What can one say, when confronted with acts that defy our understanding of what it is to be American? Or, for that matter, simply a human being?
Can you bear to hear yet one more story, one more offense against the rule of law, against respect for human rights, against all that we hold true and precious?
UPDATE: This film is on Youtube, without a sourcing reference. I am trying to find any info on who made it and when it was filmed. I will update when I have more background.
George Bush’s true legacy may not be truly understood for many years. Domestically he will be remembered as the president who severely weakened the economy, undermined civil liberties, and removed the foundations of democracy. But it is on the international stage where George Bush will some day be compared to a gunslinger in the old West who shot up and practically destroyed two countries while the local sheriff and his deputies trembled in their boots at the thought of trying to stop him and the local judge supported him.
Last month, I examined the testimony from the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on interrogations and torture. The hearings concentrated on the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape (SERE) program, and its use of military psychologists hired by the CIA to "reverse-engineer" SERE program elements for use in coercive interrogations by the United States at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.
The timelines constructed out of this testimony and ancillary documentary evidence showed the Department of Defense turned to SERE for help in interrogating "enemy combatants" in July 2002. At least, that seems the case if you follow the summary given by SASC Committee Chair, Senator Carl Levin, adhered to in subsequent reports by every other journalist (but one).
.
.
CNN reported last night that Colombia's military used Red Cross symbols during Ingrid Betancourt's rescue. The report appears have been published at about 10 PM last night.
The story reports about a video that an unidentified military man was trying to sell to CNN. CNN did not buy the video but the video was shown to them. Symbols of the Red Cross could be seen, but since they do not have the video they are not swearing by it. They may have used the logo of an humanitarian NGO from Spain also.
If the report is true, the use of Red Cross symbols qualifies as a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.
After the recorded atrocities of World War II, an effort was made by world leaders to try to strive for a more civilized society. Meetings were held at Geneva, Switzerland where four international laws of war, or Geneva Conventions were drafted in 1949. Each participating nation, including the United States, ratified these international laws, which meant there was a general world-wide agreement to prohibit certain immoral acts even if we are degraded to the level of going to war against one another.
The Third Geneva Convention prohibits the torture of prisoners of war, and the Fourth Convention protects detained civilians. Both laws call for humane treatment. Detainees may be questions but all forms of physical or mental "coercion" is prohibited. Women are to be protected from rape and any form of indecent assault.
Instead of maintaining this standard, the United States, under the Bush Administration, has broken the rules of the Geneva Conventions and resorted to barbarism under the guise of obtaining important information from captured "terrorists." We have thus set a precedent that could affect American military personnel captured on foreign soil from this day on.
Of course I don't mean people here. I mean your average voters who watch some news and make attempts to educate themselves on the candidates. Do they know?
I mean it's all so incredible. A man who was himself tortured -- endorsing torture? It is unbelievable in the most literal sense of the word. And yet that's John McCain.
Earlier today when I was piecing this diary together, I asked the community whether people realize McCain is pro-torture. Kossack AnnCetera said that they do not, but added that accurate information might help people see the truth -- so long as it's palatable.
Unfortunately there's nothing palatable about the fact that torture is now a campaign issue in the year 2008 in the United States of America. But what is worse perhaps is people who are against torture voting for a man who is not.
BushCo are masters at trying to legitimize illegality. It is their terrifying, unjust, enraging M.O. We see it at home, and abroad, in the conduct of this so-called GWOT. It is S.O.P.
They create legal limbo for all kinds of our fellow human beings, most innocent of any crime. GITMO is a terrible, shocking example of being in and out of the law.
Memos written at the request of high-ranking government officials by Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo on August 1, 2002 (also signed by Jay Bybee, now a federal judge) and March 14, 2003, assured the Bush administration that
. . . . the Department of Justice would not enforce the U.S. criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants."
Of course, we know that the purpose of Yoo’s memos were simply established as a means of legal clearance for all that ensued thereafter.
Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel (December 30, 2004)
. . . .specifically rejects Yoo’s definition of torture, and admits that a defandant’s motives to protect national security will not shield him from a torture prosecution. The rescission of the August 2002 memo constitutes an admission by the Justice Department that the legal reasoning in that memo was wrong. But for 22 months, the [sic] it was in effect, which sanctioned and led to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody."
Note: all quoted material above from Marjorie Cohn, President National Lawyers Guild.
...a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.
At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.
This is just the latest evidence that abuse of detainees was systematic and that Bush and his inner circle--as well as senior military officials--are to blame.
What do we do with this knowledge?
What does Barack Obama do?
I have been astonished by the number of people who have rushed to defend John McCain against charges of hypocrisy on the subject of torture. An article by Michael Scherer in the April 10 edition of Time magazine is typical of the pervasively sloppy thinking among McCain apologists.
But on this latest piece of legislation, which arose during the heat of the primary campaign and may surface again later this month, McCain sided with Bush in opposing a further restriction of CIA techniques. Despite the claims of some partisans, McCain's decision was not a flip-flop, but rather the continuation of a position he took in 2005 when he first championed a bill to restrict the Bush Administration's ability to mistreat detainees.
Flip-flop charges only seem to stick for Democrats, not saintly public servants like John McCain or wormtongues like Joe Lieberman. The sad truth is that there is no flip to McCain on torture, just flop.
The last few days there have been a number of fine diaries about torture enabled by the DoJ, CIA and of course our President. Read herehereherehere and here. I am shocked by the number of people who for some reason believe this is new. The roots of our violent, regime changing, torturing, death squad, secret prisons and extraordinary rendition school of foreign relations go back far more than 50 years but for the sake of brevity this diary only covers the time from the late 40's. I should tell you too I originally published this diary 10-07-07 under my old NYM of ghengismom. I have updated some information but it is essentially the same text.
Follow me below the fold for a glimpse of our shameful past, present and future and when we stopped being the good guys to the rest of the world.
Asked whether he was aware that his National Security Council Principals Committee discussed and approved torturing human beings that we're being held at the U.S. government's mercy, our President responded:
"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
To be more specific about what Bush knew about and approved:
Today's headlines proclaim: "McCain, in Foreign Policy Talk, Turns His Back on Unilateralism." We're told McCain thinks that the U.S. has to show "decent respect to the opinions of mankind."
Well, I guess it's hard to argue with that. Except I seem to remember something I heard from a different candidate, back in 2000:
"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble."
Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against
Humanity and Other Criminal Acts and High Crimes in
Violation of the Charter of the United Nations,
International Law, the Constitution of the United States
and Laws made in Pursuance Thereof.
In response to the outcry in response to recent statments made by DNI Mike McConnell, O'Reilly decided to do a little torture backfilling...
In this discussion BillO makes the arguement that comes right out of Richard Nixon's playbook.
"If the President does it, it's legal."
Being the big tough guy that he is, he's repeatedly calls anyone who thinks that the 8th Amendment, Human Rights and the Geneva Convention ought to actually mean something "Crazy" and "Insane".
Why are they so insane about this? It’s not fatal. It doesn’t leave a lasting physical injury. Why are they so crazy? ... I think the President has to have the authority...in extraordinary circumstances, as these three were. And the far left is putting us all in danger.
