Waffles, Bullshit, Cheney Droppings, and Photographs Are Worth 1,000s Of Words.
THE ISSUE OF TORTURE is now all about politics and has nothing to do with the truth and legal matters. We don’t matter; The Constitution doesn’t matter; the Geneva Conventions don’t matter; the reputation and integrity of this nation and its legal foundations do not matter…it has all become a colossal Machiavellian Chess Game. Everyone knows the truth; the Bush Administration is Guilty; The Congress of The United States is a Guilty accomplice…the entire world knows it, and there will not be justice done unless the American people, in near vigilante style, take control and Force/Cause The Sword Of Justice To Cut Down The Guilty. It is that simple.
Washington is nothing more than a very powerful well oiled political machine with uncountable moving parts. So forget about integrity and morality. We're talking about political power here. So go ahead, join me and be as cynical as you want to be, but if you do; walk carefully or you will find yourself marching in the same direction I am…be warned!
Cheney is a perverted sadistic throw back war monger and Pelosi is an egomaniacal lying hypocrite control freak devoid of any shred of integrity who believes we are all stupid and that she and her cronies on both sides of the aisle are exempt from the laws of this land. If she had a single drop of decency running through her veins she would step down from the Speaker’s Chair…NOW!
| Pelosi Waffles And Bullshit!!! Nancy Pelosi Pictures Videos Breaking News Pelosi Did Know About Waterboarding, But No Doubt Not All of the Details Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2009-05-14 16:22. She rightly objects to having been lied to (just as I object to her refusal to impeach the liars), but not so much to having herself lied to us. Robert Scheer gets it right. Here's latest from The Washington Post and from Comedy Central. In addition, Senator Bob Graham Says the CIA Made Up Two Briefing Sessions. Meanwhile Karl Rove's pretense that his and Bush's and Cheney's crimes are OK because Pelosi knew about them would make more sense if he had a long record of promoting Pelosi as an arbiter of decency and good, and if he were demanding full publication of all records of all briefings. The Press Conference Nancy Pelosi Hopes You Forget » The Foundry Pelosi News Conference on Waterboarding Disclosure CQ Transcriptwire Thursday, May 14, 2009; 11:55 AM (JOINED IN PROGRESS) PELOSI: ... take the time to read this to you. Throughout my career, I have been proud to have worked on human rights and against torture around the world. I say this with great pride because it has been a great focus of my time both even before I came to Congress and here. As ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations, I helped secure the first funding for the Torture Victim's Relief Act to assist though suffering from the physical and psychological efforts of torture. I unequivocally oppose the use of torture by our government because it is contrary to our national values. Like all members of Congress who are briefed on classified information, I have assigned oaths pledges not to disclose any of that information. This is an oath I have taken very seriously, and I've always abided by it. The CIA briefed me only once on enhanced interrogation techniques in September 2002 in my capacity as ranking member of the Intelligence Committee. I was informed then that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques were legal. The only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed. Those conducting the briefing promised to inform the appropriate members of Congress if that technique were to be used in the future. Congress and the American people now know that, that contrary to the opinions within the -- contrary opinions within the executive branch concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. However, those opinions were not shared with Congress. We also now know that techniques including waterboarding had already been employed and that those briefing me in September 2002 gave me inaccurate and incomplete information. At the same time, the Bush administration -- exactly the same time -- September of 2002, the fall of 2002, at the same time, the Bush administration was misleading the American people about the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Five months later, in February 2003, a member of my staff informed me that the Republican chairman and the Democratic ranking member of the Intelligence Committee had been briefed about the use of certain techniques which had been the subject of earlier legal opinions. Following that briefing, a letter raising concerns was sent to CIA general counsel, Scott Muller by the new Democratic ranking member of committee, the appropriate person to register a protest. But no letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job -- the Congress part. When Democrats assumed control of the Congress in 2007, Congress passed legislation banning torture and requiring all government agencies to abide by the Army Field Manual. President Bush vetoed this bill barring the use of torture. An effort to overturn his veto failed because of the votes of Republican members. We needed to elect a new president. We did. And he has banned torture. Congress and the administration must review -- I've always believed the Congress and the administration must review the National Security Act of 1947 -- now, we have a chance to do that with a new president -- to determine in a larger number of members of Congress should receive classified briefings so that the information can be utilized by proper oversight -- for proper oversight and legislative activity without violating oaths of secrecy. PELOSI: I have long supported creation of an independent truth commission to determine how intelligence was misused and how controversial and possibly illegal activities like torture were authorized within the executive branch. PELOSI: Until a truth commission is -- comes into being, I encourage the appropriate committees of the House to conduct vigorous oversight of these issues. I'd be pleased to take any questions. QUESTION: Regardless of the individual who told you that these techniques were being used and regardless the venue in which you learned of this fact, does not the foreknowledge of the use of these techniques make you complicit in their use? PELOSI: No, this is a policy that has been -- that was conceived and implemented by the Bush administration. They notified Congress that they had legal opinions saying that this was -- was legal, but they would let us know if they were planning to use them, is what they briefed us on. I think you can see by what Mr. Panetta has sent out that it's really hard to confirm what did happen, and the committees of jurisdiction may have to look into that, but it does not make me complicit, no. QUESTION: But Mr. Sheehy... PELOSI: Yes? QUESTION: You say that Mr. Sheehy did tell you, your staff did tell you. PELOSI: He informed me that the briefing had taken place. We were not in a place where he could -- that was all that he was required to do. We're not in a setting -- we weren't in -- I'm no longer the ranking member on intelligence. He just informed me and that the letter was sent. That is the proper person to send the letter, the ranking member of the -- of the Intelligence Committee. So my statement is clear, and let me read it again. Let me read it again. I'm sorry. I have to find the page. I was informed that the Department of Justice opinions had concluded that the use of enhanced interrogations was legal. The only mention of waterboarding was that the briefing -- in the briefing was that it was not being employed. When -- when -- when my staff person -- I'm sorry, the page is out of order -- five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing -- informing that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing; I was just informed that the briefing had taken place. So -- so let's get this straight. The Bush administration has conceived a policy, the CIA comes to the Congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of this subject. They -- we later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used. This is a tactic, a diversionary tactic to take the spotlight off of those who conceived, developed and implemented these policies, which all of us long opposed. My action on it was further to say: We have to change the majority in Congress. We have to win the White House so that we can change it. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... Sheehy did not tell you that the -- he was informed that they were actually using the techniques? PELOSI: No, he did say that. He said that the -- the committee chair and ranking member and appropriate staff had been briefed that these techniques were now being used. They -- that's all I was informed, that they were being used and that a letter was sent. And that is a complete -- my responsibility -- it's different. I'm no longer the ranking member. Appropriately, the ranking member sent the letter. So let me say this: Of all of the briefings that I had received, at this same time, they were misinforming me earlier. Now, in September, the same time as the -- as the briefing, they were telling the American people there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it was an imminent threat to the United States. I, to the limit of what I could say to my caucus, told them the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that this administration is contending. So it was on the subject of what's happening in Iraq, whether it's talking about the techniques used by the -- by the intelligence community on those they're interrogating, at every step of the way, the administration was misleading the Congress. And that is the issue. And that is why we need a truth commission to look into that. Yes, sir? QUESTION: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002? PELOSI: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am. QUESTION: And also -- and doing it again now, as they've released this list of briefings that says you were briefed on the interrogation tactics that were used. PELOSI: I'm saying -- I'm quoting what the head of the CIA has said. This is -- we don't know if this information is accurate that he's talking about. What they briefed us on -- and perhaps they should release the briefings. I would be very happy if they would release the briefings. And then you will see what they briefed in one time -- in one time and another, House and the Senate and the rest, and perhaps with the intense interest that this has generated because of the distraction that the Republicans want to cause with this, then you can make a judgment yourself about what you think these briefings were. But I'm telling you that they talked about interrogations that they had done and said, "We want to use enhanced techniques, and we have legal opinions that say that they are OK. We are not using waterboarding." That's the only mention, that they were not using it. And we now know that earlier they were. So, yes, I am saying that they are misleading -- that the CIA was misleading the Congress. And at the same time, the administration was misleading the Congress on the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to which I said, "This intelligence does not support the imminent threat," to which the press asked the same question you just did now. "Are you accusing them of lying?" I said, I'm just stating a fact. The intelligence... (CROSSTALK) PELOSI: I'm sorry. I -- no, no, just because I promised -- in the back there. Yes, ma'am? QUESTION: Do you wish now that you had done more? Do you wish... PELOSI: No. QUESTION: ... it had been your own letter? PELOSI: No, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, the point is, is that we had the conversation. They told us they had legal opinions. As I say in my statement, we now know what they didn't inform us then, that there were other opinions within the executive branch that concluded that these interrogation techniques were not legal. So no letter or anything else is going to stop them from doing what they're going to do. My job was to change the majority in Congress and to change -- to fight to have a new president, because what was happening was not consistent with our values, certainly not true, and -- and something that had to be changed. We did that. We have a new president. He says he's going to ban torture. When we won in '06 and -- and passed legislation in that Congress, President Bush vetoed that bill. I think we're in a whole different stage. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: ... when you hear about this sturm und drang about this over the past few weeks, regardless of your desire to have a truth commission, doesn't this make it harder to go forward in that regard because so many on the other side have sort of ginned this issue up? PELOSI: Well, I have always been for a truth commission, as you probably know. Others in the legislative branch have thought maybe the committees of jurisdiction should do that job. And until we have a truth commission and unless we have a truth commission, they must do that. But it isn't -- and I don't think it would -- I think a truth commission would be a good idea. I think the American people want it. I think they want to know how we got to this place. And that's why I say in this, until we have a truth commission, the committees of jurisdiction, whether it's the intelligence commission -- committee or the Judiciary Committee, are the appropriate places for that to go. But understand -- and I don't know how you can fall prey to this -- this is their policy, all of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceived. This is what they developed. This is what they implemented. This is what they denied was happening. And now they're trying to say, "Don't put the spotlight on us. We told the Congress." Well, they didn't tell us everything that they were doing. And the fact is that anything we would say doesn't matter anyway. We had to change the majority in Congress. We had to get a new president in order to change the policy. And that is what we have done. And I, as I say, had taken special interest in this issue over time, take pride in it and -- and the work that we have done on the issue of torture. So I was pretty sensitive to what they would be briefing us, and what they said they were doing, and what they didn't. But they did not represent the facts in that regard. Yes, sir? (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Madam Speaker, on health care... PELOSI: Yes? QUESTION: ... do House Democrats have the... (LAUGHTER) PELOSI: Did you get booed? Did I hear you get booed? QUESTION: Not the first time. Do House Democrats have the political will to raise taxes to reform health care? PELOSI: We're putting everything on the table. We -- we believe that the health care reform that the president is advocating for quality, affordable, accessible health care can be achieved with about -- much of the money that is being spent now, but spent more wisely, in terms of prevention, in terms of early intervention, in terms of information technology, to make health care more affordable, fewer errors, better quality. But when we do these -- when we're doing the health care issue, you have Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate. I don't think we should -- I hope that we could find the savings within the system. But in the interest of listening to everyone put everything on the table and see what its worth is and whether it's necessary. QUESTION: You don't think you need a tax increase to cover 46 million more people? PELOSI: You know what? We have a -- what the president said is that if you like the insurance that you have, you can keep that. What we have done already, from the beginning of this year with the recovery package, with the omnibus bill, with the budget, with the children's health, what we have done already has done more for health care than anything since the establishment of Medicare in the '50s -- 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago. So we're down the path. We have momentum on this. And we'll listen to see what the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee and the rest have to say. We'll have our listening sessions with our members. This is very important. And I hope that it can be done in a bipartisan way. I really do. I know we have the reconciliation mechanism there, but I would hope that we would not have to use that. But we will have a health care reform bill on the floor of the House by the end of July. And you will see, in this very short period of time, this next week and then when we come back in June, you will see the particulars of it emerge. And Mr. -- Mr. Rangel will be in charge of that piece of it -- the how do we pay for it piece and listening to all kinds of views. QUESTION: May I ask one last question? PELOSI: Sure. QUESTION: OK. The question is: At the end of April, you had a press conference with us and you said very clearly we were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. PELOSI: That's right. We, in that -- in that meeting, in the briefing that I received, we were not told that -- in fact, we were told that waterboarding was not being used because that's sort of one that stood out. QUESTION: So in that press conference, we were all fairly trying to get at the broader question of whether -- whether you knew about waterboarding at all. And the idea that we got from you was that you were never told that waterboarding was being used. But now we know that, later, in February, you were told. It wasn't in that briefing, but you were told. So... PELOSI: No. By the time we were told, we are finding out that it's been used before. In other words, that was beyond the... QUESTION: Well, why did you tell us at the press conference PELOSI: Well, I told you what our briefing was. And our briefing was... QUESTION: That you had been told, just not at that particular briefing. PELOSI: No. QUESTION: You've been very adamant that you didn't know that waterboarding was used. PELOSI: No, that is right. We were told -- in the briefing that I received, we were told that they had legal opinions that this was legal. We were not told that it was -- that there were other legal opinions to the contrary in the administration. And we were told specifically that waterboarding was not being used. When my assistant told me that the committee had been briefed -- now, I'm not on that committee any more. I'm now out of it. We have a new -- that ranking member wrote the appropriate letter to protest that. And then we find out just slightly more subsequent to that that, perhaps, they were using waterboarding long before they tell us. QUESTION: (Inaudible). PELOSI: No. But the point is is that I wasn't briefed. I was told -- informed that someone else had been briefed about it. I'm only speaking from my -- I'm only speaking from my own experience. And we were told that it was not being used. Subsequently, the other members of the committee were informed. QUESTION: So were you. PELOSI: No, I wasn't informed. I was informed that a briefing had taken place. Now, you have to look at what they briefed those members. I was not briefed that. I was only informed that they were briefed, but I did not get the briefing. QUESTION: (Inaudible). PELOSI: Well, we'll find out. QUESTION: (Inaudible). They mislead us all the time. I was fighting the war in Iraq at that point, too, you know, saying to my members the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding. But what's the point? Yes, they did. They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them. So they try to turn the attention on us. We had to win the election to make the change. We did. President Bush vetoed the bill. We have a new president who is going to do that. But the committees can look into and see the timing of who knew what and when and what the nature of the briefing was. I have not been briefed as to what they were briefed on in February. I was just briefed that they were informed that some of the enhanced situations were used. (CROSSTALK) STAFF: Thank you. Thank you. END By Gateway Pundit House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agreed that the Congressional Hearings looking into "torture" of 3 Al-Qaeda terrorists during the Bush years should include an investigation of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi was recently caught lying about what ... CNN - USA WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy ... By Internet Guru For the past three weeks, controversy has swirled around Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called for a “truth commission” to expose the. Politics Daily - Washington,DC,USA The report shows that Democrats in both chambers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), were informed as early as 2002 about the use of methods that ... Remember, none of this is about 'the administration', this is all based on CIA memos and notes from the meetings that were held, they are what is impeaching her credibility, not any claims by someone in Bush's administration. ... Apart from Cheney saying 'go ahead and release it', they're doing that so far. There is no way someone as politically savvy and intelligent as Dick Cheney would be publicly pushing for the release of documentation of the process unless he was ...Albany Media Bias - http://albanymediabias.blogspot.com/
|
| |
| WEDNESDAY MAY 13, 2009 16:55 EDT Obama's latest effort to conceal evidence of Bush era crimes (updated below - Update II) It's difficult to react much to Obama's complete reversal today of his own prior decision to release photographs depicting extreme detainee abuse by the United States. He's left no doubt that this is what he does: ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping. The ACLU's Amrit Singh -- who litigated the thus-far-successful FOIA lawsuit to compel disclosure of these photographs -- is exactly right: The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration. President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable. Andrew Sullivan, one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, wrote of today's photograph-concealment decision and yesterday's story of Obama's pressuring Britain to conceal evidence of Binyam Mohamed's torture: Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to prosecute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully co opt his successor. . . From extending and deepening the war in Afghanistan, to suppressing evidence of rampant and widespread abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush, to thuggishly threatening the British with intelligence cut-off if they reveal the brutal torture inflicted on Binyam Mohamed, Obama now has new cheer-leaders: Bill Kristol, Michael Goldfarb and Max Boot. . . . Those of us who held out hope that the Obama administration would not be actively covering up the brutal torture of a Gitmo prisoner who was subject to abuse in several countries must now concede the obvious. They're covering it up - in such a crude and obvious fashion that it is actually a crime in Britain. John Aravosis said Obama's logic was "a bit Bushian." Steve Hynd observes that "Obama Trades Our Principles For Cheneyism." TPM decalres: "Obama falls back on Bushisms." Dan Froomkin writes: "Obama Joins the Cover-Up." I'll just note a few points for now about Obama's efforts to keep these photographs concealed: (1) Think about what Obama's rationale would justify. Obama's claim-- that release of the photographs "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger" -- means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done -- asthe Bush administration did -- because release of such evidence would "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn't it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do? Apparently, the proper reaction to heinous acts by our political leaders is not to hold them accountable but, instead, to hide evidence of what they did. That's the warped mentality Obama is endorsing today, and has been endorsing since January 20. (2) How can anyone who supports what Obama is doing here complain about the CIA's destruction of their torture videos? The torture videos, like the torture photos, would, if released, generate anti-American sentiment and make us look bad. By Obama's reasoning, didn't the CIA do exactly the right thing by destroying them? (3) This is just another manifestation of the generalized Beltway religion that we should suppress and ignore the heinous acts our government committed and to which we acquiesced, because if we just agree to forget about all of it, then we can blissfully pretend that it never happened and avoid doing anything about it. (4) Obama's claim that he has to hide this evidence to protect our soldiers is the sort of crass, self-serving exploitation of "The Troops" which was the rancid hallmark of Bush/Cheney rhetoric. Everyone knows what the real effect of these photographs would be: they would highlight just how brutal and criminal was our treatment of detainees in our custody, and further underscore how amoral and lawless are Obama's calls that we Look To the Future, Not the Past. Manifestly, that is why they're being suppressed. (5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that you don't have any actual beliefs other than: "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs? Also, the OLC torture memos released several weeks ago surely increased anti-American sentiment. Indeed, those on the Right who objected to the release of those memos cited exactly that argument. How can anyone cheer on Obama's decision today to conceal these photographs while also cheering on his decision to release the OLC memos? Those who have any intellectual coherence would have to oppose both or support both. Those two decisions only have one fact in common: Obama made them. Thus, the only way to cheer on both decisions is to be guided by the modified Nixonian mantra: what Obama does is right because Obama does it. Also, during the Bush years, were you -- along with Bill Kristol and National Review -- attacking the ACLU and Congressional Democrats for demanding that the Bush administration stop concealing evidence of its torture, on the ground that disclosure of such evidence would harm America's national security? Were you defending Bush then for doing what Obama is doing now? (6) If these photographs don't shed any new light on what our Government did -- if all they do is replicate what we already know from the Abu Ghraib photographs -- then how can it possibly be the case that they will do any damage? To argue that they will harm how we are perceived is, necessarily, to acknowledge that they reveal new information that is not already widely known. (7) We are supposed to have what is called Open Government in the United States. The actions of our government -- and the evidence documenting it -- is presumptively available to the public. Only an authoritarian would argue that evidence of government actions should be kept secret in the absence of a compelling reason to release it. The presumption is the opposite: documents in the government’s possession relating to what it does are presumptively public in the absence of compelling reasons to keep it concealed. That the documents reflect poorly on the government is not such a reason to keep them concealed. If it were, then it would always be preferable to have political leaders cover-up their crimes on the ground that disclosing them would reflect poorly on the U.S. and spur anti-American sentiment. Open government is necessary precisely because only transparency deters political leaders from doing heinous acts in the first place. UPDATE: Here (.pdf) is the letter the DOJ sent to the court this afternoon, advising the judge that they changed their minds "at the highest levels of Government" and would not, as previously promised, release the photographs, but instead would attempt to appeal the Second Circuit's decision compelling their release to the Roberts Supreme Court. UPDATE II: In comments, Paul Daniel Ash addresses the Obama supporters who are defending Obama's decision to keep these photograhps concealed on the ground that "no good would come" from disclosure: I'm pretty jaded, but even I'm outraged and saddened by the number of voices being raised in this comment thread supporting the decision to conceal these photos. "No good will come?" Would we even have had an Abu Ghraib scandal without the pictures of bloody prisoners and men cowering in front of dogs? "No good?" Is there or is there not an active debate in this country about whether or not torture is acceptable? "No good?" Did a United States Senator not say just today, in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, that torture techniques have been used for the past five centuries because "apparently they work?" "No good will come?" Indeed, it's pretty hard to believe that the people who are arguing that "no good will come" from release of these photos either (a) lived through the impact of the Abu Ghraib photos and/or (b) are living through the "torture debate" we are now having. Photographs convey the reality of things in a way that mere words cannot. They prevent people who want to deny what was done the ability to do so. They force citizens to face what their country did and what they are now justifying and advocating. They impede the ability of political leaders to use euphemisms to obscure the truth. They show in graphic detail what the effects are of sanctioning torture policies. They prove that this was about more than "dunking three terrorists into water." They highlight the fact that no decent person believes that this should all just be forgotten and its victims told that they have no right to have accountability. That's precisely why the photographs are being suppressed: because of how much good they would do. |
| |
Letterman Takes On Cheney For Attacking Obama (VIDEO)
| |
| The Top Three WORST Reasons To Delay Putting Cheney In Prison Originally posted atDavidSwanson.org. #1: Cheney says that he and Bush ordered torture but did nothing wrong. On Sunday, Cheney said: "The fact of the matter is that these [torture] techniques that we're talking about are used on our own people. In the SERE program that in effect trains our people with respect to capture and evasion and so forth, and escape, a lot of them go through these same exact procedures." If this were true, participants in the SERE program would be kidnapped and tortured by people willing to kill them. They would be waterboarded believing they might be drowned. This would be done upwards of 100 times. They would be hung hanged by their wrists, beaten, electroshocked, deprived of sleep, stripped naked and exposed to cold, attacked by dogs, slammed against walls, kept in isolation, and in many cases killed, in many other cases driven insane. "Once we [waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times] he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about al Qaeda," Cheney said, while failing in multiple interviews to cite a single example of such information that has not already been debunked. The same people fall for this sort of claim as fell for this one: "Iraq continues to conceal quantities, vast quantities, of highly lethal material and weapons to deliver it." (Colin Powell, January, 2003). In both cases, the supposed evidence is classified. In both cases, the existence of that evidence and truth of the claim would do absolutely nothing to legalize the action being defended, be it aggressive war or torture. #2: Harry Reid said last week that if we wait six more months for the Senate Intelligence Committee's report to whitewash the torture story, it'll be easier then to avoid legally required prosecutions of people like Cheney. According to Reid's way of thinking, Democrats will be able to campaign against torture in future elections even while condoning it, and isn't electing more people like Reid more important than actually ending torture by enforcing the laws against it? Reid: Something everyone has to weigh is this, we're a nation of laws and no one can dispute that, but I think what we have to, the hurdle we have to get over is whether we want to go after people like Cheney. That's a decision that has to be made.... Christiane Brown: ...Isn't it our obligation if he's violated the law ... ? Reid: There are a lot of decisions that are made that are right that may not be absolutely totally within the framework of law. For example with President Nixon.... Try This at Home: "But, officer, surely you don't want me to stay totally within the framework of law." #3: Elizabeth de la Vega says that if we delay, even though we have overwhelming evidence now in the public realm, we'll have even more evidence to work with. And Obama secretly wants to prosecute his predecessors despite everything he's said and done for years now. These three opinions line up in wanting more delay and more information: Cheney: "If we're going to have this debate it ought to be a complete debate." Reid: "No matter how I personally feel about torture, I think that we, as you've indicated, that we are a nation of law. And that's why we have to get the facts." De la Vega: "There is rich disagreement about particulars, but - in broad terms, at least - I think it's fair to say that the goals are: (1) a cohesive and irrefutable public narrative of the criminal activity; (2) an opportunity for victims to be heard in an open forum; (3) and accountability for the perpetrators of these crimes, from Bush and Cheney on down." I don't think that's fair at all and is at the very least stated in the reverse order. Many Americans want accountability in order to deter repetition. Narratives and victims' statements do not accomplish that. De la Vega is neither a criminal like Cheney, nor a corrupt spineless collaborator like Reid. She's a former federal prosecutor who wants people like Cheney prosecuted. So there is a danger that people will actually take her opinion seriously. They shouldn't. De la Vega is a prosecutor, not a politician, not a historian, and not an activist. She believes that it is just as likely that people like Cheney will be prosecuted years from now as it is that they will be prosecuted soon. She believes it is just as likely that the whole gang will be prosecuted in one giant conspiracy case as it is that people like Bybee and Yoo will go down before Cheney and Bush are indicted. She believes, or at least considers it possible, that the U.S. Justice Department intends to enforce the law and is in fact delaying in order to acquire more evidence. She believes not only that decisions to prosecute shouldn't be based on political pressure, but that in fact they are not. Here's de la Vega's fantasy view of Obama and Holder: "Notwithstanding the public statements that the president and attorney general made in connection with the release of the memos, I find cause for optimism in their actions. No smart lawyer who secretly wanted this entire issue to disappear would have released those torture memos. From a prosecutor's point of view, the release of those memos with their authors' names in full view was pretty much the same as releasing their photographs with bloody knives in hand. The president and the attorney general may not have said much, but what they did was quietly flip the switch on a searing bright light." We've spent the past four or five years switching on searing bright light after searing bright light, with people always willing to consider the latest one world-changing for a week or so, and people always willing to believe that more evidence is needed. (Since nothing's happened yet, we simply MUST need more evidence.) And yet, the Department of Justice already had those memos and has many more we haven't seen and much other evidence besides. They have the evidence they are supposedly waiting for in de la Vega's account, which confuses public desires for yet more evidence with the same desire by prosecutors. At the same time, de la Vega believes that announcing an investigation would be a public relations stunt, that a serious prosecution should proceed quietly. She misses the Obama-Reid-Leahy-Democratic strategy entirely, which explains the stunt of releasing the latest handful of memos without requiring that we set aside every word that has come out of their mouths. The president and leading Democrats want to expose the evidence as campaign ads against Republicans. They want criminal activities to become Republican behavior that is remedied not by enforcing laws but by electing Democrats. They want President Obama and all future presidents to maintain the powers of detention, rendition, and torture, and the power to make law by decree, with Americans voting for the party that will abuse those powers less. They want to make Republicans look awful and then be seen as befriending the Republicans nonetheless. In the same interview in which Reid objects to prosecuting "people like Cheney," he attacks John McCain for going along with Cheney's loophole for the CIA in a bill that, had it become law, would have in no way altered the existing total ban on torture that already existed in the anti-torture statute and the war crimes statute. But Reid does not want to talk about Democrats' complicity in the Bush-Cheney crimes or the criminal activities of the Clinton or Obama years, which is why he favors closed-door "investigations." Well, then, perhaps de la Vega is onto something. Perhaps we should all hush up about enforcing the laws, let the Democrats expose more evidence believing it's just campaign ads, and then spring into action with prosecutions. Here's what's wrong with this: First, we have more than enough evidence to put many members of the Bush-Cheney administration away for many crimes. The more we threaten action, the more Cheney goes on television and confesses. A special prosecutor who actually tried to investigate would acquire a great deal of additional evidence. Second, while a well-trained lawyer like de la Vega who believes in the rule of law finds it hard to resist delaying in hopes of gaining even more evidence, Reid is exactly right that it will be easier to claim that the crimes are behind us and not worth dredging up, the more time goes by. This shouldn't be the case, and I wish it were not, and I will work with de la Vega in fighting against it if need be. But delaying means taking a tremendous risk. The window through which public pressure can force prosecutions is open now, but too many advocates are counseling delay. In the case of human rights groups calling for panels and commissions, this is mostly a function of top-down organizations taking their direction from the Democratic party. But that party's strategy is to delay until it becomes more difficult to mobilize public demand for action. Third, there is a real problem with statutes of limitations. While de la Vega helpfullypoints out that if certain arguments can be won, some crimes can be prosecuted for longer than is often believed, she says nothing about most of the crimes of Bush and Cheney, the spying, the election fraud, the Hatch Act violations, the misspending of funds, the domestic propaganda, etc., etc. Only if a prosecutor can be persuaded to take on a larger conspiracy rather than a single crime, can an argument be made for starting the clock at a later point in time. And while death isn't needed to avoid limitations on prosecuting torture, but merely "a forseeable (sic) risk of, death or serious bodily injury," why would we want to have to prove the existence of that foreseeable risk when we could prosecute right now without having to? Why shouldn't our strategy be intense public pressure through the media, direct nonviolent action, and election challenges all aimed at forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor immediately, followed by further escalated pressure to demand swift prosecutions? Fourth, the public narrative, although it already exists on the internet, is not going to happen in Congress or through a commission appointed by Congress or the president. De la Vega fears that once a prosecutor is appointed, congress members would clam up and "have a ready excuse." As compared to what? They clearly do not need an excuse and are not taking serious action, because not enough people are demanding it strongly enough; and counseling restraint does not help that situation. Missing from de la Vega's three goals above is the need to restore power to Congress and strip it from the president. Congress will have to be pushed, kicking and screaming, into reclaiming power. It does not want it. The most likely breakthroughs include impeachments, starting with Jay Bybee (an impeachment hearing and trial also being an ideal tool for exposing information to the public), and re-issuing and enforcing subpeonas. We couldforce passage of the State Secrets Protection Act, of the Lee-Wexler bill to create a select committee, and of the Baldwin resolution on executive branch accountability. But all of these things would become easier with prosecutions underway. Congressman Jerrold Nadler says impeaching Bybee will wait for a decision on prosecutions. Fifth, Leahy and others have proposed panels and commissions as substitutes for prosecution. They will not conduct such things if -- against the odds -- they should come into being, in such a way as to make prosecutions more likely. And certainly not if the public has already cooperatively stopped demanding prosecutions in order to allow the panel or commission to do its whitewashing magic. If, on the other hand, public pressure intensifies, we can compel, prosecutions, commissions, panels, public apologies, and a full restoration of both the rule of law and representation of the public through a legislature that makes public and enforceable laws. Justice delayed is likely to be justice denied entirely. |
The Real Motive Behind The Cheney Family Torture Tour
|
|
I never thought I'd ever lead off a column by quoting Jesse Ventura. Not because I don't respect him. I do. Hell, he was in Predator! But rather, I never really had a specific reason to quote him. Until today.
The following is perhaps the best elevator pitch against the Bush administration's criminal torture policy, and it cuts the heart of exactly why torture was employed:
"You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."
For several weeks now, I've been attempting to unravel the answers to a pair of important "why?" questions, and Jesse's quote helped to crystallize some possible answers. Why did the Bush administration authorize torture when other methods were more successful? And why is Dick Cheney so desperate to exonerate himself and to skew the debate with trivialities?
The second question first.
I don't know if it's even possible for a vampiric supervillain like Cheney to experience the human emotion known commonly as desperation, but I tend to question the motives and stability of anyone who, as part of his public defense against a possible criminal investigation, shoves his daughter into the ring to absorb some of the punches intended for his own translucent-fleshed cheek. This was a guy who, when questioned about his other daughter's homosexuality, made it perfectly clear that his family was off limits. And now he's enlisted Liz Cheney as a surrogate in a bit of parental psychosis not seen since the contents of Cody and Cassidy's poopy diapers became unofficial sidekicks on Regis.
That's not to suggest Liz is doing this against her will or that she can't hold her own. She was clearly blessed with daddy's Freon chromosome.
Personally, however, I grapple with the very idea of herein mentioning that I have a daughter. It's impossible to even fathom the notion of asking her to somehow go forth and publicly defend my work. And if she were to volunteer for such an effort, I would physically block her. You know, lay down in the path of her car and the like. Yet here's Dick Cheney employing his daughter, who, until now, we never even really heard from, to defend his decision to authorize the domestically and internationally illegal act of torture.
What motivates a man to exploit his daughter like this -- and in the context of an issue possessing such serious consequences?
I believe it's the desperation of a crook who's under significant strain and duress. And as information related to his authorization of torture trickles out, the reason for his desperation becomes increasingly evident.
This isn't just about torture or a tangential debate about ticking nukes or "keeping us safe."
It's apparent that torture was authorized for the purpose of fabricating a case for invading Iraq.
According to multiple accounts and experts, the efficacy of torture is limited to ascertaining what the torturer wants to hear -- rather than information that's actually true. In other words, if Jesse Ventura tortured Dick Cheney with The Waterboard, he could very likely force Cheney to confess to the Sharon Tate murders even though, obviously, Cheney didn't have anything to do with them.
The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
On Monday, the body of terror suspect Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was found in his Libyan cell following what appeared to be a suicide. Andrew Sullivan, who has been tracking the relationship between torture and Iraq for some time now, wrote:
...Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was first captured by the US and tortured by CIA surrogates in an Egyptian cell. Apparently, they beat him and put him in a coffin for 17 hours as a mock-burial. To end the severe mental and physical suffering, he confessed that Saddam had trained al Qaeda terrorists in deploying WMDs. This evidence was then cited by Colin Powell as part of the rationale for going to war in Iraq.
We still don't know if they coerced al-Libi to confess to the Sharon Tate murders. But we do know that the torture of Abu Zubaydah began only after CIA operatives ascertained this false information about Iraqi WMD from al-Libi. (On Wednesday, former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan told Congress that he was able to get actionable intelligence from Abu Zubaydah within about an hour by employing legal interrogation techniques.)
For the record, here's what then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said about al-Libi in his now infamous speech at the UN:
I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.
And, as we're all aware, that UN speech outlined the administration's entire case for connecting Iraq, al-Qaeda and WMD, and thus the case for war. We now know that one of the chief conclusions in the speech was actually formed from the tortured confessions of a man, al-Libi, who was flogged, buried alive, then forced to confirm the administration's mushroom cloud fantasy. (By the way, I'd like to hear from the cable news and talk radio sadists about whether or not the so-called interrogation techniques used on al-Libi were torture or not. I doubt Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would submit to being beaten and stuffed in a coffin for 17 hours. Charity or not.)
Sadly, the complexities and parameters of torture appear to be open for debate these days. But using torture as a means to falsify evidence for war is a far more damning and despicable can of worms. So it stands to reason that Cheney would roll out whatever ammunition he has in order to obfuscate and sidetrack the issue. Including the use of his daughter as a spokesperson. This way, we're all wrapped up in debating whether waterboarding is actually torture, or whether the Bushies kept us safe (they didn't), or, in the case of the cable news talkers, whether or not the Cheney family "closed the deal" with their various TV performances. It's all horseshit to prevent us from seriously examining the Bush administration's motives for deliberately breaking the law and selling-out our American values. And the evidence is pointing to a motive for war.
If we eliminate the idea that torture works; if we eliminate the fact that the terror suspects who were tortured had previously revealed valuable information without being tortured; if we factor in the reality that these techniques were invented in order to gather intentionally false confessions; and if we look at the evidence showing that detainees were tortured so they would specifically connect Iraq and al-Qaeda, we're left with no conclusion other than this. Or sadism as sport.
No wonder Dick Cheney is so frantic.
| | |
| Ed. Yesterday, while flying across the country, I was able to watch CNN all day as the news rolled out from the White House that the Obama administration was making an about face, and deciding to fight the court order to release the torture photos. It's an extraordinary story, and people are right to be outraged. Ken Gostzola, a student at Columbia College, pulled together the tortured logic of the Obama argument in Obama Employs Bush Administration Tactic to Halt Release of Detainee Photos. The moment my plane landed in San Francisco, the voice mails, texts, emails began...people thinking about what to do in response. A quick conference call today united World Can't Wait chapters to go Friday to media outlets (FOX in New York; CNN in Atlanta?) with the demand: Release the Torture Photos! Prosecute the War Criminals! Later tonight, warcriminalswatchorg will have downloads of posters wtih both the existing torture photos, and the mug shots of the Bush regime deciders, and the torture legal team. This is a time for a lot of orange in protest, a lot of initiative. Because I'll tell you, the neo-cons and right wing torture fans are creating public opnion in favor of torture. The Reaganite Accuracy in Media came out with a full page ad in the New York Times today, from the "Torture Truth Project." The ad says it's "A Grassroots Plea To the U.S. New Media. Stop Misleading The World That Our Country Condones Torture." And further, "By your continual use of the word "torture" to describe these interrogation techniques you have been misleading the world that the United States condones techniques of barbarous cruelty. The consequences could be horrendous....We are losing the goodwill of people across the world and you are aiding al Qaida in recruiting terrorists for future attacks on America." (14 May, 2009). We might think that what's making the people of the world outrages is that the US actually doestorture! As to Obama's argument that releasing the photos would unleash "Anti-American" opinion in the world, my inbox is full on that one. From Cindy Sheehan:"First of all: The Robber Class couldn't care less about our soldiers in the field. Secondly: Being in the field for lies is what endangers them. Thirdly: It's the existence of torture, which everyone knows about, that endangers our soldiers, not pics of the torture. Finally: The Democrats are co-equally responsible with the Republicans. They're all war criminals." Cindy pointed out in 2007 that Nancy Pelosi had been briefed on the torture in 2002. More from Ken Theisen in Obama, Bush, and the Politics of Torture Honolulu Protest: Prosecute Bybee! Hawai'i Crowd Turns out to Protest Jay Bybee, torture memo author and sitting fedearl judge. Cheers to the Honolulu chapter of World Can't Wait, and friends who protested. The war criminals should be getting this kind of a reception everywhere. Sign Up to Protest Torture May 2009 (incorrect link sent previously) Take this pledge, signed first by Howard Zinn & Tim Robbins: Torture is a War Crime: Prosecute! On or by Thursday, May 28, a federal court has required the Obama administration to release photos of detainee abuse from 2001-2006. The Obama administration is refusing. On May 28 non-violent civil resistance actions will demand release of the photos and prosecution of those who participated in torture. We, the people of this country, are faced with a choice. Will we accept living in a torture state or will we listen to our conscience, speak out, and resist it? Will the people of this country allow our government to put political expediency before the lives of others or will we stand up and demand justice for our fellow human beings? On May 28 I'll be raising my voice and/or putting my body on the line. Join me and make visible your demand of prosecution of Bush era war crimes. War Criminals Watch ~ View Charges Against the War Criminals | |
No comments:
Post a Comment