whatever it is we did, errr do...

the long-term pain and suffering inflicted on the USA by the Bush Administration

The recently declassified Bush Administration torture memos contain startlingly precise descriptions of the proposed interrogation techniques. The memos, prepared by Bush lawyers to justify the techniques, read like one giant cover your ass corporate document for a litigious society.

Before the written memos that gave the OK to torture, there were a couple of face-to-face (alluded to in the memos themselves) meetings between Bush lawyers and the CIA client and no doubt, a few phone calls. One can only imagine that at some point during these talks the Justice Department lawyers politely asked Bush Administration operatives,

"now let me see if I understand exactly what you're describing. You're going to strap someone to a board so they can't move, cover their face with a towel, and then slowly pour water into their nostrils. Is that correct? And from what I understand you've said, the prisoner, no matter how much training they have had, no matter that they may be aware of how the process works, the prisoner will react as if being drowned? Correct? The reflex can't be stopped? The prisoner will believe they are drowning, about to die, and will react according except they are strapped to a board. And you also say that you'll do this technique, 'waterboarding is your preferred term?', for about 30 seconds until the prisoner thinks they are about to die and then you'll stop, lift the towel just long enough for the prisoner to gasp three or four breaths, and then you'll pour water down their throat again so the prisoner again has the sensation of death-by-drowning. Correct? And this process will continue for as long as 20 minutes or until the prisoner capitulates? And you wish to know if this is torture?"

The lawyer then goes on to explain that even though water-boarding is designed to, and will result in, the prisoner believing that their life is threatened by imminent death, the technique does not "inflict severe physical pain and suffering". The reason--here is where the fancy lawyering comes into play--is that the term severe physical pain and suffering has been defined by the Bush Administration as one that has lasting mental or physical manifestations. How one can expect a prisoner to believe they are getting ready to drown, spill their guts, and the process NOT leave a lasting mental mark on their pysche is a little unclear. Under this scenario, the process is designed to be so scary as to extract a confession, yet subtle enough that the prisoner wakes up the next morning with no memory of the event.

One really has to wonder about the logic that went into the Bush Administration conclusion that these interrogation techniques weren't torture. The rationale that waterboarding doesn't cause long-term pain and suffering is based on the notion that the US military subjects some of it's own operatives to intense training to let them know what they might expect to happen if they were captured and tortured by the enemy. Waterboarding is used an example of the kind of torture they might have be expected to endure. We expose them waterboarding as an EXAMPLE of torture.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty but at some point it would have been nice if the 'family-friendly' Bush Administration had taken a poll of what they loved to call real Americans. The could have described the process to the mother of a US service member who's either going to, or currently serving in the armed conflict, and then asked the parent, OK, if your son/daughter is captured and these same techniques applied, would you consider waterboarding to be a form of torture?

Note to the Obama Administration. The President, regardless of the precedent the Bush Administration tried to establish, does not decide who gets prosecuted for violations of US laws. That decision is better left to the Department of Justice.

half-hearted torture

Recent revelations about the CIA engaging in torture indicate just how far US hegemony fell during the Bush Administration. Despite the yelping dogs who crave a bloody fight, the memos prove that Cheney and his pasties repeatedly lied to the American public about engaging in torture. But YOU already knew that. To the same end, Puppet-Boy Bush may have repeated lied to the American public but his excuse may just as easily turn out to be, as with the weapons of mass destruction, that he was too gullible to know the truth, not intellectually engaged enough to demand a proper answer, or just too dumb to be trusted by Gepetto who was yanking his chain.

That said, if the best the US could do in a 7 year long war to end-all-wars, a war-like-no-other, a war-with-no-borders, was to only torture 2 combatants and then to have to resort to torturing them over 200 times just to extract whatever information was extracted, then maybe we should just give up the practice. One could almost imagine at some point Donald Rumsfeld going over the numbers and then deciding that it's just not cost-effective to torture the captives so let's continue with the bombing missions.

bush administration tortures us reputation

The Justice Department released a 2003 memo yesterday that detailed how the Bush administration viewed torture. Essentially, the administration felt as though they could do exactly what they wanted, that during a time of war (as yet undeclared) they could treat enemy combatants in any way they deemed fit, regardless of domestic and international laws that may have applied and regardless of the U.S. Constitution. This is why they removed combatants to places outside the U.S. So they could torture them.

read more:
washington post: torture memo released

bush attempts to regain torture momentum

Cowboys just weren't meant to be happy.

For your consideration we offer a portion of El Presidento Bush’s message To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 2082, the “Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.”

*The Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) must be allowed to maintain a separate and classified interrogation program.

*While details of the current C.I.A. program are classified, the attorney general has reviewed it and determined that it is lawful under existing domestic and international law, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

*I remain committed to an intelligence-gathering program that complies with our legal obligations and our basic values as a people. The United States opposes torture, and I remain committed to following international and domestic law regarding the humane treatment of people in its custody, including the “Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.”

*In accordance with a clear purpose of the “Military Commissions Act of 2006,” my veto is intended to allow the continuation of a separate and classified C.I.A. interrogation program that the Department of Justice has determined is lawful and that operates according to rules distinct from the more general rules applicable to the Department of Defense.

*I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the C.I.A. to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack.

Other provisions of the bill purport to require the executive branch to submit information to the Congress that may be constitutionally protected from disclosure, including information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.

George W. Bush

The White House,

March 8, 2008.
---------------------------------
Bush's objections stem from this Administration's need that the Executive Branch of the government be allowed to operate in secret and wholly separate from any meaningful oversight by other branches of the government. Trust us, we will do the right thing.

Better not, given the history of this Adminstration. If they won't bungle it, they'll just make it up, or lie about it.

More importantly though, is now, can the Democrats offer another solution to this veto? Can they garner the votes to over-ride it? In short, and most importantly, CAN THE DEMOCRATS LEAD?

Let's hope so.

supremes to air reruns of 24

Those activist judges are at it again. This time it's Reagan-appointed, Associate Justice to the Supreme Court Antonin Scalia who suggested to the BBC that torture might just be OK after all. Especially if there's a ticking time bomb in LA set to go off in minutes. A Supreme Court justice invoking a scenario from 24 to justify torture! Now we know Scalia must have watched re-runs during the writer's strike instead of reading.

That said, re-runs might be another way to get the gitmo bunch to talk especially since it was revealed today that a cup of coffee and/or hamburger apparently worked as well as torture in extracting information about 9/11. Forget 24 as a model for interrogation since it takes a whole season to get an answer, but on Law and Order, they wrap it up every episode.

Or we could tie them to a chair, force their eyes open, and make them watch Howie Mandel. Which briefcase holds the latte, which the Big Mac, and which one holds the bomb? Deal? or no Deal?

elsewhere:
coffee works better than torture
scalia endorses torture

zero tolerance for conspiracy and torture

In a NY Times editorial dated January 2nd, 2008, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, who served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission, call the actions of the C.I.A. Director as well as those of White House counsels with regards to the commission's request for all evidence related to their lawful legal investigation - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, just as Warrior Ant Press suggested in several December, 2007 posts (see links below). The 9-11 Commission, technically known as the National Commission on Terrorist Acts Upon the United States, was an independent, bipartisan commission created by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in September 2002. Then C.I.A. Director George Tenet, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as well as C.I.A. and White House counsels, including such luminaries as Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales, ignored repeated requests for evidence from the commission and also lied about knowledge of such evidence. These were felony crimes.

Where 2 or more parties come together in the name of obstruction, it is also known as conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. Also a felony crime. It's time for folks on the hill to step up to the convictions of the vast majority of U.S. citizens and take action against these evil-doers and say zero tolerance for torture and zero tolerance for obstruction of justice. Say it loud. Under U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 73, §ec. 1505, penalties for obstruction of justice alone could include a $250,000 fine and up to 8 years in prison.

see also:
m.o.i.: bringing some light to a dark hour
m.o.i.:: insane clown posse

elsewhere:
9-11 commission calls it obstruction
what is 9-11 commission?