The Torture Dissidents’ Tale

How a group of Bush admin officials opposed harsh techniques—and how they were shot down.

Photo by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/isa_e/2023183793/">isa e</a> used under a <a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a> license.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Not everyone in the Bush administration supported the use of torture. A trio of high ranking officials in the State Department and the Pentagon waged bureaucratic war against use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, on detainees. They lost this battle, but one of the three is now telling their story.

Testifying on Wednesday morning before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, Philip Zelikow, a former top advisor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, called for a “thorough inquiry, yielding a public report,” into Bush-era interrogation policies. Zelikow has previously said that a 2005 anti-torture memo he authored was ordered to be “collected and destroyed” by the Bush White House. At the hearing, two other internal memos opposing the administration’s detainee policies (the existence of which Zelikow described to Mother Jones last week) were released. (You can read highlights of the anti-torture memos on our blog.)

Zelikow painted a picture of a small team of dissidents within the Bush administration who argued against the administration’s interrogation policies. At some point in 2005, Zelikow said in prepared remarks, “the president indicated his readiness to hear alternatives” to the policies that were in place at the time. And Zelikow, along with then-State Department legal adviser John Bellinger, and then-deputy defense secretary Gordon England, obliged, producing a joint paper [PDF] outlining a new set of standards on how detainees should be treated. “While balancing the danger these individuals may present, they must be treated humanely, consistent with our values and the values of the free world,” they noted.

But after they submitted the paper, top Bush administration officials apparently didn’t like what they saw. According to Zelikow, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld not only disavowed the memo, but also retaliated against his subordinate, Gordon England, stripping him of jurisdiction over detainee issues. Zelikow and Bellinger continued to advance their anti-torture argument. In July 2005, they circulated another unclassified memo [PDF] that called for the Bush administration to adopt the CID—the “cruel, inhumane, and degrading” standard used by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

By that fall, the arguments Zelikow and Bellinger outlined in the July 2005 memo were starting to gain traction, Zelikow said. On December 5, Condoleezza Rice announced publicly that the CID standard would be the rule governing conduct by any US agency anywhere in the world. (“Perhaps coincidentally,” Zelikow snarked in a footnote to his prepared testimony, “CIA officials destroyed existing videotapes of its coercive interrogations in this same time period, November 2005.”)

But Zelikow would soon realize that he and the administration differed on what constituted cruel and inhumane treatment. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, “held that, even if the [CID] standard did apply, the full CIA program—including waterboarding—complied with it,” he said.

In order “to challenge OLC’s interpretation, it was necessary to challenge the Justice Department’s interpretation of US Constitutional Law,” Zelikow said. So that’s what he did, distributing a classified memo analyzing the OLC’s legal reasoning, “probably in February 2006.” Zelikow would later reveal the existence of this document in April, as the debate over Obama administration’s release of Bush-era legal memos justifying the use of waterboarding, and other harsh tactics, climaxed.

“I later heard the memo was not considered appropriate for further discussion,” Zelikow said, “and that copies of my memo should be collected and destroyed.”

Last week, Zelikow told Mother Jones that he suspected the order to deep-six the memo may have come from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office. Zelikow ignored that order—and his memo has apparently been located and is in the process of being declassified.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate