.

* Water hoses were used to douse the prisoners for minutes at a time. The hoses were turned on and off as the interrogation continued.

* Prisoners were put into one of three "stress positions", such as sitting on the floor with legs out straight and arms raised in the air.

* At night, the detainees were shackled, standing naked or wearing a nappy. The length of sleep deprivation varied but was authorised for up to 180 hours, or seven and a half days. Interrogation sessions ranged from 30 minutes to several hours and could be repeated as necessary, and as approved by psychological and medical teams.

The Bush administration approved the use of waterboarding, a technique in which a suspect was strapped to a board, his feet raised above his head, and his face covered with a wet cloth as interrogators poured water over it. The body responds as if it is drowning, over and over as the process is repeated. "We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death," Justice Department attorneys wrote. "From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing."

But attorneys decided that waterboarding caused "no pain or actual harm whatsoever" and so did not meet the "severe pain and suffering" standard to be considered torture.

President Obama has ended the CIA's interrogation programme. CIA interrogators are now required to follow army guidelines, under which waterboarding and many of the techniques listed above are prohibited.

The President gave the question of these documents' release "the appropriate reflection", Mr Axelrod said. He said Mr Obama's deliberations revolved around "the issue of national security versus the rule of law", and amounted to "one of the most profound issues the President of the United States has to deal with".

On 18 March, the Justice Department told the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, as he was leaving for a foreign trip, that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, officials said. Mr Panetta told the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, and officials in the White House that the administration needed to discuss the possibility that the memos' release might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse. Mr Panetta also pushed for more censorship of the memos, officials said. The Justice Department informed other senior CIA leaders of the decision to release the memos and, as a courtesy, told former agency directors.

Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would damage the agency's ability to interrogate prisoners. They also said the move would tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials' legal guidance. And they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services' trust in the CIA's ability to protect national security secrets. The four former directors immediately protested to the White House, officials said. The enhanced interrogation procedures outlined in the memos had been approved on Mr Tenet's watch during the Bush administration.

On 19 March, the Justice Department requested a two-week delay in responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that asked for release of the memos. Justice officials told the court dealing with that lawsuit that it was considering releasing the memos voluntarily. Two weeks later, Justice Department lawyers told the court the memos would come out on or before 16 April.

Inside the White House, according to aides, Mr Obama expressed concerns that releasing the memos could threaten current intelligence operations as well as US officials. He also echoed the CIA chiefs' worries about US relationships with always-skittish foreign intelligence services. The Justice Department argued that the ACLU lawsuit would in the end force the administration to release the documents anyway, officials said.

Mr Obama eventually agreed. The administration decided it would be better to make the release voluntarily, so as not to be seen as being forced to do so, the officials said. The only items blacked out included names of US employees or foreign services or items related to techniques still in use. Still, CIA officials needed reassurance about the decision, the officials said.

Mr Obama took the unusual step of accompanying his decision with a personal letter to CIA employees. He also devoted a big share of his public statement to saying and repeating that he believed strongly in keeping intelligence operations secret, and operations about them classified. He said he would not apologise for doing so in the future

What the memos reveal

The Bush administration memos describe the interrogation methods used against 28 terror suspects, the fullest government account of the techniques to date. They range from waterboarding – or simulated drowning – to using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls. The treatment of two suspects in particular are described:

Abu Zubaydah In 2002, the Justice Department authorised CIA interrogators to step up the pressure even further on the suspected terrorist. Justice Department lawyers said the CIA could place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box. Because Zubaydah appeared afraid of insects, they also authorised interrogators to place him in a box filled with caterpillars (though the tactic was not in fact used). Finally, the Justice Department authorised interrogators to take a step into what the United States now considers torture: waterboarding. Zubaydah was strapped to a board, his feet raised above his head. His face was covered with a wet cloth as interrogators poured water over it.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed A memo dated 30 May 2005 says that before the harsher methods were used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a top al-Qa'ida detainee, he refused to answer questions about pending plots against the US. "Soon, you will know," he said, according to the memo. It says the interrogations later extracted details of a plot called the "second wave", using East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner in Los Angeles. Plots that were disrupted, the memos say, include the alleged effort by Jose Padilla to detonate a "dirty bomb", spreading radioactive materials by means of explosives.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Bringing torturers to justice
[info]simon_gardner wrote:
Saturday, 18 April 2009 at 11:22 pm (UTC)
So it's up to the Spaniards or other foreign jurists to bring the torturers to justice as per the UN Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This treaty confers universal jurisdiction.
Redacted copy reveals success
[info]marksman504 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 12:08 am (UTC)
If a clean (non-redacted) copy of this report was revealed, it would show, ironically, these methods proved effective. Kalid Sheikh Mohammed gave very specific details of the "second wave," including the exact commercial building to be attacked in LA.
US Govt torture
[info]tonia01 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 12:24 am (UTC)
Isn't the issue simple? After WW2, many Germans were prosecuted for various war crimes by Allied forces, including Americans, despite their defence being that they were following orders. Why doesn't the same logic here ... if a crime was committed, it shouldn't be a defence for a CIA officer to say she/he was following orders.
Re: US Govt torture
[info]ydef wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 02:50 am (UTC)
Quite simply, because to the victor goes the spoils.

In World War II, the sequential US bombing of Japanese cities killed extraordinary numbers of citizens (even prior to the detonation of two atomic bombs), with US Bombing raids targeting and wiping out between 300,000 to over a million citizens per run. The Admiral in charge of the decision even admitted at the time that should the US lose the war, he would be most certainly charged for war crimes.

Successful apprehension and prosecution for war crimes in the Hague happens to the losers, not those in power. And it certainly wouldn't happen to any citizens of the world's lone superpower.

As unfortunate as it might be, if a truth commission finds that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and other administration officials knowingly authorized such crimes, even if charges were to be brought upon them in the ICC, successful prosecution of them would never happen.

Witness Kissinger and his apparent freedom.

Although those charged might have to take care to their travel arrangements, just as Kissinger has to be careful avoiding Paris.
Double Standards - Double Morality
[info]drug_baron wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 03:52 am (UTC)
Double Standards and Double Morality are the root cause of the injustice in the world which feeds the current turmoil.

Who are worse the terrorists or the torturers and their patrons; chicken and egg dilema all over again !
The President trumps the CIA?
[info]living_fossil wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 05:23 am (UTC)
Why did I think it was the other way round?
Re: The President trumps the CIA?
[info]hitch2 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC)
JFK?
Rationally
[info]keepthinkingout wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 05:40 am (UTC)
I don't think the WWII anolagy work on levels here. The persecuted German were guilty of Sleep depriving people to death, working them to death, water boarding them to death, starving them to death, gassing them to death, disecting them while alive to death, hanging them from hooks to death, and putting people into furnaces to death.
As far as I know no CIA agent has murdered a detained suspect, prisoner or war criminal. Water boarding is torture, it ought to be and is illegal and the people guilty of such an activity should be charged accordingly. Following orders or otherwise. But let us not compare waterboarding, sleep deprivation and extreme fear tactics with the hideous murders committed in the holocaust.
Re: Rationally
[info]andre_t wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)
so the death tht we know of as in Abu Ghareib had nothing to do with the supervisors incl. CIA and politicians?
Re: Rationally
[info]keepthinkingout wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 06:23 am (UTC)
I don't know much about that, but my point was that all cases of torture (and murders in the course of torture) should be tried case by case, but you can't compare what our CIA did to what was done by the Nazis in the holocaust.
Re: Rationally
[info]cozmo_lane wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:31 am (UTC)
"but you can't compare what our CIA did to what was done by the Nazis in the holocaust."

Stop this will you? stop topping the holocaust above all the human atrocities ever committed, being committed right now or will committed in the future.

torture is torture, it shouldn't be compared, whether it leads to death or not, it is torture. depriving a human being from his/her basic needs is the SAME level of violation, whether it leads to death or not. The Holocaust is no more gruesome than what the CIA is doing, and what happens in Gitmo and political prisons around the world is no more gruesome than what happened in the Holocaust.

The second, the very second you tolerate the thought of human torture, you then reach the same level of devilish irrationality, the same level of violation. yes the holocaust was mass murder and interrogations like these are not. but this must not allow us to tolerate 'acceptable' levels of torture.

stories of torture like this makes me sick, want to vomit. its the same feeling i get when I read about the holocaust, Abu Graib, Gitmo, North Korean prisons, Israeli political prisons... etc.

I wish to live the day when all those involved American politicians are put on trial. and if i were thinking like you, i would say, i wish their sentence to be letting them live the same torture their victims did. but i wont. because i don't tolerate nor compare different levels of human torture.
Re: Rationally
[info]stuartc44 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:51 am (UTC)
I'm glad you don't condone torture but unfortunately some people have to live in the real world. The one in which the Holocaust was more gruesome than what the CIA was doing.

As keepthinkingout said, torture is wrong but there are varying degrees of it and while we can all have a nice moral stand point in theory, real life is different.

If someone i know could be saved from a terrorist act that could be stopped by banging some guys head against a fake wall or not letting him sleep then so be it.

Just because its your view doesn't mean everyone has to agree!
Re: Rationally
[info]cozmo_lane wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)

"The one in which the Holocaust was more gruesome than what the CIA was doing."

actually no, the last time i checked it was the same world. we still have atrocities being committed daily, we still have tyrants we still have dictators, we still use torture. like someone pointed out, it is varying degrees to you because it has never been done to you or one of your close relatives or whatever. u see it differently.

the holocaust is a terrible terrible thing, but i dont want it to make us blind on whats happening now or in the future because 'nothing comes close to it, non-comparable'.

"If someone i know could be saved from a terrorist act that could be stopped by banging some guys head against a fake wall or not letting him sleep then so be it."

oh please stop. almost a decade of war on terrorism, 'torture' and imprisonment of detainees and we still cant get that guy hiding in a cave. we cant even stop bombing civil weddings in Pakistan. President obama is yet to deploy more troops in Afghanistan to combat Taliban. so tell me exactly how the information they obtained by torture (or without) proved any good?

you might argue that some information did prevent terrorist acts especially on our soil, but whats the use if they don't help us capture the leader? help us stop all this terrorism at once? because the way i see it now: the maniac hiding in a cave is still fixing new acts and still recruiting terrorist agents, they will be captured, tortured to get info, the man in the cave will recruit more, fix more and yada yada yada... non stop.

well, the more strict safety measures at airports proved more effective than 'torturing' detainees for information.
Learning from the past
[info]guiraud wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 06:59 am (UTC)
Looking forward and not backward? Why do Americans not learn from the past? When Abu Ghraib emerged the Pentagon praised a film, "The Battle of Algiers", Gillo Pontecorvo's 1965 film, and a book, "A savage War of Peace" by Alistair Horne, as excellent training material for Iraq. Both clearly showed that torture was self-defeating. Further, most French generals at the time later in life regretted their actions. The use of torture may have been a tactical success, but it was clearly a strategic failure. It inspired support for nationalists in and out of Algeria, discredited the French army, led to domestic political scandals in France, and traumatized French political life for decades.
Torture
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:09 am (UTC)
Modern torture methods in supposedly civilised countries are destructive to all--the regular use of torture makes it commonplace and acceptable--so that societies ingest violence as a normal practice.
This is the Orwellian future, where soon, the civilian police forces adopt such methods. This, like at Abu Ghareib, will degenerate to become a source of macabre entertainment in the hands of moronic individuals. The perpetrators of torture, from that very degenerate Bush era, should be brought to account--if not--we must surmise that, the evil system goes on. A dead fish rots from the head--and it is from here that, all terrorism starts.
CIA
[info]fantazamaraz wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:11 am (UTC)
Now this I can get my teeth into.! Assuming US intel field ops. indulged in torture to derive data which ultimately prevented clear and present danger and disaster, it was amateur-ish and mellow when compared to the much more severe and inhuman practices condoned and approved by most foreign police, military and governments.! Of course the CIA and any other intel. agency would not want their tactics,etc. revealed, this would further impair their effectivenesses and objectives.! Exposure would also entice political, media and public condemnation, embolden our enemies and further weaken Western defences.!
What thu?
[info]rwd78 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 07:59 am (UTC)
So let me get this straight.....you would rather be killed by a terrorist than dunk him in water?? So the fact that we stopped a plan to stop another wave of hijackers does'nt make you feel grateful?? Are any of you sick pansy whiners from the Los Angeles area?? I think not!
[info]montalbano69 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:06 am (UTC)
it's President Obama people, not Mr. Obama. Please show some respect.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
[info]richard012 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:07 am (UTC)
KSM was subject to the 'usual methods' and confessed to planning for a crime that was never committed, and was planned two years ahead of the founding of the bank concerned (Plaza Bank, California)

If torture produces such prescient results, we should keep it.
Another stooge in the US. Before it was a chimpanzee white Bushman and now a black Obama/Osama!
[info]djangovsartana wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:08 am (UTC)

Tortures and war crimes around the world are still going on under Obama/Osama. It means shit nothing replacing one president with another in the US. The Cosha Nostra still rule in the US and the world. You have to uproot the Zionists who have taken all over all the institutions of the world now to have a fair and just world. Too late for Christians and Muslims now!
Re: Another stooge in the US. Before it was a chimpanzee white Bushman and now a black Obama/Osama!
[info]violetsmart wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 12:31 pm (UTC)
Every single word posted by "djangovsartana" exposes that person's crude racism and bigotry.
Re: Another stooge in the US. Before it was a chimpanzee white Bushman and now a black Obama/Osama!
[info]djangovsartana wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:50 pm (UTC)
Who in the world are very well known to be racits and bigots? : The crusader, colonial, imperialists who still invade over lies and kill a miliion civilians!
YES
[info]stickytruth2 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:11 am (UTC)
So it is obvious they have something to hid, and this is a world super power (so they tell us).
They are a super power of deceit, destruction and death, just look at their track record since they became a nation, then tell us they are a world leader?
Law and Constitution
[info]frenchreader wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:19 am (UTC)
In a civilized country if the orders are illegal or unconstitutional it is compulsory not to obey them. It does not pertain to the executive power to give amnesty for illegal or unconstitutional acts, only the courts, national or international, depending, have jurisdiction.
Re: Law and Constitution
[info]hitch2 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 10:11 am (UTC)
absolutely right!
[info]arthurshort wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:21 am (UTC)
If you have a family and you knew that the person in front of you was about to KILL them all - savagely and without remorse, would you honestly allow them to say "sorry mate - I plead the fifth" or would you do any of the above to save their lives? I know what I would do!!!
[info]wit_ackman wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:41 pm (UTC)
"If you have a family and you knew that the person in front of you was about to KILL them all - savagely and without remorse, would you honestly allow them to say "sorry mate - I plead the fifth" or would you do any of the above to save their lives? I know what I would do!!!"

This is a reoccuring point, so it needs addressing.

First: in your scenario you are in possession of knowledge. The CIA, and other torturers, don't know. They torture on the basis of guess work, not knowledge. And so completely innocent people are tortured.

Second: as others have said, torture is a very uneffective technique. Most of the information generated is unreliable.

Third, and related to the above: the memos claim to have averted terrorist plots. But we cannot trust those claims. And we cannot trust that alternative legal methods would not have worked much better, that torture was "necessary".

Fouth: this torture is symptomatic of a greater logic of objectification that strips people of their dignity and humanity. Even if we do not condone their methods, or their ideolgy, can we blame those who oppose such a system?

Following this, the "war on terror" distracts us from the economic terrorism we inflict on countries, and individuals, around the world - whilst bolstering out self-belief (we think: "We are on the good side"). Torture here points to other failings on our behalf.

We have a belief in our own innocence, in the innocence of our countries - defend it even in the face of cold facts to the contrary. Prof. George Lipsitz recently commented that America's belief in its own innocence is its most damaging myth - and this is self-damage, as well as damage to others.

We need to make a determined and rigourous effort at self-critique. The decision to publish these documents is a small step in that direction. However, I lament that it was ever possible for these crimes to have taken place, and that it has taken so long, far too long, to release these documents, to allow those wronged the possibility (at the moment, it is only a possiblity) of achieving justice. And, still, I wonder whether this was a determined effort on Obama's behalf, or whether he was forced into releasing these documents? Obama is a powerful symbol; but I'm anxious - even as I am hopful that he will prove more than just a symbol. I'll judge him on his actions, not his rhetoric - I encourage others to do the same.

Let me repeat it, then, as simply as possible:

I am against torture of all forms, always, under all circumstances - because there can be no justification of torture.
Who does the public listen?
[info]famulla wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC)
Four CIA chiefs said 'don't reveal torture memos'
Agency's ex-directors objected to interrogation techniques being revealed. But Barack Obama went ahead anyway So we have two versions. Obama states protect them and CIA says 'don't reveal torture memos'
Who does the public listen?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

overreactions
[info]fkroesen wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)
The current mania about alleged torture of enemy combatants is counterproductive to efforts to squash al Qaeda or Taliban or other Islamist terrorist organizations like Hizbullah, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas or others. Clearly the methods described as having been used do not equate with real torture the likes of which are used by those groups, up to and including the beheading of people or suicide bombing. I'm not judging Obama's actions as having been wrong, though perhaps stupid, in that they feed frenzy in the hearts of those who still carry the fevers of hate for the Bush people and give some kind of false sense of hope to Islamist groups who use terrorism in their bag of tricks. American soldiers undergo waterboarding in their training making it difficult for me to accept that it is torture even if it is difficult to bear. Let governments keep the focus where it belongs: working to rid the planet of those who have declared war against it. Let us as common people, live our lives connecting and serving goodness as the hope of creating change. Governments cannot, as is proven over and over again! It's fine to me that waterboarding will no longer be used, but it doesn't fit a definition of torture to begin with, at least not in the true sense of the word.
Justice
[info]ossian_carey wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC)
The people who drew up the methods and everyone who followed them should be in jail. The entire stupid and corrupt Bush regime should be put on trial.
Re: Justice
[info]sweetnsour45 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:29 pm (UTC)
I am glad to see someone on this forum still has sense.

The biggest terrorists in the world are our own western governments.
Torture vs Torment
[info]mtnarch wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 01:34 pm (UTC)
Torture is the process whereby pain is inflicted by pain inflicted by causing injury, often disfiguring injury. In all of these interrogation procedure the subject is not injured, disfigured or any real pain inflicted. The subjects are subjected to some intense, non-injurious torment . . .extreme discomfort. There is a HUGE difference. As to the detainees, they are real MONSTERS that really deserve real torture . . . these slime balls are at war with the west using 'out of uniform' tactics that do not afford them the same considerations as an enemy combatant captured while fighting in the uniform of their country.People caught fighting a war out of uniform historically are hung or shot on the spot ass a spy.
Four CIA chiefs said 'don't reveal torture memos
[info]dpd1 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 03:33 pm (UTC)


The Memos should have never been released, and to all the people that
think the CIA are Torturers, your wrong and you to blind to see the truth.


Re: Four CIA chiefs said 'don't reveal torture memos
[info]sweetnsour45 wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 08:23 pm (UTC)
How horrific that you seem to really believe that the CIA are not torturers. They along with MI6 and Mossad are the world most prolific and vicious torturers.

Time will hopefully punish these evil persons.
Robert Welch's speech delivered on March 9, 1974.
[info]solvoxuno wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 04:57 pm (UTC)
America and Torture
[info]defythewall wrote:
Sunday, 19 April 2009 at 10:35 pm (UTC)
this
how time flies. It is Monday, April 20, 2009 today.
[info]famulla wrote:
Monday, 20 April 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
On 18 March, the Justice Department told the Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, as he was leaving for a foreign trip, that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, how time flies. It is Monday, April 20, 2009 today.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Cheney
[info]trojan_horace wrote:
Tuesday, 21 April 2009 at 01:00 pm (UTC)
Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called "torture memos" would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say but suddenly, Cheney, after eight years of pleading "executive privilege" and "national security" wants secret memos released to show they were "successful." Successful at what? At getting innocent men to implicate other innocent men in imagined conspiracies? Does this mean that Cheney is also willing to release the secret energy memos that show the role Enron and Halliburton played in defining foreign policy during the Bush/Cheney years?

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date