Saturday, November 10, 2007

House Dems Introduce Anti-Torture Bill

On the heels of today's torture hearings in a House Judiciary subcommittee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the subcommittee chairman, and Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) have introduced a bill to force all American interrogators to conform to the Geneva Conventions-compliant standards of the Army Field Manual on Interrogation (pdf). That would mean no waterboarding, no "cold cells," no stress positions -- none of that stuff that Malcolm Nance and Steve Kleinman testified doesn't work anyway.

Under current law -- Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) 2005 Detainee Treatment Act -- torture is (once again) prohibited, but the law's provisions don't apply outside the U.S. military. The CIA still, in principle, can employ "enhanced interrogation" techniques, waterboarding being among the most infamous. In September, CIA Director Mike Hayden resisted bringing CIA interrogations in line with the Army Field Manual, telling the Council on Foreign Relations, "I don't know of anyone who has looked at the Army Field Manual who could make the claim that what's contained in there exhausts the universe of lawful interrogation techniques consistent with the Geneva Convention." Michael Mukasey echoed that sentiment during his confirmation hearings.

The Nadler-Delahunt bill, called the American Anti-Torture Act of 2007, would indeed make the field manual exhaustive of that "universe of lawful interrogation techniques."

In a statement, Delahunt said, "The use of torture and so-called 'enhanced' interrogation -- such as waterboarding -- contradicts our commitment to the rule of law and basic human decency." Their bill complements a Senate measure sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE).

Of course, even if the bills pass, and for some reason President Bush signs them, Bush could easily attach a signing statement saying he'll ignore them when he wants to, as he did with the McCain torture bill.

WE DID IT AGAIN!

I say we because I consider myself a democrat and Mukasay was confirmed! WTF... How could this happen? So much for sticking up for the constitution and thamks for supporting the progressives and netroots.

Friday, November 9, 2007

‘Waterboarding is torture and should be banned,’

Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a former Navy instructor of prisoner of war and terrorist hostage survival programs, told a House Judiciary subcommittee today. Nance described the experience as a “slow motion suffocation” that provides enough time for the subject to consider what’s happening: “water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel(ing) your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs.” “The victim is drowning,” Nance said. Lt. Col. Stuart Coach was supposed to testify but was prevented from doing so by the Pentagon.

Rep. Trent Franks compares torture to abortion

Spencer Ackerman writes that, during today’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on torture, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) offered an “an intellectually stimulating comparison of torture to abortion.” Franks questioned why the committee isn’t concerned about abortion, even though he claims some abortion techniques purportedly torture the woman:

FRANKS: And not once during this term have we even considered the personhood and protection of unborn children. And yet last Congress, we had a bill before the Congress that said that, if torturous techniques were used to abort a child, that the mother would be offered anesthetic for the child. And most of the members of this committee that voted on that voted against it, against allowing anesthetic for procedures that, if done to an animal, would be illegal.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Pentagon Counsel William Haynes Bars Gitmo Prosecutor From Testifying About Torture

Today, a House Judiciary subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing on the “effectiveness and consequences of ‘enhanced’ interrogation.” The Committee had invited Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, a former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor, to testify about his experiences. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Asked last week to appear before the panel, Col. Couch says he informed his superiors and that none had any objection.” But Counch’s appearance was blocked by Cheney-backed Pentagon counsel William Haynes:

Yesterday, however, [Couch] was advised by email that the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, “has determined that as a sitting judge and former prosecutor, it is improper for you to testify about matters still pending in the military court system, and you are not to appear before the Committee to testify tomorrow.“

Haynes has been a forceful advocate and key architect for the administration’s harsh interrogation techniques. Couch’s potential testimony posed a serious danger to Haynes’ work.

As a Gitmo prosecutor, Couch had been assigned to prosecute accused al Qaeda operative Mohamedou Ould Slahi, one of fourteen “high value” prisoners. “Of the cases I had seen, he was the one with the most blood on his hands,” Couch said of Slahi. Yet Couch determined he could not prosecute Slahi because his incriminating statements “had been taken through torture, rendering them inadmissible under U.S. and international law.”

In a lengthy Wall Street Journal profile published in March, Couch revealed evidence of torture he witnessed at Guantanamo Bay — images that captured his conscience and forced him to become a critic of the administration’s interrogation system. Couch reported that Slahi “had been beaten and exposed to psychological torture, including death threats and intimations that his mother would be raped in custody unless he cooperated.” Here’s what happened when Couch announced his decision not to prosecute:

In May 2004, at a meeting with the then-chief prosecutor, Army Col. Bob Swann, Col. Couch dropped his bombshell. He told Col. Swann that in addition to legal reasons, he was “morally opposed” to the interrogation techniques “and for that reason alone refused to participate in [the Slahi] prosecution in any manner.”

Col. Swann was indignant, Col. Couch says, replying: “What makes you think you’re so much better than the rest of us around here?”

Col. Couch says he slammed his hand on Col. Swann’s desk and replied: “That’s not the issue at all, that’s not the point!”

An impassioned debate followed, the prosecutor recalls. Col. Swann said the Torture Convention didn’t apply to military commissions. Col. Couch asked his superior to cite legal precedent that would allow the president to disregard a treaty.

On his first day in Guantanamo, Couch said he saw treatment of a prisoner that “resembled the abuse he had been trained to resist if captured.” Couch’s willingness to tell the truth posed such a threat to the administration that they have prevented him from speaking to Congress. The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), said he would consider seeking a subpoena for Couch if the Pentagon maintained its stand

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Dianne Feinstein on Michael Mukasey: He’s so Bright and Independent…

Dianne Feinstein describes Mukasey as a man that is “well-steeped in national security law.” If that’s true then why doesn’t he know if waterboarding is torture? via CNN’s Late Edition on Sunday
Blitzer: When you both announced on Friday you will support the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general, that effectively guaranteed that he’ll not only get out of the committee but eventually will be confirmed as the attorney general. Even though he’s taking what some are calling a wishy-washy position on waterboarding or torture, why do you believe he should be confirmed?

Feinstein: Well, first of all, because he is a bright, independent figure. Well-steeped in national security law, presided over some of those trials. In the 172 pages of written questions and answers, the independence of thought comes through.

He’s not going to wear two hats like Gonzales did. He’ll wear one hat, and that will be an independent attorney general for a department which right now, today, is in disarray. Twenty-three out of 93 U.S. attorneys are not filled with permanent confirmed U.S. attorneys. The 10 top positions are vacant.

What I believe this president would do if Mukasey was — failed to be confirmed was put in an acting, also make recess appointments. That would bring about diminished transparency, diminished Congressional oversight and would not be for the benefit of the department. So this is a strong independent figure. I’d be happy to talk about my views on torture, if you want.

We’re only interested in what Mukasey’s views on torture are, Dianne. He’s the one trying to get confirmed here. And if they don’t match up to your view on waterboarding then why did you push his nomination through? Sigh…Then she goes on to quiver at the thought of what George Bush might do if he doesn’t get his way. Mr. 24% is making her nervous.

What the heck is wrong with these people? She actually used the term “diminished transparency,” and “diminished Congressional oversight” to describe what might happen in the Justice department if Bush had a hissy fit…Isn’t that what we’ve had since Bush and Cheney took office? I could go on, but what would be the point. Please contact her and let her know (It does help) this is not acceptable:

Washington Office:
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0504
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Main District Office:
One Post Street, Suite 245
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 393-0707

Chavez responds to Cheney

After Vice President Cheney claimed Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is the president of Peru, Chavez “mocked” Cheney, saying the comment shows the United States is governed by a “bunch of ignorant fools”:

“The vice president of the United States was talking about us, but he made a mistake,” Chavez said, laughing. “Since those who govern the United States are a bunch of ignorant fools…he thinks I’m president of Peru.”

“They don’t know where Venezuela is, nor do they know where Peru is,” Chavez told the crowd.

Tourist's Guide to the Green Zoon

Noah Shachtman has found a “Visitors Guide” to Baghdad’s Green Zone on website of the U.S. military’s Multi-National Security Transition Command. The 2006 guide purports to “written by tourists for the tourist.” But as Shachtman points out, the two authors are more than just “tourists”:

One of the writers, a “Richard H. Houghton III,” was the acting country director in Iraq of the International Republican Institute. That’s an unofficial arm of the Republican party, chaired by John McCain, which focuses on democracy-promotion abroad. “A former U.S. Marine Colonel, Mr. Houghton, when not making the world safe for democracy, enjoys rodeo and weightlifting,” the Guide says. The other author, Patrick J. McDonald, “completed a one year tour of duty with the 448th Civil Affairs Battalion… He is Assistant to the Secretary of State for the State of Washington and is a confirmed war tourist.”

Capt. Matt Tompkins, currently on his second tour of duty in Iraq, calls such military tourism one of his “biggest pet peeves.”

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Dumbass Joe Lieberman Declares Mission Accomplished:

‘The Tide Has Turned In Iraq,’ ‘We Are Winning’
The U.S. military announced the death of six soldiers yesterday, “taking the number of deaths this year to 851 and making 2007 the deadliest year of the war for American troops.”

While the violence rages in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) is ready to declare mission accomplished. Yesterday, speaking to an audience who greeted him with “warm applause,” Lieberman declared that the U.S. was turning the corner in Iraq:

“I’m proud to say that the tide has turned in Iraq and we’re winning that war,” Lieberman said. “And if we don’t let down our troops, they’re going to bring home a victory that will protect us here at home from today’s threat — totalitarian terrorist Islamism that’s trying to take our liberty from us.”

In reality, the U.S. is drifting further away from “victory.” In October, civilian deaths increased, according to statistics obtained by the Iraqi government. A recent report from the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction last month found little prospect of “lasting” reconciliation in Iraq.

Lieberman’s prediction is the latest in a line of premature declarations of victory. Throughout the war, he has repeatedly called for staying the course, claiming that we are “winning” the war:

– “Overall, I would say what I see here today is progress, significant progress from the last time I was here in December. And if you can see progress in war that means you’re headed in the right direction.” [5/30/07]

– “The last two weeks…may be seen as a turning point.” [12/17/05]

– “Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do.” [11/29/05]

– “We have to stay the course in Iraq now. … If we do that, we will…have won a victory in the war on terrorism.” [1/4/04]

What a liar...

A one-time member of Rudy Giuliani's inner circle said on Tuesday that the former New York City mayor is greatly exaggerating his understanding of torture and his experience with advanced interrogation.

Jerry Hauer, who served as New York's first director of emergency management, said the idea that Giuliani learned first-hand about aggressive interrogation techniques during his service as mayor is not only untrue but legally questionable.

"If Rudy is suggesting in any way that they used torture or aggressive interrogation in New York City then he is absolutely unfit to be president," Hauer told the Huffington Post, "because torture in a local jurisdiction is, first of all, illegal. Secondly, it is inhumane. It is not something that is done at the local level."

On the campaign trail, Giuliani has highlighted his work as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York as a period when he dealt directly with interrogation. This past weekend, however, in an interview with Bloomberg's Al Hunt, he insinuated that his experience as mayor of New York offered even more direct understanding of the issue.

MR. HUNT: Do you know more about torture than John McCain?

MR. GIULIANI: I can't say that I do but I do know a lot about intensive questioning and intensive questioning techniques. After all, I have had a different experience than John. John has never been - he has never run city, never run a state, never run a government. He has never been responsible as a mayor for the safety and security of millions of people, and he has never run a law enforcement agency, which I have done. Now, intensive questioning works. If I didn't use intensive questioning, there would be a lot of mafia guys running around New York right now and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is.


Hauer dismissed the notion that aggressive interrogation was ever condoned or conducted by the Giuliani administration.

"That would have been absolutely disgraceful and a downright violation of everybody's constitutional liberties," Hauer said. "We were not at war in New York City. Being a suspected criminal is not the same as being a suspected terrorist. And even when they caught the terrorists that were going to blow up the subways [in August 1997], obviously there was interrogation but I never heard of anything involving aggressive techniques."

Other critics of the former mayor added that Giuliani is embellishing his resume as U.S. Attorney. Even in that position, they say, there would have be little or no direct involvement in aggressive interrogation.

"When you are a prosecutor and the United States attorney you don't question people," Giuliani biographer Wayne Barrett told the Huffington Post. "The FBI questions people. You just don't question them. That's just not a realistic assessment of what happens... I covered many of Giuliani's public corruption cases and I still think of him as a tremendous prosecutor, but the notion that he personally questioned any of the key individuals is baffling."

WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING

Senate Judiciary approves Mukasey nomination.The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted 11-8 to approve the nomination of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General. He now heads to the full Senate for a vote. Sens. Charles Schumer (NY) and Dianne Feinstein (CA) were the only Democrats to join all nine Republicans in voting for the nomination

Monday, November 5, 2007

CRAZY REPUBLICAN'S

In a November 5 National Review Online column -- "Waterboarding Has Its Benefits" -- contributing editor Deroy Murdock wrote that "[w]aterboarding is something of which every American should be proud," adding that "[t]hough clearly uncomfortable, waterboarding loosens lips without causing permanent physical injuries (and unlikely even temporary ones)." In fact, according to medical experts on the effect of torture, waterboarding results in both short and long-term negative consequences for mental and physical health, including possible risk of death, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented.

In his column, Murdock asserted that "[w]aterboarding makes tight-lipped terrorists talk. At least three major al-Qaeda leaders reportedly have been waterboarded, most notably Khalid Sheik Mohammed." Murdock further wrote:

Appropriately enough, waterboarding is not used on American citizens suspected of tax evasion, sexual harassment, or bank robbery. Waterboarding is used on foreign Islamic-extremist terrorists, captured abroad, who would love nothing more than to blast innocent men, women, and children into small, bloody pieces. Some of them already have done so.

Waterboarding has worked quickly, causing at least one well-known subject to break down and identify at least six other high-profile, highly bloodthirsty associates before they could commit further mass murder beyond the 3,192 people they already killed and the 7,715 they already wounded.

Though clearly uncomfortable, waterboarding loosens lips without causing permanent physical injuries (and unlikely even temporary ones). If terrorists suffer long-term nightmares about waterboarding, better that than more Americans crying themselves to sleep after their loved ones have been shredded by bombs or baked in skyscrapers.

In short, there is nothing "repugnant" about waterboarding.

Contrary to Murdock's assertions, Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, said in written testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: "To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation techniques [in which Keller included waterboarding], are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience. These methods are intended to break the prisoners down, to terrify them and cause harm to their psyche, and in so doing result in lasting harmful health consequences." He said of waterboarding specifically, "Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder]," and said it poses a "real risk of death."

Keller described waterboarding as follows:

Water-boarding or mock drowning, where a prisoner is bound to an inclined board and water is poured over their face, inducing a terrifying fear of drowning clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD. I remind you of the patient I described earlier who would panic and gasp for breath whenever it rained even years after his abuse.

Finally, Murdock's description of the congressional wrangling over Michael Mukasey, President Bush's nominee for attorney general, as "not quite torture, but it sure has been painful," echoed CNN's recent portrayal of the process as "political torture," and the description, by Time magazine's Ana Marie Cox, of former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' questioning by Congress in August as "legislative waterboarding."

A similar column -- "Three Cheers for waterboarding!" -- bearing Murdock's byline appeared on the Scripps Howard News Service website on November 1; HumanEvents.com on November 2; and on the Sacramento Bee's website on November 4.

Why Do Republican's hate Democrat's?

Michelle Malkin
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Rielly
Aman Coulter
Michael Savage
Glen Beck
Laura Ingram
Faux Noize
Because a bunch of hate filled warmongers that spew lies and vile propaganda for the Bush/Cheney cabal through the MSM

Sunday, November 4, 2007

God loves torture

That should be the new Republican mantra, how would Jesus torture? The wingsnuts pee there pants at the thought! How else could they claim i'm a god-fearing person and support this insainity. I think there a bunch gutless pieces of crap enalblers that will follow Bush/Dobson Et al down the path to the rapture.