A few years back, Arizona Senator John McCain hosted Saturday Night Live. In one scene he played the character of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, and joked about wanting to keep Americans in jail for months at a time for no reason. It turns out that the , which McCain voted for and was signed recently, would allow the government to do just that:
- on Youtube
--- Partial Transcript ---
MCCAIN AS ASHCROFT: "As Americans, we will never truly be free until each and every one of us is afraid of being thrown in jail. And thanks to the tips program, we have been able to detain tens of thousands of potential American terrorists for months at a time for little or no reason."
That line sure got a laugh then. But is it funny now? The Military Commissions Act would outlaw if the government believes that certain individuals pose a threat. This is the deal that John McCain struck with President Bush. Some deal, huh? Keith Olbermann's commentary for more.
In a sworn statement obtained by the AP, a Marine admits that she heard guards at :
The two-page statement was sent Wednesday to the Inspector General at the Department of Defense by a high-ranking Marine Corps defense lawyer.
The lawyer sent the statement on behalf of a paralegal who said menshe met on Sept. 23 at a bar on the base identified themselves to heras guards. The woman, whose name was blacked out, said she spent aboutan hour talking with them. No one was in uniform, she said.
A 19-year-old sailor referred to only as Bo "told the other guardsand me about him beating different detainees being held in the prison,"the statement said.
"One such story Bo told involved him taking a detainee by the headand hitting the detainee's head into the cell door. Bo said that hisactions were known by others," the statement said. The sailor said hewas never punished.
The statement was provided to the AP on Thursday night by Lt. Col.Colby Vokey. He is the Marine Corps' defense coordinator for thewestern United States and based at Camp Pendleton.
Calls left for representatives at Guantanamo Bay on Friday were not immediately returned. A Pentagon spokesman declined immediate comment.
Other guards "also told their own stories of abuse towards thedetainees" that included hitting them, denying them water and "removingprivileges for no reason."
"About 5 others in the group admitted hitting detainees" and that included "punching in the face," the affidavit said.
"From the whole conversation, I understood that striking detaineeswas a common practice," the sergeant wrote. "Everyone in the grouplaughed at the others stories of beating detainees."
This story broke just moments after a report surfaced that the United States has a that is used to interrogate detainees.
This prisoner beating story is just one example of how domestic policy can become a foreign policy. In other words, the laws that you enact can have international implications. And as a world leader, this sets a precedent that is contradictory to the very values that we have been trying to promote throughout the world ever since was president.
The and bills were passed late yesterday, as most of you certainly know by now. I was thinking about writing a huge piece on it, and exposing what senators were influenced by whom -- and so forth. Although, you've heard all that. All that really needs to be said is that if this doesn't fire our base up for November, then we have a disorder. The fact that moderate Republicans, some of which are in close election battles, could sneak this one past us really is a testament to how radical the Republican Party has become.
With 140,000 troops in Iraq and 20,000 in Afghanistan, they should know that this detainee bill will put our soldiers in greater danger. The bill goes to show how disconnected the politicians in Washington are from real soldiers on the ground who are putting their lives on the line every day.
And how about those warrantless wiretaps? They should know that this power will eventually be used to smear political opponents, and has little to do with protecting the nation from terrorism.
Enough said. Want two more years of this? Want two more years of reading blogs like this one complain about the status quo? Or do you want bloggers like myself working hard each day to rally support for progressive bills that our Democratic majority needs passed? The choice is yours. But if you do want change, you have to get involved. You can't leave it to the Washington establishment Democrats to get it done. They have a record of losing, and they are good at doing just that. The grassroots needs to get its game face on, and from now until the election we need to do our part as individuals:
Calling radio shows
Holding up signs on street corners on the weekend
Passing out pins and stickers outside grocery stores
Registering students to vote
E-mailing the editor of your local newspaper
Texting your family and friends on election day, reminding them to get out to the polls
Posting comments on popular non-political blogs
In the end, it's all about people powered democracy. That is the only way we can get this done on November 7th.
President Bush got the better end of the interrogation bill, and its consequences will put our troops in greater danger.
John McCain is not really a Maverick at all. In an effort to try and look like a moderating force, Arizona Senator John McCain got the losing end of the deal on the interrogation bill, giving President Bush almost everything he wanted. This was not a compromise. It was as if Republicans agreed to look the other way.
As the wrote on Saturday, the bill contradicts itself. On one hand, it gives major offenders complete rights, while giving low-level detainees no rights at all:
It would guarantee terrorist masterminds charged with war crimes anarray of procedural protections. But it would bar hundreds of minorfigures and people who say they are innocent bystanders from access tothe courts to challenge their potentially lifelong detentions.
The said that because of this new law, Bush will go down as the President that endorsed torture:
Mr. Bush wanted Congress to formally approve these practices and todeclare them consistent with the Geneva Conventions. It will not. Butit will not stop him either, if the legislation is passed in the formagreed on yesterday. Mr. Bush will go down in history for his embraceof torture and bear responsibility for the enormous damage that hascaused.
In our anarchic international system, one thing is certain: precedent often impacts how power can be used legitimately. When we, the beacon of democracy, set a precedent of interpreting the Geneva Conventions in any way that we want, we then give the green light to other countries to do the same. It means that when our soldiers find themselves captured by another state in the world, this bill will have put them in greater danger -- all this from the party that says they are pro-military.
The above title is how this whole debate about torture should be framed. Because GOP senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and John Warner are joining Colin Powell in , putting their military experience above politics, conservative loudmouth commentators are having an extremely difficult time defending the President.
Just look at what happened last night on the Fox News show Hannity and Colmes. Normally you can always count on Mr. Hannity to tout the party line on everything. But in this case, forced to take a stand either with Republican military veterans or with a majority of the party, host Sean Hannity gave the imaginable why U.S. and international laws should not be followed:
“I find it unconscionable that we’re gonna tie the hands of interrogators.â€
What Sean Hannity is essentially saying is that interrogators and detainees are the only individuals that Bush's policy is going to affect. What he discounts is the poor international precedent that it will set, and how that new precedent will impact our soldiers in the near future. For some reason, Hannity, O'Reilly and all the other belligerent Fox News reactionaries would rather recklessly throw around conservative talking points than objectively look at the correlation between cause and effect.
Most military leaders, whether retired or currently on the Pentagon payroll, oppose President Bush's policy on torture. Will Bush eventually listen to them? Let me put it this way: did he listen to military leaders when they encouraged him to send in more troops at the start of the Iraq war? Last night (and I'm sorry that I don't have the quote), Bill O'Reilly said something along the lines that Bush is the commander-in-chief, so therefore he knows best about what the correct interrogation policy should be.
But there is another way of thinking about it. Let's say that you are having an office party, and you are told by your co-workers that they like seafood. So that week you take it upon yourself to cook the best seafood dinner imaginable. Needing advice fast, you decide to contact your favorite seafood restaurant to get tips. Given a choice, who do you speak to -- the cook whose job it is to create and test seafood dish recipes, or the president of the restaurant chain that works in an office somewhere else in town? One thing is for sure: I wouldn't want to eat any of Sean Hannity's seafood.
Experts are experts for a reason, just as military officers know more about the military than any politician. While the commander-in-chief should be the one that decides when we go to war, military officers have the best understanding about what precautions need to be in place in order to keep our soldiers safer. When given the choice of helping the interrogators or protecting our brave men and women in uniform, I would choose both. But if I had to pick only one, I would put our soldiers first. Why is President Bush not onboard with that logic? --------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , .
In political science, we are taught that realism has to do with the study of what is practical and actual, not what is desired or ideal. Realists believe that countries are part of what is an anarchic international system -- anarchic in a sense that countries, not higher powers, determine the rules of interaction between governments. In other words, when the most powerful and most democratic country sets the precedent of lowering the ethical bar by easing interrogation rules, other countries will justifiably lower their standards.
Three Republican realists are standing with the Democrats on the issue of torture because they acknowledge that easing interrogation rules for prisoners in U.S. custody means that in the near future our soldiers will be subjected to worse treatment than before while in the custody of other sovereign countries. this morning outlines the two sides:
On one side are the Republican veterans of the uniformed services,arguing that the president’s proposal would effectively gut the nearly60-year-old Geneva Conventions, sending a dark signal to the rest ofthe world and leaving United States military without adequateprotection against torture and mistreatment.
On the other arethe Bush administration and Republican leaders of both the House andSenate who say new tools are urgently needed to pursue and interrogateterror suspects and to protect the covert operatives who play anincreasingly important role in chasing them.
Republicans concede that the fight among themselves is a majorpolitical distraction, particularly given the credentials of theRepublican opposition, led by Mr. McCain, the former prisoner of war inVietnam who was tortured in captivity.
I hate to beat the old drum, but I will. When most people in an Administration are detached from the realities that real soldiers face on a daily basis, they simply don't weigh into the equation how our interrogation policies might our soldiers in the long-run. In fact, they may not care anyway. Notice that Colin Powell, John McCain and the rest of the civilian military authority opposes the Administration's interrogation techniques -- for a good reason. First, they apply realism. Second, they come out of the GOP closet and stand on principle this one time. Better than never.
When commentators or politicians claim the moral high ground, sometimes that same self-proclaimed "morality" does not always pass the legitimacy test. As of late, that is true especially when it comes to torture.
Tuesday evening on the O'Reilly Factor, host that the United States was not torturing its prisoners, and instead only uses "uncomfortable" means that are within the law:
"Torture is taking my fingers off, disfiguring me, taking my eye out —not keeping me in a cold room and uncomfortable with blaring rockmusic."
Okay, fine. But I really wonder what Mr. O'Reilly and his conservative friends have to say about an interrogation technique called Water Boarding? explained Water Boarding for us:
The water board technique dates back to the1500s during the Italian Inquisition. A prisoner, who is bound andgagged, has water poured over him to make him think he is about todrown.
Current and former CIA officers tell ABC News that they were trainedto handcuff the prisoner and cover his face with cellophane to enhancethe distress. According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., himself a torturevictim during the Vietnam War, the water board technique is a "veryexquisite torture" that should be outlawed.
"Torture is defined under the federal criminal code as theintentional infliction of severe mental pain or suffering," said JohnSifton, an attorney and researcher with the organization Human RightsWatch. "That would include water boarding."
When about that technique during a NBC News exclusive interview in the Oval Office, the President seemed a bit flustered and refused to answer the question.
Let's be frank: this is unamerican. Turning up loud music and putting prisoners in bright rooms is one thing. But gagging and nearly drowning them sends the wrong signal to the rest of the world about the democracy we live in -- the same kind of democracy we're currently trying to promote abroad. It also puts our soldiers in greater danger. That is why former POW's like John McCain oppose such tactics.
More details are coming out regarding what happened right before and immediately after two U.S. soldiers abducted, and murdered three members of her family. The British newspaper has the details:
US soldiers, accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl,drank alcohol and hit golf balls before the attack. One of them grilledchicken wings afterwards, a criminal investigator told a US militaryhearing yesterday.
Benjamin Bierce interviewed one of the accused,Specialist James Barker who made a written statement in which herecorded graphic and brutal sexual details of the alleged assault onMarch 12.
Mr Bierce was testifying on the second day of thehearing to determine whether five soldiers must stand trial for therape and killing of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, her parents andfive-year-old sister in the town of Mahmudiya.
This is sure winning over the Iraqi people, isn't it?
These are not ordinary U.S. soldiers. Almost all U.S. soldiers are smart, mature and react well under pressure. Even with that said, it doesn't help that the Army is now so that other unqualified soldiers might get themselves into positions like this.
An investigative probe that was just released today concludes that by a small group of U.S. soldiers. The explains how this will impact the ongoing investigation into the killings.
Just in case you are not familiar with this case, the has a timeline of how the events unfolded.
This is not how we're supposed to go about winning friends in the international community. While these acts are obviously inexcusable, this sort of thing happens all the time during war -- which was why so many people were against going there in the first place.
Even before I go any further, let me say that I know a number of individuals that are either currently or formerly in the military. For example, a former political science classmate of mine is now in Iraq. Another, who I was friends with all throughout elementary school, just got back last year.
So, the soldier who said this is among a small fringe within the military.
With that said, the web site refers to a about Steven Green, who is accused of raping and murdering a 15-year-old Iraqi girl. Before the attack on the girl occurred, Green actually was interviewed by the Washington Post back in February about what life was like as a soldier in Iraq. He said that killing Iraqis was like "squashing an ant."
explains:
Writing in Sunday's Washington Post, AndrewTilghman, a former correspondent for the military paper Stars andStripes, said he interviewed Green several times in February south ofBaghdad.
"I came over here because I wanted to kill people," hequoted Green as saying. "The truth is, it wasn't all I thought it wascracked up to be. I mean, I thought killing somebody would be thislife-changing experience. And then I did it, and I was like, 'Allright, whatever.'
"I shot a guy who wouldn't stop when we were out at atraffic checkpoint and it was like nothing," Green was quoted assaying. "Over here, killing people is like squashing an ant.
"I mean, you kill somebody and it's like, 'All right, let's go get some pizza.'"
Green is under arrest in Kentucky for the March 12murders of the Iraqi girl and three of her relatives. He was honorablydischarged from the military for a "personality disorder," has pleadednot guilty.
Steven Green is a who had three misdemeanor convictions prior to his service in Iraq.
The rape case is still pending. But a in order to keep the media from knowing the specific details about the killing. ------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , , .
Recent Comments