Bush admits to secret prisons

[MLA]

Remember when America was a beacon of democracy? Those were good times.

And why don't I believe it when he says that there's no torture going on in these places?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday for the first time acknowledged the use of secret CIA prisons outside U.S. borders to hold top suspects captured in the war on terrorism.

In a speech at the White House, Bush said captured terror suspects have been the best intelligence source in efforts to stop new attacks and listed attacks blocked because of this intelligence.

The CIA program has "saved innocent lives," the president said.

Bush said torture was not part of the program and he had not authorized any form of torture, saying American law forbids it.

Bush said locations of the prisons will remain secret. "They are in our custody so they cannot murder our people," Bush said of the detainees. The program "helped take potential mass murderers off the streets," Bush said.


CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.speech/index.html)

[miel]

It's weird. I was just looking at pictures of North Korea. I get an eery feeling reading this post of yours. Our reality is no longer connected to the truth. I mean: The government has always lied but now? We are in a time where the truth has no effect on politics. No matter how disturbing the stories, they don't seem to have a real effect. It's bizarre. The truth doesn't matter anymore.

[batgirl]

I'm still amazed he admitted it since he's been adamantly denying the existence of these "black sites" for a while now... (Boy, does anyone believe anything that comes out of this quack's mouth anymore? If so, I have a couple of acres of prime water front property for you...)

Bush denied "torture" but defended "tough" interrogation tactics, which he described as an "alternative set of procedures" specially approved by the Department of Justice.

from salon:
Bush would not provide any specifics about the "tough" tactics, other than to insist improbably that they didn't constitute torture.

Also from Salon:
Meanwhile, across the Potomac, an Army general unveiled a new Army interrogations manual designed to fit squarely within the protections of the Geneva Conventions. That new manual specifically bars hooding, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, mock executions and many of the other "tough" techniques allegedly practiced in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and the black sites.

The new manual was presented by Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, the Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence in a press conference that aired live Wednesday morning on the limited-circulation Pentagon Channel. During the press conference, Kimmons expressed a view about the effectiveness of "tough" interrogation techniques utterly different from the president's.

"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility." And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there."

Kimmons added that "our most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Kimmons said. "Nothing good will come from them."

Critics of the detainee abuse that has flowered under this administration said the gap between Bush and the Pentagon reveals an entrenched belief at the White House that harsh techniques work. "This is pretty much deeply anchored administration policy at this point," noted Scott Horton, chairman of the International Law Committee at the New York City Bar Association. Horton said the message from Bush on Wednesday was, "'Torture works.' That was a big part of the sell."

Bush was defending "tough" interrogation at one press conference, the Army was calling torture useless at another. Hmmm. Who do you believe?

[Thankful1]

It doesn't surprise me that he's admitted it. There has been so much that he has done wrong (I won't rehash it all) and gotten away with, what's one more thing to add to his endless pile of.........

It doesn't matter, no one is going to do anything about it. I guess he'll have to get some from an intern before he gets into any real trouble.

[j*east]

It doesn't matter, no one is going to do anything about it. I guess he'll have to get some from an intern before he gets into any real trouble.

This is so true. I was thinking just yesterday that if the Republicans in Congress hadn't wasted so much time, energy, press, money, and public attention on Lewinskygate, we might all have been more tuned in to the looming threat of terrorism. Yuck.

[IrishEyes]

Somewhat related article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html) about CIA officers and buying insurance to protect themselves from civil matters regarding illegal acts/torture
from the Washington Post

Worried CIA Officers Buy Legal Insurance
Plans Fund Defense In Anti-Terror Cases

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A01

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

The anxieties stem partly from public controversy about a system of secret CIA prisons in which detainees were subjected to harsh interrogation methods, including temperature extremes and simulated drowning. The White House contends the methods were legal, but some CIA officers have worried privately that they may have violated international law or domestic criminal statutes.

Details of the rough interrogations could come to light if trials are held for any of the approximately 100 detainees who were held in the prisons. President Bush announced last week that he had transferred the last 14 detainees in the facilities to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and had submitted a proposal to Congress for the rules under which the administration would like the suspects to be tried.

Terrorism suspects' defense attorneys are expected to argue that admissions made by their clients were illegally coerced as the result of policies set in Washington.

Justice Department political appointees have strongly backed the CIA interrogations. But "there are a lot of people who think that subpoenas could be coming" from Congress after the November elections or from federal prosecutors if Democrats capture the White House in 2008, said a retired senior intelligence officer who remains in contact with former colleagues in the agency's Directorate of Operations, which ran the secret prisons.

"People are worried about a pendulum swing" that could lead to accusations of wrongdoing, said another former CIA officer.

The insurance policies were bought from Arlington-based Wright and Co., a subsidiary of the private Special Agents Mutual Benefit Association created by former FBI officials. The CIA has encouraged many of its officers to take out the insurance, current and former intelligence officials said, but no one interviewed would reveal precisely how many have bought policies.

As part of the administration's efforts to protect intelligence officers from liability, Bush last week called for Congress to approve legislation drafted by the White House that would exempt CIA officers and other federal civilian officials from prosecution for humiliating and degrading terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. Its wording would keep prosecutors or courts from considering a wider definition of actions that constitute torture.

Bush also asked Congress to bar federal courts from considering lawsuits by detainees who were in CIA or military custody that allege violations of international treaties and laws governing treatment of detainees.

The proposals have won mixed reviews in the Senate, where they are generally opposed by Democrats and a group of dissident Republicans. The proposals were deliberately omitted, for example, from competing legislation circulated last week by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

Several former intelligence officials who said CIA officers do not need insurance because they can rely on the government to defend their lawful actions depicted the growing number of policies as a barometer of the uncertainty officers have of the legality of their work.