The Blue State

Neoconservative legal system in Iraq

Torture.  No habeas corpus.  Lack of managerial oversight.  We have yetto build the legal system in Iraq that we promised -- and this is allby our example:

 

The president of the Iraqi bar association hand-delivered a letterto House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Senate Judiciary Committeeranking Republican Arlen Specter (Pa.) Wednesday calling for bettertreatment of detainees in Iraq and criticizing the U.S. government fornot doing enough to build Iraq’s legal system.

Aswadal-Minshidi and a group of prominent Iraqi lawyers have sent the sameletter to President Bush. On Tuesday, they shared their concerns in aprivate meeting with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Theyalso met with Emmet Flood, special counsel to the president.

In case you thought I was exaggerating about habeas corpus -- there is literally no habeas corpus!

The lawyers are primarily concerned about the length of time — rangingfrom three months to two years — Iraqis rounded up in broad securitysweeps must wait behind bars before seeing authorities with power toadjudicate their cases, said a State Department source familiar withtheir views. Most of the suspects rounded up on suspicion of havingties to insurgents are let go, but they often have to wait months totrickle through the legal process. In many cases, their families havelittle idea of what happened to them.

This isn't a democracy.  It's a police state that is now part of the US proxy war with Iran.  Democracy?  No, that was just the excuse.  Oil?  Yes, but we failed on that.  Military bases next to our number one foe, Iran?  Now you're talking.

(Video) Waterboarding demonstration

From the brand new Waterboarding.org.  Just in case you forgot what it is:

Waterboarding induces panic and suffering by forcing aperson to inhale water into the sinuses, pharynx, larynx, trachea, andlungs.

The head is tilted back and water is poured into the upturned mouthor nose. Eventually the subject cannot exhale more air or cough outmore water, the lungs are collapsed, and the sinuses and trachea arefilled with water. The subject is drowned from the inside, filling withwater from the head down. The chest and lungs are kept higher than thehead so that coughing draws water up and into the lungs while avoidingtotal suffocation. "His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown."

Here is a demonstration (might be considered graphic by some of you):

Send your special thanks to Democrats Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, whose votes helped 'I don't know if waterboarding is torture' Michael Mukasey clear committee.  This will be our new Attorney General.

Hillary won't take stand on secret prisons

Here is yet another issue the former First Lady is considering in terms of its impact on the general election.  Too much calculation and not enough personal opinion.  All she has to say is "I oppose secret CIA prison," or" I don't oppose them."  She just cannot seem to do it.  And she has the audacity to stand there and claim that she will restore America's dignity throughout the world?

From Salon:

The differences between Clinton and her Democratic competitors havebeen most striking when it comes to the CIA, which institutionalizedprisoner abuse after 9/11 through harsh interrogations at "black site"prisons. The agency has also secreted terror suspects to third-partycountries for torture through so-called renditions.

The other major Democratic candidates have said they would shut downthe CIA activities. "No more secret authorization of methods likesimulated drowning," Obama said early this month in one of his manystatements on these issues. John Edwards said in the Democrats' debate at Dartmouth College on Sept. 26 thatthere would be "no more secret prisons. Not when I'm president of theUnited States." At the same debate, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said, "What the administration has been using is calledwaterboarding ... I would not permit it." Sen. Chris Dodd's campaignWeb site says, "Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons. No more." Sen. Joe Biden recently wrote a letter to the American Freedom Campaign, ananti-torture group, pledging that he would "close down secret CIAprisons in other countries where detainees are held incommunicado andcruelly mistreated."

As for what Clinton said:

In contrast, Clinton hasn't been clear about the CIA even when askeddirectly about the agency's interrogation program. In an interview inearly October, the Washington Post asked Clintonto address the CIA techniques specifically. According to a transcriptof that interview, the Post asked Clinton about the CIA since "you'vesaid you're against torture, but the types of methods that are now usedthat aren't technically torture but are still permitted, would you dosomething in your first couple days to address that, suspend some ofthe special interrogation methods immediately or ask for some kind ofreview?"

Clinton responded that it was unclear exactly what the CIA was upto. She needed more information. Clinton added only that: "I think wehave to draw a bright line and say, 'No torture -- abide by the GenevaConventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to makesure we implement that."

The Post described the answer as "vague."

Ah, Hillary needs more information.  She has only been a Senator for seven years, and has had plenty of time to ask the CIA for the data.  She has access to classified intelligence.

So why is she refusing to take a stand on secret prisons?  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that these rendition camps began during the mid-90s under her husband's administration.

If she is elected president, the current policy could get modified a little bit.  Waterboarding will almost definitely get banned.  But when it comes to secret prisons in general, they will still exist under a Hillary administration.

Rumseld charged in France

This is sure to anger conservative talk radio.  This, and anything else having to do with France:

Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld got an unpleasantsurprise during his visit to France today when human rights groupsfiled a complaint with the Paris Prosecutor before the “Court of FirstInstance” (Tribunal de Grande Instance) charging the chief architect ofPresident George W. Bush's "war on terror" with ordering andauthorizing torture.

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with theCenter for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center forConstitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League forHuman Rights (LDH) filed the complaint while Rumsfeld was in Paris fora talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine, and under French law, aninvestigation must be opened if an alleged torturer is inside France.

“France is under the obligation to investigate and prosecuteRumsfeld’s accountability for crimes of torture in Guantanamo andIraq," said FIDH President Souhayr Belhassen. "France has no choice butto open an investigation if an alleged torturer is on its territory. Ihope that the fight against impunity will not be sacrificed in the nameof politics. We call on France to refuse to be a safe haven forcriminals.”

“The filing of this French case against Rumsfeld demonstrates thatwe will not rest until those U.S. officials involved in the tortureprogram are brought to justice," said CCR President Michael Ratner."Rumsfeld must understand that he has no place to hide. A torturer isan enemy of all humankind.”

CIA auditor being investigated by CIA

John helgerson, who headed an aggressive investigation into the CIA's detention tactics, is being investigated by his own agency:

The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden ,has ordered an unusual internal inquiry into the work of the agency’sinspector general, whose aggressive investigations of the C.I.A.’sdetention and interrogation programs and other matters have createdresentment among agency operatives.       

A small team workingfor General Hayden is looking into the conduct of the agency’s watchdogoffice, which is led by Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Currentand former government officials said the review had caused anxiety andanger in Mr. Helgerson’s office and aroused concern on Capitol Hillthat it posed a conflict of interest.

So much for legitimate internal watchdogs.

APA: Psychologists who have role in torture will be kicked out

All over the country, states, municipalities and local groups are banding together to resist Bush's policies on everything from global warming to foreign policy.  Numerous city councils even passed resolutions to impeach the President.  On the issue of torture, a well-recognized organization is putting its foot down.

The American Psychological Association is taking a firm stand against the Bush Administration's misuse of the Geneva Conventions.  It includes barring psychologists from participating in any unethical interrogation technique, such as torture:

The Washington, D.C.-based American Psychological Association, underpressure to respond to reports implicating mental-health professionalsin prisoner-abuse scandals at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib prison inIraq, has banned members from any involvement in interrogations thatinvolve torture. The ruling, which came to a vote on Sunday, barspsychologists from knowingly planning, designing, or assisting in theuse of torture. The ruling specifically lays out more than a dozenspecific practices, including simulated drowning and forced nakedness,and aims to draw a clear line between providing care to detainees andplaying advisory roles to interrogation teams. Anyone in violationcould be expelled from the 148,000-member organization and possiblylose their state licenses, according to the new ruling, if they fail toreport abuses or take part in them personally.

You can bet this will be a hot topic all over conservative talk radio.  "Those psychologists are giving the enemy a free pass," they will probably say.

A spokesperson from the American Psychological Association reminds us that torturing the enemy is not necessarily a precursor to good intelligence:

Those who support torture in interrogations seem to think itworks quite well. Why do you think it doesn’t yield accurateinformation?
We don’t know exactly why; there hasn’tbeen a scientific study. But the assumption is that to stop the painand suffering, a detainee will say whatever the interrogators want tohear.

Back to the impact itself.  This will affect the Bush Administration's access to top-notch psychologists on issues concerning the Military Commissions Act and Guantanamo.

Here is the official APA Resolution that prohibits the unethical use of interrogation techniques.

Cheney instructs Bush to ignore legislature and judiciary

The second part in a four-part Washington Post series about Dick Cheney focused on the Vice President's role in formulating the legal strategy to justify harsh interrogation methods.  Unfortunately for the Administration, a number of court rulings last year determined that water-boarding and other cruel and humane interrogation practices were illegal.  To fight back, Cheney instructed Bush to just simply ignore the legislature and judiciary:

Two questions remain, officials said. One involves techniques to beauthorized now. The other is whether any technique should be explicitlyforbidden. According to participants in the debate, the vice presidentstands by the view that Bush need not honor any of the new judicial andlegislative restrictions. His lawyer, they said, has recently restatedCheney's argument that when courts and Congress "purport to" limit thecommander in chief's warmaking authority, he has the constitutionalprerogative to disregard them.

Cheney is trying to further the Nixonian constitutional doctrine that the Executive Branch leads while the other two branches follow.  Of course, if the Executive Branch can just disregard the legislature and judiciary, you have to ask why the latter two should even exist?  Also, if the Executive Branch is the most powerful, then how come the framers put the Legislative Branch in Article I, and the Executive back in Article II?  Maybe the framers were warning us about monarchies.

The torture flights that did not land -- or did they?

It has long been rumored that in effort to dodge international law, the CIA has used secret torture flights to interrogate detainees and transport them to secret prisons throughout the world.  Now there is more evidence to support those accusations.  According to a new report from the UK's Times Online, Britain reportedly did not want  the U.S. to land the torture planes in their country in fear that it might damage their reputation:

Britain did not allow CIA “torture flights” to use its airports to take terror suspects out of Europe, an investigation led by senior police officers has concluded.

The 18-month inquiry led by Michael Todd, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, examined claims that “extraordinary rendition” flights chartered by the US Government landed in the UK before spiriting away suspects.

To summarize, this report concluded that the flights did not land on British soil.  Human rights groups say the planes did land.  Either way, it proves that these torture flight are not some fabrication dreamed up by anti-war activists, as certain conservatives would like people to believe.

Also, a separate European inquiry found yesterday that Poland and Romania allowed the Bush Administration to set up secret prisons on their soil.  Obviously, the two countries have denied the allegations.

39 U.S. detainees "disappear"

Human rights groups allege that 39 prisoners detained by the CIA have all of a sudden disappeared:

Six human rights groups urged the U.S. government on Thursday to name and explain the whereabouts of 39 people they said were believed to have been held in U.S. custody and "disappeared."

The groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, said they filed a U.S. federal lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act seeking information about the 39 people it terms "ghost prisoners" in the U.S. "war on terror."

The groups have also called on the Bush Administration to stop using secret prisons to hold detainees.  This comes just more than one year after CIA Director John Negroponte revealed that his agency had the right to hold its prisoners indefinitely.

So much for setting an example as a world leader.  Thanks for screwing this all up for my generation.

Is the Bush Administration Fascist?

In my younger years I considered myself a Republican, I wasn't sure why, butit probably had something to do with my traditional points of view, even though my ways ofthinking  were  liberal. I suppose the bottom line was Ihad no clue. As I grew older I learned how to understand my views and combine andmold them into what turned out to be mainstream liberal. I'm not easilyconvinced or swayed about everything left, I need to see it, hear it andunderstand it before I hop on any band wagons. That's why when I saw the title FascistAmerica, in 10 easy Steps, I was taken back a bit and thought another (nutty) conspiracytheory. Then I read it.

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there arecertain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutionalfreedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to betaking them all

I knew Bush did some evil things, andshould be impeached (and flogged), but how are they going to equate Bush toHitler? 

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the couptook a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list.In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down:the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residentialareas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press,tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.

NowI had to keep reading, I had to see how this British paper was going to tie U.S.policy to that of a military coup in Thailand. 

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy -After we were hiton September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weekslater, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that hadlittle chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. Wewere told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "globalwar" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe outcivilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the USaccepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincolndeclared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands ofJapanese-American citizens were interned. 

2. Create a gulag - Once you have got everyone scared, the next stepis to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wantedthe American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal"outer space") - where torture takes place.

3. Develop a thug caste - Thugs in America? Groups of angry youngRepublican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workerscounting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you canimagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the nextelection day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election;history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a pollingstation "to restore public order".

4. Set up an internal surveillance system - In 2005 and 2006, whenJames Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret stateprogramme to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and followinternational financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans thatthey, too, could be under state scrutiny.

5. Harass citizens' groups - The fifth thing you do is related to stepfour - you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a churchin Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, founditself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches thatgot Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, havebeen left alone.

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release - In 2004, America'sTransportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list ofpassengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried tofly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peaceactivists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member ofVenezuela's government - after Venezuela's president had criticised Bush; andthousands of ordinary US citizens.

7. Target key individuals - Bush supporters in state legislatures inseveral states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fireacademics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants,the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spokeup for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publiclyintimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening tocall for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

8. Control the press - You won't have a shutdown of news in modernAmerica - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and SidneyBlumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well.What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false informationthat is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth fromuntruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying.When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands foraccountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason - Cast dissent as "treason" andcriticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as itelaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expandthe definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, thepublisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush calledthe Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", whileRepublicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, andrightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason"drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that onepenalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution

.10. Suspend the rule of law - The John Warner Defense AuthorizationAct of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This meansthat in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers todeclare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that hehas declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and itscitizens.

Special Thanks to granny for pointing us to this information.

My thought's quickly changed. These steps are much more detailedin the article and can be readhere.

2 other far left conspiracy theories that after seeing the information I was (conservatively) 65% convinced were true. Alex Jones's 'Martial Law 9-11: Rise of the Police State' (w/ VIDEO), and Robert Greenwald's Iraq For Sale: 'The War Profiteers'.