BIG PICTURE: Why the ‘08 Presidential Election Is Critical
By NoQuarter on December 6, 2007 at 1:53 PM in Guantanamo, Homeland Security, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution
FRIDAY UPDATES from Steve Clemons’ Washington Note:
(1) “The Horror. . .The Horror: Torture Up Close and Pondering the Blowback”
(2) “Alex Gibney: This Film is About the Corruption of the American Character”
EVENING UPDATES:
(1) “[T]he Senate-House Intelligence Conference voted today to make the Army Field Manual the standard for all detainee issues in interrogation and detention methods — or ‘the law of the land’ as my source told me. That means for the CIA and all branches of the national security, military, and intelligence establishment.” - Steve Clemons, The Washington Note
(2) Tomorrow, Steve Clemons will write about “the powerful and disturbing film Taxi to the Dark Side and the discussion we had this evening with director Alex Gibney, former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan, former Abu Ghraib and Bergram* military intelligence interrogator Damian Corsetti, and former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.” (I remember the story of the horrific, incalculably cruel torture and murder of the hapless, innocent Afghan taxi driver, but didn’t know a documentary has been filmed, with interviews of several military personnel.) The documentary’s creator also did Enron.
The author of Salon’s review, “Beyond the Multiplex,” notes that the documentary’s creator hoped that showing how the “[Bush] administration has eviscerated the Constitution, and abandoned basic tenets of human rights and human dignity, [would provoke] some constructive rage. But right there on the sidewalk, my rage was not constructive. I wanted to get stinking drunk in some dead-end bar. …” U.S. premiere dates via IMDB: 11 January 2008 (New York City, New York) and 18 January 2008 (Los Angeles, California).
[*Susan's Note: I think Steve meant to type Bagram, the base in Afghanistan where the taxi driver was beaten for days before he died.]
ORIGINAL: The Supreme Court, and the number FIVE. Here are the ages of the current nine justices:
| John Roberts - 52 | Samuel Alito - 57 | Clarence Thomas - 59 |
| David Souter - 68 | Stephen Bryer - 69 | John Paul Stevens - 87 |
| Antonin Scalia - 71 | Anthony Kennedy - 71 | Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 74 |
What was it that reminded me that the next president will very likely appoint one, perhaps two, new justices? Last night, I watched BBC World News America’s and PBS Newshour’s coverage of the court’s hearing of arguments yesterday on “whether terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in court.”
I listened to the commentary of Neal Katyal, a professor at Georgetown University Law School. Professor Katyai “successfully argued the 2006 Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which struck down the Bush administration’s military tribunals system.” About yesterday’s arguments, Prof. Katyai observed:
NEAL KATYAL, Professor, Georgetown University: Yes, I think that the Supreme Court took this case to answer the big meta-question, which is, does the Constitution give any rights to the people at Guantanamo Bay?
The Bush administration for years has said no. That’s, after all, why they put them there. They put them there because they thought that Guantanamo was a Constitution-free zone.
The Supreme Court has been pushing back at that incrementally for years, but I think today’s hearing, despite all the arcane, technical acronyms and so on, is about that basic, fundamental question: Can the government do whatever its wants to these 300 or so detainees at Guantanamo Bay, or does the Constitution protect them?
Here’s where Prof. Katyai mentioned the critical number FIVE:
[W]hat I understood the Supreme Court to basically be saying today through their questioning was that there are five justices who believe that big question — “Does the Constitution apply to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, at least its fundamental guarantees?” — the answer to that is yes.
And then the question becomes, what should the court do then? Should they then settle some of the detainees’ claims themselves, or should they send it back to the lower court for further proceedings?
But my sense is that’s really where the debate is going to lie and not where the Bush administration would like it to be, which is to say Guantanamo is a Constitution-free zone. …
We can quibble and bemoan the various records and traits of the presidential candidates.
But, come November 2008, please think of the number FIVE when you vote for president.
All of us who have followed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the African embassy bombings know that the U.S. justice system — even with all of its protections for defendants and its guarantee that the accused may face their accusers — worked. It worked.
All of us know that there is no logical or security-related reason for extra-Constitutional treatment of detainees.
And all of us know that the mere existence of Guantanamo stains the reputation and standing of the United States around the world, and denies all that our Founding Fathers created and envisioned for this country.
:::::::::::::::::::::
P.S. If you choose not to vote, or to vote for some third-party candidate, you may be handing the presidency to a candidate who promises to appoint another Scalia or Thomas. Such a candidate would be, say, Mitt Romney who today decried the “religion” of secularism. Here’s that table again:
| John Roberts - 52 | Samuel Alito - 57 | Clarence Thomas - 59 |
| David Souter - 68 | Stephen Bryer - 69 | John Paul Stevens - 87 |
| Antonin Scalia - 71 | Anthony Kennedy - 71 | Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 74 |
NOTE that the two justices that Pres. George W. Bush has appointed are both in their 50s. They’re going to be kickin’ around for probably another 20 to 30 years.
All elections are critical. Can you imagine where our country would be today if Former VP Gore had been able to take his rightful place as the President of the United States seven years ago. So painful. Over a million Iraqi people would be alive today, as well as the American soldiers who have been killed and injured.
I am pushing hard for John Edwards he stood up to Hillary’s Kyl Liebermann vote, Obamas walk out and he addresses poverty and how this government is “broken”. One huge thing for me is that John Edwards is not taking Pac money. Huge
Your post concentrates a bit on what divides the candidates. What unites them?
It is important to focus on what divides these candidates and there is plenty. One huge divide is that John Edwards has not taken any Pac money.
The issue that unites them is the Bush administration.
Edwards doesn’t need PAC money. He made plenty:
1) chasing ambulances and
2) working for Fortress Investments after the Senate. You know the same people who are busy forclosing on the people in New Orleans that Edwards was crying crocodile tears for.
The breck girl…..
Idiot! You don’t make “pac money” chasing ambulances.
And that’s just for starters, Greyembryo.
Ever heard of the metaphor “ambulance chaser” for a lawyer, ASSHOLE?
Or is “metaphor” too big a word for you, ASSHOLE?
Not all lawyers are ambulance chasers, and pacs have nothing to do with ambulance chasing anyway. Is the term “non sequitur” too big a phrase for you, asshat?
John Edwards is and has been talking about poverty in this nation, and has little to gain because statistics show that the majority of people in poverty do not vote. Edwards has stated that he will raise the minimum wage to 9.oo an hour, Edwards has sincerely apologized for his idiotic 2002 war resolution vote and has clearly demonstrated that he learned a lesson. Edwards is willing to call the radical neo-cons out when he is on a National Stage. Edwards is not taking PAC Money (and could use the money as easily as Hillary who is beholden to AIPAC).
Hillary voted for the Kyl Lieberman Amendment. Obama happened to be out of town that day. HMMM
What the top candidates all have in common is an unwillingness to commit to a quick, rapid, and complete withdrawal from Iraq. They also have in common a willingness to consider the military a tool of foreign policy. And they all have - or at least had (how that sorts out what with the latest NIE bombshell remains to be seen) - is a belief that 1) Iran (a country with zero history of aggression) is a threat, or at least a potential threat, and 2) bombs are a possible, and reasonable, approach to the non-problem of Iran.
And by the way, all this waxing lyrical about how heavenly everything would be if only Gore had taken his rightful place conveniently overlooks Gore’s quite hawkish history.
Very well said, though I wonder if Gore may not have more wisdom now. On the other hand, having once accepted Lieberman as his VP he would have some proving to do. As for the rest, you couldn’t be more correct.
Regarding Iraq, we may see, as the months pass, an unwillingness to commit to any withdrawal at all. O’Hanlon is at it again, and has “…the ear of Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel in the House, according to the Post.”:
http://robertdreyfuss.com/blog/2007/12/cheney_iraq_will_be_stable_by.html
Dreyfuss adds: “By the way, O’Hanlon is (1) a supporter of “soft partition” of Iraq, and (2) an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign who “suspended” his participation because he was too supportive of the surge.”
Soft partition, well…
Yes, well, it’s all about empire, isn’t it. And if anyone thinks that the Democrats are different in that respect has a disappointment coming.
Shirin, it is all about Empire.
(You might find the Thomas Fleming book I’ve mentioned a few times interesting. “The Illusion of Victory.”)
Edwards stands by “no timeline, no funding, no excuses” He has also said no permanent military bases.
What I want to hear from candidates is “quick, rapid, and complete withdrawal”. Dismantle the bases, if invited establish a normal embassy.
The makeup (yes, the type one uses to cover reality) of the court is no longer either fair or without known corruption that is certainly treason if what has been reported is in fact true. Current members nominated by someone convicted of treason or impeached, will also be so impeached if it is the desire of congress.
Where we have serious issues for the nominations after any electoral change, should there be elections, we must rid ourselves of jurists that are now actively involved and have intervened for organized crime and political gain in the course of their work.
This on it’s own is a reason to remove a jurist for a number of reasons. But no action has been taken to rid ourselves of at least one known conspirator sitting on this hallowed bench. The stain may never leave our country. Living in this country may be causing insanity in a great many people. Never has our legal system been shown to be so inherently corrupt in a century.
Isn’t it time to end that pattern of abuse of the laws of this nation?
May I ask who that “known conspirator” is and what he’s involved in?
Antonin Scalia was hunting with in 2000 during the recount…and did not think it a conflict of inteerest…
John Roberts has a history going back to Regan…
Hunting with Cheney oops
You all conveniently forget (or didn’t know) that a massive MSM (yes, including the NYT)total recount in Florida confirmed that Bush took Florida.
Therefore he won the electoral college vote.
Just a few facts of American history for all you America-haters.
OK… I get it. You think that people with an opinion about a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court to STOP counting votes, which is different than yours, are America-haters? Your comment is an indictment of the very position you seek to defend. I really could give a rat’s ass about Al Gore and that good old lock box. It is the ballot box that got screwed and yes as an America-hater I think your view is lacking any ability to think critically.
But I will still defend your desire to remain part of the problem not the solution, as much as I find it distasteful…you sure you’re not a Direwolf?
graywolf: We are talking jewery here so go away..whoops wrong thread..
yea..the election was really close in Florida..
( if only those old school democrats in South Beach could vote as well as they played Bingo we wouldn’t be having this conversation )
Well I don’t expect the same results in ‘08..
Thanks to your moron Bush your party will meet thier waterloo.
And if you really think Rudy will save the GOP..
‘ ..you got another thing coming..’
( ya like that taters? a little lyrical thang for our music expert..)
FYI: second post..receiving a SQL error from wordpress
Hoopster,
Just checked the spam filter and you’re not there. But an SQL sounds like something NQ’s techie ought to look into. Will pass this along.
We don’t talk about Jewery here! Ohhh … :):)
Nope, apparently we shouldn’t talk about anything personal, civil war novels, musical anecdotes or jewelry. Conversations should be limited to intelligence and political issues currently in the news only.
NQ is just going to pot!
So, now we’re talking about marijuana?! What a wide-ranging discussion this is turning out to be!
The 2000 selection of our President was a Supreme court Judicial coup. Gore won, the Supreme Court selected Bush for us…the country lost.
False Puppywuppy, that MSM recount, including the NYTs (as if you cared) did NOT show that Bush won Florida. By most recounts Gore won, Bush only won by a single scenario, and that involved throwing out, or simply not counting votes.
Stop lying, or stop being a dumb ass.
And why are you here? And why don’t you answer the question?
people who know what they’re talking about know that:
a) a cousin of w’s worked for faux news on the election reporting desk on election night 2000. and this is where the m$m, which had called florida for gore, pulled that back.
b) that jack welch, the ceo of nbc, influenced their coverage election night. and nbc won’t release the tapes to henry waxman. public airwaves…ha!
c) that at least 50,000 votes of legal voters were purged by jebbie and katherine-is-my-shirt-tight-enough?-harris. see the work of greg palast.
d) contrary to what certain gray trolls say, the nyt and the msm did NOT say that the recount would have gone to bush.
e) scalia and thomas should have recused themselves because family members worked for w.
f) justices o’connor and kennedy should be ashamed of themselves.
g) the oct. 2004 has a big article that profiles the supreme court corruption re: bush v. gore.
h) the brooks brothers riot, the gop brownshirts, who shut down the recount in miami, because it was going the wrong way, was made up of gop congressional staffers.
http://oldamericancentury.org/preppy_riot.jpg
this is a link to one of the most important articles you will EVER read. laurence britt has 14 bullet points about fascism. britt looked at hitler, mussolini, franco, salazar (portugal), papadopoulos (greece), pinochet, suharto. i wish is could clean it up and remove the links, but i’m not good with technology.
http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
http://oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
point “g” above, should have read:
the oct. 2004 vanity fair magazine had a major, major article about the supreme court corruption re: bush v. gore.
wethornet. firing on 5 out of 8 cylinders today.
Senator Edwards on President Bush’s Remarks on Iran
user icon Tracy Russo in News Feed of
12/04/2007 at 12:14 PM EST
Today, Senator John Edwards released the following statement:
“Just a couple of months ago, George Bush was telling us Iran was about to start World War III. Today - even after his own government just said that Iran stopped its program in 2003 and is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons - Bush still refuses to back down from his outrageous rhetoric.
“Enough is enough. At long last, the spin and the saber-rattling must stop. We must once and for all reject the failed, bellicose, neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush Administration, and get back to the foreign policy I have proposed based on diplomacy, reengagement, and restoring the moral authority of America.”
http://johnedwards.com/
JOHN EDWARDS HAS NOT TAKEN PAC MONEY
Except from trial lawyers.
I wrote this post in a certain spirit — not to give a venue to promote one candidate as better than the next. There are Open Threads for such exercises.
http://www.sacbee.com/babin/image_media/546534.html
It’s equally important to get over 60 dems in the Senate, and two thirds in the house.
I dare ya!
mudkitty:
Been thinking about this. Here is a what if. What if a veto proof majority is not achieved by the Democrats? And lets say there is not a dem in the white house. What then?
We’re fucked.
On this we agree. Which is why I believe starting impeachment in the House, is very important , rather than political expediency, or waiting for next years election procedings . Is it not true that the president has lied and confessed to breaking the law and not upholding the Constitution on national TV now less on at least a dozen occasions?( even bragged about it) We can and should do both.
Nope, impeachment is a distraction from what needs to be done (and there’s not enough time left in Bush’s (p)redidency . Get that 60 votes in the Senate! Run for office! Get that 2/3rd in the house! Then complain.
Remember, Bush can’t pardon himself. Only the next Democratic president can do that, and that’s not going to happen.
We’re fucked anyway, whether Democrats or Republicans dominate. People from both sides fucked, killed, injured and turned 4 million Iraqi people into refugees
Kathleen; there’s an old expression…”it aint necessarily so…”
Except from trial lawyers.
Not to be a nudge but I don’t think he’s taken money fro lawyer PACs. He probably took individual contributions from trial lawyers, but that doesn’t equate to PAC money. People who work for drug companies have probably given to him individually too.
Tell me if I’m wrong, though.
Full disclosure, I support Edwards, but I am not working for his campaign and I will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it may be.
We need to elect as many progressive Democrats to the Senate and House and the White House as possible! By 2009, we’ll have 8 years of Bush to reverse! Who knows, Bush may have even expanded the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to Iran as well. On every issue: we need to reverse this dangerous administration and it will take decades to undo the damage. If another Republican administration is elected, that won’t happen–things will get worse.
Leslie: As usual your points are well taken and right on point..
Sweeping the bums out of office..Gosh that sounds so sweet and is so atainable..If we all VOTE!!
Electing even progressive democrats may not be enough. My congresswoman Barbara Lee, few more progressive, voted for the awful Jane Harman’s (democrat) truly awful “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.”
See Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now on this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act_raises_fears
What a disappointment!
And, among a thousand other betrayals, there was Pelosi’s choice of Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to give the radio response to Bush the other week. On that, see Amy Goodman again:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/26/monstering_author_tara_mckelvey_goes_inside
We need to elect progressive democrats, and then absolutely demand that they serve us. And hand them primary defeats if they don’t.
Lee I may forgive, but Pelosi, Emanuel, Hoyer and the rest of the long list of the ‘national security’ democrats need to be replaced. It would be a much better expenditure of resouces in my view than replacing a few republicans. Bush could have done nothing without them.
Well, electing progressives doesn’t or won’t mean we can relax, but we won’t have to worry so much either.
The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” is getting a lot of attention, at least in the blogs. The more attention it gets the less likely it will pass. Let’s keep the pressure on.
Pressure is good, I’m sure, though I am not always clear on what that means. Blog discussion is good, but how does that translate to results? Barbara Lee might feel some ‘pressure,’ and is salvageable I think, but Pelosi, being a ‘leader,’ has no patience for ‘advocates.’ The people, that is. Or respect, or concern, or sense of debt to. She will pay no attention whatsoever. And with the power in the congress structured as it is, her’s and the rest of the leadership’s, she will not have to.
So I am not convinced that ‘we won’t have to worry so much either.’ What precisely has changed since November a year ago on the issues of war and peace? In Iraq, or on Iran? From the Democrats in congress, nothing. On the constitution, next to nothing. Harman’s bill passed the house 400 to 6. A disgrace. Three of the six were Republicans. A few courageous voices - Kucinich, Feingold, a few others, speak out. Heard louder by the utter silence of the rest.
We have been saved from war with Iran - and probably all of Islam - and absolute ruin - by the courage of some in the military and the intelligence services. That’s a hell of a way to run a country.
I think we should be worrying a lot, and that successful primary challenges in a few key districts and the unequivocal message that would send would have the strongest chance of changing the status quo and saving us from the rest of what is coming down the road, which is what this election is really all about.
Republican-bad, Democrat-good just isn’t enough.
“We have been saved from war with Iran”
I would not be so optimistic if I were you. We have not been saved at all. There are still lots of ways Bush (or his buddies in Israel) could manage to attack Iran.
Barbara Lee fell sharply in my estimation when I heard her claim that the Levin-Reed amendment called for all troops to be withdrawn by April, 2008. It called for no such thing. It was very vague on how many or which troops would be withdrawn and it explicitly - explicitly! - called for an unspecified number to remain, and spelled out their mission. Either she had not bothered to read - or even be decently briefed on - the amendment before the vote, or she was lying.
Yes!
Yes, she said.
I’m concerned about granting Constitional protections to non-citizens who are not on American soil. Think about the long term ramifications of that, that’s a bit too Napolionic for my tastes, kinda slippery slope, isn’t it? What would be the objection to calling the Gitmo prisoners p.o.w.s? Wouldn’t that give them access to the Red Cross & Red Cresent? Wouldn’t they then have a military venue to argue in? I’m not sure. This enemy combatant catagory is obviously an end run around Geneva & I doubt the justices will leave it intact.
It’s not “about granting.” It’s about taking away.
Why do Cubans get special dry foot/wet foot treatment?
Guantanamo is, for all practical legal purposes American soil. My god, U.S. conservation laws even apply to the iguana there. Therefore, for all practical legal purposes the prisoners being held here are being held on U.S. soil and are entitled to habeas corpus protections and other Constitutional rights.
PS And then, of course, there are basic human rights as enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other documents to which the United States is signatory, which are not only international law, but are also United States law.
oh for heavens sake, I remember that john yoo was severely upset at the fact that he didn’t get the nomination to a certain job that would qualify him for a nomination to the SC! Can you all imagine him as a jurist on that court??!!!! I shudder to the thought!!! let alone that he is poisoning the minds at Berkley with is rhetoric….the man ought to shut out of any teaching or working lawyer job ever forever! the same thing for all the rest of the lawyers that are republicans on this court that this administration got the job for or any other job that the law profession got with this administration. they are all about being crooked and religious fanacistism.
Trying to picture john yoo at Berkley …that is a real odd couple.
Hi
It’s just plain scary and it scares Stevens even more.
jo6pac
mudkitty, re: Cubans wet foot/dry foot,,,The answer is,…. To win the vote in South Florida.
Good answer!
Now if they just applied that to California…
Remember the Right ones can be impeached and removed from office for lying to Congress (Senate) about they agenda to destroy America, the Constitution, and American laws.
Theoretically. But realistically, I doubt it.
Me too.
It is vastly more productive to elect the kind of president who’ll appoint jurists who respect the U.S. Constitution, NOT a unitary presidency. And who won’t appoint more far right judges.
If I may, back to the Gitmo detainees, am I to understand none of the challenges are based on the breach of the Geneva convention, but rather on English common law?
YUP.
You recall when Justice Bryer in a dissenting opinion Rumsfield Vs. Hamden(?) (sp?) quoted the Geneva convention? And what a storm that set off; that it was not right that he use international law in stead of US law, even when we as to it were obligated by own Constitution to follow it since we signed on to it?
That Stephen. Such a wild man. (His questions were featured quite a bit in the excerpts played from yesterday’s arguments.)
Damn, how I wish BBC World News America put up its videos … or I could find them. They interviewed the most fantastic attorney yesterday whose testimony was highly instrumental in this case going to the Supreme Court — because he exposed just how unjust the process at Guantanamo is. He was riveting to listen to, but — as is typical of such people — understated and thoroughly knowledgeable and ethical.
Two truly great Kucinich videos at the Fanonite:
http://fanonite.org/2007/12/06/vote-kucinich-2/
And an interesting take on what Kucinich should be doing, here:
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2007/11/what_kucinich_s.htm
Because having Emanuel/Stoyer/Pelosi style democrats will do us no good at all on the important issues.
See this Chris Floyd, also at Pastpeak (an excellent blog, by the way):
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2007/10/dems_suck_too.htm
Just added two important updates — they’re at the TOP of the story.
There’s actually a third: The CIA somehow destroyed videos of interrogations. Huh.
I gather that the news items at the top broadened the subject area of the post.
Last night, at a software-related site, I happened upon a thread that had some of the Abu Ghraib photographs posted. It also had a link to a CBS page with more photos. There were some that I hadn’t seen on television (others may have). Two of the worst had a soldier—Charles Graner in one photo and Sabrina Harman in the other—posing with a corpse packed in ice, grinning, and giving the thumbs-up sign. I can only wonder what scenes might be in the unreleased photos.
Many people, understandably, would like to let the excesses and atrocities of the recent past fade into obscurity so that we can all move on. Unless there are frequent reminders of those excesses and atrocities, however, which should not spare horrid details, corrective legislation written in no uncertain terms won’t get passed. We should not forget that the rest of the world is not forgetting.
YOU CAN’T BE A SWEET CUCUMBER IN A VINEGAR BARREL - Prof. Philip Zimbardo
I hope this is what I saw on BookTV last summer. In this talk, Zimbardo shows the photographs from Abu Ghraib without the black rectangles … seeing the photos as they really are is much more devastating.
Sadly, BookTV.org only lists the program date but doesn’t have the video available. But I think this other site has it.
(Zimbardo did the famous Stanford prison experiment — he also shows video from that.)
ALSO: Best I recall, the Army Field Manual that Steve Clemons refers to is excellent on the treatment of detainees. If it truly will apply to every branch of U.S. government — including the CIA — that would be a giant step, I would think, towards stopping the mistreatment of detainees.
On the man in the ice, the ambiguity of language of torture, and Nancy Pelosi, here is Amy Goodman interviewing Tara McKelvey.
“Tara McKelvey, author of the book “Monstering: Inside America’s Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War.” She is a senior editor at “The American Prospect” and a research fellow at the NYU School of Law’s Center on Law and Security.”
“AMY GOODMAN: You write about him (General Ricardo Sanchez, picked by Pelosi to give the radio response to Bush a few week ago) extensively, among many other issues, in Monstering. Talk about his significance.
TARA McKELVEY: Well, one of the things that he did was he spoke a lot with General Geoffrey Miller, who had come over from Guantanamo in the fall of 2003, and they talked about the types of interrogations that would take place at Abu Ghraib. And at that point, Miller had decided that Abu Ghraib would be the central intelligence collection place in Iraq, and it was tremendous pressure on these officers, as well as the entire military, to get what was known as “actionable intelligence” from detainees who were held in Iraq, because there were so many attacks on American troops. And it was in September of 2003 that Sanchez issued a memo that outlined certain guidelines for interrogations. And these included many of the things that had been used at Guantanamo, like sleep deprivation or stress positions.
And when you first hear of these things, you don’t think that they sound so bad, you know, like Giuliani was saying, “You know, I stay awake all the time on the campaign trail. You know, sleep deprivation, what’s so horrible about that?” But the fact is that over a period of time, sleep deprivation, it causes a body to collapse entirely, and a person will die.
As far as stress positions go, again, according to the official guidelines, it can mean something like having a person crouch in a position for no more than, say, forty-five minutes. And the truth of the matter at Abu Ghraib was somewhat different. The stress positions were used for much longer periods of time, and they also encompassed a wide variety of positions, one of which was something called a Palestinian hanging, which is where they have the person’s hands tied behind their back and then they’re suspended from their hands. So then, at a certain point, the person’s shoulders would become dislocated. And according to a lot of people who were at the prison at the time, you could hear people screaming in their cells at night since they were being held in these positions. And in addition, there was this photograph, what was known as “the Iceman.” It was a prisoner named al-Jamadi. Maybe you remember that picture. He actually died while being held in what was known as the Palestinian hanging. So stress positions are anything but benign.”
Note that the term “Palestinian hanging” comes from the hanging of Palestinians.
“the term “Palestinian hanging” comes from the hanging of Palestinians.”
By those oh, so humane Israelis, that is - you know, the self-proclaimed most moral army in the world? The ones with whom the United States has so many shared values?
Shared values - indeed, how true that is!
ALSO: Re the second update item I put up … just in case people don’t know the story.
An Afghan taxi driver was picked up but was completely innocent — provably so.
At Bagram, a U.S. base in Afghanistan, he was hung by his arms and his legs were beaten over and over with a stick.
He died within three days (or two, I forget).
The physician who performed the autopsy said that, even if he’d survived, the injuries to his legs were so severe that he would have had to have both legs amputated.
I’d like to know who is interviewed in that documentary — if those U.S. personnel who are listed as interviewed were actual witnesses to his beatings.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/931680.html
World citizens need to start taking actions like this. This is easily done against Rummy, Ledeen, Wolfovich, Perle, etc.
There are plenty of Israeli’s including Ariel Sharon (Sabra and Shatilla massacre) who should be tried at the Hague for their crimes.
Bush, Cheney, Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz…next
Just for once, you might learn from Australia.
Kevin Rudd is being ridiculed by the media by claiming he is “honest Joe”. They are dragging up the usual irrelevance in order to suggest he will be hangstrung by industry in his objectives.
Time will tell, but that isn’t important. The important thing was his campaign and that had some similarities with the Democrat take over of the upper and lower house. The concern I have is, since the democrat takeover it has, more or less, been business as usual.
On those grounds it will be more or less business as usual when they get it in. That is why the World should focus on Rudd to see what he achieves over the next few months. Ok he has immediately ratified the Ryoko Protocol, which leaves a cloud of shame over the US only. He has an enormous task with a beleaguered health, university, social security system. Having said that there is a strong American Corporate presence here and their coffers are over flowing, I am told. An enormous investment in the arts is required. When opportunity in the arts is at full stretch, kids don’t have the time or impetus to rush off to their local shopping mall and gun down a few folks including themselves.
Clearly a devotion to and answers for real problems is required. Kevin Rudd will be the litmus test as to whether there is anything beyond bullshit is politics.
The five youngest justices (Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy) are all Catholics, who often vote in a bloc, especially concerning cases that tear down the wall separating church and state.
I was raised Catholic, but stopped believing as a teenager that the Pope, or any leader of any other religion for that matter, has any clue concerning what God is and what God wants, primarily because there’s no way to determine, except maybe on a personal level, whether or not God even exists. One thing I’m certain about, though, is that whatever God is (if existent), God is not a dictator, nor does God (if existent) use any human intermediaries to force religious dogma on anyone anywhere.
Therefore, I long ago stopped following any dictates of the Pope in Rome, while the five Catholic supreme court justices are de facto Cardinals of the Supreme Court. Long ago, I decided to conduct my own investigation into all things spiritual and religious, and have reached my own conclusions in the process, with the primary one being that the separation of church from state and state from church is essential to any country being a democracy.
Therefore, I’d never vote for Romney or Huckabee, or any of the other candidates who blatantly wear their hardcore, right-wing religious beliefs on their sleeves, because they are bound to try to appoint people like themselves to the Supreme Court, further eroding the wall separating church and state that began in earnest under Ronald Reagan.
I’ve been reading that Hilary Clinton attends Christian prayer meetings on a regular basis. This troubles me. Just as Joe Lieberman being chosen as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000 troubled me. The last thing our freedom-loving democracy needs is anymore orthodox religious types, doing their best Osama bin Laden impression, ramming their wrecking ball of orthodoxy against the fragile wall separating church from state, just as the orthodox bin Laden rammed airplanes into buildings and a field on 9/11.
This is why certain Republicans (and conservative Democrats) have resorted to stealing and “fixing” elections, so they can get one of their kind in place in the White House who will rig the Supreme Court in favor of their hardcore, right-wing religious agenda.
So, I agree that the 2008 presidential election is critical to whether we remain a democratic, free nation or end up looking like some twisted Christian version of an Islamic Republic. I’m not interested in the latter perverted vision some people have for our country. Which is why I’m interested in hearing the Democratic Party candidates respond to Romney’s religious pandering speech with one of their own that is synonymous with JFK’s speech, making quite clear that any Democratic president will not select judicial nominees based on any religious “litmus test” but based on their history of upholding the U.S. Constitution and keeping the wall separating church and state inviolate.
Will any of the Democratic presidential candidates make that promise to all U.S. citizens of whatever religious belief or disbelief? I know that none of the Republican candidates can be trusted to maintain and strenghten the wall separating church and state, but I am waiting to hear which Democratic candidate(s) is willing to stand like St. George against the fire-breathing dragon of religious fundamentalism, to stand in defense of our Constitution against the likes of both al Qaeda and people like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and their orthodox ilk.
For me, it’s the Supreme Court that is on trial here.
If the SCOTUS decides that the writ of habeas corpus is NOT a fundamental, “inalienable” human right, it would say something horrible about the decline of America.
I might have to emigrate. The things we say here could be used to lock us away, with no rights.
The dots have already been connected. If the SCOTUS rules that the Guantanamo prisoners have no rights, then it doesn’t take much creative interpretation to decide that people rounded up under the Homegrown Terrorism act don’t either.
How would you like to have the likes of Giuliani weighing in on that as President, backed by a SCOTUS that agrees?
Don’t plan on calling your lawyer if it happens to you…with luck, maybe your spouse or someone who cares about you will actually be able to locate you, but even that is a shaky assumption.
Among the English-speaking countries, New Zealand is very attractive. Australia is not bad since the elections.