The chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the Bush Administration authorized torture of detainees before even rendering a legal opinion on the practice — and that they sought to torture detainees in an effort to produce intelligence tying Iraq to al Qaeda.
Yes, it will be a HUGE distraction to investigate the former administration for their crimes, but not doing so would be a HUGE miscarriage of justice.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
60 comments:
Then again, if the federal government had stuck to their knitting a century ago and kept to the Constitutional straight and narrow, a federal investigation would be as rare as a duck with lips.
I saw a duck with lips just yesterday... it said "Aflac" and then blew me a kiss.
It dawns on me. If we spent as much time defeating the terrorist as we do on attempting to bring down another party, this thing would be over. We waterboarded, the SEALS are waterboarded and both parties knew it (yes even you Pelosi). Move on.
Torture is a moving target and under bush waterboarding was not torture.
Johnny come lately needs to figure out how he plans to finance healthcare, a war and all the companies he wants to bail-out and not fighting a wtich-hunt he can never win.
I don't care WHAT FUCKING PARTY they are a part of, anyone who was involved in authorizing torture... and anyone who actually tortured on behalf of the USA, should be brought to trial and punished if found guilty.
And Skip (to My Lou), waterboarding is torture now, and was torture under Bush. It has always been torture, no matter how it was "defined" by anyone. Maybe we can just define as "not torture" other evil shit, like pulling out fingernails or electrocuting the genitals. Then it'd be OK, right?
And it makes me sick to watch the right wingers try to stick the blame for torture on Nancy Pelosi. She may not be the best leader in the world but she ain't the reason the US tortured people. Not even close.
Why is/was it torture? Please explain. The world does not operate under the definitions outlined by csm. So under what legal code do we find waterboarding to be considered torture? Under what statute is/was it illegal?
What is the point of a Special Prosecutor? Everybody knows a few people were waterboarded. If it was illegal, then render the punishment. If it wasn't, then there is nothing to investigate. All a Special Prosecutor (or "truth commission") will do is turn it into a political circus.
And people aren't blaming Pelosi for what happened. They are merely shining a light on her hypocrisy. She knew about it and approved. Then years later, she started screaming about prosecutions for the exact thing for which she gave her assent.
Wateboarding is not torture. You are wrong and will continue to be wrong. Just because you call it so does not make it true. Our own Navy SEALS go through it as TRAINING.
You left wing loud mouths care more about some terrorist willing to behead a school teacher than you do about your own people. You are the worst kind of human being.
Pelosi is no kind of leader. She is a politician who will lie to protect her political life. All of sudden she thinks it is torture. What a coward. Also the worst kind of human being.
Lou- our Seals going through it as part of their training does not preclude it being torture. Are you a Seal? Do you know one? Tell ya what. Find a Seal, and ask him what HE thinks about if he would consider it torture. If a Navy Seal said it's no big deal, I might buy his argument. Or anyone else who's been through the experience. But at this point to my uninformed mind anything that is basically simulated drowning counts as torture. By the way, I thought part of the whole point of Seal training is that it is incredibly rigorous and stressful. The fact that someone made it through all that is a testament to their endurance and willpower. In no way does that say, 'gee, water boarding is a day in the park' or even 'gosh, what moderately uncomfortable bit of training or hazing'.
"Pelosi is no kind of leader. She is a politician who will lie to protect her political life. All of sudden she thinks it is torture. What a coward. Also the worst kind of human being."
Now Lou, I am not disagreeing with the above statement, but I would like to have you enlighten me on how the Republicans, any of them, are different. A political animal is a political animal no matter the stripes.
You have told me in the past I am not realistic because I do not vote for Dems or Reps(and you are not the first to tell me), but how, in good conscience, can anyone vote for any of these self-serving stiffs, the worst kinds of human beings, in your words. I guess I will chalk it up to the fact I can go to sleep with the knowledge I haven't done anything to put us in the the deep shitwell we find ourselves in. What about you Lou, how you sleepin'?
Besides, I AM a realist. I realize the deck is stacked against me and the rest of the libertarian crowd. I realize we have to revel in the small victories we achieve. I realize it is only a pipedream to get this great experiment back on track, but at least I haven't filled Washington with the human excrement which masquerades as our leaders. How 'bout you?
G, I doubt you are really that naive and stupid. Knowing that a crime was committed is not enough to punish someone. You have to know who is at fault. A special prosecutor can find out who approved and ordered the torture. And then punishment can be doled out appropriately.
And yes, people ARE trying to blame Pelosi. The right wing lunatics are doing it to deflect. Did Pelosi know about the torture? It looks like she did. Did she approve? Now that is a completely different kettle of fish.
But before even going there, I ask again: What statute was violated? Where is the legal definition under which the procedures used are seen to be "torture"?
And who on the "right" is blaming Pelosi for the whole thing? I haven't seen any op/ed pieces to that effect, and I at least glance at them often. In fact, it doesn't make sense that conservatives would be "blaming" Pelosi because most don't believe any laws were broken. It is hypocrisy, plain and simple. She approved, but later tried to use it as a political weapon. Now she's caught in her own web.
She was complicit. If that were all, then I wouldn't care (because I don't believe it was criminal). But then she lied about it and actually accused the CIA of deceiving congress. As is usually the case, the attempt to cover it up is far worse than the original act.
She brought this on herself. And I think that many people are enjoying watching her squirm.
For those who aren't afraid of the truth, here is an excellent analysis of the LEGAL aspects of this discussion:
On ‘Torture,’ Holder Undoes Holder
The only thing different is that the Republicans are not pretending to not know about waterboarding.
Leaders take responsibility for their actions right or wrong. Obama is making the rules up just as Bush did. Of course, Obama is buying up the economy as he goes along. That doesn’t make Bush decision to waterboard torture. Even Obama’s CoS doesn’t believe waterboarding is torture.
Under Bush, waterboarding was not torture and the dolt Pelosi wants to blame everyone but herself for not knowing. Silence is acceptance. They did the same thing with the war where once again they pretend to have been duped. It’s all BS.
It is easy to second guess Bush and his tactics after 9/11 when we did not know if other attacks were coming and if more American lives were at risk. At least he did not run from his decisions as the cowards on the left have with these issues after the fact. I can accept mistakes but I cannot accept those who will lie to save their political careers. Especially at the expense of those assigned to protect us.
For those interested in the point of view of an actual Navy Seal on this topic, here's Governor Jesse Ventura.
When you quote "The Body" who offers to waterboard Cheney you have lost. Of course Ventura, a Bush & Cheney political rival will go with his party. Isn't it odd he just not steps forward to make that claim? Where was his outrage when he was a SEAL? This is the key with Ventura and Pelosi. No outrage until NOW.
Waterboarding is not supposed to pleasant. It is a war time tactic used on guys who know the risks when thy go in to terror.
Try this :
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/21/waterboarding-does-not-qualify-torture/
Wasn't Ventura an Independent, not a Dem or Rep? Or is it that anyone who chafes at the things Bush/Cheney accomplished now a Democrat?
I don't know what party he is and don't care. All I need to know is he was (is) a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Once again, if it was torture why is he just NOW speaking out? I don't buy it. Did you read the link?
For all of Bush's incompetence waterboarding terrorist to save lives was RIGHT. You claimed to be an I but every time I speak against a politician in power, you want to bring up the party. Not a very convincing I.
As much as I would like to be equal opportunity, Republicans just don't have an power.
How chickenshit can our leaders be? How is it that we have no problem taking and jailing extradited bloodthirsty Mexican drug cartel leaders who run extensive and deadly organizations, but when it comes to a couple hundred alleged terrorists(including eight fucking Xuighurs)they will not "touch our soil"? I don't know what is worse; the politicians(from both fucking parties)who are using fear once again or the gullible public who eats this shit up.
When are we going to get a fucking backbone and re-earn our standing in this world? With the leadership we have now, I am not optimistic.
Hey Lou,
You say you don't care about what party he is from, well...
"Of course Ventura, a Bush & Cheney political rival will go with his party."
By the way, I am not an "I", I am a registered Libertarian and have been since 1980.
Lou, my point had nothing to do with Ventura's political party, or his views on 9/11. It was simply his views of waterboarding, and his having been a Seal. Since this was a publicly available video clip, and not a personal response to a query I sent the man, I had no control over what else he said. Or is it your position that if someone has a wacky idea or two this totally invalidates their personal experience?
Ceroill, OK lets give Jessee the benefit of the doubt. Lets look past his whacked political conspiracies for the moment.
Why, after ALL these years is he just now calling what happen to him as a SEAL torture? Could it be the current political environment? I think so. Politics is a powerful drug. Not to mention, other SEALs disagree.
And no Bawdy, I don't care what party he is from BUT HE does. That is exactly what the statement you posted states.
Ok, let's try this on for size. If it's not torture, and therefore not illegal, and it's a good way of gathering information quickly, how come we don't waterboard serial killers, and other violent felons? How come we didn't do it to those guys who set off that bomb in Oklahoma City? What about kidnappers? Wouldn't it be logical to use 'enhanced interrogation' on such domestic criminals if it works so well? But for some odd reason the police aren't allowed to use those methods. And yet they still solve crimes with impending deadlines, and have been doing so for many years now.
I would say the same reason we don't send our police forces to fight wars. That is not their purpose nor their training. American citizens are not enemy combatants. Our police also don't utilize F-22 Raptors, Nuclear carriers and Tanks among other such mass forces. Why not ask "Why not they work so well".
However, in case of domestic terror where lives may be at stake, I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as trained interrogators were carrying out the task. Also, waterboarding in NOW against the law.
I don't give a good flying fuck what political party you are or whether you are right wing or left wing, if you "believe" that torture is a valid way to gain information then you are a fucking idiot... 'nuff said.
I don't believe torture is a valid method of gaining information. I do believe waterboarding is a valid method and the CIA documents prove it. Write Obama and ask him to get them released but don't hold you breath.
To paint yourself into a corner and claim that these enhanced methods should never be used regardless of circumstance make you the biggest kind of idiot. Then again, your closed mindedness has already made that point painfully clear. Fundys are so hard to reason with.
csm,
What was done at Gitmo did not fall into the legal definition of torture at the time, period.
Waterboarding is torture. It is simulate drowning and is horrific.
And the only thing torture ever produces is getting the tortured to say whatever you want them to say to get the torture to stop.
No, horrific is being in the WTC and watching a plane fly into you building or watching a men and women being beheaded or watching a child being blown up. Waterboarding is child's play compared to what terrorist are willing to do.
Actually, testimony has shown watebording did produce valuable information. Thats why Obama doesn't want to release THOSE memos. Nothing like transparency.
There are also statements from FBI interrogators that they were getting better info before the CIA and the contractors shoved their way in and began using their 'enhanced interrogation methods'. Then the prisoners would clam up.
See...part of the idea of being American is we're supposed to hold the moral high ground. We're supposed to be the good guys. When we let ourselves stoop to their level, it just gives them more excuses to hate us.
When we start abandoning the Geneva Conventions and other treaties we've signed onto about treatment of prisoners, then that puts a really bad light on us to the rest of the world.
Exactly, Bob!
csm,
If you read the article I previously referenced, you will see that waterboarding did not fit the legal definition of torture, and Eric Holder admitted as much (even though he tried very hard to dance around the truth).
Ceroill,
He said/she said between agencies is meaningless unless all the information is released. It won't be.
And how exactly do you see this as "stooping to their level"? Do you equate an interrogation technique that produces no lasting damage in order to gain information with beheading people and suicide bombings? They are very different. One is intended to prevent harm. The other is intended to cause it.
As for the Geneva Convention, it's a two way street. It doesn't only dictate how POWs are to be treated. It dictates how people are to fight (e.g. not hiding among the general public, wearing clothing that distinguishes those in battle from civilians, etc.). People can't pick and choose which parts they want to follow. If you fight in violation of the GC, then you can't claim it's protections when you are captured.
President Has “More Effective” Method to Get Intel from Terrorists – What Is It?
G- I never made any such claim of equivalence, nor would I. However, as to the Geneva Conventions, yes, it is a two way street and that cuts our way as well.
If we're going to abandon them in dealing with prisoners, how can we expect others to uphold them on the battlefield or if our guys and girls are captured? And just because they may not follow them all doesn't mean we get to cherry pick either.
Either we stand up for the high principles that we signed up for, regardless of how our enemies act, or those principles are worthless.
It's that good ol' principle: Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because they act badly doesn't give us a good excuse to also act badly. No, we're not beheading anyone in a public square. But just look at any of those pictures that came out of Guantanamo or Abu Graib. Surely you can't be suggesting this is how all prisoners should be treated?
You know, we somehow managed to get through WWII, and even win, without resorting to this kind of thing. Are these guys so much more horrible than the Nazis that they don't deserve the most basic of human rights due to prisoners?
Oh, and don't trot out what we did to citizens of Japanese heritage- we recognized long ago that was a horrible mistake. And that treatment was nothing compared to what's been going on these days.
If what we did to those Japanese-Americans was wrong, this kind of thing is even more wrong.
Nor does it matter which administration started it, continued it, or maybe even just swept it under the rug. Party doesn't matter. Names don't matter. It's the principle of the thing. It's wrong, and the fact that they do worse doesn't make it right.
Exactly G, Thank you.
Ceroill,
You are an idealist and that is great. You believe all the laws should be enforced at all times and in all circumstances. I suppose the illegal immigration and gay marriage as the law looks the other way must tear you up inside.
I am a realist. Enhanced interrogation does not make us the "Bad Guys". It makes us willing to let the "Bad Guys" know we will not stand by why they kill innocent people. The don't hate us for that, they hate us because we are infidels. Study their religious worldview and you will find the real reason they hate us.
As for telling us anything to make us stop......they can do that with ANY interrogation method. Not a valid argument.
Call me infidel, er Ismail.
C'mon Lou, the way our federal government pumps out laws, some of them have got to be bum laws, like ah, the immigration laws.
As far as torture goes, if the federal government had run this thing as I would have from the beginning, covertly without the whole armed forces, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Ceroill,
You seem to be confused on the Geneva Convention. POWs are captured during times of war. If they have engaged in battle according to the GC, then they are entitled to the protections therein. If they don't, they can't rely on those protections. It doesn't work the other way around because you can't have a POW without first having the W.
We didn't abandon the GC in this situation. It was inapplicable from the beginning because the combatants didn't follow its requirements.
Bringing Manzanar and Abu Graib into the discussion is a red herring. Abu Graib was investigated and prosecuted. So it is clear that we don't consider it "ok". Manzanar was an outrage because it was imprisonment of people for no other reason than their race.
At GITMO, there were exactly three people waterboarded. All three were confirmed members of Al Qaida. The CIA did what they felt was necessary to extract information to protect American lives. The so-called "torture memos" make it clear that there were restrictions and protections in place.
As for WWII, I have no idea what kinds of interrogation techniques were used. However, that war ended when we dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, killing thousands of civilians in the process. Was that a morally superior choice to waterboarding three people?
Your argument makes this into a simple black & white issue, but the world rarely works that way. The primary job of the US Military and intelligence agencies is to protect the USA and its citizens. I have no problem with what they did in this situation in order to fulfill that duty.
Waterboarding IS torture. I don't give a flying fuck about "legal" definitions and other right wing weasel terms. The USA tortured people and we should not have - we should never torture, ever. Ever. Ever. And here's another ever!
Even right wing radio host Mancow Muller (ass clown that he is) changed his mind after being waterboarded. I give him credit for testing it out. How about it Lou and G, you fucks wanna get waterboarded?
No, I don't. Nor do I want to listen to Keith Olberman for 20 minutes. So is that also torture?
Do you even realize the absolute absurdity of your last post? You don't care what the law says? I'm sorry that you view legal definitions as "right wing weasel terms". How exactly do you plan to keep this nation out of complete chaos if you reject the rule of law?
Walk me through your reasoning that came to that conclusion.
Oh, G, I guess we can make a law that says a duck is a bear and you'd then go around calling ducks bears, wouldn't you?
Former military interrogator says torture cost hundreds ‘if not thousands’ of American lives
You've completely gone off the deep end into the realm of "truthiness". If we ignore the written dictates of the law just because people "feel" that something is wrong... and then pursue justice based on those feelings rather than on the law, then our justice system becomes totally meaningless.
If we move beyond the EXPLICIT dictates of the law and start to define criminal acts by whatever beliefs are in vogue (without actually changing the legal code), then we become subject to criminal penalties whenever the govt wants to go after us. Our justice system becomes no different than that of a totalitarian regime.
Seriously, csm, step back for a minute and think about what you're saying. Remove it from the context of waterboarding and consider the consequences of rejecting the rule of law.
Fuck you, G. Just because you say so, or whoever else says so, does not make it so. What are right wingers so scared of? If you are so mother-fucking sure that the law says that, then support the appointment of a special prosecutor or a truth committee! If what you seem to be so cocksure about is actually true, then no harm done. And at least we investigate what are heinous accusations. So if that is the deep end, then by all means, we should all be swimming in it. The deep end is actually just making claims and stating that we don't need to look any further. You are truly a ridiculous apologist for Bush, Cheney, and those other criminals from the previous admin.
Sorry, but I consider "off the deep end" to be not caring what the law actually says in order to satisfy some kind of political blood lust. I'm not being a Bush/Cheney apologist at all. In this particular case, I don't see that anything illegal was done.
I certainly wouldn't be in favor of a "truth commission", whatever that is supposed to be. If there are prosecutable offenses, then pursue them. A "truth commission" sounds like nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt.
I wouldn't support the idea of a special prosecutor as it is currently being proposed. It also sounds like a politically motivated witch hunt at this point.
If a credible accusation of criminal conduct is received, it is the duty of the authorities over that jurisdiction to investigate. If the investigation reveals that criminal conduct really did occur, then you indict the PERPETRATOR of the crime (i.e. the one who actually did the interrogation). If you are able to get a conviction (which would be confirmation that his/her actions were a violation of the law), then you can start moving up the ladder to those who gave the orders.
You have to start with the alleged crime itself. But this idea of assigning a special prosecutor without actually going after the interrogator is pure politics. And the fact that people want to go after attorneys for doing nothing more than giving their legal opinion is outrageous.
Is this actually going to happen? No. They won't go after the interrogator, and they won't assign any special prosecutor. If they do so, they know that they're going to end up dragging sitting members of congress (including the current Speaker of the House) down with the people they so dearly want to destroy.
By the way, it isn't fear. It's being ticked off about a blatant abuse of power in an attempt to destroy political rivals.
Truth commission in Congress, why could that be remotely attainable? I wonder.
What percentage of the energy expended by each member of Congress is tied to either their image or reelection? I say 95%(I feel nice today). What do y'all say?
Bawdy, if I were feeling generous I'd say 90%. But I suspect you're closer. Unfortunately, even if you arrive in Washington as a genuine idealist (of any stripe), you quickly find that in order to get anywhere and get anything done you can't stay that way. Heck, it's not even a recent development. Just watch Mr Smith Goes to Washington. And it was an old problem then.
I'd wager that the current speaker of the house would be not guilty. Probably would not come out unscathed in terms of public opinion, but hell, the right wingers are trying to make that happen anyway.
Bottom line: investigations need to be conducted... and a special prosecutor needs to be appointed.
And it is hi-fucking-larious that G is only NOW upset about abuse of power. I think I'll giggle myself to sleep over that one!
Heck, if we appoint a special investigator about a blow job, why not about this? I'd say it's at least as important as whether somebody lied about adultery...
Why don't we just keep one on call, ya never know when you will an investigation with this crew.
The investigation was about lying, not a blow job. Totally misleading. If Willie had just told the truth I think it all would have "Blown" over much quicker. You think he would have known the cover up is always what bites you in the butt. (something Willie enjoys as well):)
"With Mr. Cheney's recent admission that there never was really any evidence linking Iraq to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001"
AG Holder should now appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Over 34,000 US Soldiers Died or were Maimed for the Bush-Cheney WMD Lies.
A Crime in any language.
SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Them For Torture
AT ANGRYVOTERS dot ORGOver 250,000 have signed
Join them and call yourself a Patriot!
And what exactly are you trying to insinuate this time, csm? Have I been a proponent of abuse of power in the past?
Going to war with UN approval isn't a crime. This passion for a lynching of George Bush is really getting old.
It doesn't get old when it becomes instructive of how not to run this country. I just got done talking to a 96 year old Jewish man and you cannot tell him or, me for that matter, that the Holocaust story is old, not when it is still instructive,
I wasn't talking about discussion of his policies and their effects. That kind of debate can be a good thing. I was talking about the irrational bloodlust toward him. The constant clamoring to put him on trial gets tiresome.
But I suppose it will backfire on them anyway. The more they scream about Bush's crimes, the more people will just tune them out completely. It exposes the far left as the irrational fringe element that they are.
A flood of new revelations about Bush and Cheney's criminal misconduct are coming to the fore. The exposures are a direct result of the work of all the people who are demanding accountability.
The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, is now calling for an investigation of Bush-era policies. Sanchez himself was forced into retirement because of his connection to Abu Ghraib -- for him to now call for an investigation shows that the plot goes much deeper than that one notorious torture chamber.
"The mechanisms that are responsible for establishing accountability have lost their credibility within the country, and there's a lack of trust in them," retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview on CNN's "Newsroom" Tuesday.
This week also brought to light two under-reported stories: 1) Cheney personally led secret Congressional briefings on torture methods, and 2) as early as 2004, the Red Cross privately expressed concerns to Colin Powell that U.S. detention and interrogation methods violated international law.
With any other administration we would call the newest torture revelations "shocking." But we are done being shocked. We have come to expect from the Bush administration the worst sort of human rights violations and trampling on the U.S. Constitution.
What is "shocking" is how Dick Cheney continues to write his own indictment. With every story that breaks about Cheney's flagrant crimes, he takes to the airwaves not to deny the charges, but to make an even more flagrant defense of having broken the law!
Wasn't "insinuating" anything at all there, G. Was coming right out and saying it. The previous administration abused its power over and over again and you are a constant apologist for them. And now you think Obama is abusing power. Again, hi-fucking-larious!
You can keep calling me a "Bush apologist", but it isn't going to suddenly become true. But I suppose anyone who doesn't fall into the "Bush is the essence of evil" camp will sound like an apologist to you.
However, I am willing to stand behind certain policies that are being targeted in an irrational way by fringe groups. You seem to throw around the term "criminal conduct" as if it's a simple fact of life that is clear to all. But the same question remains: What specific conduct was criminal, and what specific legal statutes did it violate?
Since you are claiming that I don't have a problem with abuse of power, why don't you go ahead and point out an instance in the past where I've supported it. Go ahead and use your Google site search. (I won't be holding my breath)
By the way, is it your position that the Obama administration ISN'T abusing their power?
Bah!
I used my Google search and could not find a single instance of you calling out the Bush administration on abuse of power.
Do I think the Obama administration is abusing power? Surely, but probably not in the way you think. Do I think we are seeing anything by Obama like we saw with W? Surely not.
For what abuse of power should I have "called them out"? How many times have I done so to anyone, including Obama?
Just because I don't shout outrage from the rooftop doesn't mean I'm an apologist for any political party or politician. Honestly, I have zero faith in any of them to consistently do the right thing, whether it be following the Constitution or otherwise.
One need only scroll backward a little bit on this page to see one example.
Are you referring to waterboarding again? I already stated my position that it wasn't a violation of any laws. Therefore, it is not an abuse of power.
Or were you referring to something else that I'm missing?
Post a Comment