[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.

Profile: Zelikow
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=philip_zelikow

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
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a052000zelikowmay#a052000zelikowmay

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"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20009

Profile: Condoleezza Rice
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=condoleezza_rice

Former Rice aide to testify on interrogations
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_12349491?nclick_check=1
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.

He was on Maddow's show last

He was on Maddow's show last week... He seemed to be throwing everyone under the bus. I wonder if this is a sign of things to come. Possibly positioning himself favorably.

He already testified:

Spinning for Condi- link to his written testimony:

"Big Bang": Changing the National Approach to the Treatment of Detainees (June 2005) By Philip Zelikow and Gordon England
http://www.hnn.us/articles/84542.html

Ex-Official Testifies About Efforts to Halt Harsh Tactics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR200905...

And the New York Times apparently reported on this memo Oct 1 2006:

Detainee Memo Created Divide in White House
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01detain.html?_r=1

http://911reports.com

nice call, loose nuke

Was torture applied to deliberately elicit false information to fit predesigned narrative? One question, among others.

Taking...

This despicable man's word to mean something shows just how corrupt our Government really is. He rewrote the 9/11 Report to be more favorable of Condoleezza Rice. He tried to insert a false link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq into the 9/11 Report that would have ONLY been beneficial to the Bush Administration (an indication of where his loyalties lied). The staffers of the 9/11 Commission did not like him. He shied the 9/11 Commission staffers away from the NSA because "it was just more interesting—sexier—to concentrate on the CIA.” He tried to prevent 9/11 Commissioners from talking directly to 9/11 Commission Staffers. He refused to approve half of the interview requests for "Saudi Connection" investigators, blocked access to a key document about the "Saudi Connection" to those same investigators, and ultimately, fired one of them. He blocked Commissioner access to some of the JICI documents causing Commissinoer Tim Roemer to ask “why is our executive director making secret deals with the Justice Department and the White House? He is supposed to be working for us.” There is also reason to believe he took direction from Karl Rove.

Again, taking this despicable man's word to mean something shows just how corrupt our Government really is.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Zelikow via Shenon

BerkshireTruth

The key to Zelikow, and his 911 Commission Report, is contained in chapter 55 of Philip Shenon's book "The Commission". Zelikow hired Ernest May as a consultant to the Commission. May was his friend and mentor at Harvard University. They wrote the Report outline even before the first committee meetings took place. However May became dubious prior to publication because the narrative, as constructed by Zelikow, was based on "coercive questioning" (some now say torture) of the al-Qaeda "terrorists" in US custody and could not be relied upon as the "truth". Zelikow forged ahead with publication. He now claims he was, and is, against torture via the dubious memo he claims he circulated. This is the crux and conundrum for Zelikow: the validity of the 9/11 Commission narrative of the September 11 events rests on testimony elicited through torture.

great comments from everyone

they would've worked well as the intro to the pasted article about Zelikow's upcoming testimony- i only recently learned about his and May's lies in the JFK tapes book, that's why i stuck that in.

In addition to trying to whitewash his own involvement, i wonder if Zelikow and the Establishment may be positioning him to be part of the torture "9/11 Commission-style" investigation- that will backfire for sure if they try it- recall that Bush tried to appoint Kissinger to lead the 9/11 Commission, which caused a minor scandal- then we got Zelikow, who hung on to the end, despite the families repeated calls for his resignation, and the MSM have ever since pretended the Commission's account is credible, despite it ignoring and distorting the biggest questions and evidence, and despite info coming out in books like Shillnon's that further discredited while supporting the official premise of al Qaeda alone.

9/11 Mastermind: "During ... My Interrogation I Gave A Lot Of False Information In Order To Satisfy What I Believed..."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20066

Putting Torture Behind Us – Nicholas D. Kristof, NY Times, January 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/opinion/29kristof.html

The first step is to appoint a high-level commission — perhaps a McCain-Scowcroft Commission? — to investigate torture, secret detention and wiretapping during the Bush years, as well as to look ahead and offer recommendations for balancing national security and individual rights in the future.

This wouldn’t be a bipartisan commission, with Democrats and Republicans offsetting each other in seething distrust. Rather, it would be nonpartisan, dominated by military and security experts.

It could be co-chaired by Brent Scowcroft and John McCain, with its conclusions written by Philip Zelikow, a former aide to Condoleezza Rice who wrote the best-selling report of the 9/11 commission.

If the three most prominent members were all Republicans, no one on the right could denounce it as a witch hunt — and its criticisms would have far more credibility. The commission could be rounded out by former generals, top intelligence officials and outside experts without a strong partisan cast: people like Richard Haass, Anthony Zinni, Joseph Nye, James Dobbins and William Cohen.

Turley: 'God help us' if torture only gets a '9/11 commission' – RawStory.com
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_Torture_investigations_should_look_...

http://911reports.com