Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Constitution of the United States is absolutely clear when it comes to matters of torture.
Amendment 8 specifically states that,"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Acts of torture are by definition and common understanding -- certainly at the time of the drafting of the nation's essential document and arguably even in this less-enlightened era -- cruel and unusual punishments
Vice President Dick Cheney, when he assumed the second most powerful office in the land after the disputed election of 2000, swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."
Any reasonable reader of that oath would conclude that Cheney bound himself to abide by the Constitution -- and thus to avoid any involvement with the promotion of acts of torture upon detainees of the United States government.
Yet we now know from revelations made by former senior intelligence officials to ABC News and the Associated Press that Cheney and other members of the administration -- who apparently took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods were discussed -- authorized the use of waterboarding and other generally recognized torture techniques.
There is no question that Cheney violated his oath of office, which bound him to support and defend a Constitution that he disregarded.
The question is: How will responsible Americans respond?
The power to hold Cheney to account rests with Congress.
The power to get Congress to act rests with the American people.
Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, a respected lawyer who has been working with a number of other Constitutional experts and activists, has responded -- not just to Cheney's trashing of the Constitution but to the long list of Bush administration wrongs.
Anderson is circulating a letter that reads:
As patriotic Americans, we believe in knowing the truth about our government. Regardless of political affiliation, we believe in our constitutional democracy. We believe in the rule of law – that no person, regardless of position, is above the law.
We believe in respecting basic human rights – and have been proud to distinguish our nation from those countries where people are kidnapped, disappeared, and tortured.
We believe that in a democracy likes ours, citizens are entitled to know whether government officials are living up to their oaths to defend and preserve the Constitution, and whether they are abusing the human rights of people here or elsewhere in the world.
This is not a partisan matter. It is a matter of responsible citizenship.
Recently, several conscientious members of the House Judiciary Committee, including the Chair, Congressman John Conyers, have indicated support for public hearings to investigate and disclose the facts concerning claims of illegal conduct and other abuses of power by members of the Executive Branch. If misconduct has occurred, the American people are entitled to know. If misconduct has not occurred, hearings will determine and disclose that as well.
By showing that the American people – without political partisanship – support the disclosure of the truth through public hearings, we can make a difference, together standing up for the truth, the rule of law, and our Constitution.
• We are entitled to know whether members of the Executive Branch misrepresented the facts and withheld crucial information, thereby deceiving our nation and the international community before the invasion of Iraq.
• As American citizens who value the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government, we are entitled to know whether that system has been seriously undermined. We are entitled to know whether the courts and Congress have fulfilled their important constitutional roles in investigating and disclosing the misuse of Executive power.
• Our nation has engaged in the unprecedented, illegal, and immoral kidnapping, disappearance, and torture of human beings around the world (some of whom have been proven to be innocent of any wrongdoing), with no due process, in complete secrecy, and with no accountability. Even US citizens have been held in prisons indefinitely, with no legal counsel, no trial, and no charges filed against them. As Americans, we are entitled to know what has occurred in connection with these human rights abuses. In our democratic system of government, there must be full accountability.
Speaking out together, as concerned, patriotic Americans, we can send a clear message to Congress: In the United States, the rule of law must prevail, our Constitution cannot be disregarded, and the fundamental morality to which our nation has always laid claim will be restored.
Anderson asks that Americans who support the principles outlined in this letter -- as I do -- go to his Restore the Rule of Law website and sign on.
Signing this letter, says Anderson, who has opened an important dialogue about the Constitution and White House accountability with Conyers and other key players on the Judiciary Committee, "indicates to Congressman Conyers, other members of the House Judiciary Committee, and Congress as a whole that you support efforts to investigate and disclose any illegal acts and abuses of power by the President and others in his administration. Declare to the world, and to our posterity, that, as a US citizen:
• You proudly support our long-held constitutional principles.
• You are speaking out to reaffirm our democracy.
• You demand accountability for those in our government who have disregarded our Constitution, violated statutory law, or engaged in immoral human-rights abuses."
Anderson's is an authentic patriotic response to the latest revelations about Dick Cheney's disregard for the Constitution.
Go to the Restore the Rule of Law website and sign on and do what Cheney did not: support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
And the endgame is...what, exactly? I signed the letter for what it's worth, even if I don't think it will accomplish much. Conyers is sitting on impeachment resolutions for God only knows what reasons, and there has been nothing to shake that loose, not even his own constituents screaming at him.
Posted by yutsano at 04/12/2008 @ 5:53pm
happy, you are clueless. thanks.
and thanks for defending cheney et al.
Posted by darladoon at 04/12/2008 @ 6:42pm
hi, my name's happy, and i'll just jump at the chance to defend the most radical and arrogant abusers of american law since forever!
Posted by darladoon at 04/12/2008 @ 6:45pm
Posted by YUTSANO 04/12/2008 @ 5:53pm
Conyers is sitting on impeachment because it's a dead letter and all this 'lawlessnes' blather is just some sort of idiotic fantasy. It's only used to stoke up the base and get the nitwits on the left-wing fringe all riled up and contributing lots of $$$. Everybody else is wise to this, only the 'intellectuals' seem puzzled.
Posted by pontificus at 04/12/2008 @ 7:07pm
Actually, Pont, I'm sure you're more than grateful that Conyers is sitting on the impeachment as you would see just how "lawless" the Bush Administration has been. But can't shatter your illusions of Bush the Perfect now can we?
Posted by yutsano at 04/12/2008 @ 7:29pm
Jesus Haploid Christ.
Mr Nichols...it's the MIDDLE OF APRIL. In 8 months, it'll be the Election....in 10 months, the Inauguration.
And for OVER THREE YEARS NOW, you've been talking about how "this event" (insert John Conyers' basement hearing, some Vermont town passing an impeachment resolution, or now a letter from Rocky Anderson) is going to "be the final straw that brings about impeachment".
Again...is it delusion....or just pushing a few last copies of "Genius of Impeachment" on Amazon?
And when is the LAST "John Nichols' impeachment article" going to be posted?....August?...October?...November 4th?....January 19th, 2009? Please let us know so we'll know when you'll finally wake up and smell the coffee that's "off the table".
Posted by Mask at 04/12/2008 @ 7:43pm
Posted by HAPPY2 04/12/2008 @ 6:00pm
Rest easy, HAPP. Bush and Cheney and the Our Gang of Idiocy have "gotten away with it".
You don't need to defend the guys who've escaped justice....just sit back and enjoy it.
And hope that (like a lot of stuff according to you)..."Maverick John" doesn't "really mean" what he's saying about Gitmo.
Posted by Mask at 04/12/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by YUTSANO 04/12/2008 @ 7:29pm
Actually, Pont, I'm sure you're more than grateful that Conyers is sitting on the impeachment as you would see just how "lawless" the Bush Administration has been.
Let's not kid ourselves here, okay? No one on the left actually cares about lawlessness, now do they? They were all screaming when Clinton was impeached for perjury, lying under oath, and using his staff as a harem, charges that no-one seriously disputes. On the other hand, Conyers and half the lunatics on the left would impeach Bush for tying his shoes, if they could. So the issue is not actually lawlessness, it's whether anything other than a tiny minority of Congress actually believes these 'lawlessness' charges; they don't. So it's a non-starter.
No, the issue is not lawlessness, it's practicality. Nobody outside the leftist lunatic fringe takes your charges of lawlessness seriously. It's really that simple. And they don't really take you folks seriously, either.
But can't shatter your illusions of Bush the Perfect now can we?
The problem is your delusion that I think Bush is perfect, it's your delusion that you think you can impeach him for an offense that exists only in your imagination.
Posted by pontificus at 04/12/2008 @ 8:00pm
Alan Dershowitz may not be every, Jewish loving, Israel hater's favourite legal academic and jurist but in the following article the Harvard professor gives us a better insight into the qualified torture that he, Bill Clinton and many other Americans and other thoughtful people in other countries would probably accept. Thus Cheney and others could only be accused of not having adequate legal safeguards in place that give a nod in the direction of the Constitution. It could be stated as all torture is "bad" but some is necessary:
"Consider, for example, the contentious and emotionally laden issue of the use of torture in securing preventive intelligence information about imminent acts of terrorism -- the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. I am not now talking about the routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am talking about that rare situation described by former President Clinton in an interview with National Public Radio:
"You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over."
He said Congress should draw a narrow statute "which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." The president would have to "take personal responsibility" for authorizing torture in such an extreme situation. Sen. John McCain has also said that as president he would take responsibility for authorizing torture in that "one in a million" situation.
Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president -- indeed any leader of a democratic nation -- would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack. The only dispute is whether he would do so openly with accountability or secretly with deniability. The former seems more consistent with democratic theory, the latter with typical political hypocrisy.
There are some who claim that torture is a non-issue because it never works -- it only produces false information. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives.
The kind of torture that President Clinton was talking about is not designed to secure confessions of past crimes, but rather to obtain real time, actionable intelligence deemed necessary to prevent an act of mass casualty terrorism. The question put to the captured terrorist is not "Did you do it?" Instead, the suspect is asked to disclose self-proving information, such as the location of the bomber."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2007/11/07_dershowitz.php
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/12/2008 @ 8:07pm
Posted by HARVEY 79 04/12/2008 @ 8:07pm
someone involved in a massive attack doesn't care about being tortured.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/12/2008 @ 8:32pm
AIPAC asset Dershowitz wants a judicial licence to torture. A licence to do the unconstitutional, the illegal. Why? His clients have & do torture. Repeatedly police & military experts tell us torture doesn't work, the tortured will tell the torturer whatever the tortured thinks the torturer wants to hear, the tortured will lie to stop being tortured. We torture to get the confessions we want, confessions that assure us we are right in torturing, in imprisoning without lawful charge/trial, in seizing others' lands, mineral assets, liberty. The tautology of torture has always been so. Torture is cruel & unusual punishment without trial, particularly useful when there is no crime committed or even charged. "Actionable intelligence" is not a product of torture; reassurance of the righteousness of the torturer is the product.
Posted by sloper at 04/12/2008 @ 8:38pm
Moreover, that Dershowitz draws an analogy to the Nazis, of all people, as effective therefore justified torturers, is a remarkable & revealing lynchpin of his argument for the US judicial licensing of torture: the Communists did it, the Vatican did it, the Nazis did it, all with judicial sanction from their courts. Therefore, US courts can & should license necessary torture. Pay the law professor enough & he'll argue for whatever the client wants, however murderous or barbaric or useless.
Posted by sloper at 04/12/2008 @ 9:13pm
"...one can hardly call waterboarding "cruel or unusual".
Posted by HAPPY2 04/12/2008 @ 6:00pm | ignore this person
Something tells me that if he had ever actually BEEN waterboarded, he wouldn't be quite so...'happy'.
Posted by Lillian at 04/12/2008 @ 10:13pm
"...everything is relative and new standards evolve! "
Posted by HAPPY2 04/12/2008 @ 6:00pm | ignore this person
Hmmm, so....'waterboarding'...is the new 'standard'?
Posted by Lillian at 04/12/2008 @ 10:15pm
Posted by SLOPER 04/12/2008 @ 8:38pm
You hardly come to this without a strong bias that leads you to smear by association. Had you read what he said you would realise that the stuff about torture not working depends on how effective the method and how skilled the practitioner is. Dershowitz's reference to the French Resistance to show that torture gets relevant information needs to be rigorously refuted, before your claim has anything more than polemic value.
Of course what he was commenting on was Bill Clinton's acceptable torture scenario from his (Dershowitz's) expert legal perspective. I would suggest one might find Clinton's position would have overwhelming support not only in Congress but also in the wider community.
In that particular scenario the moral argument surely needs to weigh up the potential harm to many innocent citizens against the infringement of one person's rights and whether by his involvement in planning or other actions he should lose some of those rights to protect many or few innocent lives.
Which brings us to the Declaration of Independence:
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man."
Your position would trade those inalienable rights for the protection of those who would deprive innocent non-combatant Americans and others of those inalienable rights. Thus I would suggest that your concern about the Constitution, with respect to torture, is groundless because it conveniently forgets that the sole purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect, for the American people, those three inalienable rights.
My suggestion then is that your argument is false in that it fails to understand the purpose of the Constitution. One can argue endlessly about the Amendments but in the end it depends to a fair degree upon one's view of the Declaration of Independence and what the Constitution seeks to achieve i.e. is it some philosophical Sinai like decree sent down from on high for all men of all ages or is it a very practical document to govern free Americans?
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/12/2008 @ 10:25pm
Posted by HARVEY 79 04/12/2008 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person
silly sophistry. you are attempting to defend the indefensible.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/12/2008 @ 10:54pm
Quote of the day:
Obama Drips, Drips, Drips John Podhoretz - 04.11.2008 - 11:07 PM
Well, it has finally happened. Barack Obama has done what Democratic candidates for president invariably do -- he has revealed the profound sense of unearned superiority that is the sad and persistent hallmark of contemporary liberalism.
Posted by pontificus at 04/12/2008 @ 11:14pm
Hmmm, so....'waterboarding'...is the new 'standard'?
Posted by LILLIAN 04/12/2008 @ 10:15pm | ignore this person
I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the torture for which it stands, with waterboarding and rendition for everyone, with secret trials, and phony verdicts, why didn't we think of this sooner, with the unitary executive, crowned and sceptered, forever and ever
Posted by emile duBois at 04/12/2008 @ 11:21pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 04/12/2008 @ 10:59pm
EEK!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/12/2008 @ 11:51pm
Fear is the only law the cons understand.
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/13/2008 @ 12:37am
What would Castro do?
What Cheney did.
In Cuba. (Which is just like Finland BTW, without the US gulag)
Posted by crabwalk at 04/13/2008 @ 12:42am
WWJD?
He is just like Jack Bauer, in sandals.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/13/2008 @ 12:47am
Who says torture doesn't work?
the Military of the United States of America.
Who loves the military?
the frightened sheep of America.
BOO!
Listen to the troops. Listen to the troops.
"We don't torture"
"No doubt he has reconstituted his nookyular weapons program"
Posted by crabwalk at 04/13/2008 @ 12:51am
They feel morally superior putting urging policies that put at risk entire neighborhoods and cities
putting to risk "entire neighborhoods and cities" is incredibly insubstantial compared to the costs of positing a torture regime like the united states has.
the president has broken numerous laws, and i dare you to prove otherwise.
markcanyon, did the president break the FISA law?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2008 @ 02:30am
Officials tasked with the safety of Americans and of her cities, will have a different view
do you mean "law abiding officials" or "non-law abiding officials"?
even john ashcroft himself was opposed to torture and wiretapping.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2008 @ 02:32am
Your position would trade those inalienable rights for the protection of those who would deprive innocent non-combatant Americans and others of those inalienable rights. Thus I would suggest that your concern about the Constitution, with respect to torture, is groundless because it conveniently forgets that the sole purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to protect, for the American people, those three inalienable rights.
The only problem is that the liberty interest requires having limits on what our government can do. Further, not torturing doesn't put anyone at risk because torture is an ineffectual method of gaining information.
the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario...
...doesn't exist outside of cheap melodrama.
Quite obvious, everything is relative and new standards evolve! Suffice it to say, compared to our Radical Islam enemies, and even many of our allies, one can hardly call waterboarding "cruel or unusual". Water torture has been around for thousands of years!
What would be tragically cruel is to not employ maximum efforts to extract information that will save lives!
Which suggests that it is a form of abuse that the framers had in mind when they set up these prohibitions. Not to mention that we actually executed Japanese for war crimes for the same thing. Further, the idea that torture extracts anything useful is nonsense.
Posted by brunowe at 04/13/2008 @ 04:06am
"The only problem is that the liberty interest requires having limits on what our government can do. Further, not torturing doesn't put anyone at risk because torture is an ineffectual method of gaining information."
Posted by BRUNOWE 04/13/2008 @ 04:06am |
The inalienable rights referred to also include the right to life and happiness as well so it is hard to see how those rights can be exercised by persons who have been deprived of both by those who fly planes into buildings, full of people, or who may attempt to use other WMD. Surely a government that gives assent to these rights is failing in its duty if it does not make every attempt to ensure that its citizens can exercise these rights.
Your opinion on the effectiveness of torture (which in this Dershowitz case was limited to getting intelligence prior to a potential attack) is interesting in the sense that you produce no evidence to support that contention. If it was as axiomatic as you claim there would be no call for its use by anyone let alone clarification on the legalities of torture from those agencies that we can be certain have and still do use it outside the law. (The choice is to allow the field officers to torture at their own discretion or within the boundaries set by legislation).
The only way it could be conclusively shown that torture was effective would be to obtain intelligence information that proved to be accurate. Such a scenario, say, would be of co-conspirators who were captured according to accurate information given up by the tortured. I can find no evidence cited that refutes the claim that German torture of members of the French Resistance and French torture in Algeria was anything but effective when judged by this obvious measure. I note many of those who claim torture is ineffective do so on the opinion of "experts" who may or may never have "tortured" anyone. All that can be said of those "experts" is that they could learn something from the WW2 German interrogators in France or the French intelligence gatherers in Algeria.
What I do find is there are those, like you, who seen to feel the force of the argument that "ticking bomb torture" may have some moral validity but if and only if it is effective. And that "but if and only if" escape clause leads to unsubstantiated or unverifiable opinions that seem to fly in the face of some fairly powerful, practical evidence.
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/13/2008 @ 06:09am
"I can find no evidence cited that refutes the claim that German torture of members of the French Resistance and French torture in Algeria was anything but effective when judged by this obvious measure. I note many of those who claim torture is ineffective do so on the opinion of "experts" who may or may never have "tortured" anyone. All that can be said of those "experts" is that they could learn something from the WW2 German interrogators in France or the French intelligence gatherers in Algeria."-----Posted by HARVEY 79 04/13/2008 @ 06:09am
So....we should emulate the Nazis?
Sorry, is there ANY other way of reading HARV's use of "Germans in WW-2" as a model to follow on interogation?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2008 @ 08:01am
The inalienable rights referred to also include the right to life and happiness as well so it is hard to see how those rights can be exercised by persons who have been deprived of both by those who fly planes into buildings, full of people, or who may attempt to use other WMD. Surely a government that gives assent to these rights is failing in its duty if it does not make every attempt to ensure that its citizens can exercise these rights.
By your logic, security would trump every other part of the Constitution. That clearly isn't the case. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Further, the idea that torture will secure additional safety is fallacious.
I can find no evidence cited that refutes the claim that German torture of members of the French Resistance and French torture in Algeria was anything but effective when judged by this obvious measure.
I think it's interesting that you cite Nazi tactics. Further, you haven't provided any evidence that such tactics worked. Indeed, the U.S. general in charge of interrogations in Iraq stated that [tinyurl.com]"In my opinion, a rapport-based interrogation that recognizes respect and dignity, and having very well-trained interrogators, is the basis by which you develop intelligence rapidly and increase the validity of that intelligence"
Indeed, the author of one book found "no evidence that the French were able to harvest a significant amount of valuable intelligence through their use of torture. He said he came to the same conclusion after studying the Nazis' use of torture throughout Europe." (quoting the NYTimes article).
who seen to feel the force of the argument that "ticking bomb torture" may have some moral validity but if and only if it is effective.
No, what it's pointing out is that such hypotheticals distract from what torture is actually about.
Posted by brunowe at 04/13/2008 @ 08:42am
HARV cites the Nazis & the French colonial army in Algeria as models of successful torturers, perhaps for the US, with Dershowitz's judicial license, to emulate.
Interesting choices, particularly when seen in the light of how successful Nazism and French colonialism have been.
HARV, you do pick some choice heroes. The rest of us will pass, thank you very much.
Posted by sloper at 04/13/2008 @ 11:08am
"By your logic, security would trump every other part of the Constitution. That clearly isn't the case. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Posted by BRUNOWE 04/13/2008 @ 08:42am
Dershowitz was restricting his consideration, it must be stressed, to Bill Clinton's "ticking bomb" justification of torture:
"I am not now talking about the routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am talking about that rare situation described by former President Clinton in an interview with National Public Radio":
"You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over."
Then Dershowitz further clarifies Clinton's position thus:
"The kind of torture that President Clinton was talking about is not designed to secure confessions of past crimes, but rather to obtain real time, actionable intelligence deemed necessary to prevent an act of mass casualty terrorism. The question put to the captured terrorist is not "Did you do it?" Instead, the suspect is asked to disclose self-proving information, such as the location of the bomber."
It is important to see that it is not something like the mistreatment of prisoners of war (ref Geneva Convention) that is in view, as indicated above, but something that has a different moral calculus viz the protection of the "life, liberty and happiness" of (in this case) non-combatant Americans.
Have you considered the inappropriateness of your Benjamin Franklin quote?
As 9/11 testifies those approximately 3000 did not lose a "little temporary safety". Their lives were snuffed out in a moment of time and their spouses and children and relatives still bear the loss.
Perhaps Franklin, if he were alive today, would have thought a little more about the balancing of liberty (civil?) with the government's responsibility to protect its citizens as "essential Liberty", what ever that may be, isn't much use to anyone who is dead.
The evidence does not back up your quasi-religious faith, that torture does not produce actionable intelligence as the French/Algerian war and counter-insurgency shows:
The French lost Algeria, in part at least, through the cruel and barbaric counter-insurgency methods they employed but there is no doubt that systematic torture was extremely effective as the following excerpt from a source very much opposed to torture clearly shows:
Chapter 3, The Cruel War (1957)
The "Battle of Algiers"
On December 27, 1956, Amedee Froger, president of the federation of mayors of Algeria and a virulent spokesman for the minor colons, was mur- dered in Algiers. The next day his funeral occasioned truly brutal ratonnades (Arab-bashings), which caused several Muslim casualties. Tension was ex- treme between the Europeans and the Muslim Algerians. Robert Lacoste's general government decided to react. On the basis of the "special powers" passed in March 1956, he entrusted the "pacification" of Algiers to General Jacques Massu, commander of the Tenth Paratroopers' Division.
On January 7, 1957, eight thousand paratroopers moved into the city, charged with a policing mission. The "battle of Algiers" had begun. On January 9 and 10, two explosions caused panic in two stadiums in Algiers. But the horror reached its peak on January 26. Within a few minutes of each other, two charges exploded, the first in the bar L'Otomatic, the second in the cafe Le Coq Hardi, in the very center of Algiers. Two Muslim Algerians were lynched by an agitated European mob. On January 28, to coincide with the United Nations debates, the FLN launched an order for an eight- day general strike. The army broke the strike. At every moment and at every location, helicopters landed on the terraces of the Casbah.
The city was divided into sectors, and the Muslim neighborhoods were isolated behind barbed wire, under searchlights. General Massu, endowed with policing powers over the city, had the responsibility of restoring order, and broke apart the FLN's "autonomous zone of Algiers" (ZAA) which was located primarily in the Casbah and headed by Yacef Saadi. The FLN set up a true organization estimated at five thousand militants. Terrorism served to justify recourse to every means possible.
Massu's men made massive arrests, systematically took down names, and, in the "transit and sorting centers" lo- cated on the periphery of the city, practiced torture. The leader of the FLN, Larbi Ben M'Hidi, was arrested on February 17, and subsequently was said to have "committed suicide." The "very exhaustive" interrogations produced results. It was truly "blood and shit," as Colonel Marcel Bigeard said, a horrendous battle, during which bombs blew dozens of European victims to pieces, while paratroopers dismantled the networks by uncovering their hierarchy, discovered caches, and flushed out the FLN leaders installed in the city."
http://tinyurl.com/4fecpq
The above history of the war (referred to as "source" below) was tendered in a debate on the effectiveness of torture as follows:
CONTRA "It is entirely disingenuous for my opponent to offer the example of Algiers as only an example of the effectiveness of torture. First, we have only the word of an admitted criminal as to its effectiveness. Second, his testimony is obviously biased and the efficacy of torture self-servingly asserted."
ANSWER "It is a matter of historical record that the French military used torture as one of the primary tools during the Algerian War of Independence. It is also a matter of historical record that "In 1958-1959 the French army had won military control in Algeria and was the closest it would be to victory. (Wikipedia)." I am not sure what other explanation one can offer, if you choose to disbelieve the sources regarding the effectiveness of torture. It is not that torture was effective because an "admitted criminal" said it was so, but that no source (including some from the opposition) questions its effectiveness."
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/13/2008 @ 11:21am
HARV, you do pick some choice heroes. The rest of us will pass, thank you very much.
Posted by SLOPER 04/13/2008 @ 11:08am
You and Mask, who seems to go to sleep on the job quite regularly, have dropped off the pace. The proposition is that torture does not produce reliable or sufficient actionable intelligence. All one needs to show is that it has. Doesn't really matter who did it. Anyway are you saying you don't like the German and French stuff but would sign up for a bit of the US style?
Posted by harvey 79 at 04/13/2008 @ 11:33am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=harvey%2079
you're just indulging in revenge fantasies. you could go for a bit with the torturing, couldn't you?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/13/2008 @ 1:09pm
Have you considered the inappropriateness of your Benjamin Franklin quote?
As 9/11 testifies those approximately 3000 did not lose a "little temporary safety". Their lives were snuffed out in a moment of time and their spouses and children and relatives still bear the loss.
Nothing inappropriate about it at all. The point is that neither torture, nor Gitmo nor warrantless wiretapping would've been necessary to prevent 9/11. All it would've needed is an administration that was on the ball and didn't blow off warnings like "al-Qaida determined to strike in the United States".
What the administration has done is trade off liberties for whatever marginal gain, if there is any gain at all, from torture, lack of judicial oversight, etc.
Regarding your Algerian example, it's a clear case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You argue that since the French came close to winning in Algeria at the same time they used torture, that one must have caused the other. Problem with that, you mention a block-by-block search, boots on the ground, martial law in addition to torture. You haven't shown that torture made a difference in actionable intelligence nor have you shown that interrogations not using torture didn't (or couldn't have) obtained the same results.
I, on the other hand, cited to one book that involved a study of such techniques and held that torture did not, in fact, provide a significant amount of valuable intelligence.
Posted by brunowe at 04/13/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by HARVEY 79 04/13/2008 @ 11:33am |
HARV, the logic is inescapable...see if you see a flaw-
1. You argue that "torture works...look at how well it worked for the Nazis" (let's just cut the "Germans in WW-2" routine and call them what they were).
2. Ergo WE should employ torture due to its efficacy.
3. Ergo WE should emulate the Nazis' methods.
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2008 @ 2:15pm
"Harvey" wrote: "It is a matter of historical record that the French military used torture as one of the primary tools during the Algerian War of Independence. It is also a matter of historical record that "In 1958-1959 the French army had won military control in Algeria and was the closest it would be to victory. (Wikipedia)." I am not sure what other explanation one can offer, if you choose to disbelieve the sources regarding the effectiveness of torture. It is not that torture was effective because an "admitted criminal" said it was so, but that no source (including some from the opposition) questions its effectiveness."
I question the effectiveness of torture - just as I question silly red herrings like "Harvey's" "finding" that France in 1958-1959 was "the closest it would be to victory" in Algeria. Here's what we need to know: France LOST Algeria. There were of course many moments in the Algerian war which, taken in isolation and out of context, might be candidates for the "closest" France ever came to victory. This doesn't change the fact that the most important moment in any conflict is the FINAL moment. Nor that most "moments" randomly selected from the horrible history of France's colonial involvement in Algeria would have been moments of pain, misery, horror, injustice, and good intentions gone awry.
I repeat: I QUESTION THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TORTURE. And most of the facts are on MY side, not on yours, "Harvey." For hundreds of years, testimony extracted under torture "proved" that tens of thousands of poor, illiterate women had actually made secret pacts with the Devil, had cast spells upon their neighbors, had spread the Black Plague (before anybody had any idea how that disease was transmitted), had ridden upon broomsticks, and had sold their souls to Satan. Those were the WITCH TRIALS, which should be Exhibit A in any history of torture and its so-called "efficacy."
NONE of the supposedly damning "information" that the inquisitors in the witch trials obtained from supposed "witches" was true. ALL of it was obtained by torture or by threatening people with torture.
If you want the truth, you're better off going with a hunch than you are torturing some suspect just because you can.
The "ticking bomb" scenario seems to work only because it's a sensational, far-fetched fantasy. Not that bombs aren't real. But come on. You're telling me that you have a prisoner and that you KNOW that he knows where the bomb is, and when it will blow up, but he won't tell you unless you torture him? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
And what if you have the WRONG GUY? Are you going to torture him anyway?
Are you going to start rounding up prisoners and torturing them one after the other until one of them gives you information that you THINK is true?
There's a REASON why we have due process in our legal system, and there's a REASON why torture has been rejected by every country that fully embraces the rule of law. It's BECAUSE TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.
Unless, of course, your aim is to terrorize the public. Torture DOES make people fear the government. Arguably, this is how torture "succeeded" in Algeria - but not indefinitely.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2008 @ 2:59pm
"Harvey" wrote: "It is a matter of historical record that the French military used torture as one of the primary tools during the Algerian War of Independence. It is also a matter of historical record that "In 1958-1959 the French army had won military control in Algeria and was the closest it would be to victory. (Wikipedia)." I am not sure what other explanation one can offer, if you choose to disbelieve the sources regarding the effectiveness of torture. It is not that torture was effective because an "admitted criminal" said it was so, but that no source (including some from the opposition) questions its effectiveness."
I question the effectiveness of torture - just as I question silly red herrings like "Harvey's" "finding" that France in 1958-1959 was "the closest it would be to victory" in Algeria. Here's what we need to know: France LOST Algeria. There were of course many moments in the Algerian war which, taken in isolation and out of context, might be candidates for the "closest" France ever came to victory. This doesn't change the fact that the most important moment in any conflict is the FINAL moment. Nor that most "moments" randomly selected from the horrible history of France's colonial involvement in Algeria would have been moments of pain, misery, horror, injustice, and good intentions gone awry.
I repeat: I QUESTION THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TORTURE. And most of the facts are on MY side, not on yours, "Harvey." For hundreds of years, testimony extracted under torture "proved" that tens of thousands of poor, illiterate women had actually made secret pacts with the Devil, had cast spells upon their neighbors, had spread the Black Plague (before anybody had any idea how that disease was transmitted), had ridden upon broomsticks, and had sold their souls to Satan. Those were the WITCH TRIALS, which should be Exhibit A in any history of torture and its so-called "efficacy."
NONE of the supposedly damning "information" that the inquisitors in the witch trials obtained from supposed "witches" was true. ALL of it was obtained by torture or by threatening people with torture.
If you want the truth, you're better off going with a hunch than you are torturing some suspect just because you can.
The "ticking bomb" scenario seems to work only because it's a sensational, far-fetched fantasy. Not that bombs aren't real. But come on. You're telling me that you have a prisoner and that you KNOW that he knows where the bomb is, and when it will blow up, but he won't tell you unless you torture him? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?
And what if you have the WRONG GUY? Are you going to torture him anyway?
Are you going to start rounding up prisoners and torturing them one after the other until one of them gives you information that you THINK is true?
There's a REASON why we have due process in our legal system, and there's a REASON why torture has been rejected by every country that fully embraces the rule of law. It's BECAUSE TORTURE DOESN'T WORK.
Unless, of course, your aim is to terrorize the public. Torture DOES make people fear the government. Arguably, this is how torture "succeeded" in Algeria - but not indefinitely.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2008 @ 3:00pm
...one's view of the Declaration of Independence and what the Constitution seeks to achieve i.e. is it some philosophical Sinai like decree sent down from on high for all men of all ages or is it a very practical document to govern free Americans?
Posted by HARVEY 79 04/12/2008 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person
Gosh, I love that kind of talk.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/13/2008 @ 3:27pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 04/13/2008 @ 3:00pm
There's another part of HARV's "efficacy" argument, he must have missed...
the Nazis eventually LOST France...and the French eventually LOST Algeria.
Again, why should we imitate that?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2008 @ 4:14pm
here's a ticking time bomb scenario. imagine the terrorist has ten children. we torture him. nothing. we start shooting every one of his children one by one to make him talk. still nothing? his wife raped in front of him. and so on. nothing can be out of bounds since we are saving many thousands of lives, and these rights are for the living. so we are actually protecting the rights by torturing.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/13/2008 @ 5:42pm
Posted by FDR42 04/13/2008 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person
that the cops are following more people is not a sign of increased terrorist activity.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/13/2008 @ 5:44pm
When our elected leaders begin claiming the right to torture, the conversation moves directly to Impeachment Hearings, for our Constitution does not allow torture, period!
I have to chuckle when reading replies from the first dozen responders. If is fun to watch well educated writers "change the subject".
And... if the blog is about "torture", it's always really about Impeachment Hearings.
Torture is against everything the US Constitution stands for. Those Federal Executives that use torture in the name of the Citizens of these United States must pay for this horror with the loss of their positions. The Constitution does not say the Congress can wait 9 months and just let them leave office. It does not say there aren't enough votes in Senate. It does not say there is not enough evidence. it doesn't say "Impeachment won't happen". It just tells honest Congressmen what their duty is.
The neo-con and neo-liberals who keep changing the subject on this and just about every other blog and newspaper website are wasting their time. NO, we are not going to let you get away with it.
The only way that the Congressional Democrats (who allowed Bush to con them with the WMD lies ) are going to be able to cleanse their reputations is to immediately call for Public impeachment Hearings on H Res 333 and H Res 799, the Cheney Impeachment Resolutions.
As one who loves the Constitution I hereby swear to never forget the Congressmen who fail to stand up for Impeachment Hearings. Your failure will follow you throughout your career. Those of us who feel as I do will haunt you before every election. Make my day Congress. Challenge me/us on this.
We need to immediately mount an aggressive campaign against every Democratic Congressman that is in a close race for both the House and the Senate. Put a ruthless and relentless pressure on Democrats in tight races and you will be by extention pressuring Pelosi's majority given Speaker position and we then Will have Impeachment Hearings.
An op-ed I wrote for OpEdNews.Com today entitled "Activists need to get tough with House Democrats who are seeking re-election" explains what I and like minded voters think must be done now, before, and until the November election to protect the Constitution and Separation Of Powers. We Can Make Impeachment Hearings Happen.
You may read the article at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_ken_080412_activists_need_t o_ge.htm
(Note: the s/w broke the url & added a space between the t & o, remove it to see the site) or just go to http://www.opednews.com it is headlined.
IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS Prior To The Election are the only way we will
+Protect the Constitution and Separation Of Powers
+Tell all future Presidents that their rogue behavior will not be tolerated.
+Regain the respect and cooperation of the other nations of the world.
+Protect our children's future rights and freedom.
John H Kennedy, Denver CO, http://ImpeachCO.com Impeach Colorado Coalition
..
Posted by JohnHKennedy at 04/13/2008 @ 6:28pm
Posted by JOHNHKENNEDY 04/13/2008 @ 6:28pm
Impeachment is dead.
If Pelosi didn't kill it with "off the table"...
If Conyers didn't kill it with "elections are our only recourse" to Cindy Sheehan...
then Robert Wexler USING it to raise campaign donation, then suddenly going quiet last month after the checks were cashed...
shows where it lies and what gravesite it's in.
Sorry, dude.
Posted by Mask at 04/13/2008 @ 7:23pm
Something tells me that if he had ever actually BEEN waterboarded, he wouldn't be quite so...'happy'.
Posted by LILLIAN 04/12/2008 @ 10:13pm
Anyone who thinks that waterboarding is not torture has obviously not recently used a "wipey" to clean snot from the nose a 2 year old very recently.
Oddly enough, the "but it's for their own good" argument applies there, too.
Posted by skeletonman at 04/13/2008 @ 7:42pm
It is a dead issue.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/13/2008 @ 8:55pm
a rotting albatross tied around the neck of the constitution.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2008 @ 9:08pm
Our constitution is battered from all of the leftist assault on it, but it will still stand
the quote of the day! an absolutely extraordinary statement. is anyone left utterly speechless by the sheer, breathtaking lunacy of the above words?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2008 @ 10:44pm
can anyone here name another president who has brazenly eviscerated more long-standing, constitutional statutes than bush? can anyone name a more radical president than bush?
i dare you.
and that we are even discussing whether waterboarding is justifiable pretty much sums up how far we've sunk since 2000.
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2008 @ 10:48pm
and waterboarding is just what happens on our watch. what they do in jordan and syria, where we have sent prisoners, goes way, way beyond waterboarding.
does anyone here care to know what a jordanian prison is like?
Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2008 @ 10:49pm
I guess it needs to be said again: Impeachment, however feasible or unfeasible you may find it at the present moment, is EMINENTLY CONSTITUTIONAL. This is one of the main points of John Nichols's book.
To call for impeachment is not to "batter" the Constitution but to USE it.
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2008 @ 10:49pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/13/2008 @ 9:56pm
hey! feel like nuking nepal?:
Former Maoist guerrillas on brink of historic Nepal election victory
· Rebels upstage political rivals as royal dynasty ends
· We are committed to democracy, says leader
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/13/2008 @ 11:03pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/13/2008 @ 10:44pm
Our constitution is battered from all of the leftist assault on it, but it will still stand
the quote of the day! an absolutely extraordinary statement. is anyone left utterly speechless by the sheer, breathtaking lunacy of the above words?
What I am struck by is a) how true it is and b) how oblivious you are to that fact. It's truly sad how indoctrinated you lefties are, and, to the outward observer, just how 'out there' you lefty folks are.
Posted by pontificus at 04/14/2008 @ 04:34am
How young would a person have to be for the torturing Christians to not want to torture that person to alleviate the fear of what might, maybe, happen?
do you guys have a limit on that?
Do you "folks" have an opinion on "We hold these truths to be self evident", that all men have certain inalienable rights, one of which is to be free from abusive treatment at the hands of gubment beeyrocrats? Or does your right to seek happiness exceed anothers right to be innocent till proven guilty?
do you think President Hillary would be in-line torturing Scooter Libby to find out what he really knows about the leak in national security?
Would it be OK to hold a blow torch to a child's feet, in front of his parents, to get his parents to talk?
Do you want to be like Saddam Hussein, Hitlr, PolPot and Muqtatda al Sadr? Or is it just that you want to live in fear the rest of your lives, like Saddam, Hitler etc?
I think Christ would bitch slap the lot of you across the room.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 07:20am
Listen to the troops!!!! Why do the cons spout that propagandist gem, but they refuse to actually do it?
Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them." Rothrock used psychology, the shock of capture and of the unexpected. Once, he let a prisoner see a wounded comrade die. Yet -- as he remembers saying to the "desperate and honorable officers" who wanted him to move faster -- "if I take a Bunsen burner to the guy's genitals, he's going to tell you just about anything," which would be pointless. Rothrock, who is no squishy liberal, says that he doesn't know "any professional intelligence officers of my generation who would think this is a good idea."
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq. That, in the long run, outweighs any theoretical benefit. Herrington's confidential Pentagon report, which he won't discuss but which was leaked to The Post a month ago, goes farther. In that document, he warned that members of an elite military and CIA task force were abusing detainees in Iraq, that their activities could be "making gratuitous enemies" and that prisoner abuse "is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry." Far from rescuing Americans, in other words, the use of "special methods" might help explain why the war is going so badly.
An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative."
So, the pros say it does not work. It may cause harm to our own soldiers. It does cause people to turn against our cause.
why do the cons want to do it?
fear, and it makes them feel good.
The same people that tell them we have to do this, are the same people that said Saddam had wmd's, ties to AQ, that victory is just around the corner and it will only cost $2B.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 07:29am
Our constitution is battered from all of the leftist assault on it, but it will still stand
Hey Rev!
Let us ask Wesley Snipes how the "income tax is unconstitutional" argument works.
Buwahahaha.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 07:31am
Tony Lagouranis, who served as a U.S. military interrogator for four years and spent a year in Iraq, part of it at Abu Ghraib. Lagouranis left the Army in 2005 and recently published a book about his experiences, Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq (NAL, 2007).
had a breakdown when I got back," he said Thursday, a grim reminder that torture exacts a price from the torturer as well as the victim.
Before he and his classmates left for Iraq, he said, "We were trained to do interrogations according to Geneva Conventions, very strictly. However, the administration decided to muddy those clear rules, and when we got to Iraq we believed the Geneva Conventions did not apply to these people. So we had no training, basically, on what we were supposed to do, what our limits were."
Although a Pentagon-issued document on rules of engagement "had some suggestions" on interrogation techniques -- among them, Lagouranis said, the use of dogs, sleep deprivation, isolation, and environmental manipulation -- "it didn't tell us we couldn't do other things, too. It told us to be creative. And so we often turned to television."
Lagouranis said he "definitely saw instances where people took specific ideas from TV shows," including 24-inspired techniques like mock executions and electrocutions. But more than techniques, "what we took from television was the idea … that torture would work."
"I don't believe that," he said. "Having actually used these methods in Iraq, I can tell you that torture did not work for me in any case." Nor, he added, did he ever see it work for other interrogators.
But, the cons saw it on TV!!! It worked on TV, the bastion of liberal media!!
It works on TV, and it makes them feel good. I guess the liberal plot is working!
If it feels good, do it!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 07:37am
For Lagouranis, that "real world" seems impossible to forget. "The vast majority of people I interviewed were innocent," he said. "The vast majority of people we tortured were innocent."
Do you feel better HARVEY, LUVVY, PONTI and MARKY?
Does it make you feel all proud, safe and HAPPY to know that in your name innocent people were tortured in your name, to make you feel safe?
Does it make you feel all proud and patriotic to know that Mr Arar was kidnapped from the US, sent to Syria and tortured, even though he was 100% innocent of any plots to harm you? Do you feel more safe?
The report, released in Ottawa, was the result of a 2 1/2-year inquiry that represented one of the first public investigations into mistakes made as part of the United States' "extraordinary rendition" program, which has secretly spirited suspects to foreign countries for interrogation by often brutal methods.
The inquiry, which focused on the Canadian intelligence services, found that agents who were under pressure to find terrorists after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, falsely labeled an Ottawa computer consultant, Maher Arar, as a dangerous radical. They asked U.S. authorities to put him and his wife, a university economist, on the al-Qaeda "watchlist," without justification, the report said.
Arar was also listed as "an Islamic extremist individual" who was in the Washington area on Sept. 11. The report concluded that he had no involvement in Islamic extremism and was on business in San Diego that day, said the head of the inquiry commission, Ontario Justice Dennis O'Connor.
Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.
O'Connor concluded that "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat.
Feelings,, whoa whoa whoa, feelings...
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/14/2008 @ 07:47am
good work, crabs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 10:12am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/14/2008 @ 07:47am
Agree, with FROS...good work, CRABBY.
But you KNOW what the Right's response is going to be..."Well, that's too bad...but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Any innocents who get tortured, we'll send 'em a check or something!"
Posted by Mask at 04/14/2008 @ 11:29am
MoD to pay compensation for death of Iraqi prisoner Baha Mousa
By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent and Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:21am GMT 28/03/2008
The Ministry of Defence has admitted it breached the human rights of an Iraqi hotel worker who died in British custody, and agreed to pay compensation which could reach £1 million.
Another eight Iraqis are likely to receive substantial payouts after the MoD admitted they were abused by troops from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment following a raid on a Basra hotel after the 2003 invasion.
Baha Mousa, the receptionist at the hotel, suffered 93 separate injuries and died in custody. Eight survivors of the raid, who were also taken to a British army base and assaulted, joined his family in lodging a series of compensation claims at the High Court in London.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/27/wmod127. xml
[there's even a picture of the abused all you torture admirers can gave upon]
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/14/2008 @ 12:26pm
You are making a compelling argument for impeachment. I know it's late in thne game but impeachment of Bush and Cheney would have the effect of warning other would-be elected dictators in the future that actions have consequences and violating the Constitution may provoke it to rise up and bite their backsides.
Posted by midnight04 at 04/14/2008 @ 5:51pm
First, let me apologize to the rest of the world for what the government of the United States of America has done to you all.
I understand there are people who will say that the USA is one of the most "giving" countries of the world, by donating money and food to countries in need.
Let me clear this up for those people.
The ONLY time the USA does anything, it is to benefit themselves.
Second, I spoke with someone from Brussels about 15 years ago who told me that the people he knew, believed Americans were uncaring and selfish people.
I spoke with someone in the year 1998, he was from Morocco, and he told me how the world looked at Americans as "stupid", for many reasons.
Neither one of these people spoke to me in a negative tone, we were having friendly conversations.
Once September 11th 2001 happened, I am MANY other Americans have opened our eyes and realize why MOST of the world thinks the way they do about us.
Third, I can only hope the people of the world forgive me and my fellow Americans for being so gullible in believing our government actually cared about us and anyone else on the face of the earth.
Please know that, between 60 and 80 percent of the people of America do not agree with what the USA government is doing, (depending in what poll you read). We are upset at the USA's imperialist globalization and military forces and bases that are located in more than 700 countries. We are upset with what a disaster the Middle East has become and how many people, not just Americans, have died. We are upset that our government has told us and the world that they are always the "good guys" whenever they step into a conflict involving other countries, because now we know that the USA government is just as guilty, if not more, at being the "bad guy", performing illegal acts, and have not been held accountable.
Please believe me when I state that I am sorry.
Believe me, that what I am doing right now by posting this, is breaking the law in America and I could be found guilty of treason and/or be deemed an "enemy combatant" taken away, looked up for the rest of my life in solitary confinement, illegally tortured, not given contact to anyone on the "outside", and not able to have a lawyer or even be told why I am being locked away.
The USA government, especially the current George W. Bush's administration, has destroyed ANY rights we Americans, or you, people of the world have, and these people believe they can do whatever they want with no consequences.
These people will use whatever military forces they can to do what they want.
I fear for my life and my safety.
Some of you reading this will say "Good….now you know how we feel", because some of you may have already experienced a totalitarian government and have animosity towards the USA, but please do not have it towards the American people.
We, the people of America ARE learning, we are opening our eyes; we just needed to feel the pain, to be personally effected, to realize this.
Thank you for letting me express myself.
Corey Mondello Boston, Massachusetts United States of America CoreyMondello.com [CoreyMondello.com] 4-14-08
Posted by coreypaul at 04/15/2008 @ 08:24am