Jack & Jill Politics

I have no qualms with anyone who disagrees with Obama's decision not to release the photos. But assigning malicious intent to it is foolish, IMO, for the simple fact that he released the memos.

I think the then what, for me, is a real, sincere, true apology to the Iraqi people.

I think the only line that can get drawn between Emmett Till's death and this is the question of “now that you see, you cannot pretend you do not know, and you cannot pretend not to be complicit.”

This is what a particular policy allowing, encouraging, and enforcing torture LOOKS LIKE. This is what it LOOKS LIKE.

We have to own that, as a nation.

There has to be remembering, there has to be an adult taking of responsibility, there has to be acknowledgement of the bad acts so that maybe, just maybe, we can move forward with the Iraqi people and the Arab world.

That sort of honesty may actually make Al-Qu'aida's job harder.

Think about this: The Pentagon had planned to release the photos during Memorial Day Weekend. Can you imagine the media nightmare that would ensue?

I said “Thank God” because just as he resisted being badgered into letting on whether or not he thought the Bush Admin. was guilty of ordering torture at that press conference, because it would be wrong for him to come down on either side of the controversy unless and until people have been tried and convicted or acquitted, it would be wrong for him to say he “inherited a policy of war crimes”.

You know this was never about a ticking bomb for one thing the timelines dont add up.So if you would set Cheney free then there is no hope for our concept of the law and justice
MSNBC is reporting that 2 people testified today that former VP Dick Cheney made a request to have an Iraqi prisoner waterboarded in an effort to to create a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

The prisoner was someone close to Hussein, and this would have been during the early days of the Iraq war.

Sen Sheldon Whitehouse was interviewed, and made the significant point that this use of waterboarding is outside the tenuous “imminent threat” argument made in the OLC torture memos, therefore not something that even Cheney could argue was “legal”.

HopeOverFear: Co-sign.

Typical of the white liberal bloggers to invoke the black folk's suffering via racism and discrimination to solicit gulit and shame in futhering their own agendas.

Yet, they unhold the institutions that foster and maintain the same racist status quo. GTFOH with that shit.

The Torturous Debate

By Al Giordano

…I also feel fairly confident that those photos will see the light of day during Obama’s first term, whether by court order or by whistleblower leak. And I think the President knows that very well, too, and is not bothered by it. For the President, the matter is tactical: whether the photos, once out, are perceived as having been released by his decision, or by somebody else’s hand, and tactically, the latter is so much more desirable in the context of other moves he is making to regain civilian control over an Armed Forces brass with rogue tendencies.

That’s a very different motive than the simpleton accusation that the President seeks to “cover up for Bush crimes.” This is the very same President, after all, that recently released 250,000 classified documents that tell the story behind those photos in far greater detail than 29 images ever could. If that's a “cover up,” then give me more, please. So those that accuse that the motive is “cover-up” can bite me. I have zero respect for them and their effort to be make-believe prosecutors in the tradition of Roy Cohn. It’s a childish impulse and I choose, once again, to disassociate myself from anyone that plays that petulant game. If they really believe that Obama wants to protect Bush, they're idiots and I'll leave them at the children's table with cookies and milk…

I think the arrogance of “baptizing” someone posthumously says a lot. I think the arrogance of baptizing someone who's child, only 30 years ago, would have been scorned in your church says even more.

As an American citizen who cares about this country and its status in the world I have been increasingly dismayed at the tenor and direction of the conversation regarding the use of torture against detainees held by U.S. force in the secret “black sites” abroad as well as Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. Rather than being appalled by the Bush administration's deliberate subversion of the law in order to justify clearly abusive treatment of human beings held in our custody, the conversation has centered on whether these techniques “work” in producing “actionable intelligence” and if they should be permissible under some hypothetical doomsday scenario. What's disconcerting about all this is that it calls to mind the conversation that dominated the public debate during the lead up to the Iraq war. Bush administration officials conjured up the doomsday scenario of “the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud” with respect to WMD in order to silence critics who questioned the necessity for war. Such talk diverted attention from the essential question of whether Iraq posed a real threat – it was only after the U.S. invaded Iraq that we learned there were no WMDs.

Fast forward to the present. President Obama has categorically stated his opposition to the use of torture or as it's euphemistically called, 'harsh interrogation techniques'. He correctly – in my view – released the legal opinions used to authorize torture and descriptions of the specific techniques employed. To anyone who questions the legitimacy of the legal opinions generated by lawyers in the U.S. Justice Department, I suggest you read them. They are a shameful attempt to circumvent the rule of law by asserting an interpretation of the applicable statutes that makes Bill Clinton's parsing of words seem amateurish. John Yoo's interpretation of “executive privilege” would make the Founding Fathers role over in their graves. The claim that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 were of such an extraordinary nature that it necessitated the assumption of supreme war time powers is simply not credible. The drafters of the Constitution created it in the aftermath of war and were acutely aware of the needs of a strong military commander – nonetheless they instituted a system of 'checks and balances' as a form of insurance against domination by any branch of government, to apply at all times, including times of war. The truly sad part is that the media – which is supposed to be independent – dutifully played their assigned roles as scribes instead of investigators. It appears with respect to the torture issue they're following the same tired script.

The public needs to be engaged in a discussion of the myriad reasons the international community has outlawed torture and why the U.S. has long supported that position – instead we are debating the wisdom of making the evidence of torture public and acting as if adherence to the Geneva Conventions constitutes some undue burden that unreasonably restricts our freedom – like say, taxes or gun laws. I think it bears repeating – as often as necessary to sink into public consciousness – the REASONS TO OPPOSE TORTURE:

1. TO PROTECT YOUR SOLDIERS WHEN THEY ARE CAPTURED IN BATTLE!!! Notice I said when – not if, because if you are fighting war(s) you will have soldiers that are captured in battle and unless your opponent executes them on the spot (also considered a war crime) you want them to be treated humanely until the conflict is over and/or you negotiate their return.
2. TO AFFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF BASIC STANDARDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS CIVILIZATION IS EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the fundamental dignity and worth of all persons and the basic equality of men and women. It commits UN member states to protect these rights in part because, “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”. I don't understand the theory that believes an effective way of fighting terrorism and reducing new recruits it to engage in human rights violations against people from the group we need to win over.
3. IT DOESN'T WORK!! Who really doesn't believe that torture compromises the integrity of the information elicited from the victim. At a certain point people will what they think their captors want to hear in order to stop the pain. Read the accounts from the International Red Cross report (IRCR) and ask yourself how long could you withstand such treatment?
4. THE “HARSH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES” ARE TORTURE UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION, US STATUTORY LAW OR ANY CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD. Some people have questioned whether in fact the “harsh interrogation techniques” were in fact torture. I've heard several commentators suggest (including Joe Scarborough on MSNBC) that perhaps 'waterboarding' was torture but the other techniques were not, and after all, only three (3) of the most dangerous 'terrorists' were waterboarded. To put this argument to rest I include the following excerpt from the Red Cross report setting forth the list of techniques employed in interrogating detainees at the secret “black sites” abroad as well as Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib:

“The CIA seems to have arrived at a method that is codified by the International Committee of the Red Cross experts into twelve basic techniques, as follows:
# Suffocation by water poured over a cloth placed over the nose and mouth…
# Prolonged stress standing position, naked, held with the arms extended and chained above the head…
# Beatings by use of a collar held around the detainees’ neck and used to forcefully bang the head and body against the wall…
# Beating and kicking, including slapping, punching, kicking to the body and face…
# Confinement in a box to severely restrict movement…
# Prolonged nudity…this enforced nudity lasted for periods ranging from several weeks to several months…
# Sleep deprivation…through use of forced stress positions (standing or sitting), cold water and use of repetitive loud noises or music…
# Exposure to cold temperature…especially via cold cells and interrogation rooms, and…use of cold water poured over the body or…held around the body by means of a plastic sheet to create an immersion bath with just the head out of water.
# Prolonged shackling of hands and/or feet…
# Threats of ill-treatment, to the detainee and/or his family…
# Forced shaving of the head and beard…
# Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food from 3 days to 1 month after arrest…

The Red Cross writers tell us, “each specific method was in fact applied in combination with other methods, either simultaneously or in succession

I don't know anyone (myself included) that would not feel they were being tortured if subjected to such techniques – particularly if they occurred over a prolonged period of time with no hope of release or relief.

I'm old enough to remember the public debate over the release of the information about the Mai Lai massacre and subsequent court martial of Lieutenant Calley for ordering the murder of an entire village of defenseless Vietnamese. At the time many Americans were sympathetic to the anger and frustration of soldiers who had lost many of their comrades during the Tet Offensive and were suspicious of civilians who often harbored enemy combatants. However, the majority of Americans favored accountability and affirming the rule of law. Despite the known hardships and stress our soldiers were experiencing, American integrity was on the line, it was considered unthinkable that such crimes should go unpunished.

So it is here. Our integrity and moral authority is at stake. We can't use terrorist tactics against 'suspected terrorists' and expect to win the 'war on terror'. The ends do not justify the means. Which is why we condemned apartheid South African authorities for torturing members of the African National Congress (when they were fighting their insurgent war of liberation) and the North Koreans for torturing US prisoners of war.

Which brings me to my final point. It's the pervasive sense of U.S. exceptionalism – the notion that everyone else is supposed to play by the rules but we get a free pass – that we can do what we want to protect ourselves from military attack, economic collapse or ideological invasion – that got us into the mess we are facing today. Former President George W. Bush epitomized the swaggering, arrogant, tunnel-vision, self-righteous attitude that dominated both government and the business community over the past decade.

In voting for Barack Obama as the 44th President we pretty much voted for the opposite of that and in most essential ways, President Obama is delivering on his campaign promise of CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. One major change this President is asking us to make is to admit the truth – “our government did commit acts of torture” and make the necessary changes in both word and deed to insure we NEVER DO IT AGAIN. That would be change the world can believe in – particularly, the Arab world……………

Unless I was dreaming, I thought that the MILITARY GENERALS IN THE FIELD, YOU KNOW, REPRESENTING THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN DANGER, asked the President not to release the photos because of the PROBABILITY that they would cause the the crazies around the world to launch mass attacks against those serving in Iraq and Afganastan.

Now, if anyone has been paying attention for the past few years, it does not take much to launch some people living in Arab and Islamic countries into frienzied killing mobs. If they go on a killing spree over a cartoon, just imagine what they would do over photos. But why should it matter to any of you?

All of you whinners need to get off of your as*** and join the military to support those men and women whose lives are actually in danger.

All of your waxing and waning is serving no purpose except to give your fingers some exercises on the keyboard.

Are you people really this stupid?

Thank you.

I'm with Rikyrah's remarks that opened this debate. To me, Obama suddenly put his hand on the chicken switch. I see Cheney and the equally culpable military in this two-way squeeze. Number one, Cheney's saying that Obama is “soft” on terrorism and national security; suggesting broadly that with torture, he and Bush kept the country safe. Yall know what a pile of manure that is.

The second part of the squeeze are the military higher-ups who are still in place who carried out the Bush Administration's orders. I doubt whether this has as much to do with our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan as with how the military colluded in these atrocities.

The public needs to see what torture truly is and to condemn it under any circumstances. More to the point, public revulsion would put the brake to any more pronouncements promoting the Cheney-Rice version of events. The only reason why these people are talking loud is that they know they are one step away from The Hague for what they did. They want exoneration, which under the rule of law, they do not deserve. They are WAR CRIMINALS.

Why Obama is running scared of these people is beyond my comprehension. They are effing wrong. If it means that Pelosi goes down, then she goes down! Harman, too. These people should not be running for the hills but standing on principle.

That's what I thought Obama was standing on. Until now.

LMAO, I don't watch 24. I do watch LOST–and ya'll are LOST_as_HEEL if you think Prosecuting Cheney over Torturing Al Qaeda (or Iraqis, Jihadis, ets.) is in the best interest of America (right now).

Newsflash: Webb <del>thinks</del> KNOWS that Cheney BROKE the LAW. That muthaphucka been breaking the law a mighty long time and he's committed worse offenses than torture: Stealing a Presidential Election, Shooting someone in the face, etc.

I'm in total agreement with everyone on this thread who thinks that this shyt should be investigated someday. There is no statute of limitations on this shyt.

If Cheney insists on talking smack about the POTUS, and you all insist on listening to that muthaphucka and getting your blood pressure up, then thatz YOU. Just let him keep on talking until he says something so dammning that folks just have to lock him up.

The truth is you have all these GOP talking heads making the rounds saying the photos shouldn't be released. Obama has agreed. No release.

We have two different motives. GOP don't want them released because they are disgusting and incriminating. President Obama doesn't want them released to PROTECT THE LIVES our troops.

No, it's not just you. I'm always suspect when white folks who probably have never seen the palms of a black hand google some black history struggle and link it to their agenda.

See, BLACKS should know how it feels to be beaten, dragged, spit on, shit on, denied access to financial wealth, fair housing, a good education.

In other words, we should know what TORTURE is all about.

Let's ALL remind President Obama.

It infuriates me that the Daily Kos saw it fitting to use Emmett Till's death and likening it to torure of fucking CRIMINALS.

The plot thickens.
The Zubaydah Torture “Experiment”: Connections to the al-Libi Case?
The death of former CIA “ghost prisoner” Ali Mohamed al-Fakheri, aka Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, is beginning to make some serious waves in the press. The story was initially broken in the U.S. on May 10 by Andy Worthington. Now Newsweek is reporting (H/T, again, the redoubtable Mr. Worthington) that al-Libi was “healthy and had no apparent physical ailments” when Human Rights Watch (HRW) visitors met him on April 27, only days before he was found dead in Tripoli's Abu Salim prison.

But Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball have even stranger circumstances to report (emphases added):

Human-rights workers and Libyan dissidents tell NEWSWEEK they have independently confirmed the report [of Libi's death] from sources inside Libya and demanded an immediate independent investigation into the circumstances of his death. Libi, who once served as emir of the Khalden training camp in Afghanistan, had recently been identified by defense lawyers in the U.S. as a prime potential witness in any upcoming trials of top terror suspects, either in revamped military commissions or in U.S. federal courts. Brent Mickum, a U.S. lawyer who represents Abu Zubaydah, another high-value CIA detainee who is alleged to have worked closely with Libi, says he had recently begun efforts through intermediaries to arrange to talk to Libi. “The timing of this is weird,” Mickum says.
Read More
http://firedoglake.com/2009/05/14/the-zubaydah-…

Thank you! I'm right there wit cha on this!

At Kos, Seymour Hersh: Children raped on camera in front of women at Abu Ghraib. How bad are these photos?

I remember when Hersh said this months ago, and I was thinking, Jeez, we couldn't have gone so low to the ground and then I thought it was a load of horse hockey bricks, and tonight, I don't think that it is. I really don't.

I don't think it is about our men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan anymore, either. The Shi'a know the worst. So do the Sunnis. It's about the people above them, making them do the dirty work. This shyt has got to end now, not a year from now. NOW. It's got to be done, so it won't be done again.

Is that what happened? First, it was the generals in the field, then it was Obama not feeling comfortable with the decison to release the photos from the start, and telling his people to find a way not to release them. Which story is true? He says the pictures aren't as bad as the ones from Abu Ghraib. Is that true? He says that the people who inflicted the abuse shown in the photos have been punished. Is that true?

Where are the innocents? When will they be revealed? Are the innoncents only being shown on Al-Jazeera or Al-Arribiya?

But Cheney is no longer in office. If children are being raped by American Troops in Iraq right now, then that's on President Obama's Watch.

Did you ever think that Cheney wants to die as a patriot/martyr? Did you ever consider that the greatest gift you could give that prick is incarceration? Do you realize that Punk-Cheney was too much of a coward to go to Vietnam and got FIVE deferments and maybe he wants to be remembered as the Saviour of the Republican Party?

I have no interest in saving the Republican Party. Don't you realize that saving that party will UNLEASH MORE EVIL, RAPES, PRE-EMPTIVE WARS, TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHIEST. LUCIFER IS NOT DEAD YET.

President OBAMA is SLAUGHTERING them. Please let him finish his mission.

Children raped?

Oh God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't take that sh!t!

AL -Libi was a terrorist. He was a very bad man I get that.Now you so call retarded cracka's riddle me this.He was not tortured to give infomation on Aiquadas plots.He was tortured to provide a link to Saddam to justify an illegal war.And whaen he was about to be question on that subject he ends up dead.Very convienent wouldnt you say?So that doenst raised any questions?Your argument seems to be you dont care what was done because these people are terrorist.Well I dont accept.You like to play what ifs so I have one for you.If an American soldier is captured and is waterboarded to provide info on his unit is that torture?

AL -Libi was a terrorist. He was a very bad man I get that.Now you so call retarded cracka's riddle me this.He was not tortured to give infomation on Aiquadas plots.He was tortured to provide a link to Saddam to justify an illegal war.And whaen he was about to be question on that subject he ends up dead.Very convienent wouldnt you say?So that doenst raised any questions?Your argument seems to be you dont care what was done because these people are terrorist.Well I dont accept.You like to play what ifs so I have one for you.If an American soldier is captured and is waterboarded to provide info on his unit is that torture?