Well, we have known that our government and its "officials" were torturers for years now and the immunization of their actions under the McCain/Repub Congress 2006 Military Commissions Act was one of the CHIEF reasons that the thing was passed. Bush openly said so at the time.
So this is old news. Torturing people is now one of the things we are known for as Americans. The cat's out of the bag around the world, and anyone paying attention to the ballgame in BushAmerica has long been aware of it.
There's no "new" outrage for a couple reasons. First, Pinhead Majority (the 2004 Bush voters) frankly approve of torturing muslims and anyone called a "terrorist" by Bushco. You approve of waterboading and all the revealed "enhanced" techniques, don't you peter? So that's one reason why nothing is being done about it---the extreme civic and moral degeneration of the majority of Americans.
As for the minority of those who oppose torturing defenseless detainees in military and intelligence custody, we have outrage fatigue: it's been quite clear that the Congress isn't upset by this and isn't going to start being so now, for God's sake. The country has descended down the slippery slope of indefensible (illegal) behavior (vociferously advocated and defended by "conservatives"), the rule of law and accountability have been destroyed without much concern, and that's that.
Militarist Empires get lots of blood on the hands of their citizens and those who dutifully carry out its "orders". It doesn't wash off, even of you'd like to try to do so. Maybe Feingold or Leahy will make a statement expressing dissatisfaction---better take what you can get. And pass the vodka.
McCain's advocacy for torture and immunizing gub'mint torturers is probably one of the things Pinhead Majority likes best about him, anyway. You don't hear him sayin' much about it, do you?
Posted by euzoius at April 14, 2008 02:33 PMi can just see them in the white house basement, drinking martinis and munching on foie gras, while carefully considering which methods of torture are most fun.
Posted by Turkana at April 14, 2008 02:37 PMWell, it's reported that Hitler did have the torturing and execution of those involved in the failed July '44 assassination/putsch filmed for his later enjoyment, so there's ample precedent for the imagined WH martini event.
And we know that we filmed our torturing, too.
Posted by euzoius at April 14, 2008 02:46 PMthey say the tapes were destroyed. i think they just misplaced the library cards, and don't know who last checked them out.
Posted by Turkana at April 14, 2008 02:50 PMWe have capitol punishment for murderers. Why not torture punishment for terrorists who kill innocent men women and children? These islamists have killed little babies under the name of jihad. Do they deserve same treatment as any other detanee?
I understand that we do not want to be a nation that tortures. But are there exceptions to make?
Posted by suresh at April 14, 2008 02:50 PMsuresh,
i'm opposed to capital punishment. as for torture itself, the question is this: what does it take for us to forfeit our humanity. i'd like the answer to be that we will not, under any circumstances.
Posted by Turkana at April 14, 2008 02:57 PMHey thanks for the great blog, I love this stuff. I've been paying a lot of attention to politics lately and have realized Earth Day is coming up. I don’t usually do much for Earth Day but with everyone going green these days, I thought I’d try to do my part.
I am trying to find easy, simple things I can do to help stop global warming (I don’t plan on buying a hybrid). Has anyone seen that EarthLab.com is promoting their Earth Day (month) challenge, with the goal to get 1 million people to take their carbon footprint test in April?... I took the test, it was easy and only took me about 2 minutes and I am planning on lowering my score with some of their tips.
I am looking for more easy fun stuff to do. If you know of any other sites worth my time let me know.
Absolutely nothing new in Turkana's post.
More to the point, which of our three candidates will address the issue of torture in its own right, and as a renegation of the Geneva convention? Which among them will help the USA regain its place as a global citizen?
Not McCain who was, himself, tortured and who later recanted his criticism of 'water boarding' to insure his nomination.
Obama's position is clear:
"We need a Commander in Chief who has never wavered on whether or not it is acceptable for America to torture, because it is never acceptable. While I have consistently opposed torture, in the course of this primary campaign Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped from her past position of tolerating torture.
I believe that we must reject torture without equivocation because it does not make us safe, it results in unreliable intelligence, it puts our troops at risk, and it contradicts core American values. When I am president, the American people and the world will be able to trust that I will outlaw torture, because unlike Senator Clinton I have never made an exception for torture and I never will."
So Mukasey is going to indict the President is he?
Posted by gtash at April 14, 2008 03:23 PMThink I'm kidding. Look at this:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/04/14/the-yoo-memo-part-vi-another-case-he-did-not-cite/
Seems to me Mukasey and the DOJ could actually do something.
Posted by gtash at April 14, 2008 03:25 PMgtash, it's admirable for you to think that some aspect of the "system" can still work under the loathsome Cheney, but it can't.
Muckasey is just another contemptible stooge, as he has made clear in hearing after hearing. Another unprincipled "conservative" who worships force and lawless authoritarianism. Nothing whatever will be "done", whatever the outcome of the phony "investgation". In fact they probably want to issue a ruling "protecting" Yoo now and not risk a ruling by another administration in future
turkana, you might be interested in a short essay written by Prof David Bromwich that appeared recently in the NY Review of Books entitled "Euphemism and American Violence". Should be available online.
It details the rise of euphemism for violence, Bushco's extreme reliance on it ("enhanced interrogation" for torture, "contractors" for mercenaries, etc) and how those who use extreme euphemism come to believe the language they created and thus come to deceive themselves.
Posted by euzoius at April 14, 2008 03:57 PMtfitz,
i have yet to hear obama say anything about holding the war criminals legally accountable.
Posted by Turkana at April 14, 2008 04:18 PMPro-Life
Pro-War
Pro-Torture
Pro-Republican
euzoius,
thanks- i actually have that bookmarked, but have yet had time to read it through. here's the link-
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21199
everyone should take your advice, and check it out!
Posted by Turkana at April 14, 2008 04:23 PMeuzoius--
You're absolutely right. I was being hopeful. My bad.
Turkana,
Glad to oblige.
From an OBAMA POSITION PAPER ON GENOCIDE AND WAR CRIMES (2007):
"Barack Obama would work with the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable for their crimes. If necessary, he would work with the United Nations to establish an independent war crimes commission or a special investigator who can gather testimonies of survivors and investigate war crimes.
Obama would supply armed escorts to civilians who voluntarily choose to move from religiously heterogeneous areas to communities where they feel they will be more secure. He would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress genocidal violence within Iraq".
Posted by tfitznc at April 14, 2008 05:00 PMtfutz,
how bland and general. has he mentioned any members of the administration? didn't think so.
Posted by Turkana at April 14, 2008 05:08 PMTurkana,
Your post already indicates that NEITHER of the Democratic Party primary candidates has addressed the issue of investigating the current administration for 'war crimes' so I'm not sure where your attitude is coming from other than partisan bias.
Find another straw man.
I think that Obama's (above) position is very important in that it reflects an attitude toward cooperation with international investigation(s) of the Bush administration's overt violation (IMO) of: the extraordinary torture provisions that were prosecuted against the Nazis at Nuremburg; the US Military Code of Ethics; the Geneva Convention; etc.
Posted by tfitznc at April 14, 2008 06:21 PMmy attitude comes from the fact that my post was about how all dem leaders fall short, but an obamabot has to jump in and try to claim partisan advantage, no matter how dubious.
Posted by Turkana at April 14, 2008 06:59 PM"partisan advantage"?
Turkana, have you not yet realized this is American politics we are talking about? The only thing that truly exists is partisanship. Right/left, conservative/liberal, right/wrong, good/evil, with us/against us. We have been conditioned in this country to believe that there are only ever two possible sides to any issue.
Posted by the professor at April 15, 2008 05:24 AM