Thursday, November 4, 2010

Bush Says He Gave Waterboard Orders in new Memoir

Rachel Slajda | November 4, 2010, 9:38AM
'Decision Points', CIA, George Bush, Torture

In his new memoir, former President George W. Bush says he personally gave the order to waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed in 2003.

According to the Washington Post, Bush writes that the CIA asked him if they could use the torture technique on Mohammed.

"Damn right," he said.

The Post reports -- via "someone close to Bush who has read the book" -- that Bush writes that he would do it again if he thought it would save lives. He also reiterates his position that waterboarding, or simulated drowning, is not torture.

Bush said he believed Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks, had information about pending attacks.

Another terrorism suspect who underwent what the Bush administration called an "enhanced interrogation technique," Abu Zubaydah, was waterboarded more than 80 times in a month -- raising questions about how much information the CIA was getting.

The Obama Justice Department has called the technique torture and prohibited its use.

Also revealed in publicity tour surrounding the memoir, Decision Points: Bush considers himself a "dissenting voice" on the decision to go to Iraq.

Featured at TPMMuckraker

Bush: I Gave The Order To Waterboard

Four Dead Candidates Won On Tuesday (And Two Lost)

Various Comments under this article


Of course any opportunity to investigate or punish the previous
administration is gone with the majority. But that's OK, I'm told by
Republicans and Democrats alike that that's all in the past so it
doesn't matter anymore!
(Edited by author 1 hour ago)

We seem to have internalized (Democrats also) the words of Nixon from
the Nixon/Frost interview: "If the President does it, that means it's
not illegal".

quaint notions of Constitution and Separation of Power/Limits of
Power don't apply to Republican presidents.

What "later"?? Now that the house Republicans have subpoena power I
fully expect the hearings, committees and panels to be formed for
investigating Obama's "constitutional violations" for the next 2

Arrival of Godot
Look. I don't doubt that Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, or the others
actually thought there was a danger to their homeland.

It still doesn't justify torture.

Pinochet was indeed under indictment in Chile at the time of his death.

Comparing Bush to unelected military dictators is pretty silly.

Arrival of Godot
You really don't want to use "un-elected" and "Bush" in the same
sentence while trying to make a point.

It was hyperbole. Intentionally so.

Nonetheless, Pinochet and Stroessner were both "elected". And, "the
greatest, most free country the world has ever known" should never
have tortured people. But we did.

what about the other waterboarded guy, al-libi, the one who said
saddam was in bed with al qeada? cause that guy we sent to egypt
where he 'committed suicide' in his cell. are you proud of torturing
him, too?

Obama says look forward and not backward! ... therebye giving the
green light for the next dickwad president to do exactly as Bush did
with no fear of legal consequences. Thanks BO, great job! - The
Professional Left bush can't say something stupid without it being obama's problem?

the Dems may not have the majority in Congress now - but what's the
statute of limitations on this sort of thing?

We stand for nothing anymore. I am ashamed to be an American. We used
to be the bastion of liberty. Now we are broke and broken. Hope is
pretty much dead, too.

The lead story yesterday on TPM was how Issa has subpeona power and
the likelyhood of the GOP using it to pursue impeachment. Today not
quite the lead story is that Bush admits he authorized torture. Pelosi
emphatically took impeachment off the table when Dems won Congress in
06, actually even before they won.

She nearly fell over herself, she could not get this out fast enough.
There is a Chinese curse, it goes something like, "may you live
interesting times" Unfortunately, things are way beyond interesting at
this point, they have moved into the psychotic.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - Hunter S. Thompson

Totally agree with Ug. While I realize that Democrats in the US
couldn't go after a Republican ex-president, there is nothing that
would have stopped say, the Europeans from taking up war crimes
hearings at The Hague. By treaty law, the US would have to cooperate
with them to the fullest extent. Not gonna happen now I guess.

You'd be correct...if the US had ratified the Treaty of Rome.

The ICC, which would have jurisdiction of war crimes, can't prosecute
citizens of non-signatory countries.

I don't believe him. I suspect the CIA actually asked Cheney for
permission. They knew he--not Bush--wore the pants in that
presidential "relationship." To find out for sure, ask Liz Cheney if
it was Bush who authorized the waterboarding. If her face reddens and
she clams up, we'll know her daddy did it. This is just a case of
Bush trying to massage and revisionize his legacy. He doesn't deserve
this free press coverage--he's irrelevant. The media should
concentrate on people who still matter . . . like Bristol Palin,
still a contender on Unwed Mothers Dancing with the Stars.

It is a real shame that Chimpoleon will never get a taste of his own
medicine or the fate he so richly deserves. Nuremberg taught all the
lessons we need to know about what to do with war criminals. The
whole Bush Crime Family should be tried at the Hague, convicted, and
taken out dancing. At the ends of ropes.

Well, since Holder has done NOTHING other then what Gonzo would have
done...IF it LOOKS like a WAR CRIME. if it SOUNDS like a WAR CRIME,
and if the person accused of COMMITTING A WAR CRIME admits that he
DID COMMIT WAR CRIMES, WHY IS HE FREE??? Otherwise that means anyone
can get away with war crimes inside or outside the US... No

Yes.. and it looks as though voters throughout this once great nation
have decided that it is acceptable for those in power to torture.
Proof? Okay, our current democrat and republican mobsters in
Washington have decided to PROTECT WAR CRIMINALS... and justify it by
stating protecting them will allow this nation to progress and get
things done. RUBBISH!! Protecting these criminals says to the next
torturer that he/she can do so without regard to consequences. It
also tells patriots of over two hundred years that we could care less
about their sacrifices. When they were willing to die to stop these
horrendous acts, they were just naive and misdirected. Giving up your
life for honorable reasons (protecting innocent men, women and
children... preventing prison and torture without trial...
kidnapping... etc.) is just not this nation's way of doing business
anymore. We are now just as evil as those we fought! Integrity,
justice, humanity... even our once held beliefs of what it meant to
be a Christian (or have any uplifting qualities for that matter) have
been thrown out the window.

These mobsters we are harboring and promoting in the end, will be our
destruction...Good gift to leave our children, isn't it...

Obama turned his back on the law by failing to "look back". To him, I
say: Crimes are punished *by looking back*. That cost us dearly on
Nov. 2 and, unless Holder gets off his ass and indicts the Bushists,
will cost Obama in 2012. There really is no controversy. This is as
certain as gravity.
“Of course the people don’t want war . . . That is understood.
But . . . it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along
whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or
a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same in any country.” --Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg
trials, 1946 from “Nuremberg Diary,” by G. M. Gilbert.

No comments:

Post a Comment