Without the unitary theory of the executive to protect him anymore from the vagaries of public opinion, Dick Cheney's incessant tour to sell the virtues of the Bush torture policy baffles the mind. So far, no mature adult has stood up among Republicans and cried,"Silencio!" More troubling is to see Liz Cheney reappear as an apologist for the torture policy and prisoner abuse. Our corporate media loves the show but haven't asked Liz what she knows about torture, water-boarding or even interrogation. The answer is "Nothing." Treating Cheney's appearances as if they are serious, the media neglect to discuss that this may be a man who cried "Wolf" once too often. He assured the American public that Saddam Hussein was partners with Al Qaeda, had restarted his nuclear program and was certain to possess weapons of mass destruction. Almost as looney, Cheney offered his opinions on the Employee Free Choice Act during a Fox news program with Neil Cavuto.
The Hill reports that Republicans believe they can gain traction on national security issues by exploiting Obama's commitment to close Guatanamo within a year. The RNC surfaced an ad that Obama will be releasing detainees into your neighborhood, neglecting to mention our max prisons hold 150 or more Muslim terrorists already convicted in courts of law. Perhaps, this will pan out for the Republican Party, who have been banking on fear as their ticket to ride back into political power.
The Republican embrace of torture and secret prisons is curious in light of the fact that Cheney lost the bureaucratic fight during the Bush Administration. George W. Bush and Condi Rice planned on closing Gitmo in 2006 over Cheney's objections. The process was started then by the release of detainees and repatriation of some to European and Arab countries. Republican candidate John McCain agreed with President Obama that Gitmo should be closed because almost all informed sources agreed that the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo were the primary recruiting tools for foreign insurgents in Iraq.
The pathological appearances of Dick Cheney on all the networks and even obscure radio shows in North Dakota defending torture counter the Bush Administration's own policies in the second term, a period when Cheney's star was diminished. The CIA Inspecter General's report of 2004 ,which reviewed the torture program was blunt in calling it what it was and suggested that no impending attacks on the United States were broken up as a result. So-called enhanced interrogation techniques were at least overtly suspended in 2005 and the Bush Justice Department ended up revoking the original legal opinions justifying the program as legally sloppy--to say the least. Dick Cheney is in effect re-arguing a bureaucratic battle which he ingloriously lost.
The Republican full metal embrace of the torture policy is reckless. Dick Cheney's serial interviews reveal a series of moving benchmarks in his defense of the program. First, he asserted that it prevented the planned attack on Library Tower in Los Angeles. Within 24 hours of the remark, this was refuted by a timeline that showed the alleged sources for this plot had not been detained for six months the plot was disrupted. Secondly, he suggested within the last two days that a dirty bomb plot by Al Qaeda was disrupted using these methods. The known plot so far is the shoe-bomber who was picked up when the FBI received information from a detainees without any "enhanced interrogation". Four other alleged plots uncovered by these methods were analyzed in a December issue of Vanity Fair. The former head of British counter-intelligence said one plot was a complete fabrication and the other three were uncovered through local police work. Finally, Dick Cheney claims that Al Qaeda was basically unknown prior to 9-11 and that torture produced a detailed view of the Al Qaeda operations.
These assertions by Cheney and his demands for the declassification of documents are now triggering events which the Obama Administration wanted to avoid, the Democrats are cringing because of their own compliance in acknowledging these programs and Republicans should run for the hills from. The Obama Administration is now declassifying the "Holy Grail" document, the CIA's Inspector General's report on the torture program. As the Cheney deadenders keep hollering, more documents will be declassified. There is nothing coming down the pike which will make the torture program more appealing to the public. In fact, Republicans are just shooting themselves in the foot. As long as attention was focused on three Al Qaeda terrorists, the public has shown a frightening tolerance of the use of torture. But further documents show hundreds of homicides occurred because of the abuse of these methods.
Strangely, no Republican is aware at the degree to which Obama has been protecting them and the various intelligence agencies from exposure and prosecution. From a legal point of view, it is a not all that clear that Obama can in fact guarantee impunity as the CIA Inspector General report states clearly that the interrogators violated the Torture Convention and all federal laws covering war crimes. The latest Republican gambit of blaming the Democrats Nancy Pelosi in going along with this program is going to backfire as House Democrats agreed to investigate this. By trying to portray this as a partisan struggle, Republicans are only pushing the torture issue into the realm of the special prosecutor so that the Obama Administration "de-politicizes" it.
If I were Eric Holder, I would appoint Republican Patrick Fitzgerald as the special prosecutor so that Cheney-ites heads explode.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
The Empty Tent Solution
Or the Republican Ghost Dance
The defection of Allen Specter to the Democrats triggered an orgy of recriminations among Republicans this week. Yes, he was opportunist in changing parties because he faced certain defeat in the Pennsylvania primary to Club of Growth leader Pat Toomey. But Michael Steele had indicated in interviews with Fox News he would fund primary challenges to Specter,Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for their support of the stimulus package.
Olympia Snowe was quick off the mark in commenting that moderates in the party felt like they were cast members of the television show Survivor and declared they were unwanted. In a Washington Post op-ed, former Senator from Maine, Bill Cohen, remarked how the moderate caucus in the party had 25 members when he first went to the Senate and ended with 5, when he left to be Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton. After the crushing congressional defeats in 2006, Olympia Snowe wryly noted that she won with 75% in a blue-collar state but no one from the party asked her how she did it.
The Republican presence in the Northeast has practically vanished. With the defeat of Tedisco in New York's 20th district, there are only 3 Republicans left in the New York delegation. Over the past year alone, over 200,000 former Republicans re-registered as Democrats in Pennsylvania. The party is being eviscerated in the Midwest and on the West Coast. Today, the Republican Party is a regional party, holding temporary sway in the old Confederacy and in the Morman corridor.
This week saw five polls which showed a slight range of 21-22% Americans identifying themselves as Republicans. Independents have won a slight plurality over the Democrats. To be competitive in elections, Republicans will need to win 2/3rds of the independent vote, which looks out of reach with a party that is tightly controlled by its base of now extreme conservatives.
Rather than reaching out, the uniform response by the RNC, the talking heads and conservatives was to urge the removal of Snowe and Collins and John McCain. Freepers urged the removal of Orrin Hatch for his criticism of the Club of Growth; Catholic conservatives the removal of Senator Brownback for his vote in support of Kansas government Kathleen Sebelius. New Gingrich pontificated there was no room in the Republican Party for anyone in support of high taxes, big government and big spending. Bill Kristol claimed Specter's defection was a plus for the GOP.
This debate took place in front of the backdrop of the issue of torture with all the conservatives strongly defended torture with the exception of John McCain. Libertarian James Bovard, writing in Pat Buchanan's American Conservative in 2002, asked, "Have the Republicans become the party of torture, secret prisons and indefinite detention?"
A group of Republicans led by John McCain and Jeb Bush assembled a committee called the Foundation for a New America to seek out opinions on the direction of the party. This group included Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal and other elected officials . But noticeable for their absence were moderates like Christ of Florida,Schwartzenegger of California or the Senators Snowe and Collins. The purpose of the committee was to recreate McCain's hallmark events-- the Townhall meeting.
The RNC unchastened by Specter's defection sent out robocalls, denouncing him for his links to President George W. Bush (!). They also ran a one-day ad that had a southern White voice pretend he was Barack Obama pledging to raise taxes and thanking former Weatherman and current professor Bill Ayres for his support. After pulling this one down, John "the Tan Man" Boehner cut an ad criticising Barack Obama for failing to keep us safe, with eerie music over footage of "jihadists". The problem with the ad was quickly noted by Hispanics, who pointed to all the images of Latinos in the ad and charged the House Republicans with bigotry.
The swine flu outbreak provided another opportunity for the Republicans and conservative talkshow hosts to claim that the transmitters of the disease were illegal immigrants. Neil Boortz on his talk show even went so far as to suggest this was a type of bio-terrorism. This theme ran from Fox News through Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. In fact, the swine flu seems to have originated at farms kept in Mexico by Virginia's own Smithfield Hams.
When Justice Souter sent a letter to President Obama announcing his impending retirement, Republicans claimed this was the event to turn their fortunes around. Within hours, they sent out opposition research on all possible nominess declaring them unacceptable. While Souter turned out to be a moderate civil libertarian, the conservative punditry claimed Obama could only do worse if he appointed a "radical". Souter voted against the Republicans in the Supreme Court case of Bush versus Gore.
Most observers believe that Obama will choose a woman and possibly go for an Hispanic woman such as federal judge Sonia Sotomayor, who was first appointed to the bench by President Bush. Probably liberal in social issues, she appears to be a moderate in business law cases, which she has handled. She has already been denounced as not having "a judicial temperment" by Republicans.
Moderate Republicans such as former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman has begged the litmus test be stopped for the sake of states where the GOP stands a good chance of winning state houses. Conservatives are running a primary challenge against Doug Christie, who runs in the polls ahead of Corzine. In Arizona, one of the most well-known Minutemen is running a primary challenge against John McCain on the platform of stopping illegal immigrattion.
With Republicans at a point lower than after Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964, when they finished at 25% identification, recent polling of issues finds them at a greater disadvantage than before. Proponents of gay marriage now have a plurality of acceptance, legalization of marijuana has gained popularity, pro-choice is still dominant and only a lower--but still a majority--favor greater gun control. Even immigration reform has the support of the majority of the people. It even gets worse, Only 25% of the population do not believe we should do anything about global warming. A vast majority of Americans want health care reform.
What are the odds of Republicans becoming a party that offers constructive solutions to the problems of governance and the economy? I believe slim to none because the very conservative group of elected officials are still as not as extreme as the base. "Our base just hates Barack Obama"said one Washington Republican. Also, Republicans have a very difficult credibility problem in establishing they are for small government, fiscal responsibilty and the lack of government interference with one's personal life. The last fiscal conservative Republican was Dwight Eisenhower. The conservative governments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush vastly expanded the powers and size of the executive branch and ran up historic deficits. And the social conservatives believe government should interfere in enforcing morality. So why would a voter believe they can trust the Republicans this time?
Conservatives are trying to back away from George W. Bush, who was in fact the culmination of the conservative movement's drive to power. The Bush Administration hired more ideological conservatives than any of the predecessors. Used the powers of the presidency to financially reward the evangelical community's support. Cut taxes to benefit the wealthy conservatives and handed out government contracts to donors like candy. To the neoconservatives, he embarked on a unilateral foreign policy and proclaimed a Pax Americana that other countries would be "forced" to recognize. But like all conservatives forever, they feel betrayed.
There is no self-reflection or self-criticism among the conservative movement at this moment. I think this is because outsiders miss the point. The struggle is ideological and not political. The talking heads are sincere in their desire to purify the party of anyone who is deviant from their ideology. It is a seige mindset. The media is against them--despite having more conservatives on the major networks than at any other time in history--, the judiciary--long since dominated by Republicans--is against them;the American culture is decayed and decadent and against their values; and Washington always betrays them. So you consolidate your power in your remaining outpost--despite disasterous political consequences--the Republican Party.
The point of all this is to overturn the liberal order--eventually--and to thwart American pluralism. Conservatives are now practicing what the Left would recognize as "Vanguardism" and are aiming to create a very authoritarian party. They are flirting with some dangerous elements in their disdain for elections they lose and a federal government that no longer reflects their policies. This is why there is a rise of secessionist sentiments within the Republican party itself--something unheard of before.
Once Republicans recruited evangelicals as candidates they locked in social conservatives and can not jettison them from their platform as the culture has turned dramatically away from their positions. Demographically, this will continue to be the case for the near future. If the party can not tolerate regional differences in this regard, it will enjoy a long winter. What one sees now among elected officials is the most moderate face of the party compared to what I believe is coming. When Republican leaders such as Sarah Palin saying the real America is in small towns, she is inadvertantly admitting that the party has lost its historical base--the suburbs. Rural America is diminishing in size dramatically.
At this moment, there is no road out from the Empty Tent.
The defection of Allen Specter to the Democrats triggered an orgy of recriminations among Republicans this week. Yes, he was opportunist in changing parties because he faced certain defeat in the Pennsylvania primary to Club of Growth leader Pat Toomey. But Michael Steele had indicated in interviews with Fox News he would fund primary challenges to Specter,Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins for their support of the stimulus package.
Olympia Snowe was quick off the mark in commenting that moderates in the party felt like they were cast members of the television show Survivor and declared they were unwanted. In a Washington Post op-ed, former Senator from Maine, Bill Cohen, remarked how the moderate caucus in the party had 25 members when he first went to the Senate and ended with 5, when he left to be Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton. After the crushing congressional defeats in 2006, Olympia Snowe wryly noted that she won with 75% in a blue-collar state but no one from the party asked her how she did it.
The Republican presence in the Northeast has practically vanished. With the defeat of Tedisco in New York's 20th district, there are only 3 Republicans left in the New York delegation. Over the past year alone, over 200,000 former Republicans re-registered as Democrats in Pennsylvania. The party is being eviscerated in the Midwest and on the West Coast. Today, the Republican Party is a regional party, holding temporary sway in the old Confederacy and in the Morman corridor.
This week saw five polls which showed a slight range of 21-22% Americans identifying themselves as Republicans. Independents have won a slight plurality over the Democrats. To be competitive in elections, Republicans will need to win 2/3rds of the independent vote, which looks out of reach with a party that is tightly controlled by its base of now extreme conservatives.
Rather than reaching out, the uniform response by the RNC, the talking heads and conservatives was to urge the removal of Snowe and Collins and John McCain. Freepers urged the removal of Orrin Hatch for his criticism of the Club of Growth; Catholic conservatives the removal of Senator Brownback for his vote in support of Kansas government Kathleen Sebelius. New Gingrich pontificated there was no room in the Republican Party for anyone in support of high taxes, big government and big spending. Bill Kristol claimed Specter's defection was a plus for the GOP.
This debate took place in front of the backdrop of the issue of torture with all the conservatives strongly defended torture with the exception of John McCain. Libertarian James Bovard, writing in Pat Buchanan's American Conservative in 2002, asked, "Have the Republicans become the party of torture, secret prisons and indefinite detention?"
A group of Republicans led by John McCain and Jeb Bush assembled a committee called the Foundation for a New America to seek out opinions on the direction of the party. This group included Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal and other elected officials . But noticeable for their absence were moderates like Christ of Florida,Schwartzenegger of California or the Senators Snowe and Collins. The purpose of the committee was to recreate McCain's hallmark events-- the Townhall meeting.
The RNC unchastened by Specter's defection sent out robocalls, denouncing him for his links to President George W. Bush (!). They also ran a one-day ad that had a southern White voice pretend he was Barack Obama pledging to raise taxes and thanking former Weatherman and current professor Bill Ayres for his support. After pulling this one down, John "the Tan Man" Boehner cut an ad criticising Barack Obama for failing to keep us safe, with eerie music over footage of "jihadists". The problem with the ad was quickly noted by Hispanics, who pointed to all the images of Latinos in the ad and charged the House Republicans with bigotry.
The swine flu outbreak provided another opportunity for the Republicans and conservative talkshow hosts to claim that the transmitters of the disease were illegal immigrants. Neil Boortz on his talk show even went so far as to suggest this was a type of bio-terrorism. This theme ran from Fox News through Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. In fact, the swine flu seems to have originated at farms kept in Mexico by Virginia's own Smithfield Hams.
When Justice Souter sent a letter to President Obama announcing his impending retirement, Republicans claimed this was the event to turn their fortunes around. Within hours, they sent out opposition research on all possible nominess declaring them unacceptable. While Souter turned out to be a moderate civil libertarian, the conservative punditry claimed Obama could only do worse if he appointed a "radical". Souter voted against the Republicans in the Supreme Court case of Bush versus Gore.
Most observers believe that Obama will choose a woman and possibly go for an Hispanic woman such as federal judge Sonia Sotomayor, who was first appointed to the bench by President Bush. Probably liberal in social issues, she appears to be a moderate in business law cases, which she has handled. She has already been denounced as not having "a judicial temperment" by Republicans.
Moderate Republicans such as former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman has begged the litmus test be stopped for the sake of states where the GOP stands a good chance of winning state houses. Conservatives are running a primary challenge against Doug Christie, who runs in the polls ahead of Corzine. In Arizona, one of the most well-known Minutemen is running a primary challenge against John McCain on the platform of stopping illegal immigrattion.
With Republicans at a point lower than after Barry Goldwater's defeat in 1964, when they finished at 25% identification, recent polling of issues finds them at a greater disadvantage than before. Proponents of gay marriage now have a plurality of acceptance, legalization of marijuana has gained popularity, pro-choice is still dominant and only a lower--but still a majority--favor greater gun control. Even immigration reform has the support of the majority of the people. It even gets worse, Only 25% of the population do not believe we should do anything about global warming. A vast majority of Americans want health care reform.
What are the odds of Republicans becoming a party that offers constructive solutions to the problems of governance and the economy? I believe slim to none because the very conservative group of elected officials are still as not as extreme as the base. "Our base just hates Barack Obama"said one Washington Republican. Also, Republicans have a very difficult credibility problem in establishing they are for small government, fiscal responsibilty and the lack of government interference with one's personal life. The last fiscal conservative Republican was Dwight Eisenhower. The conservative governments of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush vastly expanded the powers and size of the executive branch and ran up historic deficits. And the social conservatives believe government should interfere in enforcing morality. So why would a voter believe they can trust the Republicans this time?
Conservatives are trying to back away from George W. Bush, who was in fact the culmination of the conservative movement's drive to power. The Bush Administration hired more ideological conservatives than any of the predecessors. Used the powers of the presidency to financially reward the evangelical community's support. Cut taxes to benefit the wealthy conservatives and handed out government contracts to donors like candy. To the neoconservatives, he embarked on a unilateral foreign policy and proclaimed a Pax Americana that other countries would be "forced" to recognize. But like all conservatives forever, they feel betrayed.
There is no self-reflection or self-criticism among the conservative movement at this moment. I think this is because outsiders miss the point. The struggle is ideological and not political. The talking heads are sincere in their desire to purify the party of anyone who is deviant from their ideology. It is a seige mindset. The media is against them--despite having more conservatives on the major networks than at any other time in history--, the judiciary--long since dominated by Republicans--is against them;the American culture is decayed and decadent and against their values; and Washington always betrays them. So you consolidate your power in your remaining outpost--despite disasterous political consequences--the Republican Party.
The point of all this is to overturn the liberal order--eventually--and to thwart American pluralism. Conservatives are now practicing what the Left would recognize as "Vanguardism" and are aiming to create a very authoritarian party. They are flirting with some dangerous elements in their disdain for elections they lose and a federal government that no longer reflects their policies. This is why there is a rise of secessionist sentiments within the Republican party itself--something unheard of before.
Once Republicans recruited evangelicals as candidates they locked in social conservatives and can not jettison them from their platform as the culture has turned dramatically away from their positions. Demographically, this will continue to be the case for the near future. If the party can not tolerate regional differences in this regard, it will enjoy a long winter. What one sees now among elected officials is the most moderate face of the party compared to what I believe is coming. When Republican leaders such as Sarah Palin saying the real America is in small towns, she is inadvertantly admitting that the party has lost its historical base--the suburbs. Rural America is diminishing in size dramatically.
At this moment, there is no road out from the Empty Tent.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Banana Republicans or will Cheney ride old sparky?
This week we were treated to Karl Rove warning us that the Obama Administration is acting like a third world dictatorship where military chiefs wear dark sunglasses. Karl says that Obama will systematically prosecute the Bush Administration officials for mere "policy differences". This meme was immediately echoed by Senator McCain and later by Senator Kit Bond. With the Republicans out of power, do you ever wonder where the talking points come from now? It seems old Turdblossom is still working the media and Republicans on the Hill with his old magic. Rove was caught out on Friday "tweetering talking points in defense of torture" to pundits and congressional offices.
John McCain's daughter Megan McCain said it best this week about the re-emergence of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney: "You had your eight years--go away!" How bad is it for the Republican Party? It has only a 23% approval rate and congressional Republicans have an approval rate of 15%, which is actually lower than Cheney's near the end. But what does Michael Steele do,just after his crushing defeat in the Tedisco election? He sends out a fund-raising letter about President Obama's "arrogance" and once again revisited the winning themes about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres,the Weatherman who bombed the Pentagon when an angelic faced Barack Obama was riding waves on the back of his grandfather.
The Republican spinners were in full force this week even bringing back old war horses like Bill Bennett and introducing Cheney's daughter, who defended "enhanced interrogations" as saving thousands of lives. Liz Cheney has every right to defend her father but she should have left the whole issue of interrogation alone. Republicans circling around the wagon on the issue of torture is bound to lose as more revelations are about to unfold.
Andrew Sullivan wrote about the eloquent words used by the President who signed the Convention against Torture--Ronald Reagan. The Convention was ratified by the Republican Congress in 1994. During that time another conservative, one Newt Gingrich gave an eloquent argument against torture and forced confessions, when challenging the Chinese. How soon we forget. Embracing torture is not the way one asserts American exceptionalism unless it's Karl Rove's definition "We can do what we want."
It is unsettling in the least to have a major American political party deny what is so clearly obvious--that America did engage in torture. It is surreal to listen to arguments that we didn't torture but if we did then it was effective. What has gone unnoticed by Republicans is that President Obama has bent over backwards to avoid the prosecution of Bush officials--so much so that he is drawing serious heat from the left, human rights activists and the legal profession, which believes he must prosecute whoever violated the law. Republicans have missed an opportunity in not manning up on this issue and working with the present Administration to find a just way out of a messy situation.
Instead, President Obama is going to release the photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Technically, only required to release 40 photographs, at the request of General Petraeus, the Defense Department will be releasing 2,000 photos, which will show the sexual humiliation of prisoners and other abuses.
By the end of this week, memos by the Defense team that conducted the SERE program were released that showed they believed these techniques used constituted torture and they would not yield valuable information. In addition, it became quite clear that the lawyers for the armed forces had notified key lawyers involved in writing the torture memos of their doubts about the legality and constitutionality of the whole "enhanced interrogation" program. Moreover, it has become clear that these differences of opinions were purposely suppressed and in some cases the memos destroyed. According to United Nations Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak, the lawyers are complicit in torture and therefore must be prosecuted.
John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham wrote an open letter--a certain way to make friends--to President Obama requesting he not prosecute the DOJ lawyers who wrote the torture memos. The Department of Justice under Eric Holder was already furious with the White House, especially Gibbs and Emmanuel, for making political statements who the Administration will not prosecute. This type of pressure from the Hill is going to provoke a more vigorous prosecution because the DOJ on this issue will not back down.
It's delightful seeing Obama playing the conservatives--forcing them to back the unthinkable and the unconscionable. Since he knows the productions coming off the line, the White House dictates the pace and tone of alot of these revelations. Dick Cheney's clumsy bid to have two memos declassified that, he claims, shows he is right was supported across the Republican spectrum and Fox News. But that also allows for the declassification of materials that demonstrate in greater detail why he is in error. I believe the smoking gun of this investigation will be the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which will document the degree to which the Torture Lawyers complied with requests from Dick Cheney to ratify the torture program while knowing of its illegality.
The more interesting issues yet to be handled concern the hundreds of homicides through the little Gulag we constructed as well as the accounting of the "disappeared" from the CIA "black sites". In the Arab world, these people are known as the "ghost prisoners". This events taken together should fuel enough public outrage as to force a more vigorous investigation and prosecutions.
Cheney and Rove have their own agenda forcing them out in the open on this subject. Cheney is probably trying to hide the degree to which tortured confessions created the mythical link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and the degree to which the Administration neglected to follow up on any information that could lead to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. Karl Rove is part of the Bush legacy tour and he must spin these revelations to preserve whatever dignity the past Administration has. The alleged clash within the Obama Administration over the release of the torture memos was somewhat orchestrated by the former Administration and its stay behinds. One can visualize old Poppie calling up former CIA directors to get them to intercede.
But, why do the Republicans fall for it? Rove, Cheney, the Bush family are the past. There is little to gain politically to defend them and the public would be spared the pain of hearing defenses of torture. The proper line should be to take a more vigorous line for investigations and prosecution. The Obama Administration actually has to walk a tightrope because of national security concerns. Republicans can outflank the Administration by demanding a bipartisan commission to study torture and requesting the prosecution of all and any one involved in the situation.
Unfortunately, it will not happen since the Republicans have painted themselves in a corner which they simply can not get out of. We will get a continued line of barking dog talking heads, desparately trying to spin this issue, moving from line to line until they think they have found something that can stick. By doing this on something as serious as torture, they run the risk of forcing more information to emerge. And more of their kind to be charged.
John McCain's daughter Megan McCain said it best this week about the re-emergence of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney: "You had your eight years--go away!" How bad is it for the Republican Party? It has only a 23% approval rate and congressional Republicans have an approval rate of 15%, which is actually lower than Cheney's near the end. But what does Michael Steele do,just after his crushing defeat in the Tedisco election? He sends out a fund-raising letter about President Obama's "arrogance" and once again revisited the winning themes about Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres,the Weatherman who bombed the Pentagon when an angelic faced Barack Obama was riding waves on the back of his grandfather.
The Republican spinners were in full force this week even bringing back old war horses like Bill Bennett and introducing Cheney's daughter, who defended "enhanced interrogations" as saving thousands of lives. Liz Cheney has every right to defend her father but she should have left the whole issue of interrogation alone. Republicans circling around the wagon on the issue of torture is bound to lose as more revelations are about to unfold.
Andrew Sullivan wrote about the eloquent words used by the President who signed the Convention against Torture--Ronald Reagan. The Convention was ratified by the Republican Congress in 1994. During that time another conservative, one Newt Gingrich gave an eloquent argument against torture and forced confessions, when challenging the Chinese. How soon we forget. Embracing torture is not the way one asserts American exceptionalism unless it's Karl Rove's definition "We can do what we want."
It is unsettling in the least to have a major American political party deny what is so clearly obvious--that America did engage in torture. It is surreal to listen to arguments that we didn't torture but if we did then it was effective. What has gone unnoticed by Republicans is that President Obama has bent over backwards to avoid the prosecution of Bush officials--so much so that he is drawing serious heat from the left, human rights activists and the legal profession, which believes he must prosecute whoever violated the law. Republicans have missed an opportunity in not manning up on this issue and working with the present Administration to find a just way out of a messy situation.
Instead, President Obama is going to release the photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib. Technically, only required to release 40 photographs, at the request of General Petraeus, the Defense Department will be releasing 2,000 photos, which will show the sexual humiliation of prisoners and other abuses.
By the end of this week, memos by the Defense team that conducted the SERE program were released that showed they believed these techniques used constituted torture and they would not yield valuable information. In addition, it became quite clear that the lawyers for the armed forces had notified key lawyers involved in writing the torture memos of their doubts about the legality and constitutionality of the whole "enhanced interrogation" program. Moreover, it has become clear that these differences of opinions were purposely suppressed and in some cases the memos destroyed. According to United Nations Special Rapporteur Manfred Nowak, the lawyers are complicit in torture and therefore must be prosecuted.
John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham wrote an open letter--a certain way to make friends--to President Obama requesting he not prosecute the DOJ lawyers who wrote the torture memos. The Department of Justice under Eric Holder was already furious with the White House, especially Gibbs and Emmanuel, for making political statements who the Administration will not prosecute. This type of pressure from the Hill is going to provoke a more vigorous prosecution because the DOJ on this issue will not back down.
It's delightful seeing Obama playing the conservatives--forcing them to back the unthinkable and the unconscionable. Since he knows the productions coming off the line, the White House dictates the pace and tone of alot of these revelations. Dick Cheney's clumsy bid to have two memos declassified that, he claims, shows he is right was supported across the Republican spectrum and Fox News. But that also allows for the declassification of materials that demonstrate in greater detail why he is in error. I believe the smoking gun of this investigation will be the Office of Professional Responsibility report, which will document the degree to which the Torture Lawyers complied with requests from Dick Cheney to ratify the torture program while knowing of its illegality.
The more interesting issues yet to be handled concern the hundreds of homicides through the little Gulag we constructed as well as the accounting of the "disappeared" from the CIA "black sites". In the Arab world, these people are known as the "ghost prisoners". This events taken together should fuel enough public outrage as to force a more vigorous investigation and prosecutions.
Cheney and Rove have their own agenda forcing them out in the open on this subject. Cheney is probably trying to hide the degree to which tortured confessions created the mythical link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and the degree to which the Administration neglected to follow up on any information that could lead to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden. Karl Rove is part of the Bush legacy tour and he must spin these revelations to preserve whatever dignity the past Administration has. The alleged clash within the Obama Administration over the release of the torture memos was somewhat orchestrated by the former Administration and its stay behinds. One can visualize old Poppie calling up former CIA directors to get them to intercede.
But, why do the Republicans fall for it? Rove, Cheney, the Bush family are the past. There is little to gain politically to defend them and the public would be spared the pain of hearing defenses of torture. The proper line should be to take a more vigorous line for investigations and prosecution. The Obama Administration actually has to walk a tightrope because of national security concerns. Republicans can outflank the Administration by demanding a bipartisan commission to study torture and requesting the prosecution of all and any one involved in the situation.
Unfortunately, it will not happen since the Republicans have painted themselves in a corner which they simply can not get out of. We will get a continued line of barking dog talking heads, desparately trying to spin this issue, moving from line to line until they think they have found something that can stick. By doing this on something as serious as torture, they run the risk of forcing more information to emerge. And more of their kind to be charged.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Palpatine's Perfect Crime
The new voice of the Republican party, Karl Rove, writing in the Wall Street Journal, accused President Obama of practicing moral equivalence in his foreign trips and not exulting American exceptionalism. The sheer chutzpah of the man, who is one of the key persons responsible for ending American exceptionalism probably once and for all ;first, through provoking the constitutional crisis of the 2000 elections; secondly, by his administration's institutionalizing torture in our defense doctrine; and thirdly, by his administration's adoption of the unitary theory of the executive as a constitutional model putting the US on the legal par with the Third Reich or more charitably the Mexican republic.
The day has been spent by pundits and politicians like Senator McCain decrying the possibility of a "witch hunt" in the prosecution of Bush officials involved in the torture policy. While fissures are appearing in the Fox News wall with opponents of torture appearing now and again,there is emerging serious discussions of not prosecuting the culprits. As the architect of the policy, Richard Cheney, used to say,"We will push and push until someone pushes back." While people are pushing back, Cheney may have the last laugh with the dizzying problem created in prosecuting anyone.
Consider the problem. Republicans are quite right when they say that the Democratic leadership in Congress was briefed extensively on these interrogation techniques and gave them at least a tacit approval. In effect, all party leaders are at least accessory to war crimes, if we get down to the blunt issue. The Bush-Cheney Administration wisely cast its net of accomplices long and wide, roping in participants through very shabby lawyering to legitimize their actions. Virtually, all major Bush cabinet officials, involved in foreign policy, were actors approving the torture techniques. The leadership of all the branches of the military services, while dissenting and raising doubts about both the legality and constitutionality of the torture police went along because their are commanded by civilians.
The total number of those involved directly in designing and legitimizing the torture program is in the dozens. Even if we narrowed our complaints to the close ring of lawyers and the medical practitioners, who went far beyond the ethical boundaries of their profession,we encounter the issue of them following orders, precisely the point where President Obama drew the line. To prosecute above this level ends up into what would perceived as a political trial with Democrats going after Republicans for what would be spun as "criminalizing policy differences".
It should be clear to any layperson the only person who understands all the parts of this process is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who with his chief of staff David Addington, developed the most horrendous aspects of this program and who used it to fabricate evidence to justify the war against Iraq. The Senate intelligence committee's first findings suggest that the intensity of waterboarding Abu Zubaida, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others had nothing to do with locating Bin Laden or preventing another 9/11 attack on the U.S. Instead, the frequency of waterboarding was attributed to a quest for intelligence or simply a confession that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a connection. In other words, the interrogation program was part and parcel of ginning up material for the case for the war.
The problem here should be obvious. The Democrats have always claimed that the Iraq War took America's attention away from the fight against Al Qaeda and that our invasion of Iraq brought that group there where they had not been. Since the evidence was created through a war crime, its prosecution looks like Democrats ganging up to prove a political point. The other aspect of this was that the Democrats had a constitutional remedy called impeachment which Speaker Nancy Pelosi deliberately neglected to use, despite Dennis Kucinich's noble attempts to bring it to house members' attention.
Now the politically wise thing is to take President Obama's advice and move on. Unfortunately, there are more serious legal issues at stake here than in the days of Richard Nixon, where his helicopter flight into the sunset basically ended the story.
The United States deliberately violated the 3rd Geneva Convention, the Convention against Torture, the Convention against Political Rights and Civil Liberties, the Constitution of the United States, federal statutes against torture and war crimes, and other instruments of international and humanitarian law. A crude analogy is that the United States to actually do justice would have to hold a Nuremberg Trial of its own, even though we won the war.
In addition, there are international dimensions to this issue ,which can not be glossed over so quickly. The impending release of the uncensored photos of Abu Ghraib will bring the international community, quite properly back into the picture.The Iraq War was begun under a United Nations mandate with troops from several different countries and the treatment of detainees would fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Nations, a Republican nightmare. That is why the European governments on a larger scale than just Spain are going to conduct an investigation into American treatment of detainees. Former Brigidier General Janis Karpinski's proposal of an international tribunal is not a far fetched one. This idea would be very hard for the United States to actively oppose even though Karl Rove asserts America's exceptionalism.
The call for prosecution is going to increase, not decrease as new materials find the light of day. Already the issue of murders at the CIA's black sites has emerged and is certain to draw more attention. Any further declassification of memos--even those that Cheney claims exonerates them--will intensify the discussion. There are scats more legal opinions that have not emerged in the public's eye.
The investigation and prosecution of the torture regimen has to be thorough, systematic and as depoliticized as possible despite the fact that all 'the witches" to be hunted are known and are ,regrettably, of one party. Then the decision has to be made by the Attorney General how to proceed. Unlike in the Bush Administration, Eric Holder was selected to restore some independence to the post of Attorney General so as to rectify the past situation. In one sense, Eric Holder has to select a notable person to establish the criminal charges and against whom. That person has to have a prestige that is above that of your average special prosecutor.
The second aspect of these investigations has to be public education, the deliberate elucidation of why these issues are both unconstitutional and unlawful as well as outside of the American tradition. It would also be useful as to why cleansing ourselves of these crimes might restore our American exceptionalism. In the City on the Hill, there is no room for torture or hidden jails, something Mr. Rove forgot.
The most therapeutic point of this whole exercise is to have it completed in a reasonable time frame, where the political and educational points are clearly made. Only human rights advocates and international lawyers paid attention to the long and arduous trial of Milosovic, which ended in his death,no verdict and no resolution.
My suggestion remains to focus the trial on the lawyers and doctors with the public record and investigation detailing the complicity of the Bush officials in this doctrine.
The day has been spent by pundits and politicians like Senator McCain decrying the possibility of a "witch hunt" in the prosecution of Bush officials involved in the torture policy. While fissures are appearing in the Fox News wall with opponents of torture appearing now and again,there is emerging serious discussions of not prosecuting the culprits. As the architect of the policy, Richard Cheney, used to say,"We will push and push until someone pushes back." While people are pushing back, Cheney may have the last laugh with the dizzying problem created in prosecuting anyone.
Consider the problem. Republicans are quite right when they say that the Democratic leadership in Congress was briefed extensively on these interrogation techniques and gave them at least a tacit approval. In effect, all party leaders are at least accessory to war crimes, if we get down to the blunt issue. The Bush-Cheney Administration wisely cast its net of accomplices long and wide, roping in participants through very shabby lawyering to legitimize their actions. Virtually, all major Bush cabinet officials, involved in foreign policy, were actors approving the torture techniques. The leadership of all the branches of the military services, while dissenting and raising doubts about both the legality and constitutionality of the torture police went along because their are commanded by civilians.
The total number of those involved directly in designing and legitimizing the torture program is in the dozens. Even if we narrowed our complaints to the close ring of lawyers and the medical practitioners, who went far beyond the ethical boundaries of their profession,we encounter the issue of them following orders, precisely the point where President Obama drew the line. To prosecute above this level ends up into what would perceived as a political trial with Democrats going after Republicans for what would be spun as "criminalizing policy differences".
It should be clear to any layperson the only person who understands all the parts of this process is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who with his chief of staff David Addington, developed the most horrendous aspects of this program and who used it to fabricate evidence to justify the war against Iraq. The Senate intelligence committee's first findings suggest that the intensity of waterboarding Abu Zubaida, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and others had nothing to do with locating Bin Laden or preventing another 9/11 attack on the U.S. Instead, the frequency of waterboarding was attributed to a quest for intelligence or simply a confession that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a connection. In other words, the interrogation program was part and parcel of ginning up material for the case for the war.
The problem here should be obvious. The Democrats have always claimed that the Iraq War took America's attention away from the fight against Al Qaeda and that our invasion of Iraq brought that group there where they had not been. Since the evidence was created through a war crime, its prosecution looks like Democrats ganging up to prove a political point. The other aspect of this was that the Democrats had a constitutional remedy called impeachment which Speaker Nancy Pelosi deliberately neglected to use, despite Dennis Kucinich's noble attempts to bring it to house members' attention.
Now the politically wise thing is to take President Obama's advice and move on. Unfortunately, there are more serious legal issues at stake here than in the days of Richard Nixon, where his helicopter flight into the sunset basically ended the story.
The United States deliberately violated the 3rd Geneva Convention, the Convention against Torture, the Convention against Political Rights and Civil Liberties, the Constitution of the United States, federal statutes against torture and war crimes, and other instruments of international and humanitarian law. A crude analogy is that the United States to actually do justice would have to hold a Nuremberg Trial of its own, even though we won the war.
In addition, there are international dimensions to this issue ,which can not be glossed over so quickly. The impending release of the uncensored photos of Abu Ghraib will bring the international community, quite properly back into the picture.The Iraq War was begun under a United Nations mandate with troops from several different countries and the treatment of detainees would fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United Nations, a Republican nightmare. That is why the European governments on a larger scale than just Spain are going to conduct an investigation into American treatment of detainees. Former Brigidier General Janis Karpinski's proposal of an international tribunal is not a far fetched one. This idea would be very hard for the United States to actively oppose even though Karl Rove asserts America's exceptionalism.
The call for prosecution is going to increase, not decrease as new materials find the light of day. Already the issue of murders at the CIA's black sites has emerged and is certain to draw more attention. Any further declassification of memos--even those that Cheney claims exonerates them--will intensify the discussion. There are scats more legal opinions that have not emerged in the public's eye.
The investigation and prosecution of the torture regimen has to be thorough, systematic and as depoliticized as possible despite the fact that all 'the witches" to be hunted are known and are ,regrettably, of one party. Then the decision has to be made by the Attorney General how to proceed. Unlike in the Bush Administration, Eric Holder was selected to restore some independence to the post of Attorney General so as to rectify the past situation. In one sense, Eric Holder has to select a notable person to establish the criminal charges and against whom. That person has to have a prestige that is above that of your average special prosecutor.
The second aspect of these investigations has to be public education, the deliberate elucidation of why these issues are both unconstitutional and unlawful as well as outside of the American tradition. It would also be useful as to why cleansing ourselves of these crimes might restore our American exceptionalism. In the City on the Hill, there is no room for torture or hidden jails, something Mr. Rove forgot.
The most therapeutic point of this whole exercise is to have it completed in a reasonable time frame, where the political and educational points are clearly made. Only human rights advocates and international lawyers paid attention to the long and arduous trial of Milosovic, which ended in his death,no verdict and no resolution.
My suggestion remains to focus the trial on the lawyers and doctors with the public record and investigation detailing the complicity of the Bush officials in this doctrine.
The New GOP --Part II
My previous blog was rudely interrupted and published.
Nate Silver at www.fivethirtyeight.com has an interesting article "Are the Republicans going Galt?" He cites the libertarian roots of the Fox-sponsored tea parties and that 80% of Republicans view government as a bigger threat than either Big Business or Big Labor, a traditional Gallup poll. Democrats only see Big Government as a bigger threat at 32% and Big Business as 52%. Independents view Big government as a bigger threat by 59% and Big Business by 30%. Big Labor has almost disappeared as a threat, even to Republicans.
Nate argues that Republicans are not shouting about illegal immigration as much because of the trampling they took with the Hispanic vote, are uncertain about gay marriage and have even started discussing legalizing marijuana. While I respect Nate's work, I am highly dubious of the ultimate effect of libertarianism on the Republican Party.
The leading contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination are all born-again Christians or self-proclaimed religious crusaders--Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and New Gingrich. Newt as a born-again Catholic has been acting as a new Torquemada. He almost looks like Brando in the role in the film Christopher Columbus. Newt is leading the crusade for torture and banning President Obama from receiving an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame because his politics are not in concert with Catholic doctrine, which the new convert as thoroughly memorized.
Currently, conservative religious activists are spearheading the drive to stop Governor Kathleen Sibelius from becoming the next Secretary for Health and Human Services. The list of advocates are an aging who's who of the religious right--Brent Bozell, Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the ever-present Grover Norquist. Similarly, Senator Imhofe is heading the filibuster against Judge Hamilton on the basis he ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives could not lead off their sessions with prayers in the name of Jesus Christ, a ruling that only followed Supreme Court rulings but conservatives no longer care about law.
Our neighbor Craig Shirley, who conducted some of the PR for the tea parties, says that "the GOP appears to be bankrupt of ideas." Some GOP operatives are trying to tag along with the tea parties. Newt has proposed July 4th parties to celebrate America's freedom--something we do every year but which Americans are loathed to politicize. The Ohio Militia has countered Newt's idea with a 1 million militia march on Washington, complete with guns. The tea party sponsors are pushing to link up with Glenn Beck's 9/12 project for a second-round of tea parties at that time. In short, Shirley is right--the Republicans are short of ideas.
Particularly noxious are the right-wing gambles to run primary challenges to established Senators Arlen Specter and John McCain because they are RINOs (Republican in Name Onlys.) If such challenges are victorious, both seats would turn Democratic. Also, conservatives are trying to run primary candidates against such favored candidates as Christie in New Jersey, thereby jeopardizing any gains at the statehouse levels. The party faces alot of bloodletting before it can stablize, which will be long after the economy does.
Conservatives are all out of sorts over the Obama administration's identification of extreme right ideas as magnets for recruiting by militant organizations. Within the conservatives circles they talk about a war by the Administration on conservatives. However, a reality check would show that certain acts will cement democratic majorities for years to come without any direct assault on conservatives. If the Obama Administration passes any type of meaningful health reform and immigration reform, those two acts alone coupled with the new census would make a conservative resurgence very unprobable. Some on conservative websites have said these issues constitute the Republican Alamo, another recent theme of conservatives. Perhaps, next stop Masada.
Without getting into specifics for now, Republicans face insurmontable odds to prevent the Democrats from passing the 60 number in the Senate. By just a glance, I can see from a 3-5 seat gain for the Democrats in 2010. I also don't think Dodd or Reid are as vulnerable as Republicans make out. I also think Burr will be defeated in North Carolina, Bunning will go down in Kentucky and Missouri will go Democrat. Republicans could pick up Delaware if they ran Mike Castle, former Governor and representative. Republicans will also lose New Hampshire.
As to the House side, we will leave it with Newt to predict a Republican take-over. His advice to Eic Cantor on this score is so improbable and beyond historical reasoning. Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter as Newt claims and is not Bill Clinton as Newt dreams.
Nate Silver at www.fivethirtyeight.com has an interesting article "Are the Republicans going Galt?" He cites the libertarian roots of the Fox-sponsored tea parties and that 80% of Republicans view government as a bigger threat than either Big Business or Big Labor, a traditional Gallup poll. Democrats only see Big Government as a bigger threat at 32% and Big Business as 52%. Independents view Big government as a bigger threat by 59% and Big Business by 30%. Big Labor has almost disappeared as a threat, even to Republicans.
Nate argues that Republicans are not shouting about illegal immigration as much because of the trampling they took with the Hispanic vote, are uncertain about gay marriage and have even started discussing legalizing marijuana. While I respect Nate's work, I am highly dubious of the ultimate effect of libertarianism on the Republican Party.
The leading contenders for the 2012 presidential nomination are all born-again Christians or self-proclaimed religious crusaders--Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal and New Gingrich. Newt as a born-again Catholic has been acting as a new Torquemada. He almost looks like Brando in the role in the film Christopher Columbus. Newt is leading the crusade for torture and banning President Obama from receiving an honorary doctorate from Notre Dame because his politics are not in concert with Catholic doctrine, which the new convert as thoroughly memorized.
Currently, conservative religious activists are spearheading the drive to stop Governor Kathleen Sibelius from becoming the next Secretary for Health and Human Services. The list of advocates are an aging who's who of the religious right--Brent Bozell, Tony Perkins, James Dobson and the ever-present Grover Norquist. Similarly, Senator Imhofe is heading the filibuster against Judge Hamilton on the basis he ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives could not lead off their sessions with prayers in the name of Jesus Christ, a ruling that only followed Supreme Court rulings but conservatives no longer care about law.
Our neighbor Craig Shirley, who conducted some of the PR for the tea parties, says that "the GOP appears to be bankrupt of ideas." Some GOP operatives are trying to tag along with the tea parties. Newt has proposed July 4th parties to celebrate America's freedom--something we do every year but which Americans are loathed to politicize. The Ohio Militia has countered Newt's idea with a 1 million militia march on Washington, complete with guns. The tea party sponsors are pushing to link up with Glenn Beck's 9/12 project for a second-round of tea parties at that time. In short, Shirley is right--the Republicans are short of ideas.
Particularly noxious are the right-wing gambles to run primary challenges to established Senators Arlen Specter and John McCain because they are RINOs (Republican in Name Onlys.) If such challenges are victorious, both seats would turn Democratic. Also, conservatives are trying to run primary candidates against such favored candidates as Christie in New Jersey, thereby jeopardizing any gains at the statehouse levels. The party faces alot of bloodletting before it can stablize, which will be long after the economy does.
Conservatives are all out of sorts over the Obama administration's identification of extreme right ideas as magnets for recruiting by militant organizations. Within the conservatives circles they talk about a war by the Administration on conservatives. However, a reality check would show that certain acts will cement democratic majorities for years to come without any direct assault on conservatives. If the Obama Administration passes any type of meaningful health reform and immigration reform, those two acts alone coupled with the new census would make a conservative resurgence very unprobable. Some on conservative websites have said these issues constitute the Republican Alamo, another recent theme of conservatives. Perhaps, next stop Masada.
Without getting into specifics for now, Republicans face insurmontable odds to prevent the Democrats from passing the 60 number in the Senate. By just a glance, I can see from a 3-5 seat gain for the Democrats in 2010. I also don't think Dodd or Reid are as vulnerable as Republicans make out. I also think Burr will be defeated in North Carolina, Bunning will go down in Kentucky and Missouri will go Democrat. Republicans could pick up Delaware if they ran Mike Castle, former Governor and representative. Republicans will also lose New Hampshire.
As to the House side, we will leave it with Newt to predict a Republican take-over. His advice to Eic Cantor on this score is so improbable and beyond historical reasoning. Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter as Newt claims and is not Bill Clinton as Newt dreams.
The GOP versus the Smiling Hawaiian
With President Obama's approval ratings clocking 63,64,and 65% respectively, the American people for the first time in five years say the country is headed in the right direction. Now to counter this, the new faces of the Republican party, the most visible personalities to appear on the media, are Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich. Dick Armey made surprise appearances during the tea parties but maybe his comments that the defense budget would have to be dramatically reduced for the country to balance the budget may have disqualified him for further media appearances. An outlier, who has gotten media attention, is Ron Paul, who has weighed in on secession--he favors it--and investigating the Bush Administration.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
A Bad Night in Tortureland
Chris Matthews ,sympathetic to the ticking timebomb argument, pressed CIA veteran Robert Baer on whether waterboarding didn't work in such emergency cases. Three times asked, three times he refused to take the bait, saying that the tortured person would tell you anything you wanted to hear. Baer, a 21-year former covert agent, advocated a blue-ribbon Presidential Commission to investigate the issue. Senator Ensign of Nevada pressed about the Senate Armed Forces Committee report simply charged it was a Democrat report (as opposed to Democratic as is the Republican coinage for the last few years) and that it was not endorsed by any Republicans. He claimed the mention of techniques imported from North K0rea and the Chinese Communists were simply devices used by the Democrats who had a political agenda.
Bill O'Reilly had guests from the Cato Institute and Strafor on to discuss torture and asked the usual question, "Wasn't it worth it, if it saved American lives?" Neither men would take the bait either questioning the whole premise of the question. When O'Reilly mentioned the assertions of former Vice President Cheney, the Cato guest, a former Green Beret, just commented,"I would have to see how he cherry-picked the information."
Not to be upstaged by Senator Levin, the Senate Intelligence Committee forwarded to Attorney General Eric Holder information that at least ten Bush officials reviewed and approved the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002.
From the military side, General Barry McCaffrey, a four-star general who commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the Gulf War, called for an investigation of the Bush White House. His views were echoed recently by General Taquba, who has detailed the abuse of detainees by the United States, and called for an investigation. It seems General Baccus had been removed early on as superintendent for Gitmo because of his resistance to the new manner of interrogation.
Making a television blitz from Al Jezeera to MSNBC was former Brig. General Janis Karpinski, who had been removed from her command ,which included Abu Ghraib. She told MSNBC that it was now clear that the interrogation techniques that were imposed on Abu Ghraib came from General Miller and the Tiger Team of 24 persons who flew from Gitmo to Abu Ghrain to tighten up control over detainees. Karpinski said that the so-called "bad apples", the 7 soldiers court-martialled for the Abu Ghraib photos had been given orders by contractors to abuse detainees as they did. In the Senate Report, Col. Woods ,who took charge of interrogators in Abu Ghraib, claimed that she saw power point slides prepared on techniques approved by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Gen. Karpinski said that "9-11 gave America an excuse to do all these things." She argued that since the Iraq War had an international coalition that an international tribunal be constituted to investigate these accusations, a position sure to win the hearts and minds of the Republicans.
Senators McCain, Lieberman and Graham sent an open letter to President Obama urging him not to prosecute the authors of the torture memos, arguing that this would criminalize differences of opinions, a recent position taken by Yoo, one of the prime authors. Former Florida Senator Bob Graham urged for an investigation and prosecution of Bush Administration officials.
Torture enthusiasts pointed out that the water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded information that prevented the bombing of the Library Tower in Los Angeles. This was trumpeted by Fox News and sundry conservative commenators--except there is a problem. He was apprehended after the Bush Administration claimed they had thwarted the second wave of bombings from Asia that included the Library Tower. Tomorrow may yield more aborted plots. But overall, a long day for fans of Dick Cheney.
Bill O'Reilly had guests from the Cato Institute and Strafor on to discuss torture and asked the usual question, "Wasn't it worth it, if it saved American lives?" Neither men would take the bait either questioning the whole premise of the question. When O'Reilly mentioned the assertions of former Vice President Cheney, the Cato guest, a former Green Beret, just commented,"I would have to see how he cherry-picked the information."
Not to be upstaged by Senator Levin, the Senate Intelligence Committee forwarded to Attorney General Eric Holder information that at least ten Bush officials reviewed and approved the CIA's harsh interrogation techniques in the summer of 2002.
From the military side, General Barry McCaffrey, a four-star general who commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the Gulf War, called for an investigation of the Bush White House. His views were echoed recently by General Taquba, who has detailed the abuse of detainees by the United States, and called for an investigation. It seems General Baccus had been removed early on as superintendent for Gitmo because of his resistance to the new manner of interrogation.
Making a television blitz from Al Jezeera to MSNBC was former Brig. General Janis Karpinski, who had been removed from her command ,which included Abu Ghraib. She told MSNBC that it was now clear that the interrogation techniques that were imposed on Abu Ghraib came from General Miller and the Tiger Team of 24 persons who flew from Gitmo to Abu Ghrain to tighten up control over detainees. Karpinski said that the so-called "bad apples", the 7 soldiers court-martialled for the Abu Ghraib photos had been given orders by contractors to abuse detainees as they did. In the Senate Report, Col. Woods ,who took charge of interrogators in Abu Ghraib, claimed that she saw power point slides prepared on techniques approved by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Gen. Karpinski said that "9-11 gave America an excuse to do all these things." She argued that since the Iraq War had an international coalition that an international tribunal be constituted to investigate these accusations, a position sure to win the hearts and minds of the Republicans.
Senators McCain, Lieberman and Graham sent an open letter to President Obama urging him not to prosecute the authors of the torture memos, arguing that this would criminalize differences of opinions, a recent position taken by Yoo, one of the prime authors. Former Florida Senator Bob Graham urged for an investigation and prosecution of Bush Administration officials.
Torture enthusiasts pointed out that the water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed yielded information that prevented the bombing of the Library Tower in Los Angeles. This was trumpeted by Fox News and sundry conservative commenators--except there is a problem. He was apprehended after the Bush Administration claimed they had thwarted the second wave of bombings from Asia that included the Library Tower. Tomorrow may yield more aborted plots. But overall, a long day for fans of Dick Cheney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)