Blogs and Stories
GOP's Torture Tricks Backfire
Brendan Smialowski / Getty Images
Republicans might think they’re being clever by drawing Nancy Pelosi into the torture controversy. But as Daily Beast columnist Matthew Yglesias argues, they’re playing right into Democrats’ hands.
Just when it seemed to many that the right had lost its mojo, give conservatives credit: They're still enormously good at ginning up controversies and controlling the news cycle. Thus a story that was once about the Bush administration's decision to authorize barbaric and illegal acts of torture has successfully been morphed into a to-do about Nancy Pelosi's account of CIA briefings.
As political gamesmanship, it's been masterful. I particularly like the way the right has managed to trot out an endless procession of figures willing to express outrage that anyone would ever hint that the CIA might mislead a member of Congress. From conservatives' incredulous responses, you'd think Pelosi had suggested that little green Martians stole her briefing memos. Obviously, I wasn't in the room with Pelosi and whoever briefed her, but anyone with any recollection of history should be aware that it would hardly be unusual for the country's marquee intelligence agency to do something like that. Indeed, deception of Congress has been a common occurrence in the agency's history, and one former director, Richard Helms, was even convicted of lying to Congress.
The CIA is typically a president's tool of choice when he wants to get someone to do something illegal. When you do something illegal, there's typically a need for a coverup, and with the coverup comes the deception.
None of which has anything in particular to do with a unique CIA penchant for dishonesty. Rather, the crux of the matter is that the CIA is typically a president's tool of choice when he wants to get someone to do something illegal. When you do something illegal, there's typically a need for a coverup, and with the coverup comes the deception.
Helms' conviction related to the Nixon administration's role in overthrowing Salvador Allende in Chile. In the 1980s, CIA Director Bill Casey misled Congress about the Reagan administration's illegal continued support of anti-Sandinista terrorist organizations in Nicaragua. Under George W. Bush, the United States government embarked on the repeated torture of terrorism suspects in violation of American and international law. This fact was kept secret from the American people for the normal reason presidents like to keep illegal activity secret. It's illegal, after all, and "keeping it secret" is what people normally try to do after they commit crimes.
That basic logic hardly amounts to a proof that Pelosi was kept in the dark, and she almost certainly knew more about what was going on at the time than, say, I did. But it does suggest deception is a plausible scenario. And more to the point, it gets us refocused on the real issue here, which is not about what briefings were or were not given to Congress but about the underlying activity that was the subject of the briefings. We've had, for example, a steady drip of evidence, most recently from Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, indicating that one main use of Bush-era torture was to compel people to "confess" to the existence of various ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
And here's where the right's tactical acumen comes up short. Various conservative commentators have expressed their hope that gunning for Pelosi will blunt progressive calls for a "truth commission" to thoroughly investigate what really happened on Bush's trip to the "dark side". Fox's Neil Cavuto said we might be in a "Mexican standoff" wherein Pelosi would agree to drop the idea of investigations to prevent herself from attracting scrutiny. Steven Hayes, Dick Cheney's official biographer, said, "Democrats who have been so enthusiastic about truth commissions have to be stopping and saying, OK, wait a second." What conservatives are missing here is that this is a fight they were winning before they started gunning for Pelosi. Their best ally in this fight was Barack Obama, whose desire to "move forward" rather than focusing on the past had been the subject of much consternation. Had conservatives simply reached out to grab the hand that was being extended to them, they could have gotten what they wanted.
But in their zeal to score a tactical win, the right has made a truth commission more likely not less likely. Obama wanted to avoid a backward-looking focus on torture in part because it distracted from his legislative agenda. But if we're going to be looking backward anyway, thanks to conservatives' insistence on complaining about Pelosi, then the move forward strategy lacks a rationale. And far from forcing a standoff in which Pelosi will abandon her support for an investigation, the right has forced her into a corner from which she can't give in to moderate Democrats' opposition to such a move without looking like she's cravenly attempting to save her own skin.
There's no sign that Pelosi or anyone else is backing off the truth-commission idea. And, indeed, by suggesting that Pelosi could be a target of an investigation, conservatives have helped cleanse the idea of the odor of victor's justice. The question of CIA briefings of congressional leaders would, after all, be a legitimate subject of inquiry. And it's very possible that, done rigorously, Pelosi and other Democrats, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), could wind up getting a black eye or two. But however bad an investigation might make the members of Congress who were supposed to be preventing illegal conduct look, the people actually doing the misdeeds are going to look even worse. Today, the congressional Republicans look extremely clever. But in a few months' time, we'll look back on this as yet another example of a conservative tactical victory that winds up backfiring. After all, selecting Sarah Palin looked brilliant for a week or two. And the anathematization of Obama's stimulus proposal seemed like an unexpected coup until it wound up pushing Arlen Specter into the arms of the Democrats. Gamesmanship, in short, can only get you so far. But conservatives sure are good at it.
Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Returning to logic rather than political games; even if all allegations were correct shouldn't Pelosi be somewhere on page 6 or 7 of the list of wrongdoers? Its stupid that people don't see the transparency in these political games.
Exactly.
Well, games, yes, but she still tarnishes herself, apparently, as not being as truthful as she pretends. I mean, to go from outraged accuser to, well, page 6 or 7, is still a big deal.
Every body cut the shit ok.....pull the documents the reports the session notes the photos the tapes ...what ever - if some one is guilty prosecute them if not move the hell on......jesus H. why do they treat this nations people like pre schoolers with this horse shit
What you and the author neglect is that Republicans want the truth commissions. Those actually responsible aren't in power anymore. They can blame it on those who are no longer in power and move forward while Obama and the Dems look petty. It certainly wouldn't leave just Pelosi, Rockefeller, and Harman with black eyes. Obama would have a shiner too.
Doubtful! The ridiculous rantings of Newt of all people asking Speaker Pelosi to resign is the height of hypocrisy! He resigned in disgrace and because he has presidential ambitions, he over stepped his boundaries. He has no right to ask for any TRUTH commission since he is irrelevant. The GOP are trying to deflect the negative attention they receive by putting a bulls eye on the back of the Speaker. The outcome of all the fallout is now back firing on the GOP and an investigation will now happen exposing Cheney for the war crimes he authorized.
This writers use of the phrase "CIA's penchant dishonesty" is interesting ... Should it not rather read "CIA's penchant for keeping its secrets safe, because that is what they do.
Either Pelosi is lying or if she thought she was not being told the truth then why did she not make a big deal of it then, if this is the case she simply was not doing her job !!
Gamesmanship vs Stupidity .. I think the latter in this case.
Uh, safe from Congress? Sorry, that ain't the way the CIA is supposed to work. Of course, Dick Cheney and his lust for absolute power within the Executive branch of government would have it work exactly that way.
Look, we all know Pelosi is playing games here, but only in the context of something much, much bigger.
Dave I don't expect you to get this, but here we go: Congress is supposed to authorize all wars, military interventions and coups. The C.I.A.'s budget is almost entirely "black" meaning congress just signs them a check not knowing if it is going towards national security or hookers and crack. That is un-constitutional.
So anytime the C.I.A. does something like, overthrow a democratically elected leader, they are committing treason, war without congressional permission. Read your history.
This user is no longer registered.
She could not make a big deal of it because she was forbidden under the law from telling anyone what she learned in these briefings. She wasn't even allow to take notes, and she was forbidden to make notes afterward.
We are all kept in the dark, that is why we are living in the dark ages. "Dear".
Pics
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444
http://www.prisonplanet.com/leaked-torture-photos-published-in-2006-went -largely-unseen-graphic.html
Delete space keep hyphen, space comes up when pasting this long link.
Ad hominem partisan attacks may be reassuring to the base, but they should not deflect serious inquiry into what was actually done and by whom.
Don't just hate partisan spin? It is so irrelevant and even silly that it shouldn't be assumed it will actually distract.
Dave you completely missed it.
What is Pelosi guilty of.
Hiding Bush's torture program.
The same program the GOP continue to say was legal. You can't have it both ways.
Republicans need to answer this question.
If Pelosi is guilty of hiding BUSH'S TORTURE PROGRAM.
WHAT BECOMES OF BUSH AND THE GOP.
It's a suicidal argument they can't win.
IMHO If we can rid ourselves of the GOP and the one person who stopped Bush from getting Impeached I'm all for it.
So you want to get rid of the Republican Party? You really think the country would do better with a ONE party system?
Yes! One party should be registered voters, the other party should be unregistered voters (who are mostly poor but not all - who "deep end" on government for Medicaid, and more).
The goal of the registered should be to get the unregistered involved, and the unregistered should be in charge of managing and running the elections.
One party with a tent wide enough for all to join - factions - instead of "parties" would / will be a lot less expensive, too.
FYI: The republican party is already gone. The more those hypocrites deflect the truth about the CIA and war crimes, the worse they make it for themselves.
Dick Cheney has experience with the CIA. Remember Valerie Plane? Scooter Libby fell on the sword so Rove and Cheney could continue to smear Plane and her husband Joe Wilson.
Why do you assume there would be only one party? There are plenty of parties, but we currently have only two viable parties.
Whether those of you who are stuck in your Republican fantasy worlds like it or not, this country is moving to the left.
The current Democratic party will be the conservative party of the future and there will be more viable parties with progressive agendas.
Republicans will survive but not as a viable party.
No, I think I get .. it is simple. Here is a scenario. A suspect is taken into custody and there is strong resaon to believe the suspect knows of a pending Nuke/Bio or Chemical attack on a large city ... What should we do ??
You have raised a very good question and one that should be at the center of the debate. I, personally, am not wringing my hands and losing any sleep over terrorist getting waterboarded and giving up useful information for keeping the world safe. How should we try to get information is the big question!
I don't think you do get it, Dave. You seem to believe that the ticking time bomb scenario ISN'T the ultimate goal of a terrorist. That, for any degree of pain, a murderous religious fanatic would cede such power over us, to cause our nation great harm and sow fear in the heart of every American. A pending nuclear/biological attack, and you think a person wholly convinced in the righteousness of their actions and debauchery of their foes will respond to torture in any way other than lending further credence to their twisted worldview? Yet always it is those of us on the 'left' who 'don't understand the terrorists'. You play right into their hands.
Let's use KSM as example of your analogy.
He was waterboarded 183 times in a month if their was ever any tikking time bomb don't you think it would have already went off?
and how is waterboarding someone in 2003 prevent a attack in Los Angelos in 2002?
It's unaffective.
untop of that it's illegal and a warcrime.
No torture - it doesn't work.
@ Carole65: You should be wringing your hands about innocent people being waterboarded. Of the hundreds of prisoners at Guantánamo, very few were actually terrorists.
Call me naive,but how is it everyone is up in arms about "torture" acts now that they are being used on suspected terrorists. Where was the outrage of this "inhumane" act of waterboarding, when we were using it to train our own soldiers? I have yet to see someone who wants prison for prior administration officials even call for a stop of the practice to our own troops. This is not the same "waterboarding" the Japanese did in WWII. Our country needs more options than just asking pretty please for answers. No one got bones broken, nails pulled out, on put on the rack. If waterboarding is so outrageous for terrorists, at least be consistant and call for a stop of this "torture" of our own troops.
Gee Dave...don't you get it? The Bushies used the CIA to perform torture methods used by the Red Chinese back in the Korean war to elicit false confessions. Torture, besides being illegal is a very unreliable way of getting information. However, it is used to elicit false confessions and leads.
My, my Dave...We spend a little too much time on this question because we watch a little too much television, don't we.
This is not the scenario we should be worried about because terrorists who are privy to this type of information are not going to be found by our current intelligence services.
Any doomsday scenario strategy you can imagine will soon be obsolete because the terrorists are smart, motivated and have different value systems than ours.
Could not a large part of this problem be eliminated if we stopped creating situations, like the torture of innocent people, which serve to recruit more terrorists?
This change in policy would at least reduce the increasing numbers of enemies of our country and increase the likelihood of developing viable intelligence strategies that work.
It may not make for a compelling episode of "24," but really, it's the only stategy that has ever worked.
I just heard Lanny Davis on the John Gibbon show on radio. He stated that anyone who allows a poor terrorist to be water boarded to stop an attack on America should be charged and put in prison. "But if there is a ticking atomic bomb waiting to go off, if would be ok to water board the terrorist to safe lives". Really he said it just like that. SharksBreath what is the difference between the two and would you still insist the person doing the water boarding to be charged and put in prison after they saved American lives Chris Matthews said the same thing the other day on Morning Joe.
This user is no longer registered.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
I wouldn't credit the republicans for "ginning" this controversy up. The press discovered the Speakers innacuracies and hypocricy on this issue. She was leading a fight for a truth commission and now probably regrets that.
Why would she regrets that? Being told someone is braking the law, isn't braking the law and would be treason to blow the wissel.
She's smart enough to know that it's a even better reason for a truth commission and special prosecutor.
i don't see her showing such regrets. i think MY is right; now that pelosi's a target of an investigation, it's more likely we'll see some outside entity investigating it. suits me fine. you?
Why should she show regret? For speaking the truth? This is why only 21% of the voters call themselves republicans. Then, let us speak of hateful Newt and Huckabee. The epitome of hypocrisy has brought on an investigation they did not want. They never know when enough is enough. Pelosi is a distraction from the liars on the right, nothing more.
The briefings were classified.
"the people actually doing the misdeeds are going to look even worse."
Exactly you hit every single point on this issue spot on.
You might be right but you could be wrong too.. Bush screwed up and the democrats investigate. This could be the time to declare victory and end this investigation. It reminds me of after 1974 when the democrats won large majorities and began investigating Nixon and the CIA after Watergate. The liberal wing of the democrats drew some blood and felt very powerful. Jimmy Carter was elected with a big majority in both houses. (I know JC isn't BHO) His CIA was decimated by the democrats and he governed from the middle and pissed off Teddy Kennedy. We ended up with Reagan and 30 years of Iranian terrorism. I hope the democrats in congress remember some of their history. Was the revenge of the 70's worth it? I think not. If Afghanistan and the economy tumble it could weaken Obama and come back to haunt them like Reagan and Iran haunt us today.
I don't understand the logic.
Just because event B(reagon)
happened after event A (investigating Nixon)
Doesn't mean that event A was the cause of event B.
Reagon was very popular and he won that's simply how elections works.
Open a history book. Actually Carter was ahead of Reagan during the election, almost till the end, their debate sealed the deal for Reagan. Reagan didn't achieve his mythical status (aka popularity) until after he was shot. He beat a Carter weakened by the Iran situation, caused in part by a weak CIA, and a revolt by the democratic left, led by Teddy Kennedy. You could be correct and my logic has no relevance today. Who can tell? Obama for sure is not Carter. He comes into office as a senator, a Washington insider with a winning personality where as Carter was an outsider governor who was a bit stubborn with his democratic congress. If Obama or his agenda is weakened by this look back at the Bush administration I personally believe it is not good for America. As they say be careful what you wish for.
Hmm I personally believe it's unavoidable but I understand what you're saying.
People consider the president of the US as the US so if he did something wrong it will be America did something, I'm assuming that this is the same reason Obama Admin is holding back.
Foreign country's won't see it as a party or as a few members fault, it applies to the entire nation, which the president is responsible for.
But I believe it must be done, our total lost of credibility around the world is at stake.
Let's consider using inductive logic here....what kind of punishment would we use against whomever is found to be "guility" of a crime? What legal basis would be considered "constitutional" by a supreme court, in a finding of guilt? What would the opposing (defendants) parties use as their defense if they were "government employees" following orders? Would the public support the sentencing of an Executive Branch personnel? I doubt that any course of conclusion fits the crime here and tons of money would be spent pursuing a so-called "justice" for the crime. Conclusion: The Bush Administration has been cast as a criminal regime on previous occasions, including everything from advocating torture to collusion, treason and initiating a WAR without Congressional approval. How much worse is advocating water-boarding than the actual "crime" of starting a WAR without Congressional declaration?
Now that Pelosi and Obama are gradually extracting themselves from the embrace of the Code Pink wing of the party, I think we can look for the "truth commission" idea to gradually go away.
Code Pink? You actually think Code Pink is that powerful?
So you're afraid of homosexuals and your afraid of women in positions of authority. Are you scared of the dark too?
No, no, no! Banjo isn't scared of the dark. He's quite at home there.
The old banjo has returned
This user is no longer registered.
Since moving into the White House Obama has done far more for conservatives than he has for liberals.......as long as conservatives continue to attack him they will be attacking one of their own.
Please expand your statement with examples of Obama's conservative agenda.
1. He increased the military budget, has not brought the troops home from Iraq, increased US military activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and hasn't closed Quantanamo or the other torture sites.
2. He increased the amount of our tax revenue going to churches via the faith based initiative which is a direct violation of the first amendment.
3. He supports FISA and the kidnapping of citizens around the world to be held indefinitely.
4. He is lobbying the Supreme Court to reverse the decision which requires a lawyer to be present when defendants are questioned.
5. He is against equal rights for gays/lesbians by being against gay marriage.
6. He gave corrupt Wall Street corporations over $700 billion in corporate welfare.
7. He continues building coal plants which are one of the main causes of the destruction of this planet.
8. Most recently he revived the military tribunals.
That's just off the top of my head.
1. The military budget has been decreased. Obama campaigned on a gradual pullout of Iraq and increased presence in Afghanistan. He has given a date within a year to close Guantánamo, not sure when he will close Quantanamo, if it is even open.
2. Not sure about this one. I just don't care, sorry.
3.FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) was created by the democrats in 1978. It was amended in 2001 by congress, Obama supported the new FISA bill in the summer of 2008, before his nomination and well before the election. I not sure where he stands on the "kidnapping citizens around the world" provision.
3. What defendants?
4. He was against gay marriage before the election.
5. The 700 billion was approved before the election by congress and the Bush administration. Obama voted for it. There is still 135 billion left.
6. As far as I know Obama isn't building any coal plants. I don't believe he gave any promises about coal during the election.
7. Obama did revive military tribunals. What is your problem with that decision and your alternative.
You should be very happy if you voted for Obama. Many of the things you mentioned he promised to do during the election. There are no surprises there.
And no one is doing a better job of pushing the Nancy Pelosi story than Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe. Much to the glee of progressives, today he took on the editor of the New Republic, Bob Shrum, Jim Clyburn and even Mark Penn on this issue, sarcasm & talk-overs on full display. Mika smiled, Pat Buchanan bubbled over with glee, and you can be sure, Joe will continue with his diatribe on his radio show. They will pillory Nancy right into a Truth Commission and the Republicans will be sorry they ever played this card, for the truth will set us free....Hypocrisy is not a crime and waterboarding used to push the war agemda forward is....(and Obama will continue to move his agenda forward for all Americans....amen!)
Succinct and to the point. Good post!
We need to have an open investigation as to who knew what and when, no matter which party they were in at the time. Once all the information is in the open will know who's guilty and who is not.
Guilty of what? Knowledge of torture or execution of policy and practice of torture? There's a huge gulf in the level of "guilt" that we need to distribute appropriately.
It's clear from Cheney's round with the media that he was one of the architects of torture and that Bush simply "signed off" once DOJ lawyers made the case for it. Cheney and others were using torture to support the Bush agenda on defending the war. Watch the timeline on implementation of torture for proof.
You're always against the Obama administration in your postings, but you'd better prepare yourself for a long string of disclosures that taint the Bush administration.
sippewissett I post against the Obama administration because they are in power and I stopped posting against the Bush administration when they left office. And as I stated above anyone who is guilty should be charged. If Bush and Cheney are guilty so is the people on the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Which Mrs. Pelosi was the ranking member? The Committee has oversight on the CIA In that position she could hold a closed meeting and place on the record any objections to the water boarding. If she had did that she would told the world during that press conference. That makes her guilty of an accessory after the fact under United State Code 18 which states "one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment."
I seem to recall a whole of CIA hatred coming from the GOP not so long ago - that the agency was dysfunctional and disloyal (to Bush). Now they are defending the honor of the CIA against Pelosi? It is this kind of dishonesty that has lost them national party status.
The CIA's motto is: Spyin is Lyin
People please remember these are the people who destroyed 98 video tapes that where ordered to be retained oops.
CIA stands for Cash In Advance
And the same ones that provided the false intelligence on WMD that made the case for the war in Iraq.
If George Bush and his cronies are at least indicted for war crimes and crimes against savages maybe future presidents will stop and think. We should be friends with anyone who is willing to be nice to us and annilate anyone who is attacks us. Pretty simple foreign policy. We should not put troops on the ground and we should not take prisoners.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PUNISH A MAN WHO THOUGHT IN HIS MIND AND FELT IN HIS HEART HE WAS TAKING ALL THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO KEEP YOU AND YOUR LOVED ONES SAFE FROM THESE TERRORISTS?
Because it's the law and 5000 of our people died(including my best friend) in a war of lies called Iraq.
They weren't using these harsh methods to keep us safe - they were just claiming that.
All evidence from all sources within the CIA and Armed Forces shows the extreme interogations occured only to force a confession to a link between al Caida and Saddam Hussein, because this itself is the lie that was sold to the UN and the Nation as why the US needed to invade Iraq.
You aren't thinking for yourself - you are putting the complete faith in your Earthly leaders that you ought to reserve for your Heavenly Leader. Conservative leaders are simply Humans who use Holiness as fine clothing.
Because we're a country of laws?
AND DIDN'T HITLER THINK AND FEEL THAT HE WAS 'TAKING ALL THE APPROPRIATE STEPS' TO SAVE GERMANY??? IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR BUSHTO HAVE MEANT WELL WHEN IT CONCERNED SACRIFICING SO MANY LIVES ON TWO WAR FRONTS. (And now I will resume my usual, civilized manner of cyber discourse.)
This user is no longer registered.
Because certain acts were in violation of International Law and the Geneva Convention. The Bush Administration spent the lion's share of its existence in attempting to form a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. As there was no Congressional Order for War, his failed attempts ultimately formed the basis of his "lies" to the American public for a unilateral war. In a World Court, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others would clearly be guilty of Crimes Against Humanity without further evidence to the contrary. A good sequel of "Star Trek" has more entertainment value in this supposed "perfect" world than such a scenario. America's politics were NOT without an enormous support, even though unlawful.
I hope Pelosi's problems, torture controversies, truth commissions don't get in the way of healthcare. These days, we hear more about those issues then we do about healthcare, energy, and the environment -- combined.
I STILL HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH ALL OF YOU REFERRING TO THESE METHODS AS 'TORTURE'. HAVE YOU ALL FORGOTTEN THE REAL TORTURE ENDURED BY 3000 INNOCENT PEOPLE WHOSE ONLY CRIME WAS GOING TO WORK ON A SUNNY TUESDAY MORNING IN SEPTEMBER,NEVER TO RETURN HOME TO THEIR FAMILIES AGAIN? I DONT BELEIVE ANY TREATMENT TO BE TO HARSH FOR ANY OF THESE FREEDOM HATERS!
Thank you SIMIECOCOA. What you have written is what this is all really about - those three thousand on the ground, those on the planes and the families left behind. We must NEVER forget.
Thank you .. A simple and sad fact that is being ignored by this lot !!
So what did torturing Iraqis have to do with the people killed on 911? Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.
Yes. We really showed the world not to mess with us, huh? We invaded Iraq, which we knew had nothing to do with 9/11.
Comments like this one, driven by pain and outrage over a loss, indicate the way in which we will lose our values. Those 3000 people who died, many brave americans, died for our values. I'd prefer not to denigrate their memories by using their death to justify our slipping down into cruelty. OUR values always are truth and justice. Al Qaeda's values are to inflict harm at any cost....
This user is no longer registered.
I understand your frustration, but want to make the point that many of the detainees we're discussing are in Gitmo (and elsewhere in unknown prisons around the world) for dubious reasons.
After you strip away the top 10% who are reprehensible, the rest of them are imprisoned for ambiguous reasons, as evidenced by the failure of last year's tribunals to find adequate cause.
Yes, we need to find, try and punish terrorists, but we also need to make sure that we are not as reprehensible as the people we detain. We are better than that. Otherwise we sink to their level and the world loses a moral leader.
Pictures from Abu Grev and other detention areas show that we have used extremely debasing methods of "enhanced interrogation" (a euphemism invented to avoid the word "torture"). Experts are presently testifying that torture isn't an effective interrogation technique. Let's listen to what they know and expect that they will find out what we need to keep us safe.
Has it occurred to you that when one tortures a terrorist, one becomes a terrorist? This is the reason your party continues to lose; it no longer believes in America taking the high road.
This user is no longer registered.
Simiecocoa, Please stop using all caps as it is rude and undermines your already weak point.
Stop crying 9/11 and questioning people's patriotism when they bring up legitimate, serious concerns about how our government is abusing it's power and torturing people.
I doubt any of those people who died on 9/11 would appreciate you using their deaths to justify what has occurred and what will continue to occur if Americans don't speak out about government abuses.
BAPTOX, I APPOLOGIZE FOR HAVING MAC.DEGENERATION
SIMIECOCOA
The 3000 who died in the towers were murdered, not tortured. That's an important distinction to draw. And the people flying the planes into those towers were murderous zealots.
It is very important that we always ask ourselves as a people if it's ever okay to torture another human being. Oh, I can well understand the impulse to do it. But is that really where we want to go with our civilization??
And as Jesse Ventura, who underwent waterboarding, pointed out today--if torture is okay, why aren't we okay with U.S. citizens being tortured? (Are are you okay with that? For certainly there must be times when we'd all like to see someone subjected to it, if we're honest with ourselves.) But as for me, when it comes right down to it, I'm too proud of this amazing place to stand up and say Yes! to torture. I simply can't. That way lies madness. And what does it ever say about one human being, regardless of what country he calls home, who'd actually DO the torturing? What kind of human could do that? Not someone I'd want my daughter to marry, I can tell you.
BITE ME. using 911 as a point to justify torture and brutality is so sick and selfish. do you realize that 911 has become the trump card of the GOP? you think you can justify everything bush did because of 911. NO. I am no longer listening to that argument. Yeah, I know 911 was awful. However, killing, maiming and destroying more innocent people is not the answer. What kind of fucked up, sociopathic argument is that?
What does this have to do with torturing Iraqi citizens?
I am dem but I can't stand Nancy. I think she is lying since 90% of pols are lying when their mouth is moving. Sorry but I see no reason to trust any elected official who has been in office more than 2 terms. They get money from everyone to vote their way and Nancy has too big a stake in markets with her own money to trust.
Save your venom for Cheney who was an architect of the torture policy and knew exactly what was going on. Pelosi's crime was to be dismissive of a policy she should have investigated. Of course that's wrong. Of course she's squirming now, but why isn't Cheney? He's an unrepentent liar as we know from his adament assertions about WMDs for over a YEAR after the presence of WMDs in Iraq had been disproved.
Well stated. Every word. The GOP will now get what it was hoping never to happen, an investigation. They asked for it..
The European Court of Human Rights in the case of Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978) specifically found that wall standing (to produce muscle fatigue), hooding, and sleep and food deprivation were not torture.
The United States Senate, in 2006, specifically rejected a bill that would have made waterboarding illegal.
There is no law on the books that defines waterboarding as torture or against the law as regards captured war criminals.
The above are NOT a matter of opinion, they are simply fact.
So until you "it's illegal, put them in jail" people can provide a U.S. LAW, not an example of japanese prisoners in WW2, not your definition of morality, not a moral argument (all of which by the way, are legitimate discussions but beside the point in this case) then you should stop embarrassing yourselves with an argument that has no intellectual respectability. Find a law or shut up.
Wolverine no one is buying what you're selling, if no one broke the law why are they worried?
KEEP STIRRING THE KOOLAID
Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[1] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[2][3] politicians, war veterans,[4][5],medical experts in the treatment of torture victims[6][7] , intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.
Your dismissal of the Japenese prisoners case doesn't make it any less relevant or when a Reagon DOJ prosecuted a texas sheriff for wateboarding prisoners.
When the President does it, it does not make it legal (look at Nixon).
Progressive2, I respect what I have seen from you in the past though I often disagree. But in this case, there is a difference between opinion and fact, as I said. Neither this nor your other post is convincing. I understand completely what waterboarding is, and in fact I have sympathy for the argument that the U.S, should not engage in it. But the opinions of legal experts and others are irrelevant , just as those legal experts that believe it was legal are irrelevant. What is relevant is that there would be no debate, no need for opinions on either side, if in fact there a law against it. And in fact, there is no law against it. My point remains--condemn the administration morally and ethically for this behavior all you want--that is legitimate, and worthy of a robust debate. But criminalizing people who believed, rightly or wrongly, that they were acting within the law, when there is no law against, is simply wrong on the facts.
Unfortunately for you, "Wolverine", there is actually a great deal of evidence that waterboarding is in fact illegal under US law. First of all, torture is illegal under US Law. Second, Bush's Department of State determined that waterboarding is considered torture (see Country Reports of Human Rights Practices 2005), and the US has previously prosecuted individuals for engaging in water torture against our countrymen. While you're right that their is no single code that specifically outlaws waterboarding it's pretty clear that waterboarding, as torture, is illegal.
Correcting myself here: The State Dept. didn't say that waterboarding was torture---they said that drowning was torture. My mistake!
If it was "pretty clear", then people would already be in jail, and there would be no reason to debate the wisdom of a truth commission, and no reason for the Obama Administration to define their position against it. We don't debate things that are already in the code as illegal. Again, if people's opinion's are that it's immoral and unethical I am happy to have that discussion. But I stand against people assuming, without evidence that this activity was illegal.
1)Waterboarding wasn't included in that ruling - the five techniques were: wall-standing; hooding; subjection to noise; deprivation of sleep; deprivation of food and drink.
2) Though the ECHR ruled that the five techniques "did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture " they did howerver amount to a "practice of inhuman and degrading treatment" (read cruel and unusual punishment), in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
3) the court ruled that the government of the United Kingdom was guilty of "inhuman and degrading treatment"!
4)Bill of Rights, Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (The implication is that governments shall not inflict such treatment for crimes, regardless of their degree of severity).
5) United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , Article 1.1 - Definition of Torture: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering,whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." The US is a Signatory of CAT.
6) "Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture", the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable: Article 16.1 - "Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
I suppose none of this counts (except the Bill of Rights) since they're not "US LAWS"!!
Excellent post with facts supplied. However I stand by what I wrote. Did any of these statutes we signed define waterboarding as torture? Until they do, it is not illegal, and that is why legal opinions were and are required. All of these arguments require connecting of dots--and let me say right now, when you connect them as you do, they are a compelling argument that waterboarding should be defined as torture. But that is not the same thing, sorry.
By the way, I'm sure you realize that the Bill of Rights applies to U.S. citizens right?
Waterboarding is torture. Torture in itself is illegal.
The U.S. is a party to what's known as the Torture Convention (long name: the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degreating Treatment or Punishment). The treaty outlaws the following:
[A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions....
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture....
No [party to the treaty] shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another [country] where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
- A 1994 U.S. law calls for fines and up to 20 years in jail for Americans or others who commit (or conspire to commit) torture outside the country. If the torture victim dies, the penalty is life in jail or death. In this law, the definition of torture largely mirrors the one in the Torture Convention: "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." The law also bans merely threatening a prisoner with torture.
- The Third Geneva Convention says this: "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war." Moreover: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." And just in case countries would try to weasle their way out of the convention by claiming that clearly brutal treatment doesn't technically constitute torture, the Geneva Conventions also prohibit "other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture."
- In the Nuremberg trials -- which set a precedent for the legal handling of war crimes, particularly with respect to U.S. standards -- Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for waterboarding American soldiers. Of course, we were the ones doing the prosecuting.
Numerous other legal standards apply, but these are some biggies. They're available for anyone with access to Google. Yet barely anyone who isn't dismissed as part of the "hard left" ever mentions them in the mainstream media, and even then, we usually just get a perfunctory allusion to the Geneva Conventions.
Instead, the debate has been focused on torture's efficacy -- or, less frequently, its morality. Those questions are all well and good. But if we believe in the rule of law -- and everyone involved in this debate claims to do so -- then we must start with a presumption that the law is to be followed even when we disagree with it. Otherwise we don't really believe in the rule of law.
Funny thing: the same conservative crowd that despises activist judges for "legislating from the bench" and refusing to follow the letter of the law is now showing absolute contempt for anyone who would even consider following the law when it comes to torture. So all that stuff about "strict adherence to the Constitution" is a lie. These folks want to follow the law when they like it and ignore it when they don't. They aren't sticklers -- just hypocrites.
So to everyone who has come up with some justification for why prosecutions shouldn't take place: Fine, there are certainly some good arguments out there, and I've pondered them myself. But if you embrace them, it means you think democracy and the rule of law are expendable, period.
Oh and BTW, about week ago Ibn al Sheik al Libi was found dead in his cell in Libya. An alleged suicide. He was sent to a prison in Egypt by us to undergo "interrogation" by the CIA. While there he was beaten to a pulp and stuffed into a coffin sized box and buried alive for 17 hours. He eventually cracked physically and mentally and told the interrogators what they wanted to hear regarding a connection between al Qaida and Saddam. That information was given to Colin Powell and used in his UN speech as the justification for going to war with Iraq. al Libi later recanted the entire story as completely false, but it served the purpose of Dick Cheney. We tortured this guy into giving us an excuse to go to war. That war cost almost 5,000 American lives.
Oh and one other thing...waterboarding IS in fact torture, and torture is illegal. If you haven't undergone it, then you wouldn't know. I haven't, but somebody close to me has, and I'm sure he has more balls than you when it comes to this stuff.
I respect this post. But simply saying "waterboarding is torture" does not make it so. That is why the Senate took up the business of defining it as illegal in 2006. It did not pass. The purpose of the Geneva Conventions was to have written guarantees that applied to both sides, to ensure that neither would be tortured, as violations on one side would expose the violator's own citizens to torture. I'm sure you understand that Al Qaeda is not a signatory.
Gee, Wolverine, if the Bush administration wasn't worried about being held accountable for torture by ordering these activities, why would they have gone to the trouble of engaging John Yee and countless other legal experts in developing legal opinions to justify them?
Is extraordinary rendition a legal activity in which the US can engage? How about smearing feces on human beings suspected of a crime? At what point does morality supersede legality? Ever?
Your argument is actually flawed, Wolverine. Perhaps it will take the Spanish government to bring the perpetrators of these activities to justice, but there is no stopping this train now.
"...why would they have gone to the trouble of engaging John Yee and countless other legal experts in developing legal opinions to justify them?"
Gee, baptox, to see if it was legal?!
Yes, the sound thinking of the 2006 US Senate is what we should all aspire to. It's a shame the US citizenry tossed many of them out that same year. Waterboarding was legal, acceptable and widely practiced during the Inquisition and I'm sure it did a fine job of converting those damnable jews to catholism! Slavery was codified in our Constitution and that was such a glorious practice! Don't we all miss the days when we husbands and fathers could beat the shit out our wives and children because they were, after all, our property?
Grow up! What our nation's leadership did, out of fear, bigotry, religious zealotry and an overinflated sense of US moral superiority was torture. Torture is morally disgusting. This has always been so and always shall be. What is more, it does not work, so says a multitude of professional investigators and interrogators. What they will tell you is that the way to get good information is to be smarter and cleverer than those you are interrogating. Torture is nothing like that. It is simply evil and, as bad as those being tortured may be, being just as bad yourself only makes the situation worse. Revenge only begats more revenge and dehumanizes us all.
By the way, how many of you who support these "inhanced interrogation methods" consider yourselves christians...? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Wolverine is facually correct. In the Irish case, the Court found the treatments described not to be torture, but ill-treatment. Worth noting that nonetheless the UK governent - of its own volition - had already banned it. Of course the Irish lobby in the US never took any notice of that - too busy getting dollars into the hands of the terrorists.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
The CIA has already recently admitted that they misrepresented the facts in four supposed meeting/briefings with then Sen Bob Graham. They admitted that they were wrong and that he was right. His story is consistent with Nancy Pelosi's story, BTW.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Incorrect.....the CIA facts were that they had briefings with Graham on 4 occassions. He requested the dates and compared the 4 dates provided by the CIA and found he had had only 1 meeting....not 4. The CIA corrected the record with Graham. Therefore the FACTS expressed by the CIA were wrong along with the 3 additional bogus dates. Rep. Boehner stated last week that he is shocked that Pelosi would say that the CIA had misled the Congress. He said he has the highest respect for their integrity.....BUT in 2007, when the CIA told the White House that Iran had suspended their nuclear weapons program 3 years earlier, Boehner held a press conference and stated that he beileved the CIA was misleading Congress and the public....Check out the 2 viedo tapes side by side and see what a hyprocrite he and the Republicans are.....waterboarding was used for one reason and one reason alone.....to get someone to make a false confession about an Iraqi-Al Qaeda link, so they could cover their ass for a lying invasion of Iraq.....186 waterboardings later and still no link.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
We have laws against torture. That is why the Bush people tried to paper their violations of law with 'legal memos.'
We are supposed to be the lamplight of liberty. We renounce the fascist. Fascists and Stalinists torture. Not us.
Pelosi-Reid-Emanuel vs. Boehner-Cantor-Jindal-Graham
They are all criminal garbage - as if we had a vote.
"It doesn't matter who votes. It only matters who counts the vote." - Josef Stalin
How ridiculous!
This bases the assumption that republicans won't welcome a truth commission on one off hand comment by one commentator! Tenant saying that the WMDs in Iraq were a slam dunk was misleading at best. That was misleading Bush so it's not hard to believe they mislead Congress on occassion.
YES, AND IF THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE LOOKED IN SYRIA THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND SADAMS WMD'S
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This user is no longer registered.
The WMD's in Syria thing is the standard wingnut response to the lack of WMD's in Iraq. And there's zero evidence for this.
SImICoCoa, by making statements like this, macular degeneration should be the least of your concerns.
Pelosi is a lying slime
trying to cover up her crimes
Out damn spot the truth will out
No matter how much she whines
You're about to get all this stuff about Pelosi stuck where the sun don't shine.
Panetta just discounted the accuracy of the CIA reports that said Pelosi was briefed on the actual use of Waterboarding. He said the reports were made based on memory which "could be" faulty--in other words he just tossed the CIA people claiming Pelosi was briefed under the bus.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.