16

BBC, in a piece detailing an interview with former Vice President Dick Cheny on Fox News, quotes the former statesman as saying that Bush was "Fully-Informed" on the techniques:

Former US President George W Bush was "fully informed" about CIA interrogation techniques condemned in a Senate report, his vice-president says.

Speaking to Fox News, Dick Cheney said Mr Bush "knew everything he needed to know" about the programme, and the report was "full of crap".

President Bush "knew everything he needed to know, and wanted to know" about CIA interrogation, he said. "He knew the techniques... there was no effort on my part to keep it from him.

"He was fully informed."

BBC - President George W Bush 'knew everything' about CIA interrogation

There's an incongruity in these satements though. "Fully-informed" and "knew everything he needed to know" suggest two very different levels of information on what was going on.

How much would Bush, as President of the United States, known about the treatment of prisoners? How much, legally, would he have been required to know?

Specifically, was George W Bush aware of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques being used by the CIA - including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and environmental manipulation?

Community
  • 1
Zibbobz
  • 1,982
  • 3
  • 17
  • 25
  • 5
    What kind of evidence would convince you? – Sklivvz Dec 12 '14 at 01:10
  • While the claim is notable, it does not seem specific enough to me. – Suma Dec 12 '14 at 09:21
  • @Suma It's that very vagueness that bothers me - "Fully Informed" and "knew everything he needed to know" are *very* different levels of information. I want specifics - what he actually knew about the programs. And specifically, whether or not he knew torture techniques were being used. – Zibbobz Dec 12 '14 at 14:04
  • 1
    I changed "torture" to "interrogation", because "interrogation" is the word which is used in the notable claim i.e. Cheney's statements. – ChrisW Dec 12 '14 at 14:25
  • 1
    I removed references to "Guantanamo": a) because it's not the BBC article you referenced; b) because it exists but is not prominent in the Senate report when I skimmed it (I haven't read it); c) because the senate report starts with e.g. Abu Zubaydah, however http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation_of_Abu_Zubaydah implies that much of his "interrogation" happened at a "black site" in Thailand. – ChrisW Dec 12 '14 at 14:28
  • I added a quote from the article which claims that "He knew the techniques". That's pretty specific. – ChrisW Dec 12 '14 at 14:29
  • @ChrisW Thank you. These are all very good edits that I think helps the question tremendously. :) – Zibbobz Dec 12 '14 at 14:30
  • 1
    Cheny also said "I didn't read the report" so... – Jasmine Dec 12 '14 at 16:57
  • 2
    And, average Americans have been aware of this torture for a long time, and people have been protesting it and calling for Gitmo to be closed and so on. So, whether he was specifically informed about specific cases of torture kind of doesn't matter - EVERYBODY KNEW ABOUT IT, including the president. – Jasmine Dec 12 '14 at 16:59
  • 1
    Closing this as unanswerable -- "how much did someone know" is not a factual question at all. Not all that we are told is considered believable or information, thus what we "know" is something personal and unmeasurable. – Sklivvz Dec 20 '14 at 15:10

0 Answers0