Torture me this

Last week I started to write a post about the horror of America's policy on torture under George W. Bush. The post was inspired by an NPR story last week about Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was wrongly detained during a layover at JFK in 2002 and sent to Syria, where he was tortured. Eventually, officials realized he was innocent, and Arar was released. The Canadian government awarded him $10 million for his ordeal, and last week the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in his case.

I was struck by the NPR story because the personal story can be so moving. Hearing Arar describe his experience, which you can hear at NPR's website by clicking the link above, penetrates even the deepest cynicism.

That post I started was never finished. And now since Friday, the floodgates have opened on the Bush administration's torture scandal. In the administration's waning days, the Bush crime syndicate would probably prefer to control the message of Bush's legacy. Instead, it has had to deal with the stain it has left on America's reputation and the very real damage it did in America's pursuit of national security through its use of torture.

Last Thursday, the Senate Armed Forces Committee, led by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), released a report indicating that high level administration officials, going at least as high as then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were directly responsible for torture committed by American military members. Lynndie England and Charles Graner weren't a couple of low level bad apples. They were told from on high to do what they did.

The committee report was the result of two years of investigation. It confirmed what we already knew due to the previous release of DOD and DOJ memos.

Stunningly, rather than tamping down the story, Vice President Dick Cheney has faced it head on, telling ABC News that he thinks the use of torture, including waterboarding, was appropriate. Of course, Cheney doesn't admit that the techniques used were torture. He sticks to the administration line that the United States doesn't torture, but in the same interview, within minutes, he states that he feels that all of the interrogation tactics used by the U.S., including waterboarding, were appropriate.

It is well known that torture techniques, including waterboarding, were used on al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and in the ABC interview, Cheney claims that about half of what we knew about al-Qaeda a few years ago came from KSM.

But Cheney's claim doesn't jibe with a new article at VanityFair.com. David Rose of VF has written a story, "Tortured Reasoning", in which counterterrorism officials from various agencies indicate that the Bush administration's use of torture not only did not produce reliable intelligence but it was also counterproductive in our country's attempt to protect itself.

In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts—with Abu Zubaydah’s case one of the most glaring examples.

Here, they say, far from exposing a deadly plot, all torture did was lead to more torture of his supposed accomplices while also providing some misleading “information” that boosted the administration’s argument for invading Iraq.

And here's where Cheney's assertion about KSM is blown to shreds:

But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total f--king bulls--t.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

So not only is torture morally reprehensible, it's not practical.

Incredibly, there are people out there still willing to defend this wretched practice. Philly radio talk show host Michael Smerconish told MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Wednesday on Hardball that if the US does it, it's OK.

Meanwhile, Senator Levin stated on The Rachel Maddow Show that his committee's report warrants the creation of a commission to determine if Bush administration officials should be charged with crimes. (Gotta embed this one.)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The New York Times' editorial board, meanwhile, believes the commission step should be skipped:

A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse.

We're all looking forward to putting this sad chapter of American history behind us, but even with a mere month remaining in the Bush administration, this story continues to have plot twists.

Andy in Harrisburg

Is this lady the coolest or what?

According to ProgressNowAction, that pesky First Amendment interfered with one of Sen. John McCain's supposedly public town hall meetings:

On orders from McCain's security detail, Denver police escorted a 61-year-old woman away who was waiting in line to attend a so-called town hall meeting with McCain that was billed as open to the public.

Fortunately, these folks weren't dealing with just anybody. They were dealing with a librarian. As Rachel Maddow said on Countdown, those people are "trained democracy super heroes."

The incident was captured on videotape and posted on YouTube:




Ed Brayton at the excellent blog Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a post on it as well.

So here's what I'd like to propose: We need to teach those folks who would bully 61-year-old ladies into giving up their constitutionally protected free speech rights as to just what the First Amendment is all about. So next time McCain comes to your town, convince your Mom to hold up a similarly worded sign. When the security thugs enlist the local police force, you tell your Mom that defense of the First Amendment is worth getting arrested for. Tell her it would make her the bestest Mom ever. You know she'd do it if you ask. Moms are like that. I know my mother plans to be there. Just as soon as I ask her.

Lauri in York

And more surveillance...

Every time we comment on the 2008 elections here at SF, keep in mind we are a non-partisan organization that does not endorse candidates. I will say that every time news comes up on civil liberties and civil rights issues in relation to the 2008 elections. Frankly, most of what you will see here on the elections will probably be criticism of the candidates. No one's perfect.

An adviser to Republican presidential candidate John McCain says that Senator McCain supports warrantless surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment, errr, for protection of the country. The New York Times today and Glenn Greenwald earlier in the week have both reported on McCain's flip-flop from his responses on the issue in December to a candidate survey conducted by The Boston Globe.

Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.

In an interview about his views on the limits of executive power with The Boston Globe six months ago, Mr. McCain strongly suggested that if he became the next commander in chief, he would consider himself obligated to obey a statute restricting what he did in national security matters.

Mr. McCain was asked whether he believed that the president had constitutional power to conduct surveillance on American soil for national security purposes without a warrant, regardless of federal statutes.

He replied: “There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

Following up, the interviewer asked whether Mr. McCain was saying a statute trumped a president’s powers as commander in chief when it came to a surveillance law. “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law,” Mr. McCain replied.

This isn't completely news. In February, McCain voted with the administration on the FISA revision bill, as documented here at SF.

Of course, no one is going to confuse McCain with a constitutional scholar. This cat thinks the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation. Senator, where in the Constitution are the words "God" and "Christian"? My copy doesn't have the G word or the C word.

Andy in Harrisburg

Obama denounces Farrakhan's endorsement; McCain proudly touts religious bigot's endorsement

Glenn Greenwald offers such a dead-on perfect analysis of the double standard that exists between the political endorsements of various religious leaders that I'm not even going to try to gild the lily (not that I could) with added comments.

For my money, nobody has been doing a better job than Greenwald at keeping track of the Bush Administration's utter disdain for civil liberties and the mainstream media's dismal performance at exposing it.

Greenwald makes it clear that when it comes to those who embrace the trampling of religious freedoms, some church leaders are more palatable to the media than others.

And for those interested in a little context to an important distinction, Jon Swift also offers some terrific insight into the need for Obama to not only denounce, but reject. I mean, it's about time someone exposed Obama's Newport Folk Festival connection...

Lauri in York

U.S. Senate does something right. Don't get used to it.

It wasn't all doom-and-gloom this week in Washington. Yesterday the U.S. Senate passed a bill to require the CIA to use the Army Field Manual as its guide on interrogations, effectively banning waterboarding. Senator Casey voted for the bill, Senators Specter and McCain- a victim of torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese- voted against it, and Senators Clinton and Obama did not vote.

The bill passed, 51-45, but faces a veto threat from the Emperor, errr, the President.

Wait, wait, for the last year, I could have sworn it takes 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. (/snark)

Andy in Harrisburg

A plague on both their houses: Senate Republicans, Democrats assault Constitution, pass bad FISA bill

Updated and bumped, Thursday at 10:50am: Good segment on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night featuring Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University.

Turley: "The Senate is actively working with the White House to cover up a crime." Ouch.
----

Amnesty for mega-corporations and surveillance without a court order carried the day yesterday in the Democrat-led Senate. A majority of senators from both parties, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they are sworn into office, voted down all amendments that would have brought the FISA bill into line with that pesky ol' Fourth Amendment and would have held rich telecom companies responsible for breaking the law.

As we poke through the smoldering ruins, the burning question is, "How did Specter, Casey, and the three senators running for president vote?" Here's the breakdown:

The Dodd amendment: To strip telecom amnesty from the bill
Yeas: Casey, Obama
Nays: Specter, McCain
Not voting: Clinton
Failed, 31-67

Feingold-Dodd amendment: Ban on bulk collection, require individual court orders
Yeas: Casey, Obama
Nays: Specter, McCain
Not voting: Clinton
Failed, 37-60

Feingold-Webb-Tester amendment: Require a court order if the government knows one person is in the U.S., unless it is an emergency or a known terrorist
Yeas: Casey, Obama
Nays: Specter, McCain
Not voting: Clinton
Failed, 35-63

Final passage
Yeas: Specter, Casey, McCain
Not voting: Clinton, Obama
Passed, 68-29

Glenn Greenwald has more:

It's worth taking a step back and recalling that all of this is the result of the December, 2005 story by the New York Times which first reported that the Bush administration was illegally spying on Americans for many years without warrants of any kind. All sorts of "controversy" erupted from that story. Democrats everywhere expressed dramatic, unbridled outrage, vowing that this would not stand. James Risen and Eric Lichtblau were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for exposing this serious lawbreaking. All sorts of Committees were formed, papers written, speeches given, conferences convened, and editorials published to denounce this extreme abuse of presidential power. This was illegality and corruption at the highest level of government, on the grandest scale, and of the most transparent strain.

What was the outcome of all of that sturm und drang? What were the consequences for the President for having broken the law so deliberately and transparently? Absolutely nothing.

Now the ball is in the House's court, which is dealing with it today.

Andy in Harrisburg