|
This is nonsense. It's unfortunate that the CIA destroyed all of the interrogation videotapes. Mayer is also excellent in analyzing the legal arguments provided by Bush's lawyers to support the new methods. Bush's failings as a leader can be seen in his inability to appreciate the radical break from precedent and his inability to foresee that in the long run, beating false confessions out of detainees was not going to sell well. The Bush lawyers rendered extraordinary secret opinions that granted amnesty to interrogators in advance of any misconduct. In this sense, Bush was ill-served by the likes of Addington and Yoo and Gonzalez. Indeed, Mayer demonstrates that the lawyers simply came up with, and then implemented, the most aggressive interpretation possible for the expanse of Presidential power.
Indeed, the historical purpose of these methods is to produce false confessions at show trials. While Mayer has a definite and critical opinion of the Bush Administration's treatment of terrorist suspects, she does an excellent and judicious job of weighing the evidence to support her opinion. But Cheney was pushing for these extraordinary powers and the nerds were able to cite his directives to prevent any questioning from elsewhere in the Administration. We want to be deluded, at least in the short run. In ordinary times, nerds like Yoo and Addington would have been short circuited by review and input from senior lawyers at State, Defense, and Justice. What is insufficiently explored by Mayer is the mechanisms at work that allowed Bush to get away with it for his entire Presidency and that now impede Obama from resolving the detainee problem. The opinions are unsupported by any fair reading of the limits of Presidential powers and make no sense from the perspective of the Geneva Convention. As Mayer points out, lawyers need to be able to tell clients what they don't want to hear.
The essential premise is that the terrorist detainees were nonpersons wholly uncovered by either the Geneva Convention or domestic law. The high profile cases that have been routinely cited by Bush supporters to justify the methods all tend to support the opposite conclusion: that the reliable information was obtained by the FBI or others using conventional methods before the CIA "hard ball" interrogators showed up. There is no question that a CIA interrogator has far better motives and justification for "harsh" methods than did Joseph Mengele at Auschwitz. While we have on the whole promoted humane treatment of citizens and foreign nationals, we have also always struggled to control our violent nature and weakness for racism. For me, the true dark side is that of the American people.
Even spies and saboteurs are covered by international law. Mayer does concede that the Administration may have been understandably concerned with an imminent second wave of attacks and was acting from the exigencies of the moment. But Mayer proves that for that last few years of the life of the Administration, this extreme circumstance was removed, and the Administration was doing little more than engaging in a great cover up. She is convincing in showing that there is very little empirical support for the claim that extreme measures produced any new reliable information that would not have been better produced by conventional methods. The way to have your cake and eat it too is simply to deny that we are "torturing" and then allow "torture" to be defined not by the effect on the detainee but on the interrogators' motives.
We don't want to admit that we torture, but we sure wanted to get tough in the rageful times after 2001. And of course, with a few very disturbing exceptions, we did not beat detainees to death. But just because we are not as bad as the Nazis doesn't mean what we did was right. Ultimately, Bush's greatest mistake was to fail to moderate the rage and panic that came after 9/11 and to appeal to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.
In truth and fact, ever since Washington, the American way of war has been to treat prisoners humanely, not out of lack of any lack of zeal but in recognition of the enlightened self interst served by demonstrating the benefits of the American way. Thus, if we deny we are torturing, if the detainees are all part of an unpopular racial/ethnic group, if we use euphemisms, and if we repeat with false certainty that we actually got useful information out of the new methods, Americans are more than willing to accept it. There was no serious policy discussion of whether the President -- as a matter of good policy -- should exercise all of that power. Ultimately, Cheney's power is what explains the misguided course taken after 9/11.
It just means it was less wrong than what the Nazis did. A few minutes of watching waterboarding, sexual humiliation, hanging by the arms, and heads being knocked into walls would be enough to shock all of us out of our complacency.
Dig deep into the underbelly of the Bush/Cheney war on terror and the legal memos that gave them the green light to torture. I agree that the book seems partisan at time, but it is thoroughly researched and a great read regardless. Highly recommended.
This book represents the best education possible in the Bush Administration's commission of (and the Obama admin's perpetuation of) horrible abuses across the globe. Liberals and conservatives alike will be shocked at the mal-administration of our intelligence services and the abuses committed for no gain whatsoever in actual homeland security. Read it.The books were shipped in timely manner. One note: the books came with a small but noticeable purple ink dot on one edge of the binding.
She has a wonderful ear for the bon mots of her witnesses, and she quotes liberally, but judiciously, making her witnesses appear wittier and wiser and clearer than those of us who have followed this affair know them to be. went from defender of the Geneva Conventions to their first publicly shameless defilers, Jane Mayer's book is more than worth the investment.First, Mayer's writing style is exceptional. Instead, these works, which were first drafts of history (what good journalism is), are source material for Mayer. She never falls into the jargon of our source material, never gets into the alphabet soup of acronyms that other journalists and analysts do, and remains objective about her sources.
However, I looked at the first page, and that was all it took. She does not lead cheers for a party or a player in the account, and so she is never chained to a particular set of eyes for her reportage. This frees her language, as well as her analysis, from the foibles and shackles of the participants. Although we have all covered the ground before and there is a fatigue that all of us feel, whether progressive, moderate, or conservative, with discussions of how the U.S. There is more than a change of personnel that will be necessary, and that is what Mayer makes clear. Books like Blood Money are not replaced, and the "Frontline" documentary "The Dark Side" (parts one and two) from PBS are not replaced.
She is intelligent enough not to argue with them and not to repeat them, but, rather, to offer something rare: analytical synthesis with a persuasive thesis.Third, Mayer's presentation is compelling. I had intended to read her book last out of the shipment I had gotten from Amazon.
What this "dark side" trip represented was not a momentary lapse, but a fundamental change, a change of the basis of the nation that we made and have not reversed, one we made without even a moment's reflection. She is clear, concise, with variety in sentence structure, precision in word choice, and vocabulary that is always accurate without being esoteric.
This is a rare thing for a jaded reader like myself. (Some of these witnesses are still ranting and raging on television today, and, when we meet them as they have been selected by the careful Jane Mayer, they seem far more rational than they present themselves in person).Second, Mayer uses Rise of the Vulcans, Bush at War, Cobra II and the other analyses that emerged earlier on.
These were all sterling works. Despite professional reading I "had" to do, The Dark Side took priority.I realize that we are all reluctant to revisit these horrors, but the horrors are present still.
We will need more than atonement: we will need to vigorously, loudly, and statutorily to reclaim the principles that our nation really did build itself upon.
A serious rivoting look at the corruption and torture during the Bush Administration. Within, you read about all who stood like sheep while laws and treaties were broken.
|
