O'Reilly on torture...

post from The Osterley Times on 09 December 2007 06:41:00 AM. © The Osterley Times

Billy'O talks with Jonathan Turley about the destroyed CIA tapes, since Bill knows it is obstruction of justice he turns off that topic an goes to torture.

Bill then defends the use of torture. "I don't think waterboarding destroys the United States in any way shape or form."

Jon: You can not become the man you are interrogating.

Bill: See This is where you and I Part company.

O'Reilly then asks you to decide which team you are on... Basically, are you for or against torture... Unbelievable. And he regards this as a virtue...

video details and more

Tags: O'Reilly, Turley, War on Terror

Read The Full Article:
http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com/2007/12/oreilly-on-torture.html

Digg this

Torture Christ

post from The American Street on 09 December 2007 06:39:00 AM. © The American Street

Digby covered the destroyed torture tapes yesterday. Amberglow, a commenter, directed us to Gerald[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2007/12/09/torture-christ/

Digg this

Why Iran Didn't Attend Gulf Conference

post from The Newshoggers on 09 December 2007 06:29:00 AM. © The Newshoggers

By Cernig

There's been much speculation over the sudden decision by Iran's foreign minister not to attend the Gulf security conference organised by the International Institute for Security Strategies. This is the "Manama Dialogue" at which US SecDef Bob Gates called Iran a threat to regional security, citing ties to terror groups and alleged interference in Iraq as well as Iran's nuclear program.

Well, according to Gulf News, it was a protest because the IISS wouldn't let Ahmin-nutjob's pet holocaust deniers attend.

Iran's conspicuous absence in the Manama Dialogue is a reaction from its Foreign Ministry after the security conference organisers, the London-based International Institute for Security Strategies (IISS), refused to extend an invitation to the Iranian Foreign Ministry's Institute for Political and International Studies (IPIS), sources told Gulf News.

IPIS last December organised in Tehran a conference of Holocaust deniers, attended by participants from 30 countries, including several from Europe, an American white-supremacist politician and Jews from the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta sect who argued that the Holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated.

"The Iranian Foreign Ministry had informed the organisers that it wanted IPIS to attend the annual summit, but IISS refused, prompting the Foreign Ministry to cancel its much-anticipated participation. The Iranians made it clear that they would take part in the conference only if IPIS was also invited," the sources said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had been scheduled to attend the conference, but the Iranians later said he would not attend and that it would not send a delegation.

Very stupid. From an Iranian point of view, as has been noted by several FP experts on several occasions, it's all about status, respect, "face" - they want most to be treated seriously. The Iranians figure that if a major foreign policy think tank is hosting such a shindig then it's only right and proper that their own in-house foreign policy think tank attend and got miffed when they were refused. But to expect a Western think tank to extend an invitation to such shills was always ridiculous. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki should have put the "face" gained from attending before the face lost from having his think tank shunned. He did his sums wrong. Like I said, a big mistake.

Read The Full Article:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-iran-didnt-attend-gulf-conference.
html

Digg this

Aiding and abetting

post from Eschaton on 09 December 2007 06:21:00 AM. © Eschaton

Even DFH Atrios himself does not use language strong enough for these people:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

[...]

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Lambert says: Well, I guess now I know why impeachment was "off the table."

They have damned us all.

Signed,
Not Atrios

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blogspot/bRuz/~3/197520226/2007_12_09_archive.html

Digg this

Did Bush approve CIA leak to embarrass Pelosi

post from AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth on 09 December 2007 05:29:00 AM. © AMERICAblog: A great nation deserves the truth

Sure looks that way. Today's Washington Post reports that Pelosi was briefed about the CIA's waterboarding in 2002 and raised no objections. A few responses:

It's pretty clear that either one of the Republican members of Congress at the meeting, or the CIA, decided to leak what happened at a super-classified post-9/11 briefing in order to embarrass Pelosi and the Democrats. And I don't doubt for a minute that Bush approved the leak, as he always does.

It's also clear that had Pelosi raised any private objections during the meeting - remember, it took place in the first year after September 11 - Bush and the Republicans would have leaked that fact to the public (like they just did) and destroyed her career and marked her publicly as a traitor. No member of Congress, no American, could have spoken up about anything in the months after September 11 and survived. It's patently unfair to suggest that somehow because Pelosi didn't object then that she doesn't have the right to object now.

One final point. I hope this teaches Pelosi and Reid and all the Democrats that no matter what you do, this administration will mark you as a traitor and try to do destroy you. You might as well fight back and try to win, because if you don't, you'll sit back and lose.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/197594819/did-bush-approve-cia-leak
-to-embarrass.html

Digg this

In Philadelphia, We Have a New Mayor

post from Ratbang Diary on 09 December 2007 05:28:00 AM. © Ratbang Diary

Mayor Michael Nutter will take office in January. He?s Black. Our last Mayor, John Street, is black. Race and religious affiliation have had little impact on who becomes Mayor of Philadelphia. So far, Nutter is doing all the right things. First crack of the bat, he canned our Police Commissioner. And he?s given the trade unions (which have a stranglehold on Philadelphia and are notoriously anti-black and anti-minority) the directive to stop their bigoted hiring practices.

We knew last May after the primary that Nutter would be our Mayor. No one had heard of the Republican candidate, Al Taubenberger, and this is a Democrat town.

But the reason I mention these local politics is that the main thing people in Philadelphia are saying..right after they say, ?maybe this town can rise from its ashes?...is: ?I hope Nutter will be allowed to do all the good things he wants to do?. And that hope is being voiced because Philadelphia?s City Council, police force, political machines of both parties, unions, and State politicians are notoriously corrupt.

And the reason I mention that local fact is that any candidate for President of the United States is faced with the same daunting challenge.

Will any of the candidates for president be allowed to change anything when he/she is elected to office?

Frank Rich?s interesting article in this morning?s New York Times calls Mike Huckabee the Republicans? Barack Obama.

Huckabee and Obama talk the talk and in their limited way (Huckabee was governor of Arkansas from 1996 to 2007 and Obama has been in the Illinois State Senate and the US Senate since 1996), they both have been walking the walk.

But neither has been put under the political microscope and tested during a major upheaval in the way Clinton, Giuliani and Romney have been sliced, diced and disected.

And in that way, both Obama and Huckabee are tempting as candidates. We have no idea what they will do when the shit hits the fan, as it surely and inevitably will.

Huckabee says he will abolish the IRS. For this, he received a standing ovation when the proposal issued from his mouth.

And of course, as president, he could never abolish the IRS. It would not be allowed. It is not even remotely possible. But the idea resonated with everyone who heard it.

What would any of these candidates be allowed to do as far as changing the modus operandi of the present political system when he/she becomes president?

Not much.

And unless a new brilliant rising star appears on the political horizon who can engage the hopes and allay the fears of the American voting public, we are going to get a political warhorse who knows the ropes for president. Because most people are likely to vote for the devil they know.

Read The Full Article:
http://ratbangdiary.blogspot.com/2007/12/in-philadelphia-we-have-new-mayor.html

Digg this

Sunday Open Thread

post from My Left Wing - Front Page on 09 December 2007 05:15:00 AM. © My Left Wing - Front Page

"You manage things; you lead people."

Grace Murray Hopper
December 9, 1906 - January 1, 1992

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=20035

Digg this

Supporters of Evil

post from Once Upon a Time... on 09 December 2007 05:04:00 AM. © Once Upon a Time...

For numerous reasons that I have explained in detail, the practice of torture is unalloyed evil: see, "Lies in the Service of Evil." Supporting torture or allowing its practice to continue -- allowing it to continue in any manner at all -- is also evil. Some of you may recoil from the term "evil." If you recall what torture is, you should not:

Torture is the deliberate infliction of unbearable agony on a human being -- a human being who is intentionally kept alive precisely so that he will suffer still more and for a longer period of time -- for no justifiable reason. This is the embrace of sadism and cruelty for their own sake, and for no other end whatsoever.

This does not represent "specialized" knowledge available only to purported experts. These are simple and obvious truths, that can be known by any decent human being who devotes an hour to two to consideration of this subject. One would think that would not be too much to require of national leaders and lawmakers.

With regard to the following "news" -- which is not news to anyone who has paid attention for the last six years -- no one has any reason whatsoever to evince the most minimal degree of surprise:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

People consider such disclosures at this late date to be "news" or to be at all surprising only if they have refused to acknowledge and understand the necessary meaning and implications of the United States' actions in recent years. With regard to torture, the timeline is significantly longer: the U.S. has regularly employed torture for many decades. Most liberals and progressives, together with Democratic apologists generally, prefer to view the Bush administration as "unique" in American history, as representing a profound shift in national policy. None of this is true: these are lies cravenly dishonest apologists tell themselves to justify their otherwise indefensible political allegiances.

I reminded readers recently that I wrote the following last summer, explaining why the Democratic Congress would never impeach any of the major criminals in the Bush administration:

But for the reasons set forth above (and a full case would fill many volumes), the Democrats are not going to impeach any of these criminals, barring events entirely unforeseeable at present. And they will not for one overwhelmingly significant and determinative reason: always with regard to the underlying principles, and frequently with regard to the specifics, the Democrats are implicated in every single crime with which they would charge the members of the administration. The Republicans' crimes are their crimes.

This latest story is but another in an endless series of similar examples that support my judgment.

The leading Democratic presidential contenders have said they reject torture as an official instrument of government policy. In the context of the actions of the Democratic Congress, such claims are contemptibly meaningless:

And no one speaks of repealing the Military Commissions Act. If anyone in Congress actually gave a damn about liberty and civilization on the most basic level, that is what they would discuss, and they would discuss it all the time. For the Military Commissions Act did not simply destroy habeas corpus; it also established the state's use of torture as an acknowledged, acceptable, standardized means of governance. All the Democratic presidential candidates have recently condemned torture as an element of official government policy -- although I am not aware that anyone has asked Hillary Clinton why she has apparently altered her previously expressed approval of a supposedly narrow "exception" to the prohibition against torture, and if she now rejects her own earlier view. But as long as the Military Commissions Act remains the law, all such condemnations are meaningless, and they deserve to be disbelieved. If any of these politicians were seriously opposed to torture, repeal of the Military Commissions Act would be among their very highest priorities.

The Democrats will not repeal the Military Commissions Act. All of the selective attention and outrage focused on waterboarding is yet another sleight of hand, by means of which the Democrats seek to portray themselves as opposed to the "unique" evil of the Bush administration, while they simultaneously allow, and often encourage, the systematic implementation of evil as national policy to continue unimpeded.

As I have observed, there is no "lesser" evil now, when one understands what the two major parties in fact represent. As for those who still insist that the Democrats represent the only hope for "saving" the U.S. government from "within the system" -- a belief which can be maintained only by denying facts on a massive scale and by blinding oneself to the lessons history teaches repeatedly -- I refer you to this statement from one German, noted in Milton Mayer's, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-1945, and excerpted in my essay, "Thus the World Was Lost":

"Yes," said my colleague, shaking his head, "the 'excesses' and the 'radicals.' We all opposed them, very quietly. So your two 'little men' thought they must join, as good men, good Germans, even as good Christians, and when enough of them did they would be able to change the party. They would 'bore from within.' 'Big men' told themselves that, too, in the usual sincerity that required them only to abandon one little principle after another, to throw away, little by little, all that was good. I was one of those men.

"You know," he went on, "when men who understand what is happening--the motion, that is, of history, not the reports of single events or developments--when such men do not object or protest, men who do not understand cannot be expected to. How many men would you say understand--in this sense--in America? And when, as the motion of history accelerates and those who don't understand are crazed by fear, as our people were, and made into a great 'patriotic' mob, will they understand then, when they did not before?

"We learned here--I say this freely--to give up trying to make them understand after, oh, the end of 1938, after the night of the synagogue burning and the things that followed it. Even before the war began, men who were teachers, men whose faith in teaching was their whole faith, gave up, seeing that there was no comprehension, no capacity left for comprehension, and the thing must go its course, taking first its victims, then its architects, and then the rest of us to destruction...."

I do not want to be misunderstood on this point, so let me state it as plainly as I can. The time is long since past for every minimally decent American to take a stand: either you are on the side of civilization and humanity, and the irreplaceable, supreme value of an individual human life -- or you are on the side of evil, brutality, torture, sadism, genocidal war, and endless death. The Democrats and the Republicans both stand for Empire, and for the endless horrors already inflicted -- and the endless horrors that still lie in our future. If the Democrats do not repeal the Military Commissions Act or at least try to do so, and if you still support them in the 2008 elections, then you are on the side of all these horrors as well.

If the Democrats do not repeal the Military Commissions Act -- and they will not -- and you support them in 2008, you are supporting evil. To that extent, you are evil yourself.

At this terrible moment in history, we must call things by their proper names. Let the world know where you stand: for life, and the possibility of joy and happiness -- or for death, and cruelty, barbarism and the repetition of horrors that the monsters among us insist on reviving when given the opportunity.

If you choose to support evil and to embody evil yourself, I suggest you follow the vile example of the current administration: do so without apology, and brazenly revel in the evil you choose to inflict on the world. It is far more contemptible -- and, to speak personally, it is sickening beyond my capacity to describe accurately , in significant part because of the complex psychological dishonesties that are required -- to enable evil, while claiming you represent the "moral" and "practical" choice. These are the justifications used by those who made possible the cruelest and most unspeakably horrifying regimes in history, as Mayer's witness and many others attest.

Withdraw your support entirely from those who perpetrate and make excuses for evil. If the refusal to support such people were widespread enough, we still might have a chance. I regard it as the very slightest of chances, one that will almost certainly be destroyed by another significant terrorist attack in the United States -- but it is the only one we have.

Read The Full Article:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/12/supporters-of-evil.html

Digg this

Freedom Watch win a plus for progressives

By Libby

Well, I was about to post that NBC was wrong to reject the Freedom Watch ad, but I see in the interim, NBC caved to the fringenut pressure and decided to run it after all.

"We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."

Much as I loathe FW and all that it stands for, I think that's a good decision. I've complained time and time again about the ads for progressive organizations that have been rejected by TV stations, so I couldn't in good conscience argue that this one should be barred. I've seen the ad and it's non-offensive except for its connection to an entirely disgusting neo-con front group. Just as non-offensive as previously rejected ads in the past from progressive groups have been.

I see a golden opportunity here. I'm thinking this would be the perfect time for 'the left' to test the new standard. Wouldn't it be magnificent, if every left wing group put together their own thank the soldier ads and also bought time on NBC? The FW ad isn't that great. I'm sure the creative minds on the left could co-opt that concept and come up with much better ones.

It would be awesome. Done correctly, it could put a human face on the occupation and it would explode the whole false meme that the left doesn't support the troops. I envision a series of ads where families saying thanks while holding photos of their deployed family members. Maybe injured soldiers thanking their comrades. Imagine a sea of Code Pinkers simply saying thank you. There's a lot of ways to exploit this moment and if enough groups do it at once, it would become a news event.

I don't see how NBC could reject any of them, now that they set the standard. Our troops would surely feel supported by the effort and they deserve it. The soldiers on the ground have done a magnificent job under horrible circumstances and this administration has studiously sought to keep them from public view and out of the public mind.

The only downside I see is the lack of funding. All the leftwing groups put together probably don't have the accumulated wealth of the handful of neo-cons that run Freedom Watch. Anybody really know how to get in touch with George Soros?

Read The Full Article:
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/12/freedom-watch-win-plus-for-progressive
s.html

Digg this

Democrats Mutilate the Art of Compromise

com·pro·mise

1 a: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions

Compromise. Its meaning is clear, yet whenever Democrats compromise with Republicans, they somehow manage to forget to the mutual concessions part of the equation. And now we learn, the day after reports of their latest cave-in, that they apparently can't get that right either:

The White House budget director warned on Saturday that President Bush was prepared to veto a $500 billion spending package being assembled in Congress if Democrats pushed for too much additional money for domestic programs. [...]

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, was among those who met with Mr. Nussle and he has said that money for Iraq free of conditions must be part of any final spending deal. But he described as unacceptable any Democratic effort to drive up federal spending as part of the bargain.

So, the Democrats are working on a plan that would give George Bush $70 billion more dollars for Iraq, would take timelines for troop withdrawals off the table, all in exchange for increased domestic spending. Except Bush and the Republicans are saying no dice. So what's their next canny maneuver?

Democrats say that if the deal collapses, their next step may be to strip the spending bills of individual projects sought by lawmakers, a move that would be painful for many members of both parties.

Translation? They'll still give Bush what he wants and the hell with what a majority of the American people want. That'll show him. Said Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi:

America expects this president to lead — that means working in a bipartisan way with Congress to responsibly address our country’s priorities rather than issuing veto threats without even knowing what he is threatening to veto.

News flash, Harry and Nancy: America expects you to lead - that means working to keep your many promises to stand up to George Bush and to bring the troops home. Now, that may mean messing up your holiday plans and it might even mean that Dana Perino and Republicans say mean things about you. Suck it up. Stop compromising away your dignity and morals and do the job you were elected to do. For God's sake, fight.