Comments on: Senate Judiciary: Torture, Interrogation And The FBI, Part III

By: ondelette

ondelette — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:54:38 +0000

The hearings are getting better. There are two elephants in the room. The first is how we treat prisoners domestically. Blinds us to seeing the deprivation techniques as torture, allowing framing on only those techniques that cause physical pain by methods that force comparison with the Inquisition. That limits the number of cases severely. “Extreme close confinement”, defined as periods of total solitary confinement lasting for more than 30 days, have profound effects towards destruction of the psyche and loss of social abilities - some permanently. We can’t see solitary as torture because we do it too much in the U.S. for short periods (and sometimes long periods). Build on it with sleep deprivation and/or stress positions, intense interrogations of 20 hours and so forth and it easily qualifies but doesn’t look like it.

The heat and cold and stress: thousands of prisoners were kept in pens in Afghanistan, some had water poured over them in the cold to induce frostbite - destruction of soft tissue by freezing. The whole subject of the treatment — and number — of prisoners in Afghanistan seems off the record too often. It’s all Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo. It allows framing to a much smaller number of cases and use of expressions like “worst of the worst”. That’s the other elephant in the room: ICRC documents 10,100 prisoners in Afghanistan up 465 since Jan 1, 2008, and others put the number at 13,000, meaning the number of prisoners held outside of Red Cross view is 10 times the number total at Guantanamo.

The frames need to be changed and the whole picture seen. Otherwise, it will be that much easier for the administration to box the problem in, or claim it is only 9/11 killers, or otherwise minimize what is actually a problem involving torture and cruel treatment to thousands, or tens of thousands of people. And torture includes more than interrogation, read the CAT if you don’t believe that. Without this big picture, Sands made the mistake of seeing no system. The Congress cannot afford to make that mistake.

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:23:51 +0000

Maybe that’s why said senator is running a 50-state strategy and seems intent on developing long coat-tails?

Bob in HI

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:20:24 +0000

“FWIW, Feingold was likely tied up with prep for the Intel hearing. Plus, he and Dodd rolled out pushback on the FISA negotiations that Hoyer and Rockefeller have been doing — I’ll have more on that tomorrow.”

Oh, thankyouthankyouthankyou! I’ll be looking for your report!

Bob in HI

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:16:21 +0000

Late driveby, because I couldn’t stop by earlier–
Thanks for this thread, Christy!

My question here is when did it start to happen that hearings became so regimented as to limit the time Senators and Reps had to question people at the witness table? I don’t seem to recall such limitations in the public hearings during Watergate. Are those conditions defined by a Rules Committee? Defined for each Congress? Or institutionalized for every future Congress?

Democracy is attenuated when squished and confined to short exchanges.
Of course, I appreciate that a more generous and lax time allowance could be abused by bloviators, who seem to be legion on the Republican side. It is my fervent wish that hearings would take place under conditions allowing for more extended testimony.

Bob in HI

By: Adie

Adie — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:53:13 +0000

…and for some Senators to state clearly in public that, if it’s torture, they’re [finally, at long last] clearly against it. - before fall election season is upon us.

kinda disgusting, if that’s all this little charade was.

By: JimWhite

JimWhite — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:49:54 +0000

As phred mentioned in passing, Kennedy wasn’t able to be there today. I would like to think he would have had some good questions and might even have followed up a bit better than we saw from others.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:48:38 +0000

I agree. I think these Democrats, DiFi especially (who may feel the need to placate a few DFH’s in the Bay Area) expect to open a few old wounds, maybe encourage them to fester. It’ll annoy and possibly distract a few Goopers, but won’t require them to put their names and reputations on the line to investigate the issues fully or do anything about what they find.

I hope the new leader of the Democratic Party, a soon-to-be-former Senator, has higher standards about what citizens expect of their Senators.

By: Adie

Adie — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:43:40 +0000

Prediction: this day may not go down as one any of the Senators is proud of.

Don’t apologize phred & selise. I think it was the Senators who caused confusion. Their hearings didn’t even match their own webpage title.

I got the feeling the main reasons for the hearings was to open some administration wounds anew, and to pretend something’s being done.

I guess having Feinstein and Schumer(?) repeat the real names for the mild euphemisms boosh/chainy have been hiding behind, and having experts mostly call out the practices as hideous, inexcusable, illegal torture is something.

We all want more substance. It wasn’t going to happen on a day like today.

By: phred

phred — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:37:36 +0000

Maybe so ; )

Ok, off to go grumble quietly to myself while I get some chores done… Sigh.

Thanks Christy really appreciate your coverage of these hearings!

By: selise

selise — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:35:12 +0000

I made the mistake of relying solely on the caption on the live feed during the break

maybe the senators did too? *g*