Some on the right have taken the position that torture can be rationalized with their Judea-Christian values because "it works".

Setting morality to the side, former Vice President D ick Cheney, who is obviously anticipating judicial proceedings, is pushing this line.

I guess whether or not torture "works" depends on how you define the word. If you are seeking accurate, reliable intelligence, it does not work.

Who says torture doesn't work to gather intelligence?

The military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency. JPRA ran the military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which trains American pilots to resist hostile questioning and psychological abuse by their captors.

In a document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer in July 2002 (a month prior to Cheney and Rice signing off on the use of "enhanced techniques"), they referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

"The unintended consequence of a U.S. policy that provides for the torture of prisoners is that it could be used by our adversaries as justification for the torture of captured U.S. personnel," according to the JPRA document.

It continues, "The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture," the document said. "In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption." (emphasis mine)

So how can torture "work"?

It works if you tell your victim what you want them to say. Exactly how Communist regimes used to get American prisoners to "confess" to war crimes.

What did the Bush administration, specifically Cheney, want?

A "link" between 9-11 and Iraq.

According to a former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue, former Vice President Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration. The former official, who is also former Army psychiatrist, asserts that the Bush administration applied "relentless pressure on interrogators" to use harsh methods on detainees to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Here's how torture "works": Your victim will agree to anything you say to stop the pain.

Yesterday, under a Freedom of Information request filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Department of Justice released nine of the 100-some requested documents from the Bush DOJ.

According to the quasi-legal ramblings of John Yoo, who worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the President of the United States, by virtue of being the Commander-in-Chief, has the unilateral power to declare that the country is at war.

Further, when we are "at war", the President can - at his word - suspend the Constitution of the United States.

That means that he could also suspend the Congress, and replace civil law with martial law.

At his word, the U.S military could invade your home (and take your precious guns) either secretly, when you were at work or sleeping, or by kicking down your door  - and killing you if you resisted.

Members of your family could be abducted, tortured and held indefinitely, with no need for any charges to be filed, or any legal process - other than the order of the president.

You may find this incredible. But it actually happened. From shortly after the attacks of September 2001, until hours before he left office, George W. Bush was dictator of the United States. They prefer the title "Unitary Executive".

We're not "just" talking about waterboarding a few presumed "bad guys".

We're talking about listening and reading everything you say and write. About scanning all of your purchases and bank accounts. About shutting down all media or just selected outlets. About soldiers on the streets of American cities, enforcing the will of a single man - the President of the United States.

All of you who claim to be upholders of freedom, all you quasi-patriots, all of you who support the military, should be outraged that your hero, George W. Bush, reserved the right for himself to use those armed forces to rule you like slaves.

Where is the outrage from all you phony "Conservatives"?

Will none of you stand up for your country and demand that Bush and Cheney face impeachment?

 

With the Justice Department now back in the hands of the law, the evidence of the Bush administration's assault on the Constitution is finding its way into daylight.

These documents reveal the administration's utter disregard for the American people.

Newly disclosed memos from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel sanctioned the use of military force against U.S. terrorists, curbs on free speech and the transfer of terrorism suspects to countries known to commit human rights abuses. They also condoned illegal wiretapping, domestic spying, and suspension of the legal process for "suspected terrorists."

Bush defenders will say that he and his thugs were only acting in our best interests. That all of these blatantly illegal acts were necessary to "protect" us.

They will say that Bush & company believed they were acting legally.

If that were the case, why did they attempt to withdraw these illegal programs only days before leaving office?

Why did they repeatedly include language in these documents that would leave them escape hatches if they were prosecuted? For example, the memo that says detainees could be transferred to countries that commit human rights abuses if U.S. officials didn’t intentionally seek their torture?

Don't tell me that they thought they were acting legally. The very real and present danger to the United States during the Bush years was the Bush White House.

Two things need to be kept in mind when reviewing these documents.

The first is that Bush and Cheney repeatedly said that the so-called "war" on terror would last indefinitely. Indefinitely. Our rights were to be "suspended" indefinitely.

Second, recall Bush's famous remark, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." That threat was meant for U.S. citizens.

We are responsible for investigating and trying Bush, Cheney and key members of that administration for all of their attempts to evade the law.

We do NOT need "truth commissions" to explain and forgive.

We need to re-assert the rule of law, with no conditions.

I didn't expect I would be the one to call for celebration of the peaceful elections in Iraq yesterday.

Prison-camp style security - but not direct involvement by U.S. troops - brought provincial elections that were, by all accounts that I have read, free of violence.

The fact that the Iraq government and the Iraqi Army could conduct these events in security is a remarkable achievement, and does give hope that democracy does have a future there. After the 2005 elections, blood literally ran in the streets.

Unfortunately, democracy in Iraq remains a hope.

Despite the participation of the Sunnis in yesterday's elections, voter turnout was the lowest in the nation's short history of electoral contests.

Apparently, Iraqis do not see any significant change in their lives as a result of elections. Their country is still occupied by a foreign force. Their economy is in shambles and corruption in their government is world caliber.

True, most Iraqis can now go out on the street and reasonably expect to return home in one piece, but once the threat of violence fades, other human needs quickly arise. Clean water. Electricity. Jobs.

As these are met one by one, only then do people really begin to think seriously about alternative paths of improving their country through electoral government.

Certainly, the Iraqis are finally making progress towards some definition of a "normal" society, and that is fantastic. Now we can get out of their country.

Does this forward step for Iraq justify Bush's decision to invade?

Absolutely not.

In this season of thanks, the entire world, with the exception of a relative handful of delusional, self-proclaimed "Bushies", has the same item at the top of their "thankful" list - even if they don't celebrate Thanksgiving.

That item would be, of course, the imminent retirement of George W. Bush. If he is lucky, Bush will vanish into the parched scrublands of Texas where he can desiccate in obscurity. On the other hand, if justice is served, he will spend his final days in a prison cell, where I trust he will not be tortured, as he has ordered so many others to be.

Either way, we are all united in our gratitude that he will soon leave the White House and the levers of power can be wiped clean for our next president.

Recently, Bush took the time out of his hectic schedule to be interviewed for posterity. By his sister. That is so pathetic. I'm surprised he didn't insist on being interviewed by his mother.

As one would expect, Bush's reflections on his terms as president reflect his own, unique reality.

"I'd like to be a president [known] as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace," Bush told his sister.

OK, let's stop right there. This is a man who started two wars, directly resulting in the deaths of as many as a million people. He is personally responsible for creating 4 to 5 million refugees. This is a man who set back international relations at least 30 years by invading, unprovoked, a sovereign nation, and turned the world's progress on human rights back a century by ordering American agents to torture prisoners of war, many of whom were no more than common criminals.

The rest of Bush's delusions are remarkable, but nothing really compares to his image of himself as a peacemaker.

I have no illusions regarding the office of the president. Running a large, powerful country such as ours is a dirty job.

But Bush, arguably, has been singularly responsible for more unnecessary human death and suffering than any other American president, and yet is so spectacularly oblivious to his crimes that he seems to think the perspective of 100 years or so will vindicate, yea, venerate him as a peacemaker and humanitarian.

This man has made me deeply ashamed to be an American. He cannot leave soon enough.

Good riddance, Bush. If we both live long enough that the world can see you led out of court in handcuffs, I will be thankful for that.