Bad People

July 08, 2009

Detainee Policy Gives Obama Credibility Deficit

By Steve Hynd

I don't know about the rest of you, but I strongly feel if Obama is willing to break the universal rule of law as understood by democratic nations to the extent of keeping people in jail after they've been aquitted, after all he said during his campaign and in his first few weeks in office, then there is nothing upon which his word is trustworthy.

Spencer Ackerman yesterday attended a Senate hearing at which the DOD's General Counsel, Jeh Johnson, testified.  As Ackerman highlighted, Johnson actually said that even for those detainees to whom the Obama administration deigns to give a real trial in a real court, the President has the power to continue to imprison them indefinitely even if they are acquitted at their trial.  About this assertion of "presidential post-acquittal detention power" -- an Orwellian term (and a Kafka-esque concept) that should send shivers down the spine of anyone who cares at all about the most basic liberties -- Ackerman wrote, with some understatement, that it "moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective."  Law professor Jonathan Turley was more blunt:  "The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies — now clearly Obama policies on indefinite detention." 

...this underscores what has clearly emerged as the core "principle" of Obama justice when it comes to accused Terrorists -- namely, "due process" is pure window dressing with only one goal:   to ensure that anyone the President wants to keep imprisoned will remain in prison.  They'll create various procedures to prettify the process, but the outcome is always the same -- ongoing detention for as long as the President dictates.

You have to assume that anything reasonable coming out of this administration is "pure window dressing", "procedures to prettify the process", which will simply be a cover for maintaining the status quo and increasing the power of the presidency. That applies to healthcare, the economy, the Af/Pak region, energy, global climate change, you name it. You have to, for your own safety, simply because Obama's detainee policy is such a massively criminal break with what Western democracies regard as legal and moral that literally any other crime is possible. That, for many, was exactly the problem with Bush and his administration. Given what they had done on Iraq and Gitmo, it was impossible to trust them to stay within legal boundaries on other matters. And they often didn't.

June 21, 2009

Hypocritical Outrage

Commentary By Ron Beasley

The headline reads:

Under Pressure, Obama Calls on Iran to End Violence,

'Unjust' Actions In a statement that appeared to answer his critics who wanted him to speak out more forcefully, President Obama called on Iran to stop the violence and unjust actions against its people.

The outrage is from those who aren't old enough to remember or refuse to remember the not so distant history of the United States.  In the comments section of Steve's post below avedis says:

I do not see the Iranian government's reaction to the protesters as being - in and of itself - evidence of any unique oppressiveness. Had people in the US taken to the streets in the same manner after the Bush election and the Florida decision, believe me, there would have been an equal number of protesters beaten and killed. It's happened here before, you know.....that is what governments do when faced with determined unruly mass civil unrest.

For example how many remember Kent State:

On Monday, May 4, a protest was scheduled to be held at noon, as had been planned three days earlier. University officials attempted to ban the gathering, handing out 12,000 leaflets stating that the event was canceled. Despite this, an estimated 2,000 people gathered[16] on the university's Commons, near Taylor Hall. The protest began with the ringing of the campus's iron Victory Bell (which had historically been used to signal victories in football games) to mark the beginning of the rally, and the first protester began to speak.

Fearing that the situation might escalate into another violent protest, Companies A and C, 1/145th Infantry and Troop G of the 2/107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio ARNG, the units on the campus grounds, attempted to disperse the students. The legality of the dispersal was later debated at a subsequent wrongful death and injury trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that authorities did indeed have the right to disperse the crowd.

The dispersal process began late in the morning with campus patrolman Harold Rice, riding in a Guard Jeep, approaching the students to read them an order to disperse or face arrest. The protesters responded by throwing rocks, forcing the Jeep to retreat.

Just before noon, the Guard returned and again ordered the crowd to disperse. When most of the crowd refused, the Guard used tear gas. Because of wind, the tear gas had little effect in dispersing the crowd, and some began a second rock attack with chants of "Pigs off campus!" The students lobbed the tear gas canisters back at the National Guardsmen; however, they had put on gas masks upon first throwing tear gas at the students.

When it was obvious the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G, with bayonets fixed on their weapons, began to advance upon the hundreds of protesters. As the guardsmen advanced, the protesters retreated up and over Blanket Hill, heading out of The Commons area. Once over the hill, the students, in a loose group, moved northeast along the front of Taylor Hall, with some continuing toward a parking lot in front of Prentice Hall (slightly northeast of and perpendicular to Taylor Hall). The guardsmen pursued the protesters over the hill, but rather than veering left as the protesters had, they continued straight, heading down toward an athletic practice field enclosed by a chain link fence. Here they remained for about ten minutes, unsure of how to get out of the area short of retracing their entrance path (an action some guardsmen considered might be viewed as a retreat). During this time, the bulk of the students congregated off to the left and front of the guardsmen, approximately 150ft,(50m) to 225ft,(75m) away, on the veranda of Taylor Hall. Others were scattered between Taylor Hall and the Prentice Hall parking lot, while still others, perhaps 35 or 40, were standing in the parking lot, or dispersing through the lot as they had been previously ordered.

While on the practice field, the guardsmen generally faced the parking lot which was about 100 yards away. At one point, some of the guardsmen knelt and aimed their weapons toward the parking lot, then stood up again. For a few moments, several guardsmen formed a loose huddle and appeared to be talking to one another. The guardsmen appeared to be unclear as to what to do next. They had cleared the protesters from the Commons area, and many students had left, but many stayed and were still angrily confronting the soldiers, some throwing rocks and tear gas canisters. At the end of about ten minutes, the guardsmen began to retrace their steps back up the hill toward the Commons area. Some of the students on the Taylor Hall veranda began to move slowly toward the soldiers as the latter passed over the top of the hill and headed back down into the Commons.

At this point, at 12:22 PM, a number of guardsmen at the top of the hill abruptly turned and fired their M1 Garand rifles at the students. The guardsmen directed their fire not at the closest students, who were on the Taylor Hall veranda, but at those on the grass area and concrete walkway below the veranda, at those on the service road between the veranda and the parking lot, and at those in the parking lot. Bullets were not sprayed in all directions; instead, they were confined to a fairly limited line of fire leading from the top of the hill to the parking lot. Not all the soldiers who fired their weapons directed their fire into the students. Some soldiers fired into the ground, while a few fired into the air. In all, 29 of the 77 guardsmen claimed to have fired their weapons, using a final total of 67 bullets. The shooting was determined to have lasted only 13 seconds, although a New York Times reporter stated that "it appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer." The question of why the shots were fired remains widely debated.

The shootings killed four students and wounded nine. Two of the four students killed, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, had participated in the protest, and the other two, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, had been walking from one class to the next at the time of their deaths. Schroeder was also a member of the campus ROTC chapter. Of those wounded, none was closer than 71 feet to the guardsmen. Of those killed, the nearest (Miller) was 265 feet away, and their average distance from the guardsmen was 345 feet.

 And who does this sound like?

During a press conference, Governor Rhodes called the protesters un-American and referred to the protesters as revolutionaries set on destroying higher education in Ohio. "They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes," Rhodes said. "They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America."

From 1969 - 1972 I was in Germany and remember the reactions of the Europeans to the brutality in the United States.  Yes indeed - the Iranians are doing what governments do when faced with determined unruly mass civil unrest even here in the "land of the free."

June 18, 2009

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy

Commentary By Ron Beasley

So how is it that 76% of the citizens of the US support a public health plan but it may not have the votes in congress?  It's simple really.  When we vote we elect people who take their orders from a few wealthy oligarchs who set policy and make the decisions. The people with the most money can but the most lawmakers.  Jim Hightower explains:

Pockets of Influence in Washington

What do shoplifters and members of Congress have in common? Tailor-made clothing.

Like a shoplifter's long coat, the suits of many lawmakers come with an astonishing array of inside pockets that hold surprising volumes of loot. We already know about various conduits that politicians have crafted to funnel cash into their election campaigns, but USA Today recently reported that our congressional stalwarts have also created a series of less-obvious pockets for stashing special-interest influence money.

[....]

Take the "foundation pocket." Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, has sewn one of these into his suit. His Barton Family Foundation has become a handy place for favor-seeking corporate interests to stash cash and earn Joe's gratitude. For example, Exelon, the giant nuclear-powered electric company, has deposited $75,000 in the foundation - money it could not legally give directly to Barton's campaign fund. Did I mention that Joe is the top Republican on the house energy committee and that he often carries legislative water for the nuclear industry?

Still, Barton sees no ethical lapse in such smelly transactions, cleverly claiming, "The money doesn't go to me." Too clever by half. The Exelon donation came only because the congressman personally wrote to the CEO to solicit it, the check is made out to a foundation bearing the congressman's very own name, and he controls the dispersal of the funds. Indeed, thanks to his corporate donors, Barton's foundation is able to give highly publicized grants to nonprofit groups in his district, thus scoring major political points for Joe.

Then there's the "institute pocket" stitched into the garments of a bipartisan collection of lawmakers.

One is Ted Kennedy, the Democratic icon who is presently setting up an Institute for the United States Senate in Boston. It will be named for - guess who? - him. Amgen, the huge drug corporation, was so moved by the civic nature of the institute that it ponied up $5 million to help fund it.

Please be assured, however, that Kennedy's prominent role in the current legislative fight to rein in drug company gouging had nothing whatsoever to do with the corporation's decision to donate so generously. As an Amgen spokeswoman explained, the $5 million merely reflects the drug maker's interest in helping "young people to become engaged in public service and public policy." 

That's why even though the political party in charge may change things don't change that much.  Without serious campaign reform the oligarchs will continue to rule and a government buy the people and for the people will remain a memory and a dream.

UPDATE

Ali Frick at Think Progress points out that the corporate media is in the attack mode:

Major Media Headlines Pretend That Latest Polls Show Obama’s Policies Are Unpopular

Today, two new national polls were released, one by the New York Times and CBS, the other by the Wall Street Journal and NBC. News headlines quickly settled on a theme: The polls showed that President Obama’s policies were suddenly unpopular:

Sticker Shock — Obama still popular; his policies, not so much” [ABC's The Note]

Polls find rising concern with Obama on key issues” [Reuters]

Polls Show Declining Support For Obama Decisions” [U.S. News & World Report's Political Bulletin]

Obama’s popularity: Problems testing it” [Chicago Tribune's The Swamp]

Is ‘Smooth Sailing’ Over for Obama?” [Washington Post]

The headlines have little to no relation to the actual data in the polls, both of which found broad approval for Obama’s foreign policy and economic agendas.

June 17, 2009

Quote Of The Day

Commentary By Ron Beasley

The Quote Of The Day comes from an open letter to the neocons idea man, Robert Kagan, by Matt Duss.

Dear Mr. Kagan,
First, let me just express sympathy for your situation. These last years have been extraordinarily unkind to your grand theories about the transformative potential of American explosives. President Bush’s “global war on terror,” the invasion of Iraq, his so-called “freedom agenda,” turned out to be a real carnival of bad ideas, for which you were a key intellectual barker. It’s hard out here for a neocon.

He then takes on the bad ideas man for his critical editorial on Obama's reaction to the events in Iran.

June 03, 2009

The Worst President Ever

Commentary By Ron Beasley

Who is the worst president ever?  According to Robert Parry it's not George W. Bush but Ronald Reagan.

But there's a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan's presidency. There's also a grudging reassessment that the "failed" presidents of the 1970s - Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter - may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.

Nixon, Ford and Carter all recognized the challenges of America's oil dependence, degradation of the environment, nuclear proliferation and the arms race.  And they all tried to address the problem.  And then along came Reagan:

By 1980, Reagan had become a pied piper luring the American people away from the tough choices that Nixon, Ford and Carter had defined.

With his superficially sunny disposition - and a ruthless political strategy of exploiting white-male resentments - Reagan convinced millions of Americans that the threats they faced were: African-American welfare queens, Central American leftists, a rapidly expanding Evil Empire based in Moscow, and the do-good federal government.

In his First Inaugural Address in 1981, Reagan declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

When it came to cutting back on America's energy use, Reagan's message could be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, "Don't worry, be happy." Rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington.

The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment. George W. Bush didn't invent Republican hostility toward scientific warnings of environmental calamities; he was just picking up where Reagan left off.

Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he slashed income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known as "supply side" economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for the rich would increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.

Over the years, "supply side" would evolve into a secular religion for many on the Right, but Reagan's budget director David Stockman once blurted out the truth, that it would lead to red ink "as far as the eye could see."

But when it comes to the current economic meltdown Robert Scheer says not so fast - Reagan Didn't Do It.

It is disingenuous to ignore the fact that the derivatives scams at the heart of the economic meltdown didn't exist in President Reagan's time. The huge expansion in collateralized mortgage and other debt, the bubble that burst, was the direct result of enabling deregulatory legislation pushed through during the Clinton years.

Ronald Reagan's signing off on legislation easing mortgage requirements back in 1982 pales in comparison to the damage wrought fifteen years later by a cabal of powerful Democrats and Republicans who enabled the wave of newfangled financial gimmicks that resulted in the economic collapse. Reagan didn't do it, but Clinton-era Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, now a top economic adviser in the Obama White House, did. They, along with then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and Republican congressional leaders James Leach and Phil Gramm, blocked any effective regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives that turned into the toxic assets now being paid for with tax dollars.

Reagan signed legislation making it easier for people to obtain mortgages with lower down payments, but as long as the banks that made those loans expected to have to carry them for thirty years they did the due diligence needed to qualify creditworthy applicants. The problem occurred only when that mortgage debt could be aggregated and sold as securities to others in an unregulated market.

Greenspan, Leach and Gramm are no longer in government but Summers and Rubin are.  They played a part in making the mess and now they are charged with cleaning it up.  That's a good idea when your child makes a mess but in this case Summers and Rubin are just trying to sweep it under the carpet and not make any changes.

May 28, 2009

Change? Not So Much - Again and Again

Commentary By Ron Beasley

If you thought attacking the messenger that brought truth to power would end last November you would be wrong.

After Gen. Taguba Alleges Existence of Prisoner Rape Photos, Robert Gibbs Attacks. . . British Media

Wow. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is really embodying the idea that when the message is devastating, you attack the messenger. Except in this case, Gibbs is not even attacking the messenger, but rather the newspaper that quoted the messenger.

In a major story today, London’s Daily Telegraph quoted Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba describing photos (that the Obama administration is fighting to keep secret), which allegedly depict US personnel raping prisoners, other sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube. “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency,” Taguba said. Put that statement against this one from the president: In defending his decision to fight the ACLU in its efforts to have the photos publicly released, Obama said on May 13, “I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational.”

At the White House press briefing today, Gibbs lashed out—not at Gen. Taguba, who made the allegation on the record, and not even specifically at the paper that quoted Taguba. Instead, Gibbs went after the entire British media, saying “I think if you do an even moderate Google search (heh) you’re not gonna find many of these newspapers and ‘truth’ within say 25 words of each other:”

Wow.  The new boss is looking more like the old boss each and every day.  So here is what the Daily Telegraph reported.

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President’s attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.

Yes indeed - change, not so much - the new boss just like the old boss.  The same lunatics are still making policy.  And we did get fooled once again.  Meet the new boss - same as the old boss!

 

I saw the Who perform this live in the early 70's.  I thought it might be possible then - now, not so much!

Old Hippies never die - we just get cynical!

May 25, 2009

They Just Won't Go Away

Commentary By Ron Beasley

The neocon ideology and policy has proven to be a disaster.  Their paranoia driven wars of choice have bankrupted the US both financially and morally.  But it seems like they are still in charge.  Well guess what -  this is deju vu all over again.  The following is an excerpt from a book I am currently reading, Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story, and hope to finish in time for a complete review this weekend.

Proving with 59,000 American fatalities that the use of force in securing victory was nothing more than an illusion, in the final summer of their power the remains of Richard Nixon's secretive brain trust, embodied in men such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, struggled to lay a foundation for rebuilding America's military mythology In response to a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal and Strategic Review by University of Chicago professor, RAND theorist, former Trotskyite, and neoconservative icon Albert Wohlstetter, Gerald Ford's CIA director George H. W. Bush opened an outside door to a small, rightwing corps of like-minded defense intellectuals. Well known as a harsh opponent of the strategic principle of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)and a perennial advocate of the kind of policy that had failed in Vietnam,Wohlstetter's attack was intended to send a message to Soviet and American policy makers, alike.                                                  

Anne Hessing Cahn writes, "Wohlstetter's charges were the opening salvo of a movement determined to destroy detente and to steer U.S.foreign policy back to a more militant stance vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. The critics of detente were certain that the Cold War was far from over and were determined that American hegemony should not disappear.

Known as Team-B, Wohlstetter's hand-picked men brought to work in 1976 revived assumptions that were as old as the Soviet Union itself It might even be said that the thinking of the group-mind represented by Team-B was so old-world and elitist as to predate the very existence of the Soviet Union. Led by an obscure Harvard professor of Czarist Russian history named Richard Pipes and composed of a unique combi nation of ex-U.S. military men, retired cold warriors, neoconservatives and right-wing ideologues, the members of Team-B-Lt. Gen. Dame Graham (Ret) Dr. Thomas Wolfe of RAND, General John Vogt, (Ret.)Ambassador Fay Kohler, Paul Nitze, Ambassador Seymour Weiss.Maj. Gen Jasper Welch of the USAF, and Paul Wolfowitz of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency - shared the conviction that detente and Strategic Arms Limitation Talks were nothing more than a Soviet scheme. That scheme was to bargain and talk America into a false sense of security while Soviet agents and proxies subverted American influence both political and military around the globe. Drawn together by their anticommunism and mutual affiliations with a well-established consortium of Wall Street brokerage houses, think tanks, universities and defense contractors (otherwise known as the military-industrial complex,the Team-B members were driven to cast off the hard-won institutional, financial and moral restraints to waging a nuclear war, and their critique of that year's National Intelligence Estimate or NIE left the intelligence establishment reeling.

The Soviets were preparing for a "third world war and were nakedly expansionist, they claimed in their top secret 1976 report. Given military superiority and the will to use it, they reasoned, at some point in the near future the Russians would make a strategic move that the United States would be militarily unable to stop. "The intensity and scope of the current Soviet military effort in peacetime is without parallel in twentieth century history," they wrote that December, "its only counterpart being Nazi remilitarization of the 1930s.                                                         

The assessment at the time was considered radical and, by many, intentionally misleading. Paul Nitze had done this sort of thing originally in NSC 68 and again in the late 1950S with the help of like-minded defense intellectuals at RAND, hounding President Eisenhower to advance the use of nuclear weapons and play "catch-up" with an imagined Soviet threat in the now infamous "missile gap."

The scary assumptions of Soviet strength had been wrong, as the first satellite reconnaissance photos revealed in January 1961. "Even Air Force analysts were embarrassed by the pictures. The images starkly rebutted the estimates of Air Force Intelligence." But the fear they generated had put John Fitzgerald Kennedy into the White House, renewed an arms race that had been slowed to a standstill by Eisenhower, and brought the United States to the brink of nuclear war.

It not only sounds familiar many of the names are even the same.  This "rightwing corps of like-minded defense intellectuals" manages to remain in the policy making loop even though they are nearly always wrong.  As we look at the foreign policy decisions of the Obama administration we can see it's as true now as it was after the Vietnam war.  The result will be many more sad Memorial Days where we remember those who shouldn't have died.

May 24, 2009

But What About Don Siegelman? - Continued

Commentary By Ron Beasley

As I first discussed here Don Siegelman was a political victim of the political "Karl Rove Justice Department."  The Obama DOJ under Eric Holder has found the time to dismiss the charges against Ted Stevens and the AIPAC lobbyists/spies. In both cases he probably had no choice because of prosecutorial misconduct and incompetence.  But Don Siegelman remains hanging in spite of this:

Federal Judge Spotlights Misconduct by Federal Prosecutors in Siegelman Case

U.W. Clemon, formerly Alabama’s most senior federal judge, has written a scorching letter to Attorney General Eric Holder itemizing gross misconduct by federal prosecutors involved in the Siegelman case and demanding that the Justice Department open a full investigation into the matter. “The 2004 prosecution of Mr. Siegelman in the Northern District of Alabama was the most unfounded criminal case over which I presided in my entire judicial career,” he writes. “In my judgment, his prosecution was completely without legal merit; and it could not have been accomplished without the approval of the Department of Justice.” Clemon goes on to note that prosecutors engaged in judicial forum shopping, attempted to poison the jury pool, and filed and pressed bogus charges.

In spite of bipartisan calls for an investigation AG Holder has not acted.

In recent weeks, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed five of seven counts of the Siegelman conviction in an opinion issued by three Republican judges. The case was referred back to a fourth Republican judge, Mark E. Fuller, for re-sentencing. The ruling prompted further cries for a reexamination of the case, as 75 former attorneys general from 40 states, both Democrats and Republicans, wrote Holder noting gross irregularities in the case and improper conduct by prosecutors who secured the conviction.

In the last week, a number of serious allegations have resurfaced concerning Judge Fuller, who came to preside over the criminal charges against Siegelman following a series of unusual maneuvers by federal prosecutors highlighted in Clemon’s letter to Holder. The Siegelman case came into Fuller’s court just as a series of hard-hitting accusations of judicial misconduct were filed with the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section (“PIN”). PIN, whose leaders are now themselves the targets of a special prosecutor’s investigation, led the prosecution of the Siegelman case. In the last week, Missouri attorney Paul Benton Weeks, whose affidavit making charges against Fuller was first secured and published here, has spoken publicly about the matter for the first time and has provided considerable further detail to his accusations. Weeks stated:

I just wish I had known about Siegelman’s case before his trial so they [defendants and attorneys] could have been able to understand the kind of animus Fuller has to have for Siegelman. I guarantee that Fuller blames Siegelman for my affidavit. If you look at how Fuller treated Siegelman, he clearly hates him.

What’s remarkable is that Siegelman has never been given a real chance to show why it’s not appropriate for Fuller to be his judge. The material I produced was never available. I think it was put into a separate file to keep it hidden.

So the injustice continues and Republican judges and prosecutors continue to abuse the legal system.  The Obama administration has supplied us with much to be disappointed about but this is at the top of my list.

May 22, 2009

How Do You Know If Dick Cheney Is Lying?

Commentary By Ron Beasley

His lips are moving!

SauronCheney1And the folks at McClatchy  do a fact check for us.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy organization in Washington, Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."

But not even the people he quoted agree:

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21, however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is that these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

And about those plots that were broken up:

A top-secret 2004 CIA inspector general's investigation found no conclusive proof that information gained from aggressive interrogations helped thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to one of four top-secret Bush-era memos that the Justice Department released last month.

FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine in December that he didn't think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

And there is a lot more.

And as for Cheney's claim that it's legal and not torture.  Another lie as I explained here.

From The Washington Post two years ago.

The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.

After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."

Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

I am begining to believe that Dick Cheney actually believes what he says which can only mean he has severe mental problems and should be institutionalized not given a pulpit from which to preach his toxic lies.

May 21, 2009

The Church Of Darkness

By Ron Beasley

Lawerence Wilkerson on Dick Cheney.  This says it all - no commentary required.

Commenting Policy

Google

Powered by TypePad
"Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures. The requisite thing is, that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite. The nation is governed by all that has tongue in the nation: Democracy is virtually there."
------
~Thomas Carlyle, On Heroes and Hero Worship, 1841