Scan barcode
mrswhite's review against another edition
5.0
"He who does battle with monsters needs to watch out lest he in the process becomes a monster himself." - Friedrich Nietzsche
In reaction to Britain's brutal treatment of American prisoners of war, George Washington vowed that this new Democracy would "take a higher road." Thus, the U.S. military doctrine was born, based upon the belief that "Brutality undermines military discipline and strengthens the enemy's resolve, while displays of humanity could be used to tactical advantage." Since its inception, this doctrine has certainly been tried, sometimes quite strenuously, but it has remained a fundamental tenet of American government since our country's birth. Remained, that is, until the events of September 11, 2001.
The attacks of Al Qaeda spun America into a state of chaos and fear, and in this atmosphere came the decision to abandon some of our country's most fundamental beliefs. Hell-bent on revenge and terrified of further attacks, White House officials deemed it necessary to throw out the old rule book in favor of their own set of rules. Despite evidence that torture only produces uncooperative prisoners and questionable information, the Bush Administration felt certain it was the only way to stop further acts of terrorism. Surrounding themselves with lawyers charged with seeking out the legal loopholes that would grant the military carte blanche, it was in these dark days when a new doctrine was born - one which ignored the Article 5 Tribunals, The Geneva Convention, and the Constitution itself in favor of arresting, detaining, torturing, and even killing anyone with suspected connections to terrorism, no matter how tenuous those connections may have been.
On January 27, 2005, President George W. Bush, speaking to a New York Times reporter, said, "torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that torture." But while speaking these words, thousands of prisoners were currently being held without due process in one of America's "black sites," Gulag-like prisons hosted by as many as eight countries, including Afghanistan; Iraq; Cuba; and, allegedly; fledgling democracies such as Poland and Romania. Inside these ghost prisons lurked a secret horror show of abuse where "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures were often applied by untrained and unqualified guards to prisoners who may or may not have had any information to give. What little information was gained was either false or forever clouded by suspicion due to the method in which it was obtained, and in hindsight it's this false information procured by torture that mistakenly connected the events of 9/11 to Iraq.
Perhaps "essential reading" is a distinction too easily granted to too many books, but after reading Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, it struck me that this is a case when it is certainly appropriately-applied. Meticulously researched and masterfully written, Mayer provides a non-partisan narrative of how America lost its way in the aftermath of September 11th. Resisting the urge to infuse her own commentary, Mayer lets the events spanning from the attacks of September 11 to the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal speak for themselves, lending the narrative an unmistakable air of credibility. Of course, this also makes the story all the more repugnant.
Like most politically aware Americans, I remember being confused at how an attack by a Afghan-based terrorist cell could lead to a war in Iraq, was aware of the goings on at Guantanamo Bay, and was appropriately shocked when the Abu Ghraib story broke, but reading the finer details of these events alongside their causes and effects was both eye-opening and overwhelming. But though unpleasant, this is a story that demands to be heard, especially now when elections can and should be used to bring events such as these to light. Mayer's story is gripping, intensely troubling, and an absolutely necessary reminder of why we Americans deserve better leadership. I'd strongly encourage each and every one of you to read it.
In reaction to Britain's brutal treatment of American prisoners of war, George Washington vowed that this new Democracy would "take a higher road." Thus, the U.S. military doctrine was born, based upon the belief that "Brutality undermines military discipline and strengthens the enemy's resolve, while displays of humanity could be used to tactical advantage." Since its inception, this doctrine has certainly been tried, sometimes quite strenuously, but it has remained a fundamental tenet of American government since our country's birth. Remained, that is, until the events of September 11, 2001.
The attacks of Al Qaeda spun America into a state of chaos and fear, and in this atmosphere came the decision to abandon some of our country's most fundamental beliefs. Hell-bent on revenge and terrified of further attacks, White House officials deemed it necessary to throw out the old rule book in favor of their own set of rules. Despite evidence that torture only produces uncooperative prisoners and questionable information, the Bush Administration felt certain it was the only way to stop further acts of terrorism. Surrounding themselves with lawyers charged with seeking out the legal loopholes that would grant the military carte blanche, it was in these dark days when a new doctrine was born - one which ignored the Article 5 Tribunals, The Geneva Convention, and the Constitution itself in favor of arresting, detaining, torturing, and even killing anyone with suspected connections to terrorism, no matter how tenuous those connections may have been.
On January 27, 2005, President George W. Bush, speaking to a New York Times reporter, said, "torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that torture." But while speaking these words, thousands of prisoners were currently being held without due process in one of America's "black sites," Gulag-like prisons hosted by as many as eight countries, including Afghanistan; Iraq; Cuba; and, allegedly; fledgling democracies such as Poland and Romania. Inside these ghost prisons lurked a secret horror show of abuse where "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme temperatures were often applied by untrained and unqualified guards to prisoners who may or may not have had any information to give. What little information was gained was either false or forever clouded by suspicion due to the method in which it was obtained, and in hindsight it's this false information procured by torture that mistakenly connected the events of 9/11 to Iraq.
Perhaps "essential reading" is a distinction too easily granted to too many books, but after reading Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, it struck me that this is a case when it is certainly appropriately-applied. Meticulously researched and masterfully written, Mayer provides a non-partisan narrative of how America lost its way in the aftermath of September 11th. Resisting the urge to infuse her own commentary, Mayer lets the events spanning from the attacks of September 11 to the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib scandal speak for themselves, lending the narrative an unmistakable air of credibility. Of course, this also makes the story all the more repugnant.
Like most politically aware Americans, I remember being confused at how an attack by a Afghan-based terrorist cell could lead to a war in Iraq, was aware of the goings on at Guantanamo Bay, and was appropriately shocked when the Abu Ghraib story broke, but reading the finer details of these events alongside their causes and effects was both eye-opening and overwhelming. But though unpleasant, this is a story that demands to be heard, especially now when elections can and should be used to bring events such as these to light. Mayer's story is gripping, intensely troubling, and an absolutely necessary reminder of why we Americans deserve better leadership. I'd strongly encourage each and every one of you to read it.
waynediane's review against another edition
4.0
Very, Very detailed almost felt redundant - but that was how bad it really was during the CHENEY BUSH years. I am surprise they have not yet been tried with war crimes. It is a good book to read how we forgot how a few bad actors can create change in a country. John Woo should also be tried!
declaun's review against another edition
4.0
This is a sobering account into lack of accountability during a tumultuous post-9/11 era of fear and uncertainty. Jane Mayer chronicles the troubling chain of legal events that supported and outright normalized the practice of systematic torture in the intelligence and some parts of the military communities. Mayer details the logic of re-categorizing enemy combatants and high value targets captured during GWOT in John Yoo's so-called "Torture Memos" to argue for the use of torture for collecting intelligence despite the long cherished international norm of prohibiting torture in any context. For the executive administration at the time, which was heavily influenced by Dick Cheney and David Addington, the Convention Against Torture became a non-issue and all green lights for the use of torture were on despite consistent statements from President G.W. Bush on the contrary. Naturally, there were lawyers, intelligence employees and military personnel who comprehensively resisted the "enhanced interrogation" methods used at the time because they understood the dangerous implications and consequences of the use of torture by the United States. In short, GWOT sacrificed the United States' soul for expediency and progressed measured in a legacy of human rights abuses. The consequences of this legacy are still visible today.
larryerick's review against another edition
5.0
In the concluding chapter, author Jane Mayer states, "...it is clear that what began on September 11, 2001, as a battle for America's security became, and continues to be, a battle for the country's soul." I feel she has failed to give herself full credit for the skill with which she reports on her subject. This is much more than just a difference of opinion on how to protect America. The book does an extraordinary job of showing power manipulation at work. I invite any readers of this book to also read the early part of William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or Joel Brinkley's more contemporary book, Cambodia’s Curse: The Modern History of a Troubled Land, then tell me that the approaches to managing governmental powers are not similar to the actions of the Chaney administration (was Bush ever really in control?) I would offer that Chaney victim, Phillip Zelikow offers a better summary of the book: "Fear and anxiety were exploited by zealots and fools." This is a must read for anyone serious about understanding government at work.
davidsteinsaltz's review against another edition
4.0
Regardless of political preference, few can see the turn of the US from being an international advocate of inalienable human rights to a practitioner and implicit advocate of torture for POWs and terrorist suspects must be seen as one of the most important developments of the new century. Jane Mayer presents the story in a tone of horror -- she is not keeping a balance between the needs of fighting terror and human rights concerns -- at what in her telling is an extraordinary tale of intellectual arrogance (Addington) and disinterest (Bush). A cautionary tale in the fragility of constitutional democracy.
radbear76's review against another edition
5.0
Interesting but very disturbing story of how the U.S. lost its way under Bush.
jjohnsen's review against another edition
4.0
Jane Mayer, a writer for the New Yorker, examines the effect 9/11 and the Bush administration have had on how we gather information for the war on terror, and what people had the most influence on on these revised policies. I expected to be angry after reading this, it's got rave reviews and I knew what I was getting into. But my question at the end seems to be the same question that is asked by many participants (willing and unwilling) in the war on terror interviewed for this book. What does it say about us that we will let terrorists convince us to give up on how we've treated prisoners in the past? What does it say about us that we'll let Presidential and Vice-Presidential power reach extremes that it rarely has in our nations past? Is it worth it to decide we will no longer follow the Geneva Conventions knowing other countries will do the same?
The author combines hundreds of interviews with former administration members, policy makers and members of various military and intelligence communities to show how quickly the Bush administration was able to skirt around laws that have been in effect for 40 years while people were frightened about 9/11. How the Vice President was able to expand the power his office had previously never had. And how the administration eventually found solutions to rights of prisoners by changing what they were called or just sending them to countries that legally torture just so we wouldn't have to (physically) get our hands dirty.
It's all pretty shocking. The most depressing parts were the stories of people that had been falsely accused. One man that had never had contact with terrorists was captured and forced to stand in a cell that was too short to stand up in, but also had 12 inches of water so he couldn't lay down. He wasn't allowed a lawyer because the administration had discovered if they called someone an enemy combatant they didn't have to give them any rights. His testicles were shocked, he was hung by his wrists for days and eventually was let go because the CIA had "made a mistake" concerning his identity.
Another man was locked up and beaten after an airplane manual was found in his hotel room, and he had a Muslim name. After his mistreatment he was eventually let go because the actual pilot that stayed in the room before him returned to reclaim his flight manual.
The book is full of accounts just like this, and all the way the administration kept arguing these people didn't deserve lawyers or even the chance to know what they were being accused of. The book makes it very clear that when George Bush told us in 2005 that "We don't torture" he was lying, and he knew he was lying.
It also goes into how intelligence was gathered before the Iraq war, including the case of the main informer that told the administration there were ties between Al-Quada and Iraq. It turns out many of the people in the FBI didn't beleive what he was saying because he couldn't ive any hard fact, but the administration was so eager to find a tie, they ignored it. He later said his confession was just lies and it was the only way he could think to get out of the torture they were giving him every day.
Eventually by the end of the book we find out almost half of the prisoners that were tortured and imprisoned were let go, no charges were ever filed, and nothing could be found tying them to harming the United States. An analyst for Guantanamo Bay figured about 30% of the prisoners that were tortured were falsely accused and totally innocent, and later the General in charge of Guantanamo said he estimated over half had never done a thing to the United States.
I've complained before about fear and how I think the fear of 9/11 made us worse as a nation, and this book shows why. Fear caused the administration to break laws, fear led them to do disgusting things to other human beings, and fear gave them the ability to convince other lawmakers that what they were doing was right.
It's a powerful and horrible book.
The author combines hundreds of interviews with former administration members, policy makers and members of various military and intelligence communities to show how quickly the Bush administration was able to skirt around laws that have been in effect for 40 years while people were frightened about 9/11. How the Vice President was able to expand the power his office had previously never had. And how the administration eventually found solutions to rights of prisoners by changing what they were called or just sending them to countries that legally torture just so we wouldn't have to (physically) get our hands dirty.
It's all pretty shocking. The most depressing parts were the stories of people that had been falsely accused. One man that had never had contact with terrorists was captured and forced to stand in a cell that was too short to stand up in, but also had 12 inches of water so he couldn't lay down. He wasn't allowed a lawyer because the administration had discovered if they called someone an enemy combatant they didn't have to give them any rights. His testicles were shocked, he was hung by his wrists for days and eventually was let go because the CIA had "made a mistake" concerning his identity.
Another man was locked up and beaten after an airplane manual was found in his hotel room, and he had a Muslim name. After his mistreatment he was eventually let go because the actual pilot that stayed in the room before him returned to reclaim his flight manual.
The book is full of accounts just like this, and all the way the administration kept arguing these people didn't deserve lawyers or even the chance to know what they were being accused of. The book makes it very clear that when George Bush told us in 2005 that "We don't torture" he was lying, and he knew he was lying.
It also goes into how intelligence was gathered before the Iraq war, including the case of the main informer that told the administration there were ties between Al-Quada and Iraq. It turns out many of the people in the FBI didn't beleive what he was saying because he couldn't ive any hard fact, but the administration was so eager to find a tie, they ignored it. He later said his confession was just lies and it was the only way he could think to get out of the torture they were giving him every day.
Eventually by the end of the book we find out almost half of the prisoners that were tortured and imprisoned were let go, no charges were ever filed, and nothing could be found tying them to harming the United States. An analyst for Guantanamo Bay figured about 30% of the prisoners that were tortured were falsely accused and totally innocent, and later the General in charge of Guantanamo said he estimated over half had never done a thing to the United States.
I've complained before about fear and how I think the fear of 9/11 made us worse as a nation, and this book shows why. Fear caused the administration to break laws, fear led them to do disgusting things to other human beings, and fear gave them the ability to convince other lawmakers that what they were doing was right.
It's a powerful and horrible book.
danchibnall's review against another edition
5.0
Flat out fantastic. Mayer really did her homework when writing this book. I had heard reviews before I read this book claiming it provided some of the best analysis of the Bush administration to date. It's true.
The book focuses on extraordinary rendition and how the Bush Justice department, CIA, and Pentagon worked to create their own little war with its own rules and laws. In a way, these men have created their own kingdom on planet Earth. It's quite sad, and the main architect of most of this is the Vice President and his lawyer and chief-of-staff, David Addington. Look him up if you've never heard of him before. He's a pretty terrible guy.
There has been plenty written about the ills and abuses of this president and his henchmen, but this one really steals the show. Most of the book will make you either cringe or scream with anger, which is a good thing because good writing is supposed to move you.
The book focuses on extraordinary rendition and how the Bush Justice department, CIA, and Pentagon worked to create their own little war with its own rules and laws. In a way, these men have created their own kingdom on planet Earth. It's quite sad, and the main architect of most of this is the Vice President and his lawyer and chief-of-staff, David Addington. Look him up if you've never heard of him before. He's a pretty terrible guy.
There has been plenty written about the ills and abuses of this president and his henchmen, but this one really steals the show. Most of the book will make you either cringe or scream with anger, which is a good thing because good writing is supposed to move you.
gswain's review against another edition
4.0
I wasn't a huge fan of the writing style. But lots of important information for every American to know. Not just what we did then but how easy it is for a few strong personalities to take over the government.
jcschildbach's review against another edition
5.0
This book is "must" reading for anybody who really wants to know what was going on during the "war on terror" under the Cheney Administration, oops, I mean Bush II Administration. I remember a lot of the mainstream media coverage of the allegations of torture, and of the various legal wranglings that took place around the issues covered in this book--and realize now just how shallow most of that coverage was. Mayer goes into deep detail about who drafted what policies and laws, as well as the consequences of those policies and laws--with some rather graphic descriptions of torture that took place against alleged terror suspects--including some who were not known to have any connections to any terrorist groups, or to otherwise have shown any indication that they might know anything about terror plots. The book is truly disturbing in terms of just how far Cheney was willing to push the law and attempt to take control of powers well outside the purvue of the President, much less the Vice President. What is even more disturbing is how he pulled in a group of appointees to assist him in deliberately mangling legal reasoning to justify his wish-list of illegal spying, detainment and torture. It was heartening, though, to realize that there were a number of people within all branches of the government and the military, including numerous people who identify themselves as conservative Republicans, and even members of the Bush Administration, who stood up to try and prevent the abuses, and then to try to overturn the abuses, and then to try to correct the abuses, all while Cheney and his team attempted to gut any reforms, and continually drafted new opinions, policies, and laws stating their behavior was legal and they could not be prosecuted no matter what anybody else said, whether that anybody else was Congress, the Supreme Court, etc., etc. Mayer makes a highly political and complicated chain of events an exciting read.