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.

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.

President Obama has taken an historic and important change of course, standing to protect the rights of homosexual persons here in the U.S. and around the world.

Last December the United Nations General Assembly held a symbolic vote on a statement calling for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality. France sponsored the resolution "to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention."

The United States, under former president George W. Bush, voted against the resolution, ostensibly for "technical" reasons.

In other words, the United States stood in support of the criminalization of homosexuality.

Joining the U.S. in voting in favor of legal discrimination against homosexuals last December were the Holy See (why the h*** do they get a vote?) and members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Last week, at the UN's "Durban Review Conference" on racism and xenophobia underway in Geneva, according to UN Watch, "Europe again put forward language condemning all forms of discrimination and all other human rights violations based on sexual orientation.” "The Czech Republic on behalf of the E.U., with the support of New Zealand, the United States, Colombia, Chile on behalf of the South American states, the Netherlands, Argentina and a few others, took the floor in support." (emphasis mine)

It is intolerable and it is shameful that here in the United States federal law does not prohibit discrimination against homosexuals.

It is sickening that those who lay claim to the high moral ground - Christian and Muslim fundamentalists - continue to actively support and practice discrimination against our friends and family who are gay and lesbians, and would go so far as to write their bigotry into state and local law.

President Obama, as he said he would, is taking steps to eliminate the legal discrimination against LGBT people.

Thank you, President Obama.

 

 

In a ceremony that was remarkably low-key for it's historical significance, President Barack Obama signed several orders yesterday that gutted George W. Bush's so-called "war on terror".

There never was a "war on terror", of course, any more than there can be a war on any other human activity. War is "on" human beings.

The "war on terror" was nothing more than a marketing slogan, but it represented a collection of the most egregious and inhumane (I dare say anti-American) policies ever adopted by the United States.

While some have ruthlessly justified these inhumane policies with keeping "us" safe, I have seen no credible evidence to support the contention that lives have been saved. If the Bush administration ever disrupted a credible terrorist action it was never publicized, although several obviously inept plots were.

On the other hand, this set of policies: illegal detainment of suspects, denial of legal process, torture and systematic mistreatment, rendition to third countries for torture, and the operation of several "black" CIA prisons operating completely outside of international law, have been cited repeatedly as the strongest motivator of Muslim extremists, aside from the invasion and occupation of Iraq itself.

Obama also met with his military staff, working with them to meet his plan to have virtually all American troops out of Iraq within 16 months.

And he met with the Justice Department - NOT the Pentagon - to create a plan for the difficult task of closing down Camp Xray at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

As great a day as it was, there is an asterisk. There is a clause that calls for further study of the results of the "extreme" interrogation techniques and the caveat that it may be necessary under some circumstances for the CIA or other agencies to go beyond the interrogation techniques described in the Army Field Manual.

This asterisk gives me great concern, because as we have seen under Bush, once the law is breached, the gap can quickly grow into a chasm that washes away all laws.

The collective actions of President Obama have ended the illegal "war on terror" and turned us onto the path of the legal - and moral - pursuit of those individuals and groups that are guilty of planning or executing acts of violence - for whatever cause.

It has been two (and counting) great days for civil and human rights in not just the United States but for people everywhere.

I will also point this out; At least we were told about the asterisk. Now, let's work to remove it.