Yet Another Dark Day For America

I knew the overreaction would be guaranteed. On a (much) more mature note, this may have been the clincher for the Dems in November and a nail in McCain's coffin.

Overreaction, DLS? Do you mean we should be OK with torture? And presumably with American servicemen and women being tortured? To speak out against this is "overreaction?" Is that really what you meant?

As reported yesterday, Canadian courts have just tossed out anything "learned" through CIA interrogation as inadmissible. Congrats, Bush. Even if their "confession" is true, and they are really terrorists, they walk. It was coerced. The Bushies have now done the equivalent of cops planting the glove in the OJ case--in trying to assure conviction, they spoiled the case for prosecutors.

President Bush is holding the base together for John McCain.

Perhaps if someone could explain to me how the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees, including CIA prisoners) does not extend to waterboarding, I would be symphathetic. As of now, with respect ot the waterboarding issue, I see no reason to pass a redundant piece of legislation.

Can someone show me evidence to overcome the statement that the CIA already prohibited the practice in 2006?

If that's true, CO, why would Bush object to it? Isn't that one of the pieces of legislation he added a signing statement to?

CO, if it's already illegal, as I too believe, why are we not prosecuting those responsible, including Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, for it. Bring on the orange jumpsuits!

"Overreaction, DLS? Do you mean we should be OK with torture? And presumably with American servicemen and women being tortured? To speak out against this is 'overreaction?' Is that really what you meant?"


All the excess in reaction to this is -- overreaction. Here is what I clearly and obviously meant. Just in case you think I'm in the "small fraction" described below, even though time after time I've said that of course "waterboarding" is torture and is not acceptable, you understand.

1. Do you really think he would change his position now? Not should, but would?

2. Do you really know why he is holding to this position? Do you realize it may not be ideologically motivated, even if there is a small die-hard fraction of conservative Americans, larger than that which still support Bush, that see support for this form of torture as some kind of ideological and even patriotic "litmus test"? Do you realize, that is, that this may not be the motive at all but instead that this is a legal maneuver (if so, probably at Cheney's direction more than anyone else's) that is designed to keep people who have committed or assisted with torture shielded from legal action?

In other words,

1. Did you expect Bush to change his stance (and be "defeated" and his party further weakened politically)? Now, after being among the very few with this stance? Nobody should be surprised, shocked, outraged, over continuation of the same thing despite nearly self-marooning by Bush as a result.

2. Don't you realize there may be more at here (legal maneuvers and retention of control over issues related to this) than mere Stubbornness?

* * *

Speaking of that litmus test:

"President Bush is holding the base together for John McCain."

This harms McCain. McCain has defied the GOP and conservatives before, so he's in a weak position to begin with (the nose-held Default Candidate this year). Now we have an introduction of more conflict between McCain and a number of voters. More than you may originally suspect, in fact. First there is the small fraction that is with Bush and with waterboarding, i.e., pro-torture. This is one issue where McCain (in the right) defies Bush and the pro-torture crowd. At the same time, this decision continues to tarnish the Iraq war effort by association, and McCain has (rightly) supported efforts by us in Iraq as opposed to surrender and letting terrorists and Iran (ditto) take over Iraq. No immediate flight, in other words. But the public is dissatisfied with Iraq and with the Bush administration and this gesture has once more tarnished the Iraq effort, which McCain does support, hence McCain, who is anti-torture, gets tarnished nevertheless.

That's how I see it, anyway. There may be good reasons for vetoing unneeded legislation (saying No to ever-irritating Congressional Dems) and there are probably understandable reasons (the legal issue, i.e., a serious reason not to budge on even passively making waterboarding illegal, by implication alone) why Bush would remain consistent on this, but it only hurts the GOP and McCain because the public will largely see this as a pro-torture act, possibly in Clinton or Obama ads (even though McCain is against the practice; what really do many Dem voters know?)

Thanks for clarifying.

"What really do many Dem voters know?"

They know that the GOP is the party of torture, Abu Ghraib, kidnapping people to send them somewhere even worse than Guantanamo to be tortured, spying on Americans, and many other things. We know these things.

As for "surrender", we already did surrender Iraq to Iran and the terrorists. We did so by deposing a secular strongman who hated both Iran and religious extremists. I see no plan whatsoever, including the fantasy of "victory," that will reduce the power of the Iran-friendly Shiite faction in Iraq. DLS, THEY ARE THE MAJORITY! They will win every election and those who thought or think otherwise are the worst kind of fools.

"Perhaps if someone could explain to me how the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (barring cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for all detainees, including CIA prisoners) does not extend to waterboarding, I would be symphathetic. As of now, with respect ot the waterboarding issue, I see no reason to pass a redundant piece of legislation."

CO, the lefties are going to love me for this. There's a loophole in the Act, CO.

The Detainee Treatment Act prohibits "waterboarding" by the military, *** but not by the CIA.*** It restricts interrogation techniques only of the military to the list in the Field Manual. The rest of the federal government is prohibited from engaging in "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment of prisoners, but the Bush administration's position is that "waterboarding" doesn't fall into that category and that the CIA should be able to continue to practice this and other techniques of "harsh interrogation." Here is the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; you can see that the Field Manual restriction only applies to the military.

["No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation."]

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gazette/2005/12/deta...

The issue today is that the CIA (not part of the military) continues to be able to practice "waterboarding" and other methods of "harsh interrogation." The CIA is the subject or object of this latest battle and the CIA is legally considered held to a lesser standard. So, rather than letting the miltiary torture prisoners, if "we" want to do it, we can have the CIA do it. The "loophole" charge may seem technically fuzzy to you but it becomes more clear when you read the legal statement of the US government related to how it shall interpret or act on the set of restrictions it is agreeing to abide by.

Here is the relevent information.

["Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined- In this section, the term `cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984."

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/tortres.html
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/usdocs/genres.html

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/h2catoc.htm
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

And now:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?i...

"They know that the GOP is the party of torture, Abu Ghraib, kidnapping people to send them somewhere even worse than Guantanamo to be tortured, spying on Americans, and many other things. We know these things."

That's the Bush administration. So many Dem voters know little else. But go ahead -- it's the GOP's image this year, just enhanced by Bush's latest decision.

The White House seems assured to be Dem and with a number of retirements in Congress, many are overlooking that what could happen in Washington (not only with the White House) and for that matter, in various states, could be worse for the GOP this year than in 2006.

The Shiites rule the south of Iraq and already can be an extension of Iran. No argument. I'm among those who see partition of Iraq as far from academic. I've said months and years ago that the Saudis (not just al-Qaeda Wahhabis) will be providing assistance and proxies to the Sunnis and into the center to north of the country to counter Iran and the Shiites to the south. (Does anyone believe civil war has reached full force in Iraq yet?) The big question is what happens in the north with the Kurds, with whom the Sunnis will fight for the oil and who will face Turkish opposition (as we've seen already) as well as that of Iran and Syria (with Kurdish problems of their own). (The Kurdish are the most democratic and pro-Western and where our forces remaining in Iraq or a partitioned Iraq could and should be based.)

Just realize that while we (USA => Bush admin) precipitated this (failed to prevent it or subdue it is more accurate; we won the war and failed the occupation in large measure) something like it was likely to happen once Hussein died of natural causes or was assassinated, so I will not overreact to this. I'm among the many, the normal, the dejected, the disappointed, the disgusted. Not apoplectic, not psychotic.

"As for 'surrender', we already did surrender Iraq to Iran and the terrorists. We did so by deposing a secular strongman who hated both Iran and religious extremists."

I'm talking about fleeing and truly leaving Iraq in charge of them rather than opposing or resisting them as we are currently doing. Do we want to concede control of Iraqi oil and vast revenues to the terrorists and Iran? That's worse than most scenarios that Chavez in Venezuela is capable of creating.

We can't simply flee immediately. That is idiocy. Foaming at the mouth about this is not constructive, I'll just say. More rational is what we saw in 2006 -- which also involved dissatisfaction of a Congressional GOP acting as Dems Lite (business as usual in DC, and a bit of corruption, too), but which was an obvious THUMBS DOWN on Bush and Iraq. (I've referred to Pew studies more than Shaun has; he has noted also that a number of them show people believing things are "going in the wrong direction" within and by the USA. This includes a substantial fraction of those few people who still have a good opinion of the job Bush is doing. Even they want change.)

I'll leave y'all with this:

"if it's already illegal, as I too believe, why are we not prosecuting those responsible"

You and many may be it's illegal, but legally and technically, it may not be.

And that may be the real reason for the veto, to keep it legal or at least contestible.

I leave you with that.

I love that loophole, DLS, allowing the CIA to torture and the military can not. I think if something is illegal, it should apply to all. This loophole is like saying, "this group of people can steal, but this other group can't."

So let's see.... Bush is the commander in chief of the military.... so he can tell some of his people (the military) that they can't torture, but when he puts another hat on, he allows his folks in the CIA to torture. So, when the military has a suspected terrorist they captured lawfully in battle, Bush can have that suspect transferred to the CIA, where they can torture him. That is so f*&ked up.

By the way, the US has prosecuted servicemen in the past for torture, waterboarding to be specific (if I recall it was during WWII). I guess the military forgot to transfer the enemies to the CIA so the CIA could take care of it.

Oh, and it may be illegal for some folks, but not the president. (I intentionally used the word "it" because Bush likes to believe he is above the law. If Bush wants to do something else that's illegal for the rest of us, he believes he can.)

DLS: Great comments on Iraq/partition. I agree whole heartedly.

If they weren't planning on using DLS's loophole, Bush wouldn't have yammered on about how the CIA needs this valuable tactic to get needed information. Obviously they plan to keep waterboarding.

How is McCain going to get past this?? He just had his photo op with W the other day.

Thanks, "SBSF."

K.: 1) I really think there is a legal CYA effort here. 2) McCain apparently has made "progress" and even further sabotaged his campaign -- trying to appeal to that pro-torture part of the "base"! Apparently he expressed support for a veto. So now the anti-torture McCain is ... pro-torture?

* * *

I wonder if McCain would switch positions on daylight savings time, or Eastern vs. Central time, which are issues with which Indiana is still grappling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120406767043794...

[NOTE: I'm actually in disfavor of daylight savings time, not just from a naturalist standpoint, but because I see the practical issues in the morning as well as in the evening, even though I'm a night person. In California, where I grew up, the 50-100 mile morning commutes often made partly or wholly in the dark would have been safer if made in more daylight.]

Time to go out on the road (it's not subzero any more) ... in that daylight ...

Thinking from the standpoint of "we the people" Iraq was a huge blunder. From the standpoint of Bush and the Oilmen, it was a phenomenal success. Just look at their profits. Defense contractors too, like pigs in slop.

But the dire predictions about what will happen when (not if) we leave may have little more credibility than the predictions by the same idiots about the "cakewalk" and "greeted as liberators" jive. Robert Dreyfuss dissects them in a 2006 article in the Washington Monthly. My summary is HERE.

Dreyfuss also echoes my view that Iran has already won and the US is powerless to stop it. In fact, we facilitated it.

Despite its very public saber-rattling against Iran, however, the United States has spent most of the past five years in a de facto alliance with Iran in support of the Shiite-led (and US-installed) regime in Baghdad. The most powerful component of that regime, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and its disciplined Badr Corps militia, is also Iran's closest Iraqi ally. Taking advantage of the political vacuum created by the US destruction of Saddam Hussein's government, Tehran has established a vast presence, both overt and covert, in Iraq, with enormous influence among nearly all of its western neighbor's Shiite and Kurdish parties. "The American military occupation of Iraq has facilitated an Iranian political occupation of Iraq," says Chas Freeman, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

All entertaining wordplay aside, the record of administration Bush ultimately tells all the tale worth telling. This veto, as much as anything, symbolizes just how disconnected it is (and always has been) from the heart and soul of America. If by now there isn't enough damning evidence to put it and it's supporters out of business for at least the next 8 years, then the dems will have shown themselves to either be completely and utterly inept, or it will reveal an electorate no longer capable enough nor moral enough to preserve our so-called democracy.

sends a loud and unambiguous message to America’s enemies that they should feel free to respond in kind.

Actually our enemies already use much worse techniques then this. Im sure our enemies are not shaking in their boots over waterboarding 2 or 3 people a year.

The heart and soul of America wanted Revenge for 911. The 80 percent who voted to go to war in Iraq wanted Revenge. George W. Bush proclaimed that this would be a long war. A hard war. We did not care. We wanted Revenge.

Revenge as a motive can last only so long. Once we feel that we have gotten our Revenge then we no longer can sustain the emotion of the moment. However GWB and friends were left with a war that everyone feels as if we have exacted our Revenge. Our thirst is satisfied.

Now we as a nation want revenge against those evil Neocons who took us to war. Who exacted our revenge and now make us feel dirty.

"This veto, as much as anything, symbolizes just how disconnected it is (and always has been) from the heart and soul of America."

Disconnected now, certainly. The pro-torture fraction of the GOP electorate is very small.