Israel As A Haven For Perps, Doug Feith Squawks & Other Bush Torture Regime News

Bush-bashing is pathetic here. This is also the administration that contains a number of retreads from the administration that imprisoned Pollard, don't forget. (Israel pesters the US about Pollard probably as a matter of routine during every visit.)

The main story about Israel currently is the prisoner exchange with Hizballah, which is controversial because the Olmert government is releasing, among others, a famous terrorist who is notorious for an extremely brutal crime (outdoing whatever you happen to think about the torture for which the Bush administration is responsible).

"they might risk arrest as war criminals in, say, France, Germany or Italy"

Hype. Also outrageous conduct by those nations if it ever were to happen.

I'm assuming it's under their own laws in their own territories, not any ridiculous extra-territorial nonsense.

Also, Shaun, mentioning Saudi Arabia is no surprise, and it has nothing to do with torture, of course. The Bush administration's energy-industry ties to the Saudis are stronger than would be the case with other administrations such as likely President Obama's next year. It's about oil, not torture, with the Saudis. It's about the USA as an ally, not torture, with the Israelis.

DLS:

This is NOT Bush bashing. It is a careful compilation of the facts.

It is frightening to be reminded that many Americans -- a small majority, in fact, according to one recent poll -- believe like yourself that America's descent into the dark side is no big deal and a good many who even bother to watch the news or read a newspaper view everything through an inflexible political prism.

Three days in a row about Cheney, someone who is going to be gone in a few months and has no effect on policy today. I guess it beats writing about the coming total dominance of the government by the Democrats (remember, the Republicans never got to 60 seats in the house).

It is funny that Shaun is concerned about the constitution when the most Democratic city in the U.S. had to be reminded this year to follow the constitution.

I doubt if I will ever see a posting from Shaun where he spends one sentence criticizing a Democrat. shaun, look up the polling number on the number of people who believe that the Republicans still control Congress.

Of course, I would suspect what Shaun writes is SOP for a news reporter from a deep blue city. the first rule must be to never write anything that will irritate the Democrats.

[sigh] I don't believe that Bush administration misbehavior is no big deal; that is an illogical response to what is simply a calm response by me. So is your fright.

SuperD:

I should let your comment pass, but for commenters and others whose views are less vacuuous I offer an apology and an explanation.

Apology: If you get tired of reading about torture, kindly hit the Page Down Key.

Explanation: Viewing torture as a partisan issue is like viewing child abuse or wife beating as a matter of preference. In point of fact, a goodly number of Bush administration insiders saw the descent into the dark side for what it was and would not abide it. Several were transferred or fired on orders of Vice President Cheney, whom SuperD naively believes has no effect on the inner workers of the White House.

I will continue to write about torture because so few others are. It is my obligation as a journalist and as an American.

Shaun - the basic problem with your writing here, IMHO, is that you continue to write as if the good old days of the MSM dictating the agenda still existed.

Your writing is predicable, repetitive, uninspired, unoriginal, and not particularly well thought out or presented. As I said in an earlier post on one of your articles, it rarely provides any value to ready your posts - just read the headline, say to yourself 'what would i write if the goal is to bash the Republicans in general and the Bush Administration specifically', and 90% or more of the column will write itself.

If you could bring yourself to be even 15% balanced in your 'reporting', it would be an increase of 14.9%, and would provide some credibility to your incessant ranting.

But it is so much easy to write from preconceptions than to actually be fair. As Scott Adams put it, 'Reporters are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same.'

"I will continue to write about torture because so few others are"

You continue to bash Bush, and *** WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THE TORTURE; IT IS NEUROTIC TO BE OBSCESSED WITH IT OR IN A PERMANENT STATE OF OUTRAGE ABOUT IT ***. For any real progress you must wait until next year.

AR:

You provide a welcome opportunity to justify the use of torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, the overweaning use of signing statements, warrantless wiretaps, failure to reform the intelligence community, the overt politicalization of the Justice Department, the loss of the Republican hegemony on power in Washington because of a profoundly unpopular president, and . . . I could go on and on.

I welcome a robust defense of George Bush and all that he has done. Take a deep breath, give it some thought and have at it.

This is your moment to shine, lad.

Shaun,

It would be easier to carry on an informed argument with you if we could agree to use words that have specific meanings. When you engage in hyperbole, there is no point in bringing facts into the conversation.

Torture is a word that has a specific meaning. When you group words like “suspension of habeas corpus”, it has a meaning that the conditions supporting habeas corpus existed at some point and were then denied. “Warrantless wiretaps”, to the uninformed, would bring to mind images of domestic phone calls being listened to without the benefit of law.

So as you might be able to see, when actual meanings are applied, the thought that the Bush administration has done any of these things is absurd.

If you could remove your Keith Olbermann decoder ring prior to writing, I’m sure we can bring some truth and logic to your concerns.

jwest + AR + DLS + SD still have their heads in the sand after 8 long years. Not only that, but they are so intensely tribalistic that they've now embraced the ignominious task of excusing clear Bush administration war crimes.

Contrast that behavior with the left that didn't excuse Obama and Congressional Democrats for voting for the new FISA bill.

Some of us have principles, the rest just delude themselves into thinking they do.

ChrisWWW,

No one is excusing the actions of the Bush Administration. that is why the U.S. has election: to make changes in the political process. that is why Cheney and Bush have become irrelevant to politics, they can no longer affect the future.

What Shaun repeatedly does it nitpick Republicans while giving Democrats a free ride. In the last couple of years, there have been many Supreme Court cases where Democrats had to be reminded to follow the constitution from DC;s illegal gun ban or Seattle's race based social engineering programs. Shaun has always stood by Democrats who ignore the constitution.

So Shaun lacks credibility when it come to complaining violation of rights when refuses to ever discuss violations by those on the left.

SD,
War crimes demand that they be removed from office now. Elections are not supposed to replace the impeachment process.

Equating support for the DC gun ban with clear cases of torture is an interesting mental exercise, but I'm not falling for it.

The reactions from the Bush/Cheney apologists here are reflexive and predictable. If the charges of "bashing" were justifiable, then I would be sympathetic to them, but what we have here is in fact a continuing unwillingness to admit accountability. I'm afraid it's a dyed in the wool pattern - coming from the usual people, and shows just how much ideology can trump objectivity when emotions are allowed to rule over reason.

As for this comment:

"Cheney and Bush have become irrelevant to politics, they can no longer affect the future."

Would that it were so...

SuperD:

You ARE excusing the actions of the Bush administration. How else to interpret your bellyaching about my unwillingness to do so?

You conveniently forget my several posts excoriating MoveOn, my several posts expressing deep concern about Obama's relative lack of experience, a post critical of one of Obama's primary campaign ads, my many posts critical of Hillary and Bill Clinton, my posts praising President Bush for his initial stance on immigration, notably his amnesty proposal, my posts praising General Petraeus and a post earlier this week stating the the demonization of John Ashcroft is over the top.

I do not carry the tribal albatross around my neck as ChrisWWW notes that you and other members of the Ad Hominem SWAT Team do here at TMV. This is referred to as calling 'em as I see 'em.

Um, where did you see me excusing Bush for War Crimes (except in your imagination?)

gee, I'm against "war crimes" too.

As soon as you find an actual "war crime", let me know and I'll be outraged.

AR:

I figured that you would be unable to rise to my challenge.

AR,
You claimed that Shaun was being unfair. Using my tiny pee-brain I assumed you meant that his declaration that Administration officials are war criminals was in error. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your original statement?

jwest,
From wikipedia:

The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."

Commence your outrage.

Shaun - do not have the time now, as I tend to comment during short breaks during work, but I will be responding.

I will not rise to your bait and use your terminology and definitions, which are of course slanted and weighted in a way that really would make defending all of them a fool's errand, nor will I defend Bush the way or to the extent you may expect.

However, to do justice to what you asked requires me to have some time to put my words into a coherent and edited whole. I fear it will be too large to effectively put into one of these comment boxes, so I likely will put it into a Word doc, and figure out how to get it to you.

What you do with it them will be your decision.

Chris - where did I say he was unfair? I said a lot of things, but not that. Truth is, his writing goes up my spine like fingernails on a blackboard, and I like poking him with a stick. However, there is more substance to his writing than I normally allow myself to admit openly.

In this case, torture, in the beginning I truly believed the definition of torture was being dumbed down to ridiculously low levels, but there is now strong evidence that some of what went on did indeed exceed the bar to be called torture. My ambivalence remains, though, because of a belief that sometimes circumstances warrant illegal actions.

A classic example is from the Clinton Administration, as recounted by Al Gore. Clinton was considering whether to allow the CIA to rendition a suspect. He waited for Al to show up, and asked him his opinion, specifically if Al thought the operation may be illegal. Gore replied, 'Of course it is illegal. That is why it is called covert operations'. And they did indeed capture (or if Bush did it, kidnapped) the suspect, and flew him out illegally.

Chris,

As always, just because liberals misuse a word it doesn’t make it true.

There has been no torture. By referring to the enhanced interrogation techniques that involved placing enemy combatants in uncomfortable positions as “torture”, you and the liberal community are diminishing the true meaning of the word and act.

By continuing on this quest to mislead by equating these questioning methods with actual torture, you insult the individuals and groups that have suffered from this abuse in the past and you are minimizing the impact of exposing those who would torture in the future.

What word are you going to use when children are being branded with hot irons in Darfur? Torture? Better find a new word.

AR:

Fair enough. Here are some unambiguous terms that I hope you expound on when you do have the time.

TORTURE
HABEAS CORPUS
UNITARY EXECUTIVE
SEPARATION OF POWERS
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY REFORM
LEADERSHIP
COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM
DIPLOMACY

Shaun - OK, maybe I can tackle these one at a time now instead.

First, at a high level, let me say you won't see a blanket defense of Bush from me. While I don't harbor the hatred and contempt that many here do, and I believe that included you, I certainly do not look to him as my example of Presidential timber.

So, let me start with one from the initial list, slightly covered by the title of Unitary Executive, your question of Presidential Signing Statements.

I believe them to be wholly and fully un-Constitutional, and a gross violation of Separation of Powers as enumerated in the Constitution. In the absence of a line item veto Amendment being passed, the President can sign into law Bills from Congress, or veto them, in both cases in their entirety only.

I think this same reasoning applies as well to Executive Orders, which are another violation. They represent the Executive creating law, which is the sole prerogative of Congress.

So, I would expect from those two positions it should be obvious I do not subscribe to the current Bush Administration theories on the Unitary Executive.

As an aside, are you aware that Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all issued more Signing Statements than Bush II?

BTW - that last reply covers Separation of Powers, too. I am all for it.

From AR:

Chris - where did I say he was unfair?

You said it right here:

But it is so much easy to write from preconceptions than to actually be fair.

jwest said:

As always, just because liberals misuse a word it doesn’t make it true.

There has been no torture. By referring to the enhanced interrogation techniques that involved placing enemy combatants in uncomfortable positions as “torture”, you and the liberal community are diminishing the true meaning of the word and act.

Hrmm... so would you rescind these convictions of Japanese soldiers for waterboarding US soldiers? Or do you want to keep playing this intellectually dishonest game where we pretend that there is a debate about the definition of torture?

Torture.

Now, this is truly a difficult subject.

On the surface, of course I do not want our country associated with being a supporter of torture. The problem revolves around two issues, the definition of what constitutes torture, and the question of are there times when exigent circumstances justify actions that would otherwise not be acceptable.

On the first point, it is easy to define at the extreme what certainly is torture - mutilation, blinding, etc. Then there is stuff that by most reasonable definitions are not - discomfort, sleep deprivation, humiliation. The great, grey in-between is where the trouble lies.

The world is not a nice place, and our enemies in the current conflict in question have deeper motivations than a normal combatant would be expected to harbor. Also, their target of choice is not the traditional military targets, but civilian targets, where maximal injury and stealth are the two most critical components.

Relying on traditional interrogation techniques, particularly with key resources, is very unlikely to be effective. So, it seems reasonable in those circumstances to use more unsavory methods, while staying behind that line of 'what is torture'. But that gets us back to the problem of what constitutes torture, and who gets to make that determination?

That leads to the second point, is it ever acceptable to cross the line, whatever the line may be defined to be? If it is, to what extent? To a set of 'tortures' that are less onerous than the mutilation/disfigurement level? How would one define that limit?

At the highest level, I do believe that the answer to the second question is likely yes, but I have grave qualms about that position, and no answer to the limits and definitions problem. I do believe in the doctrine of the exigent circumstances defense being applied in such circumstances, but in reality it would be exceedingly difficult to convince someone to use such a risky defense.

There is also the slippery-slope angle. As soon as we acknowledge that going 'X' over the line was justified in circumstance 'Y', then shouldn't "X times 2' be allowed if the circumstance is 'Y times 2'?

So, as a whole, I would have to say I do not support the concept of 'lawful torture', but I am not willing to go to the length of branding all current techniques discussed as being torture, and even for those that are, I would need to see evidence of much more severe forms of torture being used before I felt they had risen to the level of War Crimes.

AR,
You said "...what constitutes torture, and who gets to make that determination?"

As a country, we've sent Japanese soldiers to prison for decades because they tortured our soldiers. What was the method of torture cited? Waterboarding.

So not only is there precedent for considering waterboarding as torture under international law, we have our own country pursuing prison sentences on that assumption.

Add that to the War Crimes Act of 1996 which makes torture a war crime, and we can conclude the Waterboarder in chief is a war criminal. Ta da!

Habeas Corpus

There are two distinct issues here, habeas rights for US citizens, and habeas rights for non-US citizens help outside the US.

In the first item, I am four-square behind the concept that those rights could not be denied under the current circumstances, and any attempts to do so were and are Constitutional violations.

The second is totally different. No habeas rights were being denied, at least until the Boumediene decision. Prior to that point in time, no US or English court ever thought that habeas rights extended to non-citizens held abroad. The Supreme Court majority acknowledged that in their own majority opinion. In fact, prior to this, the opposite, that NO habeas rights are enjoined upon non-citizens held outside the country was the rule of the law.

So, how could any administration be expected to predict that the court would overturn hundreds of years of precedence (stare decisis? We don't need no stinking stare decisis!)

Scalia was right - this is Judicial Activism at the very worst, and it will have untold, far reaching consequences against us, at least until this abomination of a ruling can be vacated.

Chris - sorry, missed the memo from the Desk of the President of the United States authorizing torture. You will have to keep your wet dream to yourself for now.

Leadership

The easy one. Thought I would tackle it next.

He has none, or to be fair, not a lot.

He is tone-deaf to reasonable dissent, unwilling to hold his Lieutenants accountable for their actions (Peter Drucker 101 stuff), unchanging even when change is called for (but he was right about the surge - that drives you and Chris nuts I am sure), and an uninspiring speaker.

But he is still not as bad you portray him (hell, only Stalin is. Would you really compare him to Stalin, OOI?)

AR,
No memo needed. He admitted it to ABC News on tape: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Chris - you can jack off all you want about seeing Bush in jail or impeached, but the facts just are not on your side, like them or not.

With a memo from Justice declaring that it was legal, whether you agree with that memo or not, then you cannot claim he authorized a known illegal act of torture.

AR,
Does it hurt to have to go through all those mental contortions? Anything to excuse a war criminal I suppose. But you might want to start being honest with yourself before your brain ends up shaped like a pretzel.

With a memo from Justice declaring that it was legal, whether you agree with that memo or not, then you cannot claim he authorized a known illegal act of torture.

That's just proof that the Justice Department is also complicit in war crimes. Which AG Gonzales tacitly admitted.

Let's put it more simply, since I know you're probably dealing with a headache. You ask your lawyer to write you a note saying that you can kill your wife. You kill your wife with said note in your pocket.

In that situation will the court...
A) Let you off scott free?
B) Send your dumbass to jail with your accomplice lawyer friend?

Shaun, I applaud you for speaking truth to apologists!

It makes me physically ill to see the moral writhings used to justify torture and even defend it. No wonder so many conservatives (circa Goldwater) are raging because Republicans are destroying the conservative movement, principle by principle.

Even though Reagan is still their deity, he is not for me. He also showed signs of sacrificing principle for expediency and party power. Iran-Contra, anyone?

Defining torture is a slippery slope, so we can't oppose any torture? That's writhing of the highest and most wriggly order.
Yoo's legal writhings have been thoroughly dicredited by legal and Constitutional experts, but he is still the authotity of prefenence. They should be ashamed to invoke his name. Any old ambulance chaser could have done as well as Yoo.

These are the same kind of people who rant about moral equivalency.
This is theater of the absurd.

CHRIS, good job!

Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing this is America.

Chris - your ignorance is showing. What I stated is not my opinion - it is the law. On legal issues, a President following a Justice Department opinion is immune from charges of knowingly breaking the law. That is why Presidents consult Justice first, for the immunity.

It is why they tried to get Ashcroft on his sickbed to sign off, remember that discussion?

AR,
I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Maybe you could provide some documentation outside the insane musings of Yoo and Addington?

Chris, don't make up childish nonsense, again. As I said, we all know that the Bush administration chose to torture prisoners. There is no need, again, to be neurotic (or even psychotic) about it. Normal people simply are disgusted by it. Mature people know little real change will happen until next January. Enough!

"You ARE excusing the actions of the Bush administration. How else to interpret your bellyaching about my unwillingness to do so?"

How about interpreting statements about *** YOUR *** bellyaching truthfully?

We're waiting.

"The reactions from the Bush/Cheney apologists here are reflexive and predictable."

I'm not an apologist for that administration and haven't acted as one; I have taken Shaun's neurotic excess properly to task (as well as answered why Israel and the Saudis still have relations with that administration, the USA, and oil interests. Anyone saying I am an apologist or have acted as one is lying.

"Anyone saying I am an apologist or have acted as one is lying." ~ DLS

Every time you refer to legitimate criticism of Bush as "bashing" or "hating" (and you have done it frequently) then you are functioning as an apologist. If there is any "lying" involved, then perhaps the liar and the object of the lie are one and the same.

"Every time you refer to legitimate criticism of Bush as 'bashing'"

I call it "bashing" when that's what it is -- be it more directly related here to the issue (though the reasons for willingness to work with this administration are the same as with other administrations) or when it happens and has nothing to do with Bush (like blaming Bush for Bhutto's assassination). It's not I would be involved in lying (as I accurately call it).

I think Austinroth is seeking insulation in some sort of legal neutral zone in regards to torture. Parsing the degree's of how much pain can be inflicted or how long sleep deprivation can continue before permanent physical (or mental) damage occurs is being intellectually dishonest about the horror of living in a country that uses torture as a matter of course. Somehow we are expected to believe that this enemy is worse than all past enemies of the U.S. The exigent circumstances example is the only morally acceptable instance and it does rely on the torturer being confident enough in his actions and the circumstances that he can defend "crossing the line" and being vindicated. Anything else amounts to institutionalized torture. Its cliche but the best measure of the methods is to have them done on you (over and over for 5 years) and then you come back and tell us if you think it was torture.

"I think Austinroth is seeking insulation in some sort of legal neutral zone in regards to torture."

Legal technicalities there may be, and these merit respect, but "waterboarding" is torture and some of the other "harsh interrogation techniques" (a euphemism that seems to me ordinarily to be deliberately evasive, the typical reason for such terms as substitutes for plain language) in a list I have seen are torture as far as I am concerned and I wouldn't quibble about it. To me these seem as clear as the abuse or brutality at Abu Ghraib.

"the best measure of the methods is to have them done on you"

Or to our soldiers, or to our citizens abroad, or to our citizens here at home ...

or in accounts of what the GESTAPO did, or the Soviets did, et cetera.

DLS,
Thanks for being sane :-)

I am admitting to my own ambivalences on the issue of torture. Sorry to those of you who seem to be offended by my thinking there is a grey area here.

But there is.

It doesn't matter where on the line you want to draw it, but for each and every one of us there is a place where we say 'that 'X' is definitely torture, and that 'Y' is definitely not.' The questions are where is that line for you, and do you see any shades of grey at the boundary line or not.

The 'legalities' you claim I am trying to hide behind are not mine; I was speaking of the Office of the President (not even Bush specifically)

Anyway, my position, as confusing and uncertain as it is even to me at times, is what it is.

A.R. for the record, I am not accusing you of hiding behind legalities. Among other things, they impede impeachment (sorry for the clumsy cacophony), although I am not a supporter of Kucinich's Krazy Krusade.

Chris -- though you now may have second thoughts once more (see Kucinich above), yes, I am sane.

AR.
Your anguishing about ambiiguities doesn't really apply to what happened.
Torture was clearly used, whether it's called 'enhanced interrogationn techniques' or a walk in the park.
Also, it has nothing to do with whether or not it worked.
It's about who we are, what America stands for.

Any president worth his salt, if he truly believed he needed to do something illegal ASAP in order to save the naton from immediate threat, would just do it, and face the consequences, no matter how harsh. . A bunch of weasels, hiding behind wiggly legal memos to save their hides, not the nation, do not qualify for protection or excuse making.
One illegal act, would induce re-evaluation at the pause. .Legal cover ecourages a continuation of these illegal acts, wihout reconsideration.
The legal alibi is the worst crime of all.

Going forward, there certainly are gray areas about where torture begins and ends.
i understand there has been some consultation trying ot get consensus with other countreis, and it's been difficult
That's for the future.
We're talking here about the past, where there was no ambiguity. The aim was to torture to get information, and it was done..

AR is changing his tune back and forth. First he's looking for a definition of torture and war crimes. I find one even the US unambiguously agrees on, and then all of the sudden he's talking legal mumbo jumbo about how the Justice Dept. can authorize war crimes. I shoot that out of the water, and now he's back to defining torture...

AR's got my head spinning.

AR:

A belated thank you for your responses to my finger jabbing. I appreciate your caring enough to do so.

Shaun - NP.

Doing this exercise helped me to realize more deeply both my ambivalence towards torture in particular, and from articulating my true feelings on the other issues, reminded me that reflexively countering what I feel are often over-wrought extensions and exaggerations of positions that I basically do agree with has led me to be too virulently negative and in some of my responses. This has also led to me leaving a false impression of where I do actually stand on many issues.

And while I definitely disagree with you on many basic issues, and even the details on a lot that we do agree upon, I will take this opportunity to admit that I have made too much a sport of denigrating you, and launching ad hominem attacks.

I apologize, and will try to tone it down.

Awwww... are AR and Shaun making up? :-)

Chris. Him, yes. You, no.