by Eric Martin
Since I've been chronicling the positions of some high profile military personnel with respect to the extent to which our torture policies have aided in the recruitment of terrorists (and inspired other militants to attack our troops), it's only proper that I call attention General Odierno's claim that, as Dick Cheney put it, "we brought [such attacks] on ourselves." Odierno offered the following as part of a sworn statement issued in connection with a White House motion to the Second Circuit to block the release of photographic evidence of torture by US military personnel (pdf):
In April 2004, news organizations published reports of U.S. abuse of Iraqi detainees that publicly disseminated an initial set of photographs taken at the Abu Ghraib prison. Extremist organizations including al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Islamic State Iraq (ISI) used the revelations of detainee abuse and copies of associated photographs to recruit and motivate members. The graphic revelations of detainee abuse motivated some terrorists, including foreign fighters from Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to join the jihad...
The public dissemination of detainee abuse photos in 2004 likely contributed to a spike in violence in Iraq during the third quarter of 2004 as foreign fighters and domestic insurgents were drawn to Iraq to train and fight. Attacks on CF [ed note: Coalition Forces] increased from around 700 in March 2004 to around 1,800 in May (after the photographs were broadcast and published) and 2,800 in August. Attacks on CF did not subside to March 2004 levels until June 2008. These increased attacks resulted in the death of CF, Iraqi forces, and civilians.
There is more from Odierno, as well as General Petraeus, along similar lines at the link above.
In other Cheney/torture-related news, Greg Sargent catches the former Vice President in what could be a bit of preemptive walk-back in response to an interviewer's question regarding Cheney's previous claims as to the efficacy of torture (which would be proven by the release of certain CIA memos):
The key moment came when his interviewer said: “You want some documents declassified having to do with waterboarding.” Cheney replied:
“Yes, but the way I would describe them is they have to do with the detainee program, the interrogation program. It’s not just waterboarding. It’s the interrogation program that we used for high-value detainees. There were two reports done that summarize what we learned from that program, and I think they provide a balanced view.”
Bear with me here, because this is crucial. Cheney is carefully saying that the documents summarize what we learned from the overall interrogation program. Torture, of course, was only a component of that program. So he’s clearly saying that the docs summarize what was learned from a program that included non-torture techniques, too.
Here’s why this is important. It dovetails precisely with what Senator Carl Levin, who has also seen these docs, says about them. Levin claims the docs don’t do anything to “connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of the abusive techniques.”
Although at this late date most people have caught on to Cheney's duplicitous modus operandi, he is as cynical and relentless a prevaricator as exists in modern American politics. As he'll insist until his last breath, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he, too, is not a crook.
"Levin claims the docs don’t do anything to connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of the abusive techniques."
Am I wrong, or is Cheney's claim of torture's effectiveness a textbook example of a non-falsifiable-ness?
Posted by: Point | June 02, 2009 at 02:21 PM
There are three necessary conditions for the success of the Big Lie tactic.
1) the Big Lie, the falsehood itself, so huge as to imply that, by its very size alone, it couldn't be false
2) a Big Liar. Someone with ostensible 'authority' or legitimacy to utter and repeat it.
3) a forum in which said Lie, uttered and repeated by said Liar, can be repeated frequently enough that the frequency itself bestows authenticity.
The Lie is that 'torture works,' whatever its moral status. The Liar is, of course, Cheney(s), and the fora are the cabloids, particularly Faux Gnus, but including all the rest which have hosted Cheney(s) and given them the air-time to repeat their falsehoods.
The 24-hour news cycle seems 'hegemonically' designed to perfectly meet the needs of the Big Lie: on cabloids, the Lie can be repeated indefinitely. It doesn't matter that some sources seem to rebut it; what matters is that it is out there, and being repeated.
Posted by: Woody | June 02, 2009 at 02:39 PM
Uh, Eric, what if the memos show that waterboarding + stress positions + sleep deprivation + other coercive techniques gained valuable, actionable intelligence? Would that make you, Sargent and Levin all liars? Would Cheney be vindicated? I ask these questions because right now we have a swearing match about what is inside two documents no one has seen. Seems to me that until we see those docs, it is just a matter of the partisans lining up and declaring their side to be right without bothering to examine the actual evidence.
My personal view is the the memos will be equivocal, so both sides can claim victory, but that's neither here nor there.
Posted by: mckinneytexas | June 02, 2009 at 03:50 PM
"Would that make you, Sargent and Levin all liars? Would Cheney be vindicated?"
What, exactly, would my lie be? What did I claim was in the memos? Sargent?
Levin did make a claim.
"Eric, what if the memos show that waterboarding + stress positions + sleep deprivation + other coercive techniques gained valuable, actionable intelligence?"
It depends. If the memos show that all were necessary, then it would vindicate Cheney. If not, not. As of now, Cheney appears to be walking back his initial claims.
That's what I found interesting.
BTW: Your personal view is probably right.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 02, 2009 at 04:05 PM
I should qualify my prior statement: It would vindicate Cheney on this one, narrow point (if the memos corroborate his claims).
But even if the memos back him up, and torture was necessary to glean some information, you have Generals Petraeus, Odierno, Jones, Taguba, Sanchez and others, Admiral Mullen and DefSec Gates all saying that torture increased the ranks of extremists and anti-American militants leading to the deaths of many US soldiers, Iraqi security personnel and Iraqi civilians.
Those leaders have also claimed that torture has caused widespread and significant damage to our national image which is vital in combatting extremists. Each thinks torture does more harm than good.
So even if the CIA memos break strongly in Cheney's favor, he still occupies a tenuous position in advocating for the use of torture.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 02, 2009 at 04:15 PM
And now Chain-Eye also tries to blame everything on Tenet (also preemptively), including Saddam-Al Qaeda links, Saddam-was-behind-9/11 and Saddam-had-WMDs.
Posted by: Hartmut | June 03, 2009 at 04:30 AM