Saturday, November 17, 2007

Friday, November 16, 2007

NBC's Miklaszewski minimized House waterboarding prohibition as "poke in the eye of the administration"

On the November 16 edition of MSNBC Live, NBC News chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski suggested that a House bill contained a prohibition on the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, "even though ... [the U.S. military's] own Army field manual prohibits" the technique. "Congress," he claimed, "wants to throw that in, well, pretty much to ensure that it doesn't happen, but also ... [as] a poke in the eye of the administration, clearly." In fact, the Army field manual's prohibition on the use of waterboarding currently applies only to the Department of Defense; the "waterboarding clause" in the House bill would expand that prohibition to cover "the United States Government." As Media Matters for America has noted, the CIA -- which is not a part of the Defense Department -- has reportedly used waterboarding as an interrogation method on several detainees since September 11, 2001, and although the U.S. government has, according to The New York Times, stopped using waterboarding, the administration has reportedly asserted its authority to use the technique.

Miklaszewski made his assertion at the end of his report on the House's passage of a bill appropriating $50 billion for war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, when host Mika Brzezinski asked him about the "waterboarding clause in that bill." Miklaszewski replied that the provision was included in the bill, even though the U.S. military's own Army field manual prohibits the use of waterboarding, and concluded that the clause was "clearly" "a poke in the eye of the administration." Brzezinski then said, "Yeah, yeah, little politics at play."

However, under current law, only the Defense Department must obey the Army field manual's rule on waterboarding. Section 1002 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) states that "[n]o person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation." The current version of that field manual, released in September 2006, and now titled the Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations, explicitly states that "[i]f used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to ... 'Waterboarding.' "

The DTA applies a different standard to the rest of the U.S. government, requiring, per Section 1003, that "[n]o individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." However, as Media Matters has noted, the Bush administration has reportedly claimed that the use of waterboarding was still permissible under that standard. According to an October 4 New York Times article, "Relying on a Supreme Court finding that only conduct that 'shocks the conscience' was unconstitutional," a 2005 Justice Department opinion "found that in some circumstances not even waterboarding was necessarily cruel, inhuman or degrading, if, for example, a suspect was believed to possess crucial intelligence about a planned terrorist attack, the officials familiar with the legal finding said." Another Justice Department opinion, from February 2005, reportedly authorized the administration's use of the "harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the [CIA]" and provided "explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

By contrast, section 102(a) of the just-passed Iraq war funding bill -- the one Miklaszewski was discussing with Brzezinski -- would require the entire U.S. government to obey the Army Field Manual's more-specific requirements on interrogation techniques, stating that "[n]o person in the custody or under the effective control of the United States Government shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual FM2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations" [emphasis added].

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the November 16 edition of MSNBC Live:

BRZEZINSKI: And Jim, there's also a waterboarding clause in that bill, is there not?

MIKLASZEWSKI: Yes, there is, even though the U.S. military, according -- their own Army field manual prohibits the use of such techniques as waterboarding, Congress wants to throw that in, well, pretty much to ensure that it doesn't happen, but also, you know, a poke in the eye of the administration, clearly.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, yeah, little politics at play. Jim Miklaszewski at the Pentagon, thank you very much.

MIKLASZEWSKI: OK, Mika.

Striking Difference

The difference's between the Democratic presidential debate and the experience of the candidate's versus the Republicans is amazing! After watching the debate tonight I realized all of the democratic candidates are uniquely qualified to be president. Hell, look at who there running against...
CRAZY MCCAIN
RAPTURE RUDY
LAZY/DRUNK FRED
ROMNEY...HE'S A BLOODSUCKING MORMON
SCARY TANCREDO
PAUL, THE POT SMOKIN REPUBLICAN
HUCKABEE STUCKABEE AT 15%
DUNCAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN DUNKED
What a bunch of idiot's, how could any sane person vote for one of those candidate's

Thursday, November 15, 2007

NPR Offers Program “Is Waterboarding Torture?”

Lord, save us from the idiots that are still unsure about this. I have an idea: how about any person that hasn’t yet figured this out line up to experience it? I’m pretty sure once you’ve got up close and personal with a near-drowning, it won’t be too hard to come down one way or the other on the issue.

MediaBloodhound:

A recent segment on WNYC, New York’s flagship National Public Radio (NPR) station, underscored not only the level to which public broadcasting standards have degraded during the Bush years, increasingly adopting the same intellectually dishonest frames and “fair and balanced” debate as those aired on commercial media networks, but also how, simultaneously, public broadcasting deceptively benefits from, and is protected by, its vaunted and entrenched reputation for providing quality information.

WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show hosted the segment “Is Waterboarding Torture?” preceding Judge Michael Mukasey’s controversial confirmation for U.S. Attorney General. On its face, of course, this frame is straight out of the worst of network news and commercial talk radio.

“Lots of questions abound. Just what is waterboarding? Does it work? Is it torture? And waterboarding figures heavily in today’s news….Do you agree that there are degrees of waterboarding? And so, you know, again in Mukasey’s defense, he may not know to what degree this technique is actually used, how close to drowning somebody in the drowning experience, in actually filling their lungs with water, as our previous guest was describing, they actually go. Which also makes it difficult for him to take a position on whether the administration is using a torture technique.” — host Brian Lehrer

You know, I expect this kind of stuff from the Fox Networks, but man, how can you not grieve for NPR?

I have the utmost respect for Cindy Mccain...

But she's a BITCH!

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Ultimate Reality Show

We do not torture. - George W. Bush

Of course that depends on what your definition of torture is. But now, thanks to some stellar record-keeping by a person or persons unknown, we can judge for ourselves:

The CIA has three video and audio recordings of interrogations of senior al Qaida captives but misled federal judges about the evidence during the case against terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, federal prosecutors revealed in a Nov. 9 court filing that was made public Tuesday. [...]

The government's letter said that "the CIA came into possession of the three recordings under unique circumstances involving separate national security matters," leaving unclear whether the tapes show CIA interrogations or possibly questioning by agents of another country.

Leaving aside the question of what the usual penalty would be for "misleading" a federal judge, these tapes offer a chance for the Bush administration to proudly show the world that the actions taken at their secret prisons for al Qaeda suspects did in fact operate, "within the law." Or as a former CIA assistant general counsel put it:

A videotape is worth a thousand words.

And this shouldn't be a problem for the administration because after all, as National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said on the day the "black sites" were revealed in the Washington Post:

Well, the fact that they are secret, assuming there are such sites, does not mean that simply because something is -- and some people say that the test of your principles are what you do when no one is looking. And the President has insisted that whether it is in the public, or is in the private, the same principles will apply, and the same principles will be respected.

So, show the tapes. Let the world see what George Bush's principles look like

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Army Memo Reiterates Ban On Waterboarding To Clear Up ‘Confusion’ From Mukasey’s Testimony

On Nov. 9, the Senate voted to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, despite concerns about his consistent refusal to declare waterboarding torture.

The AP reports today that three days earlier, on Nov. 6, the Army issued a memo to “senior leaders” reiterating that the technique is prohibited by the Army. The memo was to be relayed to soldiers’ families and employees in order to “eliminate any confusion that may have arisen as a result of recent public discourse on the subject”:

The service issued a “strategic communication hot topic” alert to its senior leaders two days before the Senate confirmed Mukasey, asking them to make sure every soldier, family member and Army civilian employee understands the ban on waterboarding. Mukasey was sworn in Nov. 9.

“The U.S. Army strictly prohibits the use of waterboarding during intelligence investigations by any of its members. It is specifically prohibited by Field Manual 2-22.3 and is not a sanctioned interrogation technique in any training manual or any instructions to soldiers in the field,” the statement says.

The Army Field Manual specifically prohibits “waterboarding” in intelligence interrogations, along with “mock executions,” “using military working dogs,” and “inducing hypothermia or heat injury.” The CIA reportedly used waterboarding on three different prisoners before 2003.

Several former administration officials have attempted to eliminate or condemn the use of waterboarding. Inspector General John Helgerson quit in protest of the administration’s torture policies. Former acting assistant attorney general Daniel Levin was forced out by the Justice Department for his dissent on waterboarding.

Last week, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) introduced legislation requiring “that interrogations comply with the standards set forth in the Army Field Manual, to all government agencies.”

Group Of Progressive Democrats Call For DiFi Censure

One day after voting to elevate a divisive conservative judge to the federal appeals court in New Orleans, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein was the president’s guest aboard Air Force One. She had been invited to survey the damage from the recent spate of Southern California wildfires.

Two weeks later, Feinstein was one of two Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee to vote to send Michael Mukasey’s nomination to be the new attorney general to the full Senate. Her support helped turn the tide in favor of a nomination that faced an uncertain future after Mukasey refused to say whether waterboarding was torture.

Now, a coalition of progressive Democrats upset with Feinstein’s controversial votes will ask the California Democratic Party to censure her at its executive board meeting this weekend, the Huffington Post has learned.

Monday, November 12, 2007

This Week At War: Does Torture Work?

Of course, any sentient human being that isn’t a blind apologist for this administration (or so afraid of the big scary Muslim that he hides from his own shadow) knows the answer to that.

And then there is David Rivkin…

When oh when will we be spared these chickenhawk little scaredy-cats in serious discussions? Actually, if it wasn’t for these Bush apologists who have neither military experience nor intelligence (in every sense of the word) opining on military intelligence, there would be NO discussion on the legality or morality of “enhanced interrogation techniques” as they like to call it (or torture, for those of us in the reality-based community).

Listen to Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift (who, I might add, has both experience in the military and gathering intelligence, and who effectively lost his career in shaming the Bush Administration with the Hamdan case) make the point that besides being immoral, torture simply does not work:

…To me, it’s unfathomable that we are up against the line. You know, again, looking back at WWII, what history’s taught us, what we found is the reliable means of getting intelligence, at least in the context of a war, are using those things that build rapport with the person. That they find out you’re not the ogre they’ve been told, they begin to question the people who are leading them. And eventually, that leads to actionable intelligence and it’s reliable. See, that’s the real problem with anything that’s coercive. When you force somebody to talk, you cannot count on what they tell you. And in that case, I think it really is an unreliable form of interrogation and again, it’s why we don’t use it in court, is because it’s not reliable data.

And Rivkin’s response? The big scary “bad guys” are out to get us! You can’t be nice to them! How can anyone take a grown man seriously who uses such cartoonish and vague scare tactics?

The Coup at Home

AS Gen. Pervez Musharraf arrested judges, lawyers and human-rights activists in Pakistan last week, our Senate was busy demonstrating its own civic mettle. Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, liberal Democrats from America’s two most highly populated blue states, gave the thumbs up to Michael B. Mukasey, ensuring his confirmation as attorney general.

So what if America’s chief law enforcement official won’t say that waterboarding is illegal? A state of emergency is a state of emergency. You’re either willing to sacrifice principles to head off the next ticking bomb, or you’re with the terrorists. Constitutional corners were cut in Washington in impressive synchronicity with General Musharraf’s crackdown in Islamabad.

In the days since, the coup in Pakistan has been almost universally condemned as the climactic death knell for Bush foreign policy, the epitome of White House hypocrisy and incompetence. But that’s not exactly news. It’s been apparent for years that America was suicidal to go to war in Iraq, a country with no tie to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction, while showering billions of dollars on Pakistan, where terrorists and nuclear weapons proliferate under the protection of a con man who serves as a host to Osama bin Laden.

General Musharraf has always played our president for a fool and still does, with the vague promise of an election that he tossed the White House on Thursday. As if for sport, he has repeatedly mocked both Mr. Bush’s “freedom agenda” and his post-9/11 doctrine that any country harboring terrorists will be “regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

A memorable highlight of our special relationship with this prized “ally” came in September 2006, when the general turned up in Washington to kick off his book tour. Asked about the book by a reporter at a White House press conference, he said he was contractually “honor bound” to remain mum until it hit the stores — thus demonstrating that Simon & Schuster had more clout with him than the president. This didn’t stop Mr. Bush from praising General Musharraf for his recently negotiated “truce” to prevent further Taliban inroads in northwestern Pakistan. When the Pakistani strongman “looks me in the eye” and says “there won’t be a Taliban and won’t be Al Qaeda,” the president said, “I believe him.”

Sooner than you could say “Putin,” The Daily Telegraph of London reported that Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, had signed off on this “truce.” Since then, the Pakistan frontier has become a more thriving terrorist haven than ever.

Now The Los Angeles Times reports that much of America’s $10 billion-plus in aid to Pakistan has gone to buy conventional weaponry more suitable for striking India than capturing terrorists. To rub it in last week, General Musharraf released 25 pro-Taliban fighters in a prisoner exchange with a tribal commander the day after he suspended the constitution.

But there’s another moral to draw from the Musharraf story, and it has to do with domestic policy, not foreign. The Pakistan mess, as The New York Times editorial page aptly named it, is not just another blot on our image abroad and another instance of our mismanagement of the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It also casts a harsh light on the mess we have at home in America, a stain that will not be so easily eradicated.

In the six years of compromising our principles since 9/11, our democracy has so steadily been defined down that it now can resemble the supposedly aspiring democracies we’ve propped up in places like Islamabad. Time has taken its toll. We’ve become inured to democracy-lite. That’s why a Mukasey can be elevated to power with bipartisan support and we barely shrug.

This is a signal difference from the Vietnam era, and not necessarily for the better. During that unpopular war, disaffected Americans took to the streets and sometimes broke laws in an angry assault on American governmental institutions. The Bush years have brought an even more effective assault on those institutions from within. While the public has not erupted in riots, the executive branch has subverted the rule of law in often secretive increments. The results amount to a quiet coup, ultimately more insidious than a blatant putsch like General Musharraf’s.

More Machiavellian still, Mr. Bush has constantly told the world he’s championing democracy even as he strangles it. Mr. Bush repeated the word “freedom” 27 times in roughly 20 minutes at his 2005 inauguration, and even presided over a “Celebration of Freedom” concert on the Ellipse hosted by Ryan Seacrest. It was an Orwellian exercise in branding, nothing more. The sole point was to give cover to our habitual practice of cozying up to despots (especially those who control the oil spigots) and to our own government’s embrace of warrantless wiretapping and torture, among other policies that invert our values.

Even if Mr. Bush had the guts to condemn General Musharraf, there is no longer any moral high ground left for him to stand on. Quite the contrary. Rather than set a democratic example, our president has instead served as a model of unconstitutional behavior, eagerly emulated by his Pakistani acolyte.

Take the Musharraf assault on human-rights lawyers. Our president would not be so unsubtle as to jail them en masse. But earlier this year a senior Pentagon official, since departed, threatened America’s major white-shoe law firms by implying that corporate clients should fire any firm whose partners volunteer to defend detainees in Guantánamo and elsewhere. For its part, Alberto Gonzales’s Justice Department did not round up independent-minded United States attorneys and toss them in prison. It merely purged them without cause to serve Karl Rove’s political agenda.

Tipping his hat in appreciation of Mr. Bush’s example, General Musharraf justified his dismantling of Pakistan’s Supreme Court with language mimicking the president’s diatribes against activist judges. The Pakistani leader further echoed Mr. Bush by expressing a kinship with Abraham Lincoln, citing Lincoln’s Civil War suspension of a prisoner’s fundamental legal right to a hearing in court, habeas corpus, as a precedent for his own excesses. (That’s like praising F.D.R. for setting up internment camps.) Actually, the Bush administration has outdone both Lincoln and Musharraf on this score: Last January, Mr. Gonzales testified before Congress that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

To believe that this corruption will simply evaporate when the Bush presidency is done is to underestimate the permanent erosion inflicted over the past six years. What was once shocking and unacceptable in America has now been internalized as the new normal.

This is most apparent in the Republican presidential race, where most of the candidates seem to be running for dictator and make no apologies for it. They’re falling over each other to expand Gitmo, see who can promise the most torture and abridge the largest number of constitutional rights. The front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, boasts a proven record in extralegal executive power grabs, Musharraf-style: After 9/11 he tried to mount a coup, floating the idea that he stay on as mayor in defiance of New York’s term-limits law.

What makes the Democrats’ Mukasey cave-in so depressing is that it shows how far even exemplary sticklers for the law like Senators Feinstein and Schumer have lowered democracy’s bar. When they argued that Mr. Mukasey should be confirmed because he’s not as horrifying as Mr. Gonzales or as the acting attorney general who might get the job otherwise, they sounded whipped. After all these years of Bush-Cheney torture, they’ll say things they know are false just to move on.

In a Times OpEd article justifying his reluctant vote to confirm a man Dick Cheney promised would make “an outstanding attorney general,” Mr. Schumer observed that waterboarding is already “illegal under current laws and conventions.” But then he vowed to support a new bill “explicitly” making waterboarding illegal because Mr. Mukasey pledged to enforce it. Whatever. Even if Congress were to pass such legislation, Mr. Bush would veto it, and even if the veto were by some miracle overturned, Mr. Bush would void the law with a “signing statement.” That’s what he effectively did in 2005 when he signed a bill that its authors thought outlawed the torture of detainees.

That Mr. Schumer is willing to employ blatant Catch-22 illogic to pretend that Mr. Mukasey’s pledge on waterboarding has any force shows what pathetic crumbs the Democrats will settle for after all these years of being beaten down. The judges and lawyers challenging General Musharraf have more fight left in them than this.

Last weekend a new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that the Democratic-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush are both roundly despised throughout the land, and that only 24 percent of Americans believe their country is on the right track. That’s almost as low as the United States’ rock-bottom approval ratings in the latest Pew surveys of Pakistan (15 percent) and Turkey (9 percent).

Wrong track is a euphemism. We are a people in clinical depression. Americans know that the ideals that once set our nation apart from the world have been vandalized, and no matter which party they belong to, they do not see a restoration anytime soon.