Let's start at the beginning, it's a MOVIE and it is not a documentary. Now that I've got that out of my system I'd like to move on to something that matters... and it isn't even if the CIA gave something classified to movie makers.
How about the question of whether the CIA handed disinformation to a movie maker to propagandize the American public? Did Hollywood just take some information and then just make something up or did the CIA tell the movie makers something they didn't tell the Senate? There are a lot of permutations that one could make up to ask about, but what does matter is just exactly what the CIA told them. Considering the amount of absolute horse pucky the government sees fit to classify I won't get my shorts in a twist over that, but the CIA participated in the making of a movie that leaves an untrue and propagandistic impression regarding torture and that counts.
You have no idea how unfortunate I find it that this gives Sen John McPOW more excuses to run around on the TV machine.
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torture. Show all posts
Friday, January 04, 2013
Monday, February 07, 2011
Bush Torture Free Pass Expires - Somewhere
McClatchy is reporting on why GW Bush isn't going to Switzerland. It seems that in some places:
I must be getting old; since I can remember when this country took real pride in not engaging in such behavior...
In fact, you'd wind up in jail - at least.
"The message from civil society is clear," it said in a statement. "If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going."
I must be getting old; since I can remember when this country took real pride in not engaging in such behavior...
In fact, you'd wind up in jail - at least.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Do What GWB?
So now we're all complicit in the actions of BushCo?
I won't inflict the rest of the BS on you, go read it if you want and for a real insight into the Reichwing try the comments.
Considering how unhinged the Right is it might be a problem to try these cretins ... but then herd thinning might be ...
Oh, that's right, the Left is disarmed...
"Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush said of the terrorist who master-minded the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. He said that event shaped his presidency and convinced him the nation was in a war against terror.
"I'd do it again to save lives."
I won't inflict the rest of the BS on you, go read it if you want and for a real insight into the Reichwing try the comments.
Considering how unhinged the Right is it might be a problem to try these cretins ... but then herd thinning might be ...
Oh, that's right, the Left is disarmed...
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Discussion With Joe Finder
I didn't like Joe Finder's NYT OpEd and he challenged me to give him space to defend himself. I have done so and what follows is our discussion, uncut and unedited. It is a bit long as blog posts go, but that is how such a thing as this is done.
******************
Chuck -- First, thanks for affording me the opportunity to argue with you on your blog. I respect that. You're the only blogger/attacker who's taken me up on my offer, and I admire it. Now, have at me.
You call me a "right-wing torture apologist." We'll get to that, but let's start with "What changed?" You say:
"Well, now what changed other than the (D)/(R) in power? ...
Available Information is what changed."
OK -- here's why I think you're not getting my point. I have not found any evidence that Holder’s opinions in 2002 differed in any way from Bush policy, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who explicitly and vocally supported Bush policy and offered no objection whatsoever is, to one degree or another, complicit. Sure, he added that we should treat detainees “humanely” – but so did Rumsfeld and Gonzales. It’s all well and good for him to have raised objections in 2008, when it was politically expedient to do so. But where was he in 2002? Forget about "available information." No: this was a question of morality and the law. I didn't hear Holder saying the detainees should have the right to habeas corpus, did you? Tell me what he said in '02 that differed from what even Colin Powell was saying -- and bear in mind, Colin Powell approved waterboarding.
Your move.
*********************************
Joe,
I’m not confident that Geneva applied to irregular non-uniformed non-governmental combatants as a legal point, that their treatment by the US should have comported with it is beyond doubt for me. The Habeas Corpus debate happened well after 2002 and in my mind anybody who asserted that anyone we held was held as a criminal rather than a POW wasn’t due Habeas is an ass. I have no information that Holder asserted any position on that. I found myself in the middle of a political mess thanks to our Republican Congress that had real fallout for someone it shouldn’t have and that time line was well post 2002. Powell was a complete disaster at State and he’s never been any hero to me, though what State and Holder have in common misses me. Linking the names Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Holder in respect to saying “humanely” is meaningless as an argument since both Rumsfeld and Gonzales were active participants in torture and there is no such information about Holder.
In 2002 the fact of torture was unknown, that in itself is new information, not now but since then when it was secret. Information that the majority of detainees were in fact quite innocent or not prosecutable has been dribbling out over the last couple years after the previous Administration aggressively lied about it and their intentions to try them. Facts about the lying and deceits at Guantanamo are pretty recent. There are some heroes in this play and I don’t argue that Holder was one of them. Arguing that he has no standing as someone with newly minted powers to make change because he didn’t when he had no power to do so is an odd argument, politically speaking. Along with the change in D/R came a change in the power to do something about evidence that emerged post 2002. That’s not climate, that is power – a different thing.
To make your argument regarding Holder you need to lose the 2002 date to keep it even slightly credible or you’re asserting Holder had knowledge of secrets and lying. If you know such a thing there are a lot of heads that need lopping beyond Yoo and fellow cretins. Lawyers with knowledge of criminal activity are required as officers of the court to disclose it to the relevant authority. Under US law and court precedent torture is illegal, period, and waterboarding was prosecuted as a crime and convictions obtained; despite Yoo, et al opinions.
I never mistake the law for morality or conversely. If Holder does, I don’t want him as AG. It may be wishful thinking for the law and sense to have something in common, but morality simply isn’t part of that equation. I believe anyone with knowledge of torture had a moral imperative to oppose it, legally only some meet that imperative as a legal question. But my morality is my own. I can’t question or applaud Holder’s morality because I don’t know what his choices were or knowledge was. If you can show something this would be a good time.
*********************************
Chuck,
I'm afraid you're just flat-out wrong, and this may explain why you disagreed with me so strongly.
1. You're wrong that the habeas corpus debate happened "well after 2002." This is important. The U.S. began taking prisoners to GITMO in January 2002. The first habeas corpus petition for Guantanamo detainees was filed on January 20, 2002 in a federal court in California. Then one was filed on February 19, 2002, by those heroes at the Center for Constitutional Rights. (It wasn't until June 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene vs. Bush, that the detainees had that right -- but lawyers began trying to file habeas petitions just as soon as people began arriving at Guantanamo in January. And the Bush administration made it really hard -- like, they wouldn't even give the lawyers the detainees' names or permit access to them! You think it was an accident that these detainees were being held at the Gitmo naval base, which is not on U.S. territory? That was one of the main reasons the prisoners were being kept there! So let's not pretend that no one was thinking about habeas in 2002. In May 2002 the debate became public in the U.S. And Holder? . . . He said that we had the right to detain them indefinitely!
2. You're wrong if you think the Geneva conventions don't apply to non-uniformed combatants. There are 4 Geneva Conventions. Geneva 4 covers everyone denied POW status even if they participate in hostilities. And Common Article 3 -- which appears in all four Geneva Conventions -- says everyone you're holding in an international conflict is entitled to the basic standards of humane treatment. The Bushies said NONE of Geneva Conventions applied. And Eric Holder didn't disagree. He said nothing about Common Article 3 or Geneva 4.
3. Holder knew nothing about planned torture in 2002, I have no doubt. BUT . . . in January 2002 he said we had the right to detain them indefinitely -- look it up. That doesn't accord with habeas corpus, right? And he said we needed to be able to interrogate them. So any legal authority who, in 2002, failed to argue for any of the Geneva Conventions was basically enabling those who wanted to torture. Sorry -- here's where you and I fundamentally disagree. If you think it's good enough to take a stand on a breach of law after the abuses have been going on for six years, you lose me. You give people legal protections because international law requires it -- and so do our standards of humane treatment. That's how you keep the torturers out of business. Eric Holder didn't have the moral courage to take a stand on this in 2002. And frankly I hold that against them. And I'm sorry that you (and the hypocrites on the left) forgive him for this. I think you're seriously mistaken.
Joe
**********************************
Joe,
1) You are quite right about Common Article 3 and I never disputed that.
2) I know how hard BushCo made things, that is at least part of what I’ll give to Holder, the part where they lied and dissembled. Once BushCo created the criminal status versus military/POW status for detainees I cannot see how Habeas could be denied by any lawyer. Despite being wrong, holding people indefinitely and torturing them are two different things. If Holder stated that they were subject to indefinite detention once criminal status was defined, he was wrong, that I do not know. You said Holder stated they were due humane treatment – Article 3.
3) No, I don’t believe the Geneva Conventions keep the torturers out of business. US law, precedence, and history keeps them out of business or is supposed to, when it doesn’t going to jail will. (we are signatories for OUR reasons) I do not forgive Holder a thing; I understand a lack of power to address something and having the power to address it. I generally don’t have much power, just a voice that gets some respect from some with power. I have to get along with a lot of people who lost their minds after 9/11 and took awhile to get them back. The fact that I did not lose my mind may make me a bit better judge of events but I haven’t noticed that being right has done most any good at all.
4) You are making Holder’s inaction on Habeas a factor in his standing to prosecute torture. While Holder is no hero to me (and I’ve never presented him any such light) and he was apparently stupidly wrong on detention that says not a thing about the correctness of the DOJ going after torture under his direction.
5) Let’s focus on things like Treaties for a second. Due to our power we do not sign treaties because they are imposed on us; we sign them to gain our ends. In the case of torture (and the Geneva Conventions in general) we signed them to ensure others obeyed were subject to punishment. It is symptomatic of that power that people like BushCo decided those rules don’t apply to us. I have been extremely unhappy with the Obama Administration’s adherence to some of BushCo policies. The archives are clear on that and so was my reaction to any back pedaling promotion by anyone, you got hit this time.
6) Here we hit the part you don’t like in particular, I don’t see how torture can be a conservative/liberal argument, but the Republicans have made it such. It is their party theme so I will hold them to it and anyone who aligns with them in argument advances their agenda. If President Obama makes such an argument I will label it as right wing torture apology. It is their dog and its fleas belong to them and if they get on you, you’ve got their fleas and need fumigated. They want this to just go away and justify it in the same breath – they really badly want Obama’s “no more” to be the end of it. (until they do it again)
7) While I may be on the left I do not trust anyone with power, I trust to keeping them in check.
***************
This was terminated by mutual agreement, though it did not cover all issues, it also was getting long and interfering with Joe's book.
Joe,
Thanks for coming out to play and for being a gentleman about it.
******************
Chuck -- First, thanks for affording me the opportunity to argue with you on your blog. I respect that. You're the only blogger/attacker who's taken me up on my offer, and I admire it. Now, have at me.
You call me a "right-wing torture apologist." We'll get to that, but let's start with "What changed?" You say:
"Well, now what changed other than the (D)/(R) in power? ...
Available Information is what changed."
OK -- here's why I think you're not getting my point. I have not found any evidence that Holder’s opinions in 2002 differed in any way from Bush policy, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who explicitly and vocally supported Bush policy and offered no objection whatsoever is, to one degree or another, complicit. Sure, he added that we should treat detainees “humanely” – but so did Rumsfeld and Gonzales. It’s all well and good for him to have raised objections in 2008, when it was politically expedient to do so. But where was he in 2002? Forget about "available information." No: this was a question of morality and the law. I didn't hear Holder saying the detainees should have the right to habeas corpus, did you? Tell me what he said in '02 that differed from what even Colin Powell was saying -- and bear in mind, Colin Powell approved waterboarding.
Your move.
*********************************
Joe,
I’m not confident that Geneva applied to irregular non-uniformed non-governmental combatants as a legal point, that their treatment by the US should have comported with it is beyond doubt for me. The Habeas Corpus debate happened well after 2002 and in my mind anybody who asserted that anyone we held was held as a criminal rather than a POW wasn’t due Habeas is an ass. I have no information that Holder asserted any position on that. I found myself in the middle of a political mess thanks to our Republican Congress that had real fallout for someone it shouldn’t have and that time line was well post 2002. Powell was a complete disaster at State and he’s never been any hero to me, though what State and Holder have in common misses me. Linking the names Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and Holder in respect to saying “humanely” is meaningless as an argument since both Rumsfeld and Gonzales were active participants in torture and there is no such information about Holder.
In 2002 the fact of torture was unknown, that in itself is new information, not now but since then when it was secret. Information that the majority of detainees were in fact quite innocent or not prosecutable has been dribbling out over the last couple years after the previous Administration aggressively lied about it and their intentions to try them. Facts about the lying and deceits at Guantanamo are pretty recent. There are some heroes in this play and I don’t argue that Holder was one of them. Arguing that he has no standing as someone with newly minted powers to make change because he didn’t when he had no power to do so is an odd argument, politically speaking. Along with the change in D/R came a change in the power to do something about evidence that emerged post 2002. That’s not climate, that is power – a different thing.
To make your argument regarding Holder you need to lose the 2002 date to keep it even slightly credible or you’re asserting Holder had knowledge of secrets and lying. If you know such a thing there are a lot of heads that need lopping beyond Yoo and fellow cretins. Lawyers with knowledge of criminal activity are required as officers of the court to disclose it to the relevant authority. Under US law and court precedent torture is illegal, period, and waterboarding was prosecuted as a crime and convictions obtained; despite Yoo, et al opinions.
I never mistake the law for morality or conversely. If Holder does, I don’t want him as AG. It may be wishful thinking for the law and sense to have something in common, but morality simply isn’t part of that equation. I believe anyone with knowledge of torture had a moral imperative to oppose it, legally only some meet that imperative as a legal question. But my morality is my own. I can’t question or applaud Holder’s morality because I don’t know what his choices were or knowledge was. If you can show something this would be a good time.
*********************************
Chuck,
I'm afraid you're just flat-out wrong, and this may explain why you disagreed with me so strongly.
1. You're wrong that the habeas corpus debate happened "well after 2002." This is important. The U.S. began taking prisoners to GITMO in January 2002. The first habeas corpus petition for Guantanamo detainees was filed on January 20, 2002 in a federal court in California. Then one was filed on February 19, 2002, by those heroes at the Center for Constitutional Rights. (It wasn't until June 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene vs. Bush, that the detainees had that right -- but lawyers began trying to file habeas petitions just as soon as people began arriving at Guantanamo in January. And the Bush administration made it really hard -- like, they wouldn't even give the lawyers the detainees' names or permit access to them! You think it was an accident that these detainees were being held at the Gitmo naval base, which is not on U.S. territory? That was one of the main reasons the prisoners were being kept there! So let's not pretend that no one was thinking about habeas in 2002. In May 2002 the debate became public in the U.S. And Holder? . . . He said that we had the right to detain them indefinitely!
2. You're wrong if you think the Geneva conventions don't apply to non-uniformed combatants. There are 4 Geneva Conventions. Geneva 4 covers everyone denied POW status even if they participate in hostilities. And Common Article 3 -- which appears in all four Geneva Conventions -- says everyone you're holding in an international conflict is entitled to the basic standards of humane treatment. The Bushies said NONE of Geneva Conventions applied. And Eric Holder didn't disagree. He said nothing about Common Article 3 or Geneva 4.
3. Holder knew nothing about planned torture in 2002, I have no doubt. BUT . . . in January 2002 he said we had the right to detain them indefinitely -- look it up. That doesn't accord with habeas corpus, right? And he said we needed to be able to interrogate them. So any legal authority who, in 2002, failed to argue for any of the Geneva Conventions was basically enabling those who wanted to torture. Sorry -- here's where you and I fundamentally disagree. If you think it's good enough to take a stand on a breach of law after the abuses have been going on for six years, you lose me. You give people legal protections because international law requires it -- and so do our standards of humane treatment. That's how you keep the torturers out of business. Eric Holder didn't have the moral courage to take a stand on this in 2002. And frankly I hold that against them. And I'm sorry that you (and the hypocrites on the left) forgive him for this. I think you're seriously mistaken.
Joe
**********************************
Joe,
1) You are quite right about Common Article 3 and I never disputed that.
2) I know how hard BushCo made things, that is at least part of what I’ll give to Holder, the part where they lied and dissembled. Once BushCo created the criminal status versus military/POW status for detainees I cannot see how Habeas could be denied by any lawyer. Despite being wrong, holding people indefinitely and torturing them are two different things. If Holder stated that they were subject to indefinite detention once criminal status was defined, he was wrong, that I do not know. You said Holder stated they were due humane treatment – Article 3.
3) No, I don’t believe the Geneva Conventions keep the torturers out of business. US law, precedence, and history keeps them out of business or is supposed to, when it doesn’t going to jail will. (we are signatories for OUR reasons) I do not forgive Holder a thing; I understand a lack of power to address something and having the power to address it. I generally don’t have much power, just a voice that gets some respect from some with power. I have to get along with a lot of people who lost their minds after 9/11 and took awhile to get them back. The fact that I did not lose my mind may make me a bit better judge of events but I haven’t noticed that being right has done most any good at all.
4) You are making Holder’s inaction on Habeas a factor in his standing to prosecute torture. While Holder is no hero to me (and I’ve never presented him any such light) and he was apparently stupidly wrong on detention that says not a thing about the correctness of the DOJ going after torture under his direction.
5) Let’s focus on things like Treaties for a second. Due to our power we do not sign treaties because they are imposed on us; we sign them to gain our ends. In the case of torture (and the Geneva Conventions in general) we signed them to ensure others obeyed were subject to punishment. It is symptomatic of that power that people like BushCo decided those rules don’t apply to us. I have been extremely unhappy with the Obama Administration’s adherence to some of BushCo policies. The archives are clear on that and so was my reaction to any back pedaling promotion by anyone, you got hit this time.
6) Here we hit the part you don’t like in particular, I don’t see how torture can be a conservative/liberal argument, but the Republicans have made it such. It is their party theme so I will hold them to it and anyone who aligns with them in argument advances their agenda. If President Obama makes such an argument I will label it as right wing torture apology. It is their dog and its fleas belong to them and if they get on you, you’ve got their fleas and need fumigated. They want this to just go away and justify it in the same breath – they really badly want Obama’s “no more” to be the end of it. (until they do it again)
7) While I may be on the left I do not trust anyone with power, I trust to keeping them in check.
***************
This was terminated by mutual agreement, though it did not cover all issues, it also was getting long and interfering with Joe's book.
Joe,
Thanks for coming out to play and for being a gentleman about it.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Lindsey Graham On Torture - WTF, Over
If you understand this crock of horse manure you have a very convoluted brain. This moron contradicts himself every other sentence.
When you try to defend the indefensible you are going to have a real big problem with using reason. The funniest part of this is Lindsey's claim to having been a prosecutor most of his life - certainly not now - I'm curious how his reasoning applies to those he put behind bars.
Let me be real clear, I rank torturers and their apololgists with child rapists and keeping their goddam partisan tour away from me would be real damn smart. That's right Lindsey, I don't have a polite adjective to hang with your name and I sure don't have a polite reaction to you. Ten years ago you'd be a pariah for this little speech - that you aren't today speaks volumes to the levels of debasement to which GWBushCo took this nation. I've had you pathetic worms, all of you and your debased supporters.
When you try to defend the indefensible you are going to have a real big problem with using reason. The funniest part of this is Lindsey's claim to having been a prosecutor most of his life - certainly not now - I'm curious how his reasoning applies to those he put behind bars.
Let me be real clear, I rank torturers and their apololgists with child rapists and keeping their goddam partisan tour away from me would be real damn smart. That's right Lindsey, I don't have a polite adjective to hang with your name and I sure don't have a polite reaction to you. Ten years ago you'd be a pariah for this little speech - that you aren't today speaks volumes to the levels of debasement to which GWBushCo took this nation. I've had you pathetic worms, all of you and your debased supporters.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
SERE Training
a rack, torture deviceI don't know just exactly how unmitigated an ass you have to be to compare SERE training with intensive interrogation, but apparently Kit Bond is one. He asserts that waterboarding can't be torture because SERE does it to our own troops. I don't know exactly how large a truck would have to be for you to not be able to drive it through the hole in that logic, but damn big is for sure. You'd think that someone capable of getting elected could see how this doesn't work.
Hey Kit, let's just start right at the beginning with the SEREs thing, if you go there you're a volunteer and you know that the waterboarders are your friends. No kidding, butthead, there's a difference between a friend and an enemy - someone you eat chow with and somebody who tries to shoot you... Maybe I could understand how as a Republican you're confused about friends and enemies, you've sure made that mistake about the domestic opposition to the Iraq war. Something else that might occur to the victim of intense interrogation is that in the one case everybody, including you, knows you don't have any information they actually care about getting - not quite as likely in the other case. It might make a bit of difference that as a SERE you know you get to leave and do something else after just a bit of this treatment, in fact you will get respect and good treatment for having engaged in this bit of discomfort. One hundred eighty three in one month is a few dousings more than a bit, and still there is a long time.
I'm not sure what idiot at Republican central churned out this particular talking point, but when a five year old would laugh at it an experienced pol ought not take it up. I know I keep coming back to this mess, as tired as I am of it I just cannot leave it alone when this level of stupidity is presented publicly for my consumption. This is the Party of Values? I don't get it, what value particularly is this about? I can almost understand protecting marriage and some of the other stuff put forward as being about values, but not even a strong stomach gets you there from here. Why the hell is this Republican?
Kit, none of the electorate was born on 9/11, even the latest ones were born before that date by about a decade, this torture idea comes post most of a voter's experience and quite simply torture was done by the other guys - the bad guys. Really bad guys. The world did not change on 9/11, everything is not different. A couple buildings came down and over 3,000 died, would anyone care to compare that to the London Blitz, or some other rough times? All kinds of bad things have happened over our world experience called history and we did not torture people. We had an international reputation as one of the good guys, in the face of some long odds at times. Not very long ago you could not have made these kinds of statements in polite society and most likely not in rough society without getting a bad reaction. This was the kind of crime there just wasn't any debate about, it would be akin to excusing child rape in the popular mind.
Things were desperate after 9/11? One narrow slice of history says WTF? Pearl Harbor was blown to smithereens, our ships were sunk all over the Atlantic, we lost all over the Pacific, we got handed our heads in N Africa, stalled in Normandy, bombers shot to pieces over Germany - we were doing very badly in WWII. Desperately badly. Somehow we acted humanely through very dark days, and now?
If these people get re-elected after this nonsense you people in their constituency better start looking at your neighbors and wondering what these subhuman cretins will get up to - or move the hell out. If you think this is a bit strong, as furious as I am you could not force me to do this crap to these punks that are excusing it. Don't mistake me for a pacifist, either.
Hey Kit, let's just start right at the beginning with the SEREs thing, if you go there you're a volunteer and you know that the waterboarders are your friends. No kidding, butthead, there's a difference between a friend and an enemy - someone you eat chow with and somebody who tries to shoot you... Maybe I could understand how as a Republican you're confused about friends and enemies, you've sure made that mistake about the domestic opposition to the Iraq war. Something else that might occur to the victim of intense interrogation is that in the one case everybody, including you, knows you don't have any information they actually care about getting - not quite as likely in the other case. It might make a bit of difference that as a SERE you know you get to leave and do something else after just a bit of this treatment, in fact you will get respect and good treatment for having engaged in this bit of discomfort. One hundred eighty three in one month is a few dousings more than a bit, and still there is a long time.
I'm not sure what idiot at Republican central churned out this particular talking point, but when a five year old would laugh at it an experienced pol ought not take it up. I know I keep coming back to this mess, as tired as I am of it I just cannot leave it alone when this level of stupidity is presented publicly for my consumption. This is the Party of Values? I don't get it, what value particularly is this about? I can almost understand protecting marriage and some of the other stuff put forward as being about values, but not even a strong stomach gets you there from here. Why the hell is this Republican?
Kit, none of the electorate was born on 9/11, even the latest ones were born before that date by about a decade, this torture idea comes post most of a voter's experience and quite simply torture was done by the other guys - the bad guys. Really bad guys. The world did not change on 9/11, everything is not different. A couple buildings came down and over 3,000 died, would anyone care to compare that to the London Blitz, or some other rough times? All kinds of bad things have happened over our world experience called history and we did not torture people. We had an international reputation as one of the good guys, in the face of some long odds at times. Not very long ago you could not have made these kinds of statements in polite society and most likely not in rough society without getting a bad reaction. This was the kind of crime there just wasn't any debate about, it would be akin to excusing child rape in the popular mind.
Things were desperate after 9/11? One narrow slice of history says WTF? Pearl Harbor was blown to smithereens, our ships were sunk all over the Atlantic, we lost all over the Pacific, we got handed our heads in N Africa, stalled in Normandy, bombers shot to pieces over Germany - we were doing very badly in WWII. Desperately badly. Somehow we acted humanely through very dark days, and now?
If these people get re-elected after this nonsense you people in their constituency better start looking at your neighbors and wondering what these subhuman cretins will get up to - or move the hell out. If you think this is a bit strong, as furious as I am you could not force me to do this crap to these punks that are excusing it. Don't mistake me for a pacifist, either.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Rule Of Man, Or The Rule Of Law
There has been cheap talk about third world juntas and mirrored sunglasses lately regarding politics and law. One of the main features of those mirrored sunglassed juntas is that they involve the rule of man, of personality. Whatever the nation's history or laws, the current occupants get what they want either through making new laws or just plain ignoring the existing ones. Nobody has an expectation of protection under the law or protection from abuse of the law.
One of the nastier charges against the GW Bush administration was the politicization of the Dept. of Justice. Enforcement of the law depended on political circumstances rather than the law; political circumstances are the rule of man. When the enforcement of law depends on politics or station in life it ceases to be law and becomes the rule of man and serious consequences flow from that. Elements in society become either immune to law or the victims of law when man rather than law rules. No nation can long afford to have such a split in its population.
I find it unfortunate that President Obama has already made statements about who would not be prosecuted for torture offenses. The idea is that exempting CIA personnel who followed OLC memos and administration directives would keep them effective in their jobs rather than demoralized. This places respect for the law as optionally dependent upon your form of employment or employer rather than a universal standard. Interrogators must be familiar with the history of their occupation and that history is clear, water boarding is prosecutable torture.
It is bruited about that the President's agenda is threatened by pursuing the malefactors of the torture mess by creating the appearance of a political witch hunt. Because it was a Republican administration this occurred within and Democrats are now the majority there is little chance that action within Congress would not be treated as political - on both sides. Unlike Congress, the DOJ is not involved in passing legislation, it is supposed to be involved in law enforcement. Considering Republican behavior over the past three months it is pretty questionable whether there are any votes or support to be lost if the DOJ takes this matter in hand.
The DOJ now has pretty public reasons to be taking an interest in this issue between released documents and public statements this is now far from a secret. The question now is not the President's agenda, it is what sort of nation and government we are. Are we the mewling puking cowards who misuse helpless humans under our complete control or are we not? Are we a nation of law or are we a nation that finds the law an encumbrance to ignored for convenience and the convenience of those special individuals who happen to be something other than ordinary citizens. This brings another issue into play, are we all citizens of this nation or are only some of us subject to those responsibilities and if so what do we call those others? The Oligarchy? The Aristocracy? God's Chosen? Republicans? Democrats?
I don't want revenge or retribution for the crap that occurred under BushCo, I want the politics taken out of the crimes. I don't want to hear another mealy-mouthed torture excuse from some damn politician who thinks he's covering his Party, I want it clear in a court of law that there is no argument, there is no politics of torture it is flatly a crime and it is not done in the USA. I care little if anyone serves more than thirty days, I care that a verdict is reached and a sentence pronounced.
I care that we are a nation of law, not man.
One of the nastier charges against the GW Bush administration was the politicization of the Dept. of Justice. Enforcement of the law depended on political circumstances rather than the law; political circumstances are the rule of man. When the enforcement of law depends on politics or station in life it ceases to be law and becomes the rule of man and serious consequences flow from that. Elements in society become either immune to law or the victims of law when man rather than law rules. No nation can long afford to have such a split in its population.
I find it unfortunate that President Obama has already made statements about who would not be prosecuted for torture offenses. The idea is that exempting CIA personnel who followed OLC memos and administration directives would keep them effective in their jobs rather than demoralized. This places respect for the law as optionally dependent upon your form of employment or employer rather than a universal standard. Interrogators must be familiar with the history of their occupation and that history is clear, water boarding is prosecutable torture.
It is bruited about that the President's agenda is threatened by pursuing the malefactors of the torture mess by creating the appearance of a political witch hunt. Because it was a Republican administration this occurred within and Democrats are now the majority there is little chance that action within Congress would not be treated as political - on both sides. Unlike Congress, the DOJ is not involved in passing legislation, it is supposed to be involved in law enforcement. Considering Republican behavior over the past three months it is pretty questionable whether there are any votes or support to be lost if the DOJ takes this matter in hand.
The DOJ now has pretty public reasons to be taking an interest in this issue between released documents and public statements this is now far from a secret. The question now is not the President's agenda, it is what sort of nation and government we are. Are we the mewling puking cowards who misuse helpless humans under our complete control or are we not? Are we a nation of law or are we a nation that finds the law an encumbrance to ignored for convenience and the convenience of those special individuals who happen to be something other than ordinary citizens. This brings another issue into play, are we all citizens of this nation or are only some of us subject to those responsibilities and if so what do we call those others? The Oligarchy? The Aristocracy? God's Chosen? Republicans? Democrats?
I don't want revenge or retribution for the crap that occurred under BushCo, I want the politics taken out of the crimes. I don't want to hear another mealy-mouthed torture excuse from some damn politician who thinks he's covering his Party, I want it clear in a court of law that there is no argument, there is no politics of torture it is flatly a crime and it is not done in the USA. I care little if anyone serves more than thirty days, I care that a verdict is reached and a sentence pronounced.
I care that we are a nation of law, not man.
The Banality of Bush White House Evil
I'm going to recommend this Frank Rich column without comment. If I say any more about torture I'll just be repeating myself and getting more furious.
Friday, April 24, 2009
A Torture...Debate???
I'm trying to think of something that is much more frightening than the fact that there is actually a debate about torture. There is a debate about a procedure that is designed to be absolutely terrifying and whether it is torture and worthwhile. My mind gets stuck here, it circles and jerks and stops, I cannot fathom how this state has come into existence in my nation, in my home. I can understand liars and cheats getting elected and I can understand differences regarding economic policy and foreign policy but this is different.
My parent's generation fought and died in opposition to nations that practiced such techniques as a matter of course, and that was part of why they fought them - that they did so. Trials were held and people hung and imprisoned for such behavior. Thousands and thousands of our young men died so those trials could be held and we had the stature to hold those trials.
How can the death of a few thousand in America due to airplanes suddenly turn our world upside down? How does such behavior honor or show any recognition of their fates? Over two hundred years of our history are denied by even having a debate about this, much less actually practicing it. To physically torment someone into absolute terror is torture, there isn't even an actual question about that, no one would begin to talk about results if it were not so.
As more details leak out or are released I become sadder and more bewildered. It may be a function of age, but I find myself approaching tears. I do not understand the actions themselves and have even less understanding of those who support it being in positions of authority or responsibility. Karl Rove's words are meaningless, he's a hired hack for Fox News - nothing more - but Senators and Representatives hold positions of authority and responsibility and their behavior is incomprehensible. If it is about politics then things have patently gone much too far in that respect.
Torture is not ideological or political, it is the abuse of helpless human beings by those with the power of life and death over them and it is evil. Despite the rhetoric regarding the evils of socialism or theocracy the real meaning of that is regarding dangerous mistakes, not actual evil. The negation of the ethical values of an entire nation is something different entirely, it isn't about bad or dangerous policy it is about the soul of a people and it cannot be held as reasonable. There are those who do so and that passes reason, it becomes some primal fear driven limitless reaction - it is virtually the definition of cowardice.
I'll be blunt, it isn't an argument, it is the difference between mewling puking pussies and those with a shred of decency. It is either that or it is politics run amok, run into such a state that there are those whose pursuit of power leads them to propose that absolute evil is righteousness and supportable. You have to take a measure of such people and wonder how it is that society at large even tolerates their having an office of any sort. If you do that you begin to take a measure of an electorate that allows it and even encourages it and that is truly frightening. Your fellow citizens in certain areas are of such a mind set, think about that as you walk by them. That person you just passed would have such a thing done to you, in fact would do it to you and they not only walk about free, they elect such to national office.
In this setting we wonder about mass shootings or child killings and propose astonishment? Why? What is it we are earning?
My parent's generation fought and died in opposition to nations that practiced such techniques as a matter of course, and that was part of why they fought them - that they did so. Trials were held and people hung and imprisoned for such behavior. Thousands and thousands of our young men died so those trials could be held and we had the stature to hold those trials.
How can the death of a few thousand in America due to airplanes suddenly turn our world upside down? How does such behavior honor or show any recognition of their fates? Over two hundred years of our history are denied by even having a debate about this, much less actually practicing it. To physically torment someone into absolute terror is torture, there isn't even an actual question about that, no one would begin to talk about results if it were not so.
As more details leak out or are released I become sadder and more bewildered. It may be a function of age, but I find myself approaching tears. I do not understand the actions themselves and have even less understanding of those who support it being in positions of authority or responsibility. Karl Rove's words are meaningless, he's a hired hack for Fox News - nothing more - but Senators and Representatives hold positions of authority and responsibility and their behavior is incomprehensible. If it is about politics then things have patently gone much too far in that respect.
Torture is not ideological or political, it is the abuse of helpless human beings by those with the power of life and death over them and it is evil. Despite the rhetoric regarding the evils of socialism or theocracy the real meaning of that is regarding dangerous mistakes, not actual evil. The negation of the ethical values of an entire nation is something different entirely, it isn't about bad or dangerous policy it is about the soul of a people and it cannot be held as reasonable. There are those who do so and that passes reason, it becomes some primal fear driven limitless reaction - it is virtually the definition of cowardice.
I'll be blunt, it isn't an argument, it is the difference between mewling puking pussies and those with a shred of decency. It is either that or it is politics run amok, run into such a state that there are those whose pursuit of power leads them to propose that absolute evil is righteousness and supportable. You have to take a measure of such people and wonder how it is that society at large even tolerates their having an office of any sort. If you do that you begin to take a measure of an electorate that allows it and even encourages it and that is truly frightening. Your fellow citizens in certain areas are of such a mind set, think about that as you walk by them. That person you just passed would have such a thing done to you, in fact would do it to you and they not only walk about free, they elect such to national office.
In this setting we wonder about mass shootings or child killings and propose astonishment? Why? What is it we are earning?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Medical Personnel?
John Ensign just asserted on Hardball that we had medical personnel on hand for enhanced interrogation and that excuses the practices from being torture. Now hold on just a whole damn minute here, if it isn't torture then what possible use or need are medical personnel? If there is no danger of personal damage or physical risk then exactly why is it required to have medical personnel present? If I ask you a question or talk to you about various ethical or moral implications of your behavior in order to persuade you that you should tell me what is going on there is absolutely no reason to think a doctor or medic or any such would need to be at hand.
If I start putting your physical or psychological well-being at risk then it starts to be important to have a doctor around. Once you reach that point you are in violation of virtually every legal statute involving the treatment of human beings. If I can not do it to you and a sheriff or policeman cannot do it to you then crossing that line is torture. Making statements to the contrary on the basis of the federal governmental employment of the torturers is flatly assisting in a felony, either its cover-up or the commission of it. I'd say that John Ensign is not only a unprincipled prick he is involved in criminal behavior - take a good look at him and see a clean cut well-dressed rich scum bag. He may be acting in partisan fashion - I'm not, I don't care what Party he belongs to, though it figures there's an (R) after his name.
If I start putting your physical or psychological well-being at risk then it starts to be important to have a doctor around. Once you reach that point you are in violation of virtually every legal statute involving the treatment of human beings. If I can not do it to you and a sheriff or policeman cannot do it to you then crossing that line is torture. Making statements to the contrary on the basis of the federal governmental employment of the torturers is flatly assisting in a felony, either its cover-up or the commission of it. I'd say that John Ensign is not only a unprincipled prick he is involved in criminal behavior - take a good look at him and see a clean cut well-dressed rich scum bag. He may be acting in partisan fashion - I'm not, I don't care what Party he belongs to, though it figures there's an (R) after his name.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Jay S Bybee Isn't In Jail, Where Is He?
No, he's not in jail, Jay S Bybee is Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Maybe you're wondering how a devout Mormon came to be a Justice on the largest appellate court in the US and a central figure in authorizing torture. You would be forgiven for wondering exactly what version of Christianity a person adheres to that would allow him to write things that sanctioned the psychological torment of pseudo drowning and confinement with an insect they are deathly afraid of or the physical torment of sleep deprivation, slapping, stress positioning to generate muscular pain, or intemperate conditions.
A US Federal Judge proposed that the imposition of pain repeatedly on a helpless human was sanctioned under the law of the US. This puke passes judgement on people in the United States of America. You are supposed to believe that at the last step before the US Supreme Court you will receive something like justice at the hands of someone who OKs interrogation procedures that only stop short of permanent damage. Looking up at that bench you will see the face of a monster.
If you behaved to a fellow human in any of the manners that Jay S Bybee authorized for interrogation you would go to jail for a very long time as a felon. These authorizations were handed down as legal opinion, the sort of thing that is a judge's job. Try real hard to wrap your head around the idea that legal opinions put forward in any case by this guy have any meaning, whatever.
You can find the 18 page pdf. of this mess here. I hope you have a strong tolerance for undiluted evil because you're going to be subjected to page after page of it. One very revealing measure of a society is how it treats the helpless and this is exactly what Bybee addressed in this memo and his measure is criminal. He not only doesn't belong on a bench, he belongs in front of one in irons.
Wanna make any bets?
A US Federal Judge proposed that the imposition of pain repeatedly on a helpless human was sanctioned under the law of the US. This puke passes judgement on people in the United States of America. You are supposed to believe that at the last step before the US Supreme Court you will receive something like justice at the hands of someone who OKs interrogation procedures that only stop short of permanent damage. Looking up at that bench you will see the face of a monster.
If you behaved to a fellow human in any of the manners that Jay S Bybee authorized for interrogation you would go to jail for a very long time as a felon. These authorizations were handed down as legal opinion, the sort of thing that is a judge's job. Try real hard to wrap your head around the idea that legal opinions put forward in any case by this guy have any meaning, whatever.
You can find the 18 page pdf. of this mess here. I hope you have a strong tolerance for undiluted evil because you're going to be subjected to page after page of it. One very revealing measure of a society is how it treats the helpless and this is exactly what Bybee addressed in this memo and his measure is criminal. He not only doesn't belong on a bench, he belongs in front of one in irons.
Wanna make any bets?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Torture And The Rule Of Law
Before anybody starts howling it's not torture, let's be clear, we have prosecuted as war crimes the action of waterboarding. We, the USA, have prosecuted it and people were imprisoned or hanged for doing it. Dick Cheney has now admitted to being a part of it.
That doesn't exactly leave a whole lot of suspense involved in it, now does it?
One of the selling points the US has made to other countries trying to dig out from under dictatorships has been about the rule of law. Words are written down and called law and it trumps individual desires. It is written down with a sense of permanence and universal applicability so that it has respect. It is absolutely necessary that it has wide respect because it is impossible for a governmental agency composed of a fraction of the population to force a disrespectful populace into compliance. Law will not be respected if it is seen to only apply to part of the population, particularly if the elites are seen as exempted.
This isn't intended to white wash or ignore inequal representation before the law or inequality of sentencing, it simply means that if torture is illegal for me to conduct it is also illegal for the President to conduct and we both would have to defend ourselves before the law. If such a thing is to be ignored in regard to Administration officials then exactly why is it that any citizen is expected to comply with any federal law short of that? Suppose that I declare that absent the rule of law at the Federal level the social contract is broken and that I am exempt. By what right does the Federal government proceed against me?
In the possesion of any American who cares to copy it is the Vice-President of the United States of America stating that he knew about torture, helped put the process into effect, and still approves of it without being coerced into such an admission. Does the government of the US understand in any quantifiable fashion what it is asking of the citizenry to follow any law up to this one that held the death penalty? This is disregard of laws up to murder of federal officials or treason.
If these offenses are not charged the Federal government has abrogated all ability to proceed as a lawful enterprise, no law passed or to be passed has any ethical bearing on the citizenry. You cannot run a government in such a fashion - no matter what the political considerations you finally run into a wall. No "Truth and Reconcillation Commission" is worth spit in that regard, this is not about politics it is about law. The US has to make a decision on this matter of whether it is a nation under rule of law or rule of personality and if it is the latter I firmly assert that I am not exceeded in any fashion by that piece of human excrement Dick Cheney.
"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared," Cheney said in an interview with ABC News.
Asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, Cheney said: "I do."
That doesn't exactly leave a whole lot of suspense involved in it, now does it?
One of the selling points the US has made to other countries trying to dig out from under dictatorships has been about the rule of law. Words are written down and called law and it trumps individual desires. It is written down with a sense of permanence and universal applicability so that it has respect. It is absolutely necessary that it has wide respect because it is impossible for a governmental agency composed of a fraction of the population to force a disrespectful populace into compliance. Law will not be respected if it is seen to only apply to part of the population, particularly if the elites are seen as exempted.
This isn't intended to white wash or ignore inequal representation before the law or inequality of sentencing, it simply means that if torture is illegal for me to conduct it is also illegal for the President to conduct and we both would have to defend ourselves before the law. If such a thing is to be ignored in regard to Administration officials then exactly why is it that any citizen is expected to comply with any federal law short of that? Suppose that I declare that absent the rule of law at the Federal level the social contract is broken and that I am exempt. By what right does the Federal government proceed against me?
In the possesion of any American who cares to copy it is the Vice-President of the United States of America stating that he knew about torture, helped put the process into effect, and still approves of it without being coerced into such an admission. Does the government of the US understand in any quantifiable fashion what it is asking of the citizenry to follow any law up to this one that held the death penalty? This is disregard of laws up to murder of federal officials or treason.
If these offenses are not charged the Federal government has abrogated all ability to proceed as a lawful enterprise, no law passed or to be passed has any ethical bearing on the citizenry. You cannot run a government in such a fashion - no matter what the political considerations you finally run into a wall. No "Truth and Reconcillation Commission" is worth spit in that regard, this is not about politics it is about law. The US has to make a decision on this matter of whether it is a nation under rule of law or rule of personality and if it is the latter I firmly assert that I am not exceeded in any fashion by that piece of human excrement Dick Cheney.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Commissions? We Don't Need No Steenking Commissions,
It has been reported in numerous places that Democrats would like to institute something resembling the 9/11 Commission to investigate torture by the Bush Administration. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that:
There is, somehow, the idea that the rule of law is disposable where Bush & Co are concerned. A commission is a very good way to look very busy and bury something so that it is never acted upon. If there is an idea that some commission's findings would prevent torture with new recommendation a hole immediately appears in the logic. It is entirely unnecessary to find ways to prevent torture, it is already illegal and waterboarding has been a war crime for a very long time - as a specific example. What exactly are the needed steps a commission would find? To make illegal what is already illegal? If illegality was insufficient to prevent torture, perhaps the conviction of a few criminals would get the idea across.
What ever you may think of GW Bush's intellect, he does have a few effective lawyers working for him. Being lawyers, the technical aspects of law are what counts. You might like to consider this from the Wall Street Journal:
If you want to read through all the so-called reasoning behind this, knock yourselves out. Illegal is illegal no matter how many memos you write, they have no force of law. Bush can't acknowledge the illegality by issuing pardons but more to the point is that lack of being pardoned.
It is a point of law that we hold to pretty darn firmly that the accused cannot be forced to testify against himself. Those directly involved don't have any reason to talk and if Congress were to compel them to, the Ollie North mess is the outcome. At these levels you have to have some direct testimony, the actual criminal torturing scum are those who ordered it. This doesn't involve the usual criminal action of some Spec 4 soldier, it involves bureaucrats experienced in isolating themselves from fallout. You need documents and you need the testimony of direct participants, people with every reason to not cooperate.
Once GWB has made it clear that criminal penalties have not been taken off the table, the only alternative is for Congress or DOJ to start taking them off the table to get that "Commission" testimony. GWB avoids pardoning and puts the onus on the Democrats. This leaves the incoming administration with some rather uncomfortable options. They can take the actual dissuasion for torturing - its illegality - off the table or they can get involved in messy and difficult prosecutions that will be labeled by the usual suspects as partisan foul play.
If you're willing to sit on or promote such a Commission, here's the deal, you ought to have to spend a week getting the treatments. If you have in mind the concept that political considerations trump the existing laws, you should get to experience the previous trumping of existing laws. There is exactly no need whatever for a Commission to exist until after a DOJ prosecution of those involved. You do not promote avoidance of behavior by OKing it. If you propose to keep future administrations from playing at torture then there has to be a cost for doing so. Otherwise they will simply look at history and note the outcome for the Bush Torturers and figure, "hell, why not?" Law is a deterrent if it is perceived as functioning and applied, it is not some moral guide post - if that were the case no jails would be built, everybody's morals would keep them from acting up.
Don't hold your breath; the political class is reluctant to kick its own around and particularly to jail them. It seems that having administrations investigate and prosecute the malfeasance of previous ones exposes them to the same when they become previous. There also is a little matter of Congressional votes in regard to this issue and a few others. Can't have people held responsible, now can we?
***Update***
Kari Chisholm, founder of Blue Oregon and Mandate Media, from comments:
The verdict from history is safe, convictions in hand it is even safer. What is it that is proposed to be fixed? This is extraordinarily simple, it is against the law. This is not a question, there may be some mechanics of charging whom with what that gets a little sticky - GW Bush is up to his pie hole in it - but it is simply against the law and has been against the law for a damn long time. The fix for those who would ignore the law is for the law to not ignore them. This is an entirely political bullshit proposition to avoid the nastiness of prosecuting goddamn Republicans. If those pricks want to operate within the laws of a somewhat civilized nation called the US then playing bipartisan is just fine, but outside tha line your ass is the law's.
No, it will not happen. It will not happen because this country is in such a damn mess that Democrats will fall all over themselves to keep from kicking their teeth in. Somehow, if the President does it, it is not illegal. The idea being to avoid truly messy transitions and specious charges being brought at regime changes. The thing about it is that this is egregious, it is not specious, it is not politically motivated, it is and has been against the law and people have been jailed for long periods to doing it. There is exactly one way for people to get over the idea that "I'm from the government," grants carte blanche and that is for not to. Go ahead and try this shit as a private citizen and see what happens. There it is, exactly.
"At a minimum, the American people have to be able to see and judge what happened," said one senior adviser, who asked not to be identified talking about policy matters. The commission would be empowered to order the U.S. intelligence agencies to open their files for review and question senior officials who approved "waterboarding" and other controversial practices.
Obama aides are wary of taking any steps that would smack of political retribution. That's one reason they are reluctant to see high-profile investigations by the Democratic-controlled Congress or to greenlight a broad Justice inquiry (absent specific new evidence of wrongdoing). "If there was any effort to have war-crimes prosecutions of the Bush administration, you'd instantly destroy whatever hopes you have of bipartisanship," said Robert Litt, a former Justice criminal division chief during the Clinton administration. A new commission, on the other hand, could emulate the bipartisan tone set by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton in investigating the 9/11 attacks.
There is, somehow, the idea that the rule of law is disposable where Bush & Co are concerned. A commission is a very good way to look very busy and bury something so that it is never acted upon. If there is an idea that some commission's findings would prevent torture with new recommendation a hole immediately appears in the logic. It is entirely unnecessary to find ways to prevent torture, it is already illegal and waterboarding has been a war crime for a very long time - as a specific example. What exactly are the needed steps a commission would find? To make illegal what is already illegal? If illegality was insufficient to prevent torture, perhaps the conviction of a few criminals would get the idea across.
What ever you may think of GW Bush's intellect, he does have a few effective lawyers working for him. Being lawyers, the technical aspects of law are what counts. You might like to consider this from the Wall Street Journal:
The White House isn't inclined to grant sweeping pardons for former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations and detentions of terror suspects, according to people familiar with the situation.
Some Republicans have been pushing for President George W. Bush to grant pre-emptive clemency to officials who fear being investigated by Democratic critics. White House officials have countered that such pardons are unnecessary, these people say. The officials point to Justice Department legal opinions that supported the administration's methods of detaining and interrogating terror suspects.
If you want to read through all the so-called reasoning behind this, knock yourselves out. Illegal is illegal no matter how many memos you write, they have no force of law. Bush can't acknowledge the illegality by issuing pardons but more to the point is that lack of being pardoned.
It is a point of law that we hold to pretty darn firmly that the accused cannot be forced to testify against himself. Those directly involved don't have any reason to talk and if Congress were to compel them to, the Ollie North mess is the outcome. At these levels you have to have some direct testimony, the actual criminal torturing scum are those who ordered it. This doesn't involve the usual criminal action of some Spec 4 soldier, it involves bureaucrats experienced in isolating themselves from fallout. You need documents and you need the testimony of direct participants, people with every reason to not cooperate.
Once GWB has made it clear that criminal penalties have not been taken off the table, the only alternative is for Congress or DOJ to start taking them off the table to get that "Commission" testimony. GWB avoids pardoning and puts the onus on the Democrats. This leaves the incoming administration with some rather uncomfortable options. They can take the actual dissuasion for torturing - its illegality - off the table or they can get involved in messy and difficult prosecutions that will be labeled by the usual suspects as partisan foul play.
If you're willing to sit on or promote such a Commission, here's the deal, you ought to have to spend a week getting the treatments. If you have in mind the concept that political considerations trump the existing laws, you should get to experience the previous trumping of existing laws. There is exactly no need whatever for a Commission to exist until after a DOJ prosecution of those involved. You do not promote avoidance of behavior by OKing it. If you propose to keep future administrations from playing at torture then there has to be a cost for doing so. Otherwise they will simply look at history and note the outcome for the Bush Torturers and figure, "hell, why not?" Law is a deterrent if it is perceived as functioning and applied, it is not some moral guide post - if that were the case no jails would be built, everybody's morals would keep them from acting up.
Don't hold your breath; the political class is reluctant to kick its own around and particularly to jail them. It seems that having administrations investigate and prosecute the malfeasance of previous ones exposes them to the same when they become previous. There also is a little matter of Congressional votes in regard to this issue and a few others. Can't have people held responsible, now can we?
***Update***
Kari Chisholm, founder of Blue Oregon and Mandate Media, from comments:
What about a South African -style Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
Basically, the idea is that if you testify completely, answering all questions truthfully, then you're immune from both criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits.
I do think that one key here is the civil liability issue. The DOJ may wind up uninterested in prosecuting people, but they won't be immune from losing their house.
Seems to me that as much as we'd like people to go to prison, it can be more valuable to turn them into pariahs and render the verdict of history.
And then, we can change the law to ensure that Presidents are never again able to issue executive orders to undermine basic human rights and American principles against wiretapping, torture, and the rest of the atrocities.
11/26/2008 05:10:00 PM
The verdict from history is safe, convictions in hand it is even safer. What is it that is proposed to be fixed? This is extraordinarily simple, it is against the law. This is not a question, there may be some mechanics of charging whom with what that gets a little sticky - GW Bush is up to his pie hole in it - but it is simply against the law and has been against the law for a damn long time. The fix for those who would ignore the law is for the law to not ignore them. This is an entirely political bullshit proposition to avoid the nastiness of prosecuting goddamn Republicans. If those pricks want to operate within the laws of a somewhat civilized nation called the US then playing bipartisan is just fine, but outside tha line your ass is the law's.
No, it will not happen. It will not happen because this country is in such a damn mess that Democrats will fall all over themselves to keep from kicking their teeth in. Somehow, if the President does it, it is not illegal. The idea being to avoid truly messy transitions and specious charges being brought at regime changes. The thing about it is that this is egregious, it is not specious, it is not politically motivated, it is and has been against the law and people have been jailed for long periods to doing it. There is exactly one way for people to get over the idea that "I'm from the government," grants carte blanche and that is for not to. Go ahead and try this shit as a private citizen and see what happens. There it is, exactly.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Chicom-ano Cuba
This really stings. The NYT reports on the origins of a training chart used in Guantanamo which is:
I don't know that even this will raise the level of fury over the US torturing - enhanced interrogating if you must - there seems to be a core that just flat out doesn't give a damn. We do need intelligence, the lifeblood of good decisions is information, that would be in this case qualified to be, good information. Take out the issue of the barbarism of mistreating helpless human beings and you still have the pragmatic issue of not getting bad information to act stupidly on. I am somewhat befuddled that this particular Administration misses that piece of the puzzle five years into the Iraq War. Well, unless maybe intelligence had nothing to do with that.
The 1957 article from which the chart was copied was entitled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War” and written by Albert D. Biderman, a sociologist then working for the Air Force, who died in 2003. Mr. Biderman had interviewed American prisoners returning from North Korea, some of whom had been filmed by their Chinese interrogators confessing to germ warfare and other atrocities.It really should be sufficient that behaving in a cruel manner to helpless captives is counter to American values that such a thing not happen or even be considered. When you add in the disqualifying nature of the title of a chart, "Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions..." some alarm bells ought to go off. Since it is only now coming out to the American public what the purposes of the interrogation methods we're using are, it is no surprise there hasn't been more outcry. (well, maybe not) People have been trying to tell us that torture provides false confessions and disinformation for years, now.
I don't know that even this will raise the level of fury over the US torturing - enhanced interrogating if you must - there seems to be a core that just flat out doesn't give a damn. We do need intelligence, the lifeblood of good decisions is information, that would be in this case qualified to be, good information. Take out the issue of the barbarism of mistreating helpless human beings and you still have the pragmatic issue of not getting bad information to act stupidly on. I am somewhat befuddled that this particular Administration misses that piece of the puzzle five years into the Iraq War. Well, unless maybe intelligence had nothing to do with that.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Obama Would Investigate White House
In an interview with Will Bunch at Philly.com Barack Obama said he would investigate the previous administration if there was evidence of criminal behavior. It was a cautious answer, noting that he would not want his actions to be symptomatic of a political witch hunt.
What I found of particular interest was the comments section - it made me really thankful for my comments section participants. There were essentially three points of view, the obvious one being those in favor of the idea and two either against or scoffing at it ever happening. The negative view seemed to break down into two camps: whatever was done for security was justified and the nothing bad ever happened - it's a librul plot against St George. I found the scoffers most interesting: a segment that held that nothing would ever be done to the powerful and the Obama is a liar segment. These are two distinctly different groups, one holding that the nature of power is such that it just won't happen and one which puts the lack of likelihood on Obama in particular. The latter were or seemed to be Hillary people.
Of the anti-camp all I can manage is puzzlement, were the laws violated ones involving say dealing pot they'd be falling all over themselves to hang the bastards (OK, I suppose blowjobs are included) but sainted George II is somehow too good to be pursued (and by extension any of his cronies). Any suggestion that they wouldn't want it done to their children is turned on its head as hate of Americans - somehow the evil left is suggesting it should be done to Americans . The others seem not to have any awareness of the news world beyond the fact that libruls are questioning some imaginary events. I am not talking about a question of whether there is question of legal cover, these things simply never happened. Here's the rub, this group was apparently able to read the article and type comments so they are literate.
I completely understand the sentiment that says nothing bad will happen to the wielders of power, I haven't exactly noticed it being prevalent in our society, either. It is not that I find such malfeasance inevitable, it is mostly the strength of character and will required is rare in such circles. The constant struggle to get votes and financing and pass legislation involves a lot of compromising and it assuredly gets pretty easy to have flexibility slide into spinelessness and weathervane ethics. You will please note that I am not using this brush to tar wide swathes of elected officials, such is not my assertion. Wealth and power confer huge advantages on people in conflict with the legal system.
The Obama deniers I have a bit more trouble with and I'm lukewarm on the guy. I have found no evidence that he is particularly ethically or morally challenged and yet there is an assumption that everything the man says is a lie. I'd be the last to assert that any politician doesn't exaggerate some or put the very best light on something questionable, but this requires a nearly pathological liar. How exactly Hillary and Bill getting caught out on absolute prevarications transfers to Obama I'm not sure. Evidently one's opponent must be Satan for being the opponent. This crap is going to cause real trouble in the General election - what strikes me is that it is so...Republican.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.
I am quoting lightly, the article is Bunch's and I have no desire to step on his work. This quote is pulled from the middle of a longer quote with much more content. I encourage you to go there for the entire article.
Obviously my strong concerns for the Bill of Rights and other protections within the Constitution generate some enthusiasm for this outlook. While I am sure that some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress leave a fair amount of wiggle room for the thugs of this administration, there has been quite a bit of wiggling going on. I have little doubt there is dirt laying around. Some have proposed that George II would pardon everybody - including himself - there is a problem with that idea. Self-serving pardons are considered void.What I found of particular interest was the comments section - it made me really thankful for my comments section participants. There were essentially three points of view, the obvious one being those in favor of the idea and two either against or scoffing at it ever happening. The negative view seemed to break down into two camps: whatever was done for security was justified and the nothing bad ever happened - it's a librul plot against St George. I found the scoffers most interesting: a segment that held that nothing would ever be done to the powerful and the Obama is a liar segment. These are two distinctly different groups, one holding that the nature of power is such that it just won't happen and one which puts the lack of likelihood on Obama in particular. The latter were or seemed to be Hillary people.
Of the anti-camp all I can manage is puzzlement, were the laws violated ones involving say dealing pot they'd be falling all over themselves to hang the bastards (OK, I suppose blowjobs are included) but sainted George II is somehow too good to be pursued (and by extension any of his cronies). Any suggestion that they wouldn't want it done to their children is turned on its head as hate of Americans - somehow the evil left is suggesting it should be done to Americans . The others seem not to have any awareness of the news world beyond the fact that libruls are questioning some imaginary events. I am not talking about a question of whether there is question of legal cover, these things simply never happened. Here's the rub, this group was apparently able to read the article and type comments so they are literate.
I completely understand the sentiment that says nothing bad will happen to the wielders of power, I haven't exactly noticed it being prevalent in our society, either. It is not that I find such malfeasance inevitable, it is mostly the strength of character and will required is rare in such circles. The constant struggle to get votes and financing and pass legislation involves a lot of compromising and it assuredly gets pretty easy to have flexibility slide into spinelessness and weathervane ethics. You will please note that I am not using this brush to tar wide swathes of elected officials, such is not my assertion. Wealth and power confer huge advantages on people in conflict with the legal system.
The Obama deniers I have a bit more trouble with and I'm lukewarm on the guy. I have found no evidence that he is particularly ethically or morally challenged and yet there is an assumption that everything the man says is a lie. I'd be the last to assert that any politician doesn't exaggerate some or put the very best light on something questionable, but this requires a nearly pathological liar. How exactly Hillary and Bill getting caught out on absolute prevarications transfers to Obama I'm not sure. Evidently one's opponent must be Satan for being the opponent. This crap is going to cause real trouble in the General election - what strikes me is that it is so...Republican.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Bush The Sadist
In order to preserve his kingly right to torture any peasant he pleases, George II today vetoed legislation specifically banning waterboarding. This should end all debate over whether they only did it because its illegality was debatable. It is now beyond argument that in order to satisfy their Faux 24 movie magic sadism they will keep internationally abhorred torture methods on the table. If you do not understand the guilty sexual pleasure obtained from misusing another human, you're not alone. It is classified as sexual deviancy of an obsessive nature and in many quarters, incurable. Its forerunners are the torture and maiming of creatures and a typical symptom is verbally abusive domination, typified by humiliating nicknames for intimates. It is truly sick when practiced on the unwilling, victims. Alcoholism and drug addiction are frequent accompanying disorders.
There is no longer any reason to wonder if our government asserts the right to torture you, Bush says they have it and will use it at his direction, and the Attorney General. People, including Americans, have spent considerable time in jail for waterboarding. It is criminal in most of the world, including places you wouldn't want to visit. I want you to note the vote was 222-199 in the House and 51-45 in the Senate. You do understand the implications of those numbers, this means that the Senate Republicans voted as a near block as did the House Republicans to allow this cretin to torture. You need to read Here's the Enemy, Democrats if you wonder how I feel about the Republican Party and their crap. If forced to be physically dangerous I would be a very nasty foe and hurt you very badly with little or no guilt, but I find this absolutely stomach turning. I feel an immense guilt to call myself an American in the face of this official American policy. It is no wonder these filth object to Michelle Obama not always being proud of her country, they place no limits on our behavior. George II's words leave no doubt, it is not simply waterboarding he wants on the table, he wants no limits. This is a truly sick individual who heads a Party of similar minded pukes. George, I promise not to travel to any place you are and you stay the hell away from me because I'll spit in your goddam face if I'm ever that close to you. I didn't think anybody could ever get my blood hotter than RMN and I'm astonished by how wrong I was. goddam damn damn damn...arghhhh
There is no longer any reason to wonder if our government asserts the right to torture you, Bush says they have it and will use it at his direction, and the Attorney General. People, including Americans, have spent considerable time in jail for waterboarding. It is criminal in most of the world, including places you wouldn't want to visit. I want you to note the vote was 222-199 in the House and 51-45 in the Senate. You do understand the implications of those numbers, this means that the Senate Republicans voted as a near block as did the House Republicans to allow this cretin to torture. You need to read Here's the Enemy, Democrats if you wonder how I feel about the Republican Party and their crap. If forced to be physically dangerous I would be a very nasty foe and hurt you very badly with little or no guilt, but I find this absolutely stomach turning. I feel an immense guilt to call myself an American in the face of this official American policy. It is no wonder these filth object to Michelle Obama not always being proud of her country, they place no limits on our behavior. George II's words leave no doubt, it is not simply waterboarding he wants on the table, he wants no limits. This is a truly sick individual who heads a Party of similar minded pukes. George, I promise not to travel to any place you are and you stay the hell away from me because I'll spit in your goddam face if I'm ever that close to you. I didn't think anybody could ever get my blood hotter than RMN and I'm astonished by how wrong I was. goddam damn damn damn...arghhhh
Thursday, February 07, 2008
I Guess We Did Torture
Just post WWII:
Sergeant Masatoshi Sawamura was convicted and sentenced to 30 years hard labor for, among other things, "forcing PW to stand at attention for a long period of time, sometimes in cold weather without sufficient clothing and on one occasion, in the nude; throwing a bucket of ice cold water over PW in cold weather;water treatment which entailed forcing water down PWs throat and nostrils using among others a hose, tubes; picking up and throwing PW to the ground; banging head against a wall; raising and lowering a sword on a PWs neck in an effort to make him give information."
Reuters reports that George II instructed Michael Hayden to testify to Congress regarding waterboarding, and he did:
Now somehow you're to be reassured by the statement that we haven't done so for five years, which somehow minimizes the fact. But before you get too comfortable BushCo mouthpiece Tony Fratto noted,
Sometimes it almost seems as though history has a sense of humor. A naval aviator shot down by fellow soldiers of Sgt Sawamura becomes President, has a kid who hides out in Texas during a war as an aviator and then becomes the President who engages in the same behavior Sgt Sawamura did. Ah, it must warm a father's heart with pride...
***Update
The Dick just got done calling it a tougher program for tougher customers, so those tough US soldiers who wouldn't cooperate with the Japanese deserved it? Seems we were bombing the snot out of Tokyo and killing a bunch of soldiers on islands across the Pacific...what an asshole.
Sergeant Masatoshi Sawamura was convicted and sentenced to 30 years hard labor for, among other things, "forcing PW to stand at attention for a long period of time, sometimes in cold weather without sufficient clothing and on one occasion, in the nude; throwing a bucket of ice cold water over PW in cold weather;water treatment which entailed forcing water down PWs throat and nostrils using among others a hose, tubes; picking up and throwing PW to the ground; banging head against a wall; raising and lowering a sword on a PWs neck in an effort to make him give information."
Reuters reports that George II instructed Michael Hayden to testify to Congress regarding waterboarding, and he did:
Hayden's admission, the first time a U.S. official publicly disclosed the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them, drew calls for a criminal investigation. Critics worldwide condemn waterboarding as torture, but the Bush administration has refused to define it as such.Numbered among the critics worldwide would evidently be the US Military Commission that tried and convicted and sentenced Sgt. Sawamura among others. Neither George W Bush nor the USA was around when the Spanish Inquisition practiced waterboarding, but you might note that one of the all purpose terms for inhuman cruelty and torture is "The Inquisition."
Now somehow you're to be reassured by the statement that we haven't done so for five years, which somehow minimizes the fact. But before you get too comfortable BushCo mouthpiece Tony Fratto noted,
"It is dependent on the circumstances."I'll just bet that makes you feel better. When Michael Mukasey had to testify before Congress,
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, opened Wednesday's hearing by saying, "This administration has so twisted America's role, law and values that our own State Department, our military officers and, apparently, America's top law enforcement officer, are now instructed by the White House not to say that waterboarding is torture and illegal."The question that has to occur to you is just exactly how it is that law suddenly became conditional? If you follow the reasoning of BushCo, there are things that are torture only if it is convenient for them to be torture. If it becomes in "circumstances" convenient to torture then it is not torture. I'm pretty sure Sgt Sawamura had found circumstances that made it convenient to engage in behavior that the US (in a more honorable time) found worthy of 30 years hard labor. George II might find that kind of labor a bit less fun than clearing ranch brush for photographers.
"Never mind that waterboarding has been recognized as torture for the last 500 years," Leahy said. "Never mind that President Teddy Roosevelt properly prosecuted Americans soldiers for this more than 100 years ago."
Sometimes it almost seems as though history has a sense of humor. A naval aviator shot down by fellow soldiers of Sgt Sawamura becomes President, has a kid who hides out in Texas during a war as an aviator and then becomes the President who engages in the same behavior Sgt Sawamura did. Ah, it must warm a father's heart with pride...
***Update
The Dick just got done calling it a tougher program for tougher customers, so those tough US soldiers who wouldn't cooperate with the Japanese deserved it? Seems we were bombing the snot out of Tokyo and killing a bunch of soldiers on islands across the Pacific...what an asshole.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
USAF Brig. General OKs Torture Evidence
If you're thinking that's a joke shock title, it is not. The character in this little morality play is USAF Brig. Gen. Thomas A Hartman, the guy who prompted the resignation of USAF Col. David Morris as lead prosecutor. In answer to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CS) he answered that the use of evidence obtained from waterboarding if that " evidence is reliable and probative, and the judge concludes that it is in the best interest of justice to introduce that evidence, ma'am, those are the rules we will follow."
You do understand that a hacked up body in your living room is not evidence in your murder trial if the police found it with an improper search. But this jerkoff, a military officer sworn to uphold the Constitution, proposes to use "evidence" obtained through torture. The exact kind of torture that US soldiers were prosecuted for using in the Philippines and Japanese officers were prosecuted for after WWII. If you can understand this, he claims to not know if waterboarding is torture. When did they stop teaching military history in Academies?
What did Col Davis have to say to the Senate? The WaPo tells you all about it:
We have turned into a nation of savages, the rule of law and simple ethics no longer stand in the face of our fear. We have let the neo-cons and the fear mongers of BushCo turn us into the very thing they claim to oppose. Which young American soldier will die in a foreign country in the name of these people's principles? This garbage has been spoken of openly in the US Congress, the law makers of the United States - I could just puke.
You do understand that a hacked up body in your living room is not evidence in your murder trial if the police found it with an improper search. But this jerkoff, a military officer sworn to uphold the Constitution, proposes to use "evidence" obtained through torture. The exact kind of torture that US soldiers were prosecuted for using in the Philippines and Japanese officers were prosecuted for after WWII. If you can understand this, he claims to not know if waterboarding is torture. When did they stop teaching military history in Academies?
What did Col Davis have to say to the Senate? The WaPo tells you all about it:
Why would the Defense Dept be so ashamed of their former lead prosecutor? "In my opinion, evidence derived by waterboarding is not reliable, and I took it off the table," Davis said. "I think the vast majority of people were relieved. By and large, most everybody involved in the process, the whole team, was really committed to trying to do this in a way that wasn't an embarrassment to the country."Hartmann's testimony conflicted with the views of the former military commissions chief prosecutor, who resigned in October after concluding that the process had become too politicized. In recent interviews, Air Force Col. Morris Davis said he categorically rejected the idea of using any evidence derived from waterboarding because he believes that the technique produces unreliable information. Davis was invited to testify at yesterday's hearing, but the Defense Department ordered him not to attend.
We have turned into a nation of savages, the rule of law and simple ethics no longer stand in the face of our fear. We have let the neo-cons and the fear mongers of BushCo turn us into the very thing they claim to oppose. Which young American soldier will die in a foreign country in the name of these people's principles? This garbage has been spoken of openly in the US Congress, the law makers of the United States - I could just puke.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Nobody Tells Poor George Anything
George II found out the CIA destroyed videotapes of torture last Thursday, apparently he must have had somebody read a newspaper to him. Not that something that happened in 2005 might take awhile to filter up to the CiC, but really? That sounds a bit like an NIE that nobody bothered to tell him about, you know, like it really didn't make squat difference that Iran had suspended their weapons program. But we should have been prepared for such disconnect, there was that little matter of yellow cake uranium and aluminum tubes. You'd probably be less than surprised that nobody thought it was important that he know something like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike US."
Then again, one might start to wonder if even a bunch as incompetent as BushCo could manage to be that uninformed and lackadaisical. You might be forgiven if you were to start thinking in terms of over used excuses. Slipping down that slope could put you into the realm of outright lies - something that has been mentioned in relation to this bunch.
Here's the problem if you're getting all overwrought with the importance of this issue, it really doesn't mean anything. For it to have any particular meaning there would be consequences attached to such a discovery. By now, George II has discovered that his minions need only say "Executive Privilege" or "On-going Investigation" and all the good little serfs will make mouth noises and scatter some ink around and it will just go away. There will be a great deal of scurrying around in hearing rooms and immense amounts of right wing stupidity published on the intertubes and that will be about it.
Now if you did some math along with some reading you'd come up with 2007-1776=231 years ago there'd have been a hanging, probably following a little ride on a fence bar involving some tar and feathers. Since we're a bit more civilized now, maybe an orange jumpsuit, manacles, and a guy in a black robe should precede. OK, fat chance. Sit down and shut up my little friends, because you won't do anything whatever about it.
Oh no, did I hurt your little Congressional feelings, well so what? Exactly how many chances have you had? Habeas Corpus? Military Detentions? Illegal Search and Seizure? Torture? Waging War Under False Flag? Hatch Act? Corruption? War Profiteering? I'm supposed to believe that the buck stops with Destruction of Evidence? Oh sure. You are exactly described by the words "Pathetically Ineffectual." The real question isn't what did George II know and when, it's why bother to tell you people anything?
Then again, one might start to wonder if even a bunch as incompetent as BushCo could manage to be that uninformed and lackadaisical. You might be forgiven if you were to start thinking in terms of over used excuses. Slipping down that slope could put you into the realm of outright lies - something that has been mentioned in relation to this bunch.
Here's the problem if you're getting all overwrought with the importance of this issue, it really doesn't mean anything. For it to have any particular meaning there would be consequences attached to such a discovery. By now, George II has discovered that his minions need only say "Executive Privilege" or "On-going Investigation" and all the good little serfs will make mouth noises and scatter some ink around and it will just go away. There will be a great deal of scurrying around in hearing rooms and immense amounts of right wing stupidity published on the intertubes and that will be about it.
Now if you did some math along with some reading you'd come up with 2007-1776=231 years ago there'd have been a hanging, probably following a little ride on a fence bar involving some tar and feathers. Since we're a bit more civilized now, maybe an orange jumpsuit, manacles, and a guy in a black robe should precede. OK, fat chance. Sit down and shut up my little friends, because you won't do anything whatever about it.
Oh no, did I hurt your little Congressional feelings, well so what? Exactly how many chances have you had? Habeas Corpus? Military Detentions? Illegal Search and Seizure? Torture? Waging War Under False Flag? Hatch Act? Corruption? War Profiteering? I'm supposed to believe that the buck stops with Destruction of Evidence? Oh sure. You are exactly described by the words "Pathetically Ineffectual." The real question isn't what did George II know and when, it's why bother to tell you people anything?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Lt Col Couch Cannot Testify on Torture
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) received a letter from Marine Lt Col V Stuart Couch, according to AP , which stated,
To be sure a sworn statement before a House sub-committee is different than an attributed statement to the WSJ, but the story is out and the difference is that it would not only be a matter of public knowledge, but sworn into evidence in the Legislature. The government is rather obviously scared spitless about torture, a condition that need not exist except for a certain difficulty- they do it. George II can stand on the White House steps all day long and intone, 'we don't torture,' but nobody believes they do not use at least one technique known as torture since the Inquisition. So we no longer need worry about the Bush Administration, we can now call it the BushCo Inquisition.
You may think BushCo Inquisition is a bit strong, but consider his government's stance, George II can determine that a US citizen is an enemy combatant, hold that citizen incommunicado, not bring them to trial, and torture them, possibly to death and have no responsibility to the citizenry for such action. The effect of George II's signing statements and legislation passed by his Republican Congress is that if he decides that Blogger 'X' has made him sufficiently uncomfortable to be of aid to "the enemy" that blogger will be disappeared and tortured and that's all there is to it. Like that idea?
"The Department of Defense has decided I cannot testify. Please be advised that I am willing to testify before the subcommittee in the event I am allowed to do so."The super secret issue at hand? Whether he iced the prosecution of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, accused of helping assemble a terrorist cell that included the hijacker who steered United Flight 175 into the World Trade Center due to incriminating statements obtained through beatings and psychological torture. As a prosecutor he believed, "In our zeal to get information, we had compromised our ability to prosecute him." How secret is that information? That was his statement to the WSJ.
To be sure a sworn statement before a House sub-committee is different than an attributed statement to the WSJ, but the story is out and the difference is that it would not only be a matter of public knowledge, but sworn into evidence in the Legislature. The government is rather obviously scared spitless about torture, a condition that need not exist except for a certain difficulty- they do it. George II can stand on the White House steps all day long and intone, 'we don't torture,' but nobody believes they do not use at least one technique known as torture since the Inquisition. So we no longer need worry about the Bush Administration, we can now call it the BushCo Inquisition.
You may think BushCo Inquisition is a bit strong, but consider his government's stance, George II can determine that a US citizen is an enemy combatant, hold that citizen incommunicado, not bring them to trial, and torture them, possibly to death and have no responsibility to the citizenry for such action. The effect of George II's signing statements and legislation passed by his Republican Congress is that if he decides that Blogger 'X' has made him sufficiently uncomfortable to be of aid to "the enemy" that blogger will be disappeared and tortured and that's all there is to it. Like that idea?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)