It's Time To Move In A Different Direction

President Obama's weekly address

“Torture Is The Tool Of The Lazy, The Stupid, And The Pseudo-Tough"

Jane Mayer has an excellent piece up in the NewYorker entitled "Behind the Executive Orders" which recounts the "evolution of candidate Barack Obama on the issue of torture" as K Tizzle put it. It goes hearkens back to a day over a year ago in Iowa when then Senator Obama met with some retired military leaders to hear them out on the issue of torture and what should be done about it and then goes on to recount many of the steps in between that led to now President Obama signing an executive order last week to effectively ban torture. Many sides are represented in the article including some individuals in the CIA (anonymous of course) who still want to be able to use harsh interrogation techniques torture. But my focus went to the quote that is the subject of this post:

“torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough."

Now was this quote attributed to some DFH librul blogger or some wacky far left civil libertarian? No, this quote was attributed to retired Major General Paul Eaton. And who is retired Major General Paul Eaton? From his wikipedia page:

Assignments

As a lieutenant and captain, Eaton served in the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado, and was later transferred to Germany as part of 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division ("Brigade 76"), where he served as an assistant brigade S3 (operations) officer and later was an infantry company commander. As major and lieutenant colonel Eaton was assigned to key battalion and brigade staff positions in the old 9th Infantry Division, then on the I Corps staff. He also commanded an infantry battalion of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, and later served as the G3 (operations) officer of the division.

As a colonel in the mid 1990s he commanded an Army brigade in Germany and following promotion to brigadier general was the assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division. In 2000, he returned to the US to serve as deputy commanding general of the Army Infantry Center and School at Fort Benning, Georgia, and later he lead the creation of the Army’s new Stryker brigades at Fort Lewis, Washington. As a major general he returned to Fort Benning to be commanding general of the Army Infantry Center and School. He was then assigned to Iraq as Commanding General of the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team (CMATT), where he was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.[4]

Upon return to the US he was Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia.


Awards

Eaton's awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), Meritorious Service Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), Army Achievement Medal, Expert Infantryman Badge, Parachutist Badge, Ranger Tab, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge.

So who should you follow, the words of a decorated retired Major General in the U.S. Army who helped to create the Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis and helped to train the Iraq military, or the words of the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys and Joe Scarboroughs?

You decide.

Diddy's Blast From The Past

You can't say Puff never did anything worthwhile.

The Coming Fight Over Universal Healthcare

The BBC recently a very insightful documentary about the coming fight over universal healthcare here in the U.S. For some reason you can't watch the documentary here in American but thankfully RawStory has it posted from uploads on youtube. There are three parts and its definitely worth the time to see what you can expect in the coming months and years to be the attacks used to try to turn our citizens off to universal healthcare. We simply can NOT allow them to get away with this again!

President Barack Hussein Obama Speaks

First weekly youtube address as President

Scoreboard Bitches!

For those who thought President Obama was going to get punked in his effort to be bipartisan....

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.

But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.

Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”

With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .

(h/t Benen)

President Obama Seeks To Suspend All War Crimes Trials

I read early this morning that one of President Barack Obama's first actions yesterday was to request the suspension of all military tribunals in an effort to review the process. This was definitely welcome news. After hearing of all of the abuses that have taken place at GITMO as well as the spotty if not down right fabricated evidence that has been used to keep some of those men imprisoned for years on end I think this is a vital first step in breaking away from one of Bush's most egregious legacies. Earlier this week there was a report in the New York Times of one of the "enemy combatants", Haji Bismullah, who was finally found after six long years of detention and probable mistreatment to be eligible for release. The story was damn near heartbreaking in that here was a man, and Afghanistan, who it has been reported actually was pro-American and risked his own life to help drive the Taliban out of power in his home country. Only to be detained and taken from his wife and kids all on the word of shady members of an opposing clan. I had to ask myself, how many more Haji Bismullah are stuck over in GITMO for little or no good reason.

You know they saying "ignorance is bliss"? Well I think of that phrase a lot the more I learn about all that has happened in the name of "The War on Terror". I find its hard sometimes for my friends and family members to understand my disgust and frustration with all that happened with the Bush administration. Its easy to label it as me just being a partisan and to a certain extent I am (although I am a registered independent). But when you look at the actual facts of what happened through unbiased sources its truly hard not to be bitter and disgusted. Sometimes I spare them the details because even though I want them to understand my position and see that I am not being irrational, the truth is I realize that for many of them the fact that they don't know much about the torture and illegal detentions our country committed at Bush's direction, enables them to live a more joyous life and I don't want to take away from that. Misery in this case does not want company.

Well Glenzilla in his post about the implications of Obama's request wrote at great length about what it means in the real world. Specifically he spoke on the implications for Mohammed Jawad another "enemy combatant" who has been housed at GITMO since his teenage years under very dubious circumstances The whole thing is as usual a keeper but what I found most powerful in his post were the source links to articles supporting his statements. For that reason I will excerpt liberally primarily from those paragraphs which provide his source links. Enjoy:

Beyond the symbolic value of that act, consider what it means in specific, concrete terms. One of the Guantanamo detainees whose military commission has not yet concluded is Mohammed Jawad. Jawad is an Afghan citizen who, in late 2002, was taken into U.S. custody and then shipped from Afghanistan, his home country, to Guantanamo, where he has remained ever since -- more than six full years and counting. Nobody has ever accused Jawad of belonging either to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Instead, he is accused of throwing a hand grenade at two U.S. soldiers inside his country, seriously injuring both of them. He vehemently denies involvement. At the time of his due-process-less imprisonment in Guantanamo, he was an adolescent: between 15 and 17 years old (because he was born and lived his whole life in an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan, and is functionally illiterate, his exact date of birth is unknown).

The ACLU represents Jawad in his habeas corpus proceeding (a proceeding which the vile Military Commissions Act denied to him but which the Supreme Court, in its 5-4 Boumediene decision, ruled he was constitutionally entitled to have). The ACLU's habeas brief -- here (.pdf) -- details the severe abuse, coercion, and mental and physical torture which Jawad has endured for the last six years. The details, by definition, would thoroughly disgust any decent human being [just read paragraphs 15-54 for a brief glimpse (.pdf) of what was done to this teenager under the official, authorized program of the U.S. Government].

snip

To underscore how dubious and unreliable is the evidence against Jawad, how far away he is from a "hard-core terrorist," and how outrageous is his ongoing detention, Lt. Col. Vandeveld very poignantly wrote:

Had I returned to Afghanistan or Iraq, and had I encountered Mohammed Jawad in either of those hostile lands, where two of my friends have been killed in action and one of my very best friends in the world had been terribly wounded, I have no doubt at all -- none -- that Mr. Jawad would pose no threat whatsoever to me, his former prosecutor and now-repentant persecuter. Six years is long enough for a boy of sixteen to serve in virtual solitary confinement, in a distant land, for reasons he may never fully understand.

Worst of all, Lt. Col. Vandeveld explains that he began to realize the grave injustice of prosecuting Jawad as he discovered long-concealed evidence proving just how brutal and continuous the abuse of Jawad has been, and how virtually all of the evidence against him was suspect at best and almost certainly was unreliably coerced.

In Afghanistan, Jawad was severely beaten, drugged, and threatened with death for both himself and his family if he refused to confess to the grenade incident. That occurred just weeks after the incident where two Afghan detainees, including a completely innocent 22-year-old Afghan cab driver, were beaten to death -- murdered -- while detained and interrogated by U.S. troops in Bagram. The confession Jawad "signed" (with his fingerprint, since he can't write his name) became the centerpiece of the Bush administration's case against him, and yet, it was written in a language Jawad did not speak or read, and was given to him after several days of beatings, druggings and threats -- all while he was likely 15 or 16 years old.

snip

Jawad was never waterboarded, but no civilized human being would deny that the cumulative effect of his treatment at the hands of our country is torture in every sense of the word. And there's nothing unique about his treatment. It wasn't aberrational. Rather, it has been miserably common for detainees in U.S. custody -- not only at Guantanamo, but also in Bagram and throughout Iraq. It was what our highest political officials authorized and ordered. At least 100 detainees in U.S. custody have died since 2002, many suffering gruesome deaths. Countless others have been severely injured and irreparably wounded -- mentally crippled -- by the inhumane, brutal and patently illegal treatment to which they were subjected. Video released earlier this year showed another teenaged detainee at Guantanamo, 16-year-old Omar Khadr, weeping uncontrollably and showing clear signs of mental instability during a Guantanamo interrogation. Khadr's military commission was scheduled to start this week -- and the military judge in charge of his case has just moments ago agreed to Obama's request to suspend it for 120 days.

This is why it is so unconscionable -- almost as revolting as the original acts themselves -- to hear so many Americans arguing that their leaders who were responsible for all of these crimes should be immunized and protected and their crimes left uninvestigated and forgotten. The reasons cited for this impunity are even more wretched -- the media wouldn't like it; it would interfere with Obama's ability to get his stimulus package passed; it would make right-wing talk-radio angry; these crimes happened "in the past" and can therefore be forgotten; the criminals aren't in power any longer; it would be "divisive" and undermine bipartisanship.

When the discussion remains at a high level of abstraction, it's easy to wave away "war crimes" and the need for accountability for those who commit them. But there are actual victims of these crimes -- lots of them, many of whom are completely innocent of having done anything wrong, many whose lives have been destroyed.

That's heavy stuff man. I just wonder if President Bush ever reads these kinds of stories about the men whose lives he has totally destroyed. Men, many of them boys when first detained, who will likely never have a normal life again. Men who had families, a wife and kids. Men who, while possibly innocent, have died while being "questioned" while detained. Men who even when his administration was confronted with evidence of their innocence have still been denied their freedom.

Or maybe once again ignorance is bliss.

"The Beast"

Yall know a black man gotta have a cadillac!

My President's Black

Everybody embed this video to rep for Hip Hop and President Obama

Update: Found a new embed.





Young Jeezy - My President Is Black (feat. Nas)

(h/t Cybernegress)

The Chessmaster Strikes Again.

MSNBC has an article up about a just released NYTimes poll which reveals that most Americans not only approve of Barack Obama but are also willing to be patient with him and give him time to implement his agenda. Please feel free to check out the poll, I for one am all polled out at this point. We get it, they like him, blah blah blah. But I just HAD to excerpt this lady's quotes to illustrate my point again about how Obama is moving the goal posts under everyone's noses. Check out how this Republican lady explains why she answered the poll the way she did.

“I think those of us who voted for McCain are going to be a lot happier with Obama than the people who voted for him,” Valerie Schlink, 46, a Republican from Valparaiso, Ind., said in an interview after participating in the poll. “A lot of the things he said he would do, like pulling out the troops in 16 months and giving tax cuts to those who make under $200,000, I think he now sees are going to be a lot tougher than he thought and that the proper thing to do is stay more towards the middle and ease our way into whatever has to be done. It can’t all be accomplished immediately.”

The ridiculous pot shot she takes at us "dirty hippies" she takes in the beginning aside, notice the two examples she pointed to as to why people who voted for McCain are going to be happy with Obama.

1. The 16 month timetable for withdrawal in Iraq

2. Tax cuts for everyone making under $200,000.

Ahem, maybe she hadn't noticed but the Status of Forces Agreement already has a timetable in it that we have to abide by and the Iraqi's have the ability to actually make us leave earlier with the referendum their citizens are going to vote on this spring. To put it bluntly nothing has changed. If anything America will be getting out of Iraq faster than before.

As to the tax cuts uhmmm what did she think was in Obama's stimulus plan that he submitted to Congress last week?

Man I have to tell you, I am not one for over hyping someone but this guy is killing em right now. Next thing you know he is going to have wingnuts saying universal healthcare ain't so bad after all! LOL

Now my fellow liberals and progressives keep this in mind the next time you are ready to fly off the handle about something President Obama "might" do. Sometimes you just have to work the refs a little and he definitely seems to know how to win the game.

Organizing For America

Are you going to answer the President Elect's call?

Don't Do It Cuz It Just Might Work

Ken Blackwell is just so full of win. I truly hope that moron is chosen to take the reigns as head of the RNC. You just can't teach the level of stupid that this guy has at his command. He is sure to take their bad situation heading into the wilderness and turn it into a nuclear meltdown of which they will never recover.

His latest foray into ass hattery comes from this post on his townhall blog. Now I know much has been made about the GOP trying to reinvent themselves online after President Elect Obama kicked their asses all over the net this election season, but evidently not everyone has been taking their correspondence courses. You see Blackwell published a manifesto about why the Republicans should oppose Obama's stimulus plan apparently unaware that ANYBODY can read it. And what is the problem with people other than Republicans being able to read his post you ask? Well its because of the reasons WHY he tells them to oppose it. The most interesting reason by far is that they should oppose it because.......wait for it......wait for it.......it just might work.

A week ago, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, mentioned Mr. Obama says his goal is for 80% of these three million jobs to be private-sector. That means, Senator McConnell continued, that 20% would be public-sector, meaning this bill would create 600,000 new federal government jobs. For comparison, Mr. McConnell noted this would be the size of the entire Postal Service workforce.

Once government creates a job, it rarely eliminates it. Government swells by nature, feeding on tax dollars taken away from private citizens and employers until it becomes a bloated, sprawling bureaucracy.

So if Mr. Obama creates 600,000 new government bureaucrats, those jobs should be expected to be kept around permanently, long after this economic crisis is resolved. After all, eliminating those jobs means laying off 600,000 people. Who wants to take responsibility for that?

But most federal employees, that are not political appointees, vote Democrat. Since Washington, DC is the seat of government, whenever new federal bureaucrats are created many live in Maryland and Virginia. In 2008, Virginia went Democrat for the first time since 1964, and Mr. Obama won it by 130,000 votes. Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House.

Now I for one don't think most Americans would be upset about 600,000 new jobs being created in the public sector because right now most people just want to have a job. That he doesn't realize this is just another example of how divorced from reality the members of the GOP really are. But that's not the best part...

What makes this particularly damaging to this authoritarian deficit-expanding coward is that on the one hand he accuses Obama of trying to create these jobs for political purposes and then in the next breath he says the GOP should oppose these new jobs being created so they can have a shot at the Presidency again in 2012. Some how I doubt that the over two million people who lost their jobs over the course of the last year will give much of a shit if the Republicans EVER get back into office if it means they will be able to get a new job and take care of their families. And unfortunately for him it is now public knowledge that he would rather deny them the dignity of work than deny his conservative cronies their shot at the ring.

At least back in the day when Bill Kristol sent his memo commanding the Rethugs to oppose kill universal healthcare because Americans would like it, he had the common damn sense to do it in secret. Of course being a black man who chooses to be a Republican pretty much shows you his level of intellect doesn't it?

Can they please stop making it this easy? Seriously. I mean damn I would like a challenge every now and then.

(h/t ThinkProgress)

Those Who Forget History Are Doomed To Repeat It

Update: Read Glenzilla on the topic also...


In the NYTimes today Paul Krugman makes a very strong case as for why the Bush Administration needs to be investigated and where warrented prosecuted for the abuses they perpetrated while in office. As you can tell from some of my recent postings I totally agree with Krugman on this. He makes some very salient points in his article and I will exerpt just a few:

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Can anybody credibly argue against him on this point? Krugman addresses two of the going memes put forth by mostly conservative talking heads about why we shouldn't investigate.

Why, then, shouldn’t we have an official inquiry into abuses during the Bush years?

One answer you hear is that pursuing the truth would be divisive, that it would exacerbate partisanship. But if partisanship is so terrible, shouldn’t there be some penalty for the Bush administration’s politicization of every aspect of government?

Alternatively, we’re told that we don’t have to dwell on past abuses, because we won’t repeat them. But no important figure in the Bush administration, or among that administration’s political allies, has expressed remorse for breaking the law. What makes anyone think that they or their political heirs won’t do it all over again, given the chance?

Amen and Amen. History tells us that in the past when we have chosen to look forward and not back all it has led to is more abuses by our Commander in Chief and really who could blame them? Why WOULDN'T you abuse your office if there is historical precedent that you will never be held to account if you do so? Witness exhibit A.

In fact, we’ve already seen this movie. During the Reagan years, the Iran-contra conspirators violated the Constitution in the name of national security. But the first President Bush pardoned the major malefactors, and when the White House finally changed hands the political and media establishment gave Bill Clinton the same advice it’s giving Mr. Obama: let sleeping scandals lie. Sure enough, the second Bush administration picked up right where the Iran-contra conspirators left off — which isn’t too surprising when you bear in mind that Mr. Bush actually hired some of those conspirators.

And now people are wondering how we ended up in these messes we are in 8 years later. Its because 16 years prior we were hearing the same advice from the same jackasses being handed out now about letting bygones be bygones and not offending anyone's delicate sensibilities. Well its about time somebody stood up and said FUCK THAT! How many times do you have to see the same episode before you decide its time to change the channel. We have done the "just let it go" dance before and now we see to disasterous effect. If we as Americans REALLY believe in the rule of law and the Constitution how does that jibe with letting people off the hook simply because "its too divisive". If we don't have the courage to stand up for the justice then what does that say about us as a country?

Now, it’s true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we’ll guarantee that they will happen again.

When was the last time you heard that we should let a killer get away with murder becuase it might divide the country? When was the last time you heard someone say we should let a crook get away with robbing people because we just need to focus on making sure nobody gets robbed again? Never. Never would you hear such talk of leniency for some random nobody who commits a crime. And if we aren't pushing for them to get away with their crimes then we for damn sure shouldn't be pushing for our leaders to get away with theirs.

One thing that bothers me is that in my own personal life I haven't encountered anyone, even any conservatives who have said they don't want the Bush Administration investigated. So why is it that every pundit is trying to make it seem like the world would come to an end? Are we really supposed to believe that because it might be hard thats a good enough reason not to do it? Is that what America is about now adays?

Its also very curious to me that you will see poll after poll released these days about approval ratings on different issues, but I have yet to see a national poll about how the populous feels about whether Bush and his cronines should be investigated. I wonder why that is. I imagine because if those poll numbers came in and the will of the majority of people fell on the side of investigating the Bush administration then there would be no way to justify the lack of doing so. And of course the pundits wouldn't want that, would they?

Please vote in my unscientific and thoroughly useless straw poll over there --->

Don't Act Surprised

Like Alonzo said in "Training Day", this is chess not checkers.

WASHINGTON – Congress laid the foundation for President-elect Barack Obama's economic recovery plan on Thursday with remarkable speed, clearing the way for a new infusion of bailout cash for the financial industry while majority Democrats proposed spending increases and tax cuts totaling a whopping $825 billion.

Two days after Obama personally lobbied for release of $350 billion in bailout funds, the Senate narrowly turned aside a bid to block the money.

Across the Capitol, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. said, "Immediate job creation and then continuing job creation" were the twin goals of the separate stimulus legislation. It recommends tax cuts for businesses and individuals while pouring billions into areas such as health care, education, energy and highway construction.

She and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., have pledged to have the economic stimulus bill ready for Obama's signature by mid-February.

Both houses debated Obama's call to release another $350 billion from the financial bailout package, but the Senate vote was the triumph he had sought. Despite bipartisan anger over the Bush administration's handling of the program to date, Democratic allies of the incoming president prevailed on a 52-42 roll call.

The vote followed a commitment by Obama to use as much as $100 billion of the funds to help homeowners facing foreclosure proceedings.

The money will be available in less than two weeks, at a time when there is fresh evidence of shakiness among banks.

First off I hate to say I told you so but nobody should be surprised that Obama gets what Obama wants especially with the make up of Congress now. Always remember that when you hear about a Democrat criticizing or opposing some legislation that Obama favors to look and see who it is. When I saw Senator McCaskill and Senator Kerry criticizing the Tarp legislation and the stimulus bill I just knew the fix was in. They can't look like they are rubber stamping President Elect Obama's agenda but after the bluff and bluster over if you see a Democrat voting against Obama get ready for a cold day because Hell will be freezing over.

Presidential Brown Liquor

From the NYTimes

As Mr. Obama prepares to be sworn in on Tuesday as the 44th president, the hoopla is reaching a higher level with a round of products and advertisements pegged to the inauguration.

The new items include bottles of Hennessy Cognac, bearing labels that read “44”; commemorative issues of publications like The New Yorker, Newsweek, USA Today and The Washington Post; and T-shirts from the Presidential Inaugural Committee that urge “Be the change.”

You know Imma cop that!

"We Do Not Torture", Except When We Do

The Washington Post today has published a story where a senior Bush official has admitted to our country's torturing of a detainee at GITMO. It is important to remember that torture is against Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and is in fact a War Crime. I don't see how President Elect Barack Obama can now decline to have the Bush Administration investigated from head to toe. The evidence was already miles high that war crimes were committed on President Bush's watch and even perhaps at his direction. To now have confirmation of that fact should be the final straw. From the article:

This is part is excerpted out of order but I think its important to focus on because in all of the talking heads extolling the virtues of torture we need to remember why, even in a ticking bomb scenario, it hurts more than helps us when we engage in such reprehensible behavior.

In May 2008, Crawford ordered the war-crimes charges against Qahtani dropped but did not state publicly that the harsh interrogations were the reason. "It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

back in order

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Notice the third paragraph with her conservative bonafides. I guarantee you the wingnuts and Joe Scarborough will still try to paint her as a soft lefty librul.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

What were some of those "combinations of things" you ask?

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

But as usual Dick Cheney has different thoughts on the matter. See he thinks only liberals and left wing types think torture actually occured.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that interrogations never involved torture. "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values," Bush asserted on Sept. 6, 2006, when 14 high-value detainees were transferred to Guantanamo from secret CIA prisons. And in a interview last week with the Weekly Standard, Cheney said, "And I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party, there are some people who believe that we really tortured."

But what does he make of this statement from the imminently conservative card carrying Republican Judge Crawford?

"I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe," said Crawford, a lifelong Republican. "But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward."

Let there be no doubt about this, we HAVE tortured in the name of protecting this country and it DID come from the top down. We now have the Senate Arms Service report , a documentary on our torture from PBS, and the word of a conservative judge brought in to oversee the military tribunals to confirm this. Now again I know the wingnuts are going to try to move the goal posts and instead of denying torture they will now say it was necessary but what does that say about us as a country if we simply accept that. How do we regain our stature as a beacon of democracy if those who perpetrated these crimes are never held to account.

I personally believe that in the end Obama will in fact have the Justice Department do the investigation and that his rhetoric so far is just to keep himself at arms length so as to not look like he is politicizing the situation. But I will say this right here and right now. If President Elect Obama in fact does not investigate the Bush Administration for their crimes we should and must protest LOUDLY and often. I can't honestly say that I would vote for a Republican in 2012 behind this but I will say that he runs the risk of losing my vote four years from now if Bush & Co. are allowed to get away scott free. If we really are a nation of laws then no one should be above it, especially those who are expected to lead us.

Spittin Hot Fiya

A word to the wise.

Don't fuck with John Conyers!


Man, Congressman Conyers isn't buying any of this "bipartisanship" bullshit when it comes to Barack Obama's rhetoric about "looking forward not backward" in respect to investigating the Bush Administration. He didn't seem to get that memo. As chairman of the House Judicial committee he has just released a damn near 500 page report recommending entitled “REINING IN THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY” which is an intense review of Bush's controversial decisions and actions over the last 8 years in addition. I can't excerpt from that many pages but I will hit you with the high points from the executive summary and I encourage you to read the whole thing even if you do it just a little bit at a time.

This Report has been prepared at the direction of Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. It was drafted to itemize and document the various abuses that occurred during the Bush Administration relating to the Committee’s review and jurisdiction, and to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations to prevent the recurrence of these or similar abuses in the future.

snip

The next five sections of the Report describe specific abuses of the Imperial Presidency relating to Judiciary Committee inquiries. Section 1, “Politicization of the Department of Justice,” describes the Committee’s U.S. Attorneys investigation and concerns relating to the politicization of the Civil Rights Division in general and the Voting Rights Division in particular. Even as this report is being released, the Justice Department’s Offices of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility have released a report further documenting politicized hiring and politicized decision-making in the Division. Section 2, “Assault on Individual Liberties,” broadly details Bush Administration policies relating to detention, enhanced interrogation, extraordinary rendition, ghosting and black sites, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the issuance of national security and exigent letters. Section 3, “Misuse of Executive Branch Authority,” describes concerns relating to signing statements and misuse of regulatory authorities. Section 4, “Retribution against Critics,” details the facts ascertained relating to the outing of former intelligence agent Valerie Plame Wilson, and other instances of improper retribution by the Bush Administration against its critics. Section 5, “Government in the Shadows,” describes multifaceted efforts of the Bush Administration to avoid accountability and culpability through a variety of legal techniques, including broad and unprecedented assertions of executive privilege, withholding testimony and information without formal assertion of privilege, extraordinary assertions of state secrets, broad uses of classification authorities, and unduly narrow construction of the Freedom of Information Act, as well as manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War. Each of these sections includes a comprehensive set of findings detailing specific legal and factual conclusions drawn from the review.

Section 6 of the Report sets forth a comprehensive set of 47 policy recommendations designed to respond to the abuses and excesses of the Bush Imperial Presidency. The list begins with three major threshold recommendations:

• First, that the Judiciary Committee pursue its document requests and subpoenas pending at the end of the 110th Congress.

• Second, that Congress create an independent blue ribbon commission or similar body to investigate the host of previously unreviewable activities of the Bush Administration, including detention, enhanced interrogation, extraordinary rendition, ghosting and black sites, and warrantless domestic electronic
surveillance.

• Third, that the new Administration conduct an independent criminal inquiry into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities.

In this regard, the Report firmly rejects the notion that we should move on from these matters simply because a new Administration is set to take office. This is because there never has been an independent, comprehensive review of these very serious allegations with a full report to the American public. The investigations to date have either been limited in scope or authority, hidden from the public and the Congress, or stonewalled or obstructed by the outgoing Administration behind impenetrable walls of classification and privilege. The purpose of the above-described investigations is not payback, but to uphold the rule of law, allow us to learn from our national mistakes, and prevent them from recurring. Such an effort would be a welcome sign to our friends, and a warning to our foes, that this Nation can indeed serve as a beacon of liberty and freedom without weakening our ability to combat terrorism or other threats.

snip

The Report makes clear that even after scores of hearings, investigations, and reports, Congress and the American public still do not have answers to some of the most fundamental questions concerning the Bush Imperial Presidency. These include the following:

1. Who created the U.S. Attorney firing list, and how were specific U.S. Attorneys included or excluded from the list?

After more than 13 House and Senate Judiciary committee hearings and depositions with over 12 witnesses, we still do not know who created the U.S. Attorney firing list and why.

snip

2. Were any Laws Broken as a Result of the Enhanced Interrogation Tactics Engaged in by the Bush Administration?

Notwithstanding various internal reports by the Bush Administration and a number of investigations and hearings in the Congress (limited and constrained in many cases by Administration obstruction), there never has been a full and independent inquiry into whether there have been criminal violations of federal statutes prohibiting torture and war crimes.

snip

3. Were any Laws Broken as a Result of the Extraordinary Rendition Tactics Engaged in by the Bush Administration?

The Committee has uncovered considerable evidence of potential criminal culpability relating to the rendition of Maher Arar.

snip

4. Were any Laws Broken as a Result of the the so-called “Terrorist Surveillance Program” and related activities?

There have been numerous efforts to obtain a judicial determination of the legality of the President’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.

snip

5. To what extent were President Bush and Vice President Cheney involved in the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson and its aftermath?

There is considerable evidence that culpability for the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson and subsequent obstruction goes above and beyond Scooter Libby.

snip

Given that so many significant questions remain unanswered relating to these core constitutional and legal matters, many of which implicate basic premises of our national honor, it seems clear that our country cannot simply move on. As easy or convenient as it would be to turn the page, our Nation’s respect for the rule of law and its role as a moral leader in the world demand that we finally and without obstruction conduct and complete these inquiries. This can and should be done without rancor or partisanship.

Yep it sounds like the Bushies just might go down after all. And I for one think Congressman Conyers should be applauded for not just letting it go. The mere fact that none of our recent Presidents have ever spent a day in jail for their transgressions in office in my opinion is the main reason why they continue to abuse their power at will. And the only way to stop that cycle is to finally hold someone to account and I can't think of anyone more deserving than Bush and his homeboys.

(h/t Thinkprogress)

Deep Thought

How smooth is President Elect Obama in that when he proposes almost $800 BILLION dollars in stimulus spending he has set it up so lovely that the debate isn't over how big the number is, instead its over whether its big ENOUGH?!

Game recognize Game

A Message From The Rock For DiFi And Rockefeller

Bloomberg has a good piece up today about President Elect Barack Obama's choice to run the CIA Leon Panetta. Through out the piece you will find wide spread approval of the choice by some pretty reputable people.

A number of other experts in intelligence -- including former Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet and Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9-11 Commission, praised the choice and dismissed the reservations of Feinstein and Rockefeller.

Tenet, CIA director during Bush’s first term, said Panetta was “a great choice.”

“He will bring stature and leadership to the agency,” Tenet said in an interview.

snip

Senator Ron Wyden, a member of the intelligence panel, said Panetta is a “savvy” Washington veteran who can change the agency.

snip

Hamilton, who once headed the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Panetta’s lack of experience in intelligence gathering operations isn’t a hindrance in running the agency.

“He will bring a very needed perspective, an outside perspective, to the CIA at a critical time in the agency’s history,” Hamilton, now president of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center, said in an interview.

snip

Milt Bearden, a former CIA official who was the agency’s station chief in Pakistan during the 1980s, said Panetta’s lack of an intelligence background may be a benefit.

Bearden said that, with retired Marine General James Jones serving as Obama’s national security adviser, Panetta would help offset the influence of the military.

“I have nothing against the military, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having a civilian balance in the national-security establishment,” he said. During his service in Pakistan, Bearden was in charge of the CIA’s program of supporting and supplying Afghan fighters battling Soviet forces in their country.

So you would think everything would be sunny in Obama land right? Of course not. You see some fellow Democrats namely Senators Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockerfeller are a little pissy about it because nobody bent over to kiss their ass about the appointment.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who will be head of Select Committee on Intelligence during confirmation hearings for the CIA job, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, the current chairman, said they weren’t informed about the choice of Panetta, a former U.S. representative from California and chief of staff and budget director in President Bill Clinton’s White House.

Feinstein said in a statement she knew “nothing” about the selection of Panetta until media reports yesterday. An aide to Rockefeller who spoke to the senator said the West Virginia Democrat wasn’t consulted. Feinstein said she wants an “intelligence professional” in the post. Rockefeller also expressed concern about Panetta’s lack of experience, his aide said

Mind you these same too goofballs both voted FOR Porter Goss who was an absolute disaster as the head of the CIA but not only that you would be hard pressed to find ANY appointment that President Bush made that they voted against. But instead of keeping their mouth's shut they decide to crap all over the appointment on the day that it is announced. They are all bent out of shape because they weren't "consulted" about the pick. They also would rather have "pro torture" debuty CIA director Steve Kappes to run the agency. Yeah that would be change we could believe in, heh.

This is just another example of Democrats getting in their own way. And if you are wondering, YES I blame Harry Reid for this too because its indicative of how much of a weak leader he is that he can't keep his own party members in line. But I was reminded this morning of a catch phrase one of my favorite wrestlers used to employ. You see Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller, when you become President then you can pick whomever you want to run the CIA, but until then, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!

Lend Me Your Ear

Your Weekly Youtube address from President Elect Barack Obama.