Blue Commonwealth - torture

Torture's Loopholes

teacherken — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:44:00 GMT

originally posted at Daily Kos

Americans can now boast that they no longer "torture" detainees, but they cannot say that detainees are not abused, or even that their treatment meets the minimum standards of humane treatment mandated by the Geneva Conventions, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (the so-called McCain amendment), United States and international law, or even Mr. Obama's executive order.

Read that again. Note especially what we cannot say, even one year after Obama signed an executive order in theory banning torture, or that the Army Field Manual requires "humane treatment." It may for example limit "separation" (solitary confinement) to 30 days but a general officer can issue a waiver to extend that time and

Rest assured, there will be numerous waivers to even that minuscule requirement.

So writes Matthew Alexander, a former military interpreter, in a must-read New York Times op-ed with the same title as this posting.
The name "Matthew Alexander" is a pseudonym for the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. He has written in opposition to torture in any form not only in the book, but in op eds as well. And on the anniversary of Obama's executive order, he wrote again to remind us that we still have far to go.

The first thing to remember is that the Army Field Manual was itself hastily revised in light of the exposure of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but it still allowed far too many things most should find objectionable at a minimum if not downright offensives and unacceptable.

Consider these ommissions from the manual: it

does not explicitly prohibit stress positions, putting detainees into close confinement or environmental manipulation (other than hypothermia and "heat injury").

Alexander notes how that leaves open the possibility of abuse.

Another illustration is that it allows limiting detainees to 4 hours of sleep per 24 hourrs, which as Alexander notes

does not meet the minimum standard of humane treatment, either in terms of American law or simple human decency.

He reminds us that some detainees have now been at Gimo for 7 years. Imagine applying that pattern for an extended period of time.

And then combine that with this: Alexander notes that some interrogators believe they can interpret that languae as allowing them to interrogate the detainee for the remaining 20 hours. That is, 4 hours sleep, 20 hours interrogation (perhaps using stress positions, close confinement, or environmenatla mainpulation). Then start the process over again - give the detainee four hours to sleep and recommence the interrogation.

So long as the document that now governs our interrogation procedures allows such treatment of detainees, we have NOT banned torture.

Let's not parse language for loopholes. Is not that one thing for which we heavily criticized the previous administration? How then do we continue to tolerate it? Alexnader writes that these things contradict the Army Field Manual's requirement that all captured personnel be "treated humanely." that is an understatement, one he emphasizes by noting that it allows actions that no right-thinking person could consider humane.

Let me repeat that: actions that no right-thinking person could consider humane.

Let me parse that. It may be that some will interpret "right-thinking" as meaning tilting towards the political right in this nation. That is obviously not what Alexander intends, for we know they will argue with him, criticize him, demean him, perhaps as a wimp or a softie.

We guarantee persons rights under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. That the 8th amendment bans cruelty and inhumanity in punishment does not mean it allows it in interrogation. Our tradition, as regular readers of this site know, goes back further in banning such actions, starting with the Commander of our Army in the Revolution, who would later become our first President. Would that all of his successors as the nation's President would be bound not only by his examples of serving only 2 two terms and adding the words "So help me God" to the oath of office, but also by his rejection of torture and mistreatment.

Alexander warns that if we do not reform our methods, we will continue to provide our adversaries with an effective recruitment tool, perhaps their most effective tool.

But it is more. In his penultimate paragraph he offers a simple proposition:

he greatest shame of the last year, perhaps, is that the argument over interrogations has shifted from debating what is legal to considering what is just "better than before." The best way to change things is to update the field manual again to bring our treatment of detainees up to the minimum standard of humane treatment.

And he concludes not only by reminds us of how our continued use of torture and mistreatment serve as an effective recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, but that we will continue

to earn the contempt of our allies and to debase our most cherished ideals.

Jefferson explained that one reason for offering the Declaration of Independence was the need to justify our separation according to a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. Not just our allies, but also our adversaries. That is important. Considering that reminds us not to be locked into our own self-rationalizations.

Perhaps it should not be necessary to consider what others might think. Perhaps we should be moral and decent enough as a nation, as persons collectively gathered into one society, that we would on that basis alone reject the kinds of mistreatment, abuse, and - yes - torture that is allowable and apparently still going on with at least the silent acquiescence of the current administration.

We know there are those who apparently either suppress or even lack the conscience necessary to reject such methods, and consideration of a decent respect to the opinions of mankind may therefore be a useful idea to remember, at least from time time. IT is precisely why whatever methods we use should be transparent. It is why, contrary to what happened under the CIA before, all interrogations and anything related to them should be fully documented, including audio and visual recording, such material available for use by prosecutors and for examination by our elected representatives in the House and Senate.

Torture is not acceptable. Not in my name, not in your name. Never. Never in our name.

Which is why when it comes to torture, there should be no loopholes.

Peace.

The New Administration's Anti-terrorism Efforts and Its "Let's Torture" Critics

KathyinBlacksburg — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:35:48 GMT

Sunday's New York Times carried an article beginning this way:

Bush administration officials came up with all kinds of ridiculously offensive rationalizations for torturing prisoners. It's not torture if you don't mean it to be. It's not torture if you don't nearly kill the victim. It's not torture if the president says it's not torture.

We "don't torture," (except when we do). Two presidents now have uttered the words, "We do not torture." Numerous others have as well. When former President Bush uttered them, it was essentially word-smithing. Obviously, as the hundreds of photographs from Abu Ghraib showed, we did torture during the Bush administration.

Shortly after President Obama took office, he issued directives to close Guantanamo Bay and end waterboarding. Things would be different. It should be noted, however, that waterboarding isn't the only form of torture used against adversaries. It should also be noted changing a way of doing business is more difficult than issuing a directive. Nor do we have national control (anymore) of all those mercenary agents who work on "our behalf." As the NY Times editorial said, "President Obama, much to his credit has forwsorn the use of torture, but politics and policy makers change and democracy cannot rely merely on the good will of one president and his aides."
Obama also wisely seeks to deal with the roots of terrorism. Unlike Bush, he understands that it's critical to ultimately building a less violence-prone world. One of the several key prongs to his efforts is to build understanding and common purpose throughout the world, as symbolized by his Cairo speech. He may, however, not realize what the widened use of drones might do to undermine his well-intended analytical and diplomatic approach. Perhaps he does.

But torturers, and the public which is soothed by them, may have taken on a life of their own. When, recently, the public was asked by a Rasmussen poll whether Abdulmutallab should be waterboarded, 58% said yes. That is torture. There seems to be a disconnect. The news that 58% of Americans think we should torture the Christmas-Day bomber came as a direct rebuke to those of us who oppose torture. Over at The Raw Story, this was the reaction:

Liberal blogs have been skeptical all year about Rasmussen polls which show President Obama with an approval rating far lower than any other polling organization, and polling analyst Nate Silver in particular has recently subjected Rasmussen to fierce mockery. This latest poll is likely to only increase the controversy.

It turns out that Rasmussen is a controversial pollster. Here's an article just this week questions about Rasmussen.

But what if only 49%, or 50% or 51% approve of torture? Do we not still have a problem? There are troubling signs that even liberals who once opposed torture, opposed war expansion, and opposed the senseless war on, well, fear, justify things we would never have countenanced years ago. Thankfully, President Obama, knowing the absurdity of a war on fear, dropped reference to the war on "terror." Instead he uses the term war against terrorism. But, as has been noted by others, war against a tactic makes little sense as well. Enter Dick Cheney and all manner of Republicans to skewer the President, to question his competence and even his patriotism.

It's curious how quickly we abandoned many of our principles following 9-11. That terrible day we lost about 3,000 people. But despite how awful that was for the families of the victims, and for all Americans, we pretty much lost our heads. As a country, we have acted as if the lives of 3,000 people were worth more than the nearly 5,000 who've died on the US side or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians, and Afghani soldiers and civilians who have been lost or will be. Where is our sense of proportion? Where is our capacity for self appraisal, of how we navigate the world? Where is our determination to punish those specific people who did this rather than nations which were uninvolved, or just anyone? I believe we must support the president in his effort to bring perpetrators to legal justice, not trumped up military tribunals. Dick Cheney is perhaps a worst case among those who seem to have lost their heads over their own fears. That's giving Cheney the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that his behavior is more cynical than that.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan caused 9-11. Certainly their civilians did not. A stateless coalition, fueled by hatred, did so. And yet Dick Cheney acts as if it's weakness to bring the perpetrators to justice in our courts. What is he afraid of, really? Our own system, which has held us in good stead for hundreds of years? Does he not want us to know that he and his president back then rounded up the innocent along with a smaller number of the guilty? What is he afraid of, really? Though he may be, he shouldn't be worried about his own hide because President Obama has refused to hold the Bush administration accountable. And now the new administration pursues a similar, but not identical, course. That course, however is neither as brash, nor as full of swagger, or as extreme as the course the Bush administration set (and tried to set). As the New York Times reported:

The attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines passenger jet on Christmas Day heightened a debate that has percolated over the last 12 months. Obama's approach has been either a dangerous reversal of the Bush years or a consolidation of the Bush years, depending on who is talking. In fact, the new president, during his first year, has adopted the bulk of the counterterrorism strategy he found on his desk when he arrived in the Oval Office, a strategy already moderated from the earliest days after Sept. 11, 2001. He did, however, shave back some of the harsher edges of the remaining Bush policies and in the process of his recalibrations drew simultaneous fire from former Vice President Dick Cheney and the American Civil Liberties Union.

BTW, that article shows how very difficult sorting wheat from chafe in "intelligence" is. And it does so amid the backdrop of a reported threat against Obama's inauguration. It turned out that the threat was exaggerated that time. The story is outlined in the NYT magazine article. The same article says the transition was perhaps the most seamless in history. But there was no mention of that throughout the rest of the media. And it was not 24 hours before the partisan critical onslaught began. It is astounding how the very same Republican party which demanded that we didn't say anything negative about George W. Bush, or be called unpatriotic, will say or do almost anything to thwart this president.

That day brought hope to most of America that not only a new tone, but new deeds would follow. In many ways they have. Obama has good instincts about the danger of the kind of swaggering macho of George W. Bush. He has worked to set a new and more constructive tone. And he has taken heat from Republicans, absurdly for "playing elevator music when when what was called for was John Phillips Sousa." (You have to wonder sometimes how Republicans ever retained power as long as they did.)

According to the extensive NY Times magazine article, President Obama was well-informed about terrorism before his election. Yet, surely, there will be surprises no matter how well prepared a nominee or president-elect. One of these may well have been a purported threat against Obama's inauguration.

Our President entered office pledging to support the Geneva Conventions. But what happens if the populace does not? We said we believed in the Geneva Conventions. In recent years, we Dems persuaded ourselves that only Republicans (and maybe a few so-called "realists," who really aren't) did not. The Bush admin eviscerated the Geneva Conventions, rendering them less meaningful instruments for the entire world, but also we endangered our own troops --and ourselves in doing so. It is now more likely that Americans, both civilian and military, abroad will be tortured. Talk about short-sighted.

Moreover, in enabling the gutting our Constitution, we supported notions of the "unitary executive," we embraced (at least some of us did) pre-emptive war. We changed who we are. We therefore let the terrorists win. It was if we had entered the Netherworld of War=Peace. There's a word for that: Orwellian.

And Orwellian though we too have become, the thing is, not only is the refusal to torture the right thing, but also it's the best way to keep us safe. A world which countenances torture is safe for no one, not even the frightened, the terror mongers, or those who think they are "protecting the homeland." They aren't. And they do not get it. Even the President dabbled in the Orwellian notion that peace is war in his Nobel speech (see Bradblog link later in this article). Meanwhile, wingnut Jim DeMint has gone so far as to claim that the president doesn't use the word "terror" enough. (Sigh.)

Not that long ago, Dems raise their voices against torture. And one wonders: What now? What have we become? What else will we "justify." If our country can "justify" torture, what else will it assent to when frightened enough? We've already rubber stamped unprovoked war, if we are frightened enough that someone might attack us. Where does that leave us?

Do not tell me that it's a scary world. Yes, it's a scary world. I grew up with air raid drills and hiding under desks. I am a fearful person myself. But at least I know when to draw the line, to work on myself and my fears instead of presuming that they justify stupid and immoral over-actions. That is our task as human beings.

It is not our task to expect the administration to eliminate "terror." That task is our own. Security can never be accomplished as long as there are those willing to let their fears be exploited.

Our government should use common-sense strategies and tactics to reduce the likelihood of future attacks. Our government should continue to round up those who perpetrated 9-11, and other attacks, and bring them to justice. Unfortunately, our administration sees its mission as much more, by way of expanded and protracted military incursions. And you and I will be paying both the monetary and security consequences for our lifetimes. As much as we admire our president, as much as he has restored the dignity of the Oval Office, and as much as we prefer him over former President Bush, the fact is that our president is going down a similar path. And it is in many ways our fault for expecting our president to eliminate our fears.

There's also a sure-to-be-controversial read here. Whether you agree with it or not, the author raises some powerful questions about the direction we are headed. You may not like this article. It is unduly harsh, in my opinion. But it raises a point I wish to make: More and more wars will not reduce the violence, but rather seed more and more reactive violence. We should think about this when we urge our government to take unjustified, preemptive actions against those who have done us no harm. I also know that torture won't solve anything. We should think long and hard about that, as well as the immorality of it. Most of all, we (all Americans) must continue to say, "we do not torture" and mean it, mean it regardless of whether or not we are frightened, mean it no matter what our discomfort. It is at those moments that we are most tested and at those moments that we can rise above baser instincts and fears to create a nation and world which is, at last, more safe.

The role of government in our lives: Secret CIA programs or Government backed Healthcare?

chspkheel — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:20:49 GMT

More information is coming to light about the extent of the CIA's domestic spying and counterintelligence programs, which were engaged much sooner after September 11th than previously knows. According to an Associated Press article released last night, Congress was intentionally kept in the dark about specifics regarding these programs and possibly others upon the orders of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

This latest revelation is a continuation of information being released to the United States Congress and the public by current Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta. This began back on May 15th when Panetta notified Congress he had ended the waterboarding program that had existed under the two previous CIA Directors, exposing the extent that the waterboarding interrogation technique was used on Gitmo detainees to gain intelligence. This also ignited a back and forth of "he said, she said" between the CIA and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi if the CIA had briefed her and seven other House and Senate leaders on top secret intelligence matters, including the extent of waterboarding.

A couple of questions come to mind regarding this latest development. The first is how much executive power did President Bush abdicate to Vice President Cheney during his tenure in the White House? The second question is, was Vice President Cheney going rogue during this period of time and who else was involved? There is a strong appearance of abuse of power on the part of Vice President Dick Cheney, but I am not a lawyer.

There is a concern that during the Bush Administration, legal interpretations of the Constitution were strained to justify programs to gather intelligence at the domestic level as well as foreign, or laws were broken all in the name of National Security. While the Posse Comitatus Act might not have legally been violated, there are strong indications that the spirit of the law was violated, again in the name of National Security.

The Washington Post is reporting that United States Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. is "leaning toward appointing a criminal prosecutor to investigate whether CIA personnel tortured terrorism suspects after Sept. 11, 2001," a move that is being described as trouble for the Obama Administration and its desire to move beyond these issues in the Bush Administration.

This brings me to the point of the choice between two evils, one perceived and one very real. Americans for Prosperity and Conservatives for Patients Rights are pushing hard on the whole boggyman message of "Government run healthcare." Conservatives and supporters of the Private Health Insurance sector are resurrecting the fears of government controlled-rationing of health care that was used during the Healthcare Reform debate back in 1992-93. There has also been a lot of comments to the effect that "most of these uninsured people choose not to have health insurance" or they are uninsurable because "they made bad choices in their lives that have created pre-existing conditions" so that health insurance companies don't want to insure them.

While these comments might hold true for some people, my experience working on the issue of Healthcare Reform revealed the vast majority of the 47 million Americans that are uninsured either make too much money to qualify for low income health insurance (Medicaid) or can't afford to purchase private health insurance plans. What is obvious is the status quo is not sustainable.

It might be an unfair question to ask, but if you had to choose between keeping Congress in the dark on secret CIA programs in the name of "National Security" or the Federal Government having a role in making healthcare accessible and affordable to everyone, which would you chose? It appears that Conservatives would support secret CIA programs that jeopardize Constitutional integrity over public health and the common good. What is certain is that the prospect of an investigation into former Vice President Dick Cheney will hijack a large part of President Obama's agenda and failure to figure out Healthcare Reform will derail it. The convergence of these two issues might be the moment of truth for President Obama, on top of how he continues to handle the economy.

For links to sources, visit http://offkstreet.blogspot.com...

Barry Butler
Off K Street

Must Read from Bob Herbert - How Long Is Long Enough?

teacherken — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:44:27 GMT

also posted at Daily Kos

It begins like this

No one seems to know how old Mohammed Jawad was when he was seized by Afghan forces in Kabul six and a half years ago and turned over to American custody. Some reports say he was 14. Some say 16. The Afghan government believes he was 12.

The penultimate paragraph

There is no credible evidence against Jawad, and his torture-induced confession has rightly been ruled inadmissible by a military judge. But the Obama administration does not feel that he has suffered enough. Not only have administration lawyers opposed defense efforts to secure Jawad's freedom, but they are using, as the primary basis for their opposition, the fruits of the confession that was obtained through torture and has already been deemed inadmissible - without merit, of no value.

Read the column. I have words to offer below, but they will not matter if you read the column
The officer assigned to prosecute him is now retired, and works with his military defense lawyers to try to free Mohammed Jawad.

There is nothing I can say about the case itself that Herbert does not already present as lucidly as is possible. Let me illustrate with one additional paragraph from the piece:

Jawad also complained about being mistreated at Guantánamo, saying he had been moved with absurd frequency from cell to cell - the idea being to deprive him of sleep. A check of the official prison logs showed that Jawad had in fact been moved 112 times, without explanation, from one cell to another in a two-week period - an average of eight moves a day for 14 days.

But there is something else I must say.

I do not know who these administration lawyers are, whether they are burrowed in Bush political appointees, career personnel who are still following the guidance of the previous administration, or whatever possible reason might be offered for this kind of behavior.

This administration has now been in office, as of today, June 20, for 5 months. And yet legal arguments being present in courts are largely unchanged from those of the previous 8 years.

We have seen it on DOMA.

We have seen it in the apparent decision not to hold torturers to account.

We have seen it in the continued use of the state secrets doctrine.

We have seen it again and again and again.

And almost all of the examples either I have cited or have been cited by others seem to violate the commitments Obama made to the American people, to us, when he sought the office he now holds.

How long does it take competent lawyers to examine the case records and come to a determination of how to do things differently? If the lawyers addressing these cases cannot do so in five months, why are they not being removed? If they are deliberately ignoring the guidance of the President and his administration, why are they not removed?

And if neither of those are the reasons, does that mean the President and his administration accept the reasoning now being presented to courts around the nation? And if so, does not the President owe us, owe the American people, a clear and forthright explanation of why he is pursuing a different approach legally than we were led to believe would be his direction?

I understand that trials under military authority are supposed to be protected from command influence. That doctrine was implemented to protect those being court-martialed. A commander always has the right to decide not to bring charges. Anyone who doubts that merely need examine how few of those responsible for the horrors of Abu Ghraib ever faced Courts Martial. Thus there should be no reason for the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the President of the United States stating clearly that given the set of facts that are not in dispute in a case like this,

1. all charges should be dropped against Mohammed Jawad

2. he should be immediately released back to his family

3. the Afghan government should be informed in no uncertain terms that he is to be protected

4. he should be given compensation for his mistreatment, torture and unlawful confinement by agents of the United State of America.

I find myself having to again be critical of an administration for whose success I strongly hope - I am not Rush Limbaugh saying that I want Obama to fail.

And I acknowledge that the administration faces many major issues, and cannot right every wrong instantaneously.

There is much good the Obama administration has already done.

But when it comes to human rights, to civil liberties, to basic fairness, justice delayed is, as William Gladstone told us, justice denied.

To continue to use discredited legal argumentation, especially when it means a person we have already badly mistreated, continues to remain in indefinite limbo, in our custody, should be viewed as a violation of much of what we hold dear.

No cruel and unusual punishment.

Equal justice before the law.

Due process of law.

The right to confront the accusers and evidence against one.

Basic fairness.

Simple human decency.

So Bob Herbert is right to ask his question, How Long is Long Enough?

When the basis of continuing to hold a person is the result of our having tortured him, any time is already too long.

Peace.

Cheney "Bore False Witness" (i.e., Lied): Senator Levin

Teddy Goodson — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:48:32 GMT

Finally some one has called Cheney out, naming him as the liar that he is. Senator Carl Levin (D, MI), Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, speaking before the American Foreign Policy Association this week, responded to the numerous recent rants by the former Vice-President defending the use of torture by the Bush administration and attacking President Obama for "making America less safe" because he terminated the use of torture by the United States, and plans on closing Guantanamo. Levin referred frequently to the findings of a bipartisan report from the Armed Services Committee, based on 18 months' investigation, into the reported use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture.

The Senator fully rebutted each of Cheney's statements with specific findings from the bipartisan report, and frequent direct quotes from outside officials as well, but the stem-winder came about 3.53 minutes into his speech, according to Zachary Roth, writing in Talking Points Memo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)

"When former Vice-President Cheney said last week that what happened at Abu Ghraib was the work of a quote few sadistic prison guards acting on their own, he bore false witness. And when he said last week there was no link between the techniques at Abu Ghraib and those approved for use in the CIA's secret prisons, he again strayed from the truth. The seeds of Abu Ghraib's rotten fruit were sown by civilians at the highest levels of our government."

Levin specifically named Donald Rumsfeld as one of those civilians, and it was clear that Bush, as the top of the civilian leadership pyramid, was another. The Senator lamented the sad fact that only a few low-ranking people had been held accountable. Fortunately, he said, President Obama has returned America to the high ground, beginning to restore her prestige and the support we had from the world after 9/11, which had been squandered by the Bush administration.

Senator Levin also pointed out that he had read the classified documents the Vice-President claims prove the benefits of torture, and the documents prove no such thing; Cheney (and his daughter) in effect, are lying:

"Mr. Cheney has also claimed that the release of classified documents would prove his view that the techniques worked. But those classified documents say nothing about numbers of lives saved, nor do the documents connect acquisition of valuable intelligence to the use of the abusive techniques. I hope that the documents are declassified so that people can judge for themselves what is fact and what is fiction."

Senator Levin's conclusion was that there should be a full, independent investigation out of the Department of Justice of the use of torture. He suggested a panel of "retired judges" run the investigation, removing the process from politics entirely.... let the chips fall where they may.

It is doubtful that the corporate media will give Levin's attack ("false witness") the same exposure it has given to Cheney, but something has triggered a response from the previously quiet former President Bush, who bestirred himself to issue a statement along the lines of (paraphrased) "enhanced interrogation worked, and I did what I had to do to protect the American people, which was my job." There comes that "protect" clause again, which shows up nowhere in the Presidential oath of office, rather like the invention of the omnipotent "unitary executive" also created by Bush's flunkies to provide him with an excuse to do anything he damned well pleased. Both concepts are alien barnacles grafted on to the Constitution.

Seemingly supporting Cheney to a degree has been the recently released report by the Department of Defense that 5 percent (or, variously 1 out of 7, which is 14 percent) of freed Gitmo detainees "re-engaged in terrorist activities." The New York Times and various conservatives have trumpeted this report, scaring timid Congressional Democrats into screaming "not in my backyard" when it looked as though Obama might bring some detainees to continental US. The American refusal to receive Gitmo detainees has caused other countries, previously willing to accept them, to hesitate, unwilling to do so until the United States herself takes some in.

Justin Elliot, also writing in TPM, actually read the Pentagon report, and said "The bottom line: those who counseled skepticism about the DOD numbers would seem to be vindicated by the actual report."

First, the news stories did not distinguish adequately between confirmed and suspected cases, and did not go into the obvious question: how many detainees, who were innocent when turned over to the Americans were later radicalized by their imprisonment? (You might say the US was the unwitting headmaster of a School for Terrorists). Second, the Defense Intelligence Agency reported 14 percent (1 out of 7) was the "overall rate" of the 530 prisoners released who were confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorist activities. The figure was further broken down into 27 "confirmed" and 47 "suspected," which is 5 percent confirmed and 9 percent suspected.

There is no real verification or explanation of these recidivist terrorists, as shown by a sample quote from a list of 29 names tabulated: "Name: Muhibullah. Nationality: Afghanistan. Repatriated: July 2005. Activity: Association With The Taliban. Status: Suspected." Forty-five of the 47 "suspected" are not even named.

While the report does distinguish between the two categories (confirmed and suspected), this distinction was not made in the NYT or the conservative cable news shows. The "1 in 7" mantra is a combination, and that was sufficient for Republican purposes to beat the drum of fear, to which perennially frightened and paranoid Americans responded. When did we become such scaredy-cats? Those detainees who would be tried or who are convicted, will be in high security prisons from which no one has escaped, not even some truly fiendish and horrifying domestic nasties of our own. Don't we trust our prisons? We certainly have built enough of them.

What I really would prefer is that we follow Senator Levin's suggestion of an independent panel to investigate the whole torture mess, taking it out of politics and actually removing it from the public platform so that President Obama can continue addressing all the other messes. I think Obama has resisted because he does not want the distraction, or to inflame Republicans even further. I understand that, but Republicans are going to be inflamed no matter what, and we owe ourselves an investigation which enforces accountability if our system of government is to survive, and thrive.

Short Takes: News You May Have Missed But Will Want to Read

KathyinBlacksburg — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:22:56 GMT

Frightening: Coming to an Election Near You...
All digital, unverifiable elections, run by-you guessed it the head of Bush's US Election Assistance Commission, from 2003-2007. Read about it here. Note that Bradblog is the best blog concerning election news -- anywhere.

Levin Has Seen Doc Cheney Refers to and It Proves Nothing
Dick Cheney is just posturing. Carl Levin has seen the docs and says Cheney's assertion they prove they kept us safe isn't true.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov....

On Cheney's So-called Gitmo Recidivsts. http://emptywheel.firedoglake....

Petraeus: What He Said May Surprise You.
General David Petraeus said 1) we did violate Geneva conventions, 2) Gitmo's resenece is a recruiting tool for the enemy, 3) we should close Gitmo, 4) end torture, and 5) try suspects in courts of law. Read about it here.

President Barack Obama Most Popular World Leader in Western Democracies.
The NY Times article is here and the poll details can be found here.

Devolving into Howling Wolves: GOP Pundits and Talking Heads Continue Relentless Attacks on Nominee
The extreme attacks on Sonia Sotomayor continue. Here's one more example.

Wingnut Economic Hypocrisy
Digby Focuses on Yet Another Example, Chrysler. Take a look here.

Dick Cheney's Daughter Admits the Real Reasons Her Dad is Ubiquitous in the Media

KathyinBlacksburg — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:06:20 GMT

As some of us here have commented, Dick Cheney has been ubiquitous in the media. So too has Cheney's daughter, Liz. By Steve Benen's (at Washington Monthly) account she's made 12 appearances in 9.5 days. There's also speculation that Liz Cheney is running for office. This is the same Liz Cheney who's ramping up aggressive talk about Iran, including talk of military action.
According to ThinkProgress, Liz Cheney:

[Liz Cheney] deplored...the Bush administration's failure to enforce "red lines" against Iranian advances in the region. Washington, she declared, must clearly state that if Iranians "don't give up diplomatically [to United Nations demands that it freeze its nuclear program], they will face military action".

The father-daughter duo aim to stir up more war while we are already fighting two. The saber-rattling, fear-mongering, and hegemony are not the kind of legacy a father ought to leave a daughter. But this is no ordinary father-daughter relationship, apparently.

It is in the video clip above that Liz makes her blatantly personal/selfish statement. In the video clip (hat-tip to thinkprogress.org), Liz actually says part of the reason for her father's constant presence is the threat of prosecution for his actions while Vice President. Strike another blow at accountability. The Cheney's just aren't that into it. And, the rest of us are supposed to just fall into line.

Cheney's "Misstatements" Debunked

Teddy Goodson — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:27:19 GMT

The corporate media is making a great deal out of what they refer to as "dueling speeches." They refer to the coincidence of Obama speaking Thursday on national security in front of the Constitution at the National Archives, followed almost immediately by former Vice-President Cheney's speech to the American Enterprise Institute, defending the Bush administration's policies on torture in the name of national security. By and large, corporate media reporters have performed the usual ballet of "he said," and then "the other one said," treating the speeches as equal, and telling listeners to decide which one they preferred, without getting off their hindquarters and doing a little fact-checking. Had they done so, it would have exposed Mr. Cheney's egregious lies and distortions, perhaps raising the question: has Richard Cheney totally slipped the bonds of reality---- or does he have another agenda underlying his many recent torturous defenses of torture?

Fortunately, McClatchey newspapers' Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, did do the fact-checking, and provided us with a roster of troubling "omissions, exaggerations and misstatements" by the former Vice-President. (http://www.freep.com/article/20090522/NEWS15/90521105).
Here are some of Cheney's "misstatements"and the truth for you to use if a Republican accosts you:
Cheney: The harsh interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration like waterboarding, forced nakedness, and sleep deprivation, were "legal," and garnered information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people." He claimed that Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, actually said that the information so gathered provided us with a "deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization."
Fact: On April 21 Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means." He pointed out that "these techniques hurt our image around the world," that the "damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." Moreover, in 2004 a report from the CIA inspector general was unable to find any conclusive proof that information gained through torture ever helped prevent any "specific imminent attacks," and Robert Muller, Director of the FBI, also told Vanity Fair last December that he did not think the techniques disrupted any attacks.

Cheney: President Obama's release of the four top secret Bush memos on interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to national security and would help terrorists to learn how to resist our interrogation.
Fact: Blair actually recommended releasing the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit the use of torture, and said "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."

Cheney: Maintains that the Bush administration moved "decisively" against terrorists in their "hideouts and sanctuaries."
Fact: The truth is, Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant Ayman al Zawahiri are still at large eight years after 9/11. Bush diverted US forces, intelligence assets, time, and money to planning the invasion of Iraq before he finished the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Today we have 49,000 US troops in Afghanistan where insurgents have returned in full force, plus, there is the dangerous surge of extremist attacks in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Cheney: Claims the abuses at Abu Ghraib had no connection to Bush's interrogation policies, and were the result of "a few sadistic guards," (that is, bad apples in the lower ranks).
Fact: A bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report last December, signed by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John McCain (R-Ariz), said "The abuse of detainees... cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own... senior officials of the United States government... redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality." The report pointed at top Bush officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as having approved the torture.

Cheney: Says that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the "harsh interrogation techniques," like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of 9/11.
Fact: He did not mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior Al Qaeda operative captured, who was interrogated by FBI special agent Ali Soufan. Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week (May 2009) that he had used "traditional methods" of interrogation (i.e., no torture) and pried out crucial information including Zubaydah's alleged role in 9/11. Soufan said bluntly that using harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made;" his criticism was echoed by Philip Zelikow who worked for Condi Rice in the 2004 internal fight to overhaul Bush's detention policies.

Cheney: Says that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence."
Fact: The Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, State Department, Department of Energy and others about questionable and unreliable "intelligence," and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to make the case for invading Iraq in 2003.

Cheney: Fails to mention the case of Al Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed al-Fakheri (aka Ibn Sheikh al-Libi), whom the Bush administration secretly sent to Egypt for interrogation, January 2002.
Fact: In Egypt, under torture, al-Libi supplied false information linking Al Qaeda with Iraq, information used by Bush despite warnings from DIA the information was unreliable. Al-Libi has recently been reported to have committed suicide.

Cheney: Accuses Obama of "the selective release" of documents, and of withholding records which Cheney says prove that information gained from "harsh interrogation" prevented terrorist attacks. Cheney says he requested that the other information be declassified, but his request was denied.
Fact: The CIA withheld the referenced documents because a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush himself prohibited the release of materials "that are subject to lawsuits."

Cheney: Maintains that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained overseas and taken to secret US prisons.
Fact: A 2008 investigation by McClatchy Newspapers found that "the vast majority" of Guantanamo detainees captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2002 were "innocent civilians or low-level fighters" of little intelligence value who were turned over to the US for bounty money or because of personal rivalries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel in October 2005 complained that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it "mistakenly abducted" a German citizen, Khaled Masri, from Macedonia, flew him to Afghanistan for harsh interrogation, then released him in May 2004 on a "remote road in Albania." As a result of this caper, Germany issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives for kidnapping Masri.

Cheney: Attacks Obama's decision to close Guantanamo and send detainees to other countries.
Fact: The effort to shut down Guantanamo actually started during Bush's second term and was promoted by Condi Rice and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Rice, in an interview on BBC in October 2007, said "...we need help in closing Guantanamo."

Cheney: Claims that "the Bush team," in assessing security after 9/11, had to take into account dictators like Saddam Hussein with "known ties to Mideast terrorists." (When in office, Cheney repeatedly insisted that Saddam cooperated with Al Qaeda, but did not say so explicitly in his most recent speech).
Fact: Saddam's association with terrorists "vacillated," and was mostly aimed at crushing opponents and critics at home and abroad. The last State Department report on international terrorism issued prior to 9/11 said Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." A Pentagon study released in 2008 reviewed 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the US invasion, and concluded that Hussein supported militant Palestinian groups, but that the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with Al Qaeda.

WHY? Given that most of Cheney's rants have been adequately debunked, why has he suddenly exited his undisclosed location and plastered himself all over a compliant and receptive media, aggressively defending himself and the Bush crew, and attacking Obama in an exercise strikingly unusual for a former Vice-President so soon after leaving office? I believe there are several factors at work here.

Offense is the best defense, and Cheney is prudently laying the groundwork to defend himself in the event of an investigation. There is also an element of self-justification, a re-affirmation of his rightness and righteousness, and an attempt to re-impose his infamous "one percent doctrine" (if there is a one percent chance of something bad happening we must exert all our forces to prevent it---- regardless of the fact that in going after the one percent you may be blindsided by something else which had a forty or eighty percent chance of happening).

Then there is the perception that Cheney is hoping to box in Obama, prevent his implementation of new policies, and set him up to fail---- perhaps even to encourage terrorists, either domestic or foreign, to create another deadly attack on American soil, which would devastate Democrats and re-establish Republican authority. I myself can see such nefarious intentions because I well remember that some have accused Bush senior of arranging with Iran to withhold release of the American embassy hostages until after Reagan was installed as President. Then there was the Iran-Contra conspiracy undertaken by Ollie North, supposedly unbeknownst to Reagan. There is a long history of secret Bush-Mideast connections there. Much of the current brouhaha created by Cheney is both a smoke screen and an effort to re-animate the Republican Party. He should be reined in, and his pretensions deflated.

Bob Graham and Lawrence Wilkerson Sets the Record Straight on Torture

KathyinBlacksburg — Thu, 14 May 2009 19:50:22 GMT

This week on Face the Nation and before an audience, former VP Dick Cheney seemed to all but admit he and the former president approved water boarding/torture. But the Republicans think the most important thing is whether or not then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi knew, never mind she had no authority.

While the Washington Post's Plum Line accuses House Speaker Nancy Pelosi here of lying about "what she knew and when she knew it," something totally irrelevant to whether or not Bush and Cheney broke the law, Pelosi herself has a different story. Indeed documents I wrote about previously seem to shore up Pelosi's assertion. The CIA itself seemed to undercut the assertion by US Rep., Pete Hoekstra and others that Pelosi was either brief about, or approved, torture.

Bob Graham had this to say:

In addition to repeating earlier reports that he was never briefed on waterboarding, Graham revealed that the first time he asked the CIA when he was briefed on torture, it claimed it had briefed him on two dates when no briefing took place.

But it was made all the more compelling when Lawrence Wilkerson backed her up in an unexpected way in this article.

What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009. So, if we are to believe the protestations of Dick Cheney, that Obama's having shut down the "Cheney interrogation methods" will endanger the nation, what are we to say to Dick Cheney for having endangered the nation for the last four years of his vice presidency?

It would seem torture isn't about keeping America "safe" at all. He goes on...

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002--well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion--its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa'ida.

So, in a nutshell, the administration which knew the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi's, who directed that Bin Laden's own family members be flown out of the country, then tried to pin that fateful day on those who didn't do it by torture. There is a word for that. And you know what it is.

To sum up: The VP admits he water boarded and that Bush approved it. There is ambiguous evidence at best as to whether Pelosi was briefed. But she had no authority. There is evidence from Bob Graham that the CIA falsely claimed he was briefed about water boarding and that it enumerated two briefings "with him" that never took place. The more this goes on. The more I think that we cannot let this drop. And given Dick Cheney's self-justification tour ad nauseum, I think Congress needs more than a short hearing on the subject.

The lying about Iraq is the original sin

teacherken — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:48:44 GMT

originally posted at Daily Kos

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to "protect" us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from "another 9/11," torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House's illegality.

That is one paragraph, towards the end, of Frank Rich's Sunday NY Times column, which is entitled The Banality of Bush White House Evil, itself a reference to the famous phrase penned by Hannah Arendt. Read the Rich if you want. I will quote no further. I will merely focus on the implication s of this one paragraph.
It is not that the paragraph tells us anything we should not already know. By now we have repeated reports of the attempts, desperate at times, to be able to offer a link between the attacks on September 11, 2001 and the regime of Saddam Hussein to enable the Bush administration to claim justification for what they had already decided to do - invade, topple Saddam, and establish a "model" state to influence the rest of the oil-rich Middle East.

I remember my students at the time saying it was all about oil. Were they being cynical, or were they merely more perceptive than the many adults who insisted it was about other subjects, perhaps even about national honor? It may not seem to matter now, but they were at least partly right. It was also about power, not only internationally, but also to be exercised without oversight or checks and balances domestically.

The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House's illegality - so writes Rich. I think he is too kind. I think the lying about iraq is at the heart of the Bush White House's many illegalities, their abuse of power, their ignoring of international agreements, protections of the Bill of Rights, and Constitutional checks and balances.

I do not know which is chicken and which is egg, but the lying, the torture and the abuses of the power granted them by the American voters and Congress are inextricably linked.

And they were woven so tightly together that were any thread allowed to be pulled, the entire fabric could well unravel.

It must have seemed like a golden opportunity to achieve the political goals of Karl Rove and the kleptocratic goals of the Bush supporters like Ken Lay. For the corporations along for the ride, no-bid contracts on the grounds of national emergency was an opportunity to transfer billions without accomplishing any productive government or diplomatic service. And by declaring the situation to be a war where the president's powers could not, in their minds, be limited, they had carte blanche.

That is, they would, provided they could justify going into Iraq. We know from Richard Clarke that the President was seeking that evidence on September 12, even though he was told there was no connection. We know from the Downing Street Memo that the administration had determined a policy and was prepared to "fix" the intelligence around the goals of that policy.

"Fix" the intelligence. Certainly some in the upper ranks of the administration knew that people under torture would say whatever you wanted in order to make the torture stop. What better way to get the "intelligence" to justify an unprovoked invasions - which if truly unprovoked by itself represented a war crime, a crime against humanity, for which under international law the policy makers pursuing such policy could be subjected to the most serious international penalties.

On September 12 Clarke heard a president trying to find evidence to justify attacking Iraq. And were that all we knew, perhaps I could grant the possibility of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to "protect" us as Rich puts it. But we also know from Paul O'Neill that the first National Security Council meeting in early 2001, well before the attacks of September, was already focused on toppling Saddam.

I think we must consider the very real possibility that the purpose of torture was to manufacture "intelligence." I cannot prove it. I think it is possible to infer.

It is also possible to view some of the torture as having a different purpose - to terrorize, not just those in custody, but those who would inevitably learn at least pieces of what we were doing.

Iraqis knew, even when we didn't. I have vague memories that Seymour Hersh heard things about Abu Ghraib from the Christian Peacemakers in Baghdad, who lived among Iraqis without security. That is why when the four, including my acquaintance Tom Fox - later killed - were kidnapped, at least some of us worried that they might have been seized by security forces who did not like what they were exposing.

Perhaps we were paranoid, but as the old saying goes, sometimes even paranoids have enemies. And the track record of less that complete truth about things to do with Iraq from the Bush administration might well give people pause, make them susceptible to imagining truly horrific things.

Torture by itself is horrific. Justification and rationalization merely addes to the horror that already exists. Torture is done because it can be done. It dehumanizes, and those who think the ones carrying it out are not affected have not paid attention to the pieces by Greg Mitchell, or the statements by those who opposed the policy from the beginning.

How many lies are we going to excuse, to ignore? How many atrocities and abuses that flowed from those lies are we prepared to gloss over?

If we do not FULLY expose what was done, then those who did things believing they were doing the right thing for this country, because the administration lied to them, will not be able fully grasp their own roles, and thus their responsibility to demand a full accounting.

Some people will argue that we have too many other crises now to devote attention to this. But think how many other of our crises come from lies and abuses and aggrandizement of power.

And if you are at all religious, remember simply these words: For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?

It is our collective soul, the soul of this nation, that must be cleansed and restored. It cannot be cleansed if we look the other way.

The lying about Iraq is the original sin - perhaps even that does not fully express the depths of what has happened, but it is at least a place from which we can start.

For we will not see fully the damage to merely focus on the torture. That torture occurred within a far broader consequence.

We must pull the threads we now see, and then see what else becomes uncovered.

We may be shocked when we discover what we do not yet know. And not just about torture.

That possibility may be frightening. But if we ignore it, if we pass on this chance to examine all and thus be able to rectify and heal, we will in some way have acquiesced.

If we acquiesce we become complicit.

Knowing as we do now of so many lies and abuses, can we pretend that we have no responsibility to look further?

Lying, torture, cover-ups, ignoring international agreements . . .

If We, the People are sovereign, then it is incumbent upon us to demand that our government be accountable to us, for We the People are accountable to each other, and to the entire world, for what has been done, ostensibly in our name and on our behalf.

Eugene Robinson - Where "Those Methods" Lead

teacherken — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:53:09 GMT

Originally posted at Daily Kos

The many roads of inquiry into the Bush administration's abusive "interrogation techniques" all lead to one stubborn, inconvenient fact: Torture is not just immoral but also illegal. This means that once we learn the whole truth, the law will oblige us to act on it.

So begins Pulitzer Prize Winner Eugene Robinson's op ed today, named - as is this diary - Where "Those Methods" Lead.

the law will oblige us to act on it - the simple, plain truth. One reason perhaps that a truth commission will be insufficient.

And is so often the case with Robinson, he has an ability top speak plainly, to remind us of what should be the obvious.
Robinson is in the Village but in a sense not part of it. Despite having been a senior editor at the Post, he is not caught up in the conventional thinking of Washington. Let me see if I can demonstrate this by a comparison with a real Villager, Chris Matthews. Last night I only listened to the very beginning of Hardball. The subject he was trying to explore is whether torture worked to obtain information - and in fairness I was already thinking, "who cares?" Then I heard him say something like "If it works, then we wouldn't be having these discussion" as if the effectiveness in obtaining information might serve as a justification for violating something basic in human morality. I turned him off, immediately.

After his opening paragraph, Robinson first makes clear that torture is morally unacceptable, then after noting Eric Holder's straightforward statement rejecting waterboarding as torture, offers

This refreshing and admirable clarity stands in stark contrast to the fog of legalistic sophistry in which the Bush administration cloaked its secret prisons.

the fog of legalistic sophistry - another way of saying the Bushites were trying to baffle us with bullshit.

Robinson then explores those who would, having as did Dennis Blair said they would not have used such methods, simply want to move forward, not to prosecute those responsible. Robinson again is clear:

To state the obvious, this makes no sense at all. If Blair would not have sanctioned "those methods" -- some of which clearly meet the legal definition of torture, in my view -- then why would he give a pass to those who ordered the abuses and those who carried them out?

And again, a bit further on, Robinson puts things in the blunt fashion required:

Even if experts have differing views about torture's effectiveness, there is one point on which they cannot disagree: It violates U.S. and international law.

it violates U. S. an international law

Here let me explore a side thought. I have at times in my 6+ decades deliberately broken laws. Here I do not refer to the way we perhaps as somewhat casual about things like speed limits or, to be silly, removing labels from mattresses. Rather, I refer to the deliberate breaking of laws in order to change a law or a government policy I viewed as unjust. I did so in concert with others who felt similarly. Following examples as American as Thoreau and King and as internationally respected as Gandhi, in our breaking of the law we accepted the possibility of the consequences that would flow from our lawbreaking - we were prepared for arrest, jail, fines and the possibility of permanent criminal records. I did so primarily in support of advancing Civil Rights, although later occasionally in opposition to our efforts in Vietnam, both before and after I served in the Marines. As it happens I was, unlike others, never arrested.

I make this point because when one acts on behalf of the nation, one must always accept responsibility for one's actions when they cross legal boundaries. I believe this holds true even if offered advice that the actions could be construed as within the bounds of law, as seems to be the case with the now infamous memos. And it certainly must apply in those cases where even if something is illegal it is - or should be - patently offensive to human sensibility.

That does not mean that the power of clemency cannot extend to those put in difficult situations, but at a minimum it should require the application of the legal process to determine if the laws were in fact violated. One thing very offensive about the past administration was its unwillingness to be subject to judgment by anyone: it sought to permanently exempt itself and its minions from the sanctions of international agreement, and fought tooth and claw against Congressional oversight or accountability to the Courts. We might remember that one previous finalist for a Supreme Court nomination, Michael Luttig, was so offended by the games playing of the administration that he issued a scathing opinion and a court order that had it not been overturned by the Supreme Court perhaps could have brought the issue of treatment of those accused of terrorism to a much brighter light much more quickly.

Robinson warns us that any investigation is going to bring us to an uncomfortable position, which may be why some in the administration have argued against even these first steps of disclosure. He writes

Our system, left to its own devices, is not designed to let illegal acts be revealed and then ignored.

We have been down the road of revelation without prosecution. And we thereby established dangerous precedents. The actions of Richard Nixon while an occupant of the Oval Office were so egregious that he should have joined the many who served in that administration in being incarcerated. The many - Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, Magruder, . . . I feel comfortable saying that, even though he never stood trial because of the Ford pardon. Some of his crimes were violations of income tax law to which we are all subject. Others were gross abuses of power and of his office.

Nixon escaped. We became reluctant in the following decades to explore what Reagan and his administration had done. We never did fully find out all that was done. And now we have just completed an administration many of whose key figures had served either for Nixon or for Reagan. ANd for 8 years they were able to operate without meaningful accountability, they lied us into wars killing thousands and potentially destroying the economy of this nation, and in the process, the international financial system.

All of which pale, in my opinion, to this: they violated some of the most basic principles upon which this nation is based: habeas corpus, due process of law, limited government, checks and balances, separation of powers, right to trial by jury.

And even these pale next to this: the actions they were willing to countenance that which should never be acceptable, torture, the destruction of the human personality.

There must be accountability. Robinson notes this brings us to an uncomfortable place. I disagree when he says that

No one wants to see low-ranking CIA interrogators go down for doing what their superiors told them was legal, especially if the superiors are not held to account.

If we truly believe that the actors have a legal basis for what they did, why should that not be determined not by executive action but rather by a jury of their peers? And after all, if they were found guilty we would have established that one can not casually hide behind weasel words of lawyers seeking to justify the unjustifiable. And the President would still have the power to obliterated the convictions through use of his clemency powers. Such application would be far more justifiable than what Cheney sought on behalf of Scooter Libby, for example.

It perhaps would be unprecedented to pursue criminal charges against senior officials of the previous administration. Somewhat. After all, we have had several administrations in which senior officials were prosecuted. Albert Fall was a cabinet secretary who went to prison for Teapot Dome. And of course the many minions of Nixon who were imprisoned demonstrates that the idea of trial, conviction and imprisonment is not totally unknown.

Robinson concludes with what must be said:

It will be hard to stop this train, though. The rule of law is one of this nation's founding principles. It's not optional. Our laws against torture demand to be obeyed -- and demand to be enforced.

Unless we are willing to fully enforce the appropriate sanctions, we will not have sufficiently established the unacceptability of what has happened. That includes the distortion of the legal process, the untruthfulness to the American people and most of its elected representatives. It also includes the besmirching of our national reputation and image.

All of that is important. Again, all of that pales besides this simple truth:

People were tortured. At the official determination of the government of the United States. Some died. Some were permanently damaged, physically perhaps, emotionally and psychologically to be certain.

Some things are so clearly wrong that we MUST NOT look the other way, no matter how strongly some may seek to do so. They must not ever be justified, less we cease to be a nation of laws and not a domain dominated by the most recent impulses of those who may temporarily hold the reigns of power.

Absent accountability for these offenses, we the people will bear a permanent stain - that the nation for which we are sovereign has accepted actions that should never be accepted.

As a teacher, will I have to explain to my students that some are allowed to violate our social contract with impunity, but they are to be held to the strictest standard?

As a human being, will I still be able to be proud of this nation when we have descended to the level of dictators and brutes?

People were tortured. Forget the weasel words. Remember that fact. And remember that it was our government doing the torturing. That is a crime against humanity. We have executed people who did it to our troops. How can we not prosecute our own when they do it to others?

And without a full examination, a full accounting, if we think we will be at peace morally, then have we become a nation without a conscience?

Crimes That Deserve Punishment

teacherken — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:21:30 GMT

crossposted from Daily Kos

It's no longer possible to mince words, or pretend we didn't know. The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded in a secret report that the Bush administration's so-called "enhanced" interrogation methods, used on "high-value" terrorism suspects, plainly constituted torture. The time for euphemisms is over, and the time for accountability has arrived.

Clear, powerful direct.

So begins Eugene Robinson in his op ed column today, entitled as it this diary, Crimes That Deserve Punishment.

He has read the complete ICRC report in The New York Review of Books. You can read it as well. Go to Mark Danner's piece in which you will find a link to download the 43 page report.

William Greider once asked who would tell the people. I ask if we have the guts to tell our children. President Obama has said that the United States does not torture. The ICRC makes clear that we did.

Eugene Robinson says The time for euphemisms is over, and the time for accountability has arrived.
Perhaps you can do this in steps. Read Robinson's column. Digest what offers of detail. Let me offer only one paragraph of what he recounts:

Ten of the detainees said they were forced to stand in an excruciatingly painful position for days at a time, with their hands chained to a bar above their heads. If you don't believe that's torture, try it -- and see if you last five minutes. One detainee, Walid Bin Attash, had an artificial leg, which he said his CIA jailers sometimes removed to make the "stress standing position" more agonizing.

Perhaps that is why he goes beyond he also writes

I realize that many Americans, given the scope of the economic crisis and the ambitions of the new administration, would rather look forward than revisit the past. The business of torture, however, is too unspeakable to be left unresolved.

too unspeakable to be left unresolved

And yet our Congress remains unwilling even to proceed with the Truth Commission proposed by Pat Leahy. New CIA head Leon Panetta does not think that CIA personnel who had legal directives from the White House or Justice Department should be subject to penalties. Some complain it would be unfair? Why the concern for fairness for torturers and none for the tortured? Why the willingness to cover up the complicity of those who have been responsible for atrocities, up and down the chain of command? Who else knew and did nothing? Does awareness extend to current leadership in Congress, as many of us suspect? Were laws of secrecy used to silence them? Will we ever fully know who bears responsibility for so besmirching the good name of the American people, whose government this is supposed to be?

Robinson makes clear his disgust. He also believes there must be accountability. His penultimate paragraph reads:

I have believed all along that we urgently need to conduct a thorough investigation into the Bush administration's moral and legal transgressions. Now I am convinced that some kind of "truth commission" process isn't enough. Torture -- even the torture of evil men -- is a crime. It deserves not just to be known, but to be punished.

Let me turn to the words of Mark Danner, to make clear the importance of this issue. I will quote in their entirety three paragraphs before I return to my own words, and conclude with those of Robinson. Danner writes

When it comes to torture, it is not what we did but what we are doing. It is not what happened but what is happening and what will happen. In our politics, torture is not about whether or not our polity can "let the past be past"-whether or not we can "get beyond it and look forward." Torture, for Dick Cheney and for President Bush and a significant portion of the American people, is more than a repugnant series of "procedures" applied to a few hundred prisoners in American custody during the last half-dozen or so years-procedures that are described with chilling and patient particularity in this authoritative report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Torture is more than the specific techniques-the forced nudity, sleep deprivation, long-term standing, and suffocation by water," among others-that were applied to those fourteen "high-value detainees" and likely many more at the "black site" prisons secretly maintained by the CIA on three continents.
Torture, as the former vice-president's words suggest, is a critical issue in the present of our politics-and not only because of ongoing investigations by Senate committees, or because of calls for an independent inquiry by congressional leaders, or for a "truth commission" by a leading Senate Democrat, or because of demands for a criminal investigation by the ACLU and other human rights organizations, and now undertaken in Spain, the United Kingdom, and Poland. For many in the United States, torture still stands as a marker of political commitment-of a willingness to "do anything to protect the American people," a manly readiness to know when to abstain from "coddling terrorists" and do what needs to be done. Torture's powerful symbolic role, like many ugly, shameful facts, is left unacknowledged and undiscussed. But that doesn't make it any less real. On the contrary.
Torture is at the heart of the deadly politics of national security. The former vice-president, as able and ruthless a politician as the country has yet produced, appears convinced of this. For if torture really was a necessary evil in what Mr. Cheney calls the "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business" of "keeping the country safe," then it follows that its abolition at the hands of the Obama administration will put the country once more at risk. It was Barack Obama, after all, who on his first full day as president issued a series of historic executive orders that closed the "black site" secret prisons and halted the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that had been practiced there, and that provided that the offshore prison at Guantánamo would be closed within a year.

So we have a choice. Either Cheney is right, in which case Obama is putting us at risk. Or else Cheney is wrong, in which case there must be accountability. Go back and reread in the first paragraph: When it comes to torture, it is not what we did but what we are doing. It is not what happened but what is happening and what will happen.

If we are unwilling to hold accountable those who torture and those who authorized it and those who knew and yet remained silent, then the Constitution is without meaning and we are a nation not of laws but of men, for then we have accepted the proposition proposed by Richard Nixon to David Frost, that if the president does it, it is not illegal. What a repugnant idea.

No where in the Constitution do I read that we have created a monarch above the law. The president is not sovereign. Even the doctrine of sovereign immunity seems flawed, because the government is not sovereign, We the People of the United States are, and thus the government is accountable to us.

Or if you prefer the words of the Declaration, after describing unalienable rights notes

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

If the government will not tell us, how then do we know if it is destructive of our rights? Is not one of our rights that of knowing completely what is done in our name? Where, pray tell, in the Constitution is the idea that the Government can keep from the people, from their elected representatives, knowledge of what is done in their name.

Danner concludes like this:

There is a sense in which our society is finally posing that "what should we do" question. That it is doing so only now, after the fact, is a tragedy for the country-and becomes even more damaging as the debate is carried on largely by means of politically driven assertions and leaks. For even as the practice of torture by Americans has withered and died, its potency as a political issue has grown. The issue could not be more important, for it cuts to the basic question of who we are as Americans, and whether our laws and ideals truly guide us in our actions or serve, instead, as a kind of national decoration to be discarded in times of danger. The only way to confront the political power of the issue, and prevent the reappearance of the practice itself, is to take a hard look at the true "empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years," and speak out, clearly and credibly, about what that story really tells.

He is right, but he does not go far enough. Yes, the issue cuts to the basic question of who we are as Americans, and whether our laws and ideals truly guide us in our actions or serve, instead, as a kind of national decoration to be discarded in times of danger.

But Danner writes in a journal often only read by intellectuals, a journal considered tilted to the left, and thus conveniently ignorable by the "elite" within the Beltway, the members of "the Village."

That is not true of Eugene Robinson. He may tilt to the left, but he is an editor of the major publication of the national capital, he regular appears at least on cable television and occasionally on network tv as well.

I believe in being honest with my students. I teach government as it is, not just as we imagine it should be. I want them politically involved, so perhaps they can help demand that the government live up to the ideals we want them to believe about it. It is not that those governing us are necessarily bad people - although the evidence is that too many in the Bush administration were willing to be bad actors. Yet without full accountability, how do we demand that our elected and appointed officials live up to the standards our Constitution espouses?

If we accept a wrong, if we remain silent in the presence of evil, we become complicit. If we excuse the wrongdoing of those close to us - friends, family, political allies - we bear the blame for those wrongs, we tolerate a cancer that can only grow worse.

Perhaps I am foolish to hope that words can make a difference. And yet - sometimes it is a clear statement that rouses others to action.

So consider the final words of the column by Eugene Robinson. Consider their implication, for all of us. Then decide if it is now time to accept the words for which we remember the late Peter Finch, in his Oscar-winning role of Howard Beale "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!

And now, I close as does Robinson, with his final words:

From George W. Bush on down, individuals decided to sanction, commit and tolerate the practice of torture. They took pains to paper this vile enterprise with rationalizations and justifications, but they knew it was wrong. So do we.