Posts Tagged ‘National Security’

Powell Denies Knowledge of Torture-War Link

Monday, May 25th, 2009

Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, recently wrote:

“What I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002 — well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion — its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.

“So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee ‘was compliant’ (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, ‘revealed’ such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

“There in fact were no such contacts. (Incidentally, al-Libi just ‘committed suicide’ in Libya. Interestingly, several U.S. lawyers working with tortured detainees were attempting to get the Libyan government to allow them to interview al-Libi….)”

This “evidence” provided by al-Libi was also used in Powell’s infamous speech to the UN shortly before the invasion of Iraq, so on Sunday, I asked Powell about this as he left the studios at CBS:

Sam Husseini: General, can you talk about the al-Libi case and the link between torture and the production of tortured evidence for war?

Colin Powell: I don’t have any details on the al-Libi case.

SH: Can you tell us when you learned that some of the evidence that you used in front of the UN was based on torture? When did you learn that?

CP: I don’t know that. I don’t know what information you’re referring to. So I can’t answer.

SH: Your chief of staff, Wilkerson, has written about this.

CP: So what? [inaudible]

SH: So you’d think you’d know about it.

CP: The information I presented to the UN was vetted by the CIA. Every word came from the CIA and they stood behind all that information. I don’t know that any of them believe that torture was involved. I don’t know that in fact. A lot of speculation, particularly by people who never attended any of these meetings, but I’m not aware of it.

Former long-time CIA analyst and now member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern, who got more background from Wilkerson, puts it in the following context:

“For those of you distracted by the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) spotlight on ‘what-did-Pelosi-know-about-torture-and-when-did-she- know-it,’ please turn off the TV long enough to ponder the case of the recently departed al-Libi, who reportedly died in a Libyan prison, a purported suicide.

“The al-Libi case might help you understand why, even though information from torture is notoriously unreliable, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the sycophants running U.S. intelligence ordered it anyway.

“In short, if it is untruthful information you are after, torture can work just fine!”

Human Rights Watch “briefly met with al-Libi on April 27 during a research mission to Libya. He refused to be interviewed, and would say nothing more than: ‘Where were you when I was being tortured in American jails.’ … A bipartisan report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that that al-Libi ‘lied [about the Iraq link] to avoid torture.’”

But Colin Powell, who delivered the speech before the UN, doesn’t know, or seem to care, about any of this. He is apparently waiting for the CIA to call him and tell him that torture was used on detainees who uttered the false words Bush administration officials wanted to hear. This as Powell attempts, with substantial success, to reconstruct himself.


Web and research help by Matthew Bradley, camera and editing by Mariam Abuhaideri. Special thanks to David Swanson.

Sen. Hatch on the Democrats and war funding, reports of U.S.-supported militia attacks on Iran

Wednesday, March 28th, 2007



Click To Play

On March 25 Sam Husseini spoke with Senator Orrin Hatch outside of CNN’s Washington studios. Hatch claimed that Saddam kicked out the UN weapons inspectors, contradicting the public record that the inspectors were withdrawn. Hatch also claimed that Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, told him that the inspectors could not get any further than they did, although ElBaradei is also on the public record as having asked for more time and attesting to working inspections.

Continue reading for a transcript of the exchange.

(more…)

Cornyn on Possible Iran Attack and Filibuster

Monday, March 19th, 2007



Click To Play

On Sunday, March 18, Sam Husseini spoke with Senatory John Cornyn (R-TX), outside of the studios of ABC News. Cornyn, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee among his other assignments, expressed the opinion that Iran represents “a very real threat” but that he did not anticipate the US to attack Iran unless something “no one of us expects happens.” On whether Bush should seek another authorization of force, Cornyn said “I think that would be the proper order of things.” When later asked about Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons in the region and how that might play into the dynamic that may fuel Iran alleged pursuit of the same, Cornyn refused to acknowledge Israel’s weapons and stated that “no comparison” could be drawn between Israel and Iran in part because Israel is a US ally.

Sam Husseini also inquired about the Republicans threat of a filibuster on legislation regulating the funding of the Iraq war in contrast to the Republicans decrying the possibility of Democrats filibustering Bush administration nominees. The Senator said he saw a difference between filibustering legislation and, as he saw it, unconstitutionally hindering a President’s nominations.

Appended is a transcript of the exchange.

(more…)

Kennedy calls for Congressional authorization of “surge,” dodges oil profit question

Sunday, January 21st, 2007

Coming out of the studios of Meet The Press today, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said he expected President Bush to “describe a different Iraq than … most Americans understand and recognize” in Tuesday’s upcoming State of the Union address. He also said “the American people are entitled to require the President to come to Congress to get an authorization….”

Kennedy noted that the previous authorization of force was predicated on allegations of Hussein’s government violating UN resolutions, the alleged Iraqi possession of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” and alleged links with Al Qaeda. The latter points being conditions now widely acknowledged not to have existed (although the Senator did not acknowledge that directly).

The Senator’s view that the lack of these conditions requires more congressional oversight of the war partly echoes the opinion of legal scholar Francis Boyle, who believes that the addition of inexcess of 20,000 troops to the approximately 140,000 alrady in Iraq constitutes substantially enlarging the force.

Boyle says this triggers the War Powers Act and quotes it: “In the absence of a declaration of war [which we do not have for Iraq], in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced … (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation….”

Boyle goes further to assert that continuing the escalation beyond a 60 day limit without an authorization from Congress would be an impeachable offense. Kennedy’s view does not seem to go this far, as the Senator has not spoken of impeachment and introduced a new bill to require authorization, which the War Powers Act already seems to do.

After his comments, Senator Kennedy was asked by Sam Husseini (video of just this) on the latest developments of proposed Iraqi oil legislation, which seems to nominally keep control in the hands of the US-supported Iraqi government, but makes large profitable concessions to U.S. oil companies. In response, Kennedy asserted that “the objective for the oil distribution is … to be fair to different regions of the country,” and did not speak to the point about the role of US corporations.

(more…)

Brent Scowcroft on Iraq sanctions, lead-up to war

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007

These questions took place outside of the studios of ABC News in Washington, D.C. on January 7, 2007.

(more…)