Never say say never ! oops.

March 30, 2005 5:53 AM

Sanchez Perjury Proof ? That depends on the meaning of "never" Mainstream media once again caught with pants down as blogger citizen-journalist notes apparent perjury by Gen. Sanchez during testimony before the US Congress concerning whether he authorized torture or not. The Globe and Mail noticed the ACLU release of a FOIA-obtained memo showing that Sanchez did in fact authorize torture, but the implication of perjury seems to have escaped MSM notice, to be pointed out by a blogger Metafilter's own citizen journalist Mark Kraft, who declares : "Sanchez is clearly guilty of perjury, and should face the wrath of Congress... and the Senate should determine the guilt of his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, while they're at it."

The case all hinges on the meaning of the word "never" which - rumor holds - is much more flexible in Sanchez' native "Never-never Land" where - as with the rumored numerous Eskimo terms for different kinds of snow - denizens of that realm have many different meanings for "never", some of which in fact mean "sometimes" or "occasionally" !
posted by troutfishing (62 comments total)

Oh snark, delicious snark.
posted by troutfishing at 5:54 AM on March 30, 2005

Another ignored proof of the numerous lies told to us. And there's no outrage in the country about all this torture stuff--it's tragic.

I think the only hope for anything is to take back Congress in 06, so that at least these blatant things can be investigated (but even then...) Thank God for the ACLU tho.
posted by amberglow at 6:29 AM on March 30, 2005

A fine example of connecting the dots, and journalism, now let's see what the MSM does with this.
posted by caddis at 6:35 AM on March 30, 2005

Permanent link to the Insomnia post.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:37 AM on March 30, 2005

IOKIYAR
posted by bashos_frog at 6:40 AM on March 30, 2005

How very Clintonian of the General. BTW has anyone nailed down what the meaning of "is" is yet?
posted by MikeMc at 6:42 AM on March 30, 2005

I have recently taken up gambling to supplement my income, and I will gladly offer anyone here 2:1 odds (up to $50 USD) that Sanchez will not face perjury charges anytime before January 2007.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:43 AM on March 30, 2005

Further, I will offer even money that (either) Clinton is indicted on some charge before Sanchez.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:44 AM on March 30, 2005

Bashos: I'll wager on the second (providing you mean new charges) but not on the first.

Of course, the rallying cry of "It's not about the torture, it's about the lies" seems kinda flat. Anyone else got a simple meme to spread?
posted by klangklangston at 6:47 AM on March 30, 2005

If anything has come out of the elections, and everything that's come since, is that Americans have officially stopped giving a shit about these things.

Let's face it, when the architect of the torture-for-hire program (you know, "extraordinary rendition") can feel secure enough in the apathy of the American people to have a candid and open interview on 60 Minutes, that says something about Americans' attitude to torturing foreigners.

From there on, it's a very short step from handing someone over to, say, the Saudis for a beatdown, and just giving the beatdown yourself. On the contrary, to the American public the DIY route makes perfect sense -- no need to waste time and money flying the guy to Riyadh. Think of the savings! If anyone asks any questions, respond with a sentence in which you say "September 11th" at least once, but more than once if possible.

People just don't get as far as the Bush Administration has without the real backing of most of the people. Much as most here would like to think that these actions are done by a select few, it's pretty clear that whatever's going on here is happening with the consent, if implicit, of the people, whether it's direct or merely the result of apathy (ultimately that makes no difference anyway).
posted by clevershark at 6:49 AM on March 30, 2005

...it's pretty clear that whatever's going on here is happening with the consent, if implicit, of the people, whether it's direct or merely the result of apathy (ultimately that makes no difference anyway).

That's the tragedy of it all. And those of us who are outraged and want it to stop have no voice or power.
posted by amberglow at 6:52 AM on March 30, 2005

I'll need an amount to book it <g>, but it's probably a good bet for you. I should have expanded it to all prominent Dems.

But seriously, I am going to have to get a new outrage meter. One that goes to 11.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:53 AM on March 30, 2005

Professor InstaPundit will soon be all over this, I am sure
posted by matteo at 6:57 AM on March 30, 2005

How very Clintonian of the General. BTW has anyone nailed down what the meaning of "is" is yet?

This is petty and inaccurate. I think torture that alienates entire regions is a little more important than who sucked whose dick. This is clearly apples and oranges, or apples and penises. Regardless, Clinton was censored. Sanchez was not. There was no IOKIYAD.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:59 AM on March 30, 2005

The Globe and Mail article is straight from the wires of the AFP News Service. Does that not count as MSM?

In any case, I'm loving the internet as non-stop-politician-vetting machine. Keep up the good work!
posted by Popular Ethics at 7:06 AM on March 30, 2005

I think torture that alienates entire regions is a little more important than who sucked whose dick.

Red state voters would disagree with you... most of them anyway.

Shockingly enough I'll blame the Democrats. Their entire 2004 election strategy seems to have been "abandon early, abandon often", and they've certainly shown a propensity for running on their own swords since. No one's going to take the opposition seriously when all they show is an overwhelming desire to just give up and go hide in a corner.

And without a more-than-nominal opposition, you have this sort of shit happening.
posted by clevershark at 7:11 AM on March 30, 2005

The Globe and Mail article is straight from the wires of the AFP News Service. Does that not count as MSM?

They did not connect the memo with the testimony to show the possible perjury. That is where the MSM fell down and a blogger stepped in.
posted by caddis at 7:25 AM on March 30, 2005

How very Clintonian of the General.

Yeah, I wonder if he'll face the equivalent of an impeachment.
posted by jperkins at 7:31 AM on March 30, 2005

How very Clintonian of the General.

Yeah, I wonder if he'll face the equivalent of an impeachment.

One would certainly hope so. The point of my original post was not to say "Clinton did it too!" I was simply pointing out that the "elasticity" of words used by those in power is nothing new. I can't see how anyone who follows politics at all would be shocked by this.
posted by MikeMc at 7:59 AM on March 30, 2005

"Sanchez is clearly guilty of perjury, and should face the wrath of Congress... and the Senate should determine the guilt of his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, while they're at it."

Now, does anyone even believe that will happen?
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:01 AM on March 30, 2005

I predict that Sanchez and Rumsfeld will face the wrath of Congress right around the same time that McNamara and Kissinger are indicted for war crimes.

Which is to say, never.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 8:08 AM on March 30, 2005

MSM? citizen-journalist? Are you just aping the conservative wankosphere for comedic effect, or what? It's still annoying.
posted by delmoi at 8:18 AM on March 30, 2005

Thanks, Troutfishing!

Tom Tomorrow has picked this up... as has Atrios and DailyKos.

This morning, I called the office of Senator Reed, at [phone], to make them aware of this act of purjury. I also called my local senator.

I encourage everyone who reads this to take a minute and do the same. Politicians hate being lied to, regardless of party affiliation. Let's hope they still give a crap about such things and that they're willing to occasionally dole out some whoopass, as the situation deserves.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:54 AM on March 30, 2005

Boy, sooner or later the Army's gonna fuck up and torture a white person. Then we'll see the hammer come down...
posted by klangklangston at 9:01 AM on March 30, 2005

My guess is that if a Senator does bring it up a quick invocation of the usual "national security" BS excuse will shut him right up again.
posted by clevershark at 9:07 AM on March 30, 2005

Tom Tomorrow has picked this up... as has Atrios and DailyKos.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:54 AM PST on March 30

Yeah, if by "DailyKos picked this up" you mean "troutfishing cross posted this from Kos to here." I guess the eyeballs over at Kos weren't enough for trout.

I would also note that he posted it there first. So I guess we know where he fall on the pecking order of importance.
posted by dios at 9:08 AM on March 30, 2005

That dirty sanchez...
posted by five fresh fish at 9:08 AM on March 30, 2005

Boy, sooner or later the Army's gonna fuck up and torture a white person. Then we'll see the hammer come down...

Your naivete is touching... they tortured John Walker Lindh and nothing happened, so I think your optimism is somewhat misplaced.
posted by clevershark at 9:11 AM on March 30, 2005

Hmm. Insomnia, you should ask for attribution. From what I can tell, you posted this story to your Live Journal. You e-mailed it to trout who posted it to Kos and then crossposted it here.

Seems that it should have a via insomnia. Or, more correctly: via Kos vis insomnia.
posted by dios at 9:14 AM on March 30, 2005

Gee, dios.
Derail much?
posted by Floydd at 9:18 AM on March 30, 2005

Any comment on the actual, you know, story, Dios? Or is this the best you can do?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:21 AM on March 30, 2005

Clever- Really? I don't remember any serious torture allegations from Lindh... I remember him getting railroaded, but not much else.
posted by klangklangston at 9:22 AM on March 30, 2005

troutfishing: Oh snark, delicious snark.

And in response to your snark, this is one of the things I pointed out as a strength of blogging. But by all means, don't let such pesky concerns as facts, truth, or our basic agreement get in the way of your fun.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:26 AM on March 30, 2005

And I'll also praise this one as an example of what blogs can do extremely well, but usually don't: provide a synthesis between two primary sources.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:31 AM on March 30, 2005

Trout and insomnia are great. (Just ignore that "god" of derails)

Time for some extraordinary rendition for Sanchez?
posted by nofundy at 9:32 AM on March 30, 2005

I don't see the Clinton parallel here at all. Clinton was asked "Is there a sexual relationship between you and Ms. Lewinsky?" Clinton answered no, because the relationship had ended. According to the correct (present tense) defintion of the word "is", Clinton told the truth. Now Sanchez said he never approved the measures to be used by CJTF-7 within the past year. The memo authorizing the measures was dated about seven months prior to his testimony. The memo specifically authorizes CJTF-7 to conduct the activities the activities listed in the question. I don't see how he can weasel out on a technicality here. All of the qualifiers to his answer apply to the memo.
posted by cameldrv at 9:37 AM on March 30, 2005

So dios, since all you could find to criticize was the manner in which this was posted I guess we can assume that you agree that Gen. Sanchez perjured himself?
posted by caddis at 10:19 AM on March 30, 2005

The senator asked him about "inducing fear," and his memo said "create fear." Those are totally different words. So, no problemo!
posted by kirkaracha at 10:27 AM on March 30, 2005

Patience, caddis. He's clearly waiting desperately to have his talking points handed down from above to test them out here. Soon enough he'll be back on starting off with a provocative statement designed to get tempers flaring so that he can then dodge difficult points by answering somebody else altogether and claiming that at least they are capable of civilized discourse. To be mixed in with setting up straw men while whining incorrectly that the opposition is setting up strawmen, and generally misrepresenting the Constitution without being to back anything up.

Good times.
posted by the_savage_mind at 10:30 AM on March 30, 2005

One question that some of you may be asking is "What does this have to do with Rumsfeld?"

Admittedly, all the evidence hasn't been fully uncovered yet regarding that matter. Larry Di Rita even stated in 2004 that Rumsfeld didn't approve the interrogation methods in Iraq.

That said, it is known that Rumsfeld had previously approved the interrogation methods for Guantanamo, which the methods in Sanchez' memo were based upon. Also, in August 2003, it was Rumsfeld who arranged for Major-General Geoffrey Miller to be sent to Iraq from Gunatanamo to, “review current Iraqi Theatre ability to rapidly exploit internees for actionable intelligence”. Miller then proceeded to take control over the interrogations at Abu Ghraib away from Army General Janis Karpinski.

In other words, we know that at about the same time that Sanchez' new Gitmo'ized policies went into place, that Rumsfeld had sent in a 'Gitmo "fixer" to get info out of those prisoners. Coincidence?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:37 AM on March 30, 2005

I find what insomnia says interesting, and want to congratulate him on good work trying to put the screws to the general. I think the smoking gun and implication that he is reaching for isn't there. But he has done a good job showing that this guy has been less than truthful. I think you still have a semantic problem though with conflating interrogation and torture. I see the two as different. But I guess that is a matter of perspective.

Seems to me that Interrogation is where vital information is sought; torture is where you are terrorizing someone for the sake of terrorizing them. Interrogation seems to me be moral as the intent and the ends sought are good. Torture is just bad. I don't doubt that the government engages in aggressive interrogation, and I would want them to. I doubt they are engaged in torture. So my guess is that the military chain of command authorized actions that intented to permit interrogation to get information, but the environment was such that on the personal level, some of the people there crossed lines.
posted by dios at 11:12 AM on March 30, 2005

dios:
Torture has a legal definition.
Aggressive interrogation is what this administration would rather call it.
posted by Floydd at 11:25 AM on March 30, 2005

the money quote from above (emphasis mine):
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
posted by bashos_frog at 12:12 PM on March 30, 2005

Sure, it's easy to say that "torture" is not taking place, as long as one is sure to "define" torture as being something one knows isn't going on. It's rather circuitous thinking.

For instance, if I "define" torture as "shoving a broomstick up one's bottom, dancing flamenco and ending the act with a fire-swallowing exhibition" then I'm pretty sure that "torture" has in fact never taken place in the history of man.
posted by clevershark at 12:21 PM on March 30, 2005

I would be willing to concede that people on the ground probably engaged in torture by my defintion and the legal defintion. I think you could make the argument that the government permitted an environment where it could happen. But I don't think, from what I have read in these links or elsewhere, that you can say that the government had a policy of tortue in the sense I was referring to. My guess would be that the policy was something along the lines of "be as aggressive as you can within the bounds of the law." The people who crossed the bounds at the individual level should be punished. But I refuse to accept that idea that the policy was "torture those bastards to make them hurt" or anything of the like---and I haven't seen a shred of evidence suggesting it was.
posted by dios at 12:30 PM on March 30, 2005

Oh, and I would add that I believe the "legal" definition of torture from those treaties is overbroad and should be changed. I found Dershowitz to be persuasive in his book on this issue.
posted by dios at 12:33 PM on March 30, 2005

Dios:
The policy is outlined in the September memo, signed by Sanchez. See the .pdf here.
This memo authorizes torture.
The Sanchez memo dated September 14, 2003, specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs specifically to "Exploit(s) Arab fear of dogs…," isolation, and stress positions.

I believe the "legal" definition of torture from those treaties is overbroad and should be changed.

The legal definition of torture from those treaties is the legal definition of torture.
posted by Floydd at 1:51 PM on March 30, 2005

Once again dios proves himself monstrously thick against common sense, and once again a bunch of people take the bait.

Come on, folks, congenital stupidity can not be cured over the Internet. Quit trying to reason with the guy, it doesn't accomplish anything.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:26 PM on March 30, 2005

Dios: It's easy to argue that the definition of torture is overbroad... Until, of course, you're picked up and "aggressively interrogated" over something that you have no knowledge of (remember, denial only prolongs the interrogation).
posted by klangklangston at 2:32 PM on March 30, 2005

Great, dios is going on and on about something he knows jack shit about without reading the links.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:24 PM on March 30, 2005

If Dios (defined as God?) is for torturing prisoners, who can be against it?

The Defenders of All Things Dubya never cease to amaze me as to how low they will go. Some make Gannon/Guckert seem downright angelic. Hope they're paid well.
posted by nofundy at 4:30 PM on March 30, 2005

dios writes " I would be willing to concede that people on the ground probably engaged in torture by my defintion [sic] and the legal defintion [sic]. I think you could make the argument that the government permitted an environment where it could happen.... The people who crossed the bounds at the individual level should be punished."

So the people who crossed the line should be punished? So, you argue for that among your conservative friends, dios? You tell them that torture is wrong and un-Christian?

But the people who "permitted an environment" where torture took place, you'd re-elect them?

Or do I have you wrong? Will you take Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn, your US Senators, to task for permitting it? Will you write them to ask why they voted -- why they voted as dios's representatives -- to confirm Alberto Gonzales?

Have you written Tom Delay and told him that a "Culture of Life", Christian values, and common decency are all incompatible with torture, and that he ought to follow up "saving" Terry schiavo with making damned sure American soldiers aren't torturing POWs?

Have you done any of that dios?

Or did you just shrug and say "well, it's... regrettable, really, I hope I don't have to hear these unpleasant allegations about our troops. Because it's so, you know, painful to hear these allegations about our heroic troops in Lidice and Oradour-sur-Glane and My Lai and Abu Ghraib and Bagram."

You're a good Christian dios, what do you do, as a Christian, besides minimizing and rationalizing and justifying torture?
posted by orthogonality at 4:41 PM on March 30, 2005

Seems to me that Interrogation is where vital information is sought; torture is where you are terrorizing someone for the sake of terrorizing them. Interrogation seems to me be moral as the intent and the ends sought are good.

To be honest, if this weren't signed I'd think it was a quotation from Hitler or Stalin. Torture doesn't get good information. It's an excuse for monsters to act out their basest instincts.

Dios- this is the last thing I will ever say to you. I have little doubt that had you been born in Nazi Germany, you would have joined the SS. If you'd been Soviet, you'd have been in the NKVD.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:02 PM on March 30, 2005

The thing about the perjury is that the word "torture" matters not. Gen. Sanchez was asked whether he approved certain interrogation procedures for a prisoner and he said he never approved such procedures, and then there is the memo showing his approval of those very interrogation procedures - busted. Of course, he does also concede that essentially the same procedures violate the Geneva Convention elsewhere in the testimony, which makes them . . . torture?
posted by caddis at 6:05 PM on March 30, 2005

Ortho: IOW, Dios talks the talk but he doesn't walk the walk.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:18 PM on March 30, 2005

Seems to me that Interrogation is where vital information is sought; torture is where you are terrorizing someone for the sake of terrorizing them. Interrogation seems to me be moral as the intent and the ends sought are good. Torture is just bad. (I missed this before)

For the scared, and weak souls like dios, the ends justify the means. Their fear and cowardice and the resulting moral lapses really are un-American. America is strong because it does the right thing, not the expedient thing. Seeking false safety through torture and the denial of freedom to those we deem other is a coward's game. Has America really become so cowardly that we forsake our ideals of liberty and justice for all? I doubt it, but the scared, the weak willed, the afraid, the cowards, they are in control in the current debate. They would trade everything that generations of patriots have given their lives to build and protect in exchange for but a false sense of security. Bigger cowards and hippocrates have never walked the planet.
posted by caddis at 6:46 PM on March 30, 2005

Now this is the bane of spell checkers, it puts in "hippocrates" for "hypocrites." Ouch, now that is embarrassing. Lord knows how I originally spelled it and then a click of the change button gets you some Greek intellectual instead of a phony. Ouch, ouch, ouch.

Regardless, the torturers and torture apologists are still cowards.
posted by caddis at 8:04 PM on March 30, 2005

America is strong because it does the right thing, not the expedient thing.

Not well-informed as to America's involvement in South America, the South-East Seas, the Caribbean, are you?

America has been strong in the past because it has the bomb and held many nations by the short and curlies.

Now that everyone else on the block has the bomb and America owes hard currency to so many nations, it is no longer the tiger it once was.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:15 PM on March 30, 2005

you guys are so adorable when you pretend that your senators don't know when they're lied to.
posted by raaka at 1:43 AM on March 31, 2005

Caddis: Y'know, I'd like to see more speeches like that when the Democrats run for anything. Why didn't Kerry have the balls to say things like that?
posted by klangklangston at 5:49 AM on March 31, 2005

The discussion on Torture was a derail amplified by dios.
The post was about perjury and a US general. caddis gets it right
posted by adamvasco at 9:27 AM on March 31, 2005

America is strong because it does the right thing, not the expedient thing.
DELGADO: T...He showed me these grisly photographs, and he bragged about the results. "Oh," he said, "I shot this guy in the face. See, his head is split open." He talked like the Terminator. `I shot this guy in the groin, he took three days to bleed to death." I was shocked. This was the nicest guy you would ever want to meet. He was a family man, a really courteous guy, a devout Christian. I was stunned and said to him: "You shot an unarmed man behind barbed wire for throwing a stone." He said, "Well, I knelt down. I said a prayer, stood up and gunned them all down."

Q: Commanders permitted use of lethal force against unarmed detainees. What was their response to the carnage?

DELGADO: Our Command took the grisly photos and posted them up in the headquarters. It was a big, macho thing for our company to shoot more prisoners than any other unit.
posted by amberglow at 6:50 AM on April 10, 2005