One of the top four books about the Bush Administration, it should be required reading for every citizen.

How timely that I finished this books days before the recent release of the (partially) declassified CIA report on torture practices under the Bush administration. The Dark Side is a narrative account, week by week following 9/11, of the Bush administration’s policy-making, legal maneuvering, and responses to growing public outcries against what was put into practice in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and dozens of other “black” sites around the world. What emerges from this investigative reporting (the book won the Lukas Prize from Columbia University) is the story of how Cheney, Bush, and their lawyers basically ignored federal and international laws concerning torture through a series of highly classified “legal” documents expanding the Executive Branch’s wartime powers beyond anything ever seen in the United States. The accounts of what these policy changes allowed to happen to detainees at the hands of the CIA, FBI, outside contractors, and US military are harrowing and infuriating, including explicit descriptions of specific acts of torture, indefinite detention of innocent US and world citizens, “rendition” of detainees to other countries know to engage in torture, and murder.

The other main theme of Mayer’s book is that contrary to the Bush administration’s line that acts of abuse and torture were committed by a few rogue agents, the base for and explicit approval of the illegal practices originated from within the administration. Mayer uses documents in the public record (many declassified through the Freedom of Information Act), and first-hand witness accounts (some on record, others anonymous) to demonstrate that not only did Cheney, Bush, Cheney’s Chief of Staff David Addington, John Yoo from the corrupted Office of Legal Council, and countless others originate and knowingly work to promote use of torture, but that they explicitly approved its use on a regular basis, and later sought to protect themselves against future prosecution. This shaky legal framework is still in place to some extent – while Obama has said he will revoke many of the Executive Orders and legal documents, there is no way of knowing what remains, as many of the documents are still classified as top secret . Furthermore, the practice of rendition continues to be used by US government agencies, and hundreds of uncharged men and women remain in custody. To say this book was a disturbing read is an understatement, but Mayer’s use of a narrative structure ties together the thousands of disparate facts, legal arguments, and quotes in a highly engaging and logical manner, making it a read that is difficult to put down. Frequent descriptions of extreme acts of cruelty and torture, explicit language in quotes, discussions of methods of sexual humiliation and abuse, and a disturbing photograph from Abu Ghraib.

haven't read this yet. it's maddening that the "to read" tag disappeared!

Jane Mayer's chilling descriptions of the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath are eerily good. She notes that Bush Co. knew about the attacks and did nothing about them, as they wanted a pretext for war. Mayer also makes the case that every American should know and believe: that Bush Co. should be tried as war criminals. The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals is a book that every American should read. ( )

The title of this book comes from a statement of Cheney: "Now we are going to have to go to the dark side." Cheney still believes that torture is necessary, that Obama, by forgoing torture, is putting Americans at risk. Mayer has collected extensive data on torture and extraordinary renditions, and she does not pull any punches. She makes it plain that torture does not work; when tortured, many people will tell authentic sounding lies just to stop the pain. ( )

Very well done, full of details, will probably make you sick to read the kind of things recently done in our country. ( )

Quite engaging, although I have no way of judging how accurate or truthful it is. I tend to trust it about - say - 80%? Perhaps 75%? Which is pretty good for a book of its type. But I couldn't say why, other than the fact that it appeared as one of the NY Times' best books. Certainly after reading it I felt much better informed about the actual processes that happen inside the White House. ( )

Quite engaging, although I have no way of judging how accurate or truthful it is. I tend to trust it about - say - 80%? Perhaps 75%? Which is pretty good for a book of its type. But I couldn't say why, other than the fact that it appeared as one of the NY Times' best books. Certainly after reading it I felt much better informed about the actual processes that happen inside the White House. ( )

The idealogues are infuriating and the torture descriptions nauseating, but this is an extremely well-reported book, exhaustive yet often gripping. Essential reading for anyone seeking a more complete account of America's most recent (and most heinous?) fall from grace. ( )

If you have not read this book, PLEASE DO SO AT ONCE. It is absolutely essential. ( )

This is an important book for people to understand what has happened to prisoners in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But be aware, it is very painful to read - I found that I needed to read it in small doses. ( )

A very informative and disturbing read, but well worth it. Also great case history of extremism and how noble ideas (i.e. protecting America against terrorist attack) can go array. Checks and balances are what the American government is all about (in theory). Lets hope we are now on a better track. ( )

I resisted reading this book for a while, but felt it was one of those books I HAD to read, as an American citizen, to know the worst about my government in order help to elect better ones. The book was hard to read, both for the occasional and in this case NOT gratuitous depictions of torture, and to see what fear did to this nation that has not ever before, as a policy, used coercive interrogations. Mayer makes that clear by giving a brief history. George Washington insisted on humane treatment of British prisoners of war, and that tradition continued with the U.S. in the forefront in creating treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.

All that was turned on its head after 9/11. After that, captured terrorists were subject to extraordinary rendition, in which some were taken to foreign countries to be tortured for information, while others were tortured in prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The story of how it happened is complex, and sickening... a combination of fear and incompetence. Policy on this, as on so many things, was mostly set by VP Dick Cheney and his legal adviser, David Addington. Both are authoritarian personality figures who do what they believe is right and don't listen to anyone advocating something different. Addington's response is usually to shout down the opposing opinion.

One interesting thing that Mayer points out is that it was a quite small circle of people setting torture policy and that only Addington was a lawyer. Of course John Yoo, who wrote the infamous torture memo while on staff in the Office of Legal Council (OLC), was a lawyer as well, but other lawyers have said that his work was badly done. Jack Goldsmith, who was head of OLC later, thought it was so deeply flawed that he withdrew it, and that was something that had not been done before (I also recommend Goldsmith's book, The Terror Presidency, on this subject). What OLC says is so important because they are the standard bearer for any administration on legal matters, and what they say goes.

The Dark Side is also frightening it its depiction of sheer incompetence. At the time of 9/11, the CIA had not done interrogations for years, and had few experts in it. At first, they used some of the FBI's interragaters, who were experienced and did not use torture because they knew that information from torture was unreliable -it might be accurate, it might be lies, and you don't know which is which. They had interragaters who were experts in Muslim culture and who were used at the beginning, but the powers that be thought that information wasn't coming fast enough and handed the interrogations over to the CIA who was told to use any means necessary to get information and get it quickly. The CIA retro-engineered the SERE program, which was used to teach soldiers and agents to withstand torture and began using those techniques to torture.

All of this was done with doubtful legal and moral justifications. Mayer uses that marvelous quote from Nietzsche "He who does battle with monsters needs to watch out lest he in the process becomes a monster himself. And if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss will stare right back at you." There seems to be some indicatons that many of those who tortured developed psychological problems themselves. There were also heroes in this battle, as Mayers is quick to acknowledge. See her summary in the afterward:

"In looking back, one of the most remarkable features of this struggle is that almost from the start, and at almost every turn along the way, the Bush administration was warned that the short-term benefits of its extralegal approach to fighting terrorism would have tragically destructive long-term consequences both for the rule of law and America's interests in the world. Those warnings came not from just political opponents, but also from experienced allies, including the British Intelligence Service, the experts in the traditionally conservative military and the FBI, and, perhaps most surprisingly, from a series of loyal Republican lawyers inside the administration itself. The number of patriotic critics inside the administration and out who threw themselves into trying to head off what they saw as a terrible departure from America's ideals, often at an enormous price to their own careers, is both humbling and reassuring." (p. 327).

This book, along with others such as Barton Gellman's Angler, will be very important to historians trying to understand an administration that went so wrong in so many ways, and to those who, as citizens, want to understand so as to elect better governments. Besides, it is a story to stand up with any epic, a story of heroes and villains, as well as people simply trying to do their best for their country in a dangerous and uncertain world. Excellent and highly recommended read. ( )

A comprehensive, well researched, well documented book about the United States' descent into the circle of nations that torture as a matter of policy. Mayer does not study the institutions that practice torture themselves (the CIA, the Pentagon), rather, she skillfully describes the day-to-day struggles of people within them to establish or to tear apart the policy of institutionalized torture.

The Dark Side is a very measured book. It doesn't speculate, it doesn't argue, it just presents the facts that have slowly emerged on the topic. It's not an angry book, yet as I read it I couldn't help but feel anger, and fear of the fragility of our rights. ( )

‘The Dark Side’ by Jane Mayer tells one of the most profoundly disturbing stories that I have ever read. Mayer details how the Bush Administration led America to what VP Dick Cheney called ‘the dark side’ in order to fight terrorism. A small coterie of officials at the highest level of the administration took this country down a path that ignored and thus destroyed the rule of law. Whether the damage is permanent remains to be seen.

Here are some of the most salient points:

Mayer confirms what others have asserted: that Cheney runs the national security apparatus. At least in this realm, Cheney operates like the prime minister. What is less known is the extraordinary power exercised by his legal counsel, David Addington. Cheney and Addington share a belief in an extreme view of the proper powers of the President in the national security area. In their view, the President has no limits on his power. None. Cheney used 9/11 to snatch greatly increased power for the executive.

To be fair, the top officials felt a huge personal responsibility to protect the US from another terrorist attack. One can only imagine the burden. This burden caused them to act out of fear and panic. Any action that might help reduce the chances of another attack even by a small amount was worth doing. They acted as if they and all Americans were cowering weaklings willing to jettison liberty for security. As Ben Franklin’s aphorism concluded, we got neither.

As a lawyer, I found it personally distressing that lawyers played the key role in providing the ‘golden shield’ of legal immunity for all manner of horrific acts in the quest for ‘actionable intelligence’. Lawyers, especially government lawyers, are supposed to tell their clients ‘no’ when a proposed action crosses the line into criminality. A handful of lawyers, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Addington in particular, always gave their bosses the answer they wanted, ‘yes, we can torture, spy, kidnap, hold secret prisoners in secret prisons without charges’.

A few lawyers within the administration did resist. When Jack Goldsmith the newly appointed head of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel discovered John Yoo’s secret ‘torture memo’, he moved successfully to get it revoked. Less known is that after Goldsmith left under extreme pressure, a new memo authorizing torture was issued by Steven Bradbury. Most other lawyers either caved in to Addington’s bullying intimidation or were simply cut out.

Mayer’s triumph was getting so many people to talk to her both on and off the record about closely held administration secrets. The reliance on unnamed sources necessarily forces the reader to place a certain amount of faith in Mayer’s judgment (although certainly not to the extent of Bob Woodward).

Mayer established that the US killed several subjects during interrogation and kidnapped (‘extraordinary rendition’) at least 8 entirely innocent people, tortured them, and held them in secret prisons. Mayer was able to establish that one of these people was held on the ‘hunch’ of the head of the CIA’s al Qaeda unit and was not finally released until weeks after it was clear he was just had the same name as a wanted suspect. The fate of the other seven is unknown.

Did torture, kidnapping and illegal detentions work? Was it worth it? Should we do these things even they do work? Mayer’s judgment, which I share, is ‘no’ on all counts. Some in the CIA claim that ‘this stuff works’, a claim that is difficult to evaluate given the extreme secrecy. The claims of success, of course, are made by those close to the torture and have not been subjected to any independent evaluation. Based on what we do know, even possibly sound information was tainted as a byproduct of torture. Information from tortured witnesses lacks credibility by its very nature.

Beyond dispute is the affect the torture and kidnapping regime had on America’s reputation. It will take at least a generation to recover it. Perhaps most worrisome is that these actions will serve as a precedent for future administrations, which only criminal prosecutions would obviate. Mayer provides the basis for the indictments. Highest recommendation if you can stomach it. ( )

The title should have been more discriptive - "The Dark Side" was spoken by VP Chaney
in conjunction with his secret and underhanded methods of making the Bush Presidency
secret along with David Addington, his Asst. and with Geo Tenet, John Yo and others; allobstensibly for the War on Terror ( )

This book is exceptionally well written. Even though I had a broad familiarity with the subject matter, this book nonetheless made me feel like I was looking at an old story with fresh eyes. If the seemingly relentless onslaught of governmental malfeasance over the last few years has left you somewhat anesthetized, Jane Mayer makes a noble effort to rekindle your outrage.

The tone of The Dark Side is, above all, supremely confident. There is a discernable absence of sentiment, as well as a disinclination to speculate. The story of how America re-established itself as a nation that is comfortable with cruelty is told with crisp efficiency. Additionally, Ms. Mayer has pulled this off without resorting to advocacy. This is the work of a professional journalist, not a pundit with an ideological score to settle. ( )