U.S. Lt. Gen.Ricardo Sanchez Commits Perjury?

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez telling some dirty lies to the Congress during testimony:


[quote](U.S. Senator Jack Reed) REED: Thank you. General Sanchez, today’s USA Today, sir, reported that you ordered or approved the use of sleep deprivation, intimidation by guard dogs, excessive noise and inducing fear as an interrogation method for a prisoner in Abu Ghraib prison.

REED: Is that correct?

SANCHEZ: Sir, that may be correct that it’s in a news article, but I never approved any of those measures to be used within CJTF-7 at any time in the last year.

REED: Excuse me. Because I want to get back to this.

It may be correct that you ordered those methods used against a prisoner. Is that your answer?

SANCHEZ: No, sir, that’s not what I said. I said it may be correct…

REED: Well, I didn’t hear; that’s why I want…

SANCHEZ: … that it’s printed in an article, but I have never approved the use of any of those methods within CJTF-7 in the 12.5 months that I’ve been in Iraq. [/quote]

However, this is completely refuted by a memo newly released by the ACLU:

[quote]The Sanchez memo dated September 14, 2003, specifically allows for interrogation techniques involving the use of military dogs specifically to "Exploit(s) Arab fear of dogs

Interesting article here as well, from the Washington Times. Does this mean that the DOJ will be shamed into taking some sort of action eventually?


[quote]The American Civil Liberties Union Thursday asked U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for a perjury investigation of the former theater commander in Iraq.

There was no immediate comment from the Justice Department.

The ACLU said a newly released memo sent by Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez flatly contradicts his sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in which he denied authorizing highly coercive interrogation methods of detainees.[/quote]

I initially thought it was a bit strange that the ACLU is getting into the middle of this except, perhaps, for the fact that civil liberties of American citizens have been under fire from the Bush administration. I doubt the DOJ will do much, given that the DOJ is itself under fire for its indefinite detentions and other behavior.


[quote]"Lt. Gen. Sanchez

Do you really think the Bush govt will go after one of its own?

I have my doubts. Note that the reaction to the Valerie Plame outing was to immediately go after two unrelated journalists, allowing Bush administration officials and Robert Novak free to continue their activities.

The Robert Novak incident, i almost forgot about that. I dont know how he could still be walking freely after what he did. I dont think it matters who leaked the info about her, he should have known that releasing it was wrong and should go to jail for doing so. But i guess the laws about that stuff only work when they are in their favor.

I bet that the DOJ doesn’t even touch this case – after all, the new Attorney General is exactly the sort of guy who apparently thinks torture is fine and that the president is above the law.

Whoa, hold on… Novak shouldn’t go to jail for printing the classified information that 2 Bussh administration officials told him. The people who should go to jail are the two people who committed the crime of telling Novak. Novak witnessed a crime, he did not commit one. (Reporters ought to report crimes they witness, ESPECIALLY when committed by government officials.) Now if, after all other means fail, investigators decide they can’t figure out who leaked the info without Novak’s testimony (he witnessed the commission of a crime) and Novak then refuses to name names, then an argument can be made that he ought to go to jail for aiding and abbetting. But not for printing the truth.

As to whether Mr. Sanchez will be held accountable, I expect the people may have to get their grievances redressed through the civil courts on this matter.

Novaks duty would have been to make public the two who gave up the info about the CIA agent rather than her identity. It is illegal to give the identity of a spy, there are those who knew who she was and him who told the world. All of them knew it was illegal what they were doing. So instead of doing the right thing and reporting the break in security by those who are giving up her name, he decided to publish it. Thats not reporting the news.

Good questions. What on earth was Novak thinking? Whether or not he technically could do so, why would he take some adminstration officials’ statement and then use it to ruin a perfectly good spy? I mean, we’re talking about decades of involvement around the world through her husband’s several postings. We’re also talking about endangering the lives of dozens of people with whom Valerie Plame was directly in contact.

My guess is that there are people who are being tortured in third-world countries because they had tea with Valerie Plame once or twice back in the 1990s or 1980s. They’re probably sitting just a cell or two away from people we’ve sent to those nations for “questioning”.

With the administration looking to throw completely unrelated journalists into prison in this “Plame game”, Sanchez is probably going to get a complete pass on this. My bet is that the Bush adminstration will export Sanchez to some of these third-world countries so he can teach them more effective ways to ensure maximum pain with minimal marks. [/i]