I was reading this excellent hilzoy post and it occurred to me that it's probably worthwhile to point out, once again, that the popular conception of torture is often quite different from the reality. For example, I recently read some piece -- I don't even remember what it was -- that was dismissive of sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation as torture. And within the experience of most people, those things don't seem, at first glance, like terrible things.
For anybody who doesn't know much about torture and/or interrogations (which I sort of hope is most of y'all), it's really worth noting that sensory deprivation produces psychosis within hours. It's shockingly fast, and can have severe long-term effects after just a day or two. All you have to do is strap somebody down, put on a blindfold, sound-proof earmuffs, and gloves that reduce tactile sensation, and full-blown hallucinations begin in less than a day. Psychosis is day two.
And sleep deprivation is reliably reported as pretty much the worst feeling in the world -- far worse than starvation, severe dehydration, isolation, etc. Keep somebody up for 72 hours (which isn't that hard), and again with the hallucinations and psychosis. So if anybody defends this stuff with anything along the lines of "Oh, it's only for a day or two, what could be the harm?" they're being profoundly misleading. It's tough to explain to people because it's not intuitive, but it's true nonetheless.
Too late. The Bush legacy as a 21st century torturer is already cemented, but we've got a flip flop on waterboarding:
A senior Justice Department official says laws and other limits enacted since three terrorism suspects were waterboarded have eliminated the technique from what is now legally allowed.
"The set of interrogation methods authorized for current use is narrower than before, and it does not today include waterboarding," Steven G. Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, says in remarks prepared for his appearance Thursday before the House Judiciary Constitution subcommittee.
"There has been no determination by the Justice Department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law," he said.
More after the jump...
It is the first time the department has expressed such an opinion publicly. CIA Director Michael Hayden stopped short of making a similar statement in testimony about waterboarding before Congress last week.
Bradbury in 2005 signed two secret legal memos that authorized the CIA to use head slaps, freezing temperatures and waterboarding when questioning terror detainees. Because of that, Senate Democrats have opposed his nomination by President Bush to formally head the legal counsel's office.
So three years ago, this guy allowed torture, now he says it isn't legal. What changed? The law they claim but in reality it's because they got busted, that's what changed. Vintage Bush administration double speak. And, as we all know well, just because anyone in the Bush administration says something, it doesn't mean it's true.
How many times did Bush tell us the U.S. doesn't torture? He lied.
Today, McCain voted with those opposing the Intelligence bill because it uses the Army Field Manual (something he used to support) to effectively outlaw torture (something he used to oppose). In the end, McCain lost and we won. The Senate passed the bill (vote count here) making the Army Field Manual the law of the land for the entire US government. Senator Reid describe the bill:
Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today after the U.S. Senate passed the Intelligence Authorization conference report, which includes a provision to establish a single, government-wide interrogation standard as outlined in the Army Field Manual:
“The Senate today declared that the Army Field Manual works and torture does not. In sending the President a bill that establishes one interrogation standard for the entire U.S. government, we are taking an important step toward restoring our moral leadership in the world. Military and foreign policy experts agree that torture is counterproductive. It elicits unreliable information, puts U.S. troops at risk and undermines our counterinsurgency efforts.
“It is now up to the President to show his own moral leadership and sign this bill into law. And if he refuses to do so, I hope the Republicans who voted for this bill’s passage will stand up to the President and override his veto.”
The Senate is getting ready to vote on a key torture amendment today, making the Army field manual rules regarding torture apply to the entire government. At one point during the campaign McCain praised the Army field manual as the way to go - Life is not "24," McCain said at the time. So how will McCain vote today? Will he support the Army field manual? Will he oppose it? Or will he just blow off the vote entirely on one of his signature issues that he claims he cares so much about?
Watch McCain talk about how supportive he is of the Army field manual on torture:
PS The amendment's author is Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Now, Feinstein drives us nuts sometimes (okay, a lot of times) with her conservative votes. But sometimes she also does good. This is one of those times. Just worth mentioning.
As if Afghanistan wasn't bad enough, now stories like this from Iraq. What kind of a country are we building in Iraq? Another step in the wrong direction.
The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion -- some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.
The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other "rules" that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.
"Fear, fear is always there," says 30-year-old Safana, an artist and university professor. "We don't know who to be afraid of. Maybe it's a friend or a student you teach. There is no break, no security. I don't know who to be afraid of."
After years of dodging and dissembling, the Bush administration today boldly embraced an interrogation tactic that's been an iconic and almost universally condemned form of torture since the Spanish Inquisition.
"President Bush would authorize waterboarding future terrorism suspects if certain criteria are met," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said this morning, one day after the director of the CIA for the first time publicly acknowledged his agency's use of the tactic, which generally involves strapping a prisoner to a board, covering his face or mouth with a cloth, and pouring water over his face to create the sensation of drowning.
Wow. I'm a bit surprised by the tenor of the attack, and by the attack at all. Both Hillary and Obama get into these mood swings where they attack, then make nice, then attack again. It all started when the race got close, and real, in December or so. But I have to say, this is particularly pointed from Obama.
"Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change," Obama said, speaking as rival John Edwards was pulling out of the race in New Orleans, leaving a Clinton-Obama fight for the Democratic nomination.
"It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq or who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like, who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said....
"I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," he said in Denver.
"... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.
So what gives? My take on this after the jump...
Sometimes campaigns go negative when they're desperate and behind. Obama isn't really behind, and has no real reason to be desperate - most commentators don't think Super Tuesday will give us a definitive nominee either way.
It's possible that the Obama folks are reacting to exit polls from South Carolina and Florida that showed more Dem voters thought Hillary was being too nasty than thought he was being too nasty. Though, it's not clear that the appropriate lesson from the polls is to get nastier. But, Obama may have read this as an opening.
Also, this could be a reaction to Hillary campaigning in Florida the past few days - and that's exactly what she did - in violation of the agreement that all the candidates accepted that no one would camapign in Florida (as a result of the DNC punishing Florida for moving up its primary in violation of DNC rules). What's more, Hillary now wants all of those delegates reinstated, after she was one of the people who agreed with taking those delegates away, and even more importantly, since all the candidates agreed not to campaign in the state this is a non-contest that gives us no indication how Floridians would have really voted had there been a real campaign and a real election. Hillary changed her mind because she won. That's pretty ballsy, and duplicitous, and this may be Obama's retaliation.
And finally, it may also be further fall-out from whatever convinced Ted Kennedy to enter the race on behalf of Obama. Nobody knows what really happened behind closed doors, but again, perhaps Obama and company have finally decided to pull the gloves off. (Having said that, friends who watched the Nevada primaries said that the Obama folks already had the gloves off there.)
Our neighbor to the north had added the United States to its list of nations that torture:
In Canada, the United States has joined a notorious group of countries -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan and China, among others -- as a place where foreigners risk torture and abuse, according to a training manual for Canadian diplomats that was accidentally given this week to Amnesty International lawyers.
The manual is intended to create "greater awareness among consular officials to the possibility of Canadians detained abroad being tortured." Part of the workshop is devoted to teaching diplomats how to identify people who have been tortured. It features a section on "U.S. interrogation techniques," including forced nudity, hooding and isolation.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan and China...good company. All strong democracies, right? This should make George Bush so proud. Quite a legacy.
Thanks. That much is obvious to anyone with a brain but where the hell was this guy when times were tough? It's great to hear people like this speak out but I've about had it with them all saying nothing when we really need them. What, does he want to get a new job or something? Is that why he's now talking? My lasting memory of Ridge is him scaring the American public with ridiculous terrorist warnings that turned out to be false, time after time. Great for election victories, but not so great for the supposed leader of the free world.
"One of America's greatest strengths is the soft power of our value system and how we treat prisoners of war, and we don't torture," Ridge said in the interview.
Wonderful, but I always thought one of our greatest strengths was telling the truth and not just leaning on the word "democracy" when it was convenient. Where was our value system when Ridge was at Homeland Security? What an ass.
Perhaps the operative question is "should they." I really have no confidence that our criminal justice system will hold any Bush official responsible for any crime, no matter how grave. But our man Froomkin makes a good case for why they should, starting with Cheney.
The Justice Department opened a full criminal investigation Wednesday into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, putting the politically charged probe in the hands of a mob-busting public corruption prosecutor with a reputation for being independent.
Kevin Drum relays without comment a letter from a conservative defending torture, an exercise in intellectual and moral contortionism that is revelatory, I think. Since Kevin didn't comment, I will: The move to endorse torture as stated policy of the country is one of the most heart-wrenching results of the past several years, and it goes against everything this nation stands for.
The idea that if we do it then it's okay, because we're doing it for "the right reasons" -- the explanation put forth by Kevin's correspondent -- is a recipe for rupturing the very foundation of the country. The very thing that makes us better, that allows us to have pride in our country and culture, is our restraint from the kind of barbarism that is torture. What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death"? When did the right become moral relativists? It's really astonishing.
On a more specific level, though, the letter closes by saying, in an attempt to justify our using torture by saying that the motivation is the key moral test, "Get back to me when some enemy tortures one of our soldiers in order to save innocent lives." Which raises the question: Does this writer believe that if a US soldier is captured, and he has knowledge of a planned airstrike that will cause collateral damage, the enemy would be right to torture him? After all, that would fit this twisted requirement, wouldn't it? Of course, many of our enemies need no excuse to torture . . . but the fact that they do and we don't is the very type of thing that makes them an enemy! Or, at least, it used to be.
The flag doesn't make the values, the values make the flag.
Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a ban on torture. Actually, per The Gavel, the House adopted the Army's rules prohibiting torture for other agencies. Seems the Army doesn't want to condone a practice that could be used on our soldiers. Not Bush, though. He will veto that ban:
The White House vowed to veto the measure. Limiting the CIA to interrogation techniques authorized by the Army Field Manual "would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.
Bush: Just because he says we don't torture, doesn't mean we don't torture.
According to the former agent, waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted "dozens" of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure.
In fact, dear friends at AP who claim without any sourcing whatsoever that Zubaydah was a "major" Al Qaeda official, he was a low-level official and categorically insane.As Joe wrote the other day, here's how the Washington Post's review of Suskind's book describes him:
Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be. CIA and FBI analysts, poring over a diary he kept for more than a decade, found entries "in the voice of three people: Hani 1, Hani 2, and Hani 3" -- a boy, a young man and a middle-aged alter ego. All three recorded in numbing detail "what people ate, or wore, or trifling things they said." Dan Coleman, then the FBI's top al-Qaeda analyst, told a senior bureau official, "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality."
Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.
It is amazing the degree to which these people just lie.
Iran...blah blah blah...World War III...blah blah blah...I choke on pretzels...blah blah blah...Haven't we heard all of this before? I mean, seriously, did some jack-wad, hump-brained pundits really need to have actual evidence President Bush was lying about Iran to know he was--how do you say it--lying about Iran!
This is the guy who inspired the warning label "don't operate heavy nations while intoxicated." If a tree fell in the woods, and nobody heard it, he'd use it as an excuse to log the entire forest for some peace and quiet.
So who cares what he knew and when he knew it. Don't let him use ignorance as his defense. He lied. He was always going to lie. He either planned to lie or was too stupid not to lie and either way, it doesn't change what this man stands for one bit. He has already shown he'll play chicken with soldiers' lives to win at politics, so really what won't he do to get his way?
Bomb the hell out people and foment civil war based upon a lie? Done that. Nuke 'em? He's publicly comtemplated that. Soon, the only weapon left he may possess will be threatening to make other nations watch his mother disrobe after a trip to the all-you-can-eat buffet at Dennys, by using those A Clockwork Orange eye clamps.
You may not know whether waterboarding is torture barely-installed AG Mukasey, but we can all agree that the Naked Barb scenario would most certainly violate the Geneva Conventions.
Regardless, the people of Iran came out in the streets to support the United States after 9/11. None other than Senator Chuck Hagel pointed that out the other day. It is very simple. If Congress needs to come out right now and say that unless it is in direct defense of the nation, if he attacks without their overt authorization impeachment proceedings will begin immediately. It will be high time (and no, I'm not talking about your personal life up until the age of 40, Georgie).
It's the YouTube Debate. This should be painful. John and I will be watching and liveblogging -- as much as we can stand anyway.
Oh no. The start is pitiful. Governor Charlie Crist looks quite fit and tanned after that introduction from another very nice fellow. How come Crist gets to give a sales pitch?
Well, it's 8:06 p.m. and still not a question.
Okay, finally at 8:09 p.m. a video and it's lame. The endless GOP candidate guitar song. What's the question? There wasn't one.
Of course, of course, the first question was about immigration. The GOPers love the immigrant bashing. Rudy is trying hard to be one of them. Mitt and Rudy are already going at it. This could be fun. Rudy slams Mitt's "sanctuary mansion."
8:20 P.M. Wow. Fred Thompson is really bad. This guy was considered a good actor? He's horrible. And, typical GOP crowd getting into the booing and heckling.
8:29 P.M. Geez, still talking about immigration?
8:33 P.M. McCain is right about one thing: GOPers are profligate spenders. Maybe when McCain is in the Senate, he can stop federal spending. Oh wait. He is in the Senate.
8:35 P.M. If John McCain were elected to the federal government he'd stop all the wasteful spending that he's been in charge of for decades. Oh yeah, and McCain thinks paying for children's health insurance is an example of "wasteful spending." Nice.
8:41 P.M. Nice back and forth between McCain and Ron Paul. Ron Paul wins.
8:43 P.M. Wait. The tax question is from Grover Norquist, a prominent D.C.-based GOP operative. That totally undermines the whole concept of the YouTube debate. As if Grover doesn't have enough access to the candidates. That's pathetic, CNN and YouTube. Pathetic.
8:44 P.M. Duncan Hunter said he'd vote for tax increases during the time of war. Um, Duncan, we ARE at war. He is a buffoon.
8:48 P.M. In a non-YouTube question, Rudy just blamed the police for trying to hide the tax-payer money spent for his extra-marital affair. That's low even for Rudy.
Finally, a commercial break. I've never been so happy for a t.v. ad. -- So close to a break and then, Anderson Cooper says no break because of Fred Thompson's stupid video.
This is truly painful.
They're back.
9:01 P.M. Rudy's getting tough questions about his very strong pro-gun control record. And, it was a very strong record despite what he's saying now.
9:14 P.M. What would Jesus do about the death penalty? Now that was a good question. None of the Republicans will actually give an answer to that question.
9:17 P.M. Do they believe every word of the Bible? Rudy doesn't. Although he did read it during the big crises in his life. Would that include those two divorces? Mitt seemed a little nervous, but he believes the Bible is the word of god. He doesn't disagree with the Bible. He squirmed. Huckabee (who offered to help Rudy with the answer) sure knows how to answer the question. But, he's been in the biz.
YEAH...another break after Mitt's stupid video. He gets "the big stuff done." Huh?
Ugh. Lost some of the post. Here's a recap since the last break:
The interaction between Mitt and McCain over torture was pretty good. Mitt was so out of his league. But, why did McCain compare the U.S. to Pol Pot and Communist China.
And, as for that question from the Muslim woman, as if any of the GOPers care what Muslims around the world think about us. And, note how they all turned it into a warmongering question.
Another break. This thing is brutal to watch. Brutal. Can you really imagine any of these guys being President? That's truly frightening.
Only 15 minutes left and CNN better end it on time.
9:50 P.M. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" question. Duncan Hunter agrees with Colin Powell. And Romney won't really answer the question. And, the questioner, a retired general, gets to really lay it out to the candidates. The audience doesn't like it. They're trying to shout down the general. Nothing like a good gay bashing from the gays.
9:57 P.M. Mars? Are they kidding? Okay, I'll admit it. Huckabee is scary. He gives good answers...even when he's being a typically insane GOPer. Meanwhile, Tancredo just looks insane cause he is.
Always the stupid question at the end. Rudy gets asked about the Yankees and Red Sox. He should have gotten the same question as Hillary at the last debate: Pearls or Diamonds? You know, for when he does drag.
Okay, it's finally over. I'd say this was Mike Huckabee's night. He gave great answers, held his own against the big dogs. Romney looked pathetic and often uncertain. He's clearly not good when he's not scripted. McCain had some moments, but overall just doesn't have it. Rudy was just too much of a smarty pants. This was a raucous gathering and they're all getting ugly with each other. Have at it.
Bush wants another $200 billion for his war in Iraq with no strings. By a 218 - 203 margin, the House just voted to give him only one fourth of that request, $50 billion, for four months -- with strings as The Gavel explained:
· Require the start of the redeployment of U.S. forces within 30 days of enactment, with a goal for completion of the redeployment by December 15, 2008.
· Require a transition in the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq from primarily combat to: force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counterterrorism operations.
· Prohibit deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq who are not fully trained and fully equipped;
· Include an extension to all U.S. government agencies and personnel of the current prohibitions in the Army Field Manual against torture.
Bush already promised he'd veto this bill. It's his war. He started it. He wants all his money. And he'll spend it however he what he wants to. That's the way Bush had done it for six years -- and he doesn't think that should change now.
We know Mitch McConnell and his GOP colleagues will do everything possible to keep the war going. The question is whether the Democrats will cave -- again -- or whether they'll join the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and an end to this war.
At today's press briefing, Dana Perino, speaking for the Bush administration, said all of those Americans who oppose the war and want it to end are "radical" and is "the height of irresponsibility." Actually, most Americans think Bush's war in Iraq is the height of irresponsibility. Those Bushies really are sick, sick, sick people.
Here we go again. The bill (pdf copy here) does the following:
- requires the primary purpose of the funds be to transition U.S. forces in Iraq to redeployment out of Iraq, not to extend the war - bars torture - requires all troops sent to Iraq to be "fully mission capable" - requires the President to begin an "immediate and orderly redeployment" with 30 days of enactment of the bill - sets a goal of all combat troops to be out of Iraq by December 15, 2008 - requires the Secretary of Defense to report every 90 days on how the redeployment is proceeding
