MucheDumbre

No really.  What is it?  This turned out to be much more difficult to answer then you would think.   Of course, I’m not talking about boiling someone’s feet, or taking a blowtorch to the eyeballs.  Those acts seem to be rather uncontroversially designated as torture.  No, I’m talking about that crown prince of enhanced interrogation; waterboarding.   

 On a philosophical and personal level, I feel waterboarding is torture.  Its purpose is to cause mental anguish enough to cause the subject to spill their guts on plans and operations.  Still, unlike a blow torch to the eyeball or boiling feet, people are lining up to have themselves waterboarded, either for a bet, charity, or publicity.   One wonders why Jackass star Steve-O didn’t think of it.  Vanity Fair journalist Christopher Hitchens did think of it.  As well as Chicago radio personality Mancow (allegedly) and Central Florida radio listener Evil Eye.  Sean Hannity made the offer to do it, but as yet hasn’t made good on his offer.  In a battle of the ratings can Chris Matthews and Glenn Beck be far behind?

On a legal level however, I have grave doubts on if waterboarding meets the standard.   Torture is against Federal law, specifically, Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113C of the US Code.  However what does it actually say?  The law defines torture this way:

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

 It would be difficult to argue in court that waterboarding results in severe mental or physical pain.  No marks or physical damage after all, and no reported mental issues from waterboarding.  Or at least I have not heard of anyone suffering from Post traumatic Stress Syndrome or other long term issue from the interrogation method.

This was the gist of the “Torture Memos” which I had discussed a few weeks ago.  The former Justice Department attorney’s, whom President Obama has decided to give the Kangaroo Court go ahead to the Attorney General, made a fairly good case that waterboarding doesn’t violate US law as torture.  That’s not an argument that waterboarding is a harmless prank, or around the level of good cop/ bad cop when it comes to interrogations, but it does give good evidence that the high bar to define it legally as torture was not met.

And who should confirm that conclusion? None other than Attorney General Eric Holder.  Holder gave away the store a few weeks ago during a Congressional hearing on closing the detainee facility at Gitmo. Holder was being questioned specifically about torture and confirmed again (as he did during his confirmation hearing) that he regarded waterboarding as torture.  Then he was asked if he regarded the waterboarding that Navy Seals received during their training as torture.

Holder:  No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —

 Rep. Dan Lungren:  So it’s the question of intent?

Holder:  Intent is a huge part.

Lungren:  So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

 Holder:  Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at… ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding.  When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture.

 Rep. Louie Gohmert:  Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent.  If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn’t that correct? 

Holder:  No, not at all.  Intent is a fact question, it’s a fact specific question.

 Gohmert:  So what kind of intent were you talking about?

 Holder:  Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act?  Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

 Gohmert:  I said that in my question.  The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm — there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm — knew that for sure.  So, is the intent, are you saying it’s in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured.  Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he’s doing harm.

 Holder:  The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances.  That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.  

   So Holder, seems to be saying, without outright admitting it, that in a legal sense, under Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113C, the waterboarding that was done by the CIA was not torture.  It’s all about the intent.  And Holder practices what he preaches.  That is the exact position the Justice Department is taking in another case, Demjanjuk v. Holder.  In that case, John Demjanuk, a former Nazi camp guard was fighting deportation to Germany to stand trial on the grounds that considering his age, poor health, and expected bad treatment at the hands of German jailors (ohh irony!),  would be the equivalent of torture due to the “severe Pain and suffering” that he would be expected to endure.  Demjanjuk lost, since the court found there was no established intent (there is that word again!) by German authorities to torture him.

And yet, law is apparently not going to stand in the way of political opportunism both for the Obama administration and the Holder Justice Department.  A leaked DOJ ethics report on John Yoo and Jay Bybee, two of the authors of the infamous torture memos, will recommend disciplinary action.  All because they devised the legal strategy that Holder is using in another case, and has basically admitted in hearings is correct.

Frankly, this is bullshit.  I know it and Attorney General Holder knows it, but with such a friendly press, there is never going to be a gotcha moment in a press conference; at least not one that will receive wide coverage.  Did you catch Holder’s admission on intent in those hearings leading the nightly news?  Neither did I, even though it exposes the hypocrisy of deriding a legal theory in public that the Obama administration is accepting as it’s own on the down low.

Was it worth it?  The waterboarding I mean.  The former Bush administration took a political risk in adopting that technique, and competing camps have battled on cable shows on whether waterboarding was effective or saved American lives.  However the opinion of the intelligence community seems to be yes, it did.  A Washington Post piece describes the “second wave” attack that had been planned for Los Angeles.  A hijacked airliner would have been used to crash into the Library tower in LA.  Thanks to information collected through waterboarding, we were able to stop the plot before it ever got off the ground (pun is mine).

You can have a philosophical argument on if any sort of enhanced interrogation is ever justified, regardless of the lives saved.  Some people, incredibly, would rather see such plots go forward rather than sully their hands at the dirty work of intelligence collection.  But that’s different from the legal argument on whether the three Al Qaeda terrorists that were waterboarded were legally tortured.  I would have to say, based on the preponderance of evidence that they were not.  As I said at the beginning of this piece, I do personally regard waterboarding as torture, however there are several other techniques I may feel personally are torture that just don’t meet the legal standard.  Letting me drink a couple of beers and then not letting me pee for instance.  President Obama has already banned the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique by executive order, but don’t look for the Congress to try bring up another bill to outlaw the technique, like they did during the Bush administration.  I imagine if there is another 9/11 style attack, that executive order will quietly be rescinded, in a closing the barn door after the horses are out kind of way.

So we now live in a world in which we can waterboard Mancow, or any other publicity whore, but not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or if we ever catch him Osama Bin Ladin.  I’m not sure we could even force KSM to listen to Mancow. Maybe if KSM would agree to be waterboarded  for charity…

Hypocrisy

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

If there is one party who can really step into a mess, it’s the Democratic party.

If there is one party who can exploit that mess, it’s the Republican party. The republicans have a viciousness to them, a ‘pit bull’ streak that finds an opening and goes in for the kill. And like any wild animal when cornered, the attack is bloody and savage. Just look at the attacks on Nancy Pelosi over the last couple of weeks.

“I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I’ve seen in my lifetime.”

“She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior.” -Newt Gingrich

Accusations of ‘viciously using partisanship’ from Newt Gingrich are not only comical but over the top,unabated, pure hypocrisy. Newt is the poster child for being the loudest one to complain, condemn and prosecute  someone else for doing exactly the same thing he was secretly doing.  As if his infidelity while his mission to attack Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair wasn’t proof enough of his hypocrisy, his problem of using tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals should have limited his ‘Pelosi dishonors Congress’ rhetoric. But, it didn’t.

Newt is old news though, an unimportant politically partisan pitbull hoping his hypocrisy has been forgiven. It hasn’t.  But what about newer more relevant GOP members?

“Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime,” Boehner said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And if the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they can be prosecuted.”

He added: “And if that’s not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world.”

That’s right, Nancy Pelosi should apologize to the CIA from claiming that they have misinformed congress. It is a disparaging remark and like Boehner says, she needs to ‘put up or shut up’.

It doesn’t matter that Pelosi’s accusations that the CIA memo’s are misleading seem to be panning out or that even some Republicans agree that the briefing notes contain many errors, such as briefings that listed former Chairman Porter Goss as the head of committee when Rep. Pete Hoekstra had already taken over. Because Hoekstra says, those errors are meaningless

Of Course those errors are meaningless. It doesn’t matter that 2 separate briefings have a low-level staffer as  being in on the top-secret,code-word clearance briefings. It’s meaningless that this staffer says he was actually asked to leave, which would be expected since he  only  two walked members to the room. It doesn’t matter that this staffer,Paul Juola, has asked the CIA to “immediately correct this record.”

It doesn’t matter that former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham came out and said not only did the CIA hide details from him during his briefings, but that 3 of the 4 dates the CIA said they briefed Graham were in error

…he(Graham) asked agency officials to confirm how many times they briefed him on torture. They gave him four dates, but after Graham went through his personal records and disproved three of those dates, he said the agency admitted their mistake and confirmed that he had, in fact, received only one briefing.

When our intelligence agency says they briefed someone 4 times and they really only briefed them once, when they say the person who headed  the committee was someone who had already been replaced, when they say that they allowed a staffer in on a code-word clearance briefing, none of it is relevant, in fact it’s ‘meaningless’. But when you go out in public and say that the CIA is misleading congress, that disqualifies you as from continuing as speaker. Or so Newt Gingrich says.

“To have the person third in line to be president say that the CIA misleads us all the time is so utterly irresponsible and such an attack on the men and women who are risking their lives … that she disqualifies herself for being speaker of the House,”

Now, this has nothing to do with partisan attacks, Newt,Boehner and Hoekstra wouldn’t do that. No, they are truly outraged that someone would smear the CIA by claiming they have mislead congress on some issue…

Well, except when it’s Hoekstra, and the CIA has just destroyed torture video tapes that they were warned not to destroy. When that happens

…it’s important for Congress to hold this community accountable. This community did not tell — the CIA did not tell us about the existence of these tapes. They did not tell us that they were going to be destroyed. They need — there’s a Constitutional responsibility for them to keep Congress informed and they have not and we need to hold them accountable

Or so Mr. Hoekstra says.

It’s OK for Mr. Hoekstra to say the CIA  mislead Congress. Even better, when you are on Fox News being interviewed by Chris Wallace, it’s ok to get down right nasty on the CIA.

WALLACE: Congress man Hoekstra, Hayden appeared this week before your committee. Are you satisfied that over the years the CIA acted in good faith?

HOEKSTRA: No, I’m not. There are certain statements that might have been misleading to Congress as to exactly what existed. I think you’ve got a systemic problem here. I think the community is incomPetent. It is arrogant. And it has developed — it’s become political. This — you know, you take a look at wmd in iraq. They were wrong.

Hoekstra went even farther than just calling them arrogant,incompetant and saying that they have mislead congress , he also said

…you’ve got a community that’s incomPetent. They are arrogant and they are political, and they don’t believe that they are accountable to anybody. They don’t believe that they’re accountable to the president. They’ve clearly demonstrated through the tapes case that they don’t believe they are accountable to Congress. And when we are at war, that is a terrible position for the intelligence community to be. If they had done what they are supposed to do on the tapes, keep us informed, listen to the kind of recommendations that my colleague Jane Harman made to them, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today. But because of their arrogance and their willingness to move independent, that’s it.

The CIA? they’re political? They don’t believe they are accountable the President much less Congress? They’re incompetent?  These are just a few of the things that are OK to say about the CIA, unless of course you’re Nancy Pelosi.

Quick question, if the CIA mislead Congress, destroyed evidence… are arrogant,political,incompetent and admittedly prone to briefing errors.. why exactly are we or the GOP taking anything the CIA says over Nancy Pelosi?

It wouldn’t be to get the stink of another political land-mine off of them would it?

“..when you say that the community is incompetent, I’m telling you I don’t have confidence in the community. You know, I have high confidence that the community continues to be broken and is not giving us as policymakers the information that we need to make good decisions.-HOEKSTRA

Hypocrisy

“She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowist of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior.” -Newt Gingrich

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

UPDATE

Yes, the CIA has lied to Congress and covered it up. I think Newt might be the one who should step down and go back into hiding, after apologizing to Pelosi of course…

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gingrich: ‘Absolute obligation’ to investigate Pelosi (cnn.com)
• Did the CIA lie about torture? (guardian.co.uk)
• Newt Gingrich: CIA Bully-Boy Since 1995 (firedoglake.com)

In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser to former President George W. Bush, verbally approved the water-boarding of an al Qaeda terrorist named Abu Zubaydah.  On August 1st, after ignoring dissenting legal opinion on the legality of water-boarding and whether it was ethical or even productive, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and the Justice Department gave the green light to water-board Abu Zubaydah in what is now being called the ‘‘torture memos’. One memo, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use “harsh interrogation techniques” on a high-ranking terrorist( Abu Zubaydah) on the grounds that previous methods had not been working.

Zubaydah was water-boarded 83 times  that month.

According to many, including Marc Thiessen President Bush’s former speech writer, the technique was a success. Jose Padilla was apprehended in Chicago on May 8,2002 because of information learned through Zubaydah’s water-boarding sessions.

The problem with this is, in May 2002 Condelezza Rice hadn’t yet given her verbal authorization to water-board and the Justice Department, along with Gonzales and Ashcroft hadn’t yet given the written authority. Rice’s authorization wouldn’t come for another 2 months and the ‘Torture memo’ authorizing  the water-boarding would not be written for another month after that. If Abu Zubaydah gave interrogators the information needed to apprehend Jose Padilla, he did it without being water-boarded or he was water-boarded without consent of the NSA,White House or the justice department.“

one of the top

three leaders

in the [al-Qaeda] organization.

Another question raised is, if Abu Zubaydah was cooperating  and had already given up the information that lead to Padilla’s capture in May, then why did he need to be water-boarded 83 times in August?

In a story from CBS news, dated March 29, 2009, a former senior government officials said that not only was the information Abu Zubaydah gave after being tortured worthless, but it also caused the FBI and CIA to run aimlessly around the globe chasing made up shadows.

President Bush, in order to justify what he was allowing to take place, called Abu Zubaydah “al Qaeda’s chief of operations” and “one of the top three leaders in the organization.”

Not long after his capture though, this was found to be inaccurate..

Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man

Image via Wikipedia

that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources. Rather, he was a “fixer” for radical Muslim ideologues, and he ended up working directly with al Qaeda only after Sept. 11 – and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.

This is not to say Zubaydah wasn’t a criminal or even part of a terrorist conspiracy, but he was not what he was water-boarded for. He was being water-boarded, so they told us, because he was the number 3 in al Qaeda, he wasn’t cooperating and he knew things that would help us stop the next wave of the attacks.

a senior terrorist leader

and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden

But was he a high-ranking Al Qeada member with close ties to Osama Bin Laden? Was he uncooperative under normal interrogations? Author Ron Suskind wrote, which the Washington Post has confirmed, that President Bush was so invested in Zubayduh that another question that be must be asked is; is it possible that his ties to Bin Laden or his level of cooperation really didn’t matter at some point?

Suskind writes in his book, “The One Percent Doctrine” which Barton Gellman reviews, that not only was Zubayduh just the ‘go-to guy’ for minor purposes, but  he was also mentally ill.

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries “in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3″ — a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail “what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said.” Dan Coleman, then the FBI’s top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, “This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.”

During this time President Bush’s outward proclamations were that we had captured a major leader in Bin Laden’s network. Privately though he wasn’t so sure, at one point even asking George Tenet “‘I said he was important,’

…’You’re not going to let me lose face on this, are you?’

To which Tenet replied, “‘No Sir, Mr. President.’”

The Chinese used water-boarding as a way not to get their enemies to confess their crimes, but to get them to confess to things they had not done. In the middle of 2002, what was going on that would require someone to force a person to falsely confess to something?

The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.

It’s true that a link from those responsible for the 9/11 attack  to Saddam Hussein would have made the case for the war in Iraq that much easier, but is that the reason for Zubaydah’s treatment?

In 2002, this country was still reeling from the attacks only a few months earlier, crews were still digging out ground zero and our hearts were still broken into pieces as we remembered  those flag-draped remains being brought home to those who loved them. Would we have tortured anyone to get  any information telling us who, why and if there was another attack coming?

When Zubaydah was water-boarded in 2002, the CIA video-taped it. Some of the question we have today could be answered by just reviewing those tapes. Unfortunately, the CIA’s director, Michael Hayden had them destroyed for security reasons. But there are many principals left who can answer some of these questions.

ABC News Video

One of the 1st questions being, why was the Vice President the one to  give the order to use these techniques and where was President Bush during these discussions and decisions?

Allah had visited

him in his cell

during the night and

told him to cooperate,”

Do we ‘cross the Rubicon’ as my colleague says and open an investigation of the previous administration? And if by doing so, do we damn all other Presidents who come after him? Dick Cheney wants more memo’s released so that his side of the story can be told. But will he stand before congress and give his side under oath is the question. Judging by the last time his administration was under oath in in front of Congress..

In several hours before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Gonzales said he had done nothing improper in firing the eight prosecutors, but conceded the case had been badly handled. At the same time, he said 71 times that he either could not recall or did not remember conversations or events surrounding the dismissals.

The answer to that question is not as clear as it should be.

Abu Zubaydah was captured in 2002, he was water-boarded 83 times in August 2002 for not cooperating with interrogators even though 3 months earlier he had given enough information for officials to arrest Jose Padilla. A CIA operative involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou now retired, told ABC News that what happened to Zubaydah was in fact torture, but it was also necessary. He goes on to say  the water-boarding was so effective that Zubaydah broke within 35 seconds and the next day told investigators  that “Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate” and that… “From that day on, he answered every question,”

If Zubaydah broke after only 35 seconds, broke to the point where he spoke with Allah and Allah told him to answer every question then why did he need to be water-boarded an additional 82 times that month?  The Chinese used water-boarding to make their victims give false confessions.  What question did he either refuse to answer or not know the answer too?

Before the release of the ‘torture memos’ Kiriakou was sure about the number of water-boardings and even had actual quotes made by Zubaydah, but after the memo’s release, ABC contacted him and he had this to say

When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being water boarded on one occasion. It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques.”

So who has the 1st hand information on this session where these comments were made? Who can answer if  Zubaydah was tortured before NSA Rice gave a verbal nod allowing it? Who can answer if Zubaydah was in fact cooperating with interrogators 3 months before the “Torture memo’s” were even put to paper? Who can answer if he really broke after only 35 seconds of one session or if he needed an additional 82 more before he gave information that had the CIA and FBI running all over the world to confirm? Did traditional interrogation methods work with Zubaydah? Did he give up the information he had on Jose Padilla and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, did the Bush Administration really get ‘actionable intelligence’ from by using these ‘enhanced’ techniques? The man who really was there, Ali Soufan says he questioned Zubaydah from March to June 2002 using traditional methods and he was successful in gathering actionable intelligence and the information Zubaydah gave up on KSM and Jose Padilla came before he was water-boarded in 83 times in August. Mr. Soufan goes on to say that not only were the enhanced technique unnecessary and useless, they even created a wall between the FBI and the CIA, similar to wall that impeded the sharing of information before 9/11. It was so detrimental to the rival bureaus that the person who knew Khalid Shaikh Mohammad more than anyone else in the government, was  not allowed to speak with him.

There are so many questions that need to be answered and we know the principals involved who need to be asked.  But the biggest question of all is, do we really want the answers? Do we really want to go down that road and if so, just how far are we willing travel on it?

Related articles by Zemanta

• How the Bush administration waterboarded a low-level operative, who was brain-damaged, 83 times (americablog.com)
• FBI Zubaydah Interrogator Calls George Bush a Liar: “No Actionable Intelligence Gained from Using Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (firedoglake.com)
• Rice approved CIA waterboarding (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Released memos don’t answer age-old question: Does torture work? (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Some wag once said that Obama keeps all of his promises; they just have an expiration date.  I guess that’s how we got from “President Barack Obama will not pursue the prosecution of Bush-era officials who devised torture policy against detainees” to it “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general” within a few days.  That was a quick turnaround, even by Obama standards.  However events and leftie blogs pushed Obama rather quickly after the release of the “torture memos,” which reveal the legal underpinning for what is euphemistically referred to as “enhanced interrogation.”

The timing strikes me as odd considering just a week ago a Spanish court decided to investigate whether to pursue charges against Bush administration officials who provided the legal underpinning for those interrogations.  Then low and behold, the Obama administration declassifies those very documents written by those Justice Department lawyers.  That could hardly be a coincidence.  The message seems to be that the Obama administration will not attempt to protect and may even assist, in international prosecutions of Bush administration officials, and who knows, maybe even prosecute a few themselves.

I took a look at the torture memos out of curiosity and to confirm that things people were saying were in there actually was.  I’ve learned you can’t trust someone else’s interpretation.  Full disclosure:  I didn’t read the whole thing.  I just don’t have the legal background to make a determination if the case the Justice Department attorneys tried to make made sense or not, but I was curious about a few things.

First of all, what was the classification of these damn things?  Looking at the pdf of the memo, I could see that the pages were all classified Top Secret (scribble scribble) NOFORN, but what was the caveat or code word that was scribbled out?  I magnified and tried to see through the blackened areas, but no such luck.  Just curious I guess.  I was just wondering if it was a cool sounding codeword, Top Secret Maximum Hammer, or just something dorky, Top Secret Loosie Goosie?

Another thing; what was the deal with all the waterboarding?  The original leaks described it as the most successful interrogation technique since “good cop, bad cop.”  Abu Zubaida supposedly broke after 35 seconds.  However page 37 of the memo details something more complicated:

…where authorized, it may be used for two “sessions” per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42.  Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.

…The CIA used the waterboard “at least 83 times during August 2002” in the interrogation of Zubaida…and 183 times during March 2003 in the interrogation of KSM”

So somebody check my math, but that that means either the guidelines for waterboarding are wrong, they ignored their own guidelines, or the number of waterboarding sessions is wrong, since the could not have waterboarded that many times in a month if they followed the guidelines.  Or they are counting applications, instead of sessions.  It’s too vague to tell.

As far as I know, I’m the first person to discover this, so somebody give a prize or something.

However I’m not the first person to notice the incongruity of it being reported that Zubaida broke after 35 seconds and being waterboarded 83 times in one month.  I don’t see how both of those can be true.

But like a 23 minute Arlo Guthrie song, that’s not what I’m here to talk about.  OK well maybe a little, but what I am really worried about is the Obama administration deciding to settle scores.  Since President Obama is the Attorney General’s boss, going from being not interested in pursuing prosecution of Bush era officials to saying it’s up to the Attorney General is tantamount to giving the green light to prosecute.

Now I am of two minds on this.  There is one part of me, the mean, hateful part, that would love to see lawyers have to take responsibility for writing legal opinions, and by taking responsibility I mean forced to pull their orange jumpsuits down in a dark corner of a federal prison and get doo doo raped.  I’m not a fan of lawyers as you might notice.  Generally, lawyers don’t have to take any responsibility for their poor performance. Their clients do. These lawyers, if prosecuted, certainly would.

Also there is the precedent.  Once one administration opens the door to prosecuting the previous administration for policies it disagreed with, every time there is a change in power, the new administration will do the same.  In 4 years I could sit back and watch members of the Obama administration be indicted for all manner of crimes.  What comes around goes around eh?

But that is only one side.  I have a more dominate opinion on this, not one based on score settling, hatred of the bar, or getting revenge on wrongs, real or otherwise, on the current administration at some point in the future, but based on reason, rule of law, and the dangers setting bad precedents.

 First of all, I’m not sure there is even a crime here.  There may be a crime somehow under Spanish law, but I’m fairly certain there is no Federal Statute against giving a legal opinion that the current administration disagrees with.  One can imagine the kangaroo courts if we decide it’s OK to prosecute judges for ruling on a decision that’s been overturned, or a legislator who votes for a law that is later found to be unconstitutional.  That would be as criminal as anything those Bush Justice Department attorneys did.

The precedent of one administration getting revenge on the previous one would be a bad one.  Senator Leahy’s idea of a truth and reconciliation commission; as if going from the Bush administration to the Obama one is equivalent to eliminating apartheid, or the Nuremberg Trials, is ridiculous.  During every election, we always like to repeat the old canard about “the peaceful exchange of power” but how long would that be true if we up the stakes every time  political parties switch positions of power?  If hundreds of administration officials could expect nothing but indictment if a rival party takes power, are we really not that far from Peron’s Argentina?

It’s one thing to indict and prosecute officials who have actually done criminal wrongdoing, but I’ve noticed from my friends on the left is their tendency to want to criminalize policy differences.   They would love to have Bush and Cheney doing the perp walk, weighed down with chains, but ask them what sort of charges its usually something vague, like “war crimes” or just that they were criminals.  Their real crimes?  Holding different policy positions.  Not violating federal statutes.  If we try to prosecute attorneys for writing legal opinions, that won’t be justice, it will be punishment.  Punishment for losing the election.

Once we cross that particular Rubicon, it’s damage that cannot be undone. Rome could never go back to it’s Republic, and if we allow score settling after every change of power, we won’t be able to go back either. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Released Memos Could Lead to More Disclosures (nytimes.com)

“I worry very much that what is being done here is saying, ‘We’ve got an economic crisis, therefore, we’re justified in fundamentally remaking the health program in America,’” Cheney said. “I don’t think that’s right.”-Dick Cheney, March 15,2009

Let me get this straight. Dick Cheney, in an interview on Cnn Sunday morning, is worried that President Obama is using this crisis unwisely?…That on the other side of this crisis, the people of this country might actually get….. healthcare? Oh dear Lord please save us from the evils of healthy children.

“I worry a lot that they’re using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government, and much more authority for the government over the private sector,” Cheney said in his first television interview since leaving office. “I don’t think that’s good. I don’t think that’s going to solve the problem.”

He is worried about a ‘massive expansion in the government and much more authority for the government over the private sector’?  Are you fucking kidding me?  The man who was behind the largest growth of government in the private lives of it’s citizens since the McCarthy era is worried that the government is getting to much authority over the business’ who ruined this countries finances? Is he worried that maybe the SEC will actually take a fucking notice when they are told repeatedly about the next Bernie Madoff?

Is there some law or commandment that says we still have to take this kind of vapid bullshit seriously? We voted for a change in this country, isn’t it time we stop letting this kind of mental retardation infect the populous? The GOP is already playing the game of ‘We’ve completely forgotten the last 8 years and so should you” and the ones that are up in arms over anything President Obama has done or wants to do are the exact same ones who were cheering for Bush and Cheney when they were doing it for the last 8 years. If we wanted more of the same, we’d be calling Sarah Palin Ms. Vice President now and as scary of a fucking thought as that is… it’s still not as frightening that come Monday morning conservatives all over the country will be echoing the words of this dotty old man who it’s obvious must suffer from some kind of elderly mental disorder since he cannot remember his part in the passing of the largest and most intrusive government of all times with the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security. Not too mention the part where this same man who is worried about Government influence decided Congress and the Constitution  have no authority over him or his office.

If Dick Cheney was or is so worried about this country, then why is he still furious that George Bush didn’t pardon  the man convicted of lying about his part in the leak of a CIA agents name?  An agent who worked on WMD’s in a time of war, his war, whose covert status, along with the covert ‘cover-story’ corporation she and untold amounts of other undercover CIA agents used, was leaked to not one, not two..but THREE reporters just to take the heat off of Dick Cheney and George Bush because her husband released a report that showed they might be wrong on their Saddam/WMD information.

KING: Since taking office, President Obama has done these things to change the policies you helped put in place…… by taking those steps, do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

CHENEY: I do……. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.

Where was his concern for the safety of this country and the people giving up their entire identity and possibly their lives in order to get deep undercover and find those who attacked us when he told Scooter Libby to leak classified information?

It’s insanity that any party would endorses secretly spying on it’s citizens, extreme rendition of its citizens,torture and possible assassinations in the name of its citizens as the way to keep the country safe from outsiders, while protecting,ignoring and encouraging those corporation inside it’s borders to fuck every single one of us from top to bottom, young to old, rich to extremely poor and then claim they are the ones looking out for us and the Democrats are the ones who are making us ‘unsafe’ and ‘open for an attack’. But that’s not as insane as the minions who will crawl out from under their rocks Monday morning and pump this kind of idiocy  into the sycophantic minds of it’s followers.

There is hope that instead of picking up this thread and running to attack the nearest Democrat with it, the GOP will come up with a plan to fix what is broken in this country instead of just saying “Nope, that’s not the right way either” I have very little faith that this will happen, because the truth of the matter is no one knows what the magic bullet is, but one thing we should remember, after the success or failure of the Democrats efforts is…. They are the only ones trying. It will be easy if President Obama fails to sit back and say “I told you so” and it will be even easier if he succeeds to claim they were for it the whole time, but what is not easy, what is never easy is being the first one into the deep end.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Aides Say No Pardon for Libby Irked Cheney (nytimes.com)
• Disappointing Dick (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Pixie Dust, EO 12333, and Cheney’s Assassination Squads (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)

2.6 million Jobs lost, almost a million homes foreclosed on, 2 financial icons disappear, the government buying up 9 of the nations top banks, $7 trillion lost by shareholders, one state preparing IOU’s for it’s inhabitants, and a $200 billion surplus to almost a trillion dollar deficit- but hey, we haven’t been attacked

on our soil since 9/11.

1434 lives lost in Katrina and 300,000 homes lost, largest Government expansion in 50 years and the largest civil rights shredding law ever seen in this country- but you know what? We’ve been safe since 9/11.

Confirmed torture by the US government, 30,000 held in secret by US Government, 2 wars, one member of the inner circle of the Oval Office convicted of lying about his involvement in outing an undercover CIA agent working on WMD’s and the systematic attempt at public humiliation for anyone who tried to tell the truth -but that 9/11 thing didn’t happen again on his watch.

Disappearing glaciers, dying species and dwindling funds for public schools -but we’ve thwarted the

terrorists.

One admitted mistake with a banner, one  WMD regret, one forged report, one ignored PDB and a lie in the State of the Union address-but the terrorists haven’t struck us at home since 9/11.

I’m not indifferent to what George Bush is trying to do here. I understand that all Presidents want a grand legacy and all of them will slant their time in office so as to make them seem better than they were. I get that and I’m even OK with it. What pisses me off, what just sticks in my craw is watching the conservative MSM coo and gush over  that spin like a 12 year old girl watching a Jonas Brothers video. This is the same media who 8 years ago defined the last President as the liar who lacked morals because he got a blow job and lied about it. Not a one of them stepped up to say anything about his accomplishment in welfare reform, how he’d kept American soil safe after the first WTC bombing or that from 1991 to 2000, the United States experienced 37 quarters of economic expansion, the longest period of expansion on record.. Oh, but they will sure swoon over George Bush like he was the 1st President to have ever kept this country from being attacked after he ignored the intelligence that allowed for us to be attacked in the first place.

President Bush said the other day that he had inherited a recession and he leaves under a recession. No, he’s leaving an economy that hasn’t been this bad since the Depression. An economy that  is getting worse and has everyone in the world putting all of their hopes in the newly elected hands of a man who has all of 2 years of political office under his belt. I’m not saying Barrack can’t do it, I’m saying that Barrack shouldn’t have to be the president that is leading the United States of America in it’s most pivotal moment ever, the moment when it will either climb above the failures and destruction caused by it’s previous administration or the moment where it will crumble and burn out of existence. He shouldn’t have to be the leader during this time because we should have never come to this fork in the road.

Although, there is something to be said for the symbolism of the United States rising out of the blood of her original inhabitants, being built off the backs of it’s imported minorities and the threat of it’s final shudder and swan song under her first minority leader.

If President Bush can step away from another one of his disastrous leadership roles and all that conservative MSM cares to drill into our heads is once again the fear mongering of 9/11,9/11,9/11 and the horrible state of affairs that he inherited from the last guy that he couldn’t do anything but worsen over the last 8 years, then I hope these same conservative media heads will give President Obama the same pass no matter the outcome of his tenure.

It amazes me that Bill Clinton gets the blame for 9/11 because it was his inaction that lead to President Bush having to deal with a massive crisis 9 months into his tenure. It does make me wonder if there is another attack, can we finally blame something on George Bush? But I’m sure the conservative MSM will rant and rave that it’s not his fault, it’s the Democrats fault.

My colleague at the muchedumbre news desk tells me I don’t understand the war on terror the way he does, I don’t understand why there is such an extreme need for the massive size and secrecy of our Government  and that I’m naive because I fear giving any government that much power over it’s citizens. I don’t understand that terrorists will do whatever it takes to kill us so we must

Image via Wikipedia

meet them on an even playing field. What he has never understood is that there are worse things out there then another 9/11. There are other forces out there that can crumble a nation and while he and his conservative media friends were busy discrediting me and others like me, those other forces were allowed in. He never understood that another 9/11 wouldn’t destroy this country, it would hurt and it would piss us off, but we’d survive it like we did the after the other attacks on our soil. But another era like the 1930’s? Another Dust Bowl? Well I guess we’ll get to see if this country can survive another era of greed.

But hey, we’ve been safe since 9/11 so what am I worried about.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Remembering What’s Important
• What Went Wrong
• Heckuva job, Bushie
• George W. Bush: Quotes from the US president

Ok… so… I wonder if there was anything of interest in the news this week
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying President Bush’s wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.

John Yoo’s memo was rescinded nine months later by his Justice Department successor.

The Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al Qaeda and Taliban detainees overseas — so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captives.

Even so, the memo noted, the president’s wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture.

“Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion,” said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

……

“The whole point of the memo is obviously to nullify every possible legal restraint on the president’s wartime authority,” Jaffer said. “The memo was meant to allow torture, and that’s exactly what it did.”

The 81-page legal analysis largely centers on whether interrogators can be held responsible for torture if torture is not the intent of the questioning. And it defines torture as the intended sum of a variety of acts, which could include acid scalding, severe mental pain and suffering, threat of imminent death and physical pain resulting in impaired body functions, organ failure or death.

The “definition of torture must be read as a sum of these component parts,” the memo said.

The memo also includes past legal defenses of interrogations that Yoo wrote are not considered torture, such as sleep depravation, hooding detainees and “frog crouching,” which forces prisoners to crouch while standing on the tips of their toes.

“This standard permits some physical contact,” the memo said. “Employing a shove or slap as part of an interrogation would not run afoul of this standard.”

The memo concludes that foreign enemy combatants held overseas do not have defendants’ rights or protections from cruel and unusual punishment that U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. It also says that Congress “cannot interfere with the president’s exercise of his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war.”

I’m going to let that last part sit there for a minute.

Before I go on, I really have to ‘tourette’ for a second….power hungry, Ego-fucking-tistical, Should be thrown in jail and have to learn the law , worst President of all time and more dangerous to the United States than an outbreak of the plague, asshole…

I am so disgusted by the ”’I don’t have to follow laws b/c I’m President Bush” motto that this administration has adopted. But at the same time it is interesting to see first hand the falling of Rome. I am a history nut so it’s an honor to be able to view as it’s happening the end of a great civilization where Presidents had to follow laws and if they didn’t Congress would step in and in they didn’t the public would outcry and if they didn’t the print news would dig in and expose something….well, that kind of stuff is what fairy-tales are made of.

I have a question and I really hope to get a well thought out answer.

If our President can claim that he doesn’t have to follow international law… And have his lawyer prove the one-sided argument by saying international law is not federal and therefore the President of the United States is not subject to following them…….. then why in the FUCK did we go to war b/c Saddam was breaking international laws?

What kind of simple minded, ego-thumping, death-star-dark-lord did you fucking people elect…..not once, but twice?

what the fuck is wrong with you? I can’t blame him for being what he is… but I can goddamn well blame you for letting him get away with it.

Yes, YOU…. the ones who stood by and watched and/or cheered. The Media whores who said nothing, the pundits who explained how he was right and good and out for our protection….. or just simply “This is War-War-War”

How could you stand by and cheer while he invaded, captured and killed a president of sovereign country with the excuse of “He’s dangerous to the Iraqi’s and he’s breaking international laws and resolutions.” and then turn around and say “Republican-good…President Bush-good…he no break law because he no have to follow them”… Didn’t Saddam have just as much right to say International Law and US Federal Law is not Iraqi law so it does not apply to me”

You douche bags can’t have it both ways……….. But you will. You will because you are the types that can’t be wrong. You can’t come back 7 years later and say “Oh dear god was I drunk or just stupid, dude really…my bad”

By the way, you allowed your president to murder another president… I just thought you should know.

Remember the last part of that article I quoted above, the part that I let sit there. Do you remember what it said?

“..The memo concludes …that Congress “cannot interfere with the president’s exercise of his authority as commander in chief …during a war”

You let him decide that not even Congress can stop him if he wants it.

What have you done?

Centers Tap Into Personal Databases
Intelligence centers run by states across the country have access to personal information about millions of Americans, including unlisted cellphone numbers, insurance claims, driver’s license photographs and credit reports, according to a document obtained by The Washington Post.
One center also has access to top-secret data systems at the CIA, the document shows, though it’s not clear what information those systems contain
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040103049_pf.html

You’ve given him ‘above the law’ status.

You’ve given him mine and your entire personal information

You’ve given him all the rights and have let him take all of mine and yours.

Military skirting law to spy
The military is using the FBI to skirt legal restrictions on domestic surveillance to obtain private records of Americans’ Internet service providers, financial institutions and telephone companies, the ACLU said Tuesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_re_us/national_security_letters

You’ve allowed the military to investigate it’s own civilians on it’s own soil.

Memo Justified Warrantless Surveillance
For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn’t apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080402/D8VQ1NG80.html

In some cases you’ve stood by and cheered because you are a republican and he is a republican and really, it’s not like were are really losing anything… Plus, we haven’t been attacked again have we?

In other cases you watched and kept silent for fear of being labeled unpatriotic for thinking the President is wrong. Because we all know that if anyone is infallible it’s the President because they screen for that kind of thing before letting him take the oath.

You’ve attacked the others who have tried to show you the dangers you are allowing. You’ve called them ‘crazies’ and ‘conspiracists‘. You made them out to be a members of the “Fox Mulder Club” and belittled them at every corner.

Shame on you. Bush may have wanted to turn the United States into something that resembles Saudi Arabia or Cuba, but he couldn’t have done it without You.

Was it worth it you son of a bitches?

Do you feel safer?

Do you even care?