Army Chief Was Bypassed On Torture Methods

By Cernig

The former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Richard Myers, was bypassed and given the runaround by Bush administration officials keen to implement torture of detainees but worried that Myers would object, according to the Guardian today.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005, wrongly believed that inmates at Guantánamo and other prisons were protected by the Geneva conventions and from abuse tantamount to torture.

The way he was duped by senior officials in Washington, who believed the Geneva conventions and other traditional safeguards were out of date, is disclosed in a devastating account of their role, extracts of which appear in today's Guardian.

In his new book, Torture Team, Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, reveals that:

· Senior Bush administration figures pushed through previously outlawed measures with the aid of inexperienced military officials at Guantánamo.

· Myers believes he was a victim of "intrigue" by top lawyers at the department of justice, the office of vice-president Dick Cheney, and at Donald Rumsfeld's defence department.

· The Guantánamo lawyers charged with devising interrogation techniques were inspired by the exploits of Jack Bauer in the American TV series 24.

· Myers wrongly believed interrogation techniques had been taken from the army's field manual.

Philippe Sands Q.C. isn't just any professor of law dabbling in instant punditry, by the way. He's Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College London and a member of the internationally renowned form of Matrix Chambers - definitely the A-Team. He also personally interviewed most of the main players in the Bush administration for his book, including Myers.

The first big decision was Geneva. For historic, cultural and training reasons, Myers insisted that the Geneva conventions should apply, even to a rogue, lawless actor such as al-Qaida. It became clear to me that Myers was a little confused about the decision that was actually taken. He claimed to be satisfied with the president's decision of February 7 2002. "After all the arguments were done, the decision was, we don't think it applies in a technical sense, but we're going to behave as if it does." That wasn't what the president decided.

The actual decision distinguished between the Taliban - to whom Geneva applied, although detainees could not invoke rights under it because they were not wearing uniforms or insignia - and al-Qaida, to whom it didn't apply at all because they were not a state. Had Myers understood what had been decided? Did he appreciate the consequences for interrogation techniques? If the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff was confused, then inevitably soldiers in the field would also be confused. As one seasoned observer of military affairs put it to me, Myers was "well and truly hoodwinked".

So what did Myers think about the new techniques? "We thought, OK, all the techniques came out of the book, there weren't any techniques invented." I stopped him.

"Out of which book?" I asked.

"Out of 34-52," he replied. "I think all of these are in the manual." They were not - not one of them. "They aren't?" he asked, surprised. Not only that, but most of them violated Geneva's Common Article 3. Such an answer from the chairman of the joint chiefs surprised me.

As we worked through the list of techniques, Myers became increasingly hesitant and troubled. At forced grooming and dogs he became defensive. "Dogs were only to be present, never to be..." his words tailed off. "When you see this, you say, holy mackerel," he exclaimed. "We never authorised torture, we just didn't. Not what we would do." Little by little, my understanding of Myers's role was becoming more focused. He hadn't pushed for these new techniques, but he didn't resist them, either. He didn't inquire too deeply.

That's just one part of a long excerpt from Sand's book at The Guardian backing their main story. It ends with a little bit of hope for those who would preserve the rule of law even against the most powerful politicians on earth - the incumbents of the American White House.

Parties to the international Torture Convention are required to investigate any person who is alleged to have committed torture. If appropriate, they must then prosecute - or extradite the person to a place where he will be prosecuted. The Torture Convention is also more explicit than Geneva in that it criminalises any act that constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Complicity or participation could certainly be extended not only to the politicians and but also the lawyers involved in the condoning of the 18 techniques.

We may yet see these criminals in court one day - but not in America.

(Hat tip - Kat, our intrepid researcher)

Update Oh look - the NYT editorial board finally noticed that their President bragged about authorising torture.

Comments

[geoff]

Hi Cernig

I've followed this with some interest. I doubt, though for me, looking in from the outside, it is hard to figure that the US will be able to overcome Bush crimes and not be considered just another wink-wink nation - i.e. not to be taken,seriously on any issue - unless there is some type of "real" investigation after the Texas Kid is gone, and significant "folks" don't go to prison. I know this is not going tohappen. But I also don't think that the US can ever be taken seriously again without someone and I mean someone of significance being held responsible - this doesn't include the nitwit Yoo.

I suspect all the outside scrutiny has some of the compromised Bushies worrying they won't be able to travel around but, hey isn't that why Disney built all those fake theme sections of the rest of the world so people don't need to actually go to the real places. But this is also why everyone under Bush is trying to paint themselves as being dubbed - meaning I'm not sure of Meyers but would gladly welcome Rumsfelt standing for 168 hours.

So, pretty cynical I know and I also know I'm not happy with my view. I don't want to live in or close to countries run by thugs. I also, and this is likely the most heart felt part of my useless comment, don't want to see your Republic disappear and I'm afraid it is heading towards that only "bread and circusus" maybe left after this presidential season.