« ‘You Don’t Care About Me,’ Sobbed Teen Gitmo Detainee
Contextual Cover Art »



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

July 16th, 2008
By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist


01aaagreenlight.jpg

KEY TORTURE PLAYERS: Feith, Addington, Gonzalez, Bush, Cheney

Being Israel and protecting the values on which it was founded is one helluva tough job, but a funny thing happened on the way to the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state: It has subsumed some of those values for political convenience and is kissing George Bush’s ass when it comes to torture.

This has great pertinence because Israel apparently is one of the relatively few countries that would roll out the welcome mat for administration officials who approved of and participated in the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere in the Rumsfeld Gulag in violation of international law. As a consequence, they might risk arrest as war criminals in, say, France, Germany or Italy.

Said Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff of those officials — all practicing attorneys — in a pointed public statement:

“Haynes, Feith Yoo, Bybee, Gonzalez and — at the apex — Addington, should never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In the future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court.”

It should be noted that Wilkerson can be outspoken to the point of intemperance, and he is no friend of the conservatives who run Israel.

It is no surprise that he would mention Saudia Arabia, a safe country for sure for those administration lawyers given its own religious and cultural embrace of torture. But Israel? A nation that emerged phoenix-like from the ashes of the Holocaust and the Nazi’s embrace of the very torture techniques that the CIA and other U.S. operatives have used?

How terribly sad.

Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House and here for an index and links to previous torture-related posts.

Photo illustration for Vanity Fair by Chris Mueller



This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 16th, 2008 at 4:46 am and is filed under GWOT, Bush Administration, Justice Department, US Constitution, Pentagon, Intelligence Community, Holocaust, Torture, Donald Rumsfeld, Israel, George W. Bush, CIA, Alberto Gonzales, Scandals, Guantanamo Bay, Dick Cheney. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 53 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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).
    • ^
    • v
    "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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    [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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.'
    • ^
    • v
    "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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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...
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    Um, where did you see me excusing Bush for War Crimes (except in your imagination?)
    • ^
    • v
    gee, I'm against "war crimes" too.

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

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