More on Cheney's Torture Confession

I wanted to follow-up on this post in which I discussed former Vice President Cheney admitting that he was a "big supporter" of waterboarding.

There were a couple of reactions to Cheney's appearance on ABC this past Sunday that were right on the money and advance this discussion surrounding his behavior. I wanted to start with Glenn Greenwald who feels that Cheney knows exactly what he is doing...he is taunting the current administration:

In general, people who commit felonies avoid publicly confessing to having done so, and they especially avoid mocking the authorities who fail to act. One thing Dick Cheney is not is stupid, and yet he's doing exactly that. Indeed, he's gradually escalated his boasting about having done so throughout the year. Why? Because he knows there will never be any repercussions, that he will never be prosecuted no matter how blatantly he admits to these serious crimes.

[...]

Does anyone doubt that Cheney's assessment is right? And isn't that, rather obviously, a monumental indictment of most everything?

I think that this is sadly quite accurate. Cheney is not a stupid man and it is quite clear that he feels that he can speak freely about his support for what Attorney General Holder has explicitly stated, is torture. The Obama Administration has held true to their pledge to "look forward" and not to the past on the issue of torture, even when it is clear that crimes and have been committed and even when now, a former Vice President admits to supporting torture on national television.

Scott Horton lays out the section of the Federal Criminal Code that Cheney admitted to violating:

Section 2340A of the federal criminal code makes it an offense to torture or to conspire to torture. Violators are subject to jail terms or to death in appropriate cases, as where death results from the application of torture techniques. Prosecutors have argued that a criminal investigation into torture undertaken with the direction of the Bush White House would raise complex legal issues, and proof would be difficult. But what about cases in which an instigator openly and notoriously brags about his role in torture?

[...]

What prosecutor can look away when a perpetrator mocks the law itself and revels in his role in violating it? Such cases cry out for prosecution. Dick Cheney wants to be prosecuted. And prosecutors should give him what he wants.

It should be pointed out that not only did Cheney admit to supporting torture, but right at the end of the interview was this exchange (emphasis mine):

KARL: And, finally, I know that you have a reunion coming up later this month with President Bush. This'll be the first time you've seen him since leaving office, face to face?

CHENEY: Pretty much, yes. We talk on the telephone periodically, but the first time I've seen him since January 20th.

KARL: What does he think of you being so outspoken in contrast to him?

CHENEY: Well, I don't think he's opposed to it, by any means. I'd be inclined to let him speak for himself about it. The reason I've been outspoken is because there were some things being said, especially after we left office, about prosecuting CIA personnel that had carried out our counterterrorism policy or disbarring lawyers in the Justice Department who had -- had helped us put those policies together, and I was deeply offended by that, and I thought it was important that some senior person in the administration stand up and defend those people who'd done what we asked them to do.

And that's why I got started on it. I'm the vice president now -- ex-vice president. I have the great freedom and luxury of speaking out, saying what I -- what I want to say, what I believe. And I have not been discouraged from doing so.

Cheney mentions that the lawyers at the Justice Department had "helped us put those policies together" and that he felt it was his role to "defend those people who'd done what we asked them to do." In other words, the Bush Administration wanted to torture detainees and so they asked lawyers like John Yoo and Jay Bybee to craft memos that would allow them to do so. Yoo and Bybee obliged. This is conspiracy to torture and as Scott Horton mentions, a serious crime.

There has been no excuse to investigate for some time now and with the former Vice President's recent comments, there is no justification that the current Justice Department could use to defend not prosecuting those who broke such serious laws.

Obama Decides to Validate Republican Criticisms and Embrace McCain-Style Spending Freeze

As there is more talk today of President Obama's expected plans to announce an overall spending freeze on discretionary items during his State of the Union Address tomorrow, this video surfaces (h/t Ezra Klein):



That was then candidate Obama rejecting Sen. John McCain's call for an "across the board" spending freeze on all programs except those that are military in nature. Now the Obama Administration is going to argue that what they are proposing is not the same as McCain's proposal during the campaign. The difference being that McCain would have frozen ALL spending on non-military programs while Obama is apparently wanting to increase some programs and cut others; the net result of which would be an overall freeze of spending (on items that are not military in nature of course).

Even if this is the case, the Obama Administration has really backed themselves into a corner not only politically, but on the various policies that they have been trying to pass since Obama took office just over a year ago. Not only that, but if you thought Obama was angering his political base on the issue of health care reform, then there is every reason for them to be enraged now. Not only is Obama embracing Republican thinking on spending cuts, but he is literally embracing the ideas of the candidate that he defeated and that the voters rejected in the 2008 election. Paul Krugman:

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?

It’s appalling on every level.

It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment. Jonathan Zasloff writes that Obama seems to have decided to fire Tim Geithner and replace him with “the rotting corpse of Andrew Mellon” (Mellon was Herbert Hoover’s Treasury Secretary, who according to Hoover told him to “liquidate the workers, liquidate the farmers, purge the rottenness”.)

[...]

A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”

With much emphasis on the actual "freezing" of spending, it is also necessary to take a look at what will not be frozen: military spending. In fact, military spending is rarely even considered for cuts even when there is vast evidence to support the notion that U.S. military spending is off the charts. Glenn Greenwald:

In sum, as we cite our debtor status to freeze funding for things such as "air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks" -- all programs included in Obama's spending freeze -- our military and other "security-related" spending habits become more bloated every year, completely shielded from any constraints or reality. This, despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for the U.S. to make meaningful progress in debt reduction without serious reductions in our military programs.

[...]

The clear fact is that, no matter how severe are our budgetary constraints, military spending and all so-called "security-related programs" are off-limits for any freezes, let alone decreases. Moreover, the modest spending freeze to be announced by Obama tomorrow is just the start; the Washington consensus has solidified and is clearly gearing up for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, with the dirty work to be done by an independent "deficit commission."

So, in short, this move by the Administration makes little sense and could cause quite a rift with progressive elements that would want to see strong progressive challengers to Obama in 2010 and 2012.

The Many Secrets of Guantanamo Bay

Whether it be in conversations about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other country around the world, the policies of the Bush Administration are essential to take into consideration when examining where we find ourselves today. The election of Barack Obama to the Presidency did not change this fact no matter how much he wants to "move forward" and "not look to the past". The policies of the last Administration have far-reaching consequences and unless they are investigated to the fullest, we will not be able to fully heal as a country.

One of the areas where this especially holds true is in policies surrounding detention and interrogation. Scott Horton has a striking and disturbing new piece that was published in the latest edition of Harper's Magazine that demonstrates just how relevant this topic continues to be, even when the corporate media isn't reporting on the implications.

Horton's piece is entitled "The Guantanomo 'Suicides': A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle". It is a well researched and a very detailed account that should be read in full, but I will do my best to provide a summary.

The article begins with the story of three detainees who died on June 9, 2006 while being held in the Guantanamo Bay prison facility in Cuba. The official story goes that the prisoners coordinated a type of "suicide pact" and elaborately tricked the guards into thinking that they were sleeping when they were actually binding their hands and feet, stuffing a towel down their throats, and hanging themselves in their cells.

Now, some of the former personnel at the prison have come forward and raised questions about this official story and have indicated that this country should be investigating three homicides that took place at a special "dark-site" in Guantnamo Bay.

According to the NCIS, each prisoner had fashioned a noose from torn sheets and T-shirts and tied it to the top of his cell’s eight-foot-high steel-mesh wall. Each prisoner was able somehow to bind his own hands, and, in at least one case, his own feet, then stuff more rags deep down into his own throat. We are then asked to believe that each prisoner, even as he was choking on those rags, climbed up on his washbasin, slipped his head through the noose, tightened it, and leapt from the washbasin to hang until he asphyxiated. The NCIS report also proposes that the three prisoners, who were held in non-adjoining cells, carried out each of these actions almost simultaneously.

[...]

The fact that at least two of the prisoners also had cloth masks affixed to their faces, presumably to prevent the expulsion of the rags from their mouths, went unremarked by the NCIS, as did the fact that standard operating procedure at Camp Delta required the Navy guards on duty after midnight to “conduct a visual search” of each cell and detainee every ten minutes. The report claimed that the prisoners had hung sheets or blankets to hide their activities and shaped more sheets and pillows to look like bodies sleeping in their beds, but it did not explain where they were able to acquire so much fabric beyond their tightly controlled allotment, or why the Navy guards would allow such an obvious and immediately observable deviation from permitted behavior. Nor did the report explain how the dead men managed to hang undetected for more than two hours or why the Navy guards on duty, having for whatever reason so grievously failed in their duties, were never disciplined.

One of the soldiers that Horton spoke to is Army Staff Sergeant Joseph Hickman. When Hickman arrived at Guantanomo Bay, he quickly stumbled upon a compound near the main prison that he says other soldiers called "Camp No". The name refers to the answer that anyone would get when they asked about this compound: "no, it doesn't exist". Hickman then described some of his duties that seemed odd, including a secret van that was dubbed "the paddy wagon":

Hickman was instructed to make no record whatsoever of the movements of one vehicle in particular—a white van, dubbed the “paddy wagon,” that Navy guards used to transport heavily manacled prisoners, one at a time, into and out of Camp Delta. The van had no rear windows and contained a dog cage large enough to hold a single prisoner. Navy drivers, Hickman came to understand, would let the guards know they had a prisoner in the van by saying they were “delivering a pizza.”

The paddy wagon was used to transport prisoners to medical facilities and to meetings with their lawyers. But as Hickman monitored the paddy wagon’s movements from the guard tower at Camp Delta, he frequently saw it follow an unexpected route. When the van reached the first intersection, instead of heading right—toward the other camps or toward one of the buildings where prisoners could meet with their lawyers—it made a left. In that direction, past the perimeter checkpoint known as ACP Roosevelt, there were only two destinations. One was a beach where soldiers went to swim. The other was Camp No.

Hickman claims that on the night of June 9, he watched this "paddy wagon" depart his location at "Camp America" and drive to Camp No. He observed this three times in a row and then, a few hours later, he says that the paddy wagon returned and various soldiers unloaded something out of the back of the van. 45 minutes to an hour later, Camp Delta was abuzz:

He asked a distraught medical corpsman what had happened. She said three dead prisoners had been delivered to the clinic. Hickman recalled her saying that they had died because they had rags stuffed down their throats, and that one of them was severely bruised. Davila told me he spoke to Navy guards who said the men had died as the result of having rags stuffed down their throats.

[...]

By dawn, the news had circulated through Camp America that three prisoners had committed suicide by swallowing rags. Colonel Bumgarner called a meeting of the guards, and at 7 a.m. at least fifty soldiers and sailors gathered at Camp America’s open-air theater.

[...]

According to independent interviews with soldiers who witnessed the speech, Bumgarner told his audience that “you all know” three prisoners in the Alpha Block at Camp 1 committed suicide during the night by swallowing rags, causing them to choke to death. This was a surprise to no one—even servicemen who had not worked the night before had heard about the rags. But then Bumgarner told those assembled that the media would report something different. It would report that the three prisoners had committed suicide by hanging themselves in their cells. It was important, he said, that servicemen make no comments or suggestions that in any way undermined the official report. He reminded the soldiers and sailors that their phone and email communications were being monitored. The meeting lasted no more than twenty minutes. (Bumgarner has not responded to requests for comment.)

The rest of Horton's piece describes how documents were seized from prisoners at the compound regardless of client-attorney privilege and how the autopsies of the three men who died, seemed suspicious (all of their neck organs had been removed during the autopsy). The families of each of the three men had independent autopsies performed and there was bruising and other evidence of torture on the bodies.

Upon returning to the United States, the soldiers that Horton spoke with for this piece went to the Justice Department so that they could look into this matter and after much silence from the DOJ, on November 2, 2009 they concluded that the "gist of the information" could not be confirmed.

The silence here is deafening and the greater details that are present in Horton's piece should be read as they are even more disturbing than the brief outline that I have provided here. What is necessary to remember here is that there are still close to 200 people being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Many without charge and many with uncertain futures. Despite President Obama's pledge to close the facility within a year, it remains open and many question marks continue to be raised about the conduct within this facility.

It is alarming at best to continue down the road of "looking forward" when stories like this one continue to come out. For a country that claims to be a "nation of laws" to simply ignore these gross abuses and ignore rather than investigate potential criminal wrong-doing should simply be unacceptable. It is true that there is a lot on the plates of those in Washington these days, but it is stories like this one that emphasizes just how deep our countries wounds are. This is not something that can be swept under the rug rather it is a topic that needs to be shouted from the rooftops until it is constructively addressed. Policies that were deliberately in place to create conditions in which things like this could happen are not simply forgotten without consequence. There are very lasting and harmful effects from the last eight years that must be addressed before we can heal and move on as a better and a more humane people.

It is time to bring this conversation back into the national dialogue.

Stewart Takes on Fox and Conservative Rapper Hi-Caliber Gives the World the 'Patriotic People' Rap

Jon Stewart did another bang-up job recently when he discussed the recent so-called "war" between the Obama Administration and Fox News. He is right on point in much of this video and is, per usual, hilarious in making the underlying points:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

In other video news, one of the scariest things that I came across on Halloween, was this rapping effort by Hi-Caliber. Sure, I disagree with the content, but I think this rap misses the mark on many levels:

Glenn Beck's Crazy Antics Heat Up Once Again

Fox News host Glenn Beck has been on a roll again as of late. Despite losing 50% of his advertising dollars due to the boycott that has been orchestrated by Color Of Change, Beck's antics continue to raise eyebrows on a daily basis.

In this clip he is upset that he has been compared to Joe McCarthy for his recent efforts to "go after" members of the Obama Administration with who he disagrees:



One of the things that I find most striking about Beck, is his hypocrisy. There are two recent examples of this. The first happened on his show on the anniversary of 9/11. Beck cried (again) because we have not rebuilt a building to replace the World Trade Center since the 2001 attacks. He seems to think that it is government bureaucracy, special interests and political correctness that are getting in the way of building a new structure. In case you are wondering what all that means, I am sorry to tell you that he doesn't go into any detail:



While Beck enjoys getting sentimental on camera about a building and using 9/11 to push his 9/12 Project, one only need remember Beck's comments on his radio show in 2005 in regard to the 9/11 families, in order to fully see the just how much Beck really cares:



And now, yesterday, Glenn Beck is mad about Jimmy Carter stating that racism is a factor in some of the opposition to President Obama. In fact, he likens it to the same kind of "tactic" that the Taliban uses when they strap bombs to children. Think that is crazy? Well, he ups the ante by comparing Jimmy Carter to Osama bin Laden as well:



So Glenn Beck is mad at everyone getting called a racist yet I seem to remember someone calling Obama a racist and stating that Obama had a hatred for white people, only months ago:



The hypocrisy is astounding. It is amazing that anyone takes this man seriously.

Obama Administration Continues to Argue for Preventive Detention to Guard Against Future Crimes

From today's Wall Street Journal (emphasis mine):

The Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that releasing a detainee who has been tried and found not guilty was a policy decision that officials would make based on their estimate of whether the prisoner posed a future threat.

Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration argues that the legal basis for indefinite detention of aliens it considers dangerous is separate from war-crimes prosecutions. Officials say that the laws of war allow indefinite detention to prevent aliens from committing warlike acts in future, while prosecution by military commission aims to punish them for war crimes committed in the past.

This news is obviously disappointing and works to undercut the Obama Administration's continued statements promoting their adherence to the rule of law. Let's set aside, for a moment, the point that the Military Commissions system is flawed and pretend that it was a model process for bringing detainees to trial. What the Obama Administration is arguing is that even if detainees are acquitted by a Military Commission, they could still be legally detained until it can be determined that said detainee would not pose a danger to the United States. Why do they feel that this is an acceptable policy - because Military Commissions are only set up to punish people for "war crimes committed in the past" and therefore cannot determine who would commit war crimes in the future.

According to this rationale, it would make sense for the Obama Administration to set up an additional Commission whose job it would be to put detainees on trial in order to examine if they should be convicted on "evidence" that they would commit future crimes. This Orwellian argument certainly ranks up there with some of most disturbing arguments put forth by the Bush Administration over the last eight years.

Continuing on in the WSJ article:

Mr. Johnson said such prisoners held without trial would receive "some form of periodic review" that could lead to their release.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading Republican on detainee policy, approved. "Some of them will be able to get out of jail because they've rehabilitated themselves and some of them may in fact die in jail," Mr. Graham said. But "I don't want to put people in a dark hole forever" simply "because somebody like Dick Cheney, or you fill in the blank with a politician, said so."

I am glad that Graham approves of vague promises of "some form of periodic review" that may or may not lead to the release of those held without charge. What kind of laws and system of justice is the Obama Administration championing with their vague terminology and in endorsing a detention system that would make the previous administration proud? As Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) said in that same WSJ article:

"What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, 'Some people we have good enough evidence against, so we'll give them a fair trial. Some people the evidence is not so good, so we'll give them a less fair trial. We'll give them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they're guilty. That's not a fair trial, that's a show trial,"

Also interjected into this discussion is the issue of admitting "evidence" that was obtained using coercive techniques. The reliability of this evidence is at the center of the debate surrounding the issue of Military Commissions since statements obtained under coercion are currently admissible. It appears to be the thought of the Obama Administration that if they determine that so-called "evidence" obtained using coercive methods are not reliable and should not be admissible, then a number of convictions would be overturned due to their reliance on unreliable evidence. If these convictions are overturned, then it can be said that these individuals would continue to be detained if the Obama Administration is successful in arguing that they can continue to legally detain prisoners based on the threat of so-called "future crimes". The cancerous effects of torture continue to be felt.

About a month and a half ago, I posted a clip from the Rachel Maddow Show in which she discussed the speech during which President Obama first floated the idea of detaining people for so-called "future crimes". I am posting it again below because I feel that it continues to be relevant to this discussion.




This article is crossposted here.

Obama to Try and Block the Release of Photographs that Depict Abuse

It had been expected that the Obama Administration was going to comply with a court order stemming from a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and release photographs which depict abuse of detainees that were held in U.S. custody. The ACLU wanted the release of these photographs to counter the arguments of the Bush Administration that the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib was an isolated incident and not part of government policy.

Ever since the Obama Administration announced that they would comply with the court order, there has been an outcry from both lawmakers and commentators on the Right claiming that the release of these photos would make those serving in the United States military less safe. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) even wrote a letter to President Obama in which they asked for the photographs not to be released because they would serve "no public good" and "endanger our men and women in uniform".

It is now being reported that the Obama Administration has reversed itself and that President Obama has now directly decided to oppose the release of these additional photos citing a concern for the safety of U.S. troops. Speaking to the New York Times, one anonymous administration official stated:

"The president strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

and another senior administration official stated:

"The president would be the last to excuse the actions depicted in these photos. That is why the Department of Defense investigated these cases, and why individuals have been punished through prison sentences, discharges, and a range of other punitive measures."

Aside from this last interesting quote (Obama is apparently in favor of prosecutions and investigations for some who carried out torture, but not for those who ordered it), the outcry over the release of these photos takes on an interesting dynamic.

On one hand you have people like Sean Hannity, Liz Cheney, Joe Lieberman, and others claiming that the release of these photos will depict American troops in a "negative light" and would cause us national harm, while on the other hand you have this same group of people actively defending the use of torture as necessary to our safety. Here is a compilation put together by ThinkProgress:



Note how in the video clip the acts in the photos are denounced by many as something that happened "in the past" and they speak of these actions as if they are obviously wrong. This does two things, first this deflects from the obvious point that the appalling act is not the release of the photos, but that these acts of torture were occurring in the first place and authorized by the last Administration. Secondly, it deflects from the aforementioned point that these same people who are so against the release of these awful photos are the exact same people who are advocating and justifying the use of torture over the last eight years.

It is situations like these which allow for Liz Cheney to state in one breath that by releasing these photos Obama is in fact "siding with the terrorists" and claim in another breath that the United States never engaged in torture and that techniques like waterboarding are vital to saving American lives.




This entry is crossposted here

Fourth Grader Questions Rice on Torture

Not only was Condoleeza Rice under fire at Stanford University last week on the issue of torture, but the questioning of Rice by students continued during her appearance at Jewish Primary Day School. This time, the questioner was none other than fourth grader Misha Lerner.

Lerner asked Rice what she thought about what the Obama Administration was saying about the methods the Bush Administration used to get information out of detainees. Rice replied:

"Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, we wanted to protect the country," she said. "But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country."

"I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country. September 11 was the worst day of my life in government, watching 3,000 Americans die. . . . Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country."

Apparently, according to Misha's mother, the original question was going to ask Rice if she would push for torture if she worked for the Obama Administration, but the school wanted Misha to soften the question by not using the word "torture".

Does it strike anyone else as odd that a fourth grader is asking the questions that the corporate media should be asking?

Obama's First 100

Much is being made of President Obama's first 100 days in office and the tone that has been set for his policies during this time period. Various organizations, pundits, and politicians are issuing their own assessment on President Obama's performance thus far and attempting to read the tea leaves for what lies ahead.

Personally, I think that much of this coverage can be overblown and seem a little silly. It reminds me of ridiculous "holidays" like Sweetest Day where you ask yourself, is all the attention really that necessary? 100 is a nice, round number and all, but it really doesn't signify too much if you really think about it.

Regardless, the chatter persists and perhaps we can be persuaded to find value in taking a little time to review some of the actions taken by the Obama Administration (not that we haven't been doing this on Days 34, 81, and 94 of his Presidency).

Concentrating on foreign policy in this entry, I found myself agreeing with much of the assessment given by Human Rights Watch in their "Report Card" that they issued today. They broke down their report into areas in which President Obama has achieved key accomplishments, has made missteps and missed opportunities, and decisions where the jury is still out on how events will play out.

Key Accomplishments that are listed in the Report Card are:

- Closing Secret CIA Prisons
- Implementing the Ban on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
- Repudiating Past Authorizations for Torture
- Bringing Saleh Kahlah al-Marri to Justice

Certainly, these decisions are worthy of praise and the speed with which some of these decisions were made (two days into office for some) underscores the vehement opposition that this Administration has to these policies. The President's decision to release the Bush era "torture memos" indicates that this Administration is interested in greater transparency and setting themselves apart from some of the Orwellian doublespeak and outright lies of the last eight years.

Some of the Missteps and Missed Opportunities listed in the Human Rights Watch report are as follows:

- Maintaining that the War is a rationale for holding suspected terrorists indefinitely without Trial
- Denying basic rights to prisoners at Bagram
- Adhering to the Bush Administration's Expansive View of the State Secrets Privilege

These missteps, in my view, are very problematic are incredibly discouraging for the hope of a fundamental change away from the policies of the last eight years. From the report:

One of the most potentially far-reaching Obama administration positions came to light in a Justice Department brief filed in Guantanamo litigation. On March 13, in response to a federal court order seeking a definition of the term "enemy combatant," the Obama administration claimed the authority to pick people up anywhere in the world on the grounds of support for or association with al Qaeda or the Taliban, and to hold them indefinitely in military detention. Rather than rejecting the Bush administration's ill-conceived notion of a "war on terror," the Obama administration merely discarded the phrase and tinkered with its form. The position expressed in the filing was a worrisome portent for the administration's future detention decisions.

This decision far from reverses the policy of the Bush Administration but is rather a continuation of the practice of indefinite detention without charge or trial. Closing Guantanamo Bay is a good thing, but it is merely treating a symptom without addressing the underlying disease of indefinite detention without a right to be charged or challenge said detention.

Also alarming is the Obama Administration's position on the use of the State Secrets Privilege. Not only is the Obama Administration using much of the same reasoning that the Bush Administration used surrounding this issue, but they have attempted to expand the rationale for using this privilege. Glenn Greenwald from February:

What was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed out -- was that it was used not (as originally intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead, to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security. That is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication, sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama).

The Obama Administration certainly had a golden opportunity to reign in some of the expanded executive powers that the Bush Administration worked so hard to fight for over the last eight years, but instead, they have shown a willingness to adapt to and even defend these very same powers that Obama once criticized while running for office.

The final category that Human Rights Watch listed on their report card dealt with "Ongoing or Incomplete Reforms". Listed under this category was:

- Closing the Military Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay
- Suspending the Unfair Military Commissions
- Accounting for Past Abuses
- Ensuring that Prisoners are not Returned to Torture

It will be important to see how this Administration deals with these significant issues. While Obama has pledged to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, it is unclear how he will handle the estimated 240 prisoners that are being detained. A thorough review of each case is needed and those detainees who the government finds have credible evidence pending against them should be tried while those are being held on little to no evidence should be released.

While the heading in the Human Rights Watch report is labeled "Accounting for Past Abuses", they make clear that we need not simply account for these abuses, but assure that they never happen again by launching a thorough and wide-ranging investigation into the policies implemented after 9/11. From the report:

President Obama initially signaled a willingness to set up a non-partisan commission to investigate the abuses, but his office quickly backed away from the idea. The president also seems to have ruled out prosecuting CIA agents who carried out orders that they believed were legal, but the president left open the possibility of prosecuting those higher up the chain of command who gave orders to the CIA permitting detainees to be tortured.

Human Rights Watch urges President Obama to work with Congress to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate, document, and publicly report on post-9/11 counterterrorism-related abuses. The commission should make specific recommendations for individuals to be criminally investigated.

This recommendation by Human Rights Watch is not only appropriate for a country that prides itself on being a nation of laws, but necessary. An open inquiry into these abuses with recommendations for prosecution are the only way that we can, as Obama often mentions, productively "move forward". We cannot be a nation of Peggy Noonans and simply pretend that none of this happened. We must first address the issue and then work to hold those who broke the law to account for their crimes. A Truth Commission, like the one proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), is simply not enough. While getting to the bottom of everything is important, it will be meaningless if the law is not upheld with consequences for its breach.

President Obama is correct to receive mixed reviews for his first 100 days in office. As noted above, there is some good, some bad, and some that is undecided. Much of the undecided is critical to see whether, as I wrote about before the election, this President will be a man who adapts to the existing institutions or a man who is ready to tear them down with the goal of building something better. This is Obama's challenge.

Reaction to Obama Releasing the Torture Memos

Reaction to yesterday's release of the toture memos is pouring in. Here is a sampling of the commentary:

Spencer Ackerman:

Something is very clear from these memos. The Bush administration often liked to say that they needed these memos to remain confidential in order to preserve the principle that the administration should receive the most candid legal advice available. What that secrecy fomented was a culture in which the precise conditions under which a man who had been shot in the leg could be placed inside a cramped box -- how many hours? -- and subjected to insects crawling on him without it being blatantly illegal. It wasn't just Abu Zubaydah's senses and personality that these memos warped.

Andrew Sullivan:

Human beings were contorted into classic stress positions used by the Gestapo; they had towels tied around their necks in order to smash their bodies against walls; they were denied of all sleep for up to eleven days and nights at a time; they were stuck in tiny suffocating boxes; they were waterboarded just as the victims of the Khmer Rouge were waterboarded. And through all this, Bush and Cheney had lawyers prepared to write elaborate memos saying that all of this was legal, constitutional, moral and not severe pain and suffering.

Bybee is not representing justice in this memo. He is representing the president. And the president is seeking to commit war crimes. And he succeeded. This much we now know beyond any reasonable doubt. It is a very dark day for this country, but less dark than every day since Cheney decided to turn the US into a torturing country until now.

digby:

The phrase "banality of evil" is very overused, I realized. But this is a case where it applies. Bybee writes as just another corporate-style lawyer finding a legal rationale for his client to do what he wants to do. Happens every day, no big deal. Except that he's writing memos justifying using techniques that have been known to be torture since at least the Spanish Inquisition.

Oh sure, he says it needs to be "medically supervised" and performed by only those who are "qualified" which makes it all bureaucratically neat and tidy. And he consistently asserts the twisted logic that because American military people had come through the SERE training without suffering any lasting harm, that prisoners would also suffer no lasting harm, which not only makes no sense, but gives him a quasi-legal and moral justification for perpetrating despicable acts. Everything is very sterile and very controlled. And that's what makes this opinion so chilling.

Chris Floyd:

And cannot every criminal on the face of the earth now claim the Obama defense: "Surely, your honor, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. So let's forget the fact that I (raped/murdered/robbed/tortured), and move forward, shall we?" For the Obama defense is nothing other than the Nuremberg defense: "I was only following orders. I was given assurance by the highest authority that my actions were legal in all respects." Is this what we have come to? Is that what now constitutes bold, progressive action? Is this, really, part of our "core values," an essential embedded component of our "national greatness?"

The more one considers Obama's remarks, the more offensive they become, and the more flagrantly they insult the intelligence. For the very memos that he has released give the lie to his own statement. Obama says it would be wrong to prosecute CIA underlings for carrying out actions that they were told were legal. Leaving aside the fact that apparently none of these great, courageous, self-sacrificing, vigilant defenders of our "core values" (as Obama lauds them) considered these tortures to be inherently immoral, but simply wanted to cover their ass legally before they wall-slammed the hell out of somebody or poured water down their throats until they began to choke and drown -- the fact is, they were told quite specifically by Bush's White House shysters that there was no guarantee that their actions would be considered legal by a court.

Glenn Greenwald:

I agree entirely that it is the DOJ lawyers who purported to legalize torture and the high-level Bush officials ordering it who are the prime culprits and criminals, as compared to, say, CIA agents who were proverbially just following orders and were told by the DOJ that what they were doing was legal. But leave aside the question of whether prosecutions would produce good or bad outcomes. After all, the notion that the law can and should be ignored whenever we think doing so would produce good results or would constitute good policy was the engine that drove Bush lawlessness. If, as Barack Obama proclaimed yesterday, "the United States is a nation of laws" and his "Administration will always act in accordance with those laws," isn't it the obligation of those opposing prosecution to justify that position in light of these legal mandates and long-standing principles of Western justice? How can they be reconciled?

Is Bagram the New Guantanamo?

Rachel Maddow and Michael Isikoff discuss the Obama Administration's push to deny habeus corpus rights to detainees held at Bagram airfield in Afghanistan (sound familiar?) and Thursday's important decision on whether to release the Bush Administration's "torture memos":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Astroturf Tea Parties

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Fox News host Glenn Beck and his recent antics during an on-air special during which he repeatedly broke into tears because he loves (and fears) for his country. Since Beck aired that special, video clips of the program have circulated around the Internet, Stephen Colbert has mocked Beck for his odd behavior, and Fox News continues their mission to be the voice of opposition to the Obama Administration.

As many of you have probably read by now, there are protests scheduled in various cities around the United States for April 15. These "tea-parties" were first conceived after CNBC host Rick Santelli floated the idea in his now infamous on-air rant. Since then people have gathered in cities across America to protest against the government bailouts, taxation, spending, and large deficits, supposedly in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party where colonists were protesting taxation without representation.

Though many of these protests claim to hold no party affiliation, there has been a common theme of railing specifically against the Obama Administration's policies with some participants echoing some of the ugly sentiments that we saw during the campaign. While it is clear that people are very angry at the Obama Administration, it is not always clear why or what alternatives are being suggested at these tea-parties. Andrew Sullivan explains:

It's a protest of the bank bailouts orchestrated by Bush and now Obama. But surely these tea-partiers understand what would happen if we didn't bail the banks out. Are they advocating letting major banks fail? Or are they advocating a Krugman-style government take-over? No idea.

...

It's a protest against tax hikes. But there have barely been any! Are they arguing that the planned return to Clinton era marginal rates is an outrage worthy of the colonists ... only months after an election in which the winning candidate ran on exactly that platform?

...

It's a protest against government debt. Yay! I will leave aside the somewhat awkward fact that Fox News and Pajamas Media barely covered the massive debt racked up by the Republicans during a period of economic growth.

Don't get me wrong, there are some people who are also angry at the Republicans for getting us into this economic mess, but as Fox News has entered the scene to actively promote these acts that stem from supposed populist anger, the situation gets more complicated and seems a bit, well...contrived.

Fox News is dispatching their anchors all around the country in order to "cover" these tea party protests and for weeks now, have gone beyond just covering the story and engaged in actively embracing and promoting these events:



In fact, yesterday Fox News host Stuart Varney even exclaimed: “It’s now my great duty to promote the tea parties. Here we go!”.

Not only is Fox News promoting these tea parties, but corporate donors are helping to fund the demonstrations. From ThinkProgress:

...the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily
staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests:
– Freedom Works staffers coordinate conference calls among protesters, contacting conservative activists to give them “sign ideas, sample press releases, and a map of events around the country.”
– Freedom Works staffers apparently moved to “take over” the planning of local events in Florida.
– Freedom Works provides how-to guides for delivering a “clear message” to the public and media.
– Freedom Works has several domain addresses — some of them made to look like they were set up by amateurs — to promote the protests.
– Americans for Prosperity is writing press releases and planning the events in New Jersey, Arizona, New Hampshire, Missouri, Kansas, and several other states.

Freedom Works is an organization run by registered lobbyist and former Republican Majority Leader, Dick Armey and Americans for Prosperity is run by Tim Phillips, Ralph Reed's former lobbying partner. Is there any doubt that these organizations are actively involved in planning these "grassroots" uprisings? From the Freedom Works website:

Thank you for joining the massive movement of citizens that are opposed to the trillions of dollars in federal spending and the bailouts of Wall Street and failed businesses. With your help, we have been able to organize hundreds of Taxpayer Tea Parties across the country, from Santa Barbara, California to Amarillo, Texas, and all the way to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Together, as one united force for liberty, we can take our country back!

and where does the "donate" button link to if you are interested in donating to causes like the tea-party:

Your contribution to the FreedomWorks Foundation will make a real difference
in the fight for limited government and economic freedom. Thank you. I look
forward to working with you.

Sincerely,
Matt Kibbe
President and
CEO

As Jane Hamsher points out, Matt Kibbe was behind the attempt to keep Ralph Nader off of the ballot in the state of Oregon in 2004 which led to a complaint with the FEC for illegal collusion with the GOP.

So we have a supposed "grassroots" movement of people who are opposed to taxation, deficits, bailouts, and a host of other issues, who are having tea parties that are being promoted by Fox News (whose stated mission is to be the voice of opposition to this Administration) and funded by corporate lobbyists. As Paul Krugman and others have pointed out, this means that this movement is not a spontaneous grassroots uprising of the people, but an astroturf movement.
Here is an exchange that happened on Fox Business Network recently where a Think Progress editor called out Fox for promoting these tea parties. The host of the program says that there is a "big difference" in covering something and promoting something, but check out the what the host says coming out of the segment:

Thank you, panel. Excellent job. Okay. Why it’s time to party like it’s 1773. Next.

[…]

What is right though is the growing chorus of Americans that want their country and their liberties back. Anti-tax tea parties will happen all over the country Wednesday, carrying on in the American spirit that will send a message to Washington and Wall Street. … Remember, you have a right to voice your opinion and fight back.

the video:

Obama Administration Again Delays Release of the "Torture Memos"

The ACLU has been trying (for over a year) to get various memos and documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These memos are the infamous "torture memos" which detail how the Bush Administration attempted to give legal authority to their decisions surrounding the treatment and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody.

For obvious reasons, the Bush Administration was very resistant to the requests from the ACLU and now that the Obama Administration has taken power, there have been murmurs that they will end up releasing these controversial memos. Despite these murmurs and court-ordered deadlines by which the Administration would have been forced to either release the memos or give reasons to why they would continue to keep them sealed, the Obama Administration has asked for a total of four extensions to these deadlines. The most recent deadline of April 2 has now been extended to April 16.

Scott Horton has recently reported that there is conflict within the Obama Administration regarding the release of these documents and considerable push back from Republicans and John Brennan. Horton writes:

Brennan is a protege of former CIA director George Tenet and although he expressed some reservations about waterboarding, he was a defender of other
Tenet-era torture programs. Now ensconced as a senior counterterrorism advisor, he has become the principle advocate of the “don’t look back” mantra with respect to the misdeeds of the Bush years. And in this, Brennan’s principal concern is the protection of Brennan and Tenet–but in the process he has emerged as Dick Cheney’s clear champion.

The disclosure of the OLC memoranda presents a key policy fork in the road for Obama. If he is faithful to his commitment to transparency and to end torture, the government will have to come clean with these memos. If Obama keeps them under wraps, the public will have good reason to question his undertaking to end torture–and good reason to question whether a Cheney “shadow administration” actually has the power to influence policy.

Not only is Brennan apparently leading this opposition, but Horton also reported today that Republicans are threatening to vote against some of Obama's nominations if he doesn't keep these memos sealed:

Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era.

Alarming, but per usual, Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head in his analysis of this situation today:

If the Obama administration releases these memos in largely unredacted form, they will deserve credit for doing so. These memos, which an anonymous Obama official told Newsweek were quite "ugly," are virtually certain to fuel calls for investigations and prosecutions and erase all remaining doubt in the eyes of the world how directly and knowingly involved in the torture regime were our highest government officials. Disclosure will require a fair amount of political courage, and if they do that, credit ought to be given.

Conversely, a refusal to disclose these memos, or disclosing them with so many redactions as to render them meaningless, will be absolutely inexcusable. It doesn't matter how loudly John Brennan screams or how many nominations Republican Senators threaten to filibuster. Put simply, there is no legal authority for these memos to remain secret -- ongoing concealment is itself an act of profound lawlessness -- and, beyond that, keeping them secret will constitute the most extreme complicity yet on the part of the Obama administration in the last administration's war crimes. It was Obama who chose to place someone like Brennan in a position of high authority in his administration. That Brennan is now working with Bush-following Republicans to hide evidence of war crimes is, quite obviously, no excuse for continuing to hide it.

This is indeed a big test for the Obama Administration and if they are to assert their commitment to the principle that "no one is above the law", they will release these memos which will be essential to continue to build a case against the law-breakers of the last eight years.

Are you Enraged, but a Little Confused Over This 'AIG' Controversy?

Are you as enraged as Stephen Colbert at AIG?

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Stephen's Angry Mob Will Crush AIG

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Mark Sanford
NASA Name Contest

Or perhaps you are kind of confused. Republicans slamming Democrats, the Obama Administration blaming Chris Dodd, the media trying to react to react to a complex situation by finding bad guys to blame...when will the madness end? Glenn Greenwald breaks things down pretty well today:

The controversy of the AIG bonuses -- which, strictly as a quantitative matter, is rather trivial in the scheme of things -- illustrates how warped our political discourse is. Here is the hierarchy of positions regarding executive compensation limits back in February:

Chris Dodd -- advocated full-scale, no-exceptions limits on executive compensation for bailed-out companies


Obama administration -- supported limits but advocated exceptions for already-existing employment contracts


GOP leaders -- opposed all executive compensation limits as Socialist tyranny

Yet everything is exactly backwards in this controversy. The Obama administration has been trying to blame Dodd for the carve-out that allowed the AIG bonus payments, a carve-out that came into being because Geithner/Summers demanded it and because they opposed the limits Dodd wanted as too onerous. And now, the GOP -- which opposed limits of any kind -- wants to blame the Obama administration and Dodd because the limits weren't stringent enough to stop the AIG bonus payments. And the media is playing along perfectly, having clearly decided that the person who led the way in fighting for absolute compensation limits -- Dodd -- is the real villain responsible for the AIG bonuses.

Wow. It is hard to NOT be confused with a situation as backward as this.

The Secret ICRC Report on Torture: More Evidence of Criminal Activity

In February of 2007, The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded a secret report into the treatment of Al Qaeda detainees by the Bush Administration. Journalism professor and author Mark Danner, recently received a copy of this report and has posted excerpts and summaries of the findings. Conclusions that were reached in this report indicate that the detainees were subjected to treatment that "constituted torture" and violated international law.

I have written many entries on the subject of torture and many details in this report that pertain to techniques used on detainees is not new information. What is significant, as Danner has noted in an interview with the Washington Post, is that the Red Cross has labeled these practices as both torture and a violation of international laws:

Danner said the organization's use of the word "torture" has important legal implications. "It could not be more important that the ICRC explicitly uses the words 'torture' and 'cruel and degrading,' " Danner said in a telephone interview. "The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and when it uses those words, they have the force of law."

The ICRC conducted various interviews with a number of detainees who have been held by the United States and all of them recounted very similar accounts (down to specific details) of situations that they have experienced. From Danner's account of the report:

In virtually all such cases, the allegations made are echoed by other, named detainees; indeed, since the detainees were kept “in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention” throughout their time in “the black
sites,” and were kept strictly separated as well when they reached Guantánamo,
the striking similarity in their stories, even down to small details, would seem to make fabrication extremely unlikely, if not impossible. “The ICRC wishes to underscore,” as the writers tell us in the introduction, “that the consistency of the detailed allegations provided separately by each of the fourteen adds particular weight to the information provided below.”

What kind of treatment did these detainees recount? Take a look at the Introduction to this report:

Contents

Introduction

1. Main Elements of the CIA Detention Program

1.1 Arrest and Transfer

1.2 Continuous Solitary Confinement and Incommunicado Detention

1.3 Other Methods of Ill-treatment

1.3.1 Suffocation by water

1.3.2 Prolonged Stress Standing

1.3.3 Beatings by use of a collar
1.3.4 Beating and kicking

1.3.5 Confinement in a box

1.3.6 Prolonged nudity

1.3.7 Sleep deprivation and use of loud music

1.3.8 Exposure to cold temperature/cold water

1.3.9 Prolonged use of handcuffs and shackles

1.3.10 Threats

1.3.11 Forced shaving

1.3.12 Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food

1.4 Further elements of the detention regime….

This is what this country has become and the type of acceptable treatment that the Bush Administration approved. Can it become any clearer?

After Danner's lengthy analysis of the report he lists definitive conclusions that we are able to draw in the wake of the ICRC report. They include, and I paraphrase:

- Beginning in the Spring of 2002, the Bush Administration began to torture captives with the approval of the Bush Administration and other high ranking government officials in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and U.S. law.

- President Bush and other high ranking government officials repeatedly lied about these policies to international organizations and to the American public in speeches, press conferences, and interviews.

- The U.S. Congress was aware of and had information pertaining to torture policies that were being implemented by the Administration, yet passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to protect those responsible for such policies from the War Crimes Act.

- Democrats who had an opportunity to filibuster the bill, did not do so due to the mid-term elections. Democrats were worried that they would be labeled as soft of terror and on terrorists.

- The political damage done to the reputation of the United States and to its constitutional ideals and liberties has been vast and enduring.

These are high crimes and though I seem to stress this in the majority of my posts on this topic, the need for criminal investigations cannot be stressed enough. The information of this investigation by the ICRC comes during a moment when former Vice President Dick Cheney continues to go on network television in defense of these policies and claim that any variation of said policies is making this country more susceptible to attack.

Why is there such a disconnect with how we discuss these issues in the media and the verifiable facts of these policies? Perhaps an answer to this is how we continue to battle more over semantics than actually investigating those who worked to implement these policies. Take the Washington Post article that discusses this very ICRC report...their headline puts the word "torture" in quotation marks. It is, at this point, a bit absurd to continue to pretend that there is some ambiguity to the question of whether the techniques used were torture. Andrew Sullivan helps break it down to the basics and Mark Danner says:

DANNER: I think the definitional question is extremely important, and as I mentioned a moment ago, I think it’s extremely important to get by it already.
We’re debilitated in that by some degree by the practices of the American press,
frankly, which is that as long as the president or people in power continue to cling to a definition that they assert is the truth — as President Bush did when it came to torture, he said repeatedly the United States does not torture — the press feels obliged to report that and consider the matter as a question of debate.

The evidence that continues to pile up in regard to these matters requires that we get beyond this media mental block of debatable semantics that not only work to misleadingly frame a debate that we shouldn't be engaged in, but gives the whole conversation a creepy Orwellian tone. We should not get caught up in debating whether we should use "torture" or "enhanced interrogation techniques", or another vague term. We should be focused on the reality of the actual policies that were implemented on detainees and how they broke serious laws and resulted in deterioration of who we are as a country.