Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Too Slow Zelikow: UVA Backs Torture

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
davidswanson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 10:27 AM
Original message
Too Slow Zelikow: UVA Backs Torture
If I could feel more shame over my country's torture it would be over my university's support for torture. The University of Virginia, which has long paid its employees poverty wages while increasingly becoming a major partner of the U.S. military and its "intelligence" operations, nonetheless still holds for me an image of individual honor and principle. I still imagine that UVA students and professors, staff and alumni, can be expected not to stoop to the lowest possible forms of human behavior.

I have now been bitterly disappointed. On May 13th I attended a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. The first witness was a law professor with no ties to UVA who spoke out clearly and forthrightly on the illegality of torture.

The second witness was UVA history professor Philip Zelikow who began by agreeing with statements of Republican Senator Lindsay Graham, claiming that "Americans of both parties" had believed several years ago that we needed to torture people, and that it would be unfair now to look back and judge that decision. Zelikow called systemic government torture "a collective failure." Excuse me? I don't recall having had any say in the matter. Do you? Neither do I recall placing my highest loyalty in one of those two parties. If a fear driven poll could legalize any crime, where would we be? Certainly not anywhere that a poll of Americans would support. If polls overturned laws, nobody would have to pay taxes or go to jail for smoking pot. If polls criminalized behavior, campaign "finance" and "lobbying" would fill our prisons. But if you ask the American people whether they want laws made that way, they will tell you emphatically not. We wish Congress would obey majority opinion, but we want laws to be down on paper and available so that we know what is illegal and what isn't. And we want changes to our laws to be made deliberatively and legally.

If the American people knew that torture was illegal, would they want it made legal on the grounds that Mr. Zelikow and the people he worked with were really, really scared? Of course, not. If you set aside the Eight Amendment, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Anti-Torture Act of 1994 (enforcing a treaty signed by radical angry leftist Ronald Reagan), the War Crimes Act of 1996, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there's no reason to think torture is illegal. Zelikow's position in his testimony seemed based on the assumption that these laws did not really exist. He said that he opposed the secret memos written by the Office of Legal Counsel purporting to authorize torture, not because they violated existing law, but because they would have rendered moot an amendment proposed by Senator John McCain (and signing-statemented away by President George W. Bush) to redundantly re-criminalize torture by the military while allowing it for the CIA. In fact, a July 2005 memo by Zelikow, cited in his testimony as evidence of his good behavior, sought the same loophole in a voluntary ban on something already absolutely illegal in every circumstance. He wrote:

"One reason to avoid any clear legal framework or definition of humane treatment is to allow maximum flexibility for interrogations and detention in the activities of other government agencies ."


Zelikow proposed that we,

"Apply Geneva standards for civilian detainees under the law of war only to detainees held in DOD facilities."


and

"Set an appropriate time period during which detainees can be held without disclosing that they are in US custody."


Zelikow had written another memo the month before in which he similarly argued that the president should choose as a matter of "policy" to apply standards similar to those required by law, but only in some circumstances, allowing exceptions for other situations. He proposed that military commissions be used only for "major criminals clearly guilty of war crimes," although in serious judicial systems clarity of guilt comes after a trial rather than before it.

These memos preceded the 2006 memo by Zelikow that we have not yet seen in which he supposedly takes a stronger position against torture, but he cited these memos in his testimony, and in them he supports holding underlings accountable for their crimes. However, in these memos and in his testimony, not to mention in the work of the 9-11 Commission and the Carter-Baker Election Commission, both of which he directed, he did not support prosecuting high-level officials for ordering those below them to violate the law. If Zelikow has any hard and fast principle, it is that those in power should be above the rule of law.

His second principle might be that he himself should be protected. Think about how long he refrained from even secret, internal, polite, and perversely limited opposition to our government's torture policies. Torture was underway in 2001. Zelikow wanted the military to choose not to do it, but the CIA to keep free reign, in 2005. He may have secretly gone an inch beyond such bravery in 2006. And he dared to go public in 2009, eight years after all our train stations had filled up with posters and audio recordings screaming "If you see something, say something!"

The third witness at the May 13, 2009, Senate hearing was Jeffrey Addicott, alumnus of UVA. Addicott made Zelikow look good by comparison. He had been brought in by Senator Graham to defend torture, and he did not disappoint. He argued that, even though we have tortured people to death, the techniques used did not quite rise to the level of torture. He even parroted former vice president Dick Cheney's claim that members of the U.S. military, in their training, are put through the very same techniques, even though troops who have been through the SERE training program have protested it as cruel and unusual, and even though they are made aware that they will not be killed and in fact are not killed. A UVA student who cheats on a test can be expelled. What about a UVA alumnus who does THIS?

Next up was Professor Robert Turner of the UVA School of Law. He, like Zelikow, agreed with Senator Graham's positions and even, in all seriousness, referred to the water torture as "torture lite." Absolutely disgraceful.

The final witness was an FBI interrogator (not from UVA) who gave testimony that legal techniques of interrogation had proven effective in questioning key detainee Abu Zubaydah, whereas torture had not, and that President Bush's claims to the contrary had been false. This led Senator Graham to baselessly claim that torture simply MUST have "worked" with some other prisoner, it just must have. Graham got Addicott to agree with him that "intelligence" was central to "this war," and that a police force could handle the non-intelligence part of it. Graham pointed out that other nations treat terrorism as a crime rather than a war. He and Addicott meant this as an argument around the Geneva Conventions, not realizing that they had also thereby delegitimized the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin was, like Zelikow, primarily concerned with covering his own tail, and stressed that had he or Zelikow or anyone else spoken out earlier about what they knew about torture, they would have supposedly endangered people's lives. But they clearly cost people their lives through silence. They violated the legal requirement to report felonies, even if by so doing they complied with a bogus claim of secrecy for information classified to protect a crime. There were people sitting all around me in that hearing who had risked their careers, family life, income, and liberty to right these wrongs. Justice Department whistleblower Jesselyn Radack was sitting right next to me. She'd spoken out for the rule of law and seen her career destroyed and her liberty put at risk. Medea Benjamin was to my other side. I've lost count of the number of times she's gone to jail for justice. But senators and congress members, and wahoos like Zelikow, Turner, and Addicott, are held to lower standards of sacrifice.

The University of Virginia, and the United States of America, should be ashamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. yeah, some UVa and GMU profs have been WAY too cozy
with the power/political/military structure in D.C.

k+r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. Mr. Jefferson's University! I am profoundly ashamed. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
4. The man's an architect of the GWOT and conceptualized how a new "Pearl Harbor" would set the mood
Edited on Tue May-19-09 12:30 PM by leveymg
The man's an architect of Bush and Cheney's GWOT, not just some mere academic turned gov't functionary with a word processor who dashed off unread memos.

He's moving slow now because he was on the speeding monster truck moving in the other direction. Takes a while to do a U-Turn with one of those.

Philip D. Zelikow
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...

There's a raft of evidence to suggest that Zelikow has personal, professional and political reasons not to see the commission hold Rice and other Bush officials accountable for pre-9/11 failings, and may be the de facto swing vote for Republicans on the panel.<1> Here are just a few of them:

* He and Rice worked closely together in the first Bush White House as aides to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Zelikow was director of European security affairs, and Rice was senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, as well as special assistant to the president. Rice reportedly hired Zelikow. Both started in 1989 and left in 1991.

* A few years after leaving the White House, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."

* The two associated again when Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group <2>, a foreign-policy strategy body co-chaired by Rice's mentor Scowcroft. Rice, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were members.

* Zelikow also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age <3>under co-chairman James Barksdale, a Bush adviser and major Bush-Cheney donor. A 9/11 commissioner, Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, also served with Zelikow on the task force. (Interestingly, the pair serves together on yet another panel - The National Commission on Federal Election Reform - with Gorton acting as vice-chairman and Zelikow as executive director.)

* After the 2000 election, Zelikow and Rice were reunited when George W. Bush named him to his transition team for the National Security Council. Rice reportedly asked Zelikow to help organize the NSC under the Scowcroft model, which was insular and steeped in Cold War worldview.

* Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke says he briefed not only Rice and Hadley, but also Zelikow about the growing al-Qaida threat during the transition period. Zelikow sat in on the briefings, he says.

* A month after the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, President Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is chaired by Scowcroft.

* Zelikow's regular job, the one he'll return to after the commission releases it final report in late July, is director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and maintains contact with the Bush White House, which fought the creation of the commission.

Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, insists Zelikow has a "clear conflict of interest." And she suspects he is in touch with Bush's political adviser, Rove, which she says would explain why the White House granted him, along with just one other commission official, the greatest access to the intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 suicide hijackings.



__________________________________________________



Along with the 1997 Likud Party document "A Clean Break", and PNAC's "A New Pearl Harbor", Zelikow's "Catastrophic Terrorism" is a road map to 9/11 and the Iraq War.

I always thought PZ was a player. I didn't realize he's actually an architect, along with Cheney, Libby, Feith, Wurmser, Perle and Wolfowitz.


http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/...
Foreign AffairsNovember/December 1998, Volume 77, Number 6
CATASTROPHIC TERRORISM: Tackling the New Danger
By Ashton Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow

IMAGINING THE TRANSFORMING EVENT

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. But today's terrorists, be they international cults likeAum Shinrikyo or individual nihilists like the Unabomber, act on a greater variety ofmotives than ever before. More ominously, terrorists may gain access to weapons of massdestruction, including nuclear devices, germ dispensers, poison gas weapons, and even computer viruses. Also new is the world's dependence on a nearly invisible and fragilenetwork for distributing energy and information.

Long part of the Hollywood and TomClancy repertory of nightmarish scenarios, catastrophic terrorism has moved from far-fetched horror to a contingency that could happen next month. Although the United States still takes conventional terrorism seriously, as demonstrated by the response to theattacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August, it is not yet prepared for thenew threat of catastrophic terrorism. American military superiority on the conventional battlefield pushes its adversariestoward unconventional alternatives.

The United States has already destroyed one facility in Sudan in its attempt to target chemical weapons. Russia, storehouse of tens ofthousands of weapons and material to make tens of thousands more, may be descending into turmoil. Meanwhile, the combination of new technology and lethal force has made biological weapons at least as deadly as chemical and nuclear alternatives. Technology is more accessible, and society is more vulnerable. Elaborate international networks havedeveloped among organized criminals, drug traffickers, arms dealers, and money launderers, creating an infrastructure for catastrophic terrorism around the world. The bombings in East Africa killed hundreds.

A successful attack with weapons of massdestruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the devicethat exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetimeand undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a beforeand after.

The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piewhacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nice, david.
Maybe these "professors" were consultants to the CIA
on the issue of torture, and were complicit in a
conspiracy to commit a crime.

Remember, when a criminal law exists prohibiting an act
then any participation, encouragement, or conspiracy to
violate that law is generally also a crime.

If you disagree with he law you may engage in "civil disobedience"
if the law is profoundly unjust and oppressive, but this is the rare case.

Otherwise you you may (carefully) discuss the law seeking its overturn but
if you know the CIA is engaged or planning to engage in illegal
conduct and you "consult" with them in aid or justification of the conduct
then you are a PRINCIPLE IN THE CRIME.

There will always be ignorant son 'o bitches in power who will seek
and advocate the most heinous things. They must be held in check by
the certain knowledge that an accounting follows their abuses.

What should be done with war criminals? Prosecute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. Great article David! You balance out Zelikow's bad karma for UVA. Great work all around.

This is very moving on multiple levels. UVA is a find school but like so many schools in Virginia, it's quality
is disproportionately skewed by the quality of it's students, drawn from Northern Virginia, which has the highest
education demographics for a major area anywhere in the world. That's not to take away from the faculty or programs,
but the students are key and I hope they start speaking out about Zelikow's presence there.

He is the anti-Jefferson, everything about him. Jefferson was a deep and profound thinker and writer. He tackled the issues of all time and his time. He generally did well but he never backed away from critical analysis.

Zelikow is a Mandarin who rides with the times. Power, proximity to power, etc. form his standards.

History is not kind and will become much more critical toward Zelikow in the next few months.

The association with torture, the willingness to direct the staff on the 9/11 Commission without fully revealing
his association with the terrorist policies he helped put in place that contributed to 9/11 and his other 2000
transition efforts with Bush are stunning commentaries on his intellectual honesty.

Sow the wind and we all know what happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. Torture's OK if the public wants it. And don't look back.
Outstanding! Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
8. K&R
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dgibby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. UVA should, at the very least, publicly apologize, but firing these
people would be much more appropriate.

Although I am not a UVA grad, I did spend 6 months there in conjunction with my school of nursing. What I remember most was the serious way adherence to the Honor Code was stressed. How sad to see what has happened to a once honorable institution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. When I think of UVA, I always think of Thomas Jefferson and his lovely
architecture. This pretty shocking. Why so many from one university? You need to write the university and complain. If it were my alma mater, I would. I might anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
11. self-delete
Edited on Tue May-19-09 09:18 PM by Ken Burch
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-19-09 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. k&r...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
13. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-20-09 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
14. Is this Philip Zelikow the same guy Rachel Maddow has on all the time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC