Peace in the Middle East: What Are the Possibilities

Israel-Palestine -- 

In my opinion, there is no possibility to settle this generational struggle as long as a conservative hawk heads the government in Israel.  It will not matter what any Palestinian leader does, or what progress Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza make.  The two sides are not even talking to each other right now because of Israel's continuation of settlement activity. Our diplomatic man in the Middle East, former Senator George Mitchell, will be attempting to reinvent Henry Kissinger's style of shuttle diplomacy, going back and forth between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  But he is not the only big gun in the region.

Vice President Joe Biden has also gone to Israel to work on restarting the Middle East peace process, it is well reported by Steve Clemons at the Washington Note.  Just to show the United States not to get too cocky about its chances, Israel announced 1600 more buildings in the nation's continued settlement of occupied east Jerusalem disputed territory. Then Israel apologized for embarrassing Biden, according to Yahoo! News. 

Iraq --

The chances for peace seem a bit better in Iraq, though it is still a long shot.  Most of the major differences have yet to be settled.  Sunday was election day in Iraq.  Over 60% of the people turned out to vote for members of the new parliament.  Current Prime Minister Malak, a Shiia,  will probably win the most votes, though not a majority.  This election the Sunnis did not boycott voting, and will gather a lot of votes.  It will, thus, take some months for the PM candidate with the most votes to form a new coalition government.  What will happen in the meantime?

The big question is whether Iraq will descend into civil war when the U.S. withdraws its combat forces.  Will an insurgency begin to gather steam again?  Or will the Shiia, Sunni and Kurdish sectors be able to work out their differences peacefully?  Will all the years of the United States waging a counterinsurgency war in Iraq bear any fruit whatsoever?  For background on our "Counterinsurgency Operations in Iraq," see the video of this fine conference broadcast on C-SPAN  March 5, 2010.  The excellent panel included Patrick Cronin, Andrew Exum, Thomas Ricks and Linda Robinson.

Possibilities for peace in the Middle East were never good under the previous Bush administration, populated as it was by neocons.  It is becoming more apparent that not peace, but domination, was the goal.  A new book by "Bush's brain," Karl Rove is causing a great deal of consternation as he tries to rewrite the last 10  years of history of the region.  Karl Rove's book is about the wrong person, according to a recent guest post by Lawrence Wilkerson at The Washington Note.  Wilkerson's theory is that Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge, and that the war in Iraq was always about the oil needs of the United States.  Cheney's behavior since leaving office bears that out.  He has never been a peaceful man and seems incapable of change.


Possibilities for peace in the Middle East are better under the Obama administration, in my opinion.  They are smarter and more pragmatic.  Its leaders are less troubled by hubris, and less beholden to the military-industrial complex.  I leave you with a great new website for following President Obama's peace processes, when and if they happen:


Reference -- The Middle East Channel on Twitter.


[Post date: March 10, 2010]



See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.
Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.
Technorati tags: [tagname]

Frozen in place: When conciliation is a bad thing --

Former Vice President Richard Cheney is working on his memoirs and assuring its success with a good deal of news making prior to its publication. Thursday's Washington Post article by Barton Gellman adds to the breathless anticipation of Cheney's potential reading public by promising revelations of previously unreported opinions and events. Here's a Hit Tip to journalist Mark Knoller, who posted several insightful tweets about the article, along with a generous suggestion to "buy the paper" to read the story.

The Cheney piece heads the current list of "most viewed political articles" on the WaPo website. And I read it immediately, too. Headlined, "Cheney uncloaks his frustration with Bush," it reveals more little juicy tidbits guaranteed to keep us all panting to read the published tome from cover to cover. One of the most interesting to me was this aspect of Cheney's frustration with Bush, whom he evidently thinks "went soft." To quote:

Cheney's disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."

. . . The former vice president remains convinced of mortal dangers that few other leaders, in his view, face squarely. That fixed belief does much to explain the conduct that so many critics find baffling. He gives no weight, close associates said, to his low approval ratings, to the tradition of statesmanlike White House exits or to the grumbling of Republicans about his effect on the party brand.

Cheney's intrigue -- What is it that keeps us all fascinated with this man, who guarded his privacy so jealously until now? As a retired psychotherapist, I am interested in his psychological make-up, particularly his apparently persistent paranoia. Others have their own reasons. But there is no doubt that his book will jump to the top of the charts when it comes out, which will please his daughter Liz, at whose suggestion Cheney is writing the book, despite past disdain for officials who wrote "tell all" books upon leaving office. It appears that he is not "frozen in place" on this issue.

Richard Cheney appears to have acquired fixed beliefs that are frozen in place, however. The first is in the concept of the "unitary" presidency, born after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace. And the second is in a very dark world with enemies waiting to pounce and destroy him and the nation. With a model like that, is it any wonder that there is such fear mongering and craziness associated with Republican opposition to everything Obama.

[Post date - August 13, 2009]

My Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites. See also Behind the Links.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics republicans cheney

The Big Tug of War --

News items about national security are emerging more rapidly in recent weeks. Despite the stated preference for "not looking back," the stories have emerged that lead to a buildup of momentum. According to The New York Times, former Vice President Cheney is linked to the concealment of a highly classified CIA program, until it was recently revealed to Congress by CIA Director Leon Panetta. To quote:

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

President Obama is increasingly under pressure to change his mind about investigating the Bush administration's security programs, despite the political risks. Sunday talk shows saw leading Democrats demanding to find out how a highly classified counter terrorism program was kept secret from the Congressional leadership on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney. The New York Times published a subsequent news analysis that lays out where the investigative push is, and from whom. To quote:

. . . Mr. Obama said this weekend that he had asked his staff members to review the mass killing of prisoners in Afghanistan by local forces allied with the United States as it toppled the Taliban regime there.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is also close to assigning a prosecutor to look into whether prisoners in the campaign against terrorism were tortured, officials disclosed on Saturday.

And after a report from five inspectors general about the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping said on Friday that there had been a number of undisclosed surveillance programs during the Bush years, Democrats sought more information.

. . . That makes four fronts on which the intelligence apparatus is under siege. It is just the kind of distraction from Mr. Obama’s domestic priorities — repairing the economy, revamping the health care system, and addressing the long-term problems of energy and climate — that the White House wanted to avoid.

Revelations about the CIA and torture, deliberate deception of Congressional Intelligence committees, and emerging Inspectors General reports seem to heading towards formal investigations that the Obama administration, including the Attorney General, and Congress may not be able to resist. Glenn Greenwald's post yesterday provides one of the best overviews of the current climate, along with what others who stay on top of these issues are saying. It seems that this tug of war is far from over. The weight of the law will somehow have its way, if we remain vigilant and have a bit of luck along the way.

[Post date - July 13, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics national security torture rule of law

This and that about harsh interrogation - an issue that will not go away.

Psychologists in the military were deeply involved with programs that utilized harsh interrogation techniques. And they did it with the the full support of the American Psychological Association (APA). The professional organization of psychologists supported the government’s illegal interrogation program. They were in advisory roles, they assisted with implementation and even initiated torture programs that are still being highly criticized, the more we find out. Calls for independent investigation have not diminished. Other prefessionals, such as doctors, psychiatrists and social workers withdrew their support of the government's policies.,"American Psychological Association Sees No Evil," is from ACLU Blog of Rights (6/16/09). To quote from the piece:

The role that psychologists played in the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies is slowly being made public.

. . . Meanwhile many, perhaps most, members of the APA were unaware of the policies that were being carried out in their name. I shall briefly describe how the APA aided and abetted the U.S. government in Guantánamo Bay and the CIA black sites, and the steps that a number of psychologists are taking to end this unholy alliance.

. . . [Author] Ghislaine Boulanger,Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst and the author of Wounded by Reality: Understanding and Treating Adult Onset Trauma.In 2006, in reaction to the American Psychological Association’s cooperation with the Bush administration’s interrogation practices of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and CIA black sites, Dr. Boulanger withheld her APA membership dues and began a listserv for like-minded psychologists. She is a founding member of Psychologists for an Ethical APA.

"Accountability for torture" is the new ACLU website that consolidates everything about the U.S. torture programs in one comprehensive location. Glenn Greenwald raved about it (on 6/11/09):

The ACLU today launched a major new campaign to impose accountability for torture and related Bush-era crimes. The campaign -- Accountability for Torture -- is devoted principally to a restoration of the rule of law and the appointment by the DOJ of a Special Prosecutor. The website to coordinate these efforts is here, and that site is also now probably the single best resource for all documents and other information relating to torture and accountability efforts. The ACLU has clearly led the way in battling for disclosure of Bush-era war crimes secrets
-- so much of what we know is due to their litigation efforts and those of other civil liberties groups (rather than, say, the efforts of the "watchdog" media or the "oversight" Congress). But what has been missing up until now is a coordinated, centralized effort to galvanize public demands for accountability, and this project is intended to provide that.

At the American Civil Liberties Union's new "Accountability for Torture" action center, Executive Director Anthony Romerero suggests that interested people "help submit evidence and demand accountability" of Attorney General Eric Holder. (Democrats.com also offers a petition to Congress and A.G. Holder, that you can sign). To quote further from ACLU,

At this comprehensive and resource-filled new site, you can also view videos that make a powerful case for accountability…see profiles of the main architects of the Bush torture program…and use a search engine to examine the mountains of evidence the ACLU has obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.

The harsh interrogation techniques using torture started long before the Office of Legal Counsel gave advice and counsel or rules to those carrying out the interrogationsl. Salon.com's outstanding writer, Glenn Greenwald says what the new Jim Comey torture emails actually reveal, is different than what Bush administration spokesmen claim. To quote :

[regarding] how these DOJ torture memos were actually produced. The key excerpts tell the story as clearly as can be. Comey was vehemently opposed to a draft memo written by Acting OLC Chief Steven Bradbury -- ultimately dated May 10, 2005 (.pdf) -- that legally authorized the simultaneous, combined use of numerous "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees. This "combined techniques" memo was crucial because these were the tactics that had already been used on detainees, and -- after the prior OLC memos authorizing those tactics were withdrawn -- the White House was desperate for legal approval for what they had already done and what they wanted to do in the future.

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Fla) is a fierce fighter for accountability regarding the Bush torture programs. He supports "an investigation into the Bush administration policies" and he has "introduced legislation that would establish a special select House Committee to reexamine our national security after a full investigation. . ." Representative Wexler reminds us that recently General David Petraeus supported President Obama's stance against torture. And General Ricardo Sanchez, "called for a truth commission to investigate the abuses and torture" while he was serving in Iraq, according to Wexler.

Jeff Stein, who writes Spy Talk for The Congressional Quarterly, recently made a very interesting behind the scenes report about the torture photographs that the White House does not want to reveal. His post, "Is the White House calling Tony Taguba a liar?," gives General Anthony Taguba, who officially investigated Abu Ghraib, credit for reportedly hinting at the fact that the torture photographs now in question existed. His very revealing post came as a result of an interview with Taguba as they were attending an off the record conference on torture recently in Florence, Italy. Stein described the meeting: "for three days last week, about 40 scholars, lawyers, government officials and journalists, mostly from the United States, gathered in Florence to talk about torture, among other urgent topics of the post-9/11 era."

References from Tom Head who writes on Civil Liberties for About.com: Torture and Trust, Is Torture Ever Justified?, and, Jane Mayer and the New Literature of U.S. Human Rights

Bush leftovers

Former President George W. Bush has been out of office for almost four months. Blessedly, the man has been quiet since he moved to Dallas. We see him occasionally on the local TV, or read a little something in the paper, but he seems to be truly retired. That left a vacuum of leadership in the Republican party that has been devasting to it members and devotees and a delight to Democrats. A number of people are not shy about offering their opinions and being in the news.

One of them is Karl Rove, who was set for an interview Friday with a special prosecutor investigating the firing of 9 U.S. attorneys from the Bush administration in 2007. Rove is said to be willing to cooperate. The House Judiciary Committee is conducting a similar investigation. Rove and Harriet Miers are expected to testify in coming weeks, according to Politico. If the Bush administration brought the Justice Department to its knees, it also actively sabotaged the environmental movement in favor of the energy sector. And the Democrats came into leadership not a moment too soon, given global warming and energy dependence on foreign oil.

With the impending congressional work on climate change legislation, opposing forces are lining up on both sides. A number of the Bush administration's people associated with the environment will now be paid to work actively against Congress' efforts to pass meaningful laws to regulate carbon emissions, etc. A few have now gone to work for environmental organizations, reports Politico, who also believes that it is unclear how much influence the "Bush Enviros" will have with Democrats writing the bills.

These days I am more and more sure it is past time to get into the refrigerator and clean out the leftovers. There seems to be much enthusiasm within the most conservative base for doing the same thing. Colin Powell was redefined as a Democrat by Dick Cheney. Cheney is so leftover that he is really beginning to smell. Rove has passed his prime. Tom Delay was discarded none too soon. But there is still much to do.

Reference: "What is 'Right-Wing Extremism?" by James Vega of The Democratic Strategist (PDF). May 2009.

[Post date - May 18, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics republicans

CIA-OLC-Gitmo Primer

It took a large number of people and organizations to get the torture program up and running at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Spy Talk's Jeff Stein writes that repetetive interrogations revealed the CIA's lack of spies, according to a number of agency veterans. One of the most bizarre aspects of the program was the participation of psychologists. ProPublica has investigated this part of the story and written an important article on the subject: "A Secret E-mail Argument Among Psychologists About Torture," by Sheri Fink, (5/8/09). To quote:

As part of our report* we posted a listserv of internal emails between staff of the American Psychological Association and members of its "Psychological Ethics and National Security" task force. (Here’s the entire listserv.) That listserv offers a rare look into a process that led to the adoption of an influential and controversial policy for the world's largest professional organization of psychologists, which represents the profession of psychology in the United States. It also provides a window into a heated discussion among medical professionals grappling with their ethical obligations and their possible complicity in torture.

Liberals want accountability for those who wrote the "torture memos" regarding harsh interrogation techniques. President Obama is opposed to a "truth commission," as suggested by Senator Leahy; an independent inquiry, as suggested by House Speaker Pelosi and opposed by the Senate; or even an independent prosecutor, unless prosecution was recommended by the DOJ. Some liberals have suggested the impeachment of federal judge Jay Bybee, one of the memo authors. And, unlike many U.S. news sources, Al Jazeera headlined (5/6/09) that the "US [is] 'likely to probe Bush lawyers," citing Scott Horton, a professor of military law at Columbia University in New York. To quote Horton:

. . . the results of the inquiry would very likely form the basis "for a criminal investigation being commenced".

"There is likely to be a criminal investigation that will look at the entire process of introducing torture in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and other places as a result of decisions that we now know were ultimately taken in the White House itself," he said.

"These lawyers played a key role in that entire process."

Horton added that the report would "heighten the pressure on the attorney-general [Eric Holder] for the appointment of a special prosecutor" to investigate the lawyers' actions.

"I think the attorney-general is going to find it impossible to avoid the investigation phase," he said.

President Obama banned torture and he and the Justice Department have said there will be no prosecution of those in the CIA who practiced the enhanced interrogation techniques on those detained by the U.S. Likewise the administration opposed prosecution of the authors of the torture memos. According to The Washington Post, there was intense debate in Obama's inner circle over the decision to release the memos. The President certainly walks a thin line in the entire interrogation question, analysts say. A great many American people believe that President Obama was absolutely right to release the torture memos, though there was, of course, debate about it.

The Office of Professional Responsibility at the Justice Department has drafted a long-awaited report on the professional conduct of the torture memo lawyers. It looks as if it will only recommend professional sanctions against two of the three lawyers, Yahoo! News (5/5/09) reported. It should be pointed out that the OPR does not have the authority to press charges.

The CIA reportedly declined to closely evaluate harsh interrogations during the Bush administration, according to an excellent LA Times (4/26/09) story. There has been no study to see whether the methods worked or not. There is now a White House task force to examine the effectiveness of various interrogation approaches. The Senate Intelligence Committee has launched a similar review, one that has never been done before. From the horse's mouth comes a very believable piece by Ali Soufan on the New York Times Op-ed page of April 23, 2009: "My Tortured Decision." To summarize it --

A former F.B.I. agent who questioned Abu Zubaydah in 2002 says the terrorist operative provided important intelligence under traditional interrogation methods. The CIA had inflated the importance of what Zubayda had to say.

One of the first things President Obama did after taking office was announce that Guantanamo Bay, Cuba's detention facility would be closed. The project to close Guantanamo is not an easy one. There are costs involved, both monetary and political. Congress is getting increasingly worried about the possibility of detainees in their communities, and may impede the closure plans. Politico explains:

[Senate Minority leader Mitch] McConnell’s comments were most telling. . . just as many Democrats see Guantanamo as a legacy of the Bush years, the Kentucky Republican framed the fight as a test now of whether the Obama administration will protect Americans, fearful of the detainees being moved into corrections facilities in their states.

Former Vice President Cheney has led the Republican charge against the Obama administration's efforts to put things right. In an ironic twist ProPublica revealed that the government could destroy records in hundreds of Guantanamo cases. There is even talk of reviving the Guantanamo military court process. And Time Magazine examined the Army Field Manual for an article headlined, "Beyond Waterboarding: What Interrogators can still do." CIA Directer Leon Panetta has ruled that contractors are not allowed to interrogate any more, emptywheel reported.

"Libertarians" for a Torture State -- by Ed Kilgore at the Democratic Strategist (4/28/09), examined the Republicans' inconsistencies of position (between right-wingers and Libertarians) regarding the questions associated with the rule of law, torture and closing Guantanamo. J.P Green, in the same newsletter, explores "Obama's Measured Strategy on Torture." His closing argument could be persuasive:

America is honor-bound to address accountability for torture --- but later better than sooner. Maybe the best thing, strategy-wise, would be for Holder to initiate a thorough investigation, but save the investigation revelations and recommendations until after we get the economy on solid footing and health care reform safely enacted.

References:

1. *Report:"Tortured Profession: Psychologists Warned of Abusive Interrogations, Then Helped Craft Them," by ProPublica, May, 5, 2009


2. "Interrogations Timeline," from The Washington Post (4/23/09)


3. "Torture Memos vs. Red Cross Report: Prisoners' Recollections differ from Guidelines" -- a side by side comparison chart, from ProPublica (4/24/09)


4. The significance of Obama's decision to release the torture memos, is an important and thoughtful piece by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (4/23/09).


5. "America's quick recovery from its torture program suggests it wasn't a torture program in the first place," by Slate Magazine's great writer Dahlia Lithwick (4/17/09). To quote:
   
   

   Laced like cynical poison through the four newly released Justice Department torture memos is the logic of quick healing: Eleven days of sleep deprivation is not illegal torture so long as the prisoner gets to sleep it off later. Writes then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee: "The effect of such sleep deprivation will generally remit after one or two nights of uninterrupted sleep." In that same memo we learn that water-boarding is also not illegal torture because the simulated drowning lasts only 20 to 40 seconds, and thus, "the waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering." By the same token, "walling" (i.e., slamming someone into a wall) isn't torture either because "the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash."



6. A Tale of Torture Grows More Timely by the Day. This is from the New York Times THEATER section By PATRICK HEALY, May 02, 2009. To summarize: In a relatively rare confluence of theater and politics, the critically lauded production of "Torture" opened nine days before the Justice Department made public four memos that described brutal interrogation techniques.
   

[Post date May 10, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics obama administration torture OLC Gitmo CIA

Bloggers deserve kudos for their good work.

Much discomfort remains connected to the issue of what to do about Bush administration leftovers. Many progressives are still actively advocating for investigation, truth-telling, accountability and reform. Therefore, we rely on the hard news sources as well as the blogosphere to keep us well informed. I use a news aggregator. I have a section in my Bloglines aggregator called "Investigative faves." Let me show you why you, too should be reading them. The list is in reverse chronological order:

1. TPM Muckraker for "Report: Top Gossling Pushed to Declassify Info to 'Embarrass the Democrats'," by Zachary Roth (5/6/09). The story refers to former Rep. Peter Goss, who served for a time (not very well) at the CIA. Did any of the associated Goss underlings leak the story about Rep Jane Harman and AIPAC? Just below this story is one titled, "Zelikow: I Think Cheney Tried to Destroy My Torture Memo, " by Zachary Roth (5/6/09). The title is self-explanatory.


2. Firedoglake.com's emptywheel is mostly written by Marcy Wheeler, who writes today asking "The OPR Report Why No Sanctions for Bradbury?"This post cites the original WaPo story and asks a number of very important questions regarding what should happen to the torture memo lawyers. Yesterday's post was closely related: "Dougie Feith's Little Shop of Tortures?" For this she researched Doug Feith's 2003 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and made some fine deductions. Wheeler does perhaps the best investigation online. Blogger bmaz explains (5/5/09):
   
   

   We started this discussion in earnest a little over two weeks ago when Marcy Wheeler scooped the world by revealing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Waterboarded 183 Times in One Month and Abu-Zubaydah 83 times. Marcy didn't get handed the information by a governmental press flack and she didn't print it as a result of a leak from some coddled and conflicted secret source with an agenda. Nope, she did it the old fashioned way, she earned it by doing the tedious grunt work of reading the memos and documents. The very work the traditional press shirked.



3. ACLU Blog of Rights posted a piece titled, "Guantanamo Bay, U.S.A.?" The (5/6/09) story concerns the possibility that the Obama administration will go back to the use of military commissions for some of its detainees. Another big story asks whether the "DOJ Ethics Report [is] coming soon? (5/5/09)


4. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com wrote, "Someone needs to give Jane Harman an award for this," (5/4/09). Regarding Harman's appearance at the AIPAC conference, crusading against domestic surveillance. Another fine post is titled, "UAE 'torture' scandal and cover-up sparks outrage in the U.S.," (4/3/09). You may have seen this disturbing video on television recently.


5. Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood. He recently posted that the "Govt Seeks Dismissal of AIPAC Case," (5/1/09). This is another article connected to the Harman AIPAC episode. On April 29, Aftergood wrote, "Appeals Court Curbs Use of State Secrets Privilege." This regards the ACLU vs. Jeppesen DataPlan lawsuit.


6. Spy Talk at CQ Politics is written by Jeff Stein. On May 4 his headline read, "Rice: 'We were deaf, dumb and blind' on al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001." The /11.post discusses Rice's penchant for helping little kids understand what was going on with the grown-ups on 9/11. His question for the April 28 post asked,"What did top spook Blair really say about Harman and the NSA?." This refers to Adm. Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence.


7. Wired: Threat Level by Kim Zetter: "DOJ Faulted for Failing to Follow Surveillance Reporting Requirements, " (4/30/09). To quote:
   
   

   Following the release of an annual report this week about wiretaps requested by state and federal law enforcement agencies comes a complaint from the Electronic Privacy Information Center that the government has been derelict in its duty to report other surveillance statistics having to do with “pen register” and “trap and trace” orders.
   
   In a letter (.pdf) sent Wednesday to Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, EPIC noted that the Justice Department had failed to report the use of such surveillance as required by federal law.



8. About.com-Civil Liberties is written by Tom Head. Here is an example of his work: "Sympathy for the Devil," (4/22/09). It begins, "According to memos released by the Obama administration last week, the CIA under the Bush administration tortured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003 alone."

Those of us who are expecting that these questions and problems are not going to disappear soon, want to see the truth get out. We want justice done and the rule of law return full force to the current administration. We can settle for no less.


[Post date: 5/6/09]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics national intelligence blog news torture APAIC jane harman

Rule of law issues explored --

Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire after his successor is chosen and confirmed. President Obama has committed to have the new justice in place when the Supreme Court reconvenes. The nomination process will consume an enormous amount of time, media attention and legislative energy between now and October.

[Image: Wordle.net]

Early signs of back to Bush -- By the time the new court convenes, the Obama Justice Department should have its act together. Many of us have been very concerned as we get reports that the new government's lawyers have not stepped aside from many of the questionable Bush Justice Department court arguments.

Detainees at Gitmo -- Davis Cynamon, an attorney for 4 Gitmo detainees has been fighting for their due process rights, accuses the DoJ of "abandonment of the rule of law," according to TPMMuckraker's post, "Not Just State Secrets: Obama Continuing Bush's Stonewalling On Gitmo Cases, Lawyer Claims," (4/10/09). To quote:

"The Department of Justice has been doing everything in its power to delay and obstruct these cases," said Cynamon, whose clients were picked up in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in the period after the 2001 U.S invasion of Afghanistan. "They're not doing anything to move the case along, and doing everything to avoid it."

Asked whether he had observed a shift of any kind in the government's approach since the Obama administration came into office, Cynamon flatly replied: "None whatsoever."

This kind of leftover Bush court stance has been difficult for many of us to understand, given the high quality of President Obama's nominees for his key legal positions.

Nominations blocked by Senate -- The nominations of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and Harold Hongju Koh to serve as Legal Advisor to the State Department are being held up by conservatives in the Senate, says the Firedoglake post, "Legal wrangling: Why the fuss about legal nominees?" (4/9/09). To quote (emphasis mine):

The nominees themselves are so well-qualified, so clearly within the progressive political mainstream, and the attacks against them so frenzied, one is left scratching one’s head and wondering: what on earth is going on here?

. . . [Senator John] Cornyn castigates Johnsen for her “prolific and often strident criticism of the legal underpinnings of the previous administration's counterterror policies.” . . . Johnsen’s criticisms of the legal underpinnings of Bush’s counterrorism policies have been right on the mark. The Bush administration itself was forced to renounce some of the OLC memos Johnsen criticized because they were so profoundly flawed. And let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has had four opportunities to review Bush counterterrorism policies and has struck the policies down each time. That’s because Bush had a tendency to ignore the law. John Cornyn doesn’t care; Dawn Johnsen does.

. . . The bottom line is that the stakes here are thus much higher than whether Obama gets his first choice to fill these slots. And they go beyond how the rule of law will apply at the Justice and State Departments.

Most observers agree: the attacks on Johnsen and Koh are spring training for the coming attacks against Supreme Court and other judicial nominees (Koh himself may be one) who display a similar commitment to the rule of law. That’s why it’s so important to expose what’s behind the current attacks, and defeat them.

We can predict that Republican right-wingers and the like will stage protests in all forms against whomever the President nominates to the Supreme Court. They will get media attention, they will pressure senators, and they will be extremely visible. Those of us on the other side are demanding Constitutional stances from the new administration. We must also support for our opponents' right to speak freely, even if outrageously.

Citizens must act to make our wishes known to our President and to our elected representatives. These fundamentals are beautifully explained in Firedoglake's post, "Peaceable Assembly; Petitioning to Redress Grievances (4/8/09). To quote:

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights and they became law in 1791. Among the first of these are the rights peacefully to assemble, to exercise free speech, and to petition the government to redress grievances. They are first because they are fundamental to the preservation of representative government.

. . . First Amendment rights have a kind of "Use 'em or Lose 'em" quality. We exercise them to protect us against their silent or notorious abridgment. We assert them to remind public officials of their public promises. Most of all, we use them to make our views known and to encourage others to adopt them, Congress and the President included. We do not use them in order to give an unruly government an excuse to abridge them further.

The rule of law was explored in today's post. President Obama will no doubt appoint a person to the highest court in the land of whom we can be proud. And it will inevitable spark a big fight. Between now and then it is my expectation that Attorney General Holder and his stable of lawyers will have gotten a handle on how they can roll back the most dangerous and destructive of the Bush legal positions. If they do not, the Supreme Court will be forced to rule against them over and over until they finally "get it."

[Post date - May 3, 2009]

See also Behind the Links. Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics supreme court rule of law constitution

On accountability: the chains that bind.

Committee Report -- A report released Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee will prove to be a very important declassified document coming out of the work of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), his staff and committee. To quote David Cloud's Politico article,

Newly declassified documents reveal how harsh military interrogation procedures approved for use at Guantanamo Bay prison by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also filtered down to war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

. . . The chairman, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said the decision by Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials to authorize the interrogation practices “set the tone” that led to prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

“Authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody,” Levin said in a statement.

Levin said it was still a “question” whether senior Bush administration officials “should be held accountable.” He called for Attorney General Eric Holder to name a retired federal judge or some other “distinguished individuals” to look at “what steps, if any, should be taken” against high level officials.

. . . The report also documents how personnel from the Army’s Survival, Resisance, Evasion and Escape school, a military organization that trains U.S. soldier in resisting interrogation, traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq to train interrogators there in use of harsh methods.

Will the committee act? Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that, if Republicans can't back his idea of a truth commission to investigate the Bush torture program, he will launch a Judiciary Committee investigation. An investigation is already underway in the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to the story in Congressional Quarterly-Politics (4/22/09).

News Analysis: At Core of Detainee Fight: Did Methods Stop Attacks? - taken from the New York Times, April 23, 2009, written by Scott Shane. This is a relatively even-handed article that lays out the arguments for and against this justification. President Obama is mildly criticized in this piece. Summarized Shane said, "Starkly opposing narratives have arisen about what, if anything, was gained by the C.I.A.'s use of physical pressure to intimidate Qaeda operatives."

Fundamental disagreements -- "Torturers should be investigated, too," is what Roger Simon at Politico thinks today. Here is a bit of what he said:

. . . the president has stated on any number of occasions — and as he stated today — in saying, ‘I think we should be looking forward and not backward.’”

But justice often looks backward. That is what justice is largely about. We look back at actions and decide whether they were right or wrong, just or unjust, innocent acts or crimes against humanity.

. . . I thought we had gotten past all this. I thought we had established the fact that all people bear responsibility for their own actions and that saying, “I was just following memos” is not good enough.

Where are the prisoners? As it turns out, there are dozens of prisoners held by the CIA that are still missing and their fates remain unknown. Dafna Linzer, a reporter for the investigative journalism organization, ProPublica, reported this detailed information April 22. In response the CIA claimed that a list provided in the story is probably "flawed."

CQ - Behind the Lines excerpts:

President Obama yesterday left open the door for a “further accounting” on Bush administration use of harsh interrogation techniques, as well as possible prosecution of the federal lawyers who rationalized it, Reuters’ Caren Bohan recounts — as The New York Times’ Brian Knowlton sees a newly declassified Senate report shedding more light on high-level approval of the tactics. In releasing the Bush-era “torture memos,” Obama’s lawyers spilled the beans on the methods used, “but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved,” ex-Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen complains in the Washington Post — as to which, see Alex Koppelman’s Salon critique. “The memos prove we didn’t torture,” David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, meantime, banner in The Wall Street Journal. (4/22/09)

Feds: President Obama visited CIA headquarters yesterday in a gesture of reassurance following his release of Bush-era torture memos, The Associated Press’ Pamela Hess reports — as The New York Times’ Peter Baker and Scott Shane find momentum for a torture probe mounting. (4/21/09).

Commission on Accountability.org. HT to Steve Clemons on Twitter for this very valuable resource. It is a way to sign on to a group effort by a number of heavy hitters in the human rights movement. It calls on the President to appoint a nonpartisan commission to investigate.

Reference:

• The Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) training - U.S. News and World Report
• "The Guantanamo Officers' Club," an outstanding essay about a real hero by Spy Talk's Jeff Stein.

[Post date: 4/23/09]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics torture national security

Unfolding by the hour

Image via Wikipedia

President Obama "ignited an interrogation furor" yesterday when he clarified his position about "looking back vs. looking forward" at a photo opportunity with King Abdullah of Jordan. To quote from the CQ Politics story:

. . . [the President] made a point of saying Tuesday that “with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that.”

. . . “If and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical [committee] hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines . . . would probably be a more sensible approach to take,” Obama said.

Like the 9/11 Commission -- Writing for Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, Chris Good believes that Obama's truth commission ideas mesh with congress. The President prefers that rank and file CIA operatives not be prosecuted for war crimes because he believes they acted in good faith with what they assumed was valid legal advice. He made a trip to CIA headquarters to assuage the anxiety felt by the employees, according to Josh Gerstein's Politico story written with Alexander Burns. The author explored the differences between the proposed legislation in the House and Senate. By pointing out that Senator Leahy's not written a bill yet, but House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers has proposed a commission that is designed to not be partisan, Good assumes the President would prefer something like that. The Hill reports that Conyers has announced he will soon hold hold hearings on the torture memos.

And Republicans are howling. Former Vice President Cheney had requested the declassification of files he asserts would prove that the CIA's coercive interrogation techniques worked well to produce actionable intelligence. Cheney wanted to use the memos to write his memoirs, according to Mike Allen and Josh Gerstein at Politico, but now Cheney wants them released to the public also. There is likely to be a showdown with the current administration over such a move.

One of the main drivers, it seems, for the use of torture of detainees early on was to establish a link between alQaeda and Saddam Hussein. A Salon report on the just released Senate Armed Services investigation revealed that, Paul "Wolfowitz said GTMO should use more aggressive interrogation techniques." To quote the intro, "A Senate report describes how the Bush administration began its torture program -- and may have pushed for the use of torture to produce evidence linking al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. HT to "anamariecox" at Twitter for this link.

"Banned Techniques Yielded 'High Value Information,' Memo Says,"was written by PETER BAKER on April 22, 2009, in the New York Times. To quote:

President Obama's national intelligence director wrote that controversial methods produced information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

Admiral Blair’s private memo was provided by a critic of Mr. Obama’s policy. His assessment could bolster Bush administration veterans who argue that the interrogations were an important tool in the battle against al Qaeda.

Thoughts from a dissenter -- Tuesday night's Rachel Maddow program featured Philip Zelikow, former assistant to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and also former head of the 9/11 Commission staff. Zelico was a dissenter, on behalf of his boss, within the Bush administration as the decisions to use coercive interrogation techniques were being taken. He put his dissenting opinion in writing. And his memos (all those that could be gathered) were destroyed. He chose not to resign , but to work from within the government to get the policies changed. Read his recent piece, "The OLC 'Torture Memos:' Thoughts from a dissenter," in Foreign Policy Magazine (4/21/09).

References: "Military Interrogation Techniques: A History," from The Atlantic Politic, Channel (4/21/09).

[Post date - 4/22/09]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics [politics CIA torture

Related articles by Zemanta

• CIA interrogation lawsuits possible (news.bbc.co.uk)
• War Crimes And The Destruction Of Evidence (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Obama's Growing Dilemma on Torture Prosecution (time.com)
• Obama Administration Stops Using Word "Torture" (politicalwire.com)
• Joe Klein: For CIA, Laws Were Made to be Broken (firedoglake.com)

The devil's in the details of what the devil's advocates claim

Devils advocates wonder -- Why on earth was it necessary to reveal the disturbing details of this top secret program? Won't it jeopardize the pursuit of terrorists? After all was all this not justified in order to prevent another terrorist attack on the homeland? We captured the planner of September 11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed himself. Why not waterboard him 183 times? Did he not deserve it?

The actual truth is that thousands died when the towers fell. And our nation was traumatized as a result. It was necessary to make the OLC memos public because of what happened in those dark and secret places in our names. The revelation will make us more safe, not less, because it removes one of al Qaeda's most powerful recruiting tools for new terrorists. Mohammed and the others of our enemies do not deserve vengence; they deserve the righteous hand of justice.

Devil's advocates ask -- Why have a fit about giving our enemies such a hard time? What is so wrong about the use of enhanced interrogation techniques? What about the first time we know that these enhanced techniques were used? The detainee's name is Abu Zubaydah. Wasn't he one of the most important of the terrorists, one of the worst of the worst?

It is true that we should be able to trust our own intelligence gathering system. What we should look to trust is that the system is not above the law, but of the law of this land and of international law to which we are party. Torture is against the law. It does not produce reliable information. It must not be used to punish.

The devils advocates are curious -- Why was there even any question among those responsible? Wasn't it ordered by the highest officials in our government, who surely knew more than we did at the time? Why could we not trust that the U.S. Justice Department to offer legal guidance to the intelligence gathering community?

Surely it is true that, since our beginnings, we have prided ourselves on being a nation of laws and not of men. But in this case, until there is justice for those responsible for torture, we remain a nation of men (and women). Those who are speaking out now would not do so if they expected no consequences. Achieving justice is the only way we will reestablish faith in our justice system, as well as our intelligence system.

Read for understanding -- Yesterday there was an amazing occasion at the TPM Cafe blog where I often post. It was a post written by one of my blog friends, a psychologist who uses the name TheraP. Her title is "Deliberate Acts of Cruelty," by "TheraP" at TPM Cafe (4/18/09). At last count there were 218 comments, 37 reader recommendations. It is a profoundly important discussion. I urge you to read it so that you can more fully understand the answers we must give to all those devil's advocates out there who remain somewhat blind to the whole truth. Today she tells "The Peoples' Lawyer it is time to stand up."

ACLU speaks out -- My ACLU periodic Email laid it out very clearly. It was this organization, you remember that enabled the release of the memos because of its FOIA lawsuit. I quote:

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Disturbing secret memos released yesterday detail the sadistic interrogation methods the Bush administration authorized the CIA to use on detainees. These memos provide shocking confirmation of high-level involvement in the Bush torture program.

It's appalling to see how far our nation strayed from our commitment to human rights. To restore our values we must demand accountability from those responsible.

The last thing America can do now is adopt a “let bygones be bygones” approach to these despicable and indefensible activities.

In America, no one is above the law -- and when crimes have been committed, our legal system demands accountability.

It took five long years for the ACLU to force these memos out into the open. And, no matter how long it takes, we’re going to keep pushing until those responsible for these heinous acts are held accountable.

**********

The Secret State continues to crumble," was written by emptywheel (3/6/09). It is my conclusion to this post, included to maintain hope. To quote:

In yet another sign that the counter-terrorist state built on executive secrets continues to crumble, the DC Circuit Court just ruled that judges--and not the government--will get to determine whether classified information would be helpful to detainee habeas corpus petitions. (h/t scribe) And if that information is helpful, then the detainee lawyers will get that information.

[4/20/09]

My all-in-one Home Page of websites where I post regularly: Carol Gee - Online Universe

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics torture national security OLC memos

OLC torture memos revealed - an overview

[4/17/09]

Image via Wikipedia

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder should be given a great deal of credit for releasing the latest memos produced by the Bush Office of Legal Counsel, to the American Civil Liberties Union. Glenn Greenwald makes this point strongly in his first post following the release of the mostly unredacted material. It contains a number of excerpts from the memos with interesting points about each. He and many others were unsure at the start of the day what the President would do, given the huge fight going on within the administration. Greenwald is sharply critical of the administration's decision not to prosecute however, pointing to an inability to reconcile certain basic principles of the rule of law, treaty obligations, etc.

President Obama's written statement upon the release of the memos, is included in Firedoglake blogger, emptywheel's post, which adds to the discussion and reflections on the lack of accountability for the wrong-doing. She makes a couple of useful points about the release: "The ICRC report may have made a difference in this fight. . . No mention of who wrote these memos. . ." And Wheeler closes with this: "If we're a nation of laws, then we cannot let those who have broken the laws to go unpunished. That's not retribution. That's what 'nation of laws' means."

More from emptywheel -- A further point made by this outstanding investigative writer, who labels the OLC memos "erroneous and inflammatory assumptions, and John Rizzo's lies," is that the OLC memos should not be taken as authoritative regarding the events surrounding the interrogation program. For example, the section on the supposed mental health of Abu Zubaydah is patently wrong. Also the ICRC report contradicts the section on the frequency and harshness of the use of sleep deprivation. Another post links to the ACLU website that has the original memos (in pdf) posted, and reminds us that the ACLU lawsuit was what freed up the memos from the DOJ in the first place.

Here is the latest on the torture memos from the investigative journalism organization, ProPublica:
1) Newly Released Memo Inadvertently Reveals CIA Held and Abused Missing Prisoner.
2) Obama Promises to Defend Interrogators, But No Promise on the Bush Lawyers Who Signed Off.
3) Resource: The Missing Memos

References: Following are several authoritative and complete articles on the story of the release of these OLC memos:

• "Interrogation memos detail harsh tactics by the C.I.A," by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane of the New York Times (4/16/09). An earlier NYT story: "Memos reveal scope of the power Bush sought in fighting terror," by Neil Lewis (4/3/09).
• "Obama Releasing Four Torture Memos," by Zachary Roth at TPM Muckraker (4/16/09). Includes a good AP overview along with the official statements of the President and the Department of Justic
  
• "Obama says no prosecutions, no 'laying blame' for interrogation techniques," is by Keith Perine and Seth Stern of the Congressional Quarterly-Politics website (4/16/09).
• "Obama Releases Torture Memos, Vows Not to Prosecute," by David Kravets from Wired-Threat Level (4/16/09).

See also Behind the Links, for further info on scandals and excesses.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics obama

The CIA, the tapes, the ICRC report, the outrage --

[4/13/09]

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Irony -- "When lie detectors lie: The CIA and John Sullivan," is by Jeff Stein on Spy Talk at Congressional Quarterly- - Politics (4/13/09). His post is a fascinating expose' of how the CIA allegedly used a lie detector test, in this case to cause harm to Sullivan, an ex-employee who was himself' a lie detector operator. Will the information eventually emerge? Time will tell.

Lost for a while -- "The mysterious case of CIA interrogator Mark Swanner," was written by Jeff Stein in Spy Talk at CQ-Politics (4/8/09). This post is a feature follow-up story to the Mark Dannner NYT Review of Books revelation of the ICRC report on torture. Stein discussed the status of a homicide investigation of Swanner in the interrogation death of a detainee, revealed in a Jane Mayer New Yorker story in November of 2005. Where would we be without such journalists? And what would we do without the ACLU?

ACLU stays on the job -- "Red Cross report on treatment of CIA detainees published," includes a discussion of medical personnel involvement (4/7/09); and "Note to CIA: be kind, rewind" regarding its "Torture FOIA" suit against the CIA (4/10/09). Both posts are from the ACLU Blog of Rights. The courts can sometimes step into the vacuum, offering standing to where the truth lies.

Investigation -- "U.S. medical personnel and interrogations: What do we know? What don't we know?" These questions are asked by Sheri Fink from the nonprofit investigative journalism website, ProPublica (4/9/09). To quote from this important article: "To put the new information into perspective, ProPublica offers these answers to key questions about the roles of American medical personnel in detainee treatment in recent years." These are the questions: What is known about the involvement of health professionals in the interrogations? What other issues have been raised? What do standards of medical ethics have to say about health professionals participating in detainee questioning? What questions remain? Are there any investigations coming? These important questions demand answer, but the administration has yet to fully step up to the plate.

The President -- "Obama, the ICRC Report and ongoing suppression," is an important and unsettling post by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (4/7/09). To quote from his outstanding - and very painful - post,

Obama has repeatedly done the exact opposite of what he vowed he would do: rather than "seek full accountability for past offenses," he has been working feverishly to block such accountability, by embracing the same radical Bush/Cheney views and rhetoric regarding presidential secrecy powers that caused so much controversy and anger for the last several years.

Caught? We do not know yet -- "What does Dusty Foggo know about the torture tapes?" is a post by emptywheel (4/2/09). This post raises questions about the extent of possible involvement of former CIA Director Porter Goss, given the report that Foggo will be interviewed before going to prison, by CIA torture tape Special Prosecutor, John Durham. Just like the courts Special Prosecutors must continue to find out the truth. Here is a chilling thought. What if Dick Cheney is still a real player?

A mole? "Cheney's stay-behind," is explored by emptywheel (4/1/09). Marcy Wheeler delves into the Sy Hersh report that Veep Cheney may have left a mole or moles at the NSA. Here's why, to quote,

. . . Hersh's report that such stay behind includes NSA is of particular concern.

Not only does this raise concerns about the warrantless wiretap program and its use (particularly given reports that the NSA was segregating contacts with journalists, like Hersh, who has lots of contacts in the Middle East). But it raises concerns about whether or not Cheney sustains the practice--publicized during the John Bolton confirmation hearings--of getting the US person end of NSA intercepts (I have no idea whether Cheney would do this through dead-enders, whether he's getting that much more directly, or whether he's getting help from Israelis involved in our wiretap programs). A number of people suspected that Bolton had used NSA intercepts to undermine North Korean diplomacy (among other things). Such a practice obviously fits Cheney's MO.

No accountability, so far -- "Cheney lies, obstruction of justice and torture tape destruction," was penned by "bmaz" at emptywheel (3/29/09). The author does a stinging follow-up to an earlier post by his cohort Marcy Wheeler on possible reasons why the torture tapes were destroyed because, "they demonstrated there was no credible/usable information produced as a result of that torture," and because members of the Bush National Security Council Principles Committee approved it all. Bmaz concludes, "I don't want the Obama Administration to be partisan and spiteful, I want them to do their damn job. Is that too much to ask?"

The CIA operating in the dark, destroyed videotapes of detainees being torture, shocking reports, state secrets excuses, is it a surprise that we are outraged?

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics national security CIA torture investigative journalism

Related articles by Zemanta

• The U.S. Tortured. Now what? (dailykos.com)
• Appreciating the Foes of Torture (dailykos.com)
• Behind the Veil of a Terror War (firedoglake.com)
• Cheney Has Moles in Obama Administration, Reporter Says (middletownmike.blogspot.com)
• Feds Detail Ex-CIA Agent's Misconduct (cbsnews.com)
• In intelligence hierarchy, who really runs the show? (cnn.com)
• Panetta: Contractors Not Allowed to Interrogate (Anymore) (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• C.I.A. to Close Secret Prisons, Scenes of Harsh Interrogations (nytimes.com)