Category Archives: Justice, civil right, human rights issues

Greenwald

Bush-defending opponents of investigations and prosecutions think they’ve discovered a trump card:  the claim that Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman were briefed on the torture programs and assented to them.  The core assumption here – shared by most establishment pundits – is that the call for criminal investigations is nothing more than a partisan-driven desire to harm Republicans and Bush officials (“retribution”), and if they can show that some Democratic officials might be swept up in the inquiry, then, they assume, that will motivate investigation proponents to think twice.

Those who make that argument are clearly projecting.  They view everything in partisan and political terms — it’s why virtually all media discussions are about what David Gregory calls “the politics of the torture debate” rather than the substantive issues surrounding these serious crimes — and they are thus incapable of understanding that not everyone is burdened by the same sad affliction that plagues them.

Most people who have spent the last several years (rather than the last several weeks) vehemently objecting to the Bush administration’s rampant criminality have been well aware of, and quite vocal about, the pervasive complicity of many key Democrats in this criminality…

Continue here

“I wanted to take a bath after”

At the time, Obama was leaning toward adopting the Army Field Manual rules for intelligence interrogations but wanted to receive a broader perspective. He sent Craig; retired Gen. James L. Jones, now the national security adviser; foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough; former senators David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); and former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith to Langley…


Boren, who chaired the Senate intelligence committee from 1987 to 1993 and is now president of the University of Oklahoma, said that attending the briefings was “one of the most deeply disturbing experiences I have had” and that “I wanted to take a bath when I heard it. I was ashamed of it.” He said he concluded that “fear was used to justify the use of techniques that violate our values and weaken our intelligence” and that the agency did not prove those methods “are particularly effective at getting the truth.”

Continue reading here though you’ll want a bath after

Krugman on why we must fully investigate torture matters

America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people,” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.

And the only way we can regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world, but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible.
continue here

Update: Eugene Robinson makes the same case, if more mild in tone

Bullshit blunderbuss

As Think Progress notes, the ‘argument’ here is that because the US military applied techniques such as waterboarding on US military personnel during SERE training that therefore these techniques cannot be torture.

Of course, as we now know, these SERE training programs were developed using the models derived from torture techniques that had been used (for example, by the Chinese in Korea).  Not to mention the historical fact that Japanese personnel who had waterboarded during WW2 had been executed by the Americans for the crime of torture.

Further, as Think Progress details:

As Media Matters noted when Fox News’ Jim Angle pushed the same argument, the Bush Justice Department acknowledged in one of the torture memos that waterboarding detainees is “a very different situation” from what went on in SERE training:

Individuals undergoing SERE training are obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program, not a real-life interrogation regime, they presumably know it will last only a short time, and they presumably have assurances that they will not be significantly harmed by the training.

A person no nicer than her father.

Not available on Fox Cable

From an online broadcast (only – we understand why)

Shepard Smith has been getting sane over the last few months.  Hat tip to him.  And to Matt Yglesias, who posted this and commented that such commentary, from conservative media figures with credibility in the conservative community, is the way a national consensus on torture might be contstructed.

Matt’s post here

Despicable

Assuming this reporting is correct (and there seems little reason to assume it isn’t, knowing what we’ve known for several years) some of the torture procedures carried out under the Bush administration were motivated by an anxious desire to find evidence of a Sadaam and al Qaida link.  Such a link would have helped justify the attack on Iraq and would therefore have presented less of a PR problem for the administration – and thus, better future electoral opportunities for the party.

These bastards should be in jail.

Read the full story here

The big story

This NY Times reporting, by Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, is garnering broad commentary in the blogosphere and press.

The program began with Central Intelligence Agency leaders in the grip of an alluring idea: They could get tough in terrorist interrogations without risking legal trouble by adopting a set of methods used on Americans during military training. How could that be torture?

In a series of high-level meetings in 2002, without a single dissent from cabinet members or lawmakers, the United States for the first time officially embraced the brutal methods of interrogation it had always condemned.

This extraordinary consensus was possible, an examination by The New York Times shows, largely because no one involved — not the top two C.I.A. officials who were pushing the program, not the senior aides to President George W. Bush, not the leaders of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees — investigated the gruesome origins of the techniques they were approving with little debate.

Continue reading here

Related reporting by Brian Knowlton

And more from Joby Warrick and Peter Finn at the Washington Post

Intelligence and military officials under the Bush administration began preparing to conduct harsh interrogations long before they were granted legal approval to use such methods — and weeks before the CIA captured its first high-ranking terrorism suspect, Senate investigators have concluded.

See here

Income, college enrollment/completion and social justice

I’m going to paste in this full piece by Matt Yglesias because of the importance of this data.

College Attainment and Family Income

Peter Orszag delivered a speech yesterday called “The Case for Reform in Education and Health Care” that included a number of interesting slides. Here’s one:

As you can see, family income has a big influence here. Two thirds of the kids with average math scores and low-income parents wind up not going to college, while almost two-thirds of high-income kids with average math scores do go. And as he shows in the following slide, parental income also has a strong impact on college completion:

This, in turn, has a substantial impact on a person’s long-term economic prospects as seen in our country’s large and growing wage premium:

On the one hand, this represents a cycle of substantial social injustice. People who have the misfortune of being born to poor parents have a much worse chance of going to college than do those born to wealth parents and this, in turn, has bad implications for their future earnings prospects. Given these facts, various efforts to reduce the tax burden on the estates of multimillionaires is obscene. The children of the wealthy have plenty of advantages in life besides what they inherit. Taxing that money and using it to provide some opportunities for those who aren’t well-born should be a no-brainer.

This situation is also a major drag on our economic growth. The rising college wage premium reflects the fact that labor market demand for college graduates is growing more rapidly than the percent of the population graduating from college. That’s good for college graduates, but bad for the economy as a whole. The private lenders and their congressional allies who are blocking billions in additional financial aid for poor students by insisting on taking a “cut” worth billions a year are slowly-but-surely strangling the economy.

Matt’s post is here

The importance of today

From Glenn Greenwald

Today is the most significant test yet determining the sincerity of Barack Obama’s commitment to restore the Constitution, transparency and the rule of law.  After seeking and obtaining multiple extensions of the deadline, today is the final deadline for the Obama DOJ to respond to the ACLU’s FOIA demand for the release of four key Bush DOJ memos which authorized specific torture techniques that have long been punished (including by the U.S.) as war crimes.  Today, Obama will either (a) disclose these documents to the public or (b) continue to suppress them — either by claiming the right to keep them concealed entirely or, more likely, redacting the most significant parts before releasing them.

Update: It looks like the memos will be released with few redactions.

This’ll cause a ruckus

Spanish prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo, several reliable sources close to the investigation have told The Daily Beast. Their decision is expected to be announced on Tuesday before the Spanish central criminal court, the Audencia Nacional, in Madrid.

Story here

Cliche alert.  “Spanish Inquisition” will be the headline and the talking point all across the rightwing media.  Guaranteed.  The role of the church in that earlier awkwardness will not be any part of this ranting, of course.

Michael Tomasky on why Republicans are attempting to block Obama’s justice department nominee

What’s the problem with Dawn Johnsen (and Koh)?

Torture

Part two of Mark Danner’s extraordinary commentary on the Red Cross torture report

New York Review of Books

Quote of the day

She [Rachel Maddow] deserves real kudos for asking Colin Powell serious questions about his complicity in the Bush-Cheney torture regime.  – Andrew Sullivan

Indeed.  I watched this broadcast interview.  It was, sad to say, unique in its mannerly but unrelenting focus on an issue of real importance and in its fundamental assumption that our political representatives are responsible to us.


Taliban flogging of young woman

Not pretty.  But we ought to know about it…

video here

Of course, the Taliban has done far worse, but this is so barbaric in its fundamentalism and its sexism that it is difficult to watch.

h/t Andrew Sullivan

Sanity

Apr 3rd, 2009 | DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Supreme Court says the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.

In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge’s ruling that the law was unconstitutional.

Continue here

Watch a smear take shape

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate (she’s their legal affairs analyst, smart as hell, and a Canadian) details the recent beneath the radar attack on Harold Koh, dean of Harvard Law School who Obama has chosen as legal adviser to the State Department.

As Greg Sargent at the Plum Line notes, this smear campaign has taken place largely out of sight, the mainstream media not writing much about it until today (NY Times, one piece) while the smearing has gone on repeatedly at Fox and the National Review and the NY Post.

What’s the concern/motivation?  As Lithwick points out, Koh’s potential to become a Supreme Court nominee (or to get near to it) is a prime fear.  There appears to be three aspects here which are relevant:  moving the courts to the right has been the focus of significant organizational and propaganda efforts from the right going back to Meese or earlier and thus ANY ‘liberal’ appointee to the SC is in for a sustained smear campaign – that’s simply a given.  Secondly, Koh has been very outspoken about the Bush administration’s illegalities and that will provoke the concerns of people involved and their ideological supporters.  Third, Koh holds a view that American jurisprudence can be and ought to be influenced by an international frame of reference rather than the limited frame which devolves from notions of American exceptionalism.  This last one runs into a lot of powerful concerns, both ideological and financial.

Greg Sargent’s blog is here

Dahlia Lithwick’s piece is here

John Bolton will not be pleased

The Obama administration will seek a seat on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, announcing Tuesday that it believed working from within was the most effective means of altering the council’s habit of ignoring poor human rights records of member states.

Story here

Axiom:  if John Bolton is not pleased, celebrate.

No surprise

IDF decides to drop Gaza misconduct probe

Cheney’s motives

Why has Cheney, on two occasions following the election, publicly derogated Obama and his administration’s policies?  It is, so far as I can discover, an unprecedented violation of protocol for him to have done so immediately upon leaving office as VP.

Andrew Sullivan has a good piece on this here. He correctly observes that Cheney is trying to counter the emerging narrative (which has been emerging for several years…no WMD found, photos from Abu Ghraib, snippets from the torture memos, revelations from Britain).  But as Andrew points out, the internal information held so closely by the Bush/Cheney administration, and which looks likely to be seriously damaging to Cheney’s (and others’) reputations but which also may quite possibly result in criminal proceedings against them, are now slowly emerging into the light with a real possibility that subsequent information will be utterly damaging.

God only knows what Cheney et al are doing out of sight (likely their greatest area of expertise) but Cheney is clearly, as Andrew suggests, also trying to wage preventive propaganda right now.  But why?  Who does he expect to influence?  Is he counting on the conservative movement base to cause such a loud ruckus that Obama, with all on his plate, might go easy on Cheney and crowd?  It seems unlikely he’s worried about his his legacy (less so about Bush’s legacy) but perhaps it’s a consideration.  He’s been deeply committed for some years now (since Nixon) to an ideology which seeks expanded powers for the Presidency and may fear that, just as post-Watergate, this ideology is in serious jeopardy of being again discredited.

It’s a bit of a puzzle.  But motivations are often difficult to comprehend or ascertain and certainty most particularly so when the person who’s motives are subject to the inquiry borders on the pathological, which I believe Cheney does.

Update: An entirely relevant matter…the ongoing legal proceedings in Spain

Spanish human rights attorney: ‘I would recommend that Mr. Feith…get a very good lawyer.’

Last week, a Spanish court agreed to consider “opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials…over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay.” Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith said the charges “make no sense,” adding, “they criticize me for promoting a controversial position that I never advocated.” Gonzalo Boye, one of the lawyers filing the complaint, responded to Feith, saying, “If they [Bush officials] are innocent,they shouldn’t be afraid” to come to court:

“I would recommend that Mr. Feith first of all read the complaint, and secondly that he get a very good lawyer,” Boye said. “If he is so sure of what he is saying — then the address of the national court is #22 Genova Street, second floor.”

Feith often expresses amnesia about his central role in approving torture. “I strongly championed a policy of respect” for the Geneva Conventions, he told Congress last year. In reality, British international lawyer Philippe Sands reported that Feith “took the steps to ensure thatnone of these detainees could rely on Geneva.”

From Think Progress

Webb and prison reform

Glenn Greenwald has a very good piece on the obstacles Jim Webb will face in trying to reform the present (lucrative) prison system.  The internal links here are well worth viewing.

It’s hard to overstate how politically thankless, and risky, is Webb’s pursuit of this issue — both in general and particularly for Webb.  Though there has been some evolution of public opinion on some drug policy issues, there is virtually no meaningful organized constituency for prison reform.  To the contrary, leaving oneself vulnerable to accusations of being “soft on crime” has, for decades, been one of the most toxic vulnerabilities a politician can suffer (ask Michael Dukakis).  Moreover, the privatized Prison State is abooming and highly profitable industry, with an army of lobbyists, donations, and other well-funded weapons for targeting candidates who threaten its interests.

More here/