Salon: The memo Bush tried to destroy

[Upchurch]

The memo Bush tried to destroy

The importance of the memo lies in its revelation that there was real, serious debate inside the Bush administration about how to interrogate captured terrorist suspects. The members of the White House declined to enter that debate — indeed, they did their best to squash it. The destruction of Zelikow’s carefully reasoned memo suggests the White House did not want any record of alternative views even existing, lest they be considered reasonable or people get the idea that the torture policies were thought controversial even by members of the administration.

The memo itself (warning: PDF), recently declassified.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Bush Administration was guilty of some very real crimes. I know there are those here who disagree. I don't know how accurate this story is or what the other side may be.

If it is accurate, it reinforces my opinion that Bush, et al, knew what they were doing was ...well, not "wrong". No one believes they are the villain of the story, but they were intentionally operating in an echo chamber.

 

[Brown]

So Bush ignored another memo. So what else is new?

What is new is that there was apparently a concerted effort to destroy evidence that might indicate culpability for war crimes. If the document was no big deal, then why have an effort "to collect and destroy all copies of the memo?"

 

[Brainster]

The existence and general contents of this memo have been known for years. Of course the irony is that Truthers have long denounced Zelikow as a puppet of the Bush Administration for his work as Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission. This certainly puts that lie to rest.

 

[casebro]

So Bush ignored another memo. So what else is new?

What is new is that there was apparently a concerted effort to destroy evidence that might indicate culpability for war crimes. If the document was no big deal, then why have an effort "to collect and destroy all copies of the memo?"

What did he do to "collect and destroy" ?

Hmmm, I bet he sent a memo.

Hmmm, has the subsequent memo been collected and destroyed? Or was there even a memo sent about it?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first endeavor to have little fleas have littler fleas and on their backs they ride em...

 

[crimresearch]

When an individual thinks that what they have conspired to do is 'wrong' on a federal level, and gathers up incriminating memos and such to keep an investigation from finding it, they face additional felony charges...

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States

18 USC § 1519


Just sayin'.

 

[A'isha]

What did he do to "collect and destroy" ?

Hmmm, I bet he sent a memo.

Hmmm, has the subsequent memo been collected and destroyed? Or was there even a memo sent about it?

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first endeavor to have little fleas have littler fleas and on their backs they ride em...

It's memos all the way down.

 

[Corsair 115]

It's memos all the way down.

That's a lot of memos!

 

[Sam.I.Am]

That's a lot of memos!

I hear that when you mix memos and Diet Pepsi that they explode... or was that something else? I forget.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The memo Bush tried to destroy

The memo itself (warning: PDF), recently declassified.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Bush Administration was guilty of some very real crimes. I know there are those here who disagree. I don't know how accurate this story is or what the other side may be.

If it is accurate, it reinforces my opinion that Bush, et al, knew what they were doing was ...well, not "wrong". No one believes they are the villain of the story, but they were intentionally operating in an echo chamber.

As someone that disagrees with you on the issue of guilt, I find this post well-reasoned and a strong contributor to the conversation. thank you.

 

[willhaven]

The existence and general contents of this memo have been known for years. Of course the irony is that Truthers have long denounced Zelikow as a puppet of the Bush Administration for his work as Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission. This certainly puts that lie to rest.

The truthers are only slightly crazier than the torture apologists and Iraq WMD/Al Qaeda link folk.

Truly nutty. All of them.

 

[BravesFan]

I notice that when we used to hire operatives to hook people up to car batteries that we tended to not have too many terrorist attacks on our soil. Then the Church Hearings happened and it's been mamby pamby land ever since.

Intelligence is an ugly business. Just like laws and sausages it's not really something that's very appealing to watch being made. But the results, well we tend to like the results.

I'm in favor of dirty tricks, puppet regimes , controlling elections and overthrowing enemy regimes. If it is the best interest of the USA, that's what the CIA is there for. I have never understood how people had the nerve to get so appalled when they find out that the Intelligence community doesn't get information by asking nicely three times!!! It's a dirty business and it requires a certain type of approach to be effective. Especially when dealing with an enemy who is smart enough to avoid technology as often as possible.

 

[RandFan]

I notice that when we used to hire operatives to hook people up to car batteries that we tended to not have too many terrorist attacks on our soil. Then the Church Hearings happened and it's been mamby pamby land ever since.

Excuse me, how many people have died on American soil since 2001?

 

[RandFan]

Why...

...why did the admin want to destroy the memos?

I understand wanting to laugh about it and down play it but is there any intellectual honesty here? Doesn't the memo give lie to the Bush admins claims about torture?

 

[RandFan]

FTR: I argued in favor of water boarding on this forum. I also started a thread on this forum that questioned whether torture was necessarily immoral (I argued the ticking time bomb scenario). So I understand the issue from that perspective. Now I think what the Bush admin did was illegal, immoral and worthless. Many experts in the field say it's less likely to get actionable information than other methods.

I understand the political calculations of Obama but I think Bush and company broke the law.

 

[BravesFan]

Excuse me, how many people have died on American soil since 2001?

I was referring to the time between the Church hearings and 9/11 . I believe that our changing of interrogation policy since 9/11 is on of the major reasons that nothing has happened since then.

 

[RandFan]

I was referring to the time between the Church hearings and 9/11 . I believe that our changing of interrogation policy since 9/11 is on of the major reasons that nothing has happened since then.

Let's assume there was a statistically significant correlation between 9/11 and the aftermath of the Church hearing. At best it would be a correlation and would not demonstrate causation.

That said, aside from 9/11 how much terrorism has there been? A single data point is hardly enough to establish anything.

 

[BravesFan]

There was a significant increase in hijackings following the Church Hearings (involving both our planes and our allies). Not to mention the Beirut barracks bombing. Lot's of little things here and there during the early 80's.

At the risk of sounding like an evil ,hawkish person. I've often been of the opinion that the Israeli's have the best policy when dealing with terrorism. Zero tolerance, swift payback at the root and the branches and a willingness to accept collateral damage.


EDIT: I attempted to google some sort of terrorist incident data by year, but all that I could find wasn't country specific enough to really work ,IMO, but then again, I may not be google fooing it as well as I could

 

[RandFan]

There was a significant increase in hijackings following the Church Hearings (involving both our planes and our allies). Not to mention the Beirut barracks bombing. Lot's of little things here and there during the early 80's.

At the risk of sounding like an evil ,hawkish person. I've often been of the opinion that the Israeli's have the best policy when dealing with terrorism. Zero tolerance, swift payback at the root and the branches and a willingness to accept collateral damage.

EDIT: I attempted to google some sort of terrorist incident data by year, but all that I could find wasn't country specific enough to really work ,IMO, but then again, I may not be google fooing it as well as I could

First off you said on American soil. Second, the killing of Americans over seas have skyrocketed since we started torturing people. (see the problem of correlation equals causation?).

How has America been soft on terrorism since 9/11? Who exactly did we not torture? Have we not killed many innocent civilians with our drone attacks?

FYI: I promoted your position on this forum for years. In the end I could find evidence that torture offers much of value. Intelligence experts have concluded that it has done little.

 

[BravesFan]

That's because, honestly, you have become soft. I KNOW FOR A FACT that torture can and does work. When done properly and by the the right people. You can't just be out there torturing people at will. You have to KNOW that they have information you need, and KNOW how to get it. I know this due to personal experience as well a a family member (who I cannot specify) being an "advisor" to the south during Vietnam.

I don't think it should be "policy" I don't think the President needs to know about it (plausible deniability and all that) nor do I think that it needs to be done haphazardly by people who don't know what they are doing. But experienced people can get information from enemy combatants by applying the proper leverage and without causing permanent damage. (but the problem with letting them go is that they tell others, so ,IMO, it's best to kill them afterwards) .

I didn't say we had gotten soft since 9/11 Rand. I said YOU had gotten soft.

 

[RandFan]

That's because, honestly, you have become soft. I KNOW FOR A FACT that torture can and does work. When done properly and by the the right people. You can't just be out there torturing people at will. You have to KNOW that they have information you need, and KNOW how to get it. I know this due to personal experience as well a a family member (who I cannot specify) being an "advisor" to the south during Vietnam.

I'm not interested in your personal appeals. Perhaps somewhat fair given my stated biography. But I do resent your aspersions of me going soft. I didn't go soft. I studied the data and most of the experts and most of what I've seen don't support you. I don't change my mind easily. Please feel free to disagree with me and state that your experience leads you to a different conclusion. But don't attack me personally.

But okay, I'm going to take the null hypothesis.

Please to provide some data and not anecdote and not an appeal to your personal authority and experience. I have a friend who knows he talks to god. Doesn't mean I believe him.

I didn't say we had gotten soft since 9/11 Rand. I said YOU had gotten soft.

? What? I think you are a bit confused. I wasn't talking about your accusations since I hadn't seen them until now.

In any event.

Your argument:
Doing X will result in Not Y.
We didn't do X it resulted in Y.

My argument:
We did X since 9/11 and got Y
Your logic doesn't work.