About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Limbaugh falsely suggested that "9-11 Commission didn't say anything about" torture

December 08, 2005 8:04 pm ET
image

Please upgrade your flash player. The audio for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a MP3 version of the audio.

SUMMARY: On his radio program, Rush Limbaugh falsely suggested that the "9-11 Commission didn't say anything" about "[t]his whole picture of the U.S. as a torturous, torturing, barbaric institution." In fact, the 9-11 Commission's final report called for the U.S. government to "engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists."

12 Comments

On the December 6 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely suggested that the "9-11 Commission didn't say anything" about "[t]his whole picture of the U.S. as a torturous, torturing, barbaric institution." He asked: "Was there anything about torture from the 9-11 [Commission]?" In fact, the commission's final report, released on July 22, 2004, called for the U.S. government to "engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists." A recent report from the former 9-11 Commission members gave the government a failing grade on accomplishing this recommendation, in part based on the "broad criticism" of American detention policies.

The 9-11 Commission's final report specifically suggested looking at Article 3 of the "Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict" for "new principles":

Recommendation: The United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on the law of armed conflict. That article was specifically designed for those cases in which the usual laws of war did not apply. Its minimum standards are generally accepted throughout the world as customary international law.

Article 3 of the "Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" states, in part, that "[v]iolence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "[o]utrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment" "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to" prisoners of war.

After releasing their final report, the 9-11 Commission's members formed a private nonprofit group, the 9-11 Public Discourse Project (PDP), to monitor the government's progress in addressing the commission's recommendations. The 9-11 PDP's November 14 "status" report strongly criticized the performance of the U.S. government on the subject of their previous detainee treatment recommendation. The report noted that "[t]he U.S. government's treatment of captured terrorists, including the detention and prosecution of suspected terrorists in military prisons and secret detention centers abroad, as well as reports on the abuse of detainees, have elicited criticism from around the globe," specifically highlighting recent Defense Department efforts to "provide important guidance for the U.S. military on detention and interrogation standards for captured terrorists, reportedly drawing upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions." The report also noted that the Senate overwhelmingly approved Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) amendment to a defense appropriations bill banning "'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' of any detainee in U.S. custody." Creating internationally acceptable detainee treatment policies, the PDP report continued, will facilitate cooperation against terrorism:

Why this is still important: Dissension either at home or abroad on how the United States treats captured terrorists only makes it harder to build the diplomatic, political and military alliances necessary to fight the war on terror effectively. The closer our detention policies can be to international law, the closer can be our cooperation with international partners on other aspects of counterterrorism strategy.

The report called for treatment policies that adhere closely to international legal standards:

What still needs to be done: Administration policies that provide standards for captured terrorists in accordance with international law should be adopted. These standards should cover the treatment of detainees held by all elements of the U.S. government. The U.S. should work with its allies to develop mutually acceptable standards for terrorist detention.

In its final report, the 9-11 PDP gave the government's efforts to create a "common coalition approach" to detainee treatment a failing grade, specifically citing "broad criticism" of "U.S. treatment of detainees" as evidence:

The U.S. has not engaged in a common coalition approach to developing standards for detention and prosecution of captured terrorists. Indeed, U.S. treatment of detainees has elicited broad criticism, and makes it harder to build the necessary alliances to cooperate effectively with partners in a global war on terror.

From the December 6 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: We're too -- our priorities here don't seem to make any sense in any shape, manner, or form. I'm talking about the U.S. Congress, the Democratic Party. While all this is going on, the Democrats are out there applauding: "Yes, this is what the -- we need to do." We got [Sen.] John Kerry [D-MA] going on television Sunday talking about how our soldiers terrorize Iraqi women and children, sneaking into their homes under the cover of darkness. This whole picture of the U.S. as a torturous, torturing, barbaric institution is taking hold among Democrats and, apparently, some Republicans. And it's taking up all of our congressional time. And it's gotten to the point now, we're gonna talk about granting them constitutional rights after 9-11? 9-11 Commission didn't say anything about this, did it? Was there anything about torture from the 9-11? What a joke anyway. This group coming out, giving everybody report cards. Let's give them a report card. I'll tell you who gets an F right now -- [9-11 Commission member and former Clinton Justice Department official] Jamie Gorelick. She shouldn't have been on that commission. She gets an F for her conduct. She gets an F for the way she served the country during the Clinton administra -- how did they get off scot-free in the Clinton administration, anyway, in all this?

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by blahdblah (December 09, 2005 2:53 am ET)
         
      What is wrong with these people? Seriously. What supposedly seperates us from terrorists is that we live by the rule of law. And that we respect human rights and dignity,even a terrorists. We cannot abandon our ideals in times of trouble,in fact we should stand by them even more steadfastly. It is what makes us better than them. Leave it to the right to bring Clinton into this too. Christ, I am sick of hearing this crap. The man hasn't been in office for FIVE YEARS and they still have to use him as their boogeyman. Why is only Gorelick singled out for abuse,when there are Republicans on the 9/11 cover-up commission who support these ideas also? We must hold ourselves accountable, and guard against sliding down a slippery slope in the name of defeating terrorism. What good does it do if we abandon our ideals to do so?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (December 09, 2005 4:35 pm ET)
           
        Standing by your ideals when it is easy means nothing. If you dont have moral courage when it is hard you just dont have it
        Report Abuse
        • Author by lodi (December 10, 2005 4:24 am ET)
             
          Moral courage is very easy for someone sitting home, in front of their TV watching the war on CNN as you are and fighting "battles" on your keyboard. It becomes more difficult when you're in the war zone, fighting for your country, and your own life as our soldiers are, while morally courageous individuals like yourself dictate the "rules" under which the soldier must fight, which makes his or her fight more difficult, and their survival more suspect. Yes, you are indeed morally courageous, I am in awe!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by irked (December 09, 2005 3:58 am ET)
         
      Rule 1: Swiftboat your critics.

      Rule 2: If Rule #1 is unsuccessful, blame Clinton.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by skulker (December 09, 2005 11:26 am ET)
         
      You really don't have to keep saying that
      Limbaugh falsely suggested
      in any article about him. All you need to do is say he opened his mouth then we know to insert that statement automatically.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (December 09, 2005 1:53 pm ET)
         
      Could you please stop using the words "falsely suggested" and use the correct term, "lied?"
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jsmi (December 09, 2005 2:13 pm ET)
         
      Anyone else notice that when he can't think of an intelligent criticism of the 9-11 commission he just starts rambling about clinton? He doesn't try to discredit the red cross report Kerry based his comment on, doesn't try to claim that we aren't torturing, his only criticism is that "it's taking up all of our congressional time." God forbid a government created by a document designed to preserve human rights should actually spend time protecting those rights. (Notice they're human rights, not American rights, not christian rights, not non-terrorist rights... people don't become animals when you disagree with them)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (December 09, 2005 8:15 pm ET)
         
      if limbaugh actually read the 9-11 report he would know why the clinton administration got off "scot-free". it's because the commission staff looked at the huge amount of material that showed that there was a lot of attention paid to the problem of terrorism by clinton. some republicans complained he was obsessed with terroism, but you can give me obsessed over the total lack of concern by bush on the issue. i always contend that had the bush administration been paying the slightest attention when the "system was blinking red" [chapter 8 of the 9-11 report], this attack might have been avoided.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (December 09, 2005 8:32 pm ET)
           
        limbaugh continues the rightwing attack on jamie gorelick who supposedly built the "wall" that prevented intelligence sharing. here's what the commission said on the subject page 79: "although attorney general reno's procedures did not include such a provision, the office [of intelligence policy and review] assumed the role anyway, arguing that it's position reflected the concerns of judge royce lamberth, then chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court". must been some liberal judge blocking the flow of information, huh? well, no. judge lamberth was appointed by reagan.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (December 09, 2005 8:44 pm ET)
         
      And he's not popping an Oyxcontin in it or swilling beer, Rush is lying or warming his vocal cords in preparation to lie. Limbaugh is German for "congenital liar" .
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rrastro (December 09, 2005 10:42 pm ET)
         
      september eleventh was revenge for torture yet to happen? sure.....
      Report Abuse