Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
If you can never say never, I would not trust you to babysit my childern, let alone govern my country.
Meanwhile all those people who were so fired up about this election need to get off their fannies and start acting like real citizens by contacting Congress, writing (well-reasoned, fact-based) letters to media outlets, etc. Until we all hold their collective feet to the fire, nothing will change. Democracy is not a spectator sport, people.-- BernieO
You're assuming that "all those people" are sitting on their "fannies"? Seriously, I wonder why it is that people tend to assume that they are all alone in their vigilance while everyone else is complacently sitting on their "fannies".
Who espouse the need to be "pragmatic" and go beyond the Field Manual (and thus violate the Conventions Against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment, to say nothing of Geneva) or allow "latitude" should be required to experience any and all proposed "pragmatic" extensions in a manner that matches what would be inflicted upon actual prisoners. No "pragmatic" tools experienced in a Reader's Digest or niced up manner, but in the actual manner and extent they are eager to hand over to the US Gestapo troops.
You want waterboarding on the table? Then you MUST be waterboarded - not abbreviated waterboarding, ACTUAL REAL WATERBOARDING. You want electric shocks to the testicles of vagina? Then that is what you get to experience in all its glory FIRST. You want extended sleep deprivation (to the point of causing hallucinations, emotional disturbance, etc) then that is what you MUST experience first.
These shit heaps are all "tough" when it comes to torturing anyone and everyone except themselves and their loved ones...unacceptable. Whatsoever you propose to allow, you must first experience in full glory so that you know exactly of what you spew.
Charles Kaiser:
http://www.cjr.org/full_court_press/above_the_fold_kaiser_on_nyt_t.php
December 03, 2008 05:47 PM
Slanting the Torture Story
Everything you won’t learn about torture in The New York Times[...] If you’ve only been reading The New York Times, [...] almost everyone you have seen quoted [...] has similar points of view.
Most of the Times’s sources don’t think that anyone who formulated or acquiesced in the current administration’s torture policies should be excluded as a candidate for CIA director, or prosecuted for possible violations of criminal law.
The story on the front page of Wednesday morning’s New York Times provides the most recent and the most dramatic example of this syndrome. The story, by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, noted that John O. Brennan had withdrawn his name from consideration for CIA director after liberal critics attacked his role in the agency’s interrogation program, even though Brennan characterized himself as a “strong opponent” within the agency of harsh interrogation techniques. Brennan’s characterization was not disputed by anyone else in the story, even though most experts on this subject agree that Brennan acquiesced in everything that the CIA did in this area while he served there.
Brennan’s self-defense was followed by a quote from another ex-CIA man, Mark Lowenthal, who claimed that Brennan’s downfall “sent a message that ‘if you worked in the C.I.A. during the war on terror, you are now tainted,’ and had created anxiety in the ranks of the agency’s clandestine service.”
“I was aghast reading this,” said Scott Horton, a professor of human rights law [...]
Horton also disputed the idea that an investigation of agency abuses would “would demoralize the line officers of intelligence and the military.” The people saying that are “very very skillfully pointing to the interrogators as being the targets—because they know [the interrogators] would not be the targets. The people who would be the targets are policy makers like [Cheney chief of staff David] Addington, who have the same ability to attract sympathy from the public as cockroaches. I’m not sure that the early part of the story is going to be so embarrassing to the company. There was push back at the beginning; you had pretty high level opposition and Cheney decided to cram it down, which is why they went to get that Department of Justice memo” [authorizing the torture of prisoners].
Horton added that people in the CIA say Brennan is “absolutely correct he wasn’t responsible for shaping this policy; but when he suggests he was a vigorous opponent, they laugh.”
Asked by Full Court Press about Horton’s suspicions that the piece he had co-authored was payback for his sources at the CIA, Mark Mazzetti replied, “What am I going to say to that? It’s like absurd.”
The Times piece also framed the debate as a contest between CIA veterans and the “left flank of the Democratic Party.” But the only opponent to the Bush administration’s torture policy quoted in the piece was retired general Paul D. Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces for the Army in 2003 and 2004.
Eaton, who is one of a group of forty retired admirals and generals opposed to torture, told the Times, “This administration has set a tone problem for the military. We’ve had eight years of undermining good order and discipline.”
I asked Mazzetti if he thought Eaton and his fellow retired generals and admirals regarded themselves part of the “left flank” of the Democratic Party. The Times reporter replied, “I wouldn’t want to comment on that. I think our piece pretty much stands for itself.”
[...]
- - Charles Kaiser
* * * * *
Yesterday, on Rush Limbaugh's daily show, there was a substitute windbag (Rush was out sick), and the substitute windbag was eagerly quoting Mazzetti's article as proof that "even the liberal New York Times" can see that Obama's anti-torture policy is "far left" and dangerous.
Democrats ARE Republicans.
They just like to pretend to be the "good" cop.
You can never say never.
So, just to be clear, you believe that the law should explicitly allow torture in extreme situations, and then we trust our Government leaders to torture only when it's warranted and appropriate.
Even though you're afraid to put it that way, that's exactly what you're advocating, right?
And how is that different from what Bush/Cheney/Addington/Yoo believe? Answer: it's not. It's the same.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
