....Co-moderator Major Garrett read an email from a veteran of the Vietnam War who believes "torture if always wrong in all cases," and asked if the candidates agree. The question was first directed to Herman Cain, who said he'd do whatever military leaders said they wanted to do. Garrett pressed further, specifically noting the argument over waterboarding. Cain replied:
"I agree that it was an enhanced interrogation technique.... Yes, I would return to that policy. I don't see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique."
This generated applause from the South Carolina audience....
...Q The alert that went out reminding military personnel about the military ban on waterboarding -- was that in response to any specific event or specific comments by military personnel that made you think you needed it? I mean, most notably, General Honore's comments about waterboarding from last week -- was this a response to those comments?
MR. MORRELL: Yeah, I think that went through -- I think that was an Army mandate, if I'm not mistaken. But I do not know what precipitated them or prompted them to choose to remind their personnel of the fact that waterboarding is a practice that is forbidden under the Army Field Manual. But I think it is -- I wouldn't read anything into it, but I think it's always worthwhile to remind our men and women in uniform -- and all those who work for us, for that matter -- what the rules are and what they aren't. And the rules forbid such practices throughout the U.S. military...
If you think that someone who you act upon believes it's a violation of their rights, or if you believe that the act, when applied to an American prisoner, would violate their rights, then don't cross that line....
And the South Carolina republican debate audience applauded torture.
"...the rules forbid such practices throughout the U.S. military..."
Getting Away With Torture Dick Cheney's memoir shows the importance of the law, not of torture.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2011, at 5:23 PM ET
....Dick Cheney is living proof that if we are not brave enough to enforce our laws, we will forever be at the mercy of a handful of men.
...Under the California law, a game that meets the threshold requirement set out in text also qualifies as "violent" if it "[e]nables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim." §1746(d)(1)(B). In the Court of Appeals, California conceded that this alternative definition is unconstitutional, 556 F. 3d 950, 954, n. 5 (CA9 2009), and therefore only the requirements set out in text are now before us....
Why should our video games be any different than our society?
"...Roughly one in five Americans believe those techniques were torture but nonetheless approve of the decision to use those procedures against suspected terrorists," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "That goes a long way toward explaining why a majority don't want to see former Bush officials investigated..."
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 21-24, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,072 adults using both conventional and cellular phones...The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points...
...30. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?
4/24/09
Support not using torture - 49%
There are cases to consider torture - 48%
No opinion - 2%
1/16/09
Support not using torture - 58%
There are cases to consider torture - 40%
No opinion - 2%
Do you think the undecideds work in the video game industry?
Well, it's official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn't know what he was talking about....
Of course, the media that hyped the original story will run a retraction in five, four, three...
...."The truth is what matters," he said. "They practiced every form of torture on my son and on many others as well. What was the result? What facts did they find? They found nothing. They learned nothing. They accomplished nothing."
Today I received the December issue of the International Musician, the official publication of the American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada. You know, the musicians' union. There was news item on the use of music to torture detainees:
Musicians File a FOIA Request for "Torture Songs"
A group of prominent musicians and singers, including many AFM members, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking the declassification of all records related to the use of music in interrogation. The artists also voiced a formal protest against the use of music in torture and requested the names of all songs that were blasted at prisoners for hours, sometimes days, as punishment or means of coercion beginning in 2002....
In October the Washington Post ran an article on the subject:
....Who Are Determined To Throw Their Country Into A Stinking Mire.
The Obama Administration Department of Justice (not dubya's, but Obama's) is arguing before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss a case against John Yoo who, as reported by Johnathan Turley,...
...is being sued by Jose Padilla, who was effectively blocked in contesting his abusive confinement and mistreatment as part of this criminal case and in a habeas action. The Bush Administration brought new charges to moot a case before the Supreme Court could rule. The Court previously sent his case back on a technicality.
It is important to note that the Administration did not have to file this brief since it had withdrawn as counsel and paid for Yoo's private counsel. It has decided that it wants to establish the law claimed by the Bush Administration protecting Justice officials who support alleged war crimes. They are effectively doubling down by withdrawing as counsel and then reappearing as a non-party amicus....
....The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was presented after World War II. Its provisions made their way into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and as such, were ratified as norms of international law by the majority of civilized states in the world.
Article 4. 1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision. 3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.
Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 16. Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
[emphasis added]....
You know, it ain't rocket surgery to figure this out.
Seems Kit Bond, in his best huffing and puffing style, has thrown a noisy little tantrum and resigned from the Senate Intelligence Committee panel charged with reviewing CIA Interrogation policies. He claims that the appointment of a federal prosecutor by Attorney General Eric Holder might bias the hearings and lead to a general unwillingness on the part of CIA officers to be forthcoming about their possible, past misdeeds:
"Had Mr. Holder honored the pledge made by the President to look forward, not backwards, we would still be active participants in the Committee's review," the ranking Republican on the intelligence panel, Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said in a statement. "What current or former CIA employee would be willing to gamble his freedom by answering the Committee's questions? Indeed, forcing these terror fighters to make this choice is neither fair nor just."
Bond's resignation doesn't seem to bother panel chair, Dianne Feinstein, who has indicated that the panel will complete its task with or without bipartisan contributions. Perhaps one reason for her equanimity might be relief that she won't have to deal with the overt bias that Bond himself displays when he speaks about the temerity of the DOJ in investigating individuals whom he salutes as "terror fighters."
Bond might just be worried, good Republican soldier that he is, that when faced with hard evidence about what the CIA actually did, he could find himself in a very hard place. He himself might be forced to condemn his beloved terror fighters. Can't somebody please explain to the senator that there is a word for governments that allow secret intelligence agencies to run amok, and that word is "dictatorship"?
This 6-page white paper, published August 31, 2009, after the new release of the May 2004 CIA Inspector General's report, shows that the extent to which American doctors and psychologists violated human rights and betrayed the ethical standards of their professions by designing, implementing, and legitimizing a worldwide torture program is worse than previously known.
A team of PHR doctors authored the white paper, which details how the CIA relied on medical expertise to rationalize and carry out abusive and unlawful interrogations. It also refers to aggregate collection of data on detainees' reaction to interrogation methods. Physicians for Human Rights is concerned that this data collection and analysis may amount to human experimentation and calls for more investigation on this point. If confirmed, the development of a research protocol to assess and refine the use of the waterboard or other techniques would likely constitute a new, previously unknown category of ethical violations committed by CIA physicians and psychologists.
...In essence, the lawyers were asked if the techniques constituted torture and they replied to the CIA that they only did so if the CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) informed them that the techniques reached the defined standard of pain. The OMS health professionals obligingly passed on through CIA channels their opinion that the pain was not in fact severe
In an egregious example of this circular process, one OLC memo concludes that waterboarding is not torture because "however frightening the experience may be, OMS personnel have informed us that the waterboard technique is not physically painful." Scores of similar references to OMS medical judgments about pain and the safeguarding effects of medical monitoring appear throughout the memos. Although OMS did express some concern about some techniques, those objections were limited. Without the cooperation of health professionals in making these assessments, the OLC memos could not have reached the conclusions they did and could not have so easily justified torture...
WASHINGTON, DC -- Senators Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today issued the following statement on the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill:
"We strongly believe that the first responsibilities of government are the nation's security and the protection of those brave Americans who go into harm's way to defend it.
"The President has said that the release of the photos of detainees in US custody would 'put our troops and civilians serving our nation abroad in greater danger.' We agree with the Commander in Chief.
"We will employ all the legislative means available to us including opposing the supplemental war spending bill and attaching this amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the Senate, to every piece of legislation the Senate considers, to be sure the President has the authority he needs not to release these photos and any others that would jeopardize the safety and security of our troops.
"The release of the photos will serve as propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists who seek to attack American citizens at home and abroad. We should strive to have as open a government as possible, but the behavior depicted in the photos has been prohibited and is being investigated. The photos do not depict anything that is not already known. Transparency, and in this case needless transparency, should not be paid for with the lives of American citizens, let alone the lives of our men and women in uniform fighting on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
"Let it clearly be understood that without this legislation the photos in question are likely to be released. Such a release would be tantamount to a death sentence to some who are serving our nation in the most dangerous and difficult spots like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is this certain knowledge of these consequences of having the photos released that will cause us to vote against the supplemental and continue our push to turn our important amendment into law."
-30-
[emphasis added]
Rough translation - Joe will hold his breath until he turns bluered if he doesn't get his way. Filibuster! All in response to a court ruling:
ACLU Calls On Court To Adhere To Mandate Requiring Release Of Abuse Photos
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE...
"...The disclosure of these photographs serves as a further reminder that abuse of prisoners in U.S.-administered detention centers was systemic," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "Some of the abuse occurred because senior civilian and military officials created a culture of impunity in which abuse was tolerated, and some of the abuse was expressly authorized. It's imperative that senior officials who condoned or authorized abuse now be held accountable for their actions."
Also today, the ACLU asked a federal appeals court to uphold its earlier ruling that the government must release the photos. On May 28, the government filed a motion asking the court to recall its mandate ordering their release, and today the ACLU filed its opposition to that motion.
"The public has an undeniable right to see these photos. As disturbing as they may be, it is critical that the American people know the full truth about the abuse that occurred in their name. The government's decision to suppress the photos is fundamentally inconsistent with President Obama's own promise of transparency and accountability," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. "The government has failed to show any good cause for the court to recall its mandate that the photos be released, and we are confident the court will uphold its original order."
In September 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered the government to turn over the photos in response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The Obama administration originally indicated that it would not appeal that decision and would release the photos, but abruptly reversed its commitment to do so shortly before the agreed-upon deadline...
The letter from the American Civil Liberties Union (and other groups) to President Obama:
...We've got what amounts to a reverse Nuremberg defense, where Bush administration officials are let off the hook because they were only giving orders...
Representative Nieves: How are you doing, gentleman?
Representative Hoskins: Great. How are you doing, gentlemen?
Representative Nieves: This is your first year around here, isn't it?
Representative Hoskins: It is.
Representative Nieves: You probably figure out that over time there's people that you learn to really respect and trust and maybe other people that you don't. And the gentleman from Boone [County] is somebody that I do have a lot of respect for. And so he's brought up, I think, some pretty valid comments. You know he talked about how he has a legitimate fear that there might be some things that would happen in these private prisons that would be of concern to him. And so it just made me wonder, you know, I, I don't know exactly how these things operate. And I know, I think you have one in your district. Is that right? [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: Yes, gentleman.
Representative Nieves: Okay. So, there, is there any regulation about, say for example a, something happens in the prison, something bad happens in the prison, and they need to interview or interrogate some of these prisoners? I mean is there regulations about what they can do? And, I guess more specifically, what I'd be asking you is, would, would they ever be able to waterboard somebody in, in one of these private prisons? I mean, can they? "Hey, hey, stop. I tell you anything you want to know." I, I, can, can [laugh], can they waterboard people in these private prisons?
Representative Hoskins: I do not...[crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: Here's the thing. I mean, there's some people yesterday that were all concerned about waterboarding terrorists, as if that's a bad thing to do. Now these are American citizens that are typically held in these, right? And they don't get waterboarded. [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: Yes, gentleman.
Representative Nieves: Okay. [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: American citizens.
Representative Nieves: I want to make sure that American citizens don't get waterboarded. I want to make sure you know, gentleman, that I am [emphasis] okay with waterboarding terrorists. I mean, I just want to make sure that you know that. Some blog tried to have some comment about me yesterday. Maybe they weren't clear about my stand on waterboarding. I say that waterboarding is [emphasis] okay for terrorists. But I want to make sure that does not happen in these private prisons. [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: That does not happen.
Representative Nieves: Would you speak on that? [crosstalk]
Representative Hoskins: I'm with you on that.
Representative Nieves: 'Cause I don't want to see any waterboarding of American citizens, even if they are in a private prison.
Representative Hoskins: Correct.
[audio drop out, possible edit point]
Speaker: Gentleman from Jackson. For what purpose do you rise?
[audio drop out, possible edit point]
Speaker: Kander.
Representative Jason Kander: Point of order Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Proceed.
Representative Jason Kander: The gentleman's references to his rather offensive comments from yesterday, while interesting, have absolutely nothing to do with this.
Speaker: Gentleman, please avoid all personal comments on the floor. Further discussion. Actually, proceed the inquiry, gentleman. Franklin [County]. [crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: So, so, gentleman, I just want to, because we are specifically talkin' about what happens in private prisons, okay? [crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: And so I probably shouldn't drift off, it's very difficult, you know, when we're talking about things to make sure that we stay on an absolute narrow path, but I just want to make sure. We had a little confusion. People jumped up and started waving things. So I just want to make sure you understood my question. And that you understand that I am not [emphasis], because you're guy that has one of these in your district, you're the one that's handling this legislation. You're kind of like the private prison expert within this body. I want to make sure that you know that I don't think any of us in this body, myself included, would be in favor of waterboarding American citizens that are in a private prison. Are you with me on that?
Representative Hoskins: I'm with you on that, gentleman. [crosstalk]
Representative Nieves: And are you gonna, will you commit to me, just as you did the gentleman from Boone [County], I seem to have a little water on my face, I think somebody was trying to waterboard me a minute ago. Are you willing to commit to me, just as you did the gentleman from Boone [County], that if we need next year to talk about this, I mean, if somebody ever says that we should waterboard U.S. citizens in private prisons, are you committing to me that you'll try to make sure that we don't ever do that to American citizens?
Representative Hoskins: Yes. I would be against waterboarding [crosstalk] American citizens.
Representative Nieves: Because I just want to be very clear that I am okay with waterboarding terrorists, okay? I think it's a good idea to waterboard terrorists, but not American citizens, okay? Can we work together on that?
Representative Hoskins: Yes, gentleman.
Representative Nieves Thank you gentleman. Thank you Mister Speaker.
Except they aren't saying that. What is it about"...In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened..." that Sarah Steelman doesn't quite understand?
Oh that's right, that's always way too much to ask of right wingnut political hacks.
...or psychotic thug? Take your pick. Or choose both.
Representative Denny Hoskins (r - noun, verb, CPA) has been flippantly posting on torture via Twitter:
Other U.S. "torture" methods of global terrorists included putting a caterpillar in a dark cell with one of the terrorists...How scary! about 2 hours ago from web
Some U.S. military training includes being waterboarded to know how to deal with it if captured by the enemy...about 2 hours ago from web
Here's something on the subject of torture from someone who just received a journalism award from The Sidney Hillman Foundation (you know, someone who actually knows how to do and does basic research):
...The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM.
That doesn't sound very effective to me...
And there is the matter of the peremptory norms of international law (you, know, for civilized nations):
The United States, as a party to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo War Crimes Trials) in the aftermath of World War II, prosecuted individuals as war criminals who tortured prisoners by waterboarding them:
"...I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said. "I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was..."
Uh, if the right wingnuts have been complaining that the release of the torture authorization memos would hurt America, won't the release of the "dubya administration 'snuff porn'" memos do the same? Why does Dick Cheney hate America? Just asking.
...Did someone forget to tell Dick that he has no authority anymore to formally or informally ask the CIA to do jack?
I don't ever remember a former president, much less a former vice president, behaving like this after he's out of office. Can't he find some GOP hacks to do this for him? It's embarrassing...
It isn't easy being out of power and not being able to travel the world without fear of arrest because you habitually violated the peremptory norms of international law.
Some mornings, you just want to go back to bed and pull the covers over your head, cry yourself to sleep and when you wake up find that you are someone else.
That is how I feel this morning. The last thing I struggled and worked hard to become and that I took pride in being has been undermined and debased, and the last vestiges of honor ripped away, thrown to the ground and trampled.
Over the last eight years, my entire life has been negated. The intelligence community was co-opted. The military was abused and broken. The rule of law was ignored and the Constitution was abrogated. And this morning, I learn that my profession - medicine - was complicit in torture.
[M]edical professionals working for the C.I.A. monitored prisoners undergoing waterboarding, apparently to make sure they did not drown. Medical workers were also present when guards confined prisoners in small boxes, shackled their arms to the ceiling, kept them in frigid cells and slammed them repeatedly into walls, the report said.
Facilitating such practices, which the Red Cross described as torture, was a violation of medical ethics even if the medical workers' intentions had been to prevent death or permanent injury, the report said. But it found that the medical professionals' role was primarily to support the interrogators, not to protect the prisoners, and that the professionals had "condoned and participated in ill treatment."
At times, according to the detainees' accounts, medical workers "gave instructions to interrogators to continue, to adjust or to stop particular methods."
The report (.pdf) does not state whether the medical personnel who participated were physicians or allied professionals or some combination of the two, but it is deeply disturbing. As it depicts torture in graphic detail, it simultaneously paints a picture of abject banality toward the intentional infliction of suffering on human beings on the part of those whose professional credo is ostensibly to "first, do no harm."
I literally had to tamp down the gag reflex, starting on page 10, and I was howling with rage by page 12 when I read the passage about torture victims having their pulse-ox monitored as they were subjected to waterboarding.
And when the details of medical involvement were laid out, starting on page 21, I vomited.
Medical personnel have a place in detention facilities, but it is by definition an advocacy role. Anything less is unconscionable, and the personnel who participated in the torture of detainees should all be stripped of their license and livelihood, and imprisoned for a long, long, long, long time.
And after those sentences are served, they should face a jury of their professional peers.
Those of us who have been tarred with the brush used to paint those thugs should have some sort of say in their ultimate fate.
...If our political leaders can't be held accountable for their war crimes and other serious felonies in foreign countries or international tribunals, and must never be held accountable in the U.S. either (because to do so is to "pour acid into our democratic machinery"), then it means that American political officials (in contrast to most other leaders) are completely and explicitly exempt from, placed above, the rule of law...
Principle III
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
Evidently he was not interested in being distracted by "the global war on terror" before 2001.
Statement by Senator Christopher Bond (R-Missouri) Following is a statement from the Senate's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.
On Friday, February 12, 1999, I voted to convict President William Jefferson Clinton on both counts of the Impeachment Articles brought by the United States House of Representatives charging that he committed perjury and obstruction of justice. My reasons follow....
...It is precisely in good times, with the President high in the polls, that it is incumbent upon the Senate to exercise very thoroughly and carefully the responsibility under the Constitution to make the difficult decision on whether the President has committed high-crimes and misdemeanors warranting his removal from office. If we are to have a government of laws and not of men and not of public opinion polls, then we must judge the President on the evidence presented to us. I believe that the acts that he committed constitute high-crimes and misdemeanors warranting his conviction...
[emphasis added]
What had been going in the world before that time?
...Eric H. Holder Jr.'s confirmation as attorney general is speeding toward approval thanks in part to his private assurances to a key Republican senator that he does not intend to prosecute intelligence agency interrogators for their actions during the prior administration.
The assurances, reported by Sen. Christopher S. Bond, Missouri Republican, to The Washington Times on Wednesday, went beyond Mr. Holder's earlier public testimony in which he said he could not prejudge his actions regarding cases he had not seen.
"I believe [Mr. Holder] will look forward to keep the nation safe and not look backwards to prosecute intelligence operators who were fighting terror and kept our country safe since 9/11," Mr. Bond said in the interview...
Recently there's been a fair amount of discussion in academic terms around blogtopia (yes, skippy coined the phrase!) of the state of our public discourse, in particular about the role of our media.
The Overton Window is one way to describe the public's perceptual state when it comes to political ideas. In short, if one posits radical ideas on the far right spectrum and you have the ability to drown out or overwhelm opposing views with propagandist noise (for instance, The Faux News Channel) and/or censorship, you can move the "window" for what is acceptable public policy in another direction. By doing so you also marginalize opposing views.
Critical thinking is supposed to come into the mix here somewhere. That's a big problem with our media. Otherwise, why would the following be out there absent certain questions posed to the individual "working the refs"?:
...THIESSEN: They're not torturers. They're heroes. ... And the thought that we're sitting here discussing whether these people should be prosecuted or investigated is just outrageous. These people are American heroes who saved lives and stopped the next Sept. 11....
You would think that waterboarding which is torture would be discussed in our media as such. But no, they are too lazy to actually do a little research, process the information, and present it. Instead we get "enhanced interrogation" as a label thereby moving the "Overton Window", defining the parameters of acceptable public discourse, and hiding or obscuring what others do in our names.
Here's an simple test which might prove enlightening for all concerned. Let's show the public a videotape of suspects being waterboarded, then we'll ask the public if they think it's torture. Oops, too late.
That's why we're here. Our traditional media fails miserably in fulfilling the need to elevate our public discourse. That, and we're working the "refs" - we believe with a modicum of critical thinking to boot.
Located in the heart of Westport --
The Original Kansas City
Californo's: Elegant dining in a delightful atmosphere,
located in the heart of Westport
