The Torture Memos, Obama and the Banality of Evil

Even as President Obama acted in the name of transparency and accountabilty in releasing the Bush administration's OLC's torture memos, he made assurances that the CIA agents who used the "enhanced interrogation techniques" meticulously detailed within would not be subject to criminal prosecution. Glenn Greenwald at Salon, Jeremy Scahill on his blog, David Bromwich at Huffington Post and Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic all have good takes on why Obama's decision is wrong. I concur. However politically expedient, Obama's nearly carte blanche absolution of torture was morally wrong, and his justification of it, from a professor of constitutional law, is intellectually dishonest.

Obama's rationalizations were artfully made to the point of being obfuscatory, but they can be boiled down to three points:

1) The strategic issue of national security. "The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world...We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs."

2) The legal-ethical issue of obedience. The CIA agents were only carrying out "their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice."

3) The political issue of national unity and progress. "This is a time for reflection, not retribution...at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

The easiest to dismiss of these is the issue of national security. As Bromwich points out, the matter of protecting individual CIA agent's identities is "a calculated distortion." Any agent publicly named and prosecuted for torture would, of course, be removed from duty. Their identities no longer need to be protected as a matter of national security because they would no longer be in the business of national security.

As for the question of whether or not prosecutions would undermine intelligence agents' "confidence that they can do their jobs," I agree with Obama here. Prosecutions absolutely would undermine the CIA's confidence, and that is a good thing. No public official, least of all intelligence agents who already operate under cover of secrecy, should be wholly confident of the legality and morality of their actions. To guarantee such confidence would be to guarantee absolute impunity. Indeed, this necessary lack of confidence is precisely why the OLC memos exist in the first place, because interrogators were seeking advice about the legality of certain interrogation techniques. So the question is not whether or not prosecution would undermine the CIA's confidence, but rather a) how much so? and b) from what source is their confidence derived?

This brings us to the question of obedience. Obama's argument here is gravely disturbing. He asserts, in essence, that because the OLC says it is right, it is--that CIA agents should have absolute confidence in anything and everything approved by the OLC and/or ordered by the executive branch. Besides the shades of Nixon and Bush II, there are two things wrong with this assertion. First is the sweeping authority given to the OLC to determine wholly, by interpretation and in secrecy, the legality of actions that were known then to have been violations of multiple international and national laws. If the OLC determined tomorrow that rape was an appropriate interrogation technique, should CIA agents behave with confidence that they are acting within legal and moral bounds? I have a hard time believing that Obama, or anyone in his administration, thinks so.

Then there is the matter of culpability and deference to authority. Even if every single national and international law approved of the interrogation techniques used by the CIA, would they be just? Hannah Arendt wrestles famously with a similar question in Eichmann in Jerusalem. Eichmann claimed, as a CIA agent on trial might, that he was merely doing his duty, that he "not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law." Arendt, of course, found Eichmann both banal in his evil and culpable. Perhaps more to the point, she argued that the culpability of countless others (what others did or might have done) did not in any way mitigate Eichmann's guilt.

The same is true in the case of torture (although needless to say on a vastly different scale and context). Of course, higher-ups who ordered and sanctioned torture should be prosecuted as well, including the authors of the OLC memos. But that does not mean that the actual interrogators should be let off the hook en masse. Whether or not CIA interrogators should have refused orders or should have known that such orders were legally or morally wrong is a matter to be determined in trial, a matter of justice. It is not a question that can be swept away by the claim that they were just doing their jobs, that they were just being obedient subjects.

Because in the final analysis, it is highly likely that the CIA agents were just doing their jobs. And that those jobs were, in fact, criminal in nature. This brings me to Obama's last argument, that in essence we need to forget the past and move forward for the good of the country. The substitution here of the political necessity of unity for the constitutional and moral imperative of justice is Bushian to say the least. But perhaps what is most troubling is that our new President would calculatedly deploy his public goodwill to effect a kind of national amnesia in which actions he himself and his attorney general have called illegal and wrong are forgotten in the name of progress. Of course, I can see why he would do so, as a matter of political expediency. But political expediency is not justice.

Of Eichmann's crimes, Arendt wrote, "they were and could only be committed under a criminal law by a criminal state." That may also be the case with torture under the Bush administration. We owe it to ourselves to find out and that can not happen if we meekly follow Obama's request to forgive and forget.

Comments (225)

1. This thread was to be expected and will end up providing a large amount of leftist rantings.

   Obama got it half right with his decision not to prosecute agents. He got it wrong as former CIA Director Hayden said by revealing to our enemies, tactics used to confront enemies.

   This may in fact be the first step in a potential charge of treason against Obama and Holder for giving aid and comfort to our enemies. There is no chance of this with the leftist Democrat Congress currently in place. But the politcal pendelum swings both ways in this country and hopefully it will happen soon enough in the future for a Republican Senate to investigate Obama and Holder for possible treason charges.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 2:09pm

2. This may in fact be the first step in a potential charge of treason against Obama and Holder for giving aid and comfort to our enemies.---Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 2:09pm

   Ahhhhh....been waiting for that. With the change in political parties in the White House...

   Larry is now "John Nichols", always dreaming of impeachment for years to come!

   LOL@the irony. Maybe, Larry, there is a G-d and he has a HELLUVA sense of humor!

   Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 2:33pm

3. Obamanation is a master of the science of coercion. Through the use of his speeches and propaganda, he is able to bend the will of ordinary people into submission and create an obedient army ready to carry out his orders, no matter how absurd they might be. Obamanations formula for coercion of a group of people is very simple.

   1. Keep the dogma simple. Make only 1 or 2 points.

   2. Be forthright and powerfully direct. Speak only in the telling or ordering mode.

   3. As much as possible, reduce concepts down into stereotypes which are black and white.

   4. Speak to people's emotions and stir them constantly.

   5. Use lots of repetition; repeat your points over and over again.

   6. Forget literary beauty, scientific reasoning, balance, or novelty.

   7. Focus solely on convincing people and creating zealots.

   8. Find slogans which can be used to drive the movement forward.

   It is pretty clear that Obamanation is ANOTHER study and follower of Gustave Le Bon amd his "Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War"

   He and his "henchmen" have made it abundantly clear in the last few weeks that even further steps will be taken to alienate, convict without due process, and possibly punish by "uncertain means" rightwing groups, former veterens, abortion protesters, and anyone else puestioning or critical of his governence of this nation.

   Yea, there is something VERY familiar about the Obamanation that makes desolation Presidency! What was that book that laid it all out, oh yea, "Mein Kamph"!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/17/2009 @ 2:41pm

4. "Even as President Obama acted in the name of transparency and accountabilty in releasing the Bush administration's OLC's torture memos,"

   Now isn't that kinda queer? I thought the transparency and accountability was what the Obamanation that makes desolation President PROMISED about HIS administration? Why hasn't he and the Demoncrat congress made good on that one? Was he really just talking about using the Bush administration as a DEVERSION for his failing presidency!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 04/17/2009 @ 2:45pm

5. commancheamerican-You did a good job of describing the vast majority of politicians, on both sides.The funny thing about you partisan sore losers, on both sides, is that you all say the same things and you start to put down the next president before they,actually,do anything which makes all the predictions of doom rather meaningless.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 04/17/2009 @ 2:48pm

6. Why aren't the all Klieg lights from around the country shinning on Arundhati Roy and Jeremiah Wright? Seems to me that the tepid response we are getting from our courageous media, that Gov. Blagojevitch has it right " The fix is in". Does forward looking mean that past crimes don't exist? We have to go back and remake the movie "Nuremberg Trials". W0w what a message we leave the kids, this is a brand new day.

   Posted by pierrelenfant at 04/17/2009 @ 2:50pm

7. The decision not to prosecute was, I think, clearly correct, if only for practical reasons. Anyone trying to prosecute these guys runs into a number of problems:

   1) Authorization from OLC. Contra Kim, this is actually not as easy an issue for an analyst on the ground as he asserts, particularly given the fact that treaties DON'T trump inherent executive power (which doesn't apply to this case, but makes it murky for people on the ground).

   2) Evidence. This is a HUGE problem because the government would strongly prefer NOT to have to disclose classified evidence during the course of the trial.

   3) Distraction (which is a HUGE issue when you're trying to stabilize an economy)

   And 4, which is a whopper:

   3) Jury nullification. This is actually a very, very significant fear. Like it or not, a lot of people are very unsure about whether torture should be a forbidden line to cross. This means that a jury could very well choose not to convict these people based both on OLC authorization AND the fact that they're not sure the people were wrong to begin with.

   I think Obama nailed this one on the head. First off, the "they disclosed secret stuff...so...treason!" is a silly argument, not only because it WASN'T really SECRET but also because even if it was, the implication of treason makes no sense whatsoever. Second, I think he was right on the money in saying the US will not continue to torture. Third, for all the above reasons, I think he was also right not to prosecute the people involved.

   Posted by Thrawn at 04/17/2009 @ 3:01pm

8. Posted by Thrawn at 04/17/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   your morality fails you.

   Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2009 @ 3:06pm

9. Posted by snowball666 at 04/17/2009 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   AMEN BROTHER AMEN. I have several buddies who made it into the CIA, really. these guys tip the IQ scale at 130 and above. They are the typical 4.0 college graduates. They resigned rather than play the ticking bomb insanity after 9/11 and ride the Alberto Gonzales train wreck.

   Posted by pierrelenfant at 04/17/2009 @ 3:10pm

10. "Yea, there is something VERY familiar about the Obamanation that makes desolation Presidency! What was that book that laid it all out, oh yea, "Mein Kamph"!"----Posted by comancheamerican at 04/17/2009 @ 2:41pm

    Yet....you have no escape plan from these "Nazis"?!?!?!?!???

    Posted by Mask at 04/17/2009 @ 3:15pm

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders

    read The London Charter.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2009 @ 3:23pm

12. The real issue is the expectation that Mr. Obama would be an idealist as a president. He is clearly playing the same games that all heads of state play, though he is assuredly a great improvement over George Bush.

    Posted by syfriendly at 04/17/2009 @ 3:25pm

13. It has always boiled down to one glaring fact: 9/11.And whether another foreign government has us by the balls.

    Posted by mystic at 04/17/2009 @ 3:53pm

14. It seems that our new President is protecting, not just CIA officers, but what I imagine to be a much larger, intricate arrangement of culpable officials. Ladies and gentlemen, the actions described in so many ways and in so many places have been condoned implicitly by everyone in our executive, legislative, and judicial branches, since nothing has been done about them. Perhaps nothing ever will be done. One other thing, in all of the wasted heat in this discussion is a glaring neglect: What's worse: a limited program of torture (as repugnant and grotesque as it is) or the war our former President started in the first place, resulting in the flagrant, unconsolable losses of innocent human life in the hundreds of thousands? Maybe we're being led off track, and it's funny--in a macabre way: innocent people dying every day, while a guy gets slapped up against a wall. Characteristically, we ask the wrong questions, and become outraged by the wrong issues, and it's telling about who we are and who we've become: a toothless, facile, and weak populace, morally milky and purblind.

    Posted by debrae at 04/17/2009 @ 3:55pm

15. "carte blanche absolution of torture?" oh please, spare me.

    I read the list and it was rather comical. Using this to describe torture pretty much leaves the word with no serious meaning. They will have to come up with another term to describe truely brutal acts.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/17/2009 @ 4:06pm

16. The comanches, barrys and larrys seem to be growing more rabidly insipid by the hour. Do these people ever stop to think "hey, i might sound like a raving lunatic one bad driver away from reenacting ruby ridge if i type this drivel"? It is like the guy sporting a goddamn mullet- does he not realize the absurd circus show that is his hair, or does he just not give a damn? Either way, the utter meltdown of the far right is more entertaining than a gang teabagging. These freaks are becoming more marginalized every time they open their mouths- the only question is how much shit will they blow up before finally fading into history's eternal sunset. We can only hope their cowardice prevents any massive violence against innocent americans.

    Posted by entropy at 04/17/2009 @ 4:19pm

17. Posted by debrae at 04/17/2009 @ 3:55pm: "or the war our former President started in the first place".

    I realize public schools are lacking in teaching history but we have what we have. However if my fading memory recalls what was happening in August of 2001, it is that war was not in the picture - it was the Chandra Leavy (sp?) murder investigation and the embryonic stem cell research controversy. It was not until the sudden appearance of a big pile of rubble in lower Manhatten in early September that a war was started. We just responded.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/17/2009 @ 4:21pm

18. Has a single thing comanche typed that wasn't cut and pasted contained anything that could even remotely be considered a cogent thought? Half the time I'm not even certain that the posts are in English. Do these people have no shame? Has it become fashionable to flaunt your ignorance? Thrawn, you must be deeply embarrassed by your conservative brethren- that type of lunacy assures more rational conservatives such as yourself have many years wandering the wilderness awaiting.

    Posted by entropy at 04/17/2009 @ 4:31pm

19. "We were just following orders"

    Where have I heard that?

    Recently in regards to Milosovic.

    Fine company to keep, anti, commanche etc.

    what you are saying is that Fidel Castro would be in his rights to take Commanche to Cuba and do as he pleases with him, have Raul put a plunger up there, and let Raul off with a "He was just following orders".

    Or, if anti utters complaints against Hugo Chavez, Hugo could render anti from El Salvador, keep him indefinitely, deny him sleep for up to 7 days, allow him to undergo a procedure that "reasonable people would assume will lead to death", force feed him with a tube...

    and anti would accept that as perfectly acceptable under US law.

    cute.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/17/2009 @ 4:46pm

20. We just responded.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/17/2009 @ 4:21pm

    Pirates from Somalia are attacking ships.

    should we invade Norway to rid it of Vikings?

    should we water board 14 year old Icelanders to make you feel safe?

    that would be one response.

    I guess until you guys look in the mirror and actually see Usama, you won't get it. I don't want to be like him, or Saddam or Fidel. I want to be a better person, and I want us all to live in a better country. A country that acts not out of fear, but out of the ideals we say we are spreading.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/17/2009 @ 4:50pm

21. The reality is many people that were involved with these "techniques" have come out and said not only that they don't work, but that they are counterproductive and have actually caused American casualties. The ones that claim they work were mostly political officials or appointees or bloviators from media.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/17/2009 @ 4:54pm

22. Thanks, Kim, excellent piece.

    And Mystic, you sum it up spot on, alas.

    We the People are not our own people. We are run from elsewhere. As long as elsewhere has more say over US foreign policy than We do, we are screwed.

    Obama appears to be fully captive to elsewhere.

    Posted by sloper at 04/17/2009 @ 4:55pm

23. Torture by any euphemism, is still torture. The International Red Cross said "it's torture".

    I prefer to discuss it as a legal question without reference to morality.

    Posted by NYCartist at 04/17/2009 @ 4:58pm

24. "The easiest to dismiss of these is the issue of national security. Their identities no longer need to be protected as a matter of national security because they would no longer be in the business of national security." This takes the very parochial view that only that agent is of concern. What about all the foreigners who worked with that agent? And all those who hear about what next happened to those who worked for the CIA? Part of the immense and criminal damage that Dick Cheney and blabbing Republicans did to the intelligence services was to claim that the Plame outing was "no big deal" This dried up sources all over the world. No, it is not at all so easy to dismiss the national security issue. Intelligence requires sources, people who are willing to talk to you. This is the reason reporters go to jail rather than reveal sources.

    Posted by hhhenry at 04/17/2009 @ 5:05pm

25. What upsets me even more than the fact of, forgiveness of crime committed, is that the man who is forgiving these crimes is a constitutional scholar. We are leaving the legacy of shame for our kids and the seeds of self destruction. This is the Harvard Law School? Good place to avoid. I also notice that John Yoo is part of the Berkeley faculty. This has really become a strange country. We have become our enemies.

    Posted by julien38 at 04/17/2009 @ 5:27pm

26. Mr Kim, President Obama did NOT act "in the name of transparency" by releasing the torture memos. He was FORCED to by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information lawsuit. Obama gets no credit at all in this whole sorry escapade. Sorry!

    Posted by alanlak at 04/17/2009 @ 5:30pm

27. We're all simply being propagandized. That's all. We are the followers. They are the leaders. They matter. We don't. The rule of law means simply that we are ruled by law, as variously interpreted and applied in order to bring about desired social goals. Others (leaders) are liberated, protected, and empowered by law. The law is a tool, to be used by those in power against those who aren't.

    Obama has decided that for whatever reasons, torture is not a crime. He has also decided that the invasion of Iraq was not a crime. Killing innocent people seems like a crime, though, especially when it could be avoided.

    Obama has decided still further that if a person loses a job, through no fault of his or her own under what is referred to as these "unprecedented" economic times, and cannot meet the demands of a mortgage, his or she will be foreclosed upon, and the home will be sold at up to a 70% discount to someone else.

    There is no move to make an agreement to reduce the current "owner's" payment by, say, 70% until matters improve. Such an arrangement could be made.

    No, out on the street. It just happened, to my neighbor. Someone bought his families' home for a 70% discount. Good neighborhood. Nice home. It's a "crime." Wait, no it's not. Crimes are defined by prosecution. There's no prosecution. Actually, I believe the new 70% discounted mortgage booked as bank profit. It feels like a "crime," though. And it's a bit dispiriting.

    So, "torture," foreclosure, whatever, it's just life in America.

    My suggestion, get power and get it fast while you still can.

    Posted by debrae at 04/17/2009 @ 5:47pm

28. Doofus Comanche's list describes W. to a tee.

    Posted by erazma at 04/17/2009 @ 5:53pm

29. Ah yea....you can just feel the love of the hatemongering leftists! Sort of like dry buffalo chips with a little hereford mixed in on the campfire!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/17/2009 @ 6:42pm

30. "...particularly given the fact that treaties DON'T trump inherent executive power."

    I'd like to hear your Constitutional justification of THAT claim, "Thrawn."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/17/2009 @ 7:01pm

31. Here's some "love" for you, "commanchamerican": The eight points of propaganda strategy that you attribute to Gustave Le Bon obviously more closely characterize the practice of a US president who served BEFORE Barack Obama than that of Obama himself. Guess which president that was?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/17/2009 @ 7:03pm

32. Posted by crabwalk at 04/17/2009 @ 4:50pm:

    So basically, you are saying you would not respond to a vicious attack with anything stronger than "thank you sir, may I have another?" If so, you are basically a pacifist. Nothing personal against you but pacifism is an evil philosophy because your options are either servitude or effectively suicide unless someone else will fight for you.... Not my cup of tea. Don't bring up the tired example of Ghandi. The only reason that worked is because he was up against the British who, by the standards of the day, were civilized. They did not have the stomach to kill everyone! Had they been militant Muslims of the day, they would have gladly started decapitation procedures until no one was left, including Ghandi.

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/17/2009 @ 7:05pm

33. Doofus Comanche's list describes W. to a tee. Posted by erazma at 04/17/2009 @ 5:53pm

    It also describes him. It's amazing that he could write it without some self-realization taking place. However, he writes this stuff to get a reaction, not necessarily to make a statement.

    Just two posts above me he flings out "...you can just feel the love of the hatemongering leftists!" The hate seems to be coming from the opposite direction. You have to feel sorry for someone like that.

    Posted by ficheye at 04/17/2009 @ 7:16pm

34. "...particularly given the fact that treaties DON'T trump inherent executive power." I'd like to hear your Constitutional justification of THAT claim, "Thrawn." Posted by JakobFabian at 04/17/2009 @ 7:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I noticed that too. this from one of the more reasonable repugs.

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2009 @ 7:19pm

35. inherent executive power=king? emperor?

    remember, the emperor too was elected.

    to ignore treaties? which have the force of law? ignore the law?

    Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2009 @ 7:23pm

36. I'd like to hear your Constitutional justification of THAT claim, "Thrawn."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/17/2009 @ 7:01pm

    The Supremacy Clause, Article VI. The Constitution is the supreme law of our land and us the ultimate law, even above treaties.

    It's been affirmed repeatedly by SCOTUS

    REID V COVERT (354 US.1 1956)

    BREARD V GREENE (523 US.571 1998)

    SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V OREGON (2006)

    And several more that could be cited

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 7:48pm

37. Prosecution of underlings is debatable, but should not be amongst principals of any illegal policy. If we do not follow out the legal remedies for misconduct such as the torture policy and illegal wiretaps of the Bush Regime - notwithstanding the dereliction of the last Congress - we are asking for repeats in the future. -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

    Posted by reg373 at 04/17/2009 @ 8:29pm

38. Obama must have gotten it right--he's made everybody mad.

    Posted by dfgrayb at 04/17/2009 @ 8:39pm

39. No, Obamanation and the Demoncrats are beginning to establish an authoritarian regime like China, Burma and Cuba! Who, being so afraid of their own people that they see the greatest threat to national security as coming from within! This is the kind of "hope and change" the leftist have voted for!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/17/2009 @ 8:45pm

40. So now their is no question.

    The Bush administration engaged in illegal torture, in the name of the American people.

    So the only legal course of action now is to prosecute all those involved, from all parties, from the highest level to the lowest level politician, CIA, FBI, NSA or military citizen involved.

    And for all those who say "they don't want to look back, only forward", I have but one question.

    If your child was tortured and/or murdered by someone, would you simply let them go, proclaiming you didn't want to look back, or would you demand just trials, and if found guilty, just punishment?

    And let this be a wake up call for Obama and his administration. For in court Obama has continued to defend Bush's crimes, using Bush's same "state secrets" arguments, and Obama has even attempted to expand unconstitutional claims by asserting that under "state sovereignty" he has the right to spy on any American he wishes, even if they are not traveling or communicating outside of our nation.

    And contrary to his statements that he would end secret prisons, and the torture and murder within them, in court he has claimed the right to do so, to the shock and dismay of Amnesty International, the ACLU, and civil liberties advocates throughout our nation and the world.

    Fellow citizens, it is time for justice, for all.

    As demanded by our Constitution, the wishes of our beloved founding fathers, and in the greatest tradition of America. ST

    "I writhed in anguish for years. Always knowing pain was coming, but never knowing what I should attempt to say next, or how I should appear so that my American torturers would believe me.

    The problem was that I was innocent." SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

    Posted by SearingTruth at 04/17/2009 @ 8:50pm

41. Posted by debrae at 04/17/2009 @ 5:47pm

    Very good.

    Obama has triangulated himself into something less than, more sad, pathetic and tragic than mediocrity. It would almost be better if he had not ran at all.

    In any case he is still, being a triangulist... more open to persuasion than Palin would have been. Now the ones you speak of have to, at least, do what they do "somewhat" obliquely.

    I'll say it again, people who consider themselves "leftist" should "join" en masse the "tea parties" so as to bring a rational focus to same.

    Said rational focus being... justice, both economic and criminal. Done in a sufficiently timely manner so as to have and maintain the moral right to same.

    Clock is ticking.

    Posted by V at 04/17/2009 @ 8:51pm

42. Posted by SearingTruth at 04/17/2009 @ 8:50pm

    Unfortunately, truth seems to still elude you. You seem to believe in a country that is seperate from our constitutional republic.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 8:54pm

43. This may in fact be the first step in a potential charge of treason against Obama and Holder for giving aid and comfort to our enemies. There is no chance of this with the leftist Democrat Congress currently in place. But the politcal pendelum swings both ways in this country and hopefully it will happen soon enough in the future for a Republican Senate to investigate Obama and Holder for possible treason charges.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 2:09pm

    You sound like every leftist you derided who called Bush a traitor.

    Should we bring Bush to charges for having aided that Taliban AND Iran in getting a foothold in Iraq and Pakistan?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2009 @ 10:16pm

44. BLOOD!

    DEATH!

    WAR!

    VIOLENCE!

    SATAN!

    Posted by antisocialist everyday, everytime

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/18/2009 @ 01:02am

45. Shattered swords

    cognitive dissonance

    words lie broken on the frozen anvil

    of the night,

    starlings and bats

    swoop ever closer to the earth,

    as the sun attempts to rise

    above the fray.

    Posted by ficheye at 04/18/2009 @ 05:23am

46. What would happen to criminal cases where suspects were interogated with face slapping and similar acts???

    Posted by 5shot at 04/18/2009 @ 06:28am

47. It also describes him. It's amazing that he could write it without some self-realization taking place. However, he writes this stuff to get a reaction, not necessarily to make a statement.

    Just two posts above me he flings out "...you can just feel the love of the hatemongering leftists!" The hate seems to be coming from the opposite direction. You have to feel sorry for someone like that.

    Posted by ficheye at 04/17/2009 @ 7:16pm

    agreed...pathetic really.

    Posted by erazma at 04/18/2009 @ 07:36am

48. Posted by pyeatte at 04/17/2009 @ 7:05pm

    i don't know how to describe it much better. There is a difference between acting coherently and acting out of a desire to act for actions sake. invading Iraq had zilch to do with 9/11. It cost American lives, did nothing to remove actual threats to the US, will cost more than the bailouts the "right" is so upset about, has yet to produce a stable government, yet alone a democracy in the Middle East, killed upwards of 700,000 Iraqis and led to the ethnic cleansing of most of the country.

    As I asked, would you attack Norway to rid it of Vikings because Pirates in Somalia attacked one US ship?

    I am no pacifist, though I use that as a goal.

    run rather than hurt

    hurt rather than maim

    maim rather than kill

    kill rather than be killed.

    If I find you in my home at night uninvited, I will kill you dead. I will not wander around your neighborhood killing kids till I "feel" safe in case you might come into my home.

    Your philosophy seems to be:

    kill first, then ask questions of anybody still standing using torture , assume everyone is a terrorist.

    "The only reason that worked is because he was up against the British who, by the standards of the day, were civilized."

    I don't think you know the British of the period, and before. They were cruel, brutish and they made many lives short.

    "teach your subordinates that we are all British gentlemen engaged in the magnificent work of governing an inferior race". -General Mayo

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:18am

49. Why don't you folks put comanche where he belongs, on the ignore pile?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:25am

50. But the politcal pendelum swings both ways in this country and hopefully it will happen soon enough in the future for a Republican Senate to investigate Obama and Holder for possible treason charges.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 2:09pm

    i assume you are joking, right?

    If not, zowie! Talk about extremism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:27am

51. he was born in miller's mansion when the mistress was asleep the secret son of the chambermaid and master and they sent him into hidin for his schoolin and his keep with the carlysles and the other lucky bastards

    now his toady tutors fawn and praise the man that he's become though he's taken to the laudenum and faro he walks the streets like velvet death with his daddy's money on his breath and a shame he cannot shake down in his marrow

    when day fades to black you must not listen to the killer pretty voices keep you beautiful and bound cause the simple, sorry fact of your existence, preston miller is enough to bring this house of evil down

    one night upon some drunken dare he writes his absent sire sayin father i would fain come home to meet thee and though his worthless friends guffaw this sudden show of fire another round of bourbon and it's easy

    and this letter finds his father in his tower far away and the hoary claw that holds it shakes and trembles is it grief over a life misspent, or love or greed or mere contempt or something darker stirring in his temples

    when day fades to black you must not listen to the killer pretty voices keep you beautiful and bound cause the simple, sorry fact of your existence, preston miller is enough to bring this house of evil down

    a week gone by, he's wakened by a knockin at his door and he drags himself half-wasted to the threshold it's a message in his father's quill sayin meet me scion, if you will, at the very stroke of midnight in the meadow

    Posted by OneVote at 04/18/2009 @ 09:06am

52. now he has combed his laggard locks and hired a comely roan and he's met his comrade fops around the fountain and he's bidden each a grand goodbye and he's cantered off alone to meet his aged father in the mountains

    when day fades to black you must not listen to the killer pretty voices keep you beautiful and bound cause the simple, sorry fact of your existence, preston miller is enough to bring this house of evil down

    oh father dear come out come out i honor thee tonight he shouts as he goes weavin in the saddle and he sees the stars go blinkin by like the twinkle in a trollop's eye and six riders riding madly in the shadows

    this mornin sailed a ship of fools across a sea of gin with a blind and grinning reaper at the tiller and it drove an aging jacob to his lone and bitter end and a bullet through the brain of preston miller

    "Preston Miller" by Tracy Grammer

    Posted by OneVote at 04/18/2009 @ 09:09am

53. You sound like every leftist you derided who called Bush a traitor.

    Should we bring Bush to charges for having aided that Taliban AND Iran in getting a foothold in Iraq and Pakistan?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/17/2009 @ 10:16pm

    Can you cite when Bush ordered the release of classified information on our techniques, strategies, or methods of defeating the enemy?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 11:05am

54. Two things: The people who participated in torture know what thay have done, regardless of anyone's definition of what constitutes torture. They themselves will suffer the post-traumatic psychological effects of having participated (willingly or not) in the degradation of another's humanity. Let that be their punishment. Secondly: As my father was fond of saying, "The wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine." Eventually, these matters will be aired out and dealt with. Don't expect it to happen in Obama's first 100 days. He already has his hands full trying to avoid total economic collapse and repairing our sullied reputation abroad. For the record, I am opposed to the use of torture and human degradation to achieve our ends. There has to be a better way.

    Posted by Merckx61 at 04/18/2009 @ 11:34am

55. We walk ourselves down the path of plutocracy where only the monied and the powerful matter and we are fodder for their canons. We shudder through cold winters and starve in long lines at soup kitchens only to arrive at the counter to discover, nothing left. Is this the country our fathers and mothers settled and sweat and bled for? Why are we continuously encouraged by the idiots in pulpits to breath and reproduce, only to see our progeny go hungry,want and be used in wars we did not want or create?

    Posted by julien38 at 04/18/2009 @ 12:06pm

56. Why don't you folks put comanche where he belongs, on the ignore pile? Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:25am

    Sometimes it's fun to read his unbelievable point of view. Adds a little color to the blogoshere.

    What I like about his posts is that he's developed a whole nomenclature all his own to describe his hate and derision for the current administration. You have to give him credit for being a creative hater.

    Posted by ficheye at 04/18/2009 @ 12:21pm

57. Why are we continuously encouraged by the idiots in pulpits to breath and reproduce, only to see our progeny go hungry,want and be used in wars we did not want or create?

    Posted by julien38 at 04/18/2009 @ 12:06pm

    No one is forcing you to breathe.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 12:38pm

58. You mean I should be more admirable of and praise President Obamanation for embracing Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and all his new Cuban friends? He sure knows how to keep good company! I can see him now at home all cuddled up in the Oval office just pouring through "The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Eduardo Galeano which Chavez gave him!

    Oh yea, that is the kind of President Americans can admire and aspire to be! I'm sure he rendered our deepest apologies for not buying enough of their drugs, supplying enough weapons and fully supporting their murderous dictatorships like such patriots of the left wish us to do!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/18/2009 @ 12:39pm

59. fully supporting their murderous dictatorships like such patriots of the left wish us to do! Posted by comancheamerican at 04/18/2009 @ 12:39pm

    No, no... by all means continue to be all that you can be. As I mentioned, I enjoy your posts. I would never put you on ignore.

    Posted by ficheye at 04/18/2009 @ 12:53pm

60. Posted by crabwalk at 04/18/2009 @ 08:18am:

    "I don't think you know the British of the period, and before. They were cruel, brutish and they made many lives short."

    Of course they were by todays standards but back then the world was cruel, brutish and life was short.

    I will not bother arguing about Iraq and the pacifism issue because our differences are irreconcilable and it would just end up a shouting match. :)

    Posted by pyeatte at 04/18/2009 @ 1:03pm

61. cognitive dissonance.

    Posted by ficheye at 04/18/2009 @ 1:17pm

62. I would like to point out that the general tone of insults to and from the people smart enough, and privileged enough to be able to read, write, and "discuss" these extremely important matters regarding the state of our nation, are not an encouraging insight into any type of alternative to the divide and rule that we see being enacted by the fearmongers of the past and the present!

    It is clear that to think that there could actually be some form of intelligent conversation than a hyped-up, politicised, mud-tossing between the blog participants is folly. No wonder the people who do, continue to do, in complete disregard of the people who rant!

    Posted by blaggoobitzch at 04/18/2009 @ 1:22pm

63. Citizens are subject frequently to law enforcement actions, which are similar to those described in the memos. Citizens can be tasered, hit, beaten, sprayed with chemicals, threatened, or even killed, all with little provocation. Often times, few questions are asked. It is quite difficult to obtain redress. Mostly the population yawns, or imagines the "miscreant" deserved it somehow. Police simply don't beat up compliant, run-of-the-mill citizens.

    Posted by debrae at 04/18/2009 @ 1:25pm

64. "Can you cite when Bush ordered the release of classified information on our techniques, strategies, or methods of defeating the enemy?"

    this is precisely why they call it 'tortured logic.' if our techniques are illegal, under four treaties which the united states has not only signed but also used to justify the prosecution of charles taylor (liberia), then obama must prosecute the officials who ordered the techniques. if obama doesn't prosecute these officials, then he is in violation of international law.

    if you believe that these four international treaties don't apply to the united states, then certainly you support the immediate release of charles taylor, as well as other persons who broke said treaties, and who we prosecuted (@ nuremberg, etc).

    if you believe that waterboarding isn't illegal, well then, you have no legal footing whatsoever.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 2:10pm

65. " I think he was also right not to prosecute the people involved."

    thrawn, then obama is in violation of the laws onto which we signed.

    if you believe those laws aren't valid, then you really don't believe in The Law at all.

    you believe in politically convenient exceptions. which is precisely what obama is doing.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 2:12pm

66. "This may in fact be the first step in a potential charge of treason against Obama and Holder for giving aid and comfort to our enemies."

    it is precisely this sort of warped mentality which has destroyed this country and its laws.

    so obama revealed what was essentially an illegal and secret torture program.

    and yet obama is the one who is treasonous?

    that's the most f*cked up, stupid thing i've heard all week from our colleagues on the right.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 2:15pm

67. Here in New York, home of many neocons who are proud they committed treason during the Bush administration, remain cocky and defiant,and support another foreign government above their own. I should know: Some of my so-called friends here are neocons. They love war, don't give a s* for the poor, disabled and other minorities, are only interested in the swift return of their stock market profits,and are now proclaiming that we should not prosecute war crimes including torture "FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY". That was the same excuse not to have Nuremberg trials given by the families of the Nazis and other "Good Germans" when WWII ended, for the "good of the country". Look to Copenhagen University people.

    Posted by mystic at 04/18/2009 @ 2:49pm

68. At least if you count the one's we've decided to support in the past even though they're currently no longer on good WMD-buying terms. Posted by snowball666 at 04/18/2009 @ 1:54pm

    I've got a great collection of marbles here at home - all courtesy of comancheamerican.

    He doesn't seem to want them back.

    It's hard to get a straight answer from some of the 'rightists' about just who George Bush is, and Dick Cheney either. They don't seem to have existed at all.

    Posted by ficheye at 04/18/2009 @ 3:25pm

69. "Police simply don't beat up compliant, run-of-the-mill citizens."

    Posted by debrae at 04/18/2009 @ 1:25pm

    You cannot be serious. Wait a minute, yes you are. You must be white and very naive too. Does the names Amidu Diallo, Abner Louima, Sean Bell ring a bell to you? Of course not?

    One was shot 46 times after complying with the NY police to show his hands and identification. (BTW he wasn't the suspect they were looking for)

    Another one had a broomstick handle shoved up his ass so hard that it perferrated his bladder.

    And the other was shot 50 times on his wedding day after celebrating his bachelor party with his brother and cousin, who were also shoot several times. They lived.

    All of them were Black men, who happend to be unarmed, compliant and non-threatening.

    Mind you all this happened in racist liberal New York, now imagine every state that has a large African and Latino American population?

    NOTE: The cops who murdered Diallo and Bell were acquitted and the only reason the cops in the Louima case went to prison was because he survived and could idenfify his attackers.

    So don't sit here and say what the cops "won't do" because that statement doesn't apply to everyone.

    Posted by ACook at 04/18/2009 @ 3:52pm

70. <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 04/17/2009 @ 7:01pm </i>

    Very close to antisocialist's argument, actually. The underlying argument is very simple: in our scheme of government, the Constitution can be altered only by specified amendment processes. Nothing else can do that, not a treaty, not anything. That means that no treaty can alter the separation of powers scheme specified in the Constitution. That, in turn, means that if a branch of government is allocated a specific power, no treaty can surrender that power.

    One important caveat: I don't think any inherent executive power is implicated in this situation. I was making a more overarching point.

    <i>Posted by emile duBois at 04/17/2009 @ 3:06pm </i>

    This isn't a response. I understand what someone else said, that expediency was an excuse when it came to Nuremburg. What I don't think people seem to get is that this decision is incredibly different from Nuremburg. Putting asside for the moment the lack of any current Holocaust/gigantic war that could be explained only by territorial aggression and lust for power, there are some really good policy reasons why prosecution would be terrible. Most of them I made.

    The jury nullification is an especially huge deal because it is a substantial threat. Why is this a problem? Because you know what's worse than these people not getting prosecuted? These people getting prosecuted and then LET OFF. The message that sends is far, far worse than failing to prosecute. One, it means you can NEVER punish them (because double jeopardy would be implicated), PLUS CIVIL claims against them might be harder. Two, it's a form of vindication for their actions that failing to prosecute simply doesn't supply.

    And Darla...under what rule is prosecution mandatory?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 4:10pm

71. Also, let me follow up. I think two points are really important:

    1) I think that what these people did was clearly wrong. As I've said before, I remain an avid opponent of torture.

    2) I also think that the choice these people made was incredibly difficult. Basically, they're told that there are actions they can take which not only defy a crystal-clear brighline, but are also completely legal and could save thousands of American lives. And by the way, it's not as though this was a pretext; I am willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people doing this believed that what they were doing was a necessary and legal evil. Their acts deserve condemnation, but I'm not sure they deserve life in prison.

    One other interesting question: assuming that torture actually did work, and that Jack Bauer were actually real, should Bauer be put in prison for life? Maybe he should, but the fact that we even have to hesitate should illustrate why jury nullification is a huge concern.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 4:14pm

72. thrawn,

    read the convention against torture: it's quite clear:

    "Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law (Article 4) . . . . The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution."

    and it continues....

    "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . . An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

    if you feel that the CAT is invalid, then please say so.

    if you don't, then (obviously) the united states is legally obligated to prosecute.

    if you feel that waterboarding isn't torture, well i have no reason to continue this discussion.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 4:19pm

73. "Basically, they're told that there are actions they can take which not only defy a crystal-clear brighline, but are also completely legal and could save thousands of American lives. And by the way, it's not as though this was a pretext; I am willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people doing this believed that what they were doing was a necessary and legal evil."

    every single one of these justifications is invalid.

    if A is illegal, and you commit A, then you should suffer the consequences. there are no exceptions.

    and if there ARE exceptions, well then, what is the ENTIRE POINT OF SIGNING TREATIES INTO LAW?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 4:22pm

74. key phrase in thrawn-ian logic:

    "I am willing to bet "

    but you're not exactly sure.

    and if you're not exactly sure, then shouldn't you.....

    INVESTIGATE?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 4:23pm

75. problems become even more obvious and prevalent in thrawn-ian logic:

    "assuming that torture actually did work, and that Jack Bauer were actually real, should Bauer be put in prison for life? "

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 4:24pm

76. The logic underlying law enforcement rights to harm citizens needs to be confronted. A protestor, or a group of protestors, occupy a street with tents during the G20. Riot police forcibly remove them. Message: violence toward human beings is acceptable as balanced against minor disruption of traffic. The accidental daily disruption of traffic via traffic jams, due to poor city planning, doesn't result in the abuse of city planners, thankfully. The equation is odd, though. One we seem to accept readily: violence toward citizens is okay under such circumstances. One could easily imagine police standing by, negotiating, pleasantly and reasonably attempting to get protesters into a less disruptive position. Silly? Not really. Since, if law enforcement acted this way, we'd probably be in a different society where disruptive protests would be both less necessary and likely. Still, the message of law enforcement is similar to the message allegedly sent to Zubaydah: the goal was to "dislodge his expectation" that he would not be harmed by his captures. Similarly, the goal of law enforcement toward the average citizen is that if one is disruptive, one can and possibly will be humiliated, threatened, and physically harmed. Not much progress over Imperial Briton. If you take Vidal or Chomsky seriously, we're the New Rome. I don't see a Jesus figure on the scene, though.

    Posted by debrae at 04/18/2009 @ 4:33pm

77. I always read "Thrawn's" writing with astonishment, because it's so often so diametrically opposed to mine.

    While "Thrawn" argues that the president should have the right to break treaties all by himself and frets that juries have the power to pardon criminals by nullification, I believe, exactly to the contrary, that the president does NOT have the right to break the law, but that if he does, the Congress - or perhaps, at some later date, a jury - DOES have the right to pardon him.

    This is my solution to the astronomically unlikely "Jack Bauer" problem, namely that it MAY happen that torture (by freak accident) uncovers a valuable truth that saves countless lives. If this were to happen (like a flurry of wingèd pigs taking flight), I'm sure that there would be not a single jury in the land that would not eagerly acquit Jack Bauer, because he would be celebrated as a hero.

    However, in the much more likely event that Jack Bauer tortures somebody and gains no valuable information at all, I say, and the law should say (and I believe DOES say), that he is a criminal and should be punished.

    For evidence supporting my claim that torture is "astronomically unlikely" to work, google "witch trials" and see what you get.

    For the record, I don't really want either presidents or juries to break the law. However, I prefer the law-breaking power of jury nullification strongly over the law-breaking power of the unitary presidency (German: das Führerprinzip), because one head alone is much more likely to go insane than twelve heads together. Moreover, jury nullification is a power that is restricted to pardon, whereas the powers of the president extend to many much more damaging areas (particularly in the event of insanity), such as waging war.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 4:44pm

78. The "supremacy clause" argument can also be dismissed rather quickly and easily. A president cannot justify torture using the argument that the Constitution supersedes all treaties, because the Constitution does not permit the president to torture. Indeed, much to the contrary, the Constitution states:

    "AMENDMENT VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

    Note how UNRESTRICTED this sentence is. It makes no difference whether the sufferer of cruel and unusual punishment is a citizen or a noncitizen. Nor does it make any difference who does the torturing. Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited in and of itself.

    Any justification of torture that gets around the Eighth Amendment must be tortuous, indeed.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 4:52pm

79. Loyalty to the Commander is built into military training. What better example than that of Colin Powell. To punish those who are obeying orders is unfair if the givers of the orders are not also punished. My reading of the statement from President Obama does not exonerate the signers of the order. The constant criticism of the President's actions from his own party do not help us reform this system-and reformation will not occur swiftly and easily. Perhaps while we point out our disappointments we might also acknowledge that we have a leader who is following the agenda that he was elected to follow. Joyce Coleman

    Posted by joyce72 at 04/18/2009 @ 5:10pm

80. hey antisocialist, nice logic of empire

    Posted by neaguy at 04/18/2009 @ 5:23pm

81. Posted by Thrawn at 04/17/2009 @ 3:01pm

    I may be way out in left center field on this, but I don't ever think torture will leave the CIA handbook....anytime.

    The stupidity of the Bush administration in trying to actually justify torture via semi-legal jargon put forth by a bunch of crony hack attorneys was the major damage done.

    Every country on the face of the earth is responsible for torturing enemies of the state, but not many are dumb enough to come out publicly and say they did it.

    Personally, I think torture is wrong and shouldn't be practiced, but in reality I know it will never go away.

    The most amazing thing out of all of this was the stupidity of the Bush administration being directly involved in the chain of command with this. Evidently, no one wanted to take responsibility for this and figured it would come back on them in the lower chain of command and therefore required a higher level OK.

    At present, since this can of worms has already been opened, I don't think the lid can be closed. It's out there for everyone on the planet to see. If Obama would be guilty of anything, it would be covering up an illegal activity ordered by the Bush administration.

    This whole scenario puts Obama in a bad position, but either he is going to be a president who follows the rule of law and does uncomfortable things, or he'll look the other way and possibly get re-elected. This whole thing is a no win scenario for him....and the Bush administration.

    This is the direct result of stupid rash decisions being made in the heat of the moment without any thinking of the ramifications of the fallout those decisions might bring.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/18/2009 @ 5:32pm

82. Posted by antisocialist at 04/17/2009 @ 7:48pm

    First, you seem to imply that treaties have no legal force in this country and are thus meaningless. Article VI does NOT state that "The Constitution is the supreme law of our land and us (sic) the ultimate law, even above treaties." The Supremacy Clause states that "all Treaties made" are "the supreme Law of the Land." (U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2).

    Second, no SCOTUS case has ever supported the proposition that "treaties DON'T trump inherent executive power." The cases you cited generally support your position that the Constitution supersedes treaties. However, these cases don't have anything to do with "inherent executive power." In fact, there is, and always has been, disagreement as to whether there is such a thing as "inherent executive power."

    Posted by RMT at 04/18/2009 @ 5:46pm

83. <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 4:44pm </i>

    OK, so here's the thing: if Jack Bauer actually found good information, and were thus likely to be acquitted, no US attorney would ever want to prosecute him and they'be right not to.

    Moreover, it's not a question of one lawbreaking authority versus another. It's a question of whether, given a substantial risk that should be awful to anyone contemplating trial, that trial should nonetheless be obligated.

    <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 4:52pm </i>

    This one is pretty easy, actually; torture is generally not punishment. What do I mean by this? Punishment is the state's sanction assigned as a direct response to one's commission of a crime. Torture is almost never used for punitive purposes; instead, it's almost always used for informational purposes against someone who has not been convicted to begin with. Therefore, though the act is still bad, there is no Eighth Amendment violation in play.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 5:49pm

84. Obama will not have a pristine career.. he likely has already been part of things that are illegal or immoral.. so if I were him, I would not be so quick to be pointing out the bad deeds of others. It may come back to haunt him.

    Not to mention he is endangering our undercover operatives by being so open... how will they effectively be able to interrogate someone when that person knows thier hands are tied.

    Obama does not think things through I am afraid.

    I do not condone torture.. but we should at least have had the cover of our enmies thinking we would do what ever it takes to gain information.. now they know we will not. Perhaps we will leave all the undercover interrogation to the president!

    Posted by dhaneshaney at 04/18/2009 @ 5:52pm

85. well, if antisocialist actually READ the convention against torture, he would read that "no state party's" constitution supercedes the CAT.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 5:54pm

86. The thing to remember is that antisocialist's history is generally incomplete and his cites don't actually support his opinion.

    The gravamen of Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon was that, since the Vienna Convention didn't specify any mandatory enforcement measures, it could not be taken as a basis for applying the exclusionary rule for its violation.

    Breard v. Greene (523 US.571, 1998) held that the petitioner's failure to raise his Vienna Convention claims in state court constituted a procedural default that debarred him from raising them in a habeas provision. The basis for this was 1) the Vienna Convention didn't speak to implementation and 2) an Act of Congress required him to raise his treaty violation claims in state court or lose his ability to raise them in a habeas petition.

    Reid v. Covert (354 U.S. 1, 1957) dealt with the applicability of Constitutional protections to US citizens who were abroad. It held that the Fifth and Sixth amendments did apply to two civilian military dependents who had been stationed with their husbands on overseas bases. It also held that the Constitution does trump treaties but there is nothing in it regarding your over-expansive definition of inherent executive authority.

    In Reid, the issue was an executive agreement vs. rights explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. The denial to the defendants of their rights to a trial-by-jury instead of a court-martial violated the Constitution--a bar on torture doesn't.

    As to "revealing" the use of torture somehow being "aid and comfort", that's just his rabid McCarthyism causing froth to dribble from his mouth.

    Posted by brunowe at 04/18/2009 @ 6:09pm

87. DEMOCRACY BRINGS RISK -- DICTATORSHIP FREE OF RISK

    Those with a dictator mantality love a police state, as all opposition is forbidden and deady force awaits those who in anyway break the peace. The safest and most peaceful form of government, if one enjoys being a slave to the next man more intelligent.

    Whereas a democracy involves a class strugle between those with wealth and economical power, and those who organize in opposition.

    Take 9-11 for example, which was a direct attack against the rich and powerful who owned the World Trade Center. For we are a Republic, which is a dictatorship that places the safety of those with wealth and power above basic human rights.

    For if we were a dictatorship, we would have stopped trying to enslave weaker nations, and worked extra hard to protect the rights of all.

    Take all those here who favor torture, gutless wonders surely and lovers of peace more then democracy.

    Posted by Alabama.John at 04/18/2009 @ 6:29pm

88. Obama torture -- A stench in the nostrils of any man with integrity

    Kill an honest man and he dies with dignity and honor, but torture one so noble and you torture yourself, and create such an ungodly enigma within yourself that it makes you unfit to associate with the human race.

    For President Obama in trying to cover-up this war crime, has in the process done greater harm to America then sadistic Bush. For what insane Bush did was a temporary insanity that could be stopped by enforcing the law, but by the Obama mania of destroying the Constitution, in effect creating new law without Congress and against the Constitution, he has made the corruption permanent, elected himself Dictator Obama, a demagogy above all law, and god ruler of the Universe.

    Comes now an international news media to broadcast a recorded conversation from a prisoner at Guantanamo who tells us that his torture is worse now then it was under Bush. His jailers and torture goons are still the same, but still Obama has fulfilled his promise to bring change, as sadistic as it may be.

    Posted by Alabama.John at 04/18/2009 @ 6:31pm

89. CORRECTION IN ABOVE:

    "For if we were a democracy, we would have stopped trying to enslave weaker nations, and worked extra hard to protect the rights of all."

    Posted by Alabama.John at 04/18/2009 @ 6:37pm

90. <i>Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 5:54pm </i>

    This is completely immaterial. The U.S. Constitution specifically defines the powers that various branches of government have and establishes the balance between them. The Constitution can be amended only by established processes. This means that the Constitution CANNOT be amended by treaty, no matter what any agreement says, because no branch has the authority to commit to that.

    In other words, that term in the treaty has no meaning whatsoever because no instrumentality of government has the authority to commit to it.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 6:48pm

91. Thank you for this article. I can't even begin to express the frustration I feel when Obama speaks about torture now as if it's something unpleasant that we just need to forget about.

    A message for our president who isn't thinking straight on this matter:

    THE U.S. DOESN'T FORGIVE AND FORGET CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. WE PROSECUTE

    Posted by davism97 at 04/18/2009 @ 7:02pm

92. thrawn, so what is your understanding of the Convention Against Torture?

    i have read the entire thing, and i see no means by which obama can logically and/or legally wiggle out of this.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 7:07pm

93. "Not to mention he is endangering our undercover operatives by being so open... how will they effectively be able to interrogate someone when that person knows thier hands are tied."

    Uh, no, "dhaneshaney," undercover operatives accused of torture would not be "endangered"; they would be put on trial, which means that they would have to leave their work, with all its dangers, behind.

    I don't believe that "Thrawn's" astonishing view - to wit, that torture is permissible for information gathering but not as punishment (!) - has been shared by many people since the Eighteenth Century. You would have to go back to the age of the witch trials to find sympathizers for it.

    Indeed, the German legal reformer Christian Thomasius (1655-1728) argued against torture by pointing out that it was unjust to use it as it was most commonly used in his time, namely against suspects whose guilt was in doubt, rather than against those whose guilt was certain. This argument works for all those who, like Thomasius, find the use of torture for information gathering even more morally offensive than its use for punishment. Alas, this argument would not have worked with "Thrawn," would it?

    Moreover, as I have mentioned above, there is another argument against torture, one what eventually won over the entire civilized world: Torture simply DOESN'T WORK as a tool for information gathering. The history of the witch trials, which is an open book, offers ample evidence for this claim for anyone who is not a complete simpleton.

    Of course, if what you want is for the USA to be universally feared and hated rather than respected, torture DOES recommend itself strongly as a means to this end.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 7:13pm

94. Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 7:13pm

    You can't compare the Salem Witch trials with what the CIA does. Those trials were barbaric in nature and always ended in some kind of horrific death. Not so with the detainees.

    Posted by ACook at 04/18/2009 @ 7:30pm

95. very simple logic for the non-believers:

    if waterboarding (A) is illegal and punishable under the articles of the CAT and GC, which the united states has signed;

    and the united states has practiced A, repeatedly;

    then the united states has committed illegal and punishable acts.

    is there anyone who can deny this?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 7:30pm

96. "You can't compare the Salem Witch trials with what the CIA does. Those trials were barbaric in nature and always ended in some kind of horrific death. Not so with the detainees."

    acook, you have merely posited a 'degree' to which certain acts of torture are barbaric or inhumane. witch trials, on the extreme end of barbarism, and waterboarding, on the not-so-extreme end of barbarism. but both are (clearly) torturous. and not only that....

    the CAT and GC specifically state that waterboarding, as well as confinement to a box of stinging insects (both practiced by the USA), are unequivocally torture.

    do you disagree?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 7:33pm

97. in one of the memos released, a practice was revealed to the public: confinement of a prisoner into a SMALL BOX full of STINGING INSECTS.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 7:35pm

98. <i>Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 7:07pm </i>

    That's interesting, actually, because frankly I'm not entirely sure either. Since no treaty can amend the Constitution, anything within the President's inherent and exclusive authority (ex: the pardon power) could never be abrogated or altered by treaty, BUT I don't see how this really fits that. Though I think that from a policy standpoint he made the unmistakably correct choice, I'm not sure what the argument would be unless he could somehow (and I'm not sure how) trump it with prosecutorial discretion.

    <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 7:13pm </i>

    I'm not sure whether or not this was intentional, but it is a gigantic strawman of my position. Just so we're clear, let me restate the three primary positions I've defended:

    1) TORTURE=BAD. We should not torture. Seriously. As you make plain, it is both wrong and ineffectual. So yes...I'm not OK with torture. However, since moral and political views don't translate into constitutional law, this isn't sufficient argument for it being illegal (though it is, in treaties that carry the same weight as legislation).

    2) In most cases, torture does not violate the 8th Amendment because it is not punishment. This DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS BAD, it just means that it doesn't violate this SPECIFIC constitutional provision.

    3) No treaty can amend or in any way supercede the Constitution.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 7:54pm

99. thrawn,

    so what is the point of a treaty, then, if you don't follow it?

    in fact, what is the point of ANY law, if the president can violate it at will?

    normally, you make good points, but here, you have completely run amok.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 8:08pm

100. Okay, "Thrawn," one parting shot:

     Ask the VICTIMS of torture whether they regard what they have experienced as "punishment" or as "information gathering."

     Whose opinion counts?

     Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 8:10pm

101. CORRECTION IN ABOVE:

     "For if we were a democracy, we would have stopped trying to enslave weaker nations, and worked extra hard to protect the rights of all."

     Posted by Alabama.John at 04/18/2009 @ 6:37pm

     Suggest you check out polls in yours and other Western countries on Capital Punishment and establish the opinion of "democracy" on that issue against which a bit of non lethal torture pales into insignificance.

     Your crowd needs to get into the 20th Century, at least, when most Western countries, despite "democratic" opinion, banned such a barbaric practice. Until you do your protestations against the type of torture which does not permanently harm the recipient physically or psychologically is a non issue.

     (Anecdotal evidence: Has Christopher Hitchens been permanently harmed by his waterboarding experience? He appears to me to still be the free wheeling, jovial bugger he was before that bit of highly publicised fun.)

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/18/2009 @ 8:19pm

102. For those of you who, like me, are getting the sinking feeling that "Thrawn" is RIGHT about the Constitution and I am wrong,

     I warmly recommend (as I have at other times):

     Sanford Levinson's book, OUR UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION: WHERE THE CONSTITUTION WENT WRONG (AND HOW WE THE PEOPLE CAN CORRECT IT).

     Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 8:20pm

103. If "Thrawn" is right, and the prevailing legal interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has always been that it implicitly allowed a Constitutional exemption for "information-gathering" torture, this would explain a lot of things, wouldn't it?

     I mean, I always assumed that police brutality against African-Americans was a simple combination of racism with abuse of power. Apparently, there has always been a third element as well - namely, that government agents are, and have always been, Constitutionally permitted to torture suspects for information-gathering purposes.

     And perhaps the "law of the prison cell" is the real law after all, and not the law of the courts, which (unless I am mistaken) generally take a rather dim view of coerced testimony...

     Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 8:31pm

104. Can you cite when Bush ordered the release of classified information on our techniques, strategies, or methods of defeating the enemy?

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 11:05am

     He didn't, he provided AID to our enemy by opening up Iraq for them and it's undeniable because it has already been shown that Al Qaeda and Iran had no sway in Iraq until we invaded and dethroned Saddam.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 8:46pm

105. The cardinal sin on these blogs from anyone's perspective. Anything approaching a jeremiad.

     Be forewarned, neophytes.

     Posted by Sorelish at 04/18/2009 @ 8:50pm

106. <i>Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 8:08pm </i>

     This has actually been an ongoing issue for some time, coming up in a number of Vienna Convention cases, and honestly it eludes clear answer. On the one hand, it really does bother me that there are contexts where treaty obligations are actually unenforceable through the courts. On the other hand, I do think we need at least some wiggle-room as far as exigent circumstances are concerned (though AGAIN, I don't think this is one of those areas; torture=bad).

     Moreover, my argument isn't "The President can just do whatever he wants"; that is what is commonly referred to as a strawman. My argument is simple:

     1) Where the Constitution delegates exclusive authority to the President, Congress cannot constrain that. For instance, Congress cannot legislatively enact limitations on the President's power to pardon, because the Constitution assigns it to the President's sole discretion.

     2) The Constitution cannot be amended by anything short of, well, amendment. Whatever powers currently inhere in each branch inhere in that branch regardless of treaties, because treaties don't constitute valid amendments to the Constitution.

     <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 8:10pm </i>

     In response to both this and your later post...

     I sympathize a lot with you here. As I've said, I think torture is repulsive and should absolutely not be practiced. I would completely support, for instance, amending the Constitution to prohibit torture as well as cruel and unusual punishment. However, I don't think it's legitimate to instead make words mean something they don't; punishment cannot be stretched to include information-gathering.

     I also haven't read Levinson; what does he defend?

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 8:54pm

107. <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 04/18/2009 @ 8:31pm </i>

     Right; the courts tend to take a dim view of coerced testimony because they find a link to things like self-incrimination. Unless my memory fails me, the cases regarding the exclusionary rule (for instance; and by the way, it's possible it may stop existing soon) make virtually no reference to the Eighth Amendment

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 8:57pm

108. Can you cite when Bush ordered the release of classified information on our techniques, strategies, or methods of defeating the enemy?

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 11:05am

     I would say providing a foothold in a new country, fresh recruiting grounds and the wealth of information that the new Iraqi government can provide them about the WMD's they successfully built is quite a bit of aid.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:21pm

109. I think Kant wrote this issue more exact then Hanna Arendt

     Free translated from Kant

     Dem Gebote einer Autorität dürfen wir niemals blind gehorchen. Wenn es uns physisch möglich ist, unsere Handlungsweise zu wählen, dann liegt die Verantwortung bei uns.

     To the dictate/instruction/command of the authority we may never follow blind. If we are physically able to choose our behavior/conduct/course of action, so we are then responsible.

     Posted by Janko1 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:24pm

110. Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 8:54pm

     The problem is the information is worthless anyway. A man will say anything to stop pain. It doesn't mean it is true. Which is why this argument is completely ridiculous to begin with. Anyone with a brain knows that you can't get reliable information out of people by inflicting pain. Hell if you put me in enough pain I will tell you the credit card number of every single credit card in America past and present, doesn't mean it's true.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:26pm

111. Posted by darladoon at 04/18/2009 @ 2:15pm:

     Actually, he did give aid and comfort to our enemies and to many of us that means something. As for a real life Jack Bauer, he should be given a medal. The use of the word "torture" has become meaningless since there is no distinction between annoying loud music and gouging eyes out.

     The same hypocritical House and Senate democrats who wring their dirty hands are the same ones who, right after 9-11, wanted to make sure we were agressive enough on the captives. They even said "we don't care what you do with them just so you keep this country safe". Now, they have the backbone of a slug.

     Posted by pyeatte at 04/18/2009 @ 9:34pm

112. We have two of the genuine "Gitmo Tortured" back in our country and both are doing quite well financially, educationally and socially for which they can thank America, George' Bush's War on Terror and the opportunities , between torture sessions of course, to improve themselves, which they received whilst in Guantanamo.

     Here is a bit of the David Hick's story, who was an itinerant farm labourer before he got the itch to see the world as a newly converted Muslim. What better place to start than with Osama himself in Afghanistan? Either someone shipped him or he got a little careless about whom he trusted, anyway he ended up in your home away from home on that Cuban island.

     After a few years there, claiming all sorts of torture and starvation regimes he finally was brought to trial , found guilty and given 9 months to be served in a South Australian gaol. He was returned to Australia in April 2007 and released from gaol in December 2007

     What we noticed at the US trial was that he had put on weight and looked as fit as a fiddle. He was released from gaol late last year and steadfastly refuses to comment on his time spent in Gitmo despite huge financial inducements. Cynics say he is holding out for a better price. He is now studying at university, has an educated female defacto and seems to be at peace with himself and the world (some of you lefties should think of a holiday down there too).

     The other was an Australian, Mandu Habib, who apparently was shipped off to Egypt for some electrical work on his sexual apparatus before ending up in Gitmo. He unlike David Hicks has become a middle aged celebrity here, with TV appearances and money etc. Noticed a picture of him cavorting on Bondi Beach with his family a few months ago. So he is another Gitmo success story.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:35pm

113. I think Kant wrote this issue more exact then Hanna Arendt

     Free translated from Kant

     Dem Gebote einer Autorität dürfen wir niemals blind gehorchen. Wenn es uns physisch möglich ist, unsere Handlungsweise zu wählen, dann liegt die Verantwortung bei uns.

     To the dictate/instruction/command of the authority we may never follow blind. If we are physically able to choose our behavior/conduct/course of action, so we are then responsible.

     Posted by Janko1 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:40pm

114. <i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:26pm</i>

     A couple of things. First off, I would actually dispute the idea that pain can never motivate people to give up information; that just seems false, especially if what they say can be falsified.

     That said, however...I think you're inclined to find disagreement where there isn't any. As I've tried to set out, multiple times...I AGREE THAT TORTURE IS BAD. We don't have any disagreement on that.

     What we MIGHT have disagreement on (and I don't know since you haven't said) is the LEGAL aspect. Though I would hold that torture is illegal in most contexts, I subject that to a couple of important caveats:

     1) Treaties stipulating that torture is illegal can't alter the constitutional balance of power (i.e. if the President pardons torturers, no treaty can do anything about that).

     2) Torture in most contexts does not violate the 8th Amendment.

     My arguments, in otherwise, are directed specifically at what the courts can or cannot remedy. That notwithstanding...torture is still bad.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 10:15pm

115. We've all heard the wingnuts comparing Obama to Hitler, as if Hitler's Nazism was actual socialism...

     Here's my analogy: Cheney = Eichmann, Rove = Goebbels, and John Yoo = Klaus Barbie.

     The most disheartening thing I have seen is that the Philadelphia Inquirer (once a bastion of journalistic integrity, but lately little more than the New York Post of the Delaware Valley) gave an entire half-page in its op-ed section today, to that liar, traitor and criminal, John Yoo. In his usually ignorant and sociopathic way, he spewed some sort of vitriol about how the little pirate rescue proves that Obama is exactly like Bush! I would tell that little $hit to go back where he came from, but I'm pretty sure that kennel won't take him back...

     To the extent that Obama continues to follow the Cheney Doctrines regarding the War Crime of Torture, and the Constitutional Crime of Domestic Spying, the more he leaves his own legacy in jeopardy. He MUST distinguish himself as being on the side of Justice!

     Posted by sjduskin at 04/18/2009 @ 10:51pm

116. My biggest question about protecting those that actually carried out the torture is the extent of rot that has invaded our intelligent community. Our tax dollars seem to be protecting clandestine operations that seem rotten to the core. It appears that Leon Panetta vehemently objected to the release of the," torture memos". You can't write a movie this bad. Even my favorite cult films, the Bourne trillogy are nothing according to these memos. I truly feel that to the extent that people want to go forward without looking at this issue in the sun light hides what we as a country have become. I think that it hides a truly rotten core that may destroy us. The men and women who carried out these tortures are not the professional core of any agency and they have to live with those flash backs of cruelty for the rest of their lives. This stuff is going to come out eventually.

     Posted by julien38 at 04/19/2009 @ 09:02am

117. After thought: Cruelty to another human being destroys the perpetrator, not the victim of the crime. I can't imagine that any of my CIA buddies would have ever participated in something this humanly ugly. Can any one imagine being married or having a parent that did these ugly acts to another human being. I don't think that there is enough Jim Beam in the world to wipe those memories away.

     Posted by julien38 at 04/19/2009 @ 09:12am

118. After after thought: This isn't one of our Hall Mark moments is it ?

     Posted by julien38 at 04/19/2009 @ 09:18am

119. Posted by ACook at 04/18/2009 @ 3:52pm

     It was irony.

     Posted by debrae at 04/19/2009 @ 09:48am

120. If Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" is at all a reliable guide, our government has for some time now been in the business of discerning the most effective, least expensive methods (water and a cloth are cheap) of reducing an adult to a babbling, hysterical, hallucinating child: sleep deprivation and water boarding.

     The peculiar structuring of these interrogations, designed in part by medical professionals, including psychologists, suggests that, rather than developing plans for the remediation of mental disturbance, health professionals were hired and rewarded for the manufacture of plans to induce mental illness: "learned helplessness"--a state in which a person believes he has no control over environmental contingencies.

     The "memos" claim that water boarding cannot be considered to cause "prolonged mental pain and suffering."

     Repeated deployment of water boarding, which the "memos" explicitly acknowledge as a technique entailing "threat of immanent death," is likely not to result in "prolonged mental pain or suffering," the "memos" predict.

     I don't believe the interrogators provide disclaimers before water boarding: This is only a "simulation" exercise.

     In the alleged SERE training, successful trainees enjoy the applause of their superiors and the esteem of their comrades. Since SERE trainees withstand the techniques without ill effect, they must not produce ill effects.

     The trainees have different expectations--that withstanding "torture" during training is a badge of honor. Martyrs hold different expectations, too--and they face death joyfully and without reservation, where the "normal" person would never do so.

     One goal of torture was to "dislodge expectations" that captives would not be harmed. Sounds like "prolonged pain and suffering" to me.

     Posted by debrae at 04/19/2009 @ 10:28am

121. He is now studying at university, has an educated female defacto and seems to be at peace with himself and the world (some of you lefties should think of a holiday down there too).

     .....cavorting on Bondi Beach with his family a few months ago. So he is another Gitmo success story.....

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/18/2009 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     'Never Again' sounds good LRG, and do note the irony of the Australian commissioner speaking Afrikaans in South Africa and we "come as friends" ......................

     On "Breaker Morant" from Wikipedia.

     'In 2002, a group of Australians travelled to South Africa and held a service at the Pretoria graveside to commemorate the execution on the morning of the 100th anniversary. This group came 'not to praise Morant and Handcock', but to remember that never again should any Australian soldiers be handed over to any foreign power for trial or justice. The service was also attended by the Australian High Commissioner to South Africa. The group left a new marker on the grave. There was consternation among South Africans that the Aussies came to make a 'Ned Kelly' hero of Morant and Handcock. There was a gasp when the Australian leader having welcomed everyone to the service then switched to Afrikaans and spoke to the South Africans explaining that they came as friends and were not in-country to praise Morant's actions.'

     Posted by OneVote at 04/19/2009 @ 10:44am

122. An observation of the "stinging insect" business. Caterpillars as friendly, fuzzy little harmless creatures. What's going on here?

     1) This technique is not entirely unlike the fictionalized torture of Winston Smith in 1984. Hyperbole aside, the crux of the matter was to discern Winston's most central and alarming fear. It happened to be rats.

     2) If Zubaydah's most central and alarming fear had been of scorpions, would the interrogation plan have been to lead Zubaydah that a scorpion was to be placed in his confinement box? Based on the self-serving, harmless-sounding euphemism, "stinging insect," and that this is serious business, not Sunday School, I think we get the picture: It could be anything that the interrogator's believe is a central, destabilizing fear.

     3) If the interrogators had come to learn that a captive was ashamed of his own genitals, that is, centrally and peculiarly ashamed, even pathologically ashamed, the technique of forced "nakedness" would be open to them.

     4) In the moment, and under the cloak of secrecy, and when documents and video can be destroyed, and when interrogators are frustrated or pissed off, one can imagine the transformation in these neatly described affectless tactics, can't we.

     5) The memos ask us to contemplate a clinical, objective interrogator, an emotionless, strategic deployment of staged tactics. This is cartoon thinking.

     6) It must have been hell.

     7) I grew up with the cartoon view that the "bad guys" did this sort of stuff, that they mentally tortured people, you know, like in "Papillon," stuff like that.

     8) But America is economical about it. We invented the Model T, and the assembly line. It would appear we aren't wasting our know how.

     Posted by debrae at 04/19/2009 @ 10:45am

123. <i>Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 10:26am</i>

     First off, what about (2)? I just don't see how it can actually be defined as punishment; it's not meant as a specific response to any act for which they have been or are in the process of being convicted. In fact, I would argue that designating it punishment helps to legitimate it more, something we definitely wouldn't want.

     On jury nullification, that's precisely it; I DON'T know how you would prevent it. That's a big part of why they're not going after this.

     Moreover, I think the case against academics (ex: Yoo) is a very difficult and dangerous one. Would you argue, as some have, that those who advocated torture to the administration should be punished for doing so? It seem like it's one thing to give an order and try to make an order happen, but it seems like when you punish ADVOCACY, you start down a very dangerous path. I'm not sure what the precise dividing line is, but it seems like it has to be navigated with great care.

     For that same reason, had we the option at Nuremburg to punish those who perverted reason and humanity in their arguments for antisemitism, I think it would have been wrong to do so. Though I realize that ideas can still have consequences, a government that may attach punishments to ideas strongly disapproved of is a dangerous government.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/19/2009 @ 12:57pm

124. Posted by OneVote at 04/19/2009 @ 10:44am

     Look we have perhaps a dozen Muslim would be terrorists recently sentenced to long terms in gaol simply for talking between themselves (phone calls tapped) about blowing up the Melbourne Cricket Ground on Football Grand Final day when about 100,000 Aussie sports fans would be present.

     A professional Australian architect of Pakistani origin is serving a long prison term for photographing and obtaining plans of electricity power plants around Sydney.

     In all these cases where charges were laid one needs to consider for a moment the degree of surveillance allowed legally. So you need to distinguish between movie spin and what Australia actually does about potential terrorists as well as those with a bit of form.

     If you care to check you will find that like Australia, Europe also has its "patriot act" legislation in place that is just as effective at putting would be terrorists away.

     My point really was that some of you are getting hysterical over a pretty benign sort of torture in contrast to the horrific mental torture of waiting around for years to get the electric chair. These days that only happens in the US and a few backward countries. So your shock horror is all a little hypocritical.

     Further all the fancy talk about the 8th Amendment forgets that when that was framed the cruel and inhumane punishments/torture in view included being drawn and quartered with such delights as being disembowelled whilst still alive and having one's genitals cut off and burnt before the dying victim's eyes. The framers would have laughed mockingly at you 21st century American sissies.

     The Europeans have gone one step further and declared torture as primarily a socio economic issue so you're still well behind them in defining "torture".

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/19/2009 @ 2:41pm

125. "1) Treaties stipulating that torture is illegal can't alter the constitutional balance of power (i.e. if the President pardons torturers, no treaty can do anything about that)."

     Can the President pardon himself if he authorizes it because it is then him who is accountable.

     "2) Torture in most contexts does not violate the 8th Amendment."

     Never said it was, I am just saying that the information can't be trusted so there is no point. You CAN get information out of people through pain but my point is that even if you do it is not credible because people will say anything if you put them in enough pain. I am not saying you CAN'T get information, I am saying that the information is no good.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 10:15pm

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2009 @ 4:27pm

126. Can we rid ourselves of the words transparancy and accountability when it come to the US government?

     Sadly, all government lie and cover their asses. As far as the torture memos are concerned we have even more deceit.

     After 9-11, the "gloves came off," asserted Vice President Cheney , and screws were tightened in prison cells from Guantanamo to Bagram. The torturers and their enablers need to be punished but what can stop a President from instigating these horrid abuses again? George Bush simply stated that whatever he did was right and legal. And neither Congress, the Judiciary or the Press were able to resist. Over the years the US presidency has become omnipotent, especially so when it comes to foreign policy. This tendency towards monarchy needs to be checked, but what is the mechanism?

     Posted by hkaplan at 04/19/2009 @ 4:41pm

127. 2) Torture in most contexts does not violate the 8th Amendment.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/18/2009 @ 10:15pm

     well, it needs to be fixed then.

     stupid humans.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2009 @ 7:29pm

128. <i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/19/2009 @ 4:27pm </i>

     OK; I'm not sure we disagree on anything then.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/19/2009 @ 7:38pm

129. hkaplan at 04/19/2009 @ 4:41pm...

     Oh... I think we will deal with your excellent points in due time... But one of the things I like about this new administration is that they fill their plate with a lot of small servings... gradations, if you will... of change.

     Obama doesn't put all his eggs in any basket... and gradual assertion of core principles inevitably gains accedence from the citizenry at large... when feedback mechanisms are in place and adhered to.

     One of the sayings I've long been accustomed to living with is "the status quo is our point of departure"... which applies to our macro societal situation quite nicely right now.

     But.. we are all a little flinchy right now... like a person that finally gets out of an abusive relationship... who, because of the vestiges of very real and recent anguish... has a very hard time trusting that the kind soul they 'rebounded' to is not going to 'go off' any minute...

     We need to trust that we have made a good decision using sound judgement before we can get settled and do our best to educate ourselves for the new challenges our 'human condition' presents us with.

     At least there's no place left to go from here... except up!:^)

     Up, up... and away... in our beautiful balloooooon...

     Posted by ttr at 04/19/2009 @ 7:52pm

130. "Can you cite when Bush ordered the release of classified information on our techniques, strategies, or methods of defeating the enemy?

     "Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 11:05am"

     Have you already forgotten about the outing of Valerie Plame?

     Another example is the threats and declaration of war made against the very idea of a free and independent press, following a newspaper doing its job by publishing a news report. [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200607010004 ]

     Bloody Hands Bush led a great deal of whining, pissing and moaning after the New York Times--as did also the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal--published an article about a "secret" Treasury Department program designed to monitor terrorists' international financial transactions. [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200606280010 ]

     All of the participants "forgot" that Bush himself, less than two weeks after 9/11, announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." According to the con-servatives, this makes Bush guilty of treason!

     It's no surprise, of course. The warmongers here have demonstrated how easily they lie about torture, and the fact that torture is yet another way that the con-servatives violate the very principles that once made this country great.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/19/2009 @ 8:02pm

131. My point really was that some of you are getting hysterical over a pretty benign sort of torture in contrast to the horrific mental torture of waiting around for years to get the electric chair. These days that only happens in the US and a few backward countries. So your shock horror is all a little hypocritical.

     The Europeans have gone one step further and declared torture as primarily a socio economic issue so you're still well behind them in defining "torture".

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/19/2009 @ 2:41pm

     "Everybody does it" was a defense, and "we were acting on orders" was also a defense that was unavailing at court martial of Breaker Morant. The British, however, wanted to make an example of them, for political purposes, even though it was pretty apparent that the "take no prisoners" order came from down high through Lord Kitchener. If memory serves me right, Boer concentration camps ("refugee" camps as per British) were pretty horrible places with death during internment commonplace.

     Where do you draw the line? At what point do you say enough? I seriously doubt Morant would have killed Boer captives if he thought it was going to result in his court martial and execution. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

     The American hysteria is the hysteria over 'opening the door' that we thought was closed. It sounds as if your leaders are as hysterical or more hysterical than our own. Maybe thats your point. Once due process and the rights of the accused are gone, so are we as free people.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/19/2009 @ 8:05pm

132. frosty zoom at 04/19/2009 @ 7:29pm...

     And then... like... uh... the reason torture is regarded as a 'war crime' by the world... is that historically speaking, no one rules for ever... leaving the entire population of a formerly cruelly imperialistic regime vulnerable to rather unpleasant treatment... brought about by the 'full circle' of vengeance and it's escalations.

     This is the reality that the military leaders understand as well. No one wants our fighting force... our young men and women... subjected to the dehumanisation and horrors of torture...

     ...which is why these rules were made and agreed to with a great deal of solemnity and reason.

     Sometimes humans aren't so stupid after all...:^)

     Posted by ttr at 04/19/2009 @ 8:10pm

133. Maybe the origin of the term " the hot seat".

     Those Romanians really knew how to party. And the ambivalence! To this day they have streets named after him. Did they love him or hate him? Both, it seems.

     Posted by ficheye at 04/19/2009 @ 8:50pm

134. <i>Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 7:32pm </i>

     I'm not quite sure I follow your response to the 8th Amendment point. Certainly, torturing of state and federal prisoners accused of a crime or about to be accused of a crime is one thing. Torturing some guy we've found so that we can get information is completely different; I just don't understand how it can rationally be defined as punishment when punishment can only be coherently understood in the context of a criminal offense.

     As for Yoo/advocates in general, I think that makes a lot of sense. Though I'm really wary of the extremes I talked about in the prior post, I also don't think the answer is to categorically immunize all advocates.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/19/2009 @ 8:55pm

135. The American hysteria is the hysteria over 'opening the door' that we thought was closed. It sounds as if your leaders are as hysterical or more hysterical than our own. Maybe thats your point. Once due process and the rights of the accused are gone, so are we as free people.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/19/2009 @ 8:05pm |

     I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that the "door" has never been closed in the US. If practicing capital punishment with all the bizzare ritual that accompanies it is not infinitely worse than say simulating drowning, after which the recipient may live happily ever after, then we are not on the same page.

     There are those in most countries and not only on the left, who give the impression that the purpose of the law is to protect those who break it. Whatever our idea of "all equal" before the law entails, it surely primarily is in place to protect society from all sorts of harms from lawbreakers. That sort of application of the law is one thing that determines whether "we" are and remain a free people.

     Given that our legal systems mostly clear the innocent and convict the guilty there is no problem of losing "your freedom", whatever the CIA does in respect of its investigative procedures. In fact as confessions under torture are not acceptable evidence in our courts, the state's practice of "torture" has nothing to do with "our freedom" or the "equality of all" before the law. Rather it is aimed at getting information to protect "our freedom".

     What is inhumane and cruel quite obviously is in the eye of the beholder, given your love affair over there with capital punishment. Don't know about you but I think I would choose waterboarding (American style) anytime to waiting years before getting fried on the electric chair.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/19/2009 @ 9:06pm

136. Ah. Good times...good times.

     Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 8:28pm

     Now that's what I call torture.

     I notice F is off on a culinary exercise. Medium or rare?

     Pity FZ is a vegetarian.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/19/2009 @ 9:51pm

137. "It very much depends on how. If Yoo was in a room with the clowns of death and said, "Hey! If I write a MEMO saying X then we can...", then I would consider him complicit in a conspiracy and no longer an advocate (much like the exceptions to attorney-client priv)."

     no, no. come on. this in nonsense. we already know how yoo paved the "legal" path to torture. it's everywhere, on paper, on audio, in presentations, comments in the media, etc.

     there is NO DOUBT about who the culprits are. there is NO DOUBT about what they did. just because they seem like reasonable, patriotic people doesn't mean that they can't utterly horrific, anti-american choices.

     the law is clear. bush broke the law. and these "clowns" (to put it very, very kindly) gave him permission.

     i say we give these attorneys, who gave bush the legal advice, life in prison.

     and bush himself? the same.

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:09pm

138. "Certainly, torturing of state and federal prisoners accused of a crime or about to be accused of a crime is one thing. Torturing some guy we've found so that we can get information is completely different"

     uh, there's no difference, actually. unless you have some completely warped understanding of both the GC and the CAT.

     waterboarding = A

     A = illegal (under 4 different treaties)

     the united states authorized and performed A.

     ergo, the united states did something illegal.

     -----------------------------------------------

     i challenge anyone to refute the above claim.

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:14pm

139. "Putting asside for the moment the lack of any current Holocaust/gigantic war that could be explained only by territorial aggression and lust for power, there are some really good policy reasons why prosecution would be terrible."

     hmmmm.....so, of all of the exceptions you are willing to embrace, this would be The One? in which case, you should simply create a list of "exceptions," one of which is: "in the event that a Holocause/Gigantic War should not exist; or, In the interest of Political Convenience."

     again, what does a treaty really mean if you can simply find a way violate it?

     if the united states can make exceptions for itself, then it has no right to punish others who do the same. and if we ever find ourselves at a point where we have violated standards which we expect of our enemies, well then, we don't really believe in Law, do we? we believe in American Exceptionalism.

     that, my friends, is the real Enemy.

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:21pm

140. <i>Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:14pm </i>

     No. This response doesn't make any sense because it completely ignores the context in which my point was made.

     There IS a relevant distinction between the two acts, namely that one is arguably punishment under the 8th Amendment and one (most torture) is not.

     On the treaties, by the way, there's a further question that's crucial: is the CAT self-executing? If it's not self-executing, it requires legislation to give it legal force in the U.S. For it to be self-executing, it has to make that status pretty clear; from my understanding, the presumption is that treaties are not self-executing.

     That's a crucial question, because if the treaty is not self-executing and there has been no further legislative act of Congress, it cannot confer any legal obligation to prosecute. My hunch is that it is not self-executing, and that that's how Obama can legally justify not acting. Plus, if prosecutorial discretion is vested in either the judiciary or the executive as part of the constitutional structure, the CAT can't do anything about that. That's why the "'this trumps domestic constitutions' is a lie because it can't do that" point matters.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/19/2009 @ 11:25pm

141. Obama has effectively said, paraphrasing Leona Helmsley, "Prosecution is only for the little people." Like Graner and England. Domestic law, international treaties and his oath of office mean nothing, but we have already seen that his word means nothing. Obama will be a one-termer, and he's the best hope for a Republican renaissance.

     Posted by DrBrian at 04/19/2009 @ 11:29pm

142. "namely that one is arguably punishment under the 8th Amendment and one (most torture) is not."

     so you are claiming that there are, in fact, instances in which waterboaring is permissable?

     huh. that's funny, cuz......well, if that's true, then i'm not sure i want to live in this country anymore.

     and, i know, i know, you're probably thinking, "well, clearly you don't understand what life is really like: it's hell, and torture is hell, and yadda, yadda, yadda"

     well, you know? fuck that. i cannot except any argument in favor of making legal exceptions (or can't we just call 'em legal black holes, 'cuz that's what they really are. they want to argue that waterboarding doesn't equal torture. well, it does actually. A = A, and we committed A) for the use of waterboarding.

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:45pm

143. "That's a crucial question, because if the treaty is not self-executing and there has been no further legislative act of Congress, it cannot confer any legal obligation to prosecute"

     so you are arguing that a particular mechanism within our legal system permits us to ignore the most basic, most fundamental, tenet of the Convention Against Torture, thereby making the CAT a mere "symbolic gesture"?

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:47pm

144. let me repeat the question: if state parties to a treaty don't obey the fundamental components of a treat, then might i ask what the very point of signing treaties is, if not symbolic?

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:49pm

145. if the united states has invoked a violation of the convention against torture in order to prosecute liberia's mr. taylor, then why cannot other countries (or "state parties," as they are referred to in the convention against torture) prosecute mr. bush? or, shall i say, would not other state parties have legal grounds upon which to claim that mr. bush authorized torture?

     if the united states has legal mechanisms in place in order to selectively ignore documents like the CAT, then what good is the CAT?

     if the united states does not prosecute bush officials, then the united states is guilty of violating the CAT.

     now, if you believe the CAT is MEANINGLESS, well then, i really don't see the need to continue this discussion.

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:58pm

146. now, if you believe the CAT is MEANINGLESS, well then, i really don't see the need to continue this discussion.

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:58pm

     It's meaningless.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 12:11am

147. <i>Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:45pm </i>

     Let me, as I've tried a thousand times, make my position clear. I DO NOT SUPPORT TORTURE. It's barbaric & should not happen. Period. End of story. That's my policy stance and I've stuck to that.

     What you're asking, though, is a different question: what the legal dimensions of this are. That's completely different because law and good policy don't always coincide.

     In order for a treaty to have any domestic authority, i.e. for it to actually give domestic government actors an obligation to act, it has to be self-executing. If a treaty is not self-executing, it does not have the force of domestic law. For instance, the Vienna Convention requires, I believe, that nationals of other countries be given a chance to speak to counsel from their own embassy. There have been cases in the US where this was denied. Former President Bush (yes, George W.) SUED to make state governments comply with the Convention, but he lost because the Supreme Court said the Vienna Convention is not self-executing.

     Now, I don't know a ton about the CAT; I've already said that. If by its own terms it's clearly self-executing, then it seems clear that Obama would have a legal obligation to prosecute so long as prosecutorial discretion isn't an inherent executive or legislative power.

     If it isn't self-executing, though, then the CAT is (from a STRICTLY LEGAL perspective) meaningless. This tension between international law and our system of government has bothered a lot of smart people for a long time, and thus far the consensus is that no treaty can change the Constitution's allocation of power. Any treaty that pretends to do so is legally meaningless.

     What does this mean? How about (as Congress has tried) banning torture straight-up?

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/20/2009 @ 12:17am

148. i say we give these attorneys, who gave bush the legal advice, life in prison.

     and bush himself? the same.

     Posted by darladoon at 04/19/2009 @ 11:09pm

     So you do like a bit of torture after all? You naughty little hypocrite, you.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 08:14am

149. Given that our legal systems mostly clear the innocent and convict the guilty there is no problem of losing "your freedom", whatever the CIA does in respect of its investigative procedures. In fact as confessions under torture are not acceptable evidence in our courts, the state's practice of "torture" has nothing to do with "our freedom" or the "equality of all" before the law. Rather it is aimed at getting information to protect "our freedom".

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/19/2009 @ 9:06pm

     Whew....don't know if I am following your logic here. Those awaiting execution on death row supposedly have had "due process," whereas those interned on basis of "suspicious activity" (defined subjectively by The King) may be interrogated by use of torture and held indefinitely without right of trial in civilian court (under Bush).

     A little study of history will reveal to you the danger inherent in your justification that they are doing it to protect our freedom. This is a paradox....you must give up freedom in order to retain freedom. While this is a truism for civilized society via called social contract with our government, we must never allow our government to unilaterally change the terms of that contract.

     Yes....we've been doing enhanced interrogation for years, but covertly. The issue before us now is let us make it open and acceptable, and immune from prosecution.

     I do not trust that the above power usurped by our government will always be used for good. Those powers are most useful for evil as well. I fear these powers more than I do the so called terrorists. Compare the body count of the Stalin regime to that of the body count of all those who have been killed by stateless terrorist organizations, and you will have a measure of the inherent danger.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 08:28am

150. Prof Jonathan Turley, a constitutional lawyer at Washington State, says emphatically that Obama took the Oath of Office to uphold the Consitution including its rule of law, and he has NO choice here: He should shred the political mantle to avoid being accused of retribution and designate an impartial special prosecutor. If he does not, he will be complicit with the same war crimes and become a war criminal himself. Silence=Complicity. There is no need for an "investigation" since there already is proof of torture.The same argument that we have other more urgent issues was used by the families of the Nazis and other "Good Germans" to avoid the Nuremberg trials. And it wasn't just water-boarding. At Abu Ghraib incinerated bones were found in a crematorium, just as in Auschewitz. The fact that the US AND Israel have committed war crimes against humanity -- for different "reasons"-- at the same time in history is unbelievable and the world is horrified beyond description.

     Posted by mystic at 04/20/2009 @ 09:36am

151. <i>Posted by mystic at 04/20/2009 @ 09:36am </i>

     I can fully grant to you that Professor Turley, who teaches at GW Law School, has an incredible amount of knowledge with respect to constitutional law, which makes him citeable as an expert for specifically constitutional issues. However, the claim for which you cite him here is NOT one of constitutional law. The only argument he seems to make here is that the one many posters here have made: silence= complicity. While I acknowledge that there is a great deal of force to it, it isn't a constitutional argument. I just think thta the massive practical considerations for not immediately prosecuting outweigh the force of that point; silence is only complicity if there are not compelling reasons in favor of not prosecuting.

     Moreover, he's not being silent anyway; he's released the torture memos and emphatically declared that the US will not do any of this again. That does not sound like complicity to me.

     Finally...could you give me a cite for the crematorium claim? I haven't heard that one before, so I confess I find it a bit dubious to say the least. This is not to say that I'm downplaying the issue; I find torture a repulsive stain on our recent history, but given that I find it all the more important that claims about it be grounded in fact rather than legend.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/20/2009 @ 09:57am

152. Can you cite when Bush ordered the release of classified information on our techniques, strategies, or methods of defeating the enemy?

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/18/2009 @ 11:05am

     Is it relevant? I mean, under W, it was explained to us little people, ad nauseam, that the Prez could declassify at will.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/20/2009 @ 09:58am

153. Sober, experienced people in the intelligence community who have been responsible for collecting actionable intelligence have said that torture does not work. Only doughy little armchair warriors caught up in Jack Bauer fantasies maintain the efficacy of these techniques, and their protestations smell like a combination of peed trousers and CYA.

     In this context, torture is a terror weapon, plain and simple. Leak just enough of what you are doing to the rest of the world, and the deterrent effect will have all the bad men thinking twice about screwing with Uncle Sam. Should work, right?

     We have become what we have been taught to despise.

     And we need to make it right.

     Posted by drhammer at 04/20/2009 @ 10:12am

154. Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/20/2009 @ 09:58am

     That's a good point....and one that Larry (antisoc) SHOULD agree with, given his abject Presidential authoritarianism.

     If Dubya could CLASSIFY anything that he wanted, since "he was President"....Obama can DE-CLASSIFY anything he wants to, because "he's the President"....right, Larry?

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 10:47am

155. Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 08:28am

     The issue in this thread is not due process per se but the infliction of cruel and inhuman punishment, which in turn may be torture. My suggestion was that the practice of capital punishment is a far more cruel and inhumane form of "torture" than any of the methods purported to have been used by the CIA against identified terrorists. I'm assuming (rather hopefully I must say) that your intelligence gatherers were able to pick the genuine article.

     If you look at, for example, the Handbook on "State Obligations under UN Convention Against Torture", you will find that torture is not specified but qualified by such things as age, health, ability to withstand mental or physical pain and the severity of the mental pain or suffering inflicted. So even in that guiding convention the subjective nature of torture carries the message that each state needs to specify what torture is and what it is not.

     Thus the Bush administration's attempt to give waterboarding and other methods of acquiring information some legal standing seem to be consistent with what the Convention asks for. Surely the task now is for your national legislators to get quite specific about what are and are not acceptable methods of information gathering by the CIA.

     I realise that is not what you are querying. The detention regime at Guantanamo and the Patriot Act seem to be in your sights but neither, I suggest, have had any effect on the freedoms of law abiding American citizens and need to be seen as a temporary expediency to deal with the unique quasi war, post 9/11 situation.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:04am

156. As I understand it a large proportion of those shipped to Gitmo are no longer there, with many returning to their homelands and a few getting back into the terrorising game. From memory there are about 240 left, some of whom are probably terrorists and will be dealt with by military tribunals or your civilian legal system. It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this.

     Our anti-terrorism laws (2005) have a sunset revision clause of 5 years and 10 years until they lapse. My understanding is that your Patriot Act has similar provisions. I'm sure that before those expiry dates your legislators and ours will have made a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of that sort of legislation in preventing terrorist attacks on our home soil and whether the same contingency still exists and take appropriate legislative action to either allow these temporary "war" laws to lapse or modify and reframe them.

     Unless you and other erstwhile law abiding Americans plan to start a bit of hardcore terrorising, you'll need a pretty powerful set of arguments to convince me that your legal freedoms are in any way curtailed by the Patriot Act or the presence of foreign prisoners in Guantanamo. It seems axiomatic that apprehended lawbreakers, of the non-terrorist variety, also immediately have their freedoms limited even if it is only a night in the cells or having their fingerprints taken etc. So stiff. That reduction in freedom happens under the best legal system and the initial temporary extent of the loss of is about proportional to the seriousness of the transgression.

     A far as the bit about turning the US into a Soviet style killing field, I don't think you believe that for a moment. I certainly don't. Your history militates against that happening.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:09am

157. I just read that they waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times. Ya gotta love it! I haven't had a good laugh in quite a while!

     Posted by abell12ct at 04/20/2009 @ 11:35am

158. Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:09am | ignore this person | warn this person I've read your several posts and they all seem to suggest that you may have some guilt to hide. The logic you espouse seems adolescent if not a little arrogant. We have plenty of evidence of our government historically taking advantage of situations to abrogate peoples freedom and human rights. You have heard of human rights I suppose. Case in point: African Americans, Chinese Americans, Native Americans. The nothing to hide argument doesn't wash either like the ticking bomb argument. They are both insipid little brain teases that have little value in reality.

     most recently we have had situations where police have actually killed abused and injured innocent people. I just truly hope that you are not wearing a badge

     Posted by julien38 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:42am

159. Posted by Merckx61 at 04/18/2009 @ 11:34am | ignore this person | warn this person

     YUP

     Posted by julien38 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:50am

160. Is it relevant? I mean, under W, it was explained to us little people, ad nauseam, that the Prez could declassify at will.

     Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/20/2009 @ 09:58am

     That's a good point....and one that Larry (antisoc) SHOULD agree with, given his abject Presidential authoritarianism.

     If Dubya could CLASSIFY anything that he wanted, since "he was President"....Obama can DE-CLASSIFY anything he wants to, because "he's the President"....right, Larry?

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 10:47am

     In no instance was Bush making public any techniques, strategies, or methods for dealing with the enemy.

     There is no comparison. Bush released intelligence reports.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 11:54am

161. Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 11:54am

     But, you grant the President...ANY President, huge latitude on foreign policy and military matters, Larry.

     Or are you changing your "Good enough for Dubya, good enough for Obama" bipartisanship now????

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 12:06pm

162. But, you grant the President...ANY President, huge latitude on foreign policy and military matters, Larry.

     Or are you changing your "Good enough for Dubya, good enough for Obama" bipartisanship now????

     LOL

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 12:06pm

     Not at all. Obama has the right to declassify intelligence the same as Bush and I would have no problem with it.

     this is entirely different. You do not openly reveal any military or intelligence strategies, techniques, or methods. that is why Hayden and 3 other former CIA directors called it dangerous.

     <AP) – Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records. Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet, and John Deutch all called the White House last month warning that release of the so-called "torture memos" would compromise intelligence operations.>

     http://tinyurl.com/cffo7k

     And Obama's current CIA Director-Panetta said the same thing.

     So you have 2 former Clinton CIA directors, 2 Bush CIA directors, and the Current Democrat appointed CIA director all making the same charge as I am. I think I stand with a pretty substantial group who's opinion is opposite of yours.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 12:16pm

163. The stinging insect! They're probing captive's most potent fears, the promising to deliver on them.

     Posted by debrae at 04/20/2009 @ 12:23pm

164. <i>Posted by Thrawn at 04/20/2009 @ 12:17am </i>

     I did some further reading, though my arguments are still put up with the same caveat as before, that my conclusions here are based on my own reasoning from what I observe and read, and cannot be taken as conveying any authority, etc.

     I think I found out the problem. Apparently, the prosecution of criminal cases has always been understood as a quintessentially executive function. Other branches can impinge upon it ONLY if in doing so, they do not substantially curtail the President's exercise of his powers. As a result, if Congress ever passed a law making prosecution of X offense mandatory whenever reasonable suspicion exists, it seems likely that it would be struck down because it is too much of an encroachment on executive power.

     My strong suspicion is that this same reasoning underlies Obama's confidence in the legality of his decision. If his powers to prosecute or not prosecute are such that no other branch of government could compel or prohibit prosecution of X offense, no treaty can do so either. As a result, if my reasoning here is correct, CAT's obligation to prosecute incidents of torture cannot be binding on the Executive branch. What's disturbing about this (and yes, it really bothers me too) is that it suggests Congress might NEVER be able to compel prosecution of torture without amending the Constitution.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/20/2009 @ 12:44pm

165. Not that leftists will like fact

     <The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture

     The four memos on CIA interrogation released by the White House last week reveal a cautious and conservative Justice Department advising a CIA that cared deeply about staying within the law. Far from "green lighting" torture -- or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation. Interrogations were to be "continuously monitored" and "the interrogation team will stop the use of particular techniques or the interrogation altogether if the detainee's medical or psychological conditions indicates that the detainee might suffer significant physical or mental harm."

     The memos are also revealing about the practice of "waterboarding," about which there has been so much speculative rage from the program's opponents. The practice, used on only three individuals, involved covering the nose and mouth with a cloth and pouring water over the cloth to create a drowning sensation.

     This technique could be used for up to 40 seconds -- although the CIA orally informed Justice Department lawyers that it would likely not be used for more than 20 seconds at a time. Unlike the exaggerated claims of so many Bush critics, the memos make clear that water was not actually expected to enter the detainee's lungs, and that measures were put in place to prevent complications if this did happen and to ensure that the individual did not develop respiratory distress.

     Messrs. Rivkin and Casey, who served in the Justice Department under George H.W. Bush, were U.S. delegates to the U.N. Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.>

     http://tinyurl.com/clfwdx

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 1:02pm

166. "In no instance was Bush making public any techniques, strategies, or methods for dealing with the enemy.

     "There is no comparison. Bush released intelligence reports.

     "Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 11:54am"

     Have you already forgotten about the outing of Valerie Plame? An act of treason Bush committed to punish her husband for telling the truth about the false Nigerian yellowcake claim.

     Another example is the threats and declaration of war made against the very idea of a free and independent press, following a newspaper doing its job by publishing a news report. [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200607010004 ]

     Bloody Hands Bush led a great deal of whining, pissing and moaning after the New York Times--as did also the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal--published an article about a "secret" Treasury Department program designed to monitor terrorists' international financial transactions. [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200606280010 ]

     All of the participants "forgot" that Bush himself, less than two weeks after 9/11, announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." According to the con-servatives, including himself, this makes Bush guilty of treason!

     It's no surprise, of course. The warmongers here continue to demonstrate how easily they lie about torture, and the fact that torture is yet another way that the con-servatives violate the very principles that once made this country great.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 2:15pm

167. Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 2:15pm

     You can keep reposting your lies and distortions but it won't make them any more accurate.

     1. Bush did not order Valerie Plame to be "outed". Furthermore, that action done by a liberal member of the state dept, did not reveal a single tactic, strategy, or intelligence method to our enemies.

     2. Your link to the media matters story is just the opposite of what you have responded. It centers around the NYT engaging in aid and comfort to the enemy by revealing how we were attacking the enemies funding. there is no action there by the Bush Admin to do so; it is just the opposite. They were trying to protect our intelligence.

     3. this is a repeat of item 2.

     4. this might be a little nuanced for you, but it is one thing to announce you have a program, it is another to do as the NYT did and expose the HOW. That is treasonous. And not the Bush admin, but the Press.

     Your attempt at a rebuttal has been a complete grade F bust.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 2:36pm

168. Another method con-servatives love to use in their constant attempts to cloud the issues at hand, is trying to claim that the treaties--international law--signed by the United States have no bearing on US domestic law.

     Wrong, yet again. According to Article VI of the US Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [ http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6 ]

     In other words, all treaties signed by the United States--including the Nüremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN Charter--become part of US domestic law. There is, then, NO clash between domestic law and international law.

     http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument

     http://www.genevaconventions.org/

     http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

     Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 2:40pm

169. I realise that is not what you are querying. The detention regime at Guantanamo and the Patriot Act seem to be in your sights but neither, I suggest, have had any effect on the freedoms of law abiding American citizens and need to be seen as a temporary expediency to deal with the unique quasi war, post 9/11 situation.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:04am

     This argument is used by those who seek to restrict rights of free speech, rights of privacy, right to due process, etc....that it is "temporary expediency." The chilling effect is palpable. NSA spying on journalists, attempts to searh library records, financial records search and reporting requirements by fiancial institutions, etc. You've got nothing to fear? Remember Richard Nixon? What if our government decides to pass unconstituional laws? Good until overturned right?

     The temporary expediency is sought to made permanent. How about the BAE bribery scandal - shutting it down because the Saudi's complained under threat that they wouldn't cooperate with GWOT. That expediency hurts Briitish citizens does it not - the interest of tax paying citizens to have a government free from bribery. We pay lots of prices - the law abiding, no harm no foul argument just doesn't fly.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 2:49pm

170. There is, then, NO clash between domestic law and international law.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     And hasn't Bush publicly admitted that the Geneva Convention applies to Iraq?

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 3:11pm

171. "You can keep reposting your lies and distortions but it won't make them any more accurate....

     "Your attempt at a rebuttal has been a complete grade F bust."

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 2:36pm

     What PRECISELY and where SPECIFICALLY are the "lies" you claim I tell? As for the lies you spew forth...

     It is a matter of public record that Bush, Cheney, and Rove were responsible for the outing of Valerie Plame. It is also a matter of public record that Plame was outed--causing untold damage to her mission and to her colleagues--to punish Ambassador Joseph Wilson for telling the truth about Bush's false Nigerian yellowcake claim.

     You obviously cannot say anything honest about the reports at Media Matters [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200607010004 and http://mediamatters.org/items/200606280010 ], because you obviously made no effort to read either one.

     From September 24, 2001 through at least September 10, 2004 Bush and his people revealed everything there was to know about that "secret" program to track the funding of all them terrorists. So, who was it that gave "aid and comfort to the enemy"? Why, good ol' Bloody Hands Bush did!

     "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." George Herbert Walker Bush, CIA dedication ceremony, April 26, 1999.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 3:31pm

172. Forgot to address the Niger Yellowcake.

     From FactCheck.org

     The famous "16 words" in President Bush's Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

     Bush said then, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ." Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

     A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush's 16 words "well founded."

     A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from "a number of intelligence reports," a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

     Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush's 16 words a "lie", supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

     Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium

     CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

     http://tinyurl.com/yoghnd

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 3:42pm

173. " could you give me a cite for the crematorium claim? I haven't heard that one before..."(Thrawn)

     http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/24/080324fa_fact_gourevitch

     P.S. There are still thousands of photographs at Abu Ghraib which have never been declassified. And there's a reason for that, to cover it up.If you want a video of this to prove your point, you'll not find it, but there wasn't one in Aushewitz either. What IS indicated is an independent prosecutor to defang the politics out of the accusations, which is exactly what Turley is calling for.

     Posted by mystic at 04/20/2009 @ 3:54pm

174. "Not at all. Obama has the right to declassify intelligence the same as Bush and I would have no problem with it.

     this is entirely different. You do not openly reveal any military or intelligence strategies, techniques, or methods."----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 12:16pm

     So he can declassify "intelligence" and you'd have no problem with it...

     but he can't declassify "intelligence strategies, techniques, or methods"?

     Ah-ha.

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 3:57pm

175. Perhaps you've heard of a branch of the US govt, called the Supreme Court? They have ruled repeatedly that treaties DO NOT supercede the Constitution.

     Supremacy Clause in Reid v. Covert; the Court offered a compelling demolition of the idea that treaties can be used to "cut across" constitutionally protected rights:

     <There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision of Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in ‘pursuance' of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.

     ... No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

     http://tinyurl.com/cbslwl

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 4:23pm

176. So he can declassify "intelligence" and you'd have no problem with it...

     but he can't declassify "intelligence strategies, techniques, or methods"?

     Ah-ha.

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 3:57pm

     And you don't understand the difference?

     The first says what we found

     The second says how we find it or deal with it.

     That would be like broadcasting how we are going to respond to certain kinds of battlefield strategies by an enemy. If they know what we will do in a situation, they have the advantage.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 4:26pm

177. A far as the bit about turning the US into a Soviet style killing field, I don't think you believe that for a moment. I certainly don't. Your history militates against that happening.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:09am | ignore this person | warn this person

     "hearsay good enough for conviction" is Stalinesque.

     'At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, the administration urged Congress to pass a law allowing it to resume practices that deny to military detainees some of the key rights provided in courts-martial or civil courts. Administration officials are worried that without such practices, such as permitting certain hearsay evidence, it might be difficult to obtain convictions for some detainees...

     "The court-martial procedures are wholly inappropriate for the current circumstances and would be infeasible for the trial of these alien enemy combatants," said Steven Bradbury, acting assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.....

     Democrats were more direct and critical. "I find it hard to fathom that this administration is so incompetent that it needs kangaroo-court procedures to convince a tribunal of United States military officers that the 'worst of the worst' imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay should be held accountable" for crimes, said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the committee's ranking Democrat. "We need to know why we're being asked to deviate from rules for courts-martial." Leahy described Bush's record on detainees as "five years, no trials, no convictions."'

     U.S. Shifts Policy on Geneva Conventions Bowing to Justices, Administration Says It Will Apply Treaties to Terror Suspects

     By Charles Babington and Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, July 12, 2006;

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 4:26pm

178. Have you already forgotten about the outing of Valerie Plame? An act of treason Bush committed to punish her husband for telling the truth about the false Nigerian yellowcake claim.

     First of all it wasn't an act of treason or the investigation would have shown that. Second the claim that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake in that specific case was not true. Iraq had stockpiles of Yellowcake already in its possession. The stockpile were later transferred to Canada as CNN reported..

     Posted by abell12ct at 04/20/2009 @ 4:53pm

179. My concern is rather for GINGRICH'S CONSTANT BABBLE about released documents. On that I say, Newt, bring it on. Democrats will be happy. Newt of course will never be President. Is there anything that Obama does that pleases Mr. Gingrich? He railed and raged against Obama regarding the piracy issue. Like McCain, Newt preferred the mantra of "bomb, bomb, bomb""to start a war the US can ill-afford to fight right now in the Horn of Africa. When Obama's approach succeeded and still saved the Captain"s life--and indeed produced the desired result with little cost--we didn't hear any apology from Newt. He is careless with his words--and does very little thinking before he opens his mouth. My sense is that beyond his opportunism and constant political posturing, he seems to have a personal hatred of Obama, a black man in the White House. Just think of his vicious attitude and words toward this President who is facing so many heavy-duty problems and daily working hard for the American people. If Newt and the Republicans had held Mr. Bush to the same standard they now hold Obama, we could not have descended into the current abyss of economic decline, weakened military position and tattered reputation abroad. We are never going to go back for choice of leaders to "leaders" like Newt Gingrich. The touch has been passed to a new generation of American. The question is: does Newt know this? Will he ever?

     Posted by drsam8 at 04/20/2009 @ 5:22pm

180. Obama told CIA personnel not to become "discouraged" by the release of the memos. He claimed there was nothing wrong with admitting that maybe, possibly we made some mistakes, "that's how we learn," he stated.

     Posted by debrae at 04/20/2009 @ 5:41pm

181. most recently we have had situations where police have actually killed abused and injured innocent people. I just truly hope that you are not wearing a badge

     Posted by julien38 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:42am

     Oh yeah and I suppose someone was once rude to your pet dog. You know. Animal rights. We've got them too.

     Perhaps, more relevantly, you you would like to show how the Patriot Act and foreign prisoners being held on that Cuban island by your immediate past and present governments infringe on your personal liberties. Have to keep reading and see how OV is going on the same little task.

     ps. Here's a little secret but keep it to yourself. Human rights in your country and most other enlightened countries have been and are still a work in progress. Oh and don't forget to keep an eye out for those badges. None of us like to be badgered

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 6:48pm

182. -From the gagging of our nation's librarians under the national security letter statute to the gutting of time-honored surveillance laws, the Patriot Act has been disastrous for Americans' rights," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "In the panic following the events of 9/11, our nation's lawmakers hastily expanded the government's authority to a dangerous level and opened a Pandora's box of surveillance."-

     National Security Letters. ACLU's Doe v. Mukasey forced the second circuit to strike down the draconian gag rule that prevents NSL recipients from telling anyone that the government has secretly requested consumer communication, financial and credit records. Also, government reports confirm that upwards of 50,000 of these requests go out each year, most against Americans, and many against people unrelated to terrorism. Material Support Statute. This provision criminalizes providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since September 11, this section criminalizes a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations. Federal courts have struck portions of the statute as unconstitutional and a number of cases have been dismissed or ended in mistrial. FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This past summer, Congress passed a law to permit the government to collect international communications coming into and out of the US in the absence of a warrant, even if one end of the communication is an American on American soil. This too must be amended to provide meaningful protections in the surveillance super structure.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 7:39pm

183. Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     I'm in absolute awe at such acute, sharp thinking. You must be on of those Cockney Brit drop outs, but I will keep that to myself. No my pet dog is 136 pounds of animal, no one is rude to her I'm afraid.

     ps. Here's a little secret but keep it to yourself. Human rights in your country and most other enlightened countries have been and are still a work in progress. Oh and don't forget to keep an eye out for those badges. None of us like to be badgered. Yes I sure will, and thanks for the clue

     Posted by julien38 at 04/20/2009 @ 7:39pm

184. ACLU Releases Report on Patriot Act Abuses By Jeralyn, Section Legislation Posted on Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:28:56 PM EST

     TalkLeft.com

     cite to above

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 7:40pm

185. Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Note: "Future Crimes" - wasn't there a Tom Cruise movie..................

     Give a read to the cite below - lots more material.

     'The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) {{ref|name}} (U.S. H.R. 3162, S. 1510, Public Law 107-56) is an act of federal legislation in the United States.

     Alleged abuses under the USA PATRIOT Act

     Allegedly outside the Act's scope Because the stated purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act was for investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts, critics of the act often believe that provisions of the measure were intended to focus on terrorism. This is not the case at all. The USA PATRIOT Act is an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) from 1978, which is primarily, but not wholly, concerned with espionage and terrorism. The changes from FISA, to the USA Act and finally the USA PATRIOT Act are said by President Bush and several members of Congress to increase the power of the government to fight terrorism, but in actuality, they are also used to detect and prosecute non-terrorist alleged future crimes.'

     http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/usa -patriot-act/alleged-abuses-under-the-usa-patriot-act.html

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 7:48pm

186. National Security Letters. ACLU's Doe v. Mukasey forced the second circuit to strike down the draconian gag rule that prevents NSL recipients from telling anyone that the government has secretly requested consumer communication, financial and credit records. Also, government reports confirm that upwards of 50,000 of these requests go out each year, most against Americans, and many against people unrelated to terrorism.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 7:39pm

     Who cares? I can send them my credit card bills if they're interested. I'll save them the cost. My contribution to reducing the debt.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 7:49pm

187. Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 2:49pm

     I think you are a bit obsessed OV. Perhaps you should vary your reading a bit or be more eclectic in your choice of sources. My feeling is that you are a bit of a narrow party political player, as are most here. You still have not given any instances of where any of these temporary (supposedly if you please) measures, enshrined in legislation, directly impinge upon your freedom of thought, expression or action or for that matter any other one of the 300 million of your mob.

     Though I am a believer in the rule of law, I don't for a moment believe even the best legal system is perfect and whilst humans are involved it will always be subject to the possibilities of the sort of corruption you mention. When things get really bad here we have Royal Commissions into corruption in things like the police force where witnesses must testify or get locked in the can. In our state we have the Office of Police Integrity which is regularly getting corrupt police gaoled. Also, showing how insidious corruption is considered to be, OPI members are regularly turned over so they cannot be got at by the criminal elements in government etc.

     The rule of law by its very nature will always impinge upon our freedoms. Here you can't ride a motor bike without wearing a crash helmet or drive a car without wearing a seat belt or drive if your blood alcohol level is above 0.08%. To do so and get caught begins with hefty fines and gaol for repeat offenders. And the list of lawful restrictions of our freedoms grows but non- obsessed citizens are more or less prepared to fore go some freedoms in exchange for the benefits which may be no more than a sort of insurance policy. Which is the same sort of insurance policy anti-terrorist legislation provides.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 7:50pm

188. Posted by julien38 at 04/20/2009 @ 7:39pm

     OK matey. With a bit of work I think we could make you into an Aussie.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 7:57pm

189. Sorry for that interruption OV.

     Getting down to your fears about your government ushering in a sort of police state. That I suggest is best countered by the checks and balances that you seem to have in your Congress such as the various committees and by the weeding out of corrupt politicians.

     As far as sunset clause legislation is concerned that is ultimately in the hands of your legislators. So you need to vote the right sort of politicians in to office. Whistle blowers like your good self help, as most importantly does a fairly party-political-unbiased "opposition to ruling government' press. Sort of keeping the bastards honest approach.

     We can paralyse ourselves with all sorts of semi-rational fears but in the end the strength of a nation's freedoms is a product of its history and the the good sense of its people. Particularly at the ballot box.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 8:15pm

190. Which is the same sort of insurance policy anti-terrorist legislation provides.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 7:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     You really believe this? Have you read any books about 9/11, and pre 9/11 intelligence. Come on mate. I believe in laws - narrowly tailored ones. Think the terrorists are that stupid do ya?

     This is Big Brother at your door and you are letting him in. I agree with Julien....you must have a past rooted in authoritarianism somehow....military, police, secret service.......care to share?

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 8:20pm

191. In true respect for the promised "transparency"(lol) of the Obama administration, I'd hope they would at least release the classified evidence showing the other side of the story! BE TRANSPARENT (OBAMA) AND RELEASE THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OUTLINING THE FACTUAL INTELLIGENCE THAT OUR GOV'T RECIEVED DIRUNG THESE SUPPOSED "ILLEGAL" INTEROGATIONS! Ya right! Just like when Osama promised that there wouldn't be ANY lobbyists in his administration, then appointed one from an EVIL defense contractor ( you losers know, defense contractors are supposedly EVIL. See : Halliburton ). This administration is a humiliation to us all, but more importantly.....our TROOPS!

     Posted by barry25 at 04/20/2009 @ 8:42pm

192. "...and the the good sense of its people. Particularly at the ballot box."----Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 8:15pm

     Still true to you "despite" November 4th, 2008?

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 8:49pm

193. "That would be like broadcasting how we are going to respond to certain kinds of battlefield strategies by an enemy. If they know what we will do in a situation, they have the advantage."

     oooohhh, ahhhhhh. waterboarding. wow. what an amazingly secret, ninja-like technique. had no idea that it existed. now everyone knows that the USA waterboards. damn! they got us!

     antisocialist never fails to dumb down the conversation. very much like that character in big lebowski: "the chinaman is not the issue here, donny you're out of your element"

     Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2009 @ 8:55pm

194. We can paralyse ourselves with all sorts of semi-rational fears but in the end the strength of a nation's freedoms is a product of its history and the the good sense of its people. Particularly at the ballot box.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 8:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Well in principle of course. But the reality is that no matter what we do at the ballot box, things are getting progressively worse here for the middle class, the corruption is more rampant despite the scandals, the voters are lied to (like the 2006 Dems promise to end the war), white collar crime goes largely unpunished, on and on.

     I admire your trust in the goodness of human nature - perhaps that is still true in Australia - but I think we public servants for the most part that are not interested in public service, but rather self advancement - at any cost, and their main mission is to preserve the status quo elite.

     Your view of the world isn't supported by the headlines.....mine is. I try to keep faith that all in life is cyclical, and this too, will pass. I don't want violence to initiate the cycle....I would like it to happen peacefully. The GWOT progeny is trying to forestall the day.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 9:00pm

195. Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2009 @ 8:55pm

     Duh...if they know we waterboard them, them Moooslims will start practicing holding their breaths and defeat our strict, but definitely NOT "torturous" interrogation techniques!

     Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 9:41pm

196. and that cheney continues to boast about those "programs".......

     Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2009 @ 9:46pm

197. Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2009 @ 9:00pm

     Come on that's all fine paper shuffling, OV, but where are the specific examples that touch your personal freedoms? Young Jules is also working on it. I hope.

     I tend to share your view about human nature which in religious terms is referred to as total depravity (that's all of us unfortunately) so I'm a little hard pressed to see where you got the impression that I believe in the goodness of human nature. Particularly since I gave you just a small sample of how endemic corruption can be in my country's public life.

     However I do believe in paradoxes and for some reason when flawed humans go to the ballot box in countries like yours and mine history has generally proved them to be right in their choice of politicians.

     Maybe it is not a paradox after all and those electorates with good sense, knowing power corrupts even the best of us, kicks one bunch out before they can do too much damage.

     P.J. O'Rourke, in Australia at present, was asked on TV if there was a star Republican in the Wings ready to lead them out of the wilderness. He said: " I hope not. We don't need a right wing Mussolini. We've had big government left wing governments and a recent even bigger government right wing government just thrown out of office. We don't want more of the same."

     Getting back to the good sense of the electorate, I've been in Russia a few times and I do not have the same confidence in the "good sense" electorally of that people. They are a people happy with and conditioned, over their history, to accept authoritarian rule. That by a powerful and often corrupt church and by equally corrupt political systems.

     So my faith in the good sense of our electorates is founded in our democratic histories and democratic political systems.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 10:04pm

198. "Perhaps you've heard of a branch of the US govt, called the Supreme Court? They have ruled repeatedly that treaties DO NOT supercede the Constitution.

     "Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 4:23pm"

     The only ones yammering about treaties superceding the Constitution are you con-servatives.

     Yet again: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [ http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6 ]

     With this, the US Constitution very plainly states that ALL treaties signed by the United States also become a part of US domestic law. Thus, there is NO clash between domestic law and international law.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 10:31pm

199. "Forgot to address the Niger Yellowcake.

     "From FactCheck.org

     "The famous '16 words' in President Bush's Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

     "Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 3:42pm"

     Well, so much for your FactLess.org.

     "Yet, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney still insist that the war against Bin Laden somehow naturally extended to Iraq. As recently as a June 17 interview with CNBC, Cheney asserted, without providing evidence, that 'there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming.' Nor would he rule out that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 plot. He even suggested that he had access to information that the 9/11 commission had not seen, an assertion that was later refuted by the commission's Republican chairman. Apparently, Cheney can now add the CIA and the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee to the list of those to be condemned for not embracing his lies." [ http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/19214/ ]

     Face facts, babe, BUSH LIED AND LIED REPEATEDLY to launch his unjustifiable and illegal war against two countries that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

     Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 10:52pm

200. "Face facts, babe, BUSH LIED AND LIED REPEATEDLY to launch his unjustifiable and illegal war against two countries that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/"

     Copenhagen University. Copenhagen University. Copenhagen University.

     Posted by mystic at 04/21/2009 @ 12:00am

201. I've been following the arguments and I think Thrawn makes some very solid points. I'm unaware of any 8th Amendment case law that applied it to actions not taken against someone in their capacity as a convict. If anyone has a cite, please enlighten me. I would point out that, as far as the criminal justice system is concerned, that such actions pre-penal sanction would raise Fifth Amendment issues as well as arguably being criminally and civilly actionable.

     The issue of international treaties is a different case. As a matter of domestic law, the CAT is US federal law unless superseded by subsequent treaty or legislation. Consequently, the issue is if ordering torture is an intrinsic executive power. THAT case is very hard to make.

     Thrawn is also correct in his general point on implementation. In fact, the SCOTUS jurisprudence on the Vienna Convention held specifically that, since enforcement provisions had been left to the signatory states, that application of the exclusionary rule wasn't mandated by it.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2009 @ 12:01am

202. "1. Bush did not order Valerie Plame to be "outed". Furthermore, that action done by a liberal member of the state dept, did not reveal a single tactic, strategy, or intelligence method to our enemies. "

     Except that 1) we have no business committing war crimes like torture; 2) therefore such techniques have no place in our toolkit; 3) torture is ineffective as an intelligence gathering technique. Consequently, the only "secrets" that have been revealed are those of illegal and ineffective actions.

     The outing of Valerie Plame (also done by the non-liberal Rove and Libby) burned her contacts and anyone affiliated with the dummy company she had used as a cover.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2009 @ 12:05am

203. <i>Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2009 @ 12:01am </i>

     Thanks, though I'm curious what you're referring to as the "implementation" point. Are you agreeing with me that a treaty cannot remove the clearly executive power of prosecutorial discretion?

     I agree with you completely that torture is not itself something one could defend as an inherent executive power.

     Also, completely agree with your analysis on Plame.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/21/2009 @ 12:23am

204. "Thanks, though I'm curious what you're referring to as the "implementation" point. Are you agreeing with me that a treaty cannot remove the clearly executive power of prosecutorial discretion?"

     I hadn't commented on that directly. With the Vienna Convention cases, we are dealing with a judicial application of the exclusionary rule. I think that, as a matter of domestic law, you have a point regarding prosecutorial discretion--although there is also an executive responsibility to "see that the laws are faithfully executed".

     I think much depends on the exercise of that discretion. I think there can be a point where it becomes will noncompliance with the law and possible evidence of collusion. I'm not sure such instances are justiciable under domestic law. The use of legislative powers such as control of the money, oversight and even impeachment would be the tools available. It could constitute a treaty violation though.

     Posted by brunowe at 04/21/2009 @ 01:51am

205. Posted by Hamms at 04/20/2009 @ 10:52pm

     Rule number one if you don't want to ham it up is go to source documents. The stuff you are posting is at best the biased opinions of non-actors or at worst anti-Bush propaganda.

     See how many lies you can find in this rationale for Saddam's removal from power straight from the horse's mouth so to speak:

     "On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. We know the treacherous history of the regime. It has waged a war against its neighbors; it has sponsored and sheltered terrorists; it has developed weapons of mass death; it has used them against innocent men, women and children.

     We also know the nature of Iraq's dictator. On his orders, opponents have been decapitated and their heads displayed outside their homes. Women have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation. Political prisoners are made to watch their own children being tortured. The dictator is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, within his own army, even within his own family."

     Oct. 2, 2002 - George W. Bush, MBA

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/21/2009 @ 04:31am

206. "Copenhagen University. Copenhagen University. Copenhagen University.

     "Posted by mystic at 04/21/2009 @ 12:00am"

     Okay, I'll bite. When it comes to the proven facts regarding the lies told by Bloody Hands Bush and his blood-soaked chickenhawks, what is the significance of writing the name of a university three times?

     Posted by Hamms at 04/21/2009 @ 05:38am

207. "Rule number one if you don't want to ham it up is go to source documents. The stuff you are posting is at best the biased opinions of non-actors or at worst anti-Bush propaganda.

     "Posted by lrjones4 at 04/21/2009 @ 04:31am"

     First of all, why is it that you con-servatives call the truth lies, but never make any effort to PROVE your claim? [Oh, yeah, the answer is in the question.]

     As for your question regarding the number of lies coming from the horse's ass, so to speak, when it comes to Bloody Hands Bush trying to justify his multiple violations of the Constitution and of international law: It's all lies.

     Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11; that point alone already proves Bush to be a murderous liar when he tries to justify his illegal war for oil. It doesn't matter how much Bush hated Saddam, international law does NOT allow launching a war of aggression to bring about regime change.

     International law allows war only if the nation is fighting in self-defense an invading force from another country. I know how much you hate fact sources, but I'm going to list one anyway: "This War Is Illegal" [ http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/13/2003/59 ]

     I am not at all impressed when warmongers try to dismiss information that they DID NOT READ. This is made obvious when, for example, you include such items as the Constitution, the Downing Street Memos, the Nüremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter as being "at best the biased opinions of non-actors or at worst anti-Bush propaganda." [What makes the opinions of non-actors biased, and the opinions of actors not biased?]

     Posted by Hamms at 04/21/2009 @ 06:22am

208. In no instance was Bush making public any techniques, strategies, or methods for dealing with the enemy.

     There is no comparison. Bush released intelligence reports.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 11:54am

     You truly are a hypocrit. So, Bush, Cheney and Libby out Valerie Plame's identity to political pay backs and that's A OK with you, but Obama declassifies a secret CIA torture memo and that's a bad thing.

     As Mask pointed out, if the president has all these powers you rethugs demanded while W was in office, Obama now holds them and can classify, declassify information at will....he's God's right hand man, right?!

     That's the problem with giving too much power to any one man, hence the separation of powers. But, there truly is no separation of powers. All of them are outrighted owned by their corporate business masters on both sides of the isle.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/21/2009 @ 06:36am

209. "Obama told CIA personnel not to become 'discouraged' by the release of the memos. He claimed there was nothing wrong with admitting that maybe, possibly we made some mistakes, 'that's how we learn,' he stated.

     "Posted by debrae at 04/20/2009 @ 5:41pm"

     While your CIA torturers breathe a sigh of undeserved relief, you need to be reminded of a very important fact: "Obama's Immunity For CIA Agents Still Leaves Prosecutions Of Senior Bushies On The Table" [ http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/17/door-open-for-torture-prosecutions/ ]

     Posted by Hamms at 04/21/2009 @ 06:44am

210. So my faith in the good sense of our electorates is founded in our democratic histories and democratic political systems.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/20/2009 @ 10:04pm

     When was Australia granted independence again? Or are you including the history of the British Empire in the democratic history of Australia as well. The same may be said for the US. These democratic histories are blink of the eye and may prove to be very short lived.

     As to Russia, well perhaps Russians accept that vesting power in one party is more likely to better their lives than having corrupt mafias compete for power and the inevitable payoffs every "election" cycle.

     As to naming individual specifics on how The Patriot Act has impacted my life personally, I must ask you the question as to whether it is you belief that that is the test of harm. If my fellow citizens are harmed, am I not harmed as well? For instance, if I am not harmed by racial discrimination, does it mean that I should not feel aggrieved by a government that supports such policy? We carry water for our fellow citizens. This is foundation for a lasting democracy.

     Posted by OneVote at 04/21/2009 @ 08:59am

211. Posted by Hamms at 04/21/2009 @ 06:22am

     Hamms there are some quite intelligent and educated Lefties on this forum from whom even we Connies can learn. You are certainly not one of them.

     The stuff you paste up here comes from sources that are ideologically opposed to Bush so anyone with a pass in clear thinking at secondary school level would instinctively know that if you want accuracy, on an aspect of the Bush history, you don't go first to left (or right) wing propaganda sources.

     If one has access to the source documents, has some knowledge of the context and average comprehension skills then that person should be able to work out what in fact was said by those who were shaping the events in question. That seems to me to be a pretty simple proposition.

     Armed with that information one can then go to the propaganda sheets such as Huffington Post on the left or say National Review on the right and be able to quickly evaluate who is distorting what was actually said or written by the primary source. All the rest fits somewhere behind that in accuracy as every commentator, it seems, cannot help but come with the baggage of his or her own biases.

     "What makes the opinions of non-actors biased, and the opinions of actors not biased?" Hamms

     Now look at your question above and see how you have miserably failed to pick up the vital distinction between a primary (source) document by "the actor" viz the Bush statement of 02/10/2002, which a primary school student would see was not an opinion but a source document and the opinions on non-actors who come to their commentary depending on a readership drawn from uncritical fellas like you who couldn't think straight if their life depended on it.

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/21/2009 @ 09:15am

212. Hamms most of us Connies come here, not to read the sort of conspiracy genre drivel you paste up but to find out what the intelligent lefty journos and posters are saying about important contemporary events.

     Now do you think it would be possible for you, without any help from your favourite spin doctors, to go through that source document I posted, which lists some of the substantial reasons apart from WMD that Bush gave for removing Saddam from power and list all the "Bush lies" you can find?

     Posted by lrjones4 at 04/21/2009 @ 09:17am

213. "what is the significance of writing the name of a university three times?" (Hamms) When such a prestigious university puts out something in its name, it's legitimate and devastating. Do your homework.

     Posted by mystic at 04/21/2009 @ 1:42pm

214. NOBODY UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF LAWS IS ABOVE THE LAW I would hope that under Attorney General Eric Holder, a man of transparent integrity, no one is above the law. Cheney and the likes are advancing the argument that has long been discarded in Western democracies--that the end justifies the means. If we should follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, that would mean that we may be justified to cut off the body parts of detainees (including alleged terrorists) in our custody as they do in some Moslem countries, in an attempt to extract needed information from them. Let the full investigation of this matter go forward without any encumbrance from those sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. In the end, we may be able to establish at least four things: whether, as Dick Cheney claims, we got much useful information (which I doubt--hence multiple waterboarding on a daily basis that suggests the information sought was not forthcoming); two, did those involved act even before they were authorized to do so; three, did any one exceed the bounds of authorized practice after they obtained authorization; fourth, who made the authorizationand with what legal logic. Above all, those responsible must be prosecuted to demonstrate to the world that we are a nation of laws and that no one is above the law!

     Posted by drsam8 at 04/21/2009 @ 3:58pm

215. "Posted by lrjones4 at 04/21/2009 @ 09:15am and Posted by lrjones4 at 04/21/2009 @ 09:17am"

     I stand by the statements I made in my entry for 04/21/2009 @ 06:22am. You, I see, still list such items as the Constitution, the Downing Street Memos, the Nüremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter as being "sources that are ideologically opposed to Bush". http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6 http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/390?OpenDocument http://www.genevaconventions.org/ http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

     Now, can you dispense with your spin doctors and answer questions which you con-servatives are afraid to answer? Since you never bother to read anything that does not look like it says what you want said, how can you justify the remarks that you con-servatives make that factual information is bogus? Why do you con-servatives refuse all requests to PROVE your claims?

     You also ask me to comment on an opinion document read by Bloody Hands Bush. I've already answered your question: In view of the much-proven facts that Bush is a skilled liar--even using lie upon lie upon lie to launch an unjustifiable and illegal war against two countries that had NOTHING whatsoever to do with 9/11--makes ALL of his attempts to justify his almost uncountable violations of the Constitution and of international law to be blatant lies.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/21/2009 @ 5:41pm

216. "When such a prestigious university puts out something in its name, it's legitimate and devastating. Do your homework.

     "Posted by mystic at 04/21/2009 @ 1:42pm"

     I've been sent on wild goose chases before. Also, you seem to know the location of that devastating thing they put out in their name. So, if you truly want me to read about that prestigious university and what they put out in their name, present the URL.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/21/2009 @ 6:03pm

217. Yet another tactic used by con-servatives to attempt to cloud the war crime of torture issue, is to try to make it seem as if torture is--in the words of the treasonous gun-running and drug dealing Oliver North--no worse than a weekend college frat party. Indeed, they try to make the war crime of toture seem not even as bad as a frat party. Slapping a guy in the face? Bumping a wall with a guy's head? Being forced to stand around? So what?

     There's even a few warmongers here who have stated that the list of torture crimes is funny [LOL! LOL! You call that torture!?].

     I wonder how many of the idiots who try to downplay the serious war crime of torture have had their heads not-at-all lightly slammed repeatedly against a concrete wall? How many of then have ever been forced to endure hours of stress positioning? How many have ever been attacked by vicious gaurd dogs? And the list goes on.

     The worst offenders are those who claim that they don't support and defend torture, even as they continue to support and defend torture.

     Well, I've read some encouraging news. Obama has reconsidered his position to not prosecute those who have committed the war crime of torture. [ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_interrogation_memos ] Of course, the Republiwarmongers are already hopping mad at Obama.

     Ain't life grand?

     Posted by Hamms at 04/21/2009 @ 8:12pm

218. Our reputation has been set back a generation because of this scandal. There needs to be an investigation to, at the very least, save face.

     Check out this short article that does a great job of debunking the arguments being used by those who oppose prosecution.

     www.progressnotcongress.org

     Very short, but pretty powerful.

     Posted by kevsters at 04/22/2009 @ 5:41pm

219. Trust me I have seen worse done by US police officers to their own citizens/ "civilians". Many instances involved repeated beatings with night sticks, peeper spraying, individuals unconscious for hours bleeding from the head, and even pistol whipping. Oh did I mention most of these kids receiving these punishment had committed non-felonies. Lets just say I was more afraid of the guards then the inmates and this was in NewOrleans.

     During the 'torture' techniques @ Gitmo, these war mongering prisoners released information which foiled terrorists attacks on LosAngeles, Chicago, and Washington D.C. How else would you get these haters to talk? A cigarette and the good cop, bad cop routine? In any other non-western country they would have been caineed, stung with scorpions, the old jumper cable to the nads, a gun to the head.

     I'm sorry but Gitmo was no Gulag!

     Posted by Esoteric82 at 04/22/2009 @ 9:45pm

220. After 9/11, my greatest fears came to fruition with the Patriot Act. In fact, the blame for torture lays in our knee-jerk reaction to one successful--horrible--act of terrorism. Instead of a reasoned reaction to 9/11, we chose to hand over our rights and, thus, the rights of prisoners accused of terroristic acts. We handed the reins over to a group of people whose agenda is now, finally, subject to review. Where was the outcry of the majority of our nation's citizens back then? I believe their sense of morality/ethics was smothered by the administration's continual push to keep fear at the forefront; advantageous for the administration's agenda to enrich their buddies, while insuring re-election.

     As for the practice of torture: prosecute the leaders who endorsed and legalized torture. I wonder if anyone remembers the Milner study regarding obedience to authority and torture? As outlandish as it is, he found that most people--law-abiding, kind people--will obey an authority figure and torture another human being. A later social-psychology study found that we tend to bow to the influence of our peers, right or wrong (I am ashamed to admit the author escapes me). How can we condemn underlings considering the above-mentioned findings? Let's prosecute the instigators at the top; the true criminals. I believe by doing so, we will insure future leaders will fear punishment for unethical/immoral acts. Perhaps, we can be the good guys again, rather than wallow in the dirt we smeared ourselves with due to an irrational sense of fear when we passed the Patriot Act and ignored our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

     Posted by brendam at 04/23/2009 @ 07:40am

221. Hamms: It could potentially bring down two different governments. Google.

     Posted by mystic at 04/23/2009 @ 08:04am

222. it's now clear that the "enhanced" methods were used to ellicit false confessions i.e. that Saddam and Al Qaeda were somehow linked. the methods used were not coincidentally those used by the chinese in korea to evoke false testimony from our G.I.s why would those same methods be used in this instance?? why indeed! Flail on neocon flail on-- more evidence reveals more guilt.

     Posted by budmurray at 04/23/2009 @ 11:51am

223. "'I'm sorry but Gitmo was no Gulag!'

     "Posted by Esoteric82 at 04/22/2009 @ 9:45pm"

     You are so very correct; Gitmo is far, far WORSE!

     Posted by Hamms at 04/23/2009 @ 5:21pm

224. "Hamms: It could potentially bring down two different governments. Google.

     "Posted by mystic at 04/23/2009 @ 08:04am"

     Presenting the URL of that prestigious university and that devastating thing they put out in their name would bring down two different governments? It's that devastating!?

     Which two governments, and how different are they? As I've pointed out before, you seem to know the location of that devastating thing they put out in their name. So, if you truly want me to read about that prestigious university and what they put out in their name, present the URL.

     Posted by Hamms at 04/23/2009 @ 5:42pm

225. Thank you, kevsters [04/22/2009 @ 5:41pm].

     I have read "Deconstructing The Arguments Made Against Prosecuting Those Involved in Torture", and it is a fantastic article. [ http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=411 ]

     One of the many things I like about it is reminding the readers of what Bloody Hands Bush said about torturing prisoners, and about those who try to make it seem as if torture is a good thing: "On March 23, 2003, President Bush in reference to American soldiers being captured in Iraq, said:

     "'If there is somebody captured, I expect those people to be treated humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals.'

     "Bush apparently felt that torture should be considered a war crime in 2003, so I have to assume he feels the same way now.

     "As for the people who do not believe acts such as, waterboarding, face slaps, sleep deprivation, stress positions, public embarrassment or insult, and a myriad of other cruel techniques, are not torture. This is a quote from March 24, 2003, made by former Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz:

     "'the Geneva Convention is very clear on the rules for treating prisoners. They're not supposed to be tortured or abused; they're not supposed to be intimidated; they're not supposed to be made public displays of humiliation or insult, and we're going to be in a position to hold those Iraqi officials who are mistreating our prisoners accountable, and they've got to stop.'

     It really does not matter what anyone thinks, because the Geneva Conventions explicitly defines all of the above as acts of torture...those who engage in such acts will place themselves in a position to be held accountable." http://www.genevaconventions.org/

     Posted by Hamms at 04/23/2009 @ 6:57pm