Red State Renegade

Seymour Hersch, who exposed the My Lai Massacre in the Vietnam war, and the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq, has long insisted that the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes and maintains that the US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib.

Hersh, who has been described by hard-core neocons as “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist,” spoke before the election, in the spirit of hopefulness:

“You cannot believe how many people have told me to call them on 20 January [the date of Obama’s inauguration]… [Saying] You wanna know about abuses and violations? Call me then.”

Well said!:

WOW!

I write the following under a time pressure: The Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to vote on this confirmation tomorrow, November 6.

The Sequel - Brought to you by the gang who confirmed Alberto Gonzales as chief of Torture and Wiretapping:

For weeks now the country has been debating the nomination of Judge Michael Mukasey to succeed Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. A month ago, it looked to be a ’slam dunk’ for this confirmation to succeed unanimously. Both Dems and Republicans seemed to agree that Mukasey would do a ‘heckuva job,’ despite a few misgivings and grunts about some radical decisions made about Presidential powers being outside the scope of law (or something equally ‘quaint’ and unimportant).

That was until his confirmation hearings last month, during which Mukasey was asked by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) if he considered waterboarding a form of torture…leading to the following dodge:

MUKASEY: If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: If it’s torture. That’s a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn’t. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding…is constitutional?

MUKASEY: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I’m very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.

MUKASEY: I’m sorry.

His refusal to categorize waterboarding as torture is downright scary, particularly for the man likely to fill the highest law enforcment slot in the land, and in addition being expected to restore the dignity and effectiveness of the Justice department.

Waterboarding has been around for centuries in various forms:

Developed during the Spanish inquisition at the same time as the Rack and Thumbscrew, for centuries it was used extensively in various European wars, and was among techniques used by organized Christianity to ‘Honor the God of Love and to convince unbelievers of the truth and beauty of the One True Faith.’ (Perhaps things haven’t changed all that much…).

In more modern times, it was used by American soldiers on Filipinos during the Philippine-American War, by the Gestapo and the Japanese in WWII, by the Khmer Rouge and used extensively in most recent conflicts in Africa. American troops were investigated for their use of waterboarding in Vietnam.

There is NO debate about whether this is torture:

While there is nothing new about these methods, there has never been a debate about whether waterboarding was torture. It Was. And IS:

—After WWII, we prosecuted Japanese officers for such crimes at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

—The UN Convention Against Torture prohibits mock executions and the UN committee in charge of enforcing the UNCAT has reprimanded the U.S. for it’s use of waterboarding.

—The Army Field manual specifically prohibits Waterboarding and other forms of torture to be used in interrogations.

—The State Department has repeatedly reprimanded other nations for use of these techniques in it’s annual Human Rights reports.

—The American Psychological Association has written a resolution against torture, specifically condemning ‘water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation.’

—Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, in written testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, stated:

To think that abusive methods, including the enhanced interrogation techniques [including waterboarding], are harmless psychological ploys is contradictory to well established medical knowledge and clinical experience. These methods are intended to break the prisoners down, to terrify them and cause harm to their psyche, and in so doing result in lasting harmful health consequences.

According to Keller, long term effects or waterboarding include “panic attacks, depression and PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder],” and that it poses a “real risk of death.”

—In Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 2006 on the prosecution of terrorists, the Judge Advocate Generals from each branch of the military all unanimously and unambiguously agreed that ‘Waterboarding is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, including Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.’

—Finally, last week a group of retired generals and admirals, also ex-Judge Advocate Generals of the military, wrote a letter to the Judiciary committee to dispel any doubt about this manufactured dispute. Excerpts include:

Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.

This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation

Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.

So…What exactly is Waterboarding?:

The media is enabling this debate by muddying up exactly what Waterboarding is. It is not simply pouring a bucket of water on a detainees head. It is not a quick dunking like you see at the county fair (as Dick Cheney would have you believe).

It is a mock execution playing on one of the strongest human primal fears: the fear of drowning. But according to one expert, it is not a mock drowning - it IS a drowning, from which one may or not be rescued at the brink of death.

From a soldier (and terrorism expert) who has experienced waterboarding firsthand as a victim and a witness:
(I urge you to read this disturbing first hand description in it’s entirety)

Waterboarding is not a simulation.

Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again.

Call it “Chinese Water Torture,” “the Barrel,” or “the Waterfall,” it is all the same. Whether the victim is allowed to comply or not is usually left up to the interrogator. Many waterboard team members, even in training, enjoy the sadistic power of making the victim suffer and often ask questions as an after thought. These people are dangerous and predictable and when left unshackled, unsupervised or undetected they bring us the murderous abuses seen at Abu Ghraieb, Baghram and Guantanamo.

The Administration Knows this is torture:

ABC News last week revealed that in 2004 a high ranking Justice Department Official tasked with reviewing the administration’s legal position on torture was so concerned with the technique of waterboarding that he went to a military base to experience it himself.

Daniel Levin was at the time acting Assistant Attorney General, having replaced another official who himself had quit the department after 9 months because of disagreements over torture and interrogation tactics. Levin was asked to write a memo on these tactics to replace a controversial one removed by his predecessor.

Levin’s new memo began: ‘Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values’ and went on to say that waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision…and that he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use.

After being waterboarded, he told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn’t die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.

So Where are we now?

One would think that a refusal to call waterboarding torture would be reason to refuse Mukasey’s confirmation accross the board.

But two important committee members late last week (Schumer and Feinstein) came out saying that they will reluctantly vote ‘yes’ to such a confirmation.

As far as I can tell, their reasons are spineless as always (they are Democrats, after all).

Something to the effect that ‘this is the best nominee we will get from George Bush’ or the other standard response ‘We just want to move forward.’

So give these wet noodles a call and shake them up. This is truly important. Tell them we all know that waterboarding is torture; and that as torture it is illegal under US and international law; and that anyone running Justice should be able to own up to this fact. There is no debate:

Charles Schumer (D-NY):
Washington Office: 202-224-6542
N.Y. Office: 212-486-4430
Web Email: http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/contact/webform.cfm

Dianne Fienstein (D-CA)
Washington Office: 202-224-3841
San Francisco Office: 415-393-0707
Web Email: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

I suppose it depends on your definition of ‘torture:’

From a Bush press conference this week:

Q Thank you, sir. A simple question.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. It may require a simple answer.

Q What’s your definition of the word “torture”?

THE PRESIDENT: Of what?

Q The word “torture.” What’s your definition?

THE PRESIDENT: That’s defined in U.S. law, and we don’t torture.

Q Can you give me your version of it, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Whatever the law says.

Tell the Democratic Movement that you are sick of their spinelessness!

Are you on the email lists of MoveOn, Edward Kennedy, John Edwards or (gasp) John Kerry? Perhaps you receive email (or regular mail) asking you to sign petitions, or ’send a message’ to someone regarding an issue that bothers progressives?

I just received a message from Edward Kennedy (www.democraticmajority.com) regarding Dick Cheney’s snub of Executive Order 12958, requiring accounting of classification of documents by the executive branch, which Cheney openly has ignored since 2003 and now claims his office does not fall under.

The message includes references to his other violations:

“Under Dick Cheney’s watch, some of our country’s most disgraceful moments have happened — from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib. Because of him, the Bush administration started in secrecy, marched to war in secrecy and will end in secrecy, all with great damage to our Constitution, to our government and to the American people.”

It asks me to sign (yet another) petition to:
“Tell Vice President Cheney he’s not above the Constitution. He can’t rewrite the Constitution to suit himself.”

Supposedly they will send a copy of the Constitution to Mr. Cheney along with all our signatures.

Well if Mr. Cheney is in violation of the Constitution, why are we sending him letters? We’ve been doing that for seven years now and he’s just sneering at them and piling them up in his Mosler safes so that he’ll have something to wipe his ass with when hes done wiping with the Constitution!

Cheney was blatantly and openly challenging the law here. And when the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law went after him, he officially suggested abolishing the agency!

I am SICK of hearing that all we can do is write letters or petitions. That’s pathetic (or as Alberto Gonzales said of the Geneva Conventions, that’s “quaint”).

So this time, rather than sign the letter (like a good little Dem), I unsubscribed to Kennedy’s emails, and explained why in a short letter:

I AM the democratic majority. But I am sick of this congress backing down when it comes to matters of the war, matters involving torture, wiretapping. Why would impeachment be off the table when these guys have very likely broken many laws? Let’s stop writing letters and petitions to these crooks and start investigating and indicting them. Have a spine, congress! That’s what we thought we would get when we elected you!

Maybe if we all start rebelling in this way they will actually get scared and do something.

What do you think?

Remember when we were the good guys?

Yesterday the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing, alleging that the firm, since 2001, “has provided direct and substantial services to the United States for its so-called ‘extraordinary rendition‘ program,” (this being the method in the ‘War on Terror’ of secretly transferring a person to countries allowing harsh interrogation techniques in order to torture them outside the jurisdiction of a state which prohibits it).

The suit, filed on behalf of three men flown to states like Morroco, Syria, and Egypt for brutal interrogations, marks the first time a blue-chip American firm has been accused of profiting from torture.

It alleges the company was responsible for more than 70 such renditions, and quotes a senior company official as claiming “We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights — you know the torture flights. Let’s face it, some of these flights end up that way.”

One claim involves Binyam Mohammed, a 28-year-old Ethiopian citizen and British resident (now at Guantanamo Bay), who was flown to Morocco, then tortured at a series of detention facilities:

“He was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness due to the beatings. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut.”

Ironic, then, that a report commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board of the CIA on the current state of interrogation methods, recently criticized such techniques as outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.

From the N.Y. Times:

The science board critique comes as ethical concerns about harsh interrogations are being voiced by current and former government officials. The top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, sent a letter to troops this month warning that “expedient methods” using force violated American values.

In a blistering lecture delivered last month, a former adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called “immoral” some interrogation tactics used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon.

But in meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.

“There’s an assumption that often passes for common sense that the more pain imposed on someone, the more likely they are to comply,” said Randy Borum, a psychologist at the University of South Florida who, like several of the study’s contributors, is a consultant for the Defense Department.

Maybe this administration watches a little too much Jack Bauer?

How to get Alberto Gonzales and his cronies to testify under oath if they aren’t willing or will plead the fifth?

I say rendition them! Take them to Guantanamo, or, even better, Abu Ghraib prison:

Is that tasteless? Harsh? This could only be too good for the man who argued four months after 9-11 that the new War on Terror:

“renders obsolete [The Geneva Conventions’] strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.”