Thursday, May 1st, 2008

BBC | A top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell has launched a stinging attack on US Vice-President Dick Cheney over abuse of prisoners by US troops. Col Lawrence Wilkerson accused Mr Cheney of ignoring a decision by President Bush on the treatment of prisoners in the war on terror.

Asked by the BBC's Today if Mr Cheney could be accused of war crimes, he said: "It's an interesting question."

"Certainly it is a domestic crime to advocate terror," he added.

"And I would suspect, for whatever it's worth, it's an international crime as well."

This is an extraordinary attack by a man who until earlier in the year was Mr Cheney's colleague in the senior reaches of the Bush team, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says.

Col Wilkerson has in the past accused the vice-president of responsibility for the conditions which led to the abuse of prisoners.

But this time he has gone much further, appearing to suggest Mr Cheney should face war crimes charges, our correspondent adds.

Intelligence questions

He said that there were two sides of the debate within the Bush administration over the treatment of prisoners.

Mr Powell and more dovish members had argued for sticking to the Geneva conventions, which prohibit the torture of detainees.

Meanwhile, the other side "essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions".

Mr Bush agreed a compromise, that "Geneva would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees".

"What I'm saying is that, under the vice-president's protection, the secretary of defence [Donald Rumsfeld] moved out to do what they wanted in the first place, even though the president had made a decision that was clearly a compromise," Col Wilkerson said.

He said that he laid the blame on the issue of prisoner abuse and post-war planning for Iraq "pretty fairly and squarely" at Mr Cheney's feet.

"I look at the relationship between Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld as being one that produced these two failures in particular, and I see that the president is not holding either of them accountable… so I have to lay some blame at his feet too," he went on.

In the BBC interview, Col Wilkerson also developed his views on whether or not pre-war intelligence was deliberately misused by the White House.

He said that he had previously thought only honest mistakes were made.

But recent revelations about doubts in the intelligence community that appear to have been suppressed in the run-up to the war have made him question this view.

by Helen Thomas

The American people have heard President Bush and his spokespeople say many times that the U.S. government does not engage in torture.

Whether Bush was believed or not is another story -- especially in light of the photographic evidence of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib. It's understood that many of the photos are too sadistically graphic to be made public.

Still, the official U.S. denials of torture continued until earlier this month when Bush acknowledged in an interview with ABC-TV that he knew about and approved "enhanced interrogation" of detainees, including "waterboarding" or simulated drowning.

"As a matter of fact," Bush added, "I told the country we did that. And I told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."

The president added, "I didn't have any problems at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew."

"He was the person who ordered the suicide attack -- I mean, the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "And back then, there was all kind of concern about people saying, ‘Well, the administration is not connecting the dots.' You might remember those -- that period." Bush said.

Bush also said in the interview that he had been aware of several meetings his national security advisers held to discuss "enhanced interrogation" methods. Surely he is aware of the U.S. commitment to international treaties barring "cruel and inhumane" treatment of prisoners.

What is startling is that he feels no remorse about the cruel image he has created for us -- and the damage done to our credibility and probity.

In referring to the legality of torture, Bush apparently was thinking of a 2002-2003 memo by John Yoo, a Justice Department official who argued military interrogators could subject detainees to harsh treatment as long as it didn't cause "death, organ failure or permanent damage." The memo was rescinded.

Bush, who has insisted "we do not torture," also recently vetoed legislation that explicitly banned torture. Sen. John McCain, whose whole political persona has been defined by the fact that he had been tortured while a prisoner of war during the Vietnam era, supported Bush's veto.

For both Bush and McCain, I recall the words of Joseph Welch, the special counselor for the Army during the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings when Welch asked Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis.: "Sir, have you no sense of decency?"

We expected the usual cast of characters including Vice President Dick Cheney to be in on the sinister torture-planning sessions.

But it came as a shock that Gen. Colin Powell, then secretary of state, sat in on the meetings and went along with the planning. Powell had been on record warning against U.S. torture policies on the basis that if we mistreat our prisoners, foreign countries will feel no qualms about abusing American captives in wartime.

Once revered for his integrity, Powell has lost his halo.

Now we have this week's testimony of Air Force Col. Morris Davis, a former chief prosecutor, who took the witness stand at Guantanamo Bay on behalf of a prisoner. Davis told how top Pentagon officials had pressured him on sensitive prosecutorial decisions for political reasons. He said he was told that the charges against well-known detainees "could have real strategic value" and that there could be no acquittals.

Davis also testified Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann reversed a decision he made and insisted prosecutors proceed with evidence they obtained through waterboarding and other methods of torture.

Davis also testified he was told to speed up the cases to give the system legitimacy before a new president takes over in January.

Is Congress so cowed that it accepts the statements of a president who has little regard for the truth?

Is there no lawmaker who is appalled about the tarnishing of our image in world opinion? And where are the voices of the other presidential candidates who will inherit the Bush legacy of torture? Why the silence?

I count on the American people to refuse to be shamed any more.

Testimony By M. David Rudd Ph.D.
Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology
Texas Tech University

Mr. Chairman and members of the [House] Committee [on Veterans Affairs], thank you for the invitation and opportunity to join you here today [May 6, 2008] and discuss the tragic, but important problem of suicide among our nation’s veterans. I am honored to be here. My scientific and clinical opinions are influenced by a diverse background as a practicing psychologist, clinical researcher whose work focuses on the assessment, management and treatment of suicidality, along with the fact that I’m a veteran.

Having served previously as an Army psychologist, I’m keenly aware of the complexity and challenge of clinical decision making during wartime, the competing demands juggled by military mental health providers, and the arduous task of managing soldiers at risk for suicide both during active duty and after discharge.

As a researcher, I understand suicide is most often the end outcome of a complex web of variables, several easily identified but not so easily treated. As a veteran, I have some understanding of what it means to serve our country, the personal and professional sacrifices that are made, and the potential consequences, but only a fraction compared to those that return from war struggling with injuries both visible and invisible.

The tragic increase in both active duty and veteran suicide rates since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) underscore a seldom recognized but very real fact about mental illness; that it can be fatal.

Data are now available from multiple sources, including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the recently released RAND Corporation study, along with the existing literature indicating that anywhere from a quarter to a third of previously deployed veterans present with a mental health problem following discharge. Most prominent among the problems are major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and substance abuse.

Data available prior to the most recent military conflicts (OIF/OEF) indicated heightened suicide risk among the general veteran population, with estimates indicating that veterans are twice as likely to die by suicide, regardless of whether or not they were affiliated with the VA.

More recent data indicate a marked increase in suicide risk among veterans being treated for depression, with the risk being 7-8 times greater than that for the general adult population in the United States. Similarly, recent revelations about suicide and suicide attempt rates among veterans have been alarming, with estimates as high as 18 suicides a day. Recent data on TBI are also of concern, indicating suicide rates in the range of 3-4 times the general population and lifetime suicide attempt rates of 8%, along with significant rates of suicidal ideation (23%). At this point, the relationship between brain injury and suicidality is not well understood.

An accurate and meaningful interpretation of these data requires a look at and consideration of comparable civilian data. Although it is certainly difficult to accurately estimate suicide rates for those in and out of treatment, there is some data for comparison. The suicide prevalence rate for major depression and affective disorders in general (i.e. major depression, bipolar disorder I and II and affective psychosis) is actually lower than often quoted. Rates differ depending on the apparent severity of the illness, with the outpatient suicide prevalence rate being 2%, in contrast to 6% for those previously hospitalized for suicidal symptoms and 4% for those hospitalized for other reasons.

Rates of suicide attempts are much higher. It is estimated that as many 24% of those suffering major depression make a suicide attempt during the course of the illness. It is estimated that up to 50% of individuals with bipolar disorder will make a suicide attempt and up to 80% will manifest suicidal symptoms of some sort.

Standardized mortality ratios (ratio of observed deaths to expected deaths) for major depression and bipolar disorder paint a stark picture; those with major depression evidence a twenty-fold increased risk for death by suicide relative to the general population and those with bipolar disorder a fifteen-fold increase in risk. There are data available regarding other disorders, but the take home message is that the risk for suicide is considerable for a number of mental illnesses. Mental illness can be fatal, particularly if unrecognized, untreated or under-treated.

It is also important to consider the expected rates of adverse events during treatment, in particular, suicide attempt rates. Data are available from randomized clinical trials targeting suicidal behavior (irrespective of diagnosis). Estimates indicate that as many as 40-47% of those receiving treatment (psychotherapy and medications) make suicide attempts during the first year of treatment. If an attempt is made during the first year, the average is approximately 2.5 attempts. This is what routinely happens during treatment.

We also know that an individual making multiple suicide attempts will likely struggle with suicidality for many years, if not a lifetime. These data, coupled with data about recent discharge from the hospital, indicate that risk for suicide (in the context of mental illness) is not only potent but enduring. Standardized mortality ratios (ratio of observed deaths to expected deaths) for men and women recently discharged from the hospital range from 100 to 350 across several studies. These are tragically high numbers. The VA experience is not markedly different than its civilian counterpart when it comes to the presentation of high-risk suicidal patients.

There are several possible conclusions. First, as outlined nicely in the RAND study, there are high rates of psychiatric illness following combat exposure, including both direct and vicarious exposure. Multiple deployments for OIF/OEF likely compound the situation because of repeated combat exposure, sometimes after the initial emergence of symptoms. The VA is faced with assessing and treating large numbers of seriously ill veterans.

Second, the overall rates of both suicide and suicide attempts are tragic but consistent with general trends for the types and observed rates of psychiatric illness. Third, an effective response requires effective resources. Finally, there is an element of this problem that is likely to be enduring and potentially chronic in nature.

The VA has already moved toward increasing recognition and treatment of suicidal veterans, implementing a telephone hotline and making available training on recognizing and responding to suicide warning signs. Treatment outcome studies targeting suicidality have confirmed that simple things work and can save lives. Limiting and removing access to the suspected method can save lives.

Removing barriers to emergency care can save lives.

Patient tracking and effective follow-up for treatment non-compliance can save lives. Evidence-based treatments for depression, bipolar disorder, PTSD are effective and can save lives. Despite the fact that treatment is effective, it’s estimated that only about half of those at risk pursue care.

The military and VA system face unique barriers to providing effective care, including issues of confidentiality, delays in evaluating the escalating numbers of service-connected disability claims, and misconceptions about the nature and effectiveness of mental health care.

The FDA warning label for antidepressants is but one example of how misunderstanding of the scientific data can lead to fewer people expressing a willingness to seek care, with potentially tragic results. Science, clinical experience, and common sense converge when it comes to suicidality. Improving our ability to both recognize and respond quickly to those at risk can save lives. Removing barriers to care, particularly emergency care, can and will save lives. Those that have served our nation deserve no less. It is tragic and heartbreaking when a soldier that has survived the trauma of war returns home to die by his or her own hand, especially when treatment is an option.

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today and welcome the chance to respond to questions.

By David Swanson

When Republican Senator Pat Roberts chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, he refused to conduct an investigation into how Bush and Cheney misled the Congress about the case for invading Iraq . The investigation, part of what was known as Phase II, had been agreed to, but Roberts refused to do it prior to the November 2004 elections on the grounds that it could impact the elections. After the elections he refused to do it on the grounds that it didn't matter, what with the elections already being over.

The ranking Democrat on the committee complained loudly for years. Senator Jay Rockefeller used every parliamentary and PR trick available to a ranking member, but was unable to force an investigation. In November of 2005, the minority Democrats forced the Senate into a closed door session in an attempt to pressure Roberts to do the investigation. Rockefeller was still talking about this failed attempt in January of this year.

The elections of 2006 were supposed to change everything. Rockefeller became the chairman of the committee. He could now immediately begin any investigation he chose to. In fact, in January of this year he gave an interview to McClatchy newspapers that suggested he was chomping at the bit.

The new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on the other hand, Silvestre Reyes, announced that he would not investigate anything, he would leave it all to Rockefeller. Rockefeller's pre-2007 theatrics notwithstanding, it was the House that had come closest to pursuing serious investigations prior to the 2006 elections. Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman Dennis Kucinich had sponsored resolutions of inquiry that came very close to passing in the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman John Conyers sponsored a bill to create a preliminary impeachment investigation. But with the arrival of 2007, all of those demands for truth and justice vanished. It was no longer appropriate etiquette for Democrats to propose investigations when Democrats were chairing the committees. All that remained was the seeming certainty that Senator Rockefeller would now conduct the investigation he'd been longing to see done for years.

In January, Rockefeller told McClatchy that it was Vice President Dick Cheney who had compelled Roberts to stonewall the investigation. Rockefeller told McClatchy that it was important to complete the Phase II inquiry. "The looking backward creates tension," he said, "but it's necessary tension because the administration needs to be held accountable and the country ... needs to know."

Nine months later, Rockefeller has not conducted the investigation or released a report. On Wednesday, in fact, the Senate unanimously passed an intelligence bill after the Democrats agreed to delete a demand to obtain the archive of daily intelligence briefings given to the president on Iraq between 1997 and 2003. I did not say narrowly passed. I said UNANIMOUSLY.

Now, I will take a back seat to nobody in demanding that children receive health care, but Senator Rockefeller has been spending his time pushing a bill guaranteed to be vetoed and then lamenting the veto. He could have been fighting to keep the teeth in the intelligence bill. He could have been issuing subpoenas. He has yet to issue a single subpoena. He could, for that matter, have simply assigned his staff to write a careful report on the White House war lies based on what is already in the public record. The case is overwhelming. The Senate's official stamp would put that fact on people's televisions and in their newspapers. The case for impeachment would be irresistible.

Why would Rockefeller refrain from even reporting on what he already knows? Perhaps I've answered that question already. The Democrats want to avoid impeachment at all costs. But they must have known last year, and the year before, and the year before that, that lying a nation into war is an impeachable offense. This was widely discussed in the 1780s. It's hardly news.

It's almost as if all Rockefeller's talk prior to the 2006 elections about wanting to uncover the facts had more to do with the elections than any actual interest in accountability. It's almost as if the Senator assumes we've all forgotten. Maybe we have. Has a single reporter asked him where in the world, these nine months later, Phase II is, or why in the world it has been phased out?