Did I Feel A Draft?

In what will surely turn out to be the largest case of CYA in recent memory, the destroyed CIA torture tapes are continuing to make headlines. As each agency proceeds to cover their respective butts, the question of torture will continue to go unanswered. It has become the giant elephant in the room that no one talks about inside the beltway, while outside the beltway it is a heated topic. Here we have another instance of the electorate and the elected being disconnected. But do we really? Are the majority of Americans against torture? I know that on many blogs there is never a shortage of commentators who advocate the use of torture and these are not wing-nut blogs, but so-called progressive sites. There are also mainstream political candidates who have advocated the use of torture. We seem to be a nation torn on this issue and that speaks volumes about who we have become.

“There is never any justification for destroying materials that any reasonable person would believe might be requested in a civil or criminal proceeding,” said Mr. Remes, of the law firm Covington & Burling. “The C.I.A. had every reason to believe the videotapes would be relevant down the road.”[1]

I beg to differ with Mr. Remes, but yes there is a justification for destroying evidence if you have been involved in illegal activities. It happens all the time and with the impotence of the current Congress it will probably go unpunished. Anyone remember the Justice Department subpoenas, the Dick Cheney missing emails, or how about that undercover CIA agent leak? I would not be surprised if there were still copies of these tapes floating around in Langley somewhere, probably being used for training purposes. I read these articles and it makes me sick, the MSM refuses to call the procedure of waterboarding torture. They say things like according to the critics it is considered torture. I say we take all the editorial boards and subject them to a little waterboarding and see if their views will remain the same.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we as a nation are moving more and more towards fascism. There are now stories being released about how torture has actually saved the lives of Americans, how convenient that these anonymous sources have chosen now to leak this information. In what is being referred to as an “unpleasant procedure”, the source says while he was not involved in the act, it was effective. Well, no sh*t. Here is the problem, I am not opposed to torture because it works or it doesn’t works. That should not even be an issue. I am opposed to torture because it is wrong, both ethically and morally. We can argue from now on as to the effectiveness of it, the fact they we are even having the conversation is what should be troubling to those of us still a part of the human race despite 9/11. Someone help me here; did 9/11 remove our obligations to the rest of humanity? Did it give us a license to torture, maim, and kill without regards to the victim’s humanity. If it did, then God help us.

Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubayda gave up valuable information after being waterboarded, a former CIA agent involved in other parts of his interrogation told CNN today. John Kiriakou said he did not want to perform the "entirely unpleasant" procedure branded by critics as torture, but added it brought results that stopped attacks and saved lives.

Despite the executive blessing, Kiriakou and other agents were conflicted over whether to learn the technique, he said.

"One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."

Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it. [2]

We are perched on a slippery slope and I hope that we are aware of the consequences of the decisions we are making. This isn’t about stopping terrorist attacks. If you have a determined person who is willing to commit suicide there is no defense against it, even with isolation, torture, and preemptive war. Our becoming fascist will not keep us safe; it will only isolate us more from the rest of the world. We now have an Attorney General who never had to give an opinion on torture, confirmed by the Senate. It’s like everyone wants to divorce themselves from it, like Mr. Kiriakou and yet we want the results. I’m sorry we can’t have it both ways, either we are torturers of our fellow human beings or we are not. A black man just got 23 months for torturing dogs and we torture humans with little more than a whimper.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/washington/11intel.html?pagewanted=2&hp
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/index.html

Read more!

Torture No Longer Taboo

As the Attorney General nominee was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was questioned repeatedly about the use of the technique known as waterboarding and whether he considered it legal. Judge Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee continued to avoid giving a legal opinion on the practice. According to legal experts, he had no choice but to avoid the rendering of an opinion because of the legal ramifications of the Attorney General calling the practice illegal. By doing so of course he would open the floodgates of litigation from detainees that have been subjected to the practice. For all practical purposes let’s acknowledge that this practice constitutes torture.

So the real question is, does the Judge condone torture or not? Forget the legal semantics; I think the American people need to know whether their next Attorney General will continue giving legal cover to this administration for the practice of torture? The truth of the matter is that we won’t get an answer to that question and neither will the Senate. No nominee will ever provide such damning testimony against the person who nominated them. If the AG were to acknowledge the illegality of the practice, everyone would be liable all the way up to Mr. Bush himself.

The biggest problem for Mr. Mukasey remains his refusal to take a clear legal position on the interrogation technique. Fear of opening the door to criminal or civil liability for torture or abuse, whether in an American court or in courts overseas, appeared to loom large in Mr. Mukasey’s calculations as he parried questions from the committee this week. Some legal experts suggested that liability could go all the way to President Bush if he explicitly authorized waterboarding.[1]

So, now the question is no longer whether the nominee supports torture, the debate has now been refocused to political cover for those who authorized the torture. How will we ever know if this nominee supports the legal precedence or not? How do we know if he will cave into the political pressure as the previous occupant did or will stand firm against such practices? It appears another legacy of this administration will be that we can no longer ask our AG nominees their views on torture, or this form of it anyway. If they answer, it could be used to open prosecutions of past administration officials. Once you open the door to torture, I guess there’s no turning back.

Scott L. Silliman, an expert on national security law at Duke University School of Law, said any statement by Mr. Mukasey that waterboarding was illegal torture “would open up Pandora’s box,” even in the United States. Such a statement from an attorney general would override existing Justice Department legal opinions and create intense pressure from human rights groups to open a criminal investigation of interrogation practices, Mr. Silliman said.[2]

Then of course there are the international courts, which we have no problem bringing other despots in front of, but disavow their jurisdictions when our despots are accused of wrongdoing. This was demonstrated when Donald H. Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense was visiting France and had to make a hasty retreat when a criminal complaint was filed against him for torture by human rights groups. Because of our public entry into the torture arena the concept of “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes and torture is no longer in play. The US which once stood as a bulwark for human rights and continues to make allegations against other countries (Iran most recently) is now displaying its hypocrisy in full view of the world.

Mr. Specter, who said he was briefed on the interrogation issue this week by the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, noted that human rights groups had filed a criminal complaint on torture against Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary, while he was visiting France this month. Such cases, based on the legal concept of “universal jurisdiction” for torture and certain other crimes, have proliferated in recent years, though they have often posed more of an aggravation than a serious threat.[3]

With no threat of prosecution and with the former watchdog now engaged in the practice, what is to prevent every nation from participating? So now not only can we thank this administration for shredding the US Constitution, we can also include the dismantling of the Geneva Convention treaty. Who needs communism and fascism, we have neo-conservatism and it is a whole lot more effective at dispensing with those inconvenient human and civil rights.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/washington/01mukasey.html?hp
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.

Read more!