This is a follow-up on my last posting. Today's NY Times reports that the Obama administration is experiencing growing pressure to investigate and prosecute the torturers of the Bush years:
"In the end, aides said, Mr. Obama opted to disclose the memos because his lawyers worried that they had a weak case for withholding them and because much of the information had already been made public in The New York Review of Books, in a memoir by George J. Tenet, the former C.I.A. director, and even in a 2006 speech by President George W. Bush.
...
"On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said on the ABC News program 'This Week' that 'those who devised policy' also 'should not be prosecuted.' But administration officials said Monday that Mr. Emanuel had meant the officials who ordered the policies carried out, not the lawyers who provided the legal rationale."
Regarding the first paragraph excerpted above: Obama, in other words, did not release these terribly revealing and damaging memos willingly. He realized that he was, in all likelihood, going to lose the FOIA fight (initiated by the ACLU) over them and that much of it was in the public domain already. Those who are old enough or who have studied the period know that the famous Pentagon Papers that Daniel Ellsberg was hounded by the Nixon White House over releasing and that led to Nixon's downfall and helped to end the war on Vietnam were not all that novel and in fact much of it had already leaked out in various ways. The importance of them was their being all together at once.
Note in the second excerpted paragraph above Emanuel's comments on Sunday that none of "those who devised policy" would be prosecuted compared to the Monday administration officials' comments meant to "clarify" Emanuel's remarks actually reflect backpeddling: those who ordered the policies carried out is not the same thing as those who devised the policy. In other words, it would appear that the White House is feeling the heat and is backing down just a wee bit here.
Turn up the heat.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall
Watching Frogs Boil
Karen McKim
Erica K
Jennifer Prestholdt
Julie Morse
Salon.com
Comments
The more of this that comes out, the more likely we'll see prosecutions, or at least, congressional inquiries.
Hurrah for the ACLU!
2 Prisoners Waterboarded 266 times - Demand Investigations!
Even if you have already sent one letter, send another. It is volume that matters right now. And call!
You are so right that it isn't up to what the WH thinks should be prosecuted. It shouldn't be their call anymore than it has been Nancy Pelosi's call to rule impeachment off the table. But this isn't going to happen unless and until enough public demands and sentiments are expressed openly and widely because the present administration has made no secret that they don't want to prosecute, or as Obama is fond of saying, "I want to look forwards." Well, that thunder of feet that you hear coming at you from behind you, Barack, that's the people.
Mr. Bybee,
Sir, the fact that you now sit on the federal bench owes entirely to the concealment of your 08/01/02 OLC torture memo during your confirmation process. I will do whatever I can to help redress that egregious error. By your own hand, you are documentably complicit in subornation of war crimes. You just go ahead and ignore me. Fine. I will, however, persist. You have done incalculable harm to this nation. It cannot go unchallenged and unremediated. I will do my part to see that it does not. Count on it.
Robert Gladd
This has to play out in the real world of politics. Let's all keep writing, send money to the ACLU and watch.
And thank you Mr. Cheney! Methinks we have bi-partisan support for a special investigation now!
posts like yours, Mr Loo, help keep up the heat. Let's keep it turned
up, as you say.
rated
The United States has laws prohibiting torture. An investigation is needed into what has been done. That is a call for justice for the victims. That is as well a call for justice for American people and all people in the world who are supporting laws prohibiting torture.
President Obama has now to protect the laws by ordering an investigation.
Incidently, Matt Yglesias today quotes the story of a man who was imprisoned in Iran:
"I spent 60 days in solitary confinement, where I was released only three times a day to use a bathroom for two to three minutes under camera surveillance. I was interrogated and tortured for days on end. Security agents blindfolded me and beat me repeatedly, pushing my head into the wall and onto a desk. They asked me questions about my relations with other journalists, particularly women, and with Westerners, and they constantly insulted my family."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Iran and the US: Partners in crime. Of course, the Iranians didn't waterboard this guy. They drew the line there...
After 9/11 nobody released any real proofs, who was behind the attack. Official ghost stories told by Bush's administration about foreign hijackers flying the planes and the attack to be planned by a relatively small and little known organization al Qaida were impossible to believe to be true. It looks much more likely that the attack was planned and done by insiders in America than by any group of hijackers coming from faraway places such as Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan was started so quickly and effective that it looks plausible that the plans were ready before 9/11. Bush's administration managed to build quickly a big coalition for Afghanistan war, but when the war in Iraq was started many coalition members already pulled out.
Now Obama has made it clear that he strongly wants to continue the war in Afghanistan. His administration's war goals there are unclear, but the war has been already expanded by sending there more troops.
How does the thing to release torturing memos fit to the general picture of Obama's administration war plans? I think that Obama's idea is that torturing prisons and the war in Iraq are so unpopular that it is better to get rid of the prisons, satisfying the public to able then to continue the war in general. 'The war on terrorism' seems to be the important thing, not any kind of justice or 'good governance'.
The torturing prisons exist for creating fake confessions about the 9/11 attack. It is assumed that after many years of fighting the wars the public has already forgotten why the wars were started, so fake confessions are not any more needed?
Your point, "everything he's said," is my point. Everything he's said that we know about. "I want to move forward" is the public face.
We can't know, though we might surmise, that there is significant political calculation going on. The best possible outcome for Obama is for congress to appoint some indepent bipartisan investigative team that exposes everything. I can sure understand why he'd prefer not to take the lead, not to be seen as gunning for this.
But I don't think this changes what we need to do in pressing for investigation and prosecution. All the way along in this I remember what Roosevelt said to his left flank about some unpopular matter: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
But we shall see. Not until all the memoirs are written will we know for sure.
We can judge someone by two things: their words and their actions (and inactions). Their words are basically a combination of their word choices and the structure and thrust of their argument.
While politicians, especially the President of the US, lie and deceive regularly, when you see a strong correlation between their words/arguments and their actions, and you can relate this to the context of what's going on that they are responding to from other forces, then you have something that you can assert with a lot of confidence. Bush, for example, liked to talk about spreading democracy everywhere and in the Middle East in particular. When you look at the speeches and comments to the press you see a pattern in what he means by "democracy." On the one hand, he's saying what he's saying to fool people, but on the other hand, there's a detectable pattern in his statements that reveal what he's really up to.
In Obama's case, my point was that his statements have all been very consistent until yesterday's where for the very first time you see a tiny, tiny shift. His statements, not just on impeachment and prosecutions and torture, but his statements about the wars and the national security state and what he understands it means to be an American are all part and parcel of a particular take that he has on things. It's his worldview and his worldview's very consistent. I've analyzed this elsewhere - see some of my pieces at the "My Links" on this blog.
The other thing that's important that motivated my original posting about this and then the one here is to point out that there's an incorrect assessment making the rounds among progressives that Obama released these torture memos because he secretly wants to prosecute his predecessors.
Finally, FDR did say what you said, but if you were implying that this is what Obama secretly wants as well, I don't think that's true at all. But what we can agree on here for sure is that whether this is Obama's view or not, the fact is that a tremendous amount of public pressure will force public officials to do things they don't want to do. But it will take a tremendous amount of pressure on these matters because what's at stake is enormous for the government. It means prosecuting Bush et al for crimes against humanity, because that is precisely what they're guilty of. Obama has been carrying forward, with only cosmetic changes, the same policies - rendition, stripping people of habeas corpus rights, ubiquitous state surveillance, unjust imperialist wars and occupations, etc.
Exactly. I think that his cosmetic changes in the style compared to Bush are well calculated to get more public acceptance for the wrong and dangerous politics.
For us citizens Obama's acceptance of the practically unlimited state surveillance of the people will probably quickly become hard to tolerate. The continuation of the wars started by the previous administration will in the longer run destroy the rest of the international credibility of America.
But in any case, it would be good, if torturing in the prisons could be stopped.
Also, please be careful for what you wish: All this pressure will also turn up the heat on the feeding frenzy of hatred against the President.
I failed to mention on your blog that I live in a community that is akin to living in the very deep South. There are lots of angry people here that are just looking for more good right-wing rhetoric to flow to allow them to hate Pres. Obama even more.
Prosecuting those who ordered the torture will be spun by Fox and Limbaugh as working against Patriots who were trying to keep our country safe. That media circus will whip the gun toting , racist, xenophobes into a frenzy. It is only going to take a little bit of all that stockpiled ammo to assassinate our President. It will take a WHOLE lot more of it to quell the riots that will ensue.
Maybe I sound crazy, but you have to walk a mile in my shoes to understand how twisted up these people are. Full of racist hatred that is fueled daily by more and more craziness from the ever propaganda spewing Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. You would be appalled to hear what I hear on a daily basis -- truly, I am not exaggerating...
If there is going to be something controversial to happen at this point in time, I would prefer the President and Congress focus on re-instating the Fairness Act with regard to broadcasting. As some of us have written in past comments on your posts, we need public awareness to be raised before doing something even mildly controversial.
If something happens to the President, we liberals will have had a hand in his demise. Can we slow down to realize that all things are possible with time?
Now is NOT the time...I am sorry to be a broken record here in OS, but I am live reporting from a danger zone. Come to Central Florida as my guest and spend a lunch and dinner with some of the people I know and ask them what they really think about our President and this administratino.
I respectfully submit that you could not help but come away with a different perspective on what needs to happen FIRST with regard to righting past wrongs in this country...
Your report of attitudes prevalent where you live and the insane rantings from Fox et al I believe to the letter and do not think you exaggerate in the least. These are extremely scary and dangerous people. I wrote a piece about Obama's prospects for being assassinated a ways back ("Storm's 'a Comin..." ) so your concerns about assassination I don't think are unwarranted.
Also, since I'm beginning here with what I agree with you about, agree with you about the Fairness Doctrine's importance. I wrote about this in February here ("Obama and the Fairness Doctrine") and pointed out both its key importance (why its abrogation was critical to the construction of the rightwing media empire) and the need to reinstate it (it would be the single most important thing that could be done next to holding these torturers to account). I also pointed out that Obama has in no uncertain terms stated that he doesn't want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which is revealing of where he's at and the balance of forces in the political and chattering classes. You'd think that a Democrat would favor the Fairness Doctrine because it would cut the rug out from under the raving rightwing "journalists" like Rush, Ann and Bill who would have to confront critics when now they can make up whatever they want and have no one to contradict them.
If we don't move NOW to hold the Bush war criminals to account, then pray god, when? If Obama can't stop from being an obstacle to that inquiry and prosecution, then what good is he? I'm not advocating his assassination, just to be clear. What I'm saying is that if he's who you want as leader, then what good is he as a leader if he a) opposes holding torturers accountable for their crimes against humanity; b) opposes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would severely impact the rightwing; and c) opposes the rule of law (in his deeds)?
If you want to fight the rightwing extremists, then how can you let them get away with torture?
I have noticed that the Obama voters quickest to object to his actions and statements in the last three months have been original supporters of Hillary Clinton. I don't say that to be divisive; I say it because I have specifically observed it, whether among my local friends or here on OS or in the public eye (Krugman, for example). I wonder if this pattern is being tracked by Obama's political operatives as well.
Because I think it's about time us original Obama supporters made ourselves heard on this torture issue. If there is the slightest chance that someone is keeping score, they should know that even Obama's staunchest supporters are interested in seeing an investigation and prosecution of the torture enthusiasts who brought us Abu Graib and wrecked our global reputation as good guys. Turn up the heat, indeed.
I'll send another slew of letters today. People like you and Amy Goodman are leading the way on this. Amy's show broadcasted yesterday from just outside one of the places where the prosecutions and indictments should start: Mitchell Jessen and Associates headquarters in Spokane, WA.
check it out over on democracynow.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Servicemembers%27_Protection_Act
http://www.leadingtowar.com/?gclid=CJal0bj67JkCFR0Sagodg1tzRw
http://sxolsout.110mb.com/p14.html
Those are progressively 'worse' links - with the last unmatchable in my experience.
'Simulated drowning' is more prevarication.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Waterboarding_drowning_water_torture_expert_testimony_1110.html
"Simulated drowning" is like saying that it's not really drowning. The water's real, the plastic or cloth over your nose and mouth are real, the air that's being obstructed from entering your lungs by the material and the water is real, the lack of O2 in your lungs is real. It's drowning.
"Simulated democracy" is what we have unless the people's will is acted upon and for that to happen the people have to recognize that their "leaders" are not going to do what must be done and that it's up to the people to act if it's to be done. We are at a critical moment in our history. What is done and not done will have ramifications for generations. Which will it be?
Your "subtitle" in your blog's banner is very appropriate.
It seems to me that the Kobayashi command standard would mean that if anyone is to blame, it is Cheney et al... not Yoo, because he is a consultant, a counsel, and the standard would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly gave false advice. But interesting politics here too. Mr. O Rourke has a piece on this, Fly on the Wall, but then it seems to me that this is kind of manipulative bs for the base, that doesn't really get at what to do going forward, like what are the principles involved in fighting non-standard combatants. Like, what do we do with the detainees now: some of them have already been released, and then recaptured. Shoot them now if they were on the battlefield, which if out of uniform is a war crime, or kick them loose if there are no charges and say,say, "OK. you can go home now, but if we ever see you again in Afghanistan, you are dead."
I, too, live in Florida and am surrounded by the people you describe. They have recently purchased more guns and ammo and they call the President things on a daily basis that I cannot even repeat here. There is real hatred and very real rage -- and threats.
BUT...we cannot let fear rule the day. Now is the time to set America free. Truth will prevail and though it is the right wing extremists hinting at revolution, let us not forget for one second, that THIS IS OUR REVOLUTION. God help us. We're going to need it.
Go to: withoutalegacy.com and PLEASE send as many people there to submit their letters about everything from torture to foreclosure and everything in between.
Turn up the heat. By about one million degrees.
Jeff Stein at Congressional Quarterly broke this story about Harman being heard on the NSA tap talking to an AIPAC agent. I just went to his site to find out how and why he got this story. This is what it says:
Claire from Washington DC: Why are your sources coming forward now? There must be some reason why they have waited almost three years.
Jeff Stein:
Thanks. I've seen a lot of speculation about that online.
The fact is, there is no "timing" to any "leak."
No sources "came forward," so to speak.
I learned about this quite a while ago and was just recently able to turn my full attention to it. Total coincidence.
* * *
I do not know Stein and cannot evaluate him in terms of his possible role outside of his breaking this story. I have no idea how busy he is and why he'd taken "quite a while" to write up this story. It doesn't, on the surface of it, appear to be that complicated a story once you verify and confirm your sources. His sources for the story are "two former senior national security officials."
If this is a conspiracy as you speculate to fire a shot across the bow of the Democrats that this is what we can do to you if you proceed with your inquiries, then I would wonder why they'd pick on one of their closest allies in the Democratic Party in Harman. It could be that they do so deliberately to point out how they can get anyone, but it does seem a little odd to me that they'd go after an ally this way.
It would seem odd to me that Stein, however, would sit for "quite a while" on a story that is this explosive.
As you peer through the prism of criminal procedure, you loose the ability to protect this nation, its economy and people with actionable intelligence gained through aggressive and thoughtful interrogation. The purpose of this exercise is to prevent further damage to our country via proactive measures, not post attack investigations.
You chose to define the term torture to such a low threshold, that it is quite laughable. Torture, in the context of quasi military terms, can be defined in four “D”s: Dismemberment, Disfigurement, Dysfunction and Death. These are the true faces of torture.
Anything less is aggressive interrogation. Uncomfortable or squeamish? Yes. Life threatening? No. Useful? Yes. Effective? It certainly can be with well trained analysts. The thwarted effort to fly aircraft into Los Angeles buildings is an instructive lesson of effective interrogation and proper application of the intelligence gleaned form their efforts.
So as you rally those to pillory Mr Bush and Cheney, understand that we have not sustained more damage to this nation because of their unpopular efforts. Frankly, you sound like petulant children kicking and screaming on the school house playground.
Wow-When I read your comments of people spewing hatred and vitriol, I knew without a doubt that you were taking about Keith Olbermann and MSNBC. What a surprise when I read a little further and realized that you were really talking about their identical twin brothers in hatred-Rush Limbaugh and FOX.
Mea Culpa
As president, Obama stepped into office having to solve many problems left by the previous administration. As someone who believes in conspriracies, I could never understand why more people who worked in the detritus of the Bush administration didn't sound the alarm to expose them. I still wonder why there haven't been more people to simply "confess" their wrongs in an attempt to receive some type of absolution for their sins?
It is clear that in oder for our nation to move forward and attempt to recoup some of our international honor, the country and our government must investigate and prosecute all crimes that were committed - and that includes everyone, even those who were "just following orders." Obama is not the Messiah and therefore he will not solve or cure every ill with his administration. The "Fairness Doctrine" will not solve or stop the growing hatred towards Obama and it will not affect those who are prone to racism, bias and hatred. The "rule of law" should be practiced in every part of American life. Illegal wire-taping and spying on Americans without cause or a court order should be stopped immediately. The list is endless. To try to effectively undo the mess created and orchestrated to dissemble our constitution and government by Bush and crew will probably take decades. As a nation, we are woefully uniformed about what really occurred in the Bush administration since January 20, 2001. Sometimes patience and time are the friends that ensure a proper outcome for the problems that confront us.
The fight continues but in our zeal to fight it is also necessary to reflect on how the fight is launched.