[Zelikow] to testify on interrogations
In this article, the AP writer continually refers to Zelikow's memo as if it's a fact; as far as I know, the only evidence of it existing in 2005 is that Zelikow, a completely untrustworthy source, claims he wrote it and circulated it. Perhaps he did. Nowhere does this article claim the AP has already obtained a copy, and they say, "Several members of Congress have asked the Obama administration to search for a copy." Still, it will be interesting to see what he has to say, and how he justifies not resigning, knowing what was going on, and having the opinion that he alleges he did.
Historian Sheldon Stern found numerous errors in their transcription of JFK tapes, some of which change the context of statements and conversations, despite him being able to clearly understand the words when he reviewed the tapes himself:
May 2000: Future Authors of 9/11 Report Produce John F. Kennedy Book Riddled with Errors
The article quotes Zelikow as saying he "suspect[s]" he gave Rice a copy:
"Zelikow, in an interview with The Associated Press, said that he told Rice that he was circulating a dissent. "I would keep her informed about everything," he said. "I suspect I provided her a copy of the memo. In general, she understood the broad thrust of what we in the State Department were trying to do. She, at her level, was working and finding a way for the president to change the policies.""
And- "Rice ignited a controversy last month when she told Stanford University students, "If it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture." But in an appearance in Washington afterward, Rice said she really meant "the president (George W. Bush) said, 'I won't authorize anything that is illegal.""
Rice: "September 11 was the worst day of my life in government, watching 3,000 Americans die"
Profile: Condoleezza Rice
Former Rice aide to testify on interrogations
By LARRY MARGASAK Associated Press Writer
Posted: 05/12/2009 12:14:08 AM PDT
Updated: 05/12/2009 01:19:10 PM PDT
WASHINGTON—As a member of Condoleezza Rice's inner circle at the State Department, Philip Zelikow argued within the Bush administration that simulated drowning and other extreme interrogation techniques were illegal. Congress will get a look at those internal battles when Zelikow testifies Wednesday before a Senate committee.
Democrats are moving swiftly to hold hearings on recently released Bush administration legal opinions backing rough methods to pry information from terrorist detainees. The Obama administration has expressed reservations about public hearings that would look backward.
While Democrats want to highlight the view that the former administration tortured prisoners, their tactic has been overshadowed by a controversy involving House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Republicans have challenged her comments that in a briefing six years ago, she was not told the harsh tactics were being used.
Zelikow learned of the then-classified Justice Department legal opinions in May 2005 and wrote a memo a few months later that contended the policies violated the U.S. Constitution.
More importantly, the memo was part of the internal arguments in the Bush administration that pitted the State Department against then-Vice President Dick Cheney and the Justice Department.
At times, Rice actively joined the dissent, a position that evolved from one of support after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Cheney, to this day, contends the interrogations prevented terrorist attacks.
Rice ignited a controversy last month when she told Stanford University students, "If it was authorized by the president it did not violate our obligations under the convention against torture." But in an appearance in Washington afterward, Rice said she really meant "the president (George W. Bush) said, 'I won't authorize anything that is illegal."
Zelikow argued in his 2005 memo that constitutional protections for defendants, and the Constitution's ban against cruel and unusual punishment, were violated by some of the interrogation tactics.
Writing last month for the Internet site of Foreign Policy Magazine, Zelikow said, "In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest—if the alleged national security justification was compelling."
Zelikow, who served as counselor to Rice at the State Department from February 2005 through January 2007, circulated his 2005 memo within the administration but had no authority on legal matters beyond the power of persuasion. He didn't get far.
"My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views," he wrote. "They did more than that. The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo."
Several members of Congress have asked the Obama administration to search for a copy.
Zelikow, in an interview with The Associated Press, said that he told Rice that he was circulating a dissent.
"I would keep her informed about everything," he said. "I suspect I provided her a copy of the memo. In general, she understood the broad thrust of what we in the State Department were trying to do. She, at her level, was working and finding a way for the president to change the policies."
A former senior State Department official under Rice, who declined to be quoted by name in discussing the internal dispute, said the secretary held regular meetings on detainee issues with her small inner circle. In those meetings, he said, she supported efforts to close the detainee prison at Guantanamo, empty the secret detention sites and accept international standards for treatment of detainees.
In February 2007 Rice's legal adviser, John Bellinger III, wrote his own dissent. He concluded that some of the tactics violated international treaties including the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture.
Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.