HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
GOP'S DISTRACTIONS ON TORTURE
The method magicians use to perform their tricks is to distract. You focus on something the magician wants you to focus on so he can create his illusion. And so it is with the right wing's distractions on torture. From what you hear in the media, you would think Nancy Pelosi orchestrated this entire reprehensible program. If Nancy Pelosi knew about torture and did nothing to stop it, that is disgusting. But the people who conceived using torture and put torture into operation are far more disgusting and far more legally liable. This commentary by Gregg Levine is at www.firedoglake.com:
Because before you get to Pelosi, or to Graham, or Jane Harman, or a host of other congressional leaders who in good time should be held accountable for their action or inaction during the Bush years—before you get to any of that—one thing had to happen. . . .
Someone had to order the torture. Someone had to sign off on the program in its design phase, someone had to render a group of detainees, hold them outside the reach of US law, and someone had to give the order to have them tortured.
I could, at this point, throw out the name George W. Bush—he was president at the time, after all—but we now have pretty good evidence that the real authority for waterboarding (to name but the most talked about of many illegally brutal “techniques”), the real orders to “do that,” and “do that again,” came from the vice president. The order to torture came from Dick Cheney.
Let me say that again: Dick Cheney ordered torture.
Not Nancy Pelosi; Dick Cheney.
Before there were any briefings of any Democrats, there was the torture—a violation in-and-of itself—and that torture was ordered by Republican Vice President Dick Cheney.
And to take it one step further, that torture wasn’t ordered up to save us from some imagined “ticking bomb” scenario (not that torture would even solve that particular problem, and not that, even if it did, it could be justified), it was ordered to make detainees produce a specific, desired piece of information (or disinformation). Dick Cheney wanted a connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraqi leader Sadam Hussein, and so Cheney told interrogators contractors to torture detainees until they stated that there was a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Showing posts with label Bush and torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush and torture. Show all posts
Sunday, April 26, 2009
HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE
THE TORTURE-IRAQ CONNECTION
Release of the Bush administration's memos justifying "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding has provoked considerable chatter among the pundit and political class. Right-wingers make the astonishing claim that releasing the memos has endangered U. S. national security. We hear the argument that it would be just a terrible precedent to prosecute officials from previous administrations for acting in "good faith" to protect the country. What they're saying is that criminals, if they're high enough in the government, should get a free pass.
Torture is contrary to everything we're supposed to represent. When we torture it takes away any credibility we have in arguing for human rights in repressive regimes around the world. It means that our enemies can torture and we really can't say much about it. The fact that torture does not elicit reliable information is another point, but certainly not the most important argument. In this commentary Frank Rich points out that the Bush administration was far less interested in protecting the country than in finding some justification for their filthy war in Iraq. The column is at www.nytimes.com:
Last week Bush-Cheney defenders, true to form, dismissed the Senate Armed Services Committee report as “partisan.” But as the committee chairman, Carl Levin, told me, the report received unanimous support from its members — John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman included.
Levin also emphasized the report’s accounts of military lawyers who dissented from White House doctrine — only to be disregarded. The Bush administration was “driven,” Levin said. By what? “They’d say it was to get more information. But they were desperate to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”
Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.
THE TORTURE-IRAQ CONNECTION
Release of the Bush administration's memos justifying "enhanced interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding has provoked considerable chatter among the pundit and political class. Right-wingers make the astonishing claim that releasing the memos has endangered U. S. national security. We hear the argument that it would be just a terrible precedent to prosecute officials from previous administrations for acting in "good faith" to protect the country. What they're saying is that criminals, if they're high enough in the government, should get a free pass.
Torture is contrary to everything we're supposed to represent. When we torture it takes away any credibility we have in arguing for human rights in repressive regimes around the world. It means that our enemies can torture and we really can't say much about it. The fact that torture does not elicit reliable information is another point, but certainly not the most important argument. In this commentary Frank Rich points out that the Bush administration was far less interested in protecting the country than in finding some justification for their filthy war in Iraq. The column is at www.nytimes.com:
Last week Bush-Cheney defenders, true to form, dismissed the Senate Armed Services Committee report as “partisan.” But as the committee chairman, Carl Levin, told me, the report received unanimous support from its members — John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman included.
Levin also emphasized the report’s accounts of military lawyers who dissented from White House doctrine — only to be disregarded. The Bush administration was “driven,” Levin said. By what? “They’d say it was to get more information. But they were desperate to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.”
Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to “protect” us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from “another 9/11,” torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House’s illegality.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
May 25, 2008
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TORTURE CAME FROM THE TOP
Republicans self-righteously talked about "the rule of law" during the Clinton years. But as George W. Bush makes up the rules as he goes along Republicans don't seem concerned about Bush's flagrant disregard for the law, for the Constitution, and for basic human decency. Agents from the FBI documented countless human rights abuses against prisoners held as alleged terrorists. The consistent pattern of the abuses and other evidence shows that orders came from the highest levels of the United States government. There is no justification for this torture just as there was no justification for this war. This editorial is from The New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/:
The study said F.B.I. agents reported this illegal behavior to Washington. They were told not to take part, but the bureau appears to have done nothing to end the abuse. It certainly never told Congress or the American people. The inspector general said the agents’ concerns were conveyed to the National Security Council, but he found no evidence that it acted on them.
Mr. Bush claims harsh interrogations produced invaluable intelligence, but the F.B.I. agents said the abuse was ineffective. They also predicted, accurately, that it would be impossible to prosecute abused prisoners.
For years, Mr. Bush has refused to tell the truth about his administration’s inhuman policy on prisoners, and the Republican-controlled Congress eagerly acquiesced to his stonewalling. Now, the Democrats in charge of Congress must press for full disclosure.
SOME PERSPECTIVE, PLEASE
This article caught my eye because I received a mailer from a mayoral candidate in Fresno that appropriated the text from the e-mail the author discusses. I respect veterans who actually have defended freedom. Too many of our wars haven't been protecting freedom, though. They've had other motivations even though they've been dressed up as something far more noble. This article by Monica Benderman is at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/:
Truth Matters.
How can there be freedom of religion if we are not willing to tolerate the religions of others?
How can there be freedom of the press if we are not willing to question the information we are given?
How can there be freedom of speech if the speeches we give are nothing more than a criticism of what others are trying to say?
How can we expect the exercise of our freedom to assemble to have any value if the assembled masses are doing little more than throwing temper tantrums at not being in control?
How can we expect fair treatment in a court of law if we are not willing to respect the laws in our own actions of living?
IMPEACH BUSH
IMPEACH CHENEY
TORTURE CAME FROM THE TOP
Republicans self-righteously talked about "the rule of law" during the Clinton years. But as George W. Bush makes up the rules as he goes along Republicans don't seem concerned about Bush's flagrant disregard for the law, for the Constitution, and for basic human decency. Agents from the FBI documented countless human rights abuses against prisoners held as alleged terrorists. The consistent pattern of the abuses and other evidence shows that orders came from the highest levels of the United States government. There is no justification for this torture just as there was no justification for this war. This editorial is from The New York Times at http://www.nytimes.com/:
The study said F.B.I. agents reported this illegal behavior to Washington. They were told not to take part, but the bureau appears to have done nothing to end the abuse. It certainly never told Congress or the American people. The inspector general said the agents’ concerns were conveyed to the National Security Council, but he found no evidence that it acted on them.
Mr. Bush claims harsh interrogations produced invaluable intelligence, but the F.B.I. agents said the abuse was ineffective. They also predicted, accurately, that it would be impossible to prosecute abused prisoners.
For years, Mr. Bush has refused to tell the truth about his administration’s inhuman policy on prisoners, and the Republican-controlled Congress eagerly acquiesced to his stonewalling. Now, the Democrats in charge of Congress must press for full disclosure.
SOME PERSPECTIVE, PLEASE
This article caught my eye because I received a mailer from a mayoral candidate in Fresno that appropriated the text from the e-mail the author discusses. I respect veterans who actually have defended freedom. Too many of our wars haven't been protecting freedom, though. They've had other motivations even though they've been dressed up as something far more noble. This article by Monica Benderman is at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/:
Truth Matters.
How can there be freedom of religion if we are not willing to tolerate the religions of others?
How can there be freedom of the press if we are not willing to question the information we are given?
How can there be freedom of speech if the speeches we give are nothing more than a criticism of what others are trying to say?
How can we expect the exercise of our freedom to assemble to have any value if the assembled masses are doing little more than throwing temper tantrums at not being in control?
How can we expect fair treatment in a court of law if we are not willing to respect the laws in our own actions of living?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)