If Obama does not act on this in a morally appropriate manner, his administration will be mired in quicksand until he leaves office.

Fifty-two percent of independents say that they think torture is sometimes justified.

well – “24″ is still showing original episodes. This year the theme is what happens when you’re too “weak” to use harsh methods, and slowly winning over those who disagree.

Coincidence?

Disbarment is much more realistic than impeachment. Bybee actually deserves to be waterboarded, but that wouldn’t happen unless he was actually a Democrat and this was a Republican Administration.

Yesterday, I talked with a friend who is a seminary professor. I asked what the seminary is doing to prepare grads going out into congregations in the next month on torture? She was curious about my inquiry. I responded with, “It will potentially spit congregations in two if you are not preparing your grads to address torture. Especially with the upcoming rounds of photos to be released.”

I caught my friend’s attention… And, I had not yet read the Washington Post Poll irt torture.

The conversation turned to the failed role of the church during WWII.

I agree that hearings can be means to getting more information made public. However, there needs to be very careful thought into structuring the hearings. The current trend of very short periods allowed for each questioner and the failure to coordinate questions or to allow trained investigators to ask the questions (rather than Congresscritters who don’t spend adequate time in preparation) could allow the hearings to spiral down into nothingness (see Petraeus hearings on the surge for an example).

I’m still convinced that the one revelation that would remove most public resistance to prosecutions would be the detention and torture of children.

Obama’s nuanced leadership on accountabilty for torture is disappointing, to put it mildly. My rational look at Obama sees he will continue to throw accountability a bone or two but he is unwilling at this point in time to show real leadership here.
We gotta keep up the pressure and hope he comes around.

Obama’s biggest mistake, imo, was to ever comment on the matter at all – other than to say that matters of this nature are, and will be, handled by the Justice Department.

And I agree with JimWhite @5 that Committee Hearings are invariably poorly handled clusterfucks. But unless there is a strong Committee Chairman who can convince some members to yield their time to better, stronger members, hearings will continue to be largely useless.

And no elected representative is going to be easily talked into giving up his/her camera time.

I’m still convinced that the one revelation that would remove most public resistance to prosecutions would be the detention and torture of children.

I agree.

Here’s an interesting poll from 2008.
And a reminder from the campaign.

We should never forget what the violence against children in the “children’s crusade” in Birmingham did to the Civil Right’s movement. Once the nation saw the photos in the news and on tv, the media captured violence against children set the stage for the March On Washington.

I’ll take the poll numbers after the release of the photos.

Good Morning Jane. Thank you for this post.

Deep deep thanks for this wonderful community you have built at the Lake. ;->

In this comment a couple of days ago, I referred to the impeachment of Jay Bybee as the “lowest-hanging fruit on the vine of justice.” The fact that as mainstream an actor as Podesta has signed on to this while distancing himself from discussion of criminal prosecutions (of Bybee and the rest) bears my observation out. Expect Bybee to be shamed or removed from the bench, and expect Democrats to try to leverage this as somehow sufficient.

Jim White, keep after it.

Was it you who mentioned that the Afghan people make the distinction between crime and religious persecution by the Taliban? I forget exactly how you (?) phrased that, but I passed that info to a Senator’s staff person on Saturday. The response was that it was a great piece of info that would likely come in handy and would be passed around. I thank you (or whoever) for that piece of info. I hope it will turn out to be really useful. If you or someone else has the link to the original article, I will pass it on. I think it was in the threads somewhere.

That’s exactly it.

The church did not fail in its role in WWII. They, very successfully and wholeheartedly, supported the government, the nazi government.

Good Morning Jane and Firedogs,

‘k, fine, time for some pushback

via Jane Mayer in 07:

“This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind ’24.” Finnegan…was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country. [They] had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect.

oh, and p.s. in the event you weren’t aware of Surnow’s level of assholery:

“We’ve had all of these torture experts come by recently, and they say, ‘You don’t realize how many people are affected by this. Be careful.’ They say torture doesn’t work. But I don’t believe that.”

That one wasn’t me and I also can’t remember just now who said it. It might have been ondelette.

sort of related: craig murry to testify tomorrow. public hearing before the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Committee: Viral Press Officers Needed

In 2004, Craig Murray told us that:

- The British Government was complicit in the most vicious forms of torture
- He had been the victim of a lurid smear campaign initiated by New Labour
- The government was lying about all this

In 2004, much of the public and media was not willing to accept that the government would cooperate with torture or with false allegations against an innocent man. Many still had trust in the basic honesty and decency of government.

The evidence that Craig Murray was telling the truth about torture has now become overwhelming, including from the case of Binyam Mohammed. The UK “benefited” continually from intelligence passed on from the CIA waterboarding programme and from torture in countries including Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Egypt.

Craig Murray suffered the most high profile sacking of any British Ambassador for a century. But in 2005 the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee refused to hear him in evidence, despite allowing Jack Straw to appear and attack him.

Astonishingly, this is the first time Craig Murray will ever have been allowed to give formal evidence in the UK on his grave allegations, and be questioned on the truth of his testimony.

As the Scotland Yard investigation proceeds into MI5 and MI6 collusion in 16 cases of torture, Craig Murray will argue that it is not the security service operatives, but the Ministers who set the policy – and specifically Jack Straw – who should be facing criminal charges.

via MoA comments.

I think our European friends (”Old Europe” according to the torture commander) will take up any slack we leave on this issue. They believe in personal accountability, sorta like the “Old Republican Party”.

I think Obama and the Democrats have to decide amongst themselves whether torture is, in fact, evil and a war crime.

If it is, they should go after everyone involved in its adoption. If it isn’t, by what right should they go after even Bybee? Bad lawyering?

So far, on torture, Obama himself has been a Profile in Confusion.

So long as we are willing to accept the dabate about toture to be “Torture is bad” vs “Torture is effective” we will lose. This is not the real debat and cannot be allowed to stand. the real issue is “Torture is illegal.” This isn’t (as has been noted repeatedly by many here) a partisan or a policy issue (how can you argue that torture is a policy difference, anyway?). Until Obama and Holder get it, we must keep banging the drum. Torture is illegal.

It makes no difference if torture is effective or not (it isn’t, but that is completely irrelevant), and it makes no difference the politics or political affiliation of those who authorized or acted on that authorization. It is ONLY about the rule of law and if anyone is above that law.

If we don’t investigate & prosecute, we admit or agree that the Executive Branch of our government is above the law and can ignore any law at any time they feel it is convenient. One of the bedrock founding principles of our nation is that EVERYONE is subject to the law. To ignore the torturing of our prisoners is to destroy one of the most fundamental principles of our country.

I think Obama and the Democrats have to decide amongst themselves whether torture is, in fact, evil and a war crime.

Nonsense. It is defined as a war crime in several treaties to which we are signatory. They don’t need to decide if it is, they merely need to decide if they believe in law, or if they prefer to tear down our Republic and set themselves above the law.

Mithras61

It’s called sarcasm.

committee hearings with antagonistic witnesses are so uniformly and completely useless (for anything other than lame attempts at meaningless youtube clips), i suspect it must be a feature not a bug.

Sorry – no offense meant. I’m somewhat sensitive to the whole steaming pile right now, although I really can’t tell you why. I guess I’m just completely fed up with the whole shitpile left to us by the previous administration.

Surnow sounds like exactly the sort of guy who needs to experience torture first-hand. He must be completely lacking in empathy.

Interrogation is applied psychology. Wee need to look in the psychology literature to see what works, and what doesn’t. And the literature is fairly clear: Stockholm syndrome works. Take good care of them, see to their well-being. Respect them as people. Eventually most will switch allegiance, and then you get everything you can want.

I like where this train is headed. Of course Obama gave the go-ahead. The last thing we need on the bench is a creep like Bybee; he’s not just a disgrace, he’s an international embarrassment. Obama does not need to take a public stand, nor should he. The rest of the machine should do its work, and that means the House Judiciary Committee. Podesta just sent them a signa that the Adminisration will not stand in their way. It’s now up to Conyers.

Obama obviously thinks that this issue is dangerous for him. If the prosecution ball starts rolling, it will be hard to stop and he will lose about half the country. If it has to happen, he would rather have it happen later than sooner presumably- after he gets health care approvedd. I’d look for him to find ways of delaying the thing for a year or so. “vestigations” could turn out to be just the ticket- although he doesn’
t seem high on em now.

(I’m a little young to remember this clearly, so please correct me if I’m wrong)

Didn’t we have committee hearings on Watergate and its coverup that brought in prosecutors to ask questions and drive the hearing?

It seems to me that this would be a good way to proceed with public hearings, but I still want independant investigations by a prosecutor whose purview is designated as “whatever & whoever is relevant” with assistance from the DOJ whenever “National Security” is invoked so that the prosecution can be performed without outing information that should be kept secret.

I’m not looking for a fishing expedition into the past, but prosecution of crimes and follow wherever the trail leads seems reasonable.

The Republics are framing the debate as “Torture is bad, but X is effective, therefore X is not torture.” The fallacy in the argument is obvious (it’s a non-sequitor, specifically there is a not-very-well-hidden premise that effective methods are not torture) when you state it that way.

One way to destroy the argument is to demolish the minor premise, “X is effective.” Water-boarding isn’t effective. So the whole argument is moot.

I think this is a masterful exercise in politics. Obama can deflect criticism of a witch hunt by seemingly dragging his feet while trusted aides light a prairie fire that overwhelms resistance. He is basically cutting the oppositions best defense(faux outrage at partisan prosecution) before they get to use it. We have a very competent president.

Perhaps we need to pull out the old Convention on Torture or the Geneva Conventions that define waterboarding as torture, then. It doesn’t matter if Dick or his pals think its torture, it has been defined as torture for legal purposes for many years. It has been recognized by most rational people as torture since at least the Spanish Inquisition. Why are we allowing them to try and revisit the question? We should be shutting it down as B.S. as soon as they start in with that.

Mithras61,

I agree with you about the shitpile here.

I think history is presenting us with a moment in which we must decide who we as Americans really are. If we can’t, even in a period of ascendancy of supposedly progressive governance, find the will to prosecute war crimes, where are we as a nation? If our progressive leaders themselves balk at proceeding, where and how might we ever regain our soul?

What’s most disturbing to me is to see how many of the Democrats in leadership themselves may have been complicit in adopting torture, by refusing to register strong protests against it at the time of its adoption.

Didn’t we have committee hearings on Watergate and its coverup that brought in prosecutors to ask questions and drive the hearing?/blockquote>

Yes, we did.

The problem with Congressional hearings is the pesky fifth amendment. The smart ones won’t say a word except, “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me.” In order to get useful testimony you have to immunize them against the use of the testimony in prosecution. (See, Affair, Iran-Contra).

That immunization spreads widely: it appears to me that it can’t be used as a basis for investigation. I could be wrong about that, I’m neither judge nor lawyer, but that’s how it appears.

If we want prosecutions (I certainly do!) then we have to allow the DOJ to do its job. This will probably involve appointing a special prosecutor because of the conflict of interest issues. But when it comes to the justice system, the critical attribute is patience. Everything seems to take a lot of time.

I agree that it is disturbing. I’ve seen some stuff in the last week or so about who knew and what they were told and when that seems to be designed to give some CYA to some of our leadership on the D side of the house, but I’m with Jane in that I really don’t care what the letter after their name is. If they’re complicit, they need to be held to account.

Yes, I want prosecutions more than I want to know the who/what/when of things, but I also think it may be a good thing to have public hearings on the issue as well.

Perhaps the solution would be to have the hearings after the prosecutions so that the hearings make public what the prosecutions were about and why those who got off were given a pass (e.g. – cooperation with prosecution, etc, like in a normal criminal case).

I think bringing the bright light to things after the fact of prosecution could be useful in making clear that this is NOT a partisan issue.

As far as a special prosecutor goes, I would press quite hard for an independant prosecutor as opposed to a special prosecutor. I want one who can follow wherever the trail leads and who answers only to us (not DOJ, Congress or the White House).

Actually, the post-World War II trials of Japanese Kempetai officials are probably the most immediately relevant. At least one was convicted and executed for torturing American POWs, and a version of water-boarding was apparently his preferred method.

Remember, these idiots haven’t read the Constitution and don’t recognize treaty obligations as binding. They’re supported in this by judicial idiots like Scalia, who doesn’t care what other courts think. (In fairness to Scalia, his skepticism has some basis in reality with respect to procedural matters. Not being interested in the substance, though — that’s so stupid it hurts.) So a demonstration in the immediate past that the US defined waterboarding as torture is probably more helpful than a basketful of treaties and foreign court rulings.

Yeah, I was very unimpressed with the claims of Pelosi in particular about the supposed pushback she gave at the time. She seemed at most to be claiming that she agreed with the criticism recorded by Harman. And if Harman’s criticism is nothing more than the letter I have seen published from her, it is itself exceedingly weak and CYA given the gravity of the issues involved. Basically, the letter was more or less: Hey, I hope you guys double check the legality of this, OK?

I can see your point, but treaties are defined in the Constitution (Article 2, I believe) as bearing the same weight as the Constitution itself. I don’t care so much about foreign courts or the World Court, but the two conventions I cited fall into that category so far as a plain language reading of the Constitution and those treaties is concerned.

As to our own history of prosecution of waterboarding as torture, I agree that the prosecution of the Japanese Kempetai officials is pretty clear on the topic as well. Overall, I;d say that there really isn’t much in the way of wiggle room on this.

You’re preaching to the choir. I’ve believed this since the truth about Abu Ghraib came out.

But the independents who are supporting torture haven’t read the Constitution, and aren’t sure that water-boarding is torture. They’re the ones that have to be reached, and I think they’re the ones who would find the war crimes trial convincing.

This may seem a bit off the beaten path, but you know what I’d like to see?

I’d like to see progressives targeting the program ‘24′ for playing a major role in legitimizing torture in the eyes of the American people.

I wonder how actors like Janine Garofalo, who plays a liberal in real life, and also plays a significant role on ‘24′, can possibly justify to themselves the clear impact that that program has on promoting torture?

Isn’t that about the worst sort of hypocrisy imaginable?

That’s actually a good idea. Maybe a letter writing campaign to the advertisers on the show about their support for illegal acts and their efforts to legitimize the same…

Anyone know how we can find out who sponsors the show “24″?

Yeah,

to my way of thinking, ‘24′ is like a program that, week after week, shows successful conversions of gays to happy heterosexuals — except worse.

How many people in Hollywood would be proud to be part of that kind of ugly venture?

George sent a message.
The Constitution is just a God damn piece of paper.
Can we set him straight?

“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it.””Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.” Theodore Roosevelt

“No man is above the law” Let’s test whether this is presently true. How could we prove or disprove this hypothesis, or is an article of faith which must be believed, regardless of any evidence to the contrary?