THE TORTURE OF BIN LADEN

“We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out”
-Winston Churchill

The British intelligence services a few years back had intelligence on Osama Bin Laden's whereabouts, which would have allowed us to pick him up. They refused to pass the information on to the United States at the time, however, because they could not get assurances from the administration that he would not be tortured for information - at least as they were defining torture. Here's the story, courtesy the UK Guardian:

The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament's intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.

The report criticises the Bush administration's approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents. It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.

This is pretty important stuff, but there's only one flaw here. This happened in 1998, when President Clinton was in office. George Bush was governor of Texas and had absolutely nothing to do with US policy, torture, the government's treatment of Osama Bin Laden, or CIA practices in questioning him, humane or otherwise. The story goes on to point this out:

"In 1998, SIS [MI6] believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama bin Laden," the committee says in its report. It adds: "Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the US, SIS sought ministerial approval. This was given provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment."

The Clinton administration had made it policy to use coercive techniques to get information from terrorists while he was in office, the same techniques now in use by the US under President Bush. In fact, I suspect they've been in place for the last ten presidents. And it's been working, as we know. The problem is, the Guardian article sort of implies that President Bush was to blame, that the present administration's policy on coercive questioning is torture and was the reason this information was not offered. Amazed that then Governor Bush had that kind of time-transcending power, Ace noted that this was apparently a shared presidency, unknown to everyone:

Clinton apparently just handled the domestic stuff -- school uniforms, raising taxes, putting objects into interns.

Ace of Spades HQ commenters pointed out other little-known ways in history that Bush has done evil deeds:

Bush's torture at Guantanamo is what caused Castro to throw his lot in with the Soviets which, in turn, led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-by Caspera


Bush's aggressive stance with Iran led directly to the hostage crisis in '79. Google it.
-by Digital Brownshirt


George Bush built that wall of Persian corpses for me at Thermopylae.
-by King Leonidas


Asteroids? Ha! It was Bush who tortured and murdered us into extinction.
-the Dinosaurs


George Bush invented African AND European slavery.
-by Mike


That other George chopped down my cherry tree and I got blamed for it.

Bastard.
-by Gorge Washington


40 years in the desert?

He just wouldn't stop and ask for directions.

Damn that George Bush!
-by The Jews


George Bush is the reason I always had that one tear on my cheek.
-by Iron Eyes Cody


I wasn't even dangerous until George Bush manufactured me in the labs of the CDC when he was acting President after Warren G. Harding died.
-by Hepatitis C


George Bush conspired with the sun to kill me.
-by Icarus


That whole "202 votes in Duval County, cast in alphabetical order" thing?

Totally Bush's idea. I argued people would find out, but that devil said "that's the beauty of it Lyndon, they'll know but they can't do anything about it. Totally rub their noses in it! YEEEHAA"!
-by Lyndon Baines Johnson


Sympathy for the Devil? George Bush really wrote it as an autobiographical ode to himself. We just took the credit.
-by Mick&Keith

This isn't the first time people have made the case that President Bush was up to no good long before he was actually in office. They claim that he lied and cooked the intelligence to make it look like Iraq had WMD, when that was what the intelligence said - and Democrat leaders argued - in 1998.

All fun aside, commenter (and former blogger) Seixon pointed this unfortunate fact (for the UK Guardian) out:

Ace, what the Guardian wrote is false and not supported by the report they are quoting. I’m specifically referring to, “It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.”

I read through the report, it never states this. Here’s what the report actually states:

40. In 1998, SIS believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama Bin Laden. Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the U.S., SIS sought Ministerial approval. This was given, provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment. In the event, insufficient intelligence was obtained and therefore the operation could not proceed.

The operation didn’t proceed due to lack of intelligence, not due to lack of assurances from the CIA.

I have no doubt that the CIA was doing under Clinton what it has been doing under Bush, but the Guardian has goofed here and you need to be aware of it.

This is doubly embarrassing for the paper. Not only is the report misleading when it seems to indict President Bush when it was actually when Bill Clinton was president, but the report doesn't actually say that the threat of "inhumane treatment" was the impediment at all. This is a double whammy: lousy research and deliberately misleading reporting.

It is true that the British Government is a bit less tough than it once was - they abolished the death penalty in the 50's and make concerned clucking noises about doing tamer stuff to Muslim terrorists than they did to Irish terrorists in the recent past - but that's not what the problem was in this case.

Torture President Bush OsSama Bin Laden