Good Points by JMM on TPM about KSM

Those acronyms: JMM = Joshua Michah Marshall, TPM = Talking Points Memo, KSM = Kentucky Sizzled Mohammad.

JMM has right ideas about why it's good for KSM to have a fair trial (bold is from me):

...This isn't just a matter of wanting to see punishment. It also vindicates our system of justice and values -- and for it all to happen here, the scene of the crime, among the people of this city, not out on some island or in some secret jail.

Listening to the questions at Attorney General Holder's press conference, I'm hearing again fears about giving the defendants a platform "to air their hateful views." But really, who is so cowardly as to worry about what these five say? Is our standing and self-respect so brittle?

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says it makes New York City more of a target for attacks. And there's at least some logic to the argument. But fundamentally, I don't think terrorists aren't attacking New York because they don't think there's enough reason to do so. And I trust the appropriate officials will keep the city's people safe.

There's a widespread belief that many seem to have that calling these people criminals and treating them as such somehow elevates their status and diminishes the fact that al Qaeda has effectively been making war on the United States. I've never understood this mindset. The key point in World War II is that at the end of the war the Allies would not deign to accord the leaders of Germany and Japan the respect accorded to defeated armies. They were tried as criminals. Because that is what they were.

Whether it's fear that our justice system can't mete justice out to these men, or worry that KSM or the others might mouth off about us at their trial, or concern about future attacks, I am continually surprised that the voices of cowardice and fear manage to convince themselves and others that they speak for courage and determination.

There does seem to be two Americas, the cowards and the brave. And the brave are those who believe, truly, in the Constitution. The cowards seem to be the ones who love America because their mom happened to be on a particular piece of dirt when she gave birth.

Goldblog: Ketziot & Abu Ghraib

I've rapidly changed my opinion about Jeffrey Goldberg. When I read his pieces in the New Yorker, he sounded like just another American leftist against Israel. But then I found out that he actually lived in Israel and served in the IDF - which is way better than what I've done. So his Zionist bona-fides are greater than mine and as such, I allow him his left-wing opinions. I say 'allow' and not 'agree' because I can still think he's wrong - but since he's paid his dues and comes to his opinions from real experience, he's an "Israeli" voice in my mind, and not a Diaspora Jew.

That said, read his post about comparing his IDF service as a prison guard in Ketziot to the reports about Abu Ghraib. Here's the first few lines to whet your appetite. How Ketziot Never Could Have Prepared Me for Abu Ghraib:

When Sy Hersh first told me about Abu Ghraib, I could not understand him, and not merely because he begins sentences in the middle of sentences. This was a problem of cognition. I had long ago built a template in my mind about these sorts of issues, and the story Sy was telling me did not fit.

This template was something I devised in the 1991, when I was a military policeman at the Ketziot Military Prison Camp in the Negev Desert of Israel. I had moved to Israel at the age of 20. I was drafted, and after many strange and discomfiting turns, I found myself in Ketziot, where I didn't want to be, for several reasons, including a) it's very hot in the Negev and I have the melanin of a Finn; b) I was raised as a socialist Zionist, which meant that I was a Jewish nationalist who opposed the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza; c) the job itself, which was to maintain order in a prison holding 6,000 Palestinians, most of whom would kill me if given a chance. This is not to say that I wouldn't die for Israel. I just didn't want to die enforcing an occupation I thought morally and politically dubious.

Pic from here. Backpost finished 2009-12-06.

Torture Update

So the Times reports that the Canadian government officially believes that the United States tortures!:

Late last month, a federal judge in Canada ruled that the United States had violated international conventions on torture and the rights of refugees.

This is a matter of international law! How long will the US Press use the Cheney-Orwellian language to obscure the fact - clearly known by every other country but ours - that we torture! This is despicable.

Pic is the well-known Abu Ghraib torture still. Backpost finished on 2009-11-26.

Torture

There are people who believe that the Bush Administration hasn't consciously created and enforced a policy of torture. These people are either (a) seriously not paying attention (about 80-90% of the US population), (b) are credulous folk who believe the nice George when he says "[Read my lips] We do not torture," (c) the rest are Republican meat-heads who will echo whatever Bush/Rush/Headvoices tell them to believe.

There are people who do believe it's now American policy to torture. These people are either (a) Michael Moore types who believe that Bush regularly rapes kittens and purposely eats chili so he can use the Constitution as a Ty-D-Bowl wipe; (b) hardline Republicans who dearly hope we are torturing people because what's the point of being powerful if you don't boot people in the head? And then there's (c) people who read the papers/internet.

When my children ask in 10-15 years, "Daddy, what did you do when our government turned criminal?" I'll need a good story to tell them. I spoke out about the issue from the pulpit, I've written to my representatives. But, sadly, until it becomes a proven fact, I can't do much more. Before the Press and Congress confirm the facts, anyone who claims we torture has only circumstantial evidence.

However, there's some more recent evidence that not only do we torture, but that it's international knowledge. Other countries' governments know we torture, but Congress is still in the dark. [Barfing sound.]

Scott Horton, from Harpers, on December 1, cites two disturbing examples of how this plays out internationally:

Is America a nation that tortures? The question is being asked all around the world. It’s not a matter of idle speculation. Under international treaties, which many nations, not being liberated by the law-what-law?mantra of the Neocons, treat very seriously, there are specific prohibitions about cooperation with nations which torture. In particular, there is article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which forbids any state party to return a prisoner to a nation where he is likely to be tortured.

In 2006, I had an off-the-record discussion with the chief law enforcement officer of one of America’s most important allies. Having read the torture memoranda out of the Justice Department, and having seen the reports issued by the Department of the Army dealing with abuses in Abu Ghraib, Bagram and Guantánamo, I asked, is your Government in a position to engage in prisoner exchanges with the Americans or to allow American interrogators unfettered access to persons in your Government’s custody? He responded in a manner that showed the question had been studied carefully. “I can assure you that we take our obligations under article 3 very seriously. We will not speak publicly about this, but of course we have terminated cooperation with the United States in ways that would violate article 3. And of course we have reached the only possible conclusion, which is that the United States has embraced torture as a matter of formal policy.” This is a nation which continues to be one of our dwindling number of allies, but it faces increasingly steep challenges in cooperating while it complies with the requirements of law.

And this judgment is a very broad one—now shared almost universally by America’s allies. We don’t have to consider what the enemies think.

More evidence of this phenomenon in a very important decision handed down on Thursday by Canada’s Federal Court. Professor Jaya Ramji-Nogales, who’s been patiently tracking the matter, furnishes a report:

Yesterday, the Canadian Federal Court issued an opinion in the case Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International, and John Doe v. Her Majesty The Queen. This case challenges the “Safe Third Country Agreement” between Canada and the United States that came into force in December 2004. This agreement provides that, with limited exceptions, individuals who first enter either Canada or the United States and then attempt to cross a land border into the other country in order to lodge an asylum claim must be returned to claim asylum in the first country they entered. In assessing the constitutionality of the agreement, the Canadian Court found that the United States does not comply adequately with Article 33 of the UN Refugee Convention, which prohibits return to persecution, or Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits return to torture — specifically naming the Maher Arar case as an example of the United States’ failure to protect.

As one of the experts who described the ways in which U.S. asylum law (in particular, the one-year filing deadline) violates international law, I am proud to note that the court found “the Applicant’s experts to be more credible, both in terms of their expertise and the sufficiency, directness and logic of their reports” and “more objective and dispassionate in their analysis and report” than the government’s experts. Of particular note, the Court found that “it would be unreasonable to conclude that the one-year bar, as it is applied in the U.S., is consistent with the Convention Against Torture and the Refugee Convention” and that this bar “has a disproportionate impact on gender and sexual orientation claims” for asylum. The Court also found that women making asylum claims based on domestic violence are not sufficiently protected under U.S. law. The long decision is well worth a read, and while it bodes well for asylum seekers in Canada (assuming that the judge’s final order, after further submissions, follows this opinion, and that the decision survives appeal), it reads as a damning critique of the treatment of those seeking protection in the United States.

That’s the long version. Here’s the short version: “We do not torture?” That claim has been formally reviewed by a court and found to be a lie.

Just to review: according to two close allies, Canada and an as yet unnamed country, have legally considered our country to be one that tortures. Is that proof enough?

The ticking sound you hear is the silence from Congress. Grrr.

{2009 Update: First pic from here, second from here.}

Those Wacky Sudanis

As you've probably read today (e.g. this NYTimes story) the government of Sudan has convicted British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons of Crimes Against Islam for allowing her 7 year old students name a teddy bear Mohammad (which, according to the Wiki, was chosen because its the name of a boy in the class). The punishment for Gibbons could have been death or whipping, instead she got 2 weeks in jail and deportation.

Today, hundreds of Sudanese protesters called for Gibbons' execution.

Now, I won't take the time to explain why this situation is disgusting. It does underscore just how dangerous it is to be a first grade teacher. Parent teacher conferences with radical Islamicists must be tense. I can imagine that there's heavy grade inflation.

But the real issue is that the people of Sudan are asking their government to execute this woman for her crimes against Mohammad. Because we all know he needs all the help he can get. However, this is also the same government that's in part responsible for the genocide in Darfur.

As the State department, uh, states:

The Sudanese government’s disastrous decision to arm, direct, and pay Northern Arab tribes, now called the Janjaweed, as their proxies in the war against Darfur’s rebels led to genocide and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and the destruction of their villages and livelihoods

I just find that you need to have your priorities *seriously* out of whack when you consider a crime against a Teddy Bear to be of graver concern than ethnic cleansing.

We Need a New Excuse

The Washington Post had a story last week about a bunch of veterans who were tasked with the Top Secret task of interrogating Nazis. And, no, they didn't torture.

Didn't torture Nazis? Didn't they realize they were in a war? Against Nazis?? Well, sure, they knew that. But it appears they didn't torture for two important reasons:

1. Torture is morally wrong (and especially when torture is the hallmark of your enemy... how can you use their hated tool?)
   
   
2. Torture DOES NOT WORK.

Here's the facts: the president has authorized torture. And against people who have largely turned out innocent. Congress seems to know that this is happening. Yet, the American people, so far, have not erupted in outrage. It looks like the President will not be impeached.

Here's the problem: HOW??!? I thought the American people have tacitly accepted torture because we were attacked on 9/11, so that allows the president to do whatever he durn well pleases to anyone he wants. Kill, torture, rape innocent people - why not? - because we were attacked. Wah wah, poor us.

Yet we were attacked in WWII, too. Remember Pearl Harbor, day live in infamy, ring a bell? No? It was like 9/11. No? It was a big deal, believe me. Anyway, we didn't turn into rabid, stupid monsters back then... so why now?

We need a new excuse.

P.S. Next time some moron says that great people don't make history, remember the difference between FDR and GWB.

{2009 Update: Great pic of the Torture Statue of Liberty from here.}

A Moment of Historical Maturity

Are we as a country mature enough in our collective ego and our adherence to justice to admit that our government has perpetrated crimes against humanity, and to bring the criminals to justice?

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, Addington, Yoo, Rove etc. They are clearly guilty. Will we do what is right and just?

The next president will need to do that; which candidate will? No republican, for sure. Edwards, maybe. Obama, maybe. Clinton, probably not.

In Front of Our Nose

The body of a letter to Andrew Sullivan, re: this.

First of all, congratulations on the move to the Atlantic. I guess as a resident of both sides, you're an Oceanic expert.

Second, re: In Front of Our Nose: I always thought that Cheney's attack on Wilson was a small piece of Cheney's antagonism to the CIA.

The CIA didn't play ball when Cheney tried to paint Iraq as the answer to Bush's weaknesses - even before 9/11 - and after 9/11 (when the pretext for an Iraq attack was folded into the war on Al-Qaeda) the CIA was still giving insufficiently politicized intelligence. Cheney eventually succeeded in forcing the CIA to bend to his will - as we saw with George "Slam Dunk" Tenet - which set them up to be the scapegoat for any future failure. The result was a public humiliation of the CIA's effectiveness - shaming the whole professional intelligence officer class. Then Cheney replaced the disgraced Tenet with a hack appointee. This led to a large number of professionals resigning. Then the CIA was demoted in role, yet still being held as the scapegoat for whatever abuses Cheney has ordered (secret prisons, torture).

All in all, Cheney's outing of Plame was part of a plan to cow the heads of the CIA so that Cheney could use them as his cover/victims for all the crimes he intended to commit in the name of national security.

[I just re-read that last paragraph and it makes me sound like a bug-eyed loony, but that is the type of life we're living nowadays.]

Backpost; put up 3-23-2009. I had everything below, why don't I publish these at the time??

Impeachment, Gonzales

As I've said before, I am looking forward to the impeachment of the major up-foulers in the Executive Branch. It should be inevitable, given the levels of malfeasance and criminality. Wireless wiretaps and torture lead the day but the fabricated intelligence that lead to the Iraq War, or the negligence with Katrina could also work.

It's similar to how Saddam will be executed for a teeny-weeny mass murder (hundreds of victims) instead of the full hundreds of thousands. Murder is murder, dead will be dead. I just want Saddam to stay alive until all his misdeeds are put into public record. Killing him too quick may prevent us from finding the full truth (and who else participated).

So too with Bush. He should be impeached for every single sickbag thing he's done. And his dog Cheney too. How the information is revealed will determine whether he'll go out like Nixon or stay in office like Reagan/Bush 41. My feeling tends to Nixon because the horrors were domestic. All Reagan/Bush did in Iran-Contra was dupe congress and fund atrocities abroad. Yawn. Nixon, however, helped cover up for a freakin' burglary. It was pathetic.

However, it's not just that the American people don't particularly mind if a president declares a stupid war but they do care about criminal negligence on these shores. Nixon was impeached because the FBI hated him and kept the heat on, leaking information from the Grand Jury to Woodward and Bernstein, etc. The FBI killed Nixon, the FBI/CIA didn't care about Iran-Contra.

That's why Bush is likely to go down like Nixon - because Bush has tried to destroy the CIA and Bush/Rumsfeld has been abusing the military. Two big institutions with a lot of domestic support (military) and/or access to skeletons (CIA). If the Democrats play this right, they'll get all the info they need from the Army/CIA and Bush will be toast. The Republicans will dump him so they can save 2008.

My prediction of impeachment, now that the Democrats won, is that as soon as the water starts to boil, Cheney will bail. Health reasons, ya know. If we're lucky, he'll go out like Casey. But his early departure can come with a promise of leniency if he names names. He would, too. It's just that he's the top prize, but like Kaiser Sose he'll leave the Meathead In Chief to take the fall.

Anyway, when Cheney leaves, Kaiser Rove will find someone to replace him. At this point, were the GOP to have decency and sanity, they would find a lone Republican with a brain and a heart. Someone untainted by this administration who can plausibly run in 2008 from a position of experience and strength. Any of the putative, moderate, front-runners like McCain or Giuliani. Or someone completely free and clean, like John Danforth. That won't happen. My prediction is that they'll choose Alberto Gonzales.

Yup, Torturin' Al. He'll be chosen because (as seen below) the GOP believes they can purchase respectability by trotting out their token minorities. Who cares if Alberto is a horrible, talentless lackey? What matters is that he is loyal to the Bush Family and can use his skin-color as a get-out-jail-free card.

Once the VP is in place, Bush's impeachment will follow. He may resign before it gets too far. I hope he won't and he actually might not.

Bush's defining characteristic, even more than his staggering stupidity or his lack of any positive moral quality (compassion? no; respect for human dignity? no; generosity? no), is his need to appear strong despite crushing internal weakness. He's a bully; a dumb, rich bully.

Being a dumb rich bully leads to his well documented inability to distinguish between success and failure. Exhibit A: Iraq; B: Katrina; etc. So in the disused piece of meat that is his brain, he may think that sticking through an impeachment hearing will be the strong, manly thing. He'll repeatedly ask "What Would Jesus Do [Were Jesus mean stupid and corrupt]?" and come up with the answer that he wants.

It would be nice to have a successful impeachment after 217 years; to finally set the bar for malfeasance to come.

All this means that we may be looking at a President Gonzales or Rice in a year.

Hezbullah preventing civilians from fleeing

This comes from Yedioth Achronot, not known for their rightwingyness, nor for being a mouthpiece of the government. The head of IDF intelligence says that:

The IDF has found that Hezbollah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hezbollah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hezbollah have broken out. (Hanan Greenberg)

Jewish POWs under the Nazis

I was just alerted to this NYTimes piece from the end of February which describes how some American Jewish POWs were treated under Nazi Germany: The Lost Soldiers of Stalag IX-B

Israeli Flag for War Crimes

In the description of American "war crimes" (that's what the story, War Crimes [washingtonpost.com], calls 'em), which includes our friendly torture of the random prisoners in Guantanamo, the interrogators would torment their victims with

"humiliations such as being wrapped in an Israeli flag."

That's a direct quote.

I love this. I love the fact that our government is torturing people. I love the fact that the people in Guantanamo are denied civil and human rights. I love that the legal genius who allowed this to happen is our new Attorney General. I love that Bush is such a friend of Israel that he uses their flag as a tool of torture and humiliation.

Can one of you GOP supporters explain this to us?

Backpost finished 2/15/05

Four More Years of Abu Ghraib

Just in case the recent pronouncements of the domestic agenda and the 'political capital' of a razor thin victory have confused you, the reports are coming in of systemic abuses in Guantanamo prison (AP: Guantanamo Abuses Reported.)

This was one reason why Bush had to lose: so the abuse, which was ordered down from the highest levels of the Executive Branch, could have been exposed and the 'evildoers' brought to justice.

I won't say that anyone who supports Bush or voted for he and his mobsters is guilty of suppressing these crimes. As I said before, you Republicans have a chance to communicate to your Embarrassment in Chief that you want justice done. As non-base, I will be ignored (to say the least).

But if Abu Ghraib, and now Guantanamo, doesn't keep you up at night, then there's not much hope for you as a moral person.

The ICRC Report

Good ol' Smoking Gun. They got the goods on the torture in Iraq: Red Cross: Iraqi Treatment "Tantamount To Torture" - May 10, 2004

P.S. one of my favorite Smoking Gun archives is the conversion of Marilyn Monroe.

Get it Yet?

I've been saying for a few days, more emphatically, about the evil of this administration. In today's Times, see this wonderful sound-bite from Herr Rumsfeld:

On his flight to Iraq on Thursday, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him that the Geneva Conventions were open to interpretation.

"There are always going to be differences of views as to whether something does or doesn't" adhere to the conventions, he said. "The test is what is decided and what is issued, and then is it adhered to."

Explain Why Not Bush

I was asked tonight by a reader why I am calling for voting for Kerry and not Bush. The answer is that Bush needs to go and Kerry just happens to be the guy next in line.

Why does Bush need to go? One word: evil.

Or, as he would put it, 'evildoer.'

Let's remember Nixon. Nixon was as bad as we said he was then. People didn't believe someone could be that evil. He was.

And I'm not saying that everyone I disagree with is evil. I don't think that George Bush I was evil. James Baker, yes; Sununu, yes; not Bush Sr. Reagan wasn't, Carter wasn't, Ford wasn't. Nixon was. Bush Jr. is.

His support of Israel, his only redeeming quality, is a commodity to be bought and sold. He supports Israel not for the same reasons I do. I support Israel, as a thinking and moral American (not as a Jew) because it is the only Democracy in the Mideast, a steadfast friend to the US, and a stalwart moral force in the world as evidenced by their treatment of minorities and refugees.

Bush supports Israel because they're the only other country that has been fighting Arabs.

I said it many times before. Bush is a thief and a brute. He wants to keep in power so he can keep impoverishing the government and help his buddies in specific big businesses. Just look at his track record!

The war in Iraq was not Bush's idea. He's so happy just having a job (he's been a drunk and a loser all his life). Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq. 9/11 was just a convenient excuse to do something they had planned from the beginning.

I ask the Republicans to not nominate Bush for re-election. Run someone decent and I will be happy. Have McCain, or another moral decent honest dude, run for president against Kerry. Without that, the Republicans have no choice either.

Who'da Thunk It?

Andrew Sullivan actually agrees with me... whoa:

"JONAH TAKES THE BAIT: I can see where he's coming from, but Jonah Goldberg is surely wrong when he writes: 'Well, CBS' scoop has gotten someone killed and there will be more deaths, on both sides, as a result of this story before it becomes history.' The photographs emphatically did not get Berg killed, no more than they got Daniel Pearl killed. Al Qaeda may have exploited the photographs as a propaganda tool, but we know they need no 'reason' to behead or massacre Americans. The only reason they need is that the person is an infidel and in their captivity. Believing that this is an actual response by Zarqawi to Abu Ghraib is to accept Zarqawi's own spin. "

Guess What? Safire Has New Sugar Daddy

William Safire, who came of age on the knee of Nixon, has a new and disgusting cognitive dissonance: Rumsfeld Should Stay

According to Safire: "The highly effective defense secretary owes it to the nation's war on terror to soldier on."

I don't know if anybody in the rational world can call Rumsfeld 'effective' at this point. The war is a shambles. Pentagon officials are now releasing and leaking their long-held opinions that the war was and is fought in an amateurish and puerile manner.

Safire tries to stave off criticism by some strange story that "Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights" in 2001. Like past performance has any relevance to current behavior (and the 2002 assertion, quoted before, about “isolated pockets of international hyperventilation.”

Safire even believes Rumsfeld's claim that he was the last to see the photos:

"Why nobody searched out and showed him those incendiary pictures immediately reveals sheer stupidity on the part of the command structure and his Pentagon staff."

Poor Safire, a doddering senior citizen with betrayal issues. It's sad to see that the big supporters of Israel are, in point of fact, morons.

More of Abu Ghraib

Herr Rumsfeld warned us on Friday that worse is to come. According to the new New Yorker piece by Seymour Hersh:

NBC News later quoted U.S. military officials as saying that the unreleased photographs showed American soldiers “severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi prisoner, and ‘acting inappropriately with a dead body.’ The officials said there also was a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys."

Any of you out there deny the need for resignation and/or impeachment?

"Isolated pockets of International Hyperventilation"

Herr Rumsfeld, explaining in February 2002 his attitude towards Prisoners of War: Rumsfeld Explains Detainee Status (DefenseLINK News)