Crossroads for America:To Torture or Not

We live in interesting times. The center of a watershed moment where America will either stand true to it's own core values, or slide down the slippery slope toward torture and totalitarianism that the President desperately desires.

With little time left before a very likely Democratic Congress and Senate come into power - the President's desperation to avoid culpability for his own War Crimes grows more palpable.

As I outlined on July 1st, the Hamdan decision has effectively sealed this President's fate and legacy as a War Criminal, his last gasp is to end-run Common Article 3, if he can.

To this end the President has pursued the enactment of New Detainee Torture Act, which would effectively make the treatment they've already been using, essentially legal.

Q Thank you very much, sir. What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings? And Senator McCain says your plan will put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

THE PRESIDENT: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's very vague. What does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. And what I'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. You know, it's -- and so the piece of legislation I sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

Vague? Vague?!! Common Article III has been in existence for 50 years and this is the first time that I know of that someone has claimed it is - Vague! "No" means "NO" Asshole! Zero. None. Zilch. That statment is not open to interpretation, it's pretty clear and obvious. Those who oppose the Administration on this point, such as Colin Powell are not "confused", they are not "appeasers" -- or let's be honest because we know what they're really thinking - they are not "girly men".

Even Tony Snow has sheepishly begun to admit that he'd gone over the line (via Glenn Greenwald) when he reflexively bashed Powell.

Tony Snow yesterday had to retract his statement calling Colin Powell "confused" all because Gen. Powell thinks the U.S. should continue to abide by the Geneva Conventions, and as part of that retraction, Snow oh-so-generously added: "I know that Colin Powell wants to beat the terrorists, too." They exploit terrorism for political gain so reflexively that accusations of being sympathetic to terrorists just comes pouring out of their character-smearing mouths even when the targets are individuals who have devoted their adult lives to service in the American military.

More from Yesterday's Rose Garden Press Conference:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.

Bush may find it "Unacceptable" - but thinking that the United States has an obligation and a duty to abide by it's own law and it's own treaties - is exactly what much of the world thinks. This line of arguement by Bush effectively ducked the question - and follows the path the Administration has been following for quite some time -- attack the critic, not the argument.

Four years ago, then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales urged the President to deny Geneva protections to terrorist detainees, not because they didn't deserve them - but because he expected that doing so would leave The President Vulnerable to War Crimes Prosecution Under U.S. Law

When the President talks now about "providing clarity" such as in this passage:

...the Court said that you've got to live under Article III of the Geneva Convention, and the standards are so vague that our professionals won't be able to carry forward the program, because they don't want to be tried as war criminals. They don't want to break the law. These are decent, honorable citizens who are on the front line of protecting the American people, and they expect our government to give them clarity about what is right and what is wrong in the law. And that's what we have asked to do.

The truth is - that HE doesn't want to be tried for War Crimes because the President, after denying Geneva, has long ago authorized measures which clearly violate the "human dignity" of detainees, and he knows this.

As I stated in July the ACLU has found a paper trail leading directly from Bush to Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

In January 2002 Gonzales argues that Geneva shouldn't apply to "Enemy Combatants" because it would make "U.S. Officials" vulnerable to Federal War Crimes violations.

In February, the Administration announces that al Qaeda and Taliban are "not included" in Geneva (although they conduct no tribunal as required by Geneva to determine this).

In August of that same year the Bybee memo is written which redefines what "Torture" is.

In October 2002 Gitmo commanders request "that additional techniques beyond those in the field manual be approved for use.""

In December of 2002 SecDef Rumsfeld allows for "stress positions," hooding, 20-hour interrogations, removal of clothing, exploiting phobias to induce stress (e.g., fear of dogs), prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, and forced grooming. These techniques soon spread to Afghanistan and later to Iraq." according to documents obtain by the ACLU.

Also in December the FBI begins complaining to the Defense Department about the conditions at Gitmo, and in Afghanistan some detainees are "killed during interrogation" at Bagram AFB.

To date we have had 26 Deaths-in-Custody, which have been ruled as "Homocide" due to mistreatment. Those deaths, as well as those of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, lay directly at the feet of George W. Bush.

Everything he is doing right now - trying to push the Geneva redefinition through Congress - is meant to do nothing more than cover his ass, Period.

If he fails, and I'm certain he doesn't intend to fail - he can't afford too - he will face a Democratic Congress with subpeona power and one John Conyers as head of the Impeachment Committee - Judiciary. A man who has already called for Special Prosecutor to investigate War Crimes by the Bush Administration. If that call is ever answered in the wake of Hamdan, Bush is Doomed.

This is his last chance, and I for one expect to see him pull out all stops.

But he MUST. NOT. SUCCEED.

America can not openly go down the road he is headed. We can not turn our backs on Geneva, and begin to play around with the margins human decency, pretending that the use of extreme cold and/or loud music is an acceptable method of treatment - whether you like Red Hot Chili Peppers or not - these can never acceptable methods for how we treat people who haven't been put on trial yet.

Never mind Geneva, the 4th and 8th Amendments makes this clear.

It's not just a matter of protecting American soldiers who may be captured, there is also a military case for this. During WWII many Italian and Germany soldiers surrendered to U.S. - rather than the Russians - because they knew they would be well treated.

The Germans committed Genocide, but not only that they commited War Crimes against American soldiers at Malmedy. U.S. soldiers held by the Japanese were regularly tortured, starved and murdered. Geneva was intended to put an end to this, and the U.S. was at the forefront of creating Geneva.

Even during the first Gulf War, Iraqi military units were very willing to surrender when outmatched rather than fight to the death -- and thus the bloodshed was minimized and victory achieved in a fairly short time. Colin Powell, who command our troops during Gulf War I understands this - George Bush who protected the Texas Skies from the Vietcong - doesn't.

And so came Abu Ghraib.

After which we suddenly we faced an enemy - actually several enemies - that would absolutely do anything - but surrender.

Since then we've had Task Force 6-26 a U.S. Special Forces Unit who used Saddam's old torture chambers to continue the exact same work, Haditha (where 24 civilians were gunned down in cold blood), Fallajah where the U.S. used chemical warfare on the population and the rape and murder of a teenage Iraqi girl and her entire family by U.S. soldiers.

Clearly, we're sliding down the slope - not climbing upwards. Meanwhile, the insurgency and impending Civil War in Iraq continues to get stronger. Going the way we have been - even if we do achieve "Victory", capture and/or kill Osama bin Laden and break up the Al Qaeda Network, we will still have lost and disgarded far more than we will have gained.

This is what Human Rights Watch has to say about it.

Following the terrorist attacks [of September 11], many Americans understandably wanted their government to do anything possible that might protect them from terrorism. The Bush administration exploited that fear to push through various measures with scant regard to international human rights standards. Systematic prisoner abuse, widespread detention without trial, and proposed kangaroo courts were the result. Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and secret CIA prisons became the unfortunate symbols of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Even within the United States, the rights of many Muslim men were compromised through the misuse of laws such as those on detaining immigrants and "material witnesses." Governments around the world, in turn, exploited the U.S. government's example to launch or defend repression of their own.

These abuses are wrong as a matter of fundamental rights. Though done in the name of protection from terrorism, they are also counterproductive. Fighting terrorism effectively requires not just stopping existing terrorists but also preventing the generation of new ones. By all accounts, U.S. abuses in the name of fighting terrorism have been a boon to terrorist recruiters. The loss of the moral high ground has made it harder to dissuade angry young men from resorting to the deliberate killing of civilians.

This Country has to make a choice: Will we honor the sacrifices made to fight fascism and totalitarianism made by our forefathers by remaining true to the ideals of the 8th Amendment and Bill of Rights -- or will we fail them?

Bush has made it clear which way he intends to go, and it's also clear that this path has made us less safe, not moreso.

Contact your Senators and Congressmen at let them know which fork in the road to take. Congressional Operator Toll Free: 888-355-3588

Vyan

23% of us are Fucked

Tonight former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean discussed his intriguing new book "Conservatives without Consciences" as the lead story on Keith Olbermann. In it he described how his discussions with the late Barry Goldwater, the nominal father of the modern conservative movement, evolved from talking about just how far afield that movement has grown to a discussion of how authoritarianism has crept in and taken over the Republican Party.

Sparked by Goldwater, Dean continued to research on the subject with various scholars looking into the psychology of authorianism and found a wealth of information on the subject.

Acording to his findings, a vast majority of Conservatives are drawn into the Leader/Follower archetype, where the Leaders are considered infallable, and the loyalty of the Followers is completely unshakable. About "23% of the populace falls into the follower category" said Dean. "These people are impervious" to fact, rationality and reality. And their "Numbers are growing".

Let's just face it, 23% of us are basically fucked in the head.

Video and Transcript of the Segment.

I'm looking forward to reading Dean's book in full, but just the glimmers presented on Olbermann were both shocking and at the same time, quite familiar. We've seen this story before in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. There is always the patsy, the scapegoat - the one true source of all of societies ills. In those societies it was the jews or those greedy imperialist Americans.

Now, it's the Liberals.

Liberals and all the other societal hangers-on and scum they try to protect. Gays who insist on the "special" right of marrying the consenting adult of their choice. Uppity Women in the workplace, who won't remember their place in the kitchen and bedroom. Blacks who want hand-outs in order to jump to the head of the line, immigrants who simply can't seem to wait their turn to be exploited for ridiculously low wages and lack of health-care. And lastly weak-kneed bleeding hearts who think dirty terrorist slime deserve the equal protection of the laws. Hmph.

Also tonight while Olbermann was speaking with Dean on the issue of just how close to full-on Totalitarianism this country is gradually tipping - Bill O'Reilly was speaking with two Fox's heavily fact-challenged Military Analysts, Gen. McInerny and Col David Hunt who proclaimed that both Bob Herbert of the NY Times and California Senator Barbara Boxer were "blatantly lying about our troops in Iraq". Herbert had written an Op-ed which indicated that Neo-Nazi's and Skinhead have begun infiltrating the Military, while Boxer had stated that incidents of PTSD have increased in our Military and that incidents of soldiers taking anti-depressents being sent into combat have increased, as have the number of suicides among our troops.

Unfortunately for O'Reilly, McInerny and Hunt the source of the Neo-Nazi and Skinhead has been the Military itself as document by the Southern Poverty Law Center via the New York Times.

July 7, 2006 -- Before the U.S. military made Matt Buschbacher a Navy SEAL, he made himself a soldier of the Fourth Reich.

Before Forrest Fogarty attended Military Police counter-insurgency training school, he attended Nazi skinhead festivals as lead singer for the hate rock band Attack.

And before Army engineer Jon Fain joined the invasion of Iraq to fight the War on Terror, the neo-Nazi National Alliance member fantasized about fighting a war on Jews.

"Ever since my youth -- when I watched WWII footage and saw how well-disciplined and sharply dressed the German forces were -- I have wanted to be a soldier," Fain said in a Winter 2004 interview with the National Alliance magazine Resistance. "Joining the American military was as close as I could get."

And the source of the anti-depressant and suicide story is also problematic for O'Reilly and his cohorts since it's also the military via ABC News.

The Hartford Courant, citing records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act and more than 100 interviews of families and military personnel, reported numerous cases in which the military failed to follow its own regulations in screening, treating and evacuating mentally unfit troops from Iraq.

Twenty-two U.S. troops committed suicide in Iraq last year, accounting for nearly one in five of all non-combat deaths and the highest suicide rate since the war started, the newspaper said.

Some service members who committed suicide in 2004 and 2005 were kept on duty despite clear signs of mental distress, sometimes after being prescribed antidepressants with little or no mental health counseling or monitoring, the Courant reported. Those findings conflict with regulations adopted last year by the Army that caution against the use of antidepressants for "extended deployments."

"I can't imagine something more irresponsible than putting a soldier suffering from stress on (antidepressants), when you know these drugs can cause people to become suicidal and homicidal," said Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a New York-based advocacy group. "You're creating chemically activated time bombs."

To O'Rielly, this is all just defeatist talk designed to undermine the morale and willpower of our troops. To him, it's ridiculous to point out that our troops morale is already in the shitter - because then you'd have to actually do something about it. To Hunt, "This is the finest fighting force America has ever had, over 2/3rd of our troops are re-enlisting and our National Guard are gaining invaluable field experience and expertise". One wonders just what they might plan to do with that expertise in the future?

According to O'Reilly the killing of 25 civilians in Haditha is just a "random" occurance - it's just the way "War is fought" - sometimes civilians get hurt and somethings "War Crimes Happen". O'Reilly has yet to either apologize or set the record straight for his Malmedy misnomer - where he tried to white-wash Haditha by claiming that U.S. Soldiers in WWII murdered unarmed SS Soldiers even though the truth is that the U.S. Soldiers where the ones unarmed and murdered in cold blood.

And although he has spent incredible level of energy promoting Jessica's Law in an apparent effort to protect children from sexual predators, he's said precious little about the rape and murder of 15-year-old Iraqi girl, and her entire family.

To O'Reilly everyone is a liar.

"I can't base my opinion" about the Iraq war "on anything" other than "what my military analysts, people paid by Fox News, say to me." O'Reilly added that he could trust only Fox military analysts because "[t]he newspapers ... all have an agenda" and "only give you a snapshot of the war."

How's this for a snapshot.

Iraq in Turmoil

More soldiers charged with murder and Nic Robertson reports on the violence that is sweeping through Iraq.

Video -WMP Video -QT

Well over a hundred civilian casualties today…

Other authoritarian boot-lickers like Fred Barnes continue the drum beat of happy talk.

THERE'S JOY at the White House again and less anxiety among Republicans in Congress. The excesses of the press and Supreme Court are bringing Bush and rebellious conservatives closer together. Iraq is better off. The American economy is humming. The White House has made no harmful missteps. And the president's job approval rating is rising.

The war is unpopular, but it has nonetheless helped the Bush recovery in three ways. First, the killing of the terrorist Zarqawi and the formation of a permanent Iraqi government were encouraging developments. Second, the president punctuated his support for the new government with a surprise visit to Iraq, and he's gone on the offensive again in speeches defending his policy. On July 4, he told soldiers at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he won't allow the death of 2,527 troops in Iraq "to be in vain by pulling out before the job is done." Third, Democrats have fumbled the Iraq issue.

The point here is that these people have no serious interest in fact or reality. As Lt. Col Karen Kwaitkoski stated - neo-cons "have a collective contempt for fact". Facts get in the way of all their big plans. Simply pointing out the failures of few soldiers is somehow attacking everyone in the military - and rather than addressing these problems, the authoritarian neo-cons would prefer that we just shut-up about them. Silence is Golden, in their world. And anyone who breaks the silence and spoils the Happy Talk Parade, deserves to be savaged and shown no mercy. Cue right-wing attack bitch Mann Coulter

And 23% of us are their willing partners in their flights of fancy. 23% of us not only don't question all the nonesense they spew, they welcome it. They desperately want to believe the New York Times simply hates America, that's why it's so desperate to "hurt our troops". The idea that a lack of armor, proper helmets, health care cuts, drinking contaminated water and being sent into a War zone based on bad policy, bad faith and lies might be somewhat more harmful than anything the New York Times might do or so - doesn't even enter the equation.

23% of us don't even begin to make the connection and never will. They're addicted to this shit, it doesn't matter how much the facts smack them in the forehead - they simply shake it off and keep propping up their little tin gods.

Dean suggests that the best we can do is recognize these people for who and what they are, but I think that's the least we can do. I think we need to confront these people at every turn, to face up to there puffed-up Alpha-male bully bullshit and take them down.

Bullies can be beaten, they can be stopped - particularly when the other 77% of us finally decide to get off the fence, stand up and do something about them.

Vyan

O'Reilly reverts back to Bully with Maines

Newshounds has the details.

Apparently Bill O'Reilly was intimidated into faux politeness at the TIME Magazine fete where he met Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks face to face. He rescinded his gracious remarks and returned to his low-class ways of mocking the singer in his Talking Points Memo tonight 5/22/06.

O'Reilly claims he made a mistake the other day, trying to have a civil conversation with Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks, "a committed member of the far-left." He should have known better, he claims, but he felt sorry for her because of the death threats she has received. He gets that stuff and knows how disturbing it is.

Contiued ...

So, O'Reilly says, when he saw her at the TIME Magazine event he complimented her on her performance that evening and they "chatted" for a minute or two. Yesterday, Natalie's version of that conversation appeared in the New York Times . (At this point the edited quote appears and O'Reilly reads it. Edited out, among other things, is that O'Reilly said he liked the new song. Perhaps he was not being truthful with Maines, or he doesn't want his followers to be encouraged in any way to hear for themselves.)

"It's like, 'Just want to say that was great!' O'Reilly says, 'We really respect what you did. And we really respect that you stand up for yourself and blah blah blah.' "

O'Reilly continues, "Apparently Miss Maines also called me despicable. So much for polite discourse."

Having blamed her for "starting it" he tells her off, impolitely and publicly, hiding behind his desk:

"Let me put it in words even Natalie Maines can understand because I don't think she'll be holding a geo-political seminar anytime soon. (Comment: he learned that word from Jeremy Glick.) It's like, Natalie, I said I respected your right to say what you want, not, like, I respect what you said. That would be impossible, because no one has any idea why you dislike [Bush] or what your view of the world, like, really is. Whatever.

Truth be told, I'm as dense as Miss Maines. After I complimented George Clooney on his movie last October, he also trashed me in the press. Did I learn my lesson? Like, no."

This contemptuous rant was in the greater context of warning Democrats running for office with whom and what they should avoid associating: "far-left smear sites", namely Media Matters and Think Progress, and "far-left fanatics, who are not looking out for you (points at camera) or anyone else who doesn't share their foolish view of the world."

O'Reilly also panned students at the "ultra-liberal" New School in NYC for voicing dissent at John McCain's commencement speech there. O'Reilly childishly oversimplified the issue for his viewers: " These students apparently believe the Senator is a bad person while they are good, so they tried to demean him . The result was shame upon the New School, as "most" Americans understand that these students have done little or nothing for their country, and their actions are deplorable. Yet this exposition is standard procedure for the far left, which tolerates no dissent."

Speaking of not learning lessons, O'Reilly has yet to fess up and apologize for his repeated smearing of American Soldiers who were massacred Nazi SS at Malmedy, Belgium during WWII - mistaken claiming they the U.S. soldiers commited a "War Crime". This in addition to the fact that he has attempted to use Malmedy as a way to excuse and justify both Abu Ghraib and Haditha.

With that in mind it's not that surprising that he would be nice to Maines, only to turn around and immediately attack her again for not buying into his bull-crap.

O'Leilly is a classic bully, one who'll bash anyone when he thinks he can get away with it, but will curl up in a ball and cry "uncle" as soon as anyone with clout and integrity actually bother to respond to his smears.

Just like the Mark of the Coulter, he think's he has an absolute right to speak, and insult and defame, but no one else has a right too if they happen to disagree with him. They should just "Shut Up".

Too bad for you they're not going to anytime soon Billy.

Vyan

C&L: Olbermann clocks O'Reilly on War Crimes

Twice, once last October (while discussing Abu Ghraib) and again on Tuesday night (while talking about Haditha) Bill O'Reilly claimed that an atrocity commited on American Troops during World War II by Nazi SS soldiers was actually commited by the Americans, and that someone this type of thing is something we should simply "expect" to happen in wars. Details from Crooks and Liars:

While O'Reilly was debating Wesley Clark on his FOX show, Bill once again was short on the facts. It proves my theory once again that some talking heads will say just about anything to make themselves sound right.

Video-WMP Video-QT

(Full rough transcript)

Olbermann: The bodies at Malmedy were not found until a month later. There were 84 of them, all, American soldiers. More than half showed gunshot wounds to their heads. Six had received fatal **blows** to the head. Nine were found with their arms still raised **above** their heads.

The fact that O'Reilly got these horrible facts completely backwards -- twice -- offended even his own usually compliant viewers. From his program **Wednesday** night...Wrong answer.

When you're **that** wrong -- when you're defending Nazi War Criminals and pinning their crimes on Americans, and you get **caught** doing so -- **twice** -- you're supposed to say 'I'm sorry, I was wrong'... and then you should shut up for a long time. Instead, Fox **washed** its transcript of O'Reilly's remarks Tuesday -- its website claims O'Reilly said "In **Normandy**..." when in fact he said "In **Malmedy**..."

The rewriting of past reporting -- worthy of Orwell -- has now carried over into such on-line transcription services as Burrell's and Factiva. Whatever did or did not happen **later**, in supposed or actual retribution... the victims at Malmedy, were **Americans**, gunned down while surrendering -- by **Nazis** in 1944 -- and again, Tuesday Night and Wednesday Night -- by a false patriot who would rather be loud than right.

"In Malmedy, as you know" Bill O'Reilly **said** Tuesday night, in some indecipherable attempt to defend the events of Haditha, "U.S. forces captured S.S. forces who had their hands in the air and were unarmed and they shot them dead, you know that. That's on the record. And documented."

The victims at Malmedy in December, 1944... were Americans. **Americans** with their hands in the air. **Americans** who were unarmed. That's on the record. And documented.

And their memory deserves better than Bill O'Reilly.

We **all** do.

What else is there to say? Olbermann hit that one out of the park.

Vyan