President Bush - Ongoing Serial Stupidity & Willful Ignorance (Or Is He Just Evil?)

PHOTO: mindfully.org

I've written 15 posts about torture and although I am deeply disappointed at the Obama Administration's decision to let Bush and Cheney get away with their actions leading up to and during the Iraq war, I had thought that the discussion had subsided into a low murmur.

Unable to keep his mouth shut, President Bush made a cavalier comment while speaking in Grand Rapids, Michigan yesterday, saying that he did indeed have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded, and would do so again if it would save lives. Never mind that there is significant evidence, as discusssed by Matthew Alexander here, that details how waterboarding detainees made us less safe.

Extensive research, readily available to the President and much of it conducted by the FBI - experts at interrogation - and the Department of Defense, has been conducted on how to elicit useful information from people. As a counselor, it is my job to be able to get people to open up as I have discussed here that I have related to SERE training and torture.

Today, Dan Froomkin reports on the response of top military leaders to Bush's comments. Anger appears to be the universal response. They are appalled that Bush, still, has no conception of the illegality of his actions nor does he appear to care (although, why should he? apparently ex-Presidents are above the law).

"George W. Bush's casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded -- and would do it again -- has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting."

There is no question that waterboarding is torture regardless of what has been discussed in the media in the past year or two. This country has imprisoned people and even executed people for waterboarding, and as recently as a few years ago, a sheriff's deputy in Texas was jailed for using waterboarding as an interrogation technique. More discussion here.

The article goes on to quote military leaders:

"Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is "unequivocably torture", said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years."

"As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War," Irvine said. "Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life."

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn't appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told a Grand Rapids audience Wednesday, of the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. "I'd do it again to save lives."
But, Irvine said: "When he decided to do it the first time, he launched the nation down a disastrous road, and we will continue to pay dearly for the damage his decision has caused.

"We are seen by the rest of the world as having abandoned our commitment to international law. We have forfeited enormous amounts of moral leadership as the world's sole remaining superpower. And it puts American troops in greater danger -- and unnecessary danger."

The article continues by quoting other military leaders:

"James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general in the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps, told HuffPost that the net effect of Bush's remarks--and former Vice President Cheney's before him--is 'to establish a precedent where it will be permissible to our enemies to use waterboarding on our servicemen in future wars."

"Cheney famously once agreed with an interviewer that a 'dunk in the water' was a 'no-brainer' if it saves lives."

What is it with these men? Don't confuse me with the facts? As I wrote about yesterday, this is willful ignorance in the extreme, and the serial stupidity of the Republican Party to the nth degree.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

SUN: 7:02PM Edited for duplicate section

Poor Dick, That Hole is Getting Deeper and Deeper

General Petraeus, the man the right has proclaimed the best hope for resolving the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, the man that John McCain quoted extensively during his campaign, and the man that many Republicans are floating as a possible presidential candidate for 2012, was on Fox's Live Desk today. What he had to say will not please Dick Cheney. It isn't the first time he's come out against torture, but today he was a little firmer, and a little clearer.

General Petraus made it clear he supports President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo, agreeing that it "...has inflamed anti-US hostility." He added:

“When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Conventions we rightly have been criticized, so as we move forward I think it’s important to again live our values, to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those,” Gen. Petraeus said on Fox News Friday afternoon.

When asked about the disposition of the detainees currently being held at Guantanamo - a subject of much controversy and a massive NIMBY (not in my backyard) campaign, he said:

“I don’t think we should be afraid of our values we’re fighting for,” he added. “What we stand for and so indeed we need to embrace them and we need to operationalize them in how we carry out what it is we’re doing on the battle field and everywhere else. So one has to have some faith I think in the legal system. One has to have a degree of confidence that individuals that have conducted such extremist activity would indeed be found guilty in our courts of law.”

The interviewer asked him then if he was confident then that the detainees at Guantanamo would never go free, to which he replied:

"I certainly hope that's the case."

It was clear listening to General Petraeus that he is willing to take the risk, unlike the current and past administration, that like anyone else entering our judicial system, the detainees currently held at Guantanamo might be found not guilty and as a result, be required to be released.

Asked about the use of so-called enhanced interrogation during the previous administration, Petraeus said that, "...banning the more extreme techniques had taken away “a tool” employed by “our enemies” as a moral argument against the United States."

To continue the bad news for Dick Cheney, last night Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke at the Foreign Policy Association. Senator Levin is Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee which recently released its 200-page bipartisan report of its 18-month investigation into Abu Ghraib. If you haven't yet read the report, it is very accessible, and damning.

In his speech last night, Levin responded specifically to Cheney's speech last week, stating that he had seen the memos Cheney had asked to be de-classified. The memos that would prove - according to Cheney - that what they did was right and necessary. The memos that would prove - according to Cheney - that what they did saved thousands of lives. Unfortunately (for Cheney), the memos show no such thing, says Senator Levin. In fact, Senator Levin said that Mr. Cheney lied.

Here's a clip from Countdown that shows clips from Senator Levin's speech.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Matthew Alexander on Cheney

I've written about Matthew Alexander in earlier posts, and wanted to share this new video from Brave New Studios featuring Matthew. In this interview, Matthew answers former Vice President Cheney's speech of last week. When Cheney states that those who say torture did not keep us safe and did not save lives are wrong, Matthew gives specific examples from his direct experience as a senior Iraq interrogator as to why, exactly, Cheney is the one who is wrong.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

CIA Inspector General's Report

An article published today discusses a (hopefully) soon to be declassified report done by the CIA's Inspector General John Helgerson who investigated the agency's use of torture. According to this article, former Vice President Cheney tried to interfere in the preparation of this report, completed in May of 2004, that implicates CIA employees in the deaths of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq and included the referral of criminal cases to the Justice Department. Cases referred for possible prosecution included misconduct, abuse, and homicide. The article references the book, "The Dark Side," by Jane Mayer, which details detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan and other information gained from the report which she states is "as thick as two Manhattan phone books" and was "sickening."

"The behavior it described, another knowledgeable source said, raised concerns not just about the detainees but also about the Americans who had inflicted the abuse, one of whom seemed to have become frighteningly dehumanized," Mayer wrote. "The source said, 'You couldn't read the documents without wondering, "Why didn't someone say, 'Stop!'""Mayer added that Cheney routinely "summoned" Inspector General Helgerson to meet with him privately about his investigation, launched in 2003, and soon thereafter the probe "was stopped in its tracks." Mayer characterized Cheney's interaction with Helgerson as highly unusual.

Mayer goes on to describe Cheney's actions as unusual, noting that the Inspector General is supposed to be independent and apolitical, but "...Cheney summoned the CIA Inspector General more than once to his office," going on to say that, "Cheney loomed over everything," a former CIA officer told Mayer. "The whole IG's office was completely politicized. They were working hand in glove with the White House."

This interference by Cheney, said Mayer, shows that, as early as 2004, "the Vice President's office was fully aware that there were allegations of serious wrongdoing in the [torture] Program."

"In addition to showing the inconclusive nature of the value of intelligence gleaned through torture, the report will likely show that Helgerson warned top CIA officials that the interrogation techniques administered to detainees "might violate some provisions of the International Convention Against Torture." A November 9, 2005, report published in The New York Times said Helgerson's report "raised concern about whether the use of the [torture] techniques could expose agency officers to legal liability."

Every day that Cheney gives a speech, that daughter Liz makes another appearance to support him, another official reports his or her side. Another memorandum is released. There is a belief by many, that it is this report, that when released, that will be the one that will result in criminal prosecutions. We'll see.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Lanny Davis Changes His Mind

Lanny Davis, counsel to President Clinton has changed his mind. An interesting position to take, considering his history, but still, better late than never I suppose. He says in his blog, posted on "The Hill."

"An indictment, of course, is only an accusation of criminal conduct. Mr. Cheney must be presumed innocent until a jury of his peers finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many people still think, and I was among them until recently, that it would be better not to put the country through the divisive and backward-looking experience of seeing a former vice president on trial for crimes committed while in office. But given Mr. Cheney's decision to publicly attack the president on the subject, perhaps we have no choice but to take Mr. Cheney up on his challenge."

And what, exactly, was seeing a sitting president on trial if not divisive? The majority of the country was not interested in seeing the President impeached. The majority were not interested in Watergate or the many other -gates, and were appalled when Kenneth Starr released his report which was written not to show wrongdoing, but rather to embarrass the President. After years and millions of dollars, President Clinton was convicted of perjury for lying about having sex--a question that we, quite frankly, had no right to ask. All of that, after all the money spent investigating every aspect of their personal and business lives, including that of their friends and associates, the Clintons were found to have committed no crime, broken no ethical code, and participated in no conspiracy to commit a crime.

On the other hand, the Bush Administration has lied us to war, violated the Geneva Conventions, U.S. Code, the Constitution, and Vice President Cheney has, since leaving office, gone on tour proclaiming the rightness of his torture program. We don't even need to investigate. Our new Attorney General in his confirmation hearings stated that yes, "waterboarding is torture." Vice President Cheney, and many others, have stated that yes, we waterboarded detainees--or in Cheney's words, "high-value detainees" which somehow makes it better.

The historical record shows that we have prosecuted--and executed--others for waterboarding. The Japanese after World War II, our own soldiers during Vietnam, and a sheriff's deputy in Texas. We have no doubt that we did then, commit torture, no matter what you decide to call it. The Republicans try to change the subject and say it's about saving lives, saving the country, although we now have evidence that is not true. We have evidence that more information is gained through standard interrogation techniques; that torture elicits lies.

We know now that torture was most likely used to justify--after the fact--going to war with Iraq. The Republicans try to change the subject and say that high-ranking Democrats knew about it. And this matters, how? It becomes less a crime, how? If it is necessary it is not criminal, why?

Keep talking Mr. Cheney. Keep talking.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.

k

WaPo Facilitates Push Polling, Again.

Well. Can't get the American people off the subject of torture? Build a strawman. Instead of discussing whether or not Bush/Cheney were correct in their tactics, argue about who knew what, when (specifically, Speaker Pelosi). Don't like the results of the polls that say most of the American people want prosecution of those who tortured and those who approved the torture? Change the polls.

Resurgent Republic who I don't want to link to, just add the dot com yourself, has established itself as a new player in the Washington polling game. Building on the success of push polling in the 2000 election cycle, they are a group of hardcore Republicans including Hayley Barbour, Mary Matalin, and others, who seek to reframe the torture debate by returning to the use of 'enhanced interrogation' and once again providing stenography services to the mainstream media. Chris Cilliza at the Washington Post The Fix disappointingly wrote extensively of these latest poll results - claiming 53% overall felt such tactics were justified compared to 34% - without bothering to discuss the actual poll itself.

Remember, poll results are useless unless you know 1) who was polled, 2) how many were polled, and 3) the questions asked.

Consider this question.

"Congressman A says America should never use harsh interrogation techniques on detainees, because they are torture. Those techniques undermine our values, hurt our standing in the world, endanger American troops who might be taken prisoner, and yield little or no useful information that could not be obtained by other means."

"Congressman B says that, while harsh interrogation techniques of detainees should be used only rarely, they may be necessary in exceptional situations to protect the country. Those techniques are justified when they are the only way to stop the murder of another 3000 innocent Americans in another 9/11."

The first part includes the word torture. The question uses inflammatory, negative terms - undermine, hurt, endanger troops, and then goes on to tell us that they 'yield little or not useful information.'

The second part does not use the word torture. It uses words that are not inflammatory but uses words meant to make us feel good - exceptional, protect, justified, innocent, and then appeals to our emotions by referencing the lives lost on 9/11.

This is called push-polling. You are presented with 2 choices - good or bad, right or wrong that appeal to your emotions. The question is framed so that there is only one possible "right" answer if you are not a monster. Neither address the issue at hand, that being: various elected officials including Dick Cheney have acknowledged that the used of torture, sometimes called enhanced interrogation to make us feel better about it, was used. Do you believe that investigations should occur into who is responsible? Or, something along those lines.

The group at Resurgent Republican are long-term Washington insiders, experienced campaigners and experienced pollsters. They know how to write a poll to get the results they want, knowing full well that people tend to follow the polls. People don't like to take a stand on their own. If they think most of the country believes in something, they are more likely to believe that as well. If they've been uncertain, a well-designed push-poll will push them write over the edge. The above question is one used in the poll Cilliza cites and is the least toxic.

A 'good' polling question is a simple statement, usually based on something in the news that the subject is likely to know about, and is written in a way that does not appeal to the subject's emotions. Loaded words are never used in a properly prepared poll unless - as in Cheney's use of enhanced interrogation - you have a pre-determined result to achieve and must design a poll to elicit the answers that you seek.

The media, again, is not doing its job when it simply reports the results of a poll like this without questioning the methodology. The only information Cilliza included in his article is that the poll included "critically independent" voters. But how many people were polled? Where were they from? How were they selected? What stratification process (if any) was used? Remember - percentages are meaningless numbers if you don't know how large a sample was used. Sixty percent of 5 people is still 3.

Once again, the mainstream media perpetuating the serial stupidity of our fellow citizens as they swallow unquestioningly what the Republican Party wants fed to them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Continuing Serial Stupidity of the Republican Party

Where does the Republican Party find these people? The Minority Leader (Boehner R-OH) in the Washington Post now says that Speaker Pelosi should provide proof that the CIA lied to her or apologize. Hello?!?!

How about the CIA provide proof that they did in fact brief Speaker Pelosi and Senator Graham (D-FL) when and how they say they did? The CIA has already admitted that they were 'mistaken' about 3 of the 4 briefings they claim to have given Graham about 'enhanced interrogation' practices which you can read about here. Why is it so difficult to believe they are mistaken about Speaker Pelosi? She has asked that CIA produce the briefings to support their claim.

Boehner says that lying to Congress is a crime, so of course CIA would never do that and if Pelosi is going to say that they did, then she should produce her evidence so that the Justice Department can proceed with prosecutions. Uh huh.

Let's see. CIA refuses to release briefing notes. Republicans campaigning - hard - to stop any investigation into enhanced interrogation practices; who set up the program, when, how, and what was discovered through these procedures. But, they are also demanding that President Obama continue unquestioned the intelligence policies and programs established during the Bush Administration.

Speaker Pelosi is asking for release of the CIA briefing notes. As is Senator Graham. Speaker Pelosi is suggesting a Truth Commission. Speaker Pelosi is supportive of Senator Leahy's investigations into the truth of what happened during these 'enhanced interrogation' programs.

Hmmm. Difficult decision. One asking for investigation, the other for continued stonewalling, but hey, by the way, lying to Congress is a crime so you better say you're sorry. Again, another incidence of the serial stupidity of the Republican Party.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Liz, Give it up. The Fantasy Isn't Wilkerson's.

Oh Liz. I thought we cleared this up already. As a previous under-Secretary of State, you certainly know how to dance the dance. You cannot continue saying that we don't have all the facts just because you don't like the ones that we do have. You refer us to the Washington Post (citing anonymous sources no less), and your father's statements which are clearly self-serving, but now your resort to defaming those who disagree? Old Dick is delusional. The documents and witness statements, OCL reports, Senate reports, Red Cross reports, and individual statements are just to numerous to be ignored. We have plenty of facts.

During the run-up to the war, we all heard about dear old dad's pressuring CIA for answers - answers that supported going to war with Iraq. We all know about the manufactured yellowcake memo, the aluminum tubes, the regular visits to CIA headquarters that were unprecedented by a VP. Now we know that not only did he visit, but that he had a reading room set up for him at CIA Headquarters. Remember the 23 mistakes in Powell's speech to the UN? Again, plenty of facts.

Last week you went on the Sunday talks and said that 'we just didn't know much about al Qaeda' prior to 9/11, ignoring the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 2 African embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, and the Aug. 6, 2001 daily briefing after which Bush so famously stated, "okay, you've covered your ass"? More facts.

Yesterday, on This Week with George Stephanopolous, he asked you about reports this week about pressure to find links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Evidence that a prisoner of war, an aide to Saddam Hussein was tortured to prove that link and thus justify the invasion as detailed by General Powell's Chief of Staff Colonel Wilkerson. You say:

"I think it's important for us to have all the facts out. And the first and most important fact is that the vice president has been absolutely clear that he supported this program...it saved American lives. Now, the way this policy worked internally was once the policy was determined and decided, the CIA, you know, made the judgments about how each individual detainee would be treated. And the Vice President would not substitute his own judgment for the professional judgment of the CIA." [emphasis added]

Stephanopolous asked you if there was pressure then from anyone in the Vice President's office and you added:

"...three people were waterboarded. The people that are claims to be waterboarded in these articles are not any of those people. And I think, frankly, you've also got to look at the source of some of these allegations, and one of the big sources is you know, Colonel Wilkerson..[who] gets coverage because of his association with Colonel Powell...and has made a cottage industry out of, you know, fantasies about the vice president since he left office."

Fantasy? Judgment? "The vice-president supported the program?" I believe it was a about 2 weeks after President Obama's inauguration when your father began his infamous media blitz. He broke with all tradition and began to attack the new president's policies and decisions when past practices have been for one administration to fade quietly away and not criticize for at least a couple of years after leaving office. What is remarkable, is that President Obama has been clear from day one that he does not want to prosecute torture regardless of public will, yet the more your father stamps his feet and demands the rightness of his cause, the more likely it is that at the very least a Truth Commission will be appointed if not a Special Prosecutor.

Your father has admitted that what we did is torture, that it was necessary, and that it was successful. Forget law and convention. Forget the advice of numerous experts in the military, intelligence, and psychological communities. Your father did not "support" this program. He created it. He demanded it. He went on tour to promote it. He exhibited extremely poor judgment to not only support it, but to continue to boast that it is still necessary, forgetting that it was used briefly and not at all during the last term of his administration.

It is your father who has exhibited poor judgment and fantasy. When he did not get the answers he wanted through normal, evidence-based means from detainees and prisoners of war, he created a program using methods that are illegal, immoral, and unnecessary. Methods that are designed to produce lies. Methods designed to produce fantasy. But, that's what he wanted, isn't it? A reason to go to war.

Evidence shows that our use of torture has improved the recruitment of al Qaeda, that detainees released from Guantanamo by the Bush Administration who were not terrorists when detained, returned to their homes and became terrorists. A direct response to their treatment in a program created by your father. It was on your father's watch that the worst terrorist attack on American soil occurred.

Fantasy? Colonel Wilkerson defended his boss and himself and his country. Your father? Not so much.

Read more about Liz Cheney's interview here

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Cheney: Must Create that Iraq/Al Qaeda Link

So here's the thing. This whole conversation, discussion, whatever, about torture, enhanced interrogation, has become totally polarized. Never mind the Geneva Conventions and other treaties that the United States is a signatory to. Never mind federal legislation that regardless of treaty, makes the use of torture illegal. Never mind our Constitution, that regards torture as out of bounds (cruel and unusual punishment anyone?).

But, we have The Right saying that sometimes, depending, if necessary, it's okay. We have some on the right saying that some techniques - regardless of hundreds of years of precedent - aren't really torture. We have some on the right saying that the definitions commonly accepted aren't really good definitions, and that they get to decide what torture really means - and waterboarding ain't it.

Then, we have those on The Left who are adamant that as a country of law, there are no situations, ever, in which torture is legal. That no matter how you try to dress it up or change the verbiage, enhanced interrogation is just another term for torture, and torture is illegal.

It has become a left/right issue. Or so it seems. But it's not. When did law become political? When did enforcement of the law become an issue of left or right rather than right or wrong? When did enforcement of treaties and law become an issue of who was currently resident in the White House?

What is totally awe inspiring - and not in a good way - is the total misunderstanding of what exactly is meant by waterboarding when used in the context of Dick Cheney and the total snowjob that he is in the process of perpetrating on his party and this country.

Cheney just might succeed, even though the Bush Administration and all those currently riding on this bandwagon of "waterboarding good" have completely and entirely missed the point. Waterboarding, their chosen technique, was reverse engineered from the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Program used to train some of our service men and women.

Please stop for a moment and consider this.

If waterboarding is so necessary to the continued safety of this country, why then, was it not used during the second term of the Bush Administration? Why then, is President Obama's decision to cancel the "enhanced interrogation" program largely, at this point, symbolic? Granted, it is also necessary to ensure that it is not re-instituted at some future point, however; if it must be done, and works, and provided useful, actionable information essential to the safety and security of the United States, why was it used so infrequently?

It is becoming more clear every day that the waterboarding that was done was initiated by Cheney, was used not just on "detainees," but also on prisoners of war. One prisoner in particular was a close aide to Saddam Hussein. Why was he waterboarded? Despite providing useful, cooperative information, he failed to provide information about the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was necessary to justify going to war against Iraq. If this suggestion currently beginning to percolate turns out to be supported by fact, (and I would suggest that we all remember Saddam Hussein's attempt to have Bush I assassinated and Bush II's desire to avenge daddy),not to mention the Project for a New American Century which you can read about here, then that would make President Bush and Vice President Cheney not only guilty of war crimes, but guilty of conspiracy to start a totally unnecessary war which to date has killed over 2,000 American soldiers and how many tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Cheney: "I'd Have to See" (Being Above the Law and All)

I took the weekend off for mother's day (hope yours was great!) and just had a chance to watch Cheney's performance on yesterday's Face the Nation. What a guy. Rush Limbaugh, in the Christian Science Monitor pays Cheney back for his shout out (Cheney said that he preferred Rush over former colleague Colin Powell since Powell voted for Obama) by saying of the interview, here:

"He doesn’t need the money,” Limbaugh said. “He has no further political ambitions. He is not hot for interns. He is not a torture freak. He knows that he is toxic and despised by the drive-by media and the Democrat party and the left in this country.

“What motivation does Dick Cheney have to go out and say these things?” he asked. “Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by national interest? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is motivated by love of and for his country? Is it possible that Dick Cheney is speaking from his heart and is not speaking politically?”

No Rush. Cheney is motivated by fear. Fear drove him for the past 8 years, and fear is driving him now. A different kind of fear, but fear nevertheless. Then, it was fear that al Qaeda would get him, and now, it's fear that his crimes will out.

Cheney continues to bash Obama's release of the OLC torture memos, ending the use of 'enhanced interrogation' techniques, and adds to previous complaints by adding that cooperating with foreign governments' prosecution of Bush administration officials who worked with us to operate these programs add to "...that whole complex of things that I find disturbing..."

Cheney complains at length and quite vehemently that if the debate is going to occur, the entire constellation of information must be debated. He states that, "... 6 weeks ago I requested 2 memos written by the CIA that lay out the successes of those policies ... they [the Obama administration] have no qualms putting things out that can be used to be critical of Bush policies ..." but not things that will be supportive of their side. Two whole memos. Wow. Out of 7 years and how many reams and reams of paper? Two. We all know the government. Everything in triplicate. They live on paper, and Cheney can remember two whole memos to support his belief that 'enhanced interrogation' techniques saved us from further terrorist attacks. Okay.

When asked if he truly believes that we are more vulnerable now without these programs, that so many others say that it isn't true, he says, in effect, that if we don't use these programs, then we're willing to sacrifice American lives rather than run an effective interrogation program.

Excuse me? Exactly how many American (and Iraqi and Afghani and Pakistani not to mention all of our allied nation's citizens) lives have already been sacrificed?

Cheney is asked if he has any regrets. He says that on Jan 20, 2001 when he took the oath of office and said that "we're going to protect and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, this was exactly what was needed to be done."

I've heard him say this part several times. "Protect and defend the United States." The only problem? That isn't the oath that he took. It isn't the oath that President Bush took. They promised to protect and defend the Constitution. Instead, they raped it.

When asked if he would talk to Senator Leahy's committee, he said yes. When told that Senator Leahy expected him to appear under oath, Cheney said, "Well,I'd have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent that we'd be setting."

And doesn't that just say it all? "I'd have to see." And that's what he and Bush did for 8 years. They cherry-picked our Constitution. Two frightened little boys who had done everything they could to avoid Vietnam and who came close to being attacked on 9/11 and were terrified that they might be again. Two little boys who had all these big boy toys. I bet that they were both bullies when they were little. They had no idea that the Democrats would win the White House and Congress and let loose their secrets.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Dodd Ridicules "Genius" in the White House

Maybe he's just trying to save his seat, but in an interview with several bloggers, Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) said what I think many of us have wondered.

"I don't know who the genius was in the room that night when they were discussing this," the Connecticut Democrat said of the four torture documents declassified by the Obama White House. "But if you are going to make the decision to release the documents, I presume every one of us here would the have a follow up question, which is: Well, what are you going to do about it? And if the answer is nothing, we are just going to release the documents.... Some of us in the room would say, 'Well wait a minute, you have a problem. If you are going to release them then you are going to have to answer the next question, what are you going to do with them?'"

It isn't enough just to release the information. Yes, we must have full disclosure. We must know what was done in our names, what is the full truth of what happened. But we are not asking for retribution. We are asking for justice. If no one is above the law, if we are truly a nation of law, then we must follow the law wherever it leads us. President Obama has done much to repair our image in the world. The respect that President Bush squandered is slowly being redeemed. But if the crimes of the past administration are allowed to go unanswered, then we are bound to repeat them.

The whole point of Nuremburg was to ensure that what happened in Germany under the Nazis never occurs again anywhere in the world. Permitting torture for expediency's sake begins the slippery slope and we become no better than those we fight.

You can read Sam Stein's piece in the Huffington Post here

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Journalist Undergoes Torture, but not Hannity

Last week, perhaps joking around, perhaps not, Sean Hannity told Charles Grodin, on air, that he would let himself be waterboarded for charity with the proceeds to benefit military families. The offer arose from a discussion of the danger to the military from taking waterboarding out of the arsenal of tools available in the fight against terrorism.

Hannity's long time nemesis, Keith Olbermann, immediately took him up on it and offered Hannity $1,000 for each second that he was able to endure the waterboarding and would double the amount if he would admit, on air, that waterboarding is in fact torture. Not surprisingly, neither Hannity nor Fox News has responded.

For those who think the challenge from Keith Olbermann to Sean Hannity is theater - which it is, but not just theater - and that waterboarding isn't really torture, you should read Christopher Hitchen's take on the process of waterboarding. As he says, quite emphatically, "The “board” is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered."

To better understand what everyone was talking about, Mr. Hitchens, a journalist, asked to be waterboarded. His story detailing his experience appeared in the August 2008 issue of Vanity Fair Magazine titled Believe Me, It's Torture

"...I had read that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, invariably referred to as the “mastermind” of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, had impressed his interrogators by holding out for upwards of two minutes before cracking. (By the way, this story is not confirmed. My North Carolina friends jeered at it. “Hell,” said one, “from what I heard they only washed his damn face before he babbled.”) But, hell, I thought in my turn, no Hitchens is going to do worse than that. Well, O.K., I admit I didn’t outdo him. And so then I said, with slightly more bravado than was justified, that I’d like to try it one more time."

Even knowing what to expect, even knowing before the first episode and even more so before the second, Mr. Hitchens said afterwards:

"...Steeling myself to remember what it had been like last time, and to learn from the previous panic attack, I fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner of my gag reflex. The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer. I still feel ashamed when I think about it."

We still don't know how long Mr. Hitchens endured the watering. We do know from his story, that from an experience that lasted for seconds, under controlled conditions, knowing that all times he was completely safe, he developed symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Do we want to stop terrorism? Then we need to stop being terrorists.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

An Officer's Obligation by Matthew Alexander

Matthew Alexander writes about torture from an officer's perspective in An Officer's Obligation and provides what should be required reading for all the talking heads at Fox News, David Broder at the Washington Post, Bill Kristol, and Karl Rove. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity should be required to read this on-air, Beck without any of his cutesy facial contortions and sad-sack put on.

They are fond of talking about the Constitution, about our soldiers, about how Obama has put the soldiers at risk by banning the use of torture, by releasing information on the practices of the Bush Administration, that the liberal right and the Democrats are somehow anti-veterans because of their deliberate mis-reading of a report written during the Bush Administration that states that returning veterans might be at risk of being recruited by right-wing extremist terrorist groups.

They so (deliberately I believe) misunderstand the military, the veterans, and the Constitution, that I'm not sure they could understand Mr. Alexander's point when he says:

Military officers have a sacred responsibility that is embedded in their oath of office: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

He goes on to explain how:

The Constitution specifically prohibits cruelty to any person in the Eighth Amendment ... unusual punishments inflicted"). Those officers who ordered, authorized, or were complicit in the torture and abuse of prisoners violated their oath of office. The United States has a rich history of military ethics dating back to General George Washington during the Revolutionary War. According to General Washington, "Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any prisoner...by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country." He said this in 1775, during a time when the birth of our nation hung in the balance.

Probably his most important point, is as he speaks about the capture and interrogations of detainees in Iraq, men who did not provide valuable information. Mr. Alexander speaks about the value of these detainees as opportunities for his men to learn to improve their skills, to become better interrogators. He said:

We are Americans and we are smart enough to win the battle of wits in the interrogation room. We cannot afford to doubt our abilities. We should focus on improving our methods within the legal framework of Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. And military officers have a heightened responsibility to effect change and to lead our interrogator corps to its full potential. We are smart enough.

Mr. Alexander understands, in a way that the talking heads and politicians do not, that interrogation is about trust, not torture. That as a country of law, be are no better than terrorists is we use their tactics is we give up the law in order to protect it.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

We don't want retribution. We want justice.

How long does this conversation go on? And at what point do the talking heads and Republicans finally catch sight of the mirror and see how foolish they really are?

Ex-vice president Cheney has stated that yes, we waterboarded. The recently released OLC memos listed 10 different procedures that certainly meet the definition of torture according to those who read them. The FBI Director was so certain that the activities described in those memos was torture that he refused to allow any employee of the FBI to participate. The recently released Senate Report states that torture occured. More documents state that two detainees were waterboarded over 200 times in a period of 1 month.

It's pretty clear that torture occured.

Eric Holder, during his confirmation hearings in February 2009 stated unequivocally that, "yes, waterboarding is torture."

Thus, I am stunned to hear Mr. Holder, the Democratic leadership, and President Obama dancing around the issue, continuing to use the phrase "enhanced interogation" and talking about the need for a thorough review, proper analysis, and complete understanding of everything that occurred before any decisions about prosecutions are made. President Obama states that pursuing this is retribution. What? Criminal prosecution is retribution? This, from a constitutional lawyer?

We do not want retribution. We want justice. We are not too busy. Congress had the time to impeach President Clinton. They had the time to investigate everything that the Clintons ever did including anyone who ever associated with them (and I would add, found no wrongdoing, ever - oh excuse me. President Clinton lied under oath about having sex). I think we can take the time to investigate the Bush administrations commission of war crimes.

This issue will not go away. We will not be quiet. As Americans, torture was done in our name and as such, we have the right to hold those responsible accountable.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

David Broder - Stop Scapegoating?

Today, David Broder wrote an editorial in the Washington Post Stop Scapegoating:Obama Should Stand Against Prosecutions

Like many (most?) these days, Mr. Broder has forgotten the part in the Constitution that explains the three branches to our government—the legislative, the judicial, and the administrative, and why. He has also forgotten that in addition to having three branches, the importance of maintaining a wall between the judicial and administrative branches. He states,

One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has -- thankfully -- made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?

That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness -- and injustice.

Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.

It’s been so long since we’ve had that wall, that President Obama’s involvement in the discussion of investigation and prosecution of torture has seemed reasonable and normal, and most people continue to claim that the Bush Administration’s use of torture was a reasonable response to 9/11 and a policy decision. Thus, any response by the Obama Administration—including from the Dept. of Justice—is a policy difference: a political decision based on differences in policy.

Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me. [emphasis added]

In all the discussion amongst all the Washington pundit class, this is probably the most amusing statement I have heard recently. Of course, Mr. Broder, the Dean of the Pundits, the coolest, calmest, most reasoned head of the punditry, is the wise man on the mountain who is looked to to provide the voice of reason when all about him have been reduced to a chattering class.

Tell me Mr. Broder. When has Mr. Bush ever been bound to say, that was my policy, I was the president? When has Mr. Bush ever said, I was wrong, I accept responsibility? When asked if he regretted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Mr. Bush replied that he regretted that they hadn’t been found. When asked if he regretted the delay in responding to Hurricane Katrina, he stated that they saved 30,000 people off the roofs of houses. He refused to explain why early warnings were ignored, why response was late, and limited. And why, years later, the majority of the funds appropriated for Katrina relief were still not spent? He has, to this day, not ever, not once, said, “I’m wrong, I made a mistake, I’m sorry.” About anything. Ever.

And you expect him to be a man of honor? To think of those who served under him? Take off your blinders Mr. Broder. His actions speak quite loud enough, thank you very much.

Secretly, right before the inauguration, he gave secret memos to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove (and who knows how others) forcing them to claim executive privilege should they be called to testify before Congress. A privilege, by the way, that Harriet Miers at least, knew wouldn’t stand up to legal scrutiny. And more telling, prior to leaving office, he refused to give Presidential immunity to anyone for committing or authorizing acts of torture. He could have, and could have very easily. Why didn’t he. Oh yeah. If he did, then he would have had to admit “we do not commit torture” was a lie. He told a lot of lies, but that was one of the few where he looked right into the camera and very firmly, clearly, and loudly, stated a declarative sentence that could in no way be spun or later massaged into meaning something else.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jonathan Mann of Rockcookiebottom has a goal to write a song a day and has put the OCL memos to music. Something that should generate a Glenn Beck/Hannity/O’Reilly comment or three. His previous tunes have included my personal favorite “Hey Paul Krugman” recently featured on the Rachel Maddow Show, and “You’re Doing it Right, Jon Stewart.”

For a good source of interesting and topical clips each day, plus his great “Mental Health Break” video finds–including one of the few conservative voices I can stomach–Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish is perhaps the longest running voice for accountability on the subject of torture in the Bush administration. His blog today brings us this clip from Mann.

Putting torture to music somehow makes that torture even more evil. It reminds me of the orchestras playing in the death camps of World War II where music was an integral part of most of the camps. Some say it was to lull the prisoners on their arrival, others to dupe them as they entered the ’showers,’ but the consensus from the surviving orchestra members, is that the prison guards simply enjoyed listening to music as they went about their daily tasks. The juxtaposition of music and torture, music and evil is somehow appropriate as it is because of these guards and their ‘just doing their jobs’ that brought about the trials at Nuremburg and the revisions to the Geneva Conventions in 1949.

And so we have gone full circle. If we need any justification for investigation and prosecution it is this. The circle will turn, and turn again. We have prosecuted and convicted and yet, our leaders felt justified and comfortable in committing torture in our name.

For more information about music in the camps in WWII, go here

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.