" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Torture Gang

Print Friendly

Defying the hopes of many of his progressive backers, President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has in many ways been remarkable for its continuity with Bush-era initiatives. However, in one important area—the treatment of “war on terror” detainees—Obama has clearly distanced himself from the approach of his predecessor. As a presidential candidate, Obama steadfastly repudiated the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding and other methods considered torture under international law, whether at U.S. facilities or at so-called “black site” CIA prisons. In one of his first acts as president, Obama followed through with this campaign promise, issuing an executive order barring the CIA from employing any interrogation techniques not approved by the U.S. military, whose methods generally hew to Geneva Convention standards.

 

Perhaps this one salient area of difference explains the reaction of many former Bush officials and some prominent neoconservatives to the death of Osama bin Laden. Among others, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Mukasey, Michael Hayden, John Yoo, and a slew of “scholars” at the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies have spoken out publicly in support of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, attributing no small share of the credit for bin Laden’s killing to the “hard decisions” taken by the Bush administration. (For a detailed account of the recent efforts of various torture apologists, see Peter Certo, "Enhanced Embellishment Techniques," Right Web, June 8, 2011.)

 

These claims have been roundly questioned, and it seems generous to claim that torture played even a marginal role in producing the intelligence that led to bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound—to say nothing of the costs such methods extacted in faulty intelligence and the United States’ diminished moral standing, as well as the attractiveness they held for terrorist recruiters. But whether out of partisan loyalty, distaste for internationally imposed constraints on U.S. behavior, or a genuine commitment to controversial and ill-advised interrogation techniques, such claims have persisted unretracted.

 

In this edition of Right Web’s Militarist Monitor, we feature profiles of many of the architects of the Bush interrogation policy as well as post-bin-Laden torture apologists. We also present several additional readings that examine the purported uses and effectiveness of torture.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share