Food for thought

Here are a few items I picked up the last week or so that seemed particularly relevant for one reason or another...

If you represent defendants who are under the age of 25, you might want to listen to this interview Fresh Air's Terry Gross had with Dr. Frances Jensen about her new book The Teenage Brain. Dr. Jensen explains why the judgment of a young adult may be a bit impaired due to both biological and environmental conditions.

Former CIA agent John Kiriakou was released from federal prison last week after serving almost two years for disclosing the truth about the CIA's torture program. Mr. Kiriakou is the only person who has been convicted or sentenced to prison regarding the torture program launched under President George W. Bush. To date, not one person who signed the orders, supervised the torture or penned a memo justifying torture has been punished. Amy Goodman interviewed him on Democracy Now!  this morning.

Here's a piece I wrote just before Mr. Kiriakou reported to prison.

Finally, I'm not much of a college basketball fan. The games are too micro-managed by coaches and the "action" on the court can put you to sleep. This weekend, the legendary North Carolina coach, Dean Smith, died. While he was celebrated in the media for winning championships the "Carolina Way," not much has been said about the amazing things he did off the court. Mr. Smith was responsible for integrating the ACC. He was also an outspoken critic of the death penalty. This piece from The Nation's Dave Zirin gives us a little more insight into the man.

On torture, war crimes and hypocrisy

So Democrats in Congress are up in arms about revelations that our government tortured inmates as part of the War on Everything Terror. It's not like this was new information. We've known about it for years. Books have been published based on government documents. Those senators and representatives on the various intelligence committees and oversight committees knew all about it.

But now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has released a summary of its findings, we must all show a renewed sense of indignation. I'm sure there are a few poor souls out there who had no idea this kind of thing must be going on and who are relying on Fox News to shape their opinions and give them some talking points to defend illegal behavior.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal), among others, has railed at the CIA and the Bush Administration for implementing the program. But, where is that same indignation at the innocent bystanders killed by unmanned US drone attacks in the Middle East? Where is that same indignation when a Hellfire missile tears apart the bodies of women and children out in the fields?

For all of her pontificating about the evils of the torture program (and don't misunderstand my point, those who carried out the program are all guilty of war crimes and should be held to account for their actions), Ms. Feinstein has been a champion of killing innocent men, women and children in illegal missile attacks in foreign countries.

And where has President Obama been through this? He stood in front of a microphone and said we needed to look forward instead of placing blame for past sins. Of course this is the standard line uttered by all presidents when confronted with the illegalities of the prior administration. His pledge to look forward only serves to protect those who have committed illegal acts in his administration - for if he isn't looking to prosecute those who did bad before him, whoever next occupies the White House won't throw the book at members of the Obama administration.

And that's how we undermine the idea that our nation operates under the rule of law.

Serving two masters

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. -- Hippocratic Oath (English translation)

When a person becomes a doctor, or other health professional, they take the Hippocratic Oath vowing never to do anything to harm a patient. A doctor's ethical duty is to do what's in the best interest of his or her patient. 

After the US government declared its War on Everything Terror after 9/11, the CIA began its programs of rendition and torture. In order to determine the most effective method to extract information from a prisoner, the Department of Defense looked to its Behavioral Science Consultation Teams made up of behavioral scientists - including psychiatrists.

Psychiatrists are considered to be medical professionals. They have a medical degree and they take the same Hippocratic Oath as a pediatrician, internist or neurologist. 

But, instead of following their ethical obligations to do no harm to any patient, they jumped at the opportunity to put together interrogation programs designed to humiliate, degrade and cause physical harm to prisoners. Other medical professionals who worked for the government provided assistance to the regime of torture by advising interrogators how far they could go in a given "interrogation technique." They treated prisoners and nursed them back to health so they could be tortured again. They also assisted the government by forcibly inserting feeding tubes into prisoners who were on hunger strike so they wouldn't die on the government's dime.

Even more galling is the fact that not one of the doctors, nurses or other medical professionals who witnessed and participated in the torture program ever raised their voice in protest against what can only be described as a crime against humanity. Not a one. 

They were more than willing to sell their souls - and their ethics - to win the War on Terror. 

The Institute of Medicine as a Profession and the Open Society Foundations conducted a two-year study that looked into the role medical professionals played in the torture regime initiated by President Bush and continued by President Obama. What they found should turn the stomach of anyone who hasn't yet drank the government's koolaid.

The US government would like us to believe it's no big deal. They would like you to believe that the oath these men and women took upon joining the team trumps the one they took when they became doctors and nurses. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way.

A doctor takes an oath to serve his or her patient. The doctor didn't take an oath to serve another power. He didn't take an oath to serve a publicly-held hospital corporation. He didn't take an oath to serve an insurance company. He took that oath to put his patient first.

The medical professionals who provided assistance to those who tortured prisoners may very well have gone into government service for the very best of motives. But they were blinded by the pre-packaged patriotism that we are fed like turkeys being fattened up for the holidays.

They violated the oaths they took when they helped design torture regimes. They violated the oaths they took when they monitored prisoners during the torture process. They violated their oaths when they strapped prisoners down and forced feeding tubes down their noses. They violated their oaths when they kept their mouths shut about what they had seen and what they had done.

A lawyer takes an oath to represent his client as zealously as possible (with the exception that a prosecutor takes an oath to see that justice is done). Everything that a lawyer does in a particular case must be weighed against that duty. A lawyer serves his client - and his client alone. A lawyer can't have two masters. And neither can a medical professional. Once you start trying to serve two masters you will find that you can't do it and act in the best interest of your client - or your patient - at the same time.

Those medical professionals who assisted the torture program betrayed not only the prisoners they were supposedly there to assist; they also betrayed society.

Forced feeding = torture

Is it a form of torture to force feed a prisoner on hunger strike?

Let's forget for a second the question of whether it's torture to hold someone without charges thousands of miles from their own country for over a decade.

Rapper Yasiin Bey (formerly known as Mos Def) took part in a demonstration to show the world just what is involved in the forced feeding of a hunger striker. The doctors followed the procedures as set out in the military instructions that were leaked earlier this year.

The entire process takes about two hours but the demonstration only lasted about four minutes because of the pain and discomfort to Mr. Bey. While you watch, picture yourself or a loved one strapped into that chair.

Think about the pain and humiliation those being force fed must suffer over and over again.

What's going to happen as the Muslim world enters the month of Ramadan? Are we going to violate these prisoners' right to practice their own religion?

This is the reality of the War on Everything Terror. Our government has done everything it can to dehumanize those whom we don't like. Our conduct has been shameful and my only hope is that one day someone will have to answer for the crimes that have been committed in our name.






H/T The Guardian

Shutting down dissent anyway possible

By now it is quite obvious to the most oblivious observer that President Obama has failed miserably in his attempt to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay. You'll remember that he told everyone who would listen back in 2008 that one of the first things he would do as president was close it down.

Like many of his other promises for progressive reform, his promise to close down GITMO has fallen to the wayside. He has been far too interested in killing innocent men, women and children with remote controlled drones to put any effort into closing Guantanamo. He was more concerned about smoothing over the summary execution of three US citizens than in ending the program of torture on Cuba.

If you follow the mainstream media you probably aren't aware that more than 100 of the detainees at Guantanamo are on hunger strike to protest the conditions in the prison. These are men who have been held without charge for, in some cases, over a decade. History will not judge the US kindly over its treatment of the detainees - the constant hysteria for the war on terror has been used to dull the American people's senses when it comes to concepts such as due process and rule of law.

Now the government is fearful that its power to compel the detainees to do what it wants them to is waning. In order to show the detainees who's boss, prison officials have begun force-feeding 30 of the hunger strikers.

This memo obtained by Al-Jazeera spells out the program of forced compliance. You see, it just wouldn't do for a detainee to drop dead from starvation at GITMO. That might just garner a bit of press attention (though just a bit). That might just pique the American public's interest in what is being done in our name. It might re-ignite a debate on the regime of torture started under Bush and accelerated under Obama.

For those detainees who are subject to being force-fed a liquid diet, they are strapped to a chair while a feeding tube is fed through their nose down to their stomach. A mask is placed over the detainee's face and liquid is fed through the tube for up to two hours. Afterward the detainee is placed in a so-called "dry cell" and observed for 45-60 minutes for any signs of induced vomiting. If the detainee vomits he is placed back in the chair and the process is begun anew.

These forced feedings are nothing more than an extension of the torture regime that detainees around the world have been subject to - ever since the Bush administration decided that torture wasn't torture if you called it something else. If there were justice in this world, George W. Bush would sit in a courtroom in The Hague facing charges of human rights violations at the International Criminal Court. Maybe one day Barack Obama could be his cellmate.

The men who are being held illegally at GITMO are adults who are more than capable of making medical decisions for themselves. They have the right to withhold their consent from being force-fed. They have the right to refuse to eat. They have the right to die with dignity, if they so choose. Sadly it is the only form of protest that is garnering any attention to the ways in which the United States is imposing the law of rule.

The Obama administration and other apologists for GITMO claim that the remaining detainees can't be released because there are no assurances they won't immediately take up arms against the United States. Well, to be quite honest, who the fuck could blame them? If they weren't already inclined to take up arms you can bet they sure as hell are now after the way they have been treated and the myriad ways in which the US government has violated their human rights.

It's time to man up, President. Either the men in Guantanamo have committed crimes against the United States or they haven't. If they haven't, it's time to set them free. If they have committed crimes, set their cases for trial.

If President Obama had any humanity he would put an end to the forced feeding of hunger strikers and he would address the problems at Guantanamo. Unfortunately for the detainees, they don't have an effective lobby and they don't have millions of dollars to funnel to Super PACS. All they have are their lives to give in their cause.

Blowing the whistle

Former CIA agent John Kiriakou will spend the next 30 months in a federal prison for revealing the name of a former officer who tortured detainees.

He was found out when the attorney for a suspected terrorist filed a legal brief that mentioned facts that had not been revealed by the government. One thing led to another and someone made the connection between the suspect's attorney, a reporter and Mr. Kiriakou.

This entire episode of suppression theater brings up a very serious question, however. Why didn't the government reveal that it had tortured the detainee on multiple occasions? It is not only absurd, but a blatant abuse of power for the government to torture a suspect in order to obtain evidence and not disclose that either to the court or to the defense.

Mr. Kiriakou is a whistleblower. He exposed gross human rights abuses and violations of international law. He provided the name of an officer who committed those offenses. And yet he's the one prosecuted under a statute that hadn't been used to prosecute anyone in 27 years. He's the one who will be going to prison.

The judge, Leonie Brinkema, who presides over the Eastern District of Virginia, was only too happy to serve her masters up the road in Washington. She rejected the argument that Mr. Kiriakou was a whistleblower and entitled to the protections afforded to whistleblowers under the law.

That ruling shouldn't have come as a surprise. One thing the Obama Administration has not compromised on over the past four years is its aggressive prosecution of people who expose the lies and criminal conduct rampant in the War on Everything Terrorism.

Men like John Kiriakou and Bradley Manning shouldn't be prosecuted. They should be lauded for exposing the lies and hypocrisies of our government. They should be praised for bringing to light the gross violations of international law and human rights that have taken places at US prisons around the world.

Once upon a time it was the role of the media to act as a check on the government. Reporters snooped and dug and found out the truth and reported it. But somewhere along the line reporters and news organizations became more interested in having a seat at the table with the glamorous people and they began to shirk their duties and responsibilities.

And while Mr. Kiriakou sits in prison and Mr. Manning awaits trial, everyone turns a blind eye to the fact that the CIA assisted the producers of Zero Dark Thirty in bringing that shiny piece of propaganda to the big screen. The CIA had no problem leaking confidential information to the producers since the movie was going to glorify the role of the CIA in an illegal mission in a country with whom we are at peace.

Mr. Kiriakou and Mr. Manning are prosecuted because their actions embarrassed the government. But it's okay for the CIA to leak information that makes the government look good.

Tracking down betrayal

Martin Almada is an attorney in Paraguay. He and his wife were teachers back in the 1970's when Gen. Alfredo Stroessner wielded his brutal hand in the South American country. The Almadas were known for their leftist views and they became a target of the secret police.

One night the state came for them. Mr. Almada was taken away and interrogated, and tortured, for 30 days. The police would call up his wife and let her listen to her husband being beaten on the other end of the line. They sent her Mr. Almada's bloody clothing and even called to tell her that her husband was dead.

A few days later his wife was dead of a heart attack. She had died at the hand of the state after being subjected to psychological torture for days on end.

For years afterward Mr. Almada searched in vain for evidence that his wife had been tortured to death. Twenty years ago he found what he was looking for when he received a phone call from a lady telling him that the documentary proof he had been searching for existed.

The papers existed because Pastor Coronel, the head of Paraguay's secret police, was obsessive compulsive when it came to paperwork. He kept detailed notes on everything he did. The archives were full of detailed accounts of who had been tortured, why they were tortured, how they were tortured and what the victims told their torturers.

During his time in prison, Mr. Almada found out about a plan carried out by various South American dictators in which they agreed to help each other take care of their own dissidents. Today we know this program of disappearances and torture as Operation Condor.

The mind boggles at what governments are capable of doing to their own citizens.

The mind also boggles at how little our government cares when another country turns its guns on its own citizens. We hear endless pronouncements about the supposed evils of Cuba and Venezuela yet our duly elected representatives continue to rain arms and weapons upon brutal dictatorships around the world who gladly do our bidding.

Our government has long lost its moral authority to tell anyone else how to behave. Our leaders long ago replaced their admiration for the rule of law with a love for the law of rule. Our government has kidnapped and tortured foreign nationals without regard to international law. Our government has committed acts of war on foreign soil by murdering foreign nationals with unmanned drones. Our government has continued to kill its own citizens in prison.

The (show) trial of the century

US Army Col. James Pohl is faithfully doing the bidding of his masters. The man who will preside over the trial, in military court, of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, granted the government's request to treat any mention of torture as classified.

Sure, we all knew the fix was in from day one. There was no way that anyone involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks would get anything resembling a fair trial. There was no way that our government was going to let anyone walk out of the courtroom a free man.

Previously Col. Pohl ordered that there be a 40 second delay in the audio feed just in case someone let slip something that was embarrassing to the government confidential. That provision, in essence, closes the courtroom to the public. The public which, by the way, has a right to observe the proceedings and to see just what their government is up to.

These are, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than show trials. I'm only surprised they haven't announced the sentences prior to the beginning of trial.

The judge added that “without limitation, observations and experiences of an accused” would also be treated as classified information as they emerge from a defendant’s mouth.

Just think of the absurdity of that statement for a minute or two.

Our courts decided a long time ago that we would not allow confessions obtained by the use of coercive measures to be admitted into evidence. The Fifth Amendment - which applies to "people," not just citizens - says that we have the right to keep our mouths shut when the government wants to ask us questions. If a person says they don't want to talk, there is nothing more the police can do.

The use of torture violates international law. It violates the Geneva Convention. If you're the head of a developing nation and you waterboarded political dissidents, you could find yourself hauled in front of the International Criminal Court once you're out of office to answer charges (of course if you're the President of the United States, or acting on his behalf, you can do any goddamn thing you want and tell the ICC to go fuck itself).

“The government wanted to ensure that the American public would never hear the defendants’ accounts of illegal CIA torture, rendition, and detention. The military judge has gone along with that shameful plan.” -- Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project

There is no denying the fact that Mr. Mohammed was tortured. He was waterboarded some 183 times. He was also subject to other physical and psychological torture while in US custody.

Mr. Mohammed is entitled to have every statement he made as a result of coercion deemed inadmissible at trial. So are his co-defendants. That, of course, would leave very little concrete evidence. And we certainly can't have that, can we?

But to deem any testimony from Mr. Mohammed about the manner in which he was mistreated in custody as confidential information is a travesty of justice. The American people have a right to know what the government has done in their name. Mr. Mohammed has a right to tell his story. Mr. Mohammed was not a part of US intelligence. He wasn't a part of the military. He wasn't a part of George W. Bush's inner circle who thought this was a good idea. Mr. Mohammed was the victim of torture.

These trials should not be held in front of military tribunals. They should be held in open court where the world can witness the depraved behavior our officials sanctioned and carried out. The evidence should be heard and those responsible should have to answer to humanity.

Col. Pohl is but a tool of a government hellbent on shredding the Bill of Rights. In so doing he has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. For his complicity in this farce, Col. Pohl should be court martialed.

The truth comes with a hefty price tag

Two-and-a-half years ago, the U.S. Army accused Pfc. Bradley Manning of leaking classified documents that embarrassed the U.S. government to the whistleblower website Wikileaks. For nine months he was held in a brig at Quantico, Virginia and subjected to physical and mental torture. When word leaked out about the way the government was treating him, he was moved to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where he has been held since.

Now, in another twist to this case, Mr. Manning has offered to plead guilty to some of the lesser charges but still maintains he never aided any enemy of the United States.

The documents that Wikileaks published contained cables from the U.S. government that showed the duplicitous, cynical nature of U.S. diplomacy. The documents highlighted how the U.S. got itself involved in the internal affairs of other nations. The documents outlined how our government was torturing so-called enemy combatants in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Mr. Manning is a whistleblower. He exposed to the American people just what our government does in our name. Yes, some of the documents were very embarrassing. So freaking what? If our government can't defend its actions, then maybe someone in Washington needs to be thinking twice before deciding to meddle in another country's affairs.

We don't need any more secrecy. What we need is transparency. We shouldn't have to root around in the dark trying to find out what's being done in our names. We have a right to know what our elected, and appointed, officials are doing. Never forget that they work for us.

I have a theory that if all the backroom dealings that go around the world had to be conducted in broad daylight in the street, that there would be far less conflict. If governments were forced to answer for their deeds, someone might think twice before acting. If elected officials were held responsible for what happened under their watch, maybe someone would actually keep watch.

Bradley Manning is being punished for exposing the truth. How is that a bad thing?

What right to know?

In our government's ongoing quest to keep us in the dark about all that it does in our name, government prosecutors have requested that a military judge set to preside over the trials of five Guantanamo detainees prevent those detainees from revealing the extent of the torture regime they were subjected to.

This from the same government that felt no compunction to subject these men to utter brutality in contravention of all international conventions on the treatment of prisoners. Oh, they were so proud to let the public know they were waterboarding detainees back in the day. But, when faced with detainees testifying about what they were forced to endure out come the requests for protective orders and other devices to keep the truth from being known.

So much for that crap about the truth setting you free.

Our government is supposed to be accountable to the citizenry. If we are to be proper guardians of the public trust then there should be no government secrets. We have a right to know exactly what our government does in our name. Of course it is much easier just to sit there like a lemming and pretend that everything's okay.

Prosecutors are arguing that the torture regimes constitute confidential information that should not be released to the public. To quote a legal term, that is absolute bullshit. Can you imagine any other criminal forum in which the court would deny a defendant's right to testify that he had been subjected to torture?

If the judge is anything other than a stooge for the prosecution the request should be denied. It is time the world heard exactly what Presidents Bush and Obama authorized. It is time the world heard exactly how the Bush and Obama administrations conspired to violated international law. It is time the world heard the truth about what our government did.

Presidents Bush and Obama are war criminals and should be brought to justice. There is no excuse for a (nominally) democratic government to subject people to torture. Our government is quick to condemn other governments who do the same - yet it's all right for our government to do it and then try to keep it secret.

I just hope I live to see the day that Bush and Obama are forced to stand inside the dock at the International Criminal Court and answer the charges against them.

Nothing to see here

There is no question that the U.S. government has operated secret prisons around the world that have been used to torture detainees suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorism.

Back in May I reviewed Larry Siems' book The Torture Report which dealt with the ways in which the Bush Administration implemented a systematic plan to torture so-called enemy combatants in the War on Everything Terrorism. The book is a chilling account of the ways in which our leaders conspired to violate every international treaty dealing with the treatment of enemy combatants.

Attorney General Eric Holder "conducted" an investigation of the CIA's torture apparatus after the government caught heat for the death of a detainee in custody. The investigation was nothing but a sham from the beginning as its purpose was to determine whether the program of torture broke the guidelines laid down by President Bush's aides. In other words, Mr. Holder wasn't looking into the question of whether CIA personnel violated international law in torturing detainees who have yet to be charged with any crime, he was looking into whether or not anyone crossed the line scribbled on a sheet of paper by President Bush's lackeys.

And, predictably, Mr. Holder came to the conclusion that there just wasn't enough "admissible evidence" to proceed with any prosecution.

You see the government has decided that much of the evidence proving the U.S. torture program violated international law is too sensitive to be released. In fact, in the show trials in Guantanamo, the courts have ruled that detainees cannot even testify as to the torture they were subjected to because releasing that information would harm national security. Or, to be more blunt (and honest) the information would be embarrassing to the government and might open some up to charges of crimes against humanity.

And we just can't have that, can we? We all know that the only folks who ever get brought up on charges of crimes against humanity are the losers. The winners never have to face justice. Not to mention that the winners get to write the history.

It is evidence of this program of systematic torture that made Bradley Manning the object of the government's hatred. Mr. Manning did what every soldier is required to do under international law - report incidents of torture and war crimes. That is Mr. Manning's sin - he did just what he was supposed to do but, because the information he released embarrassed the government, he is charged with treason and locked up and deprived of his rights.

There is no justification for torture. When you humiliate and degrade another person just because you have the power to do so, you are humiliating and degrading yourself, your institutions, your government and your country.

But no one will ever have to answer for their crimes. No one will ever have to stand before a court to justify the criminal acts they authorized or carried out. No one will ever have to defend himself against charges he committed crimes against humanity.

And it's because no one in our government has the guts or the moral compass to stand up and say it was wrong. President Bush committed crimes against humanity. President Obama has committed crimes against humanity. And whoever wins the election in November will continue to do the same.

All the time the American public will sit there staring at shiny objects not giving a second thought to what their so-called representatives are doing in their name.

An innocent man

A man is kidnapped in Somalia. The warlord hands over to an official from another country who then sends the man to a secret prison somewhere near the Middle East. For five years that man is held in solitary confinement. He is stripped of his clothes. He is deprived of sleep. He is subjected to bright lights and loud music for days at a time. He is left in complete darkness for days at a time. He is physically and mentally tortured. And this does on day after day, week after week, month after month, for five long years.

Then, one day he is released. He was never formally charged. He never saw the inside of a courtroom or was allowed to see the evidence against him. One day he's in and the next day, with a piece of paper indicating that he was detained and found innocent, he's out.

The label of suspected terrorist is stuck on his back. He lives in constant fear that he will be scooped up again in the future and subjected to the dehumanizing treatment he suffered for those five long years. He has no recourse against the government that ordered his torture. He is, instead, left to pick up the pieces of his own shattered life.

The man's name is Suleiman Abdallah and he was an innocent victim of the United States' brutal torture regime under both the Bush and Obama administrations. The hell through which he lived was a violation of his human rights and constituted a war crime. Of course since the U.S. pulls the strings in both the U.N. and the International Criminal Court, there is no chance that either George W. Bush or Barack Obama will ever have to answer charges they broke international law.

Writes Clara Gutteridge in The Nation:

Suleiman’s legal options were few. “There is currently no political or judicial avenue available to a person like Suleiman who has been wronged by the United States,” explains attorney and professor Joe Margulies, author of Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power. “In limited circumstances, like prisoners at Guantánamo, people can seek their release in court, but no one can seek anything more than that.” Under both the Bush and Obama administrations, he notes, “any suggestion that the US should compensate an innocent man for the wrong done to him is a complete nonstarter.” 

In theory, Suleiman could have sued one of the regional states—Djibouti or Kenya—for their complicity in his rendition and torture. But weak, slow-moving and overburdened legal systems make this option unlikely to yield any tangible benefit.

As I believe my colleague, Jeff Gamso, would say, the torture regime carried out by our government is a case in which the Law of Rule supplanted the Rule of Law. The U.S. government tortured foreign nationals because they could. There was no one to stop it. There was no one to storm the gates at Bagram Air Force Base or at Guantanamo Bay.

Some day, maybe sooner than later, we will look back in shame at what our government did in our name. We will realize that the ends don't justify the means and that once you cross the line the way our government did, there's no coming back.

Every soldier who participated in the torture of a foreign national should face charges. Every officer who ordered the torture to continue should face charges. Every commander who presided over the torture of anyone should face charges. Every federal agent who participated should face charges. The Attorneys General and Defense Secretaries who gave the plan the go-ahead should face charges. Presidents Bush and Obama should face charges.

There is no excuse for what happened in those secret prisons. There is no excuse for the treatment the detainees suffered through. There is no justification for the systematic violation of human rights and international law.

But it won't stop.

From Democracy Now!

Let the show trial begin

The long-awaited military trials of the alleged masterminds of the 9/11 hijackings commenced this weekend at Guantanamo. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other defendants sat in silent protest during the hearing - refusing even to enter pleas.

The five men are being tried before a military tribunal in order to get around those pesky little concepts like confrontation, discovery and the prohibition on torturing suspects.

Had Mr. Mohammed and his co-defendants been brought before a criminal court the prosecution would have lots of questions to answer about the treatment that the men received in prisons in other parts of the world at the hands of the United States. Had this case been brought before a criminal court, the defendants would have the right to request documents in the possession of the government that would be relevant to the defense.

The military prosecutors are tied into the ongoing torture of so-called enemy combatants. Their presence serves to justify the actions of the U.S. government. Their participation in the process also violates the oaths they took when they received their law licenses.

When you are sworn in as an attorney you take an oath the uphold the laws of the state in which you live, the laws of the United States and the Constitution. Included in the laws of the U.S. are international treaties - including the Geneva Convention's banning of torture. Included in the Constitution is the Eighth Amendment and its ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The U.S. obtained evidence it intends to use against Mr. Mohammed through the use of torture. Mr. Mohammed was tortured. His co-defendants were tortured. Most of the men detained by the government were tortured - either by American interrogators or by security forces in other countries at the behest of the U.S. government.

Military prosecutors will be using evidence obtained by illegal means. Military judges will allow evidence obtained by illegal means to be admitted into evidence.

Military prosecutors will withhold documents from defendants on the grounds that the release of the documents could be harmful to U.S. security. Military judges will look at the defendants and say they are sorry but the requests to review the documents must be denied.

The entire process will be a joke and an insult to the generations of people who have given their lives to defend the Constitution. Every military prosecutor and military judge who takes place in the proceedings should be disbarred from the practice of law.

But that would require some integrity and that's something that has been sadly lacking from the U.S. since this entire sorry episode in our history commenced.

Book review: The Torture Report

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy. 

-- 18 USC 2340A

First off I need to make a little disclaimer. Up to now all of the books I've reviewed on this blog were purchased by yours truly. If I thought a book sounded interesting, I'd buy it and, if I found it interesting, I'd write a review.

Today's book, The Torture Report by Larry Siems, is an exception. After a recent review someone from O/R Books sent me an email asking if I'd be interested in reviewing The Torture Report. Not being one to turn down a free book, I said yes.

Larry Siems is the director of PEN American Center's Freedom to Write. He wrote The Torture Room based on over 140,000 declassified government documents that paint a chilling picture of how the Bush Administration decided that international law banning the use of torture didn't apply to the United States. While reading the book I had to resist the temptation to throw the book across the room because what I was reading made me so angry.

The Geneva Convention forbids the use of torture on prisoners of war. US law prohibits the use of torture if the alleged torture takes place in the United States or is committed by a US citizen. But, somehow, John Yoo, President Bush's lackey, came to the conclusion that neither the Geneva Convention nor US law applied if the victims of the torture were "enemy combatants" of the United States' never-ending war on terrorism.

Mr. Yoo decided that slapping someone during an interrogation didn't constitute torture. He decided that making a person stand in a cell naked with his hands cuffed to the ceiling didn't constitute torture. He decided that subjecting a person to days of bright light (or no light) and white noise (or loud music) didn't constitute torture. He decided that putting someone on a liquid diet and making them wear a diaper while depriving them of a toilet didn't constitute torture. He decided that putting a cloth over someone's face and dripping water onto it to simulate drowning didn't constitute torture.

Mr. Yoo, who ignored the oath he took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, claimed that an enemy combatant wasn't the same as a prisoner of war and that, therefore, the Geneva Convention didn't apply. What? In Mr. Yoo's mind the Geneva Convention was an international treaty that dictated the way nations were to treat prisoners captured from another country's military. So, since the US was fighting an international terrorist organization and not another country, the Geneva Convention didn't apply.

He also relied upon 18 USC 2340's definition of "torture." According to the statute:

 “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control...

To Mr. Yoo's way of thinking, since the purpose of the interrogation methods was to extract information rather than just to inflict several physical or mental pain and suffering, that none of the outlined methods constituted torture.

And W? Well he just ate that shit up. He admitted in his autobiography that he gave the orders to torture suspected al-Qaeda members in secret prisons around the world, to turn them over to regimes that routinely tortured their own citizens and to torture them in US military complexes both here and abroad.

The book contains diaries and log entries that recite the various methods of torture used by US military personnel in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are a few people here and there who took a stand in opposition to the White House's illegal interrogation methods - but there are more people who just stood by and either did nothing and personally carried out the orders.

And the Bush Administration aren't the only villains in this story. Congress played a big role in allowing the illegal interrogations to continue. Scared of being painted as soft on terrorism (or whatever the hell the Bush Administration called its critics), senators and representatives fell over themselves in supporting the president.

The detainees were held (and are still being held) for years in a foreign country without any contact with friends or relatives. They were held without being charged. They were subjected to torture. They were denied habeas relief. They were to be tried before military tribunals without being allowed to see the evidence the US intended to use against them and without due process of law.

President Obama had the opportunity to show the world that the US stands for right. But, instead of having President Bush and his co-conspirators defend themselves against charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture, he took the easy way out and did nothing. Instead of carrying out his duty to see that the laws of the United States are carried out, he turned a blind eye to the actions of a former president who thought he was above the law. Through his inaction, President Obama is every bit as complicit as George Bush in the horrific acts that were carried out in this nation's name.

Defending the indefensible

The other night (at yet another televised "debate") three GOP presidential hopefuls, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and our own Rick Perry, voiced their support for torture. Mr. Perry even went so far as to say waterboarding was an "enhanced interrogation technique."

Arizona Senator John McCain had the courage to say what few in the GOP (aside from Ron Paul) are willing to:

"Waterboarding is an affront to all of the standards that we believe in and adhere to of humane treatment of people who are human beings, and of course I am disappointed in the statements that were made," said McCain on CNN's "John King USA" Monday.  

McCain argued that waterboarding is illegal, harms the United States’s moral standing in the world and doesn't help gather reliable intelligence. 

Of course no one likes terrorists and who really gives a shit if you torture them to extract information? They're not even human, right?

At least that's the way in which the question is framed. But I don't care how you frame the question. Torture is wrong. It's demeaning, both to the person being tortured and to the person carrying out the torture.

The use of torture is an example of what Jeff Gamso would call "the Law of Rule." It is a fundamental affront to our notion of justice. If it's okay to torture alleged terrorists, how much of a reach is it to justify torture with someone accused of kidnapping a little child?

The use of torture is a violation of a suspect's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. It violates the Geneva Convention. Members of the German and Japanese hierarchy were hung after World War II for their use of torture during the war.

From the mind of Gene Roddenberry, here is a transcript from the Star Trek: Next Generation episode entitled "Chain of Command, Part 2" that aired in December 1992. In this episode, Capt. Picard was taken prisoner by the Cardassians and taken to a secret location for interrogation by Gul Madred.

MADRED: Oh, you're awake. Have something to eat. I insist. Boiled taspar egg. It's a delicacy I'm happy to share with you.  

(Madred gives Picard a knife to slice the top off the very large egg, but this one isn't boiled. The contents are still alive and moving. Picard downs it in one)  

MADRED: Wonderful. Wonderful. I like you, human. Most people become ill at the sight of live taspar. I remember the first time I ate a live taspar. I was six years old and living on the streets of Lakat. There was a band of children, four, five, six years old, some even smaller, desperately trying to survive. We were thin, scrawny little animals, constantly hungry, always cold. We slept together in doorways, like packs of wild gettles, for warmth. Once, I found a nest. Taspars had mated and built a nest in the eave of a burnt-out building and I found three eggs in it. It was like finding treasure. I cracked one open on the spot and ate it, very much as you just did. I planned to save the other two. They would keep me alive for another week. But of course, an older boy saw them and wanted them, and he got them. But he had to break my arm to do it.  

PICARD: Must be rewarding to you to repay others for all those years of misery.  

MADRED: What do you mean?  

PICARD: Torture has never been a reliable means of extracting information. It is ultimately self-defeating as a means of control. One wonders that it's still practiced.  

MADRED: I fail to see where this analysis is leading.  

PICARD: Whenever I look at you now, I won't see a powerful Cardassian warrior. I will see a six year old boy who is powerless to protect himself.  

MADRED: Be quiet.  

PICARD: In spite of all you've done to me, I find you a pitiable man.  

MADRED: Picard, stop it, or I will turn this on and leave you here in agony all night.  

PICARD: Ah! You called me Picard.  

MADRED: What are the Federation's defence plans for Minos Korva?  

PICARD: There are four lights. (Madred uses the agoniser.)  

MADRED: There are five lights. How many do you see now?  

PICARD: (in agony) You are six years old. Weak and helpless. You cannot hurt me.  

MADRED: How many?  

PICARD: Sur le pont d'Avignon, on y danse

Fear has never been an effective tool of control. In order for it work, the level of fear must be ramped up constantly. In regimes across the Middle East and Africa, those dictators who held onto power through their use of fear have either been force out or are hanging on by their fingertips. All the use of fear did was fuel dissent - and once that dissent reached a critical mass, the game was up.

We're better than torture. Those who defend it are appealing to the lowest common denominator in our electorate. In the race to the bottom, Cain, Bachmann and Perry have the inside track.

Ye shall know the truth and yada yada yada

President Obama has rejected the idea of creating a truth commission to look into interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration's war on terror. In a press briefing on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama was not interested in prosecuting officers who tortured detainees if they worked "within the four corners" of the any legal advice they were given.

Q    Two unrelated things.  First, what's the latest thinking here on whether the White House would support some sort of independent commission to look at the interrogations during the Bush era?  And then I want to follow up with a credit card question, if I could.

MR. GIBBS:  Sure.  Well, I don't -- I don't know that I have a lot to add on the first question other than what the President discussed earlier in the week and what I talked about on the plane yesterday. 

And obviously there's been news reports of a discussion about such a commission here that the President decided I think the last few days might well be evidence of why something like this would likely just become a political back and forth.

Q    So is that an indication that you don't want to see an independent commission?  I'm trying to understand.

MR. GIBBS:  By dint, an independent commission would probably not be something that I would weigh in on if Congress were to create one of those.  I think that -- from the larger perspective, the President believes, as both of us have said, that the release of the memos are not a time for a retribution but to reflect on what happens and that we're all best suited looking forward.

...

Q    Robert, does the President believe someone ought to be punished for allowing waterboarding?  He changed the policy, but does he believe somebody ought to be punished?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I think that determination is going to be left up to, as I've said for any number of days looking backward on this now, that that's going to be made by a legal official.

Q    And that legal official is the Attorney General?

MR. GIBBS:  In our Constitution it is.

Q    And what about this idea of the Attorney General appointing a special prosecutor?

MR. GIBBS:  Well, I addressed this --

Q    Is that his -- is that the Attorney General's decision or is that ultimately the President's decision?

MR. GIBBS:  I'd have to look up, honestly, the legal statute to determine that.  I don't -- I don't think the -- I don't believe that there's -- I think the Justice Department is fully capable of weighing the law.

Q    You don't think a special prosecutor is necessary?

MR. GIBBS:  I don't -- I don't think anybody has presented a compelling case why the Justice Department couldn't do this.

I think it's much more likely that the president doesn't want to push an investigation as a professional courtesy to his predecessor. He either doesn't want to close the door on using a variation of such tactics later on or he doesn't want his people to be subject to investigation and possible prosecution by the next administration.

The U.S. once again plays by its own rules and deigns not to investigate atrocities committed by American intelligence officers that would bring a swift condemnation if committed by another nation. The American people deserve to know the truth about what was done in their name.

CRU and the assault on the Constitution

HPD's Crime Reduction Unit (CRU) is making the city safe from the likes of hardened criminals like jaywalkers and bicyclists. It's the cops' version of the lottery -- harass, cuff and search minorities and hope you find a stash of drugs in their pockets, socks or shoes.

Officers in this $5 million unit are targeting those committing Class C violations and using that as their ticket to violate their 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The cops figure someone in that neighborhood is up to no good and so they create a pretext for a warrant check and a search - for without probable cause, the case won't stick.

CRU operates much the same as the DWI Task Force -- watch someone long enough and they're bound to give you a reason to stop them. Most of the DWI arrests I've dealt with weren't the result of bad driving -- they were the result of someone getting stopped for failing to signal a lane change, squealing their tires leaving an intersection and speeding. The cops know that going out on DWI duty on a weekend night near an entertainment district is like shooting fish in a barrel -- but they have to create a reason for the stop.

Combine this with courts' narrowing definition of a seizure and it adds up to an erosion of our rights as citizens. Sure, no one wants drunks driving on the streets and no one is in favor of a drug dealer setting up station across the street from them, but when we allow the State to strip the rights of those accused of unpopular crimes, we make it easier for the State to strip our own rights.

For an example look no further than the hysteria following 9/11. In the name of fighting terrorism the American people meekly stepped aside and allowed the federales to tap our phones and our e-mail, to engage in domestic espionage and the limit our freedom to travel. Our government calls al-Qaeda a bunch of savages, yet we say nothing as our government authorizes the torture and humiliation of prisoners -- including our own citizens.