Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

How Many Americans Must Die For Bush?

by The Reverend on May 6, 2009

in Barack Obama,Bush White House,executive powers,Iraq,rule of law,torture

Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker writes…

"When one of the prisoners resisted, (Corporal Charles) Graner later told Army investigators, “I bashed him against the wall.” Running hooded prisoners into walls was also standard practice at Abu Ghraib, but this prisoner fell to the floor, and blood ran out from under his hood, and a medic was summoned. In the logbook, Graner wrote that the prisoner required eight stitches on his chin. He helped sew the stitches himself, and he had one of his soldiers photograph the bloodstained scene."

"Walling" was one of the ten torture techniques made legal by Bush's boys at the Office of Legal Counsel. Bybee, Bradbury and Yoo, all obedient lawyers for the worst American president in history, declared that slamming a detainee up against a wall was not torture. In Guantanomo, walling was done 20 to 30 times on one detainee. To this point, not one torturer interrogator from Guantanomo has ever been prosecuted.

"…to date the only Americans who have been prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment for the criminal policies that emanated from the highest levels are ten low-ranking servicemen and women—those who took and appeared in the Abu Ghraib photographs, and embarrassed the nation by showing us what we were doing there. Charles Graner is the only one remaining in prison, serving ten years. His superior officers enjoy their freedom, and C.I.A. interrogators, who spent years committing far worse acts against prisoners than Graner did even in the darkest days at Abu Ghraib, have been assured immunity."

Why is Charles Graner in prison when those who wrote the briefs legalizing torture and those who ordered the ten torture techniques to be carried out will never even be challenged in court for the part they played in Graner's crime? Like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, you know, the mastermind of 9-11…..Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bybee, Bradbury, Yoo and others are the masterminds of American torture…..yet none of them will ever be held responsible. Corporal Graner remains in prison for following orders.

Some readers may not care for what I'm going to type next……such is the blogosphere.

Foreign fighters, we have learned, came to Iraq specifically to kill American soldiers because of the torture at Abu Ghraib. As I blogged the other day, because Americans tortured detainees, many American soldiers are now dead. Torture did not save lives, just the contrary.

Now the world is reading about how we're not going to prosecute or hold anyone accountable for designing America's torture regime. Now the world is reading about how we're not going to prosecute or hold anyone accountable for ordering America's torture regime to be implemented.

From Obama to Fox News to the increasingly lawless Congress….the die has already been cast…..we must look "forward" and turn away from thoughts of "retribution". Those who made torture legitimate on paper, those who approved the 'memos' and those who ordered torture to be carried out will never stand before a judge or jury. Corporal Charles Graner is still in prison.

My question is…..how many Americans will now die as a consequence of our inability to maintain a nation of law and order? How many Americans, just like in Iraq, will be killed because of illegal decisions by our obviously, criminal leaders?

Even out of office, the Bush/Cheney regime of lawlessness, of legalized torture, will live on motivating foreigners to keep on killing Americans.

That's the legacy of the worst presidential administration in American history.

4200 American soldiers have died so far in Iraq, many directly because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice approved and ordered torture. How many more Americans will have to die because of our unconscionable unwillingness to hold privileged leaders to account?

By turning away from prosecuting those who justified and ordered torture, all we are doing is declaring to the world that America is a rogue nation.

Update: The Bush administration, out of office, thankfully, for 4 months now, still controls the country. I wonder how many Americans will die because of this….

"Former Bush administration officials are lobbying behind the scenes to push Justice Department leaders to water down an ethics report criticizing lawyers who blessed harsh detainee interrogation tactics, according to two sources familiar with the efforts.

In recent days, attorneys for the subjects of the ethics probe have encouraged senior Bush administration appointees to write and phone Justice Department officials, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the process is not complete."

Even questioning the "ethics" of these criminals is out of bounds.

  • pdt1420

    Rev, what that guy did wasn't "Walling"… you do know what walling is, right?

    He's in jail because what he did was torture, and not sanctioned by the memos you keep bringing up.

    Calling what he did "Walling" is like saying that punching a detainee in the nuts is "Open-Fingered Slapping of the Cheek"

  • larry d.

    I think terrorists flocked to Iraq because Ted Kennedy killed that young girl in a drunken escapade. That's the sort of thing Islamic fundamentalists really dislike; torture they seem to be okay with.

  • Christopher

    If only we could get things back to the way it use to be, when "foreign fighters" as you call them just tried to kill us for the usual reasons. Then, we can finally feel good about ourselves again. I think BHO and buddies are up to the task.

    The real reason they have been flocking to Iraq is to protest the unfair college football "national championship" BCS system. That, and steroids in baseball. Everyone knows that.

  • averagejoe5

    You would look at the outcome of the Iraq War as a negative Rev and never the positive things that happened there. I am glad our soldiers and their families understand and realize that it isn't about what you say it is.

    Obama and congress could have pulled them out. But they are still there for at least 16 more months and then there will be some left behind as consultants and peace keepers.

    My question is when will the ridiculous talk stop. When will our current administration stop selling us out. Some of the things they are doing right now would have been considered treason by the founding fathers. When will the Democrats stop holding women down and keeping blacks as slaves to the government. When will their constituents wake up and realize that the Dems have ruined the middle class by sending their high paying jobs overseas.

    We are well on our way to becoming Cuba. No industrial base, 33% gone projected at 50% by 2014 thanks to NAFTA, China, India favored nation status etc. Wait until this tax and spend abomination by the Dems catches up with us. The question is not how many must die for Bush, (because Obama can change this right now and he isn't) the real question is how long until the Dems cause the death of the American dream, kill our spirits and our kids' future and plunge us into poverty.
    (The other question will be : Can they ever tell the truth and own up to the ruining of the USA?)

  • Da King

    Those terrorists are so smart that they flocked to Iraq to fight us before they even knew about Abu Ghraib. Maybe those jihadis are onto something. Apparently, Allah granted them the psychic power to know that the Great Satan was going to push an Iraqi up against a wall.

    Is pushing a resisting prisoner up against a wall now torture too, Rev ? I can't keep up anymore. If so, we have torture occuring in prisons and jails all across our country every single day. Maybe you should break that blockbuster of a story.

  • The Reverend

    As totally bogus as the torture memos were….they even included warnings about the duration and frequency of waterboarding, yet we know that two detainees were waterboarded 183 and 83 times, respectively, within a 30 day period.

    average…"When will the Democrats stop holding women down and keeping blacks as slaves to the government."

    Flesh out what you mean here for me.
    I agree with quite a bit of what you mentioned about jobs and the middle class.

    I'll mark the rest of ya' down under the 'for torture' column. This is America, and we are all entitled to our own viewpoint.

    But Christopher beats larry, hands down, on snark.

    And King is simply mistaken about foreign fighters coming to Iraq before torture started. Go look at the American death count after 2003. We started torturing in Guantanomo in 2002 and in Abu Ghraib in 2003. America suffered it's highest casualties AFTER torture at Abu Ghraib became public information.

  • Da King

    No, I'm not wrong. Foreign fighters came into Iraq right after we invaded. They were there in 2003. Abu Ghraib wasn't made public until 2004.

    http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=iraq+foreign+fighters+2003

    But of course the American casualty count was higher after Abu Ghraib. There was a little over one year of war before Abu Ghraib, and five years of war after it. The highest number of US soldiers killed was in 2007, several years after Abu Ghraib, and two years after the soldiers convicted of that abuse were sent to prison.

  • pdt1420

    I'll just c&p myself here, since Rev must have missed it.

    "Rev, what that guy did wasn't "Walling"… you do know what walling is, right?"

  • The Reverend

    "“I bashed him against the wall.” Running hooded prisoners into walls was also standard practice at Abu Ghraib,"

    Walling is grabbing a detainee by the neck with a towel or a collar and slamming him up against a wall.

    Like the linked piece laid out was being done at Abu Ghraib.

    And King agrees with me…..

    "the American casualty count was higher after Abu Ghraib"

    All I'm sayin'.

    Now, how many more Americans will die for Bush because we're no longer a nation of laws, unwilling to prosecute obviously barbaric crimes.

  • averagejoe5

    Rev, why doesn't Obama draw out troops back right now? It's not Bush now, it's Obama's turn. He has to flick the switch and turn this off. Just like Johnson, is he going to allow this to escalate?

  • pdt1420

    Rev, you are correct that proper walling requires supporting the head and neck to prevent whiplash or serious harm (TORTURE!!!).

    What you leave out is that it is to be performed against a specifically constructed flexible wall to avoid painful contact (BARBARIC!!! SAVAGE!!)

    Also, the article wasn't specific whether the cut on his chin was from hitting the wall face first or from falling to the ground and striking his chin. The former is illegal and the latter is either an unfortunate accident or illegal. But neither is "Walling".

  • pdt1420

    Also, you're incorrect about the phrase "running prisoners into walls", as that implies face forward momentum, which would also be outside the sanctions of the IE memos and therefor presumed illegal.

  • larry d.

    I'm still wondering how many American lives Kennedy's drunken escapades have cost us. Or Bill's Oval Office hummers. Or rap music.

  • Da King

    How many Americans have to die for Obama ?

    He's the one publishing abuse photos almost five years after the fact, recklessly endangering American lives, per the Rev's standard.

  • The Reverend

    1420….I'm not sure going down into the finer details of torturing someone is constructive. I would bet that other historic tyrants minced their wording about what they were doing as well. Flexible wall versus fixed wall? I mean, you're not being serious….or are you?

    Personally, there is absolutely no reason or excuse to physically torment a detainee or prisoner. Not only does it break laws, and produce phony intel….but it's also savage and barbaric. Cowards torment their captives.

    average asks a very good question. Why doesn't Obama pull all the troops out of Iraq now? All I can say is that Obama said, while campaigning, that he wanted to be as careful getting out as Bush was careless going in.

    I believe this: The reason Bush attacked and occupied Iraq was so that our military could be based there forever. I have said for years that we would never leave Iraq. Remember, "leaving is losing"? Still waiting to be proven wrong.

    1420…again….tell me again how waterboarding someone 183 and 83 times respectively, within a 30 day period, falls within the "legalized" torture memo
    "guidelines."

  • pdt1420

    Rev, I don't buy the weak argument that we shouldn't be mincing words when it comes to torture. That's usually an argument for someone who can't argue with logic.

    If you say "torture" and I say "interogate", then it matters whether what actually happened falls under your definition or mine. Torture has a definition. Let's stick to it. Flexible wall is important. It was designed to minimize physical pain in order to maximize psychological impact. If you don't think it matters, I can come shove you into a mattress then shove you into a concrete wall and you can tell me which is uncomfortable.

    Lastly, if you don't think that it's constructive to go into details about something you feel the need to have an uneducated knee-jerk reaction to, then you shouldn't have a blog.

    I would think that going into details about your subject matter would be important in journalism.

  • The Reverend

    I appreciate you voicing your opinion. I do. It's what's great about America.

    At the same time, I'm sorry, but you are the person seeking to condone torture…not me. And you are doing so by getting down into the weeds of what ILLEGAL memos said about savagery.

    There are no excuses or justifications for roughing up, or torturing someone who's totally helpless while under your control. There are no U.S laws excusing or justifying it either.

    John Warner, John McCain, and even Huckleberry Graham, are against the use of violent and torturous tactics of prisoners and detainees.

    So, when you challenge me over not wanting to argue about the finer print of totally bogus "legal" memos….it's you who are unthoughtfully knee-jerking, not me.

    When you find a U.S. law, not a memo, a law, justifying the use of torture….then get back to me, and I'll be glad to discuss it further.

  • pdt1420

    Rev, I don't usually call people "morons" on a comment board, it's overplayed, so I won't.

    I didn't realize you were now calling the memos themselves illegal. Wow. "Hey, lawyer, could you research whether this would constitute as torture or not?" BAM!! Illegal!!

    And what exactly would a US law justifying "roughing up" a detainee look like? I was pretty sure most of our Laws told us what we couldn't do, and if there isn't a law about something, then that thing isn't illegal.

    We have laws that say what torture is, and that it's illegal. I think that's great. Before we do anything that is a gray area, what we should do is get some lawyers to analyze whether or not said action falls under the legal statutes. That's a better way than just flying blind. Don't you think?

    But god help us, if we actually have lawyers look at that, and it disagrees with how the Rev feels, then everyone involved did something illegal.

  • pdt1420

    And let me get this straight… your definition of "unthoughtfully knee-jerking" is reading and discussing the fine print?

    Did you even read that before you clicked "submit"? Is it "opposite day" on your desktop?

  • The Reverend

    No, it's not. 'opposite day', that is.

    There's a larger picture understanding of the Bush torture regime.

    Lawyers in the OLC were asked, after torture had already been ordered, to write legal justifications for "harsh" interrogation tactics.

    Like Tony Soprano telling his lawyer to write legal briefs justifying the ordering of a mob hit after the deed was done.

    You may not see it that way….but those are the most recent facts.

    If you favor the use of torture techniques, that's one thing, and you are entitled to your opinion. But torture is illegal. And OLC lawyers writing up fig leaf memos doesn't change the law…..not one bit. Ronald Reagan signed an international torture agreement in which we agreed not to carry out the very "fine print" torture details that Yoo, Bybee and the rest sought to justify.

  • Quidpro

    Reverand,

    Your logic is as follows: The enhanced interrogation techniques employed by the Bush administration constitute torture; torture is illegal; the Bush administration lawyers who wrote briefs to justify the use of such techniques justified torture; and those who justify torture are guilty of torture. Therefore such lawyers are guilty of torture.

    Under this logic, Sara Weddington and the lawyers who argued (successfully in Roe v Wade) to overturn the Texas law prohibiting abortion, violated the abortion laws of Texas. I did not know that you supported going after the "pro-choice" lawyers. Just think of how we can apply this logic in other fields.

    Karl Rove has got nothing on you. But don't worry. Your contribution to the vast right-wing conspiracy will remain a secret with me. As Shakespeare said: "The first thing we do., let's kill all the lawyers". That will teach all those radicals.

  • The Reverend

    Your suggested comparison, sorry, falls short.

    Until the court ruled on Roe, it was up to the states to make their own laws about abortion. Isn't that correct? Reason being that the feds had no definitive legal position on abortion. Lawyers considering Roe had no federal precedent, thus their arguing FOR Roe was not lawless at all.

    Not so with torture. Our federal government not only has several laws in place criminalizing just the kind of torture techniques the Bushies used….but our nation has signed international agreements which prohibit those same techniques.

    Additionally, America executed Japanese soldiers for doing the same exact waterboarding that Bush ordered. On the national crime front…..we have sent law enforcement authorities to jail for using the waterboard.

    There's really no argument that what Bush did was torture. The only question remaining is whether the U.S. remains a nation of laws.

    I'm betting that no one, not one Bushie, will ever be held accountable….and THAT will only lead to the further decline of America.

  • larry d.

    No Japanese were executed fsolely for waterboarding, Reverend. If there's no argument, why lie about it?

  • Quidpro

    You miss the point, Reverand. Abortion was illegal under state law, just as (according to you) "waterboarding" was illegal under federal law. The Roe lawyers looked for a federal exception in the "penumbras" of the US Constitution. The Bushies, to use your eloquent phrase, looked to justify the enhanced techniques by the necessities of a terrorist war and the Constitutional duty of the President to defend the nation as the commander in chief.

    But, once again, like Karl Rove, you are right that none of the former administration officials will be prosecuted. The reason, of course, is that Obama must now govern, and he will not want to be restricted by setting a bad precedent of prosecuting lawyer advisors for advice and counsel they provide to the administration.

    In fact, despite his campaign promises and the initial action he took when he assumed office, Obama will not close Gitmo. Of course, his failure to close Gitmo will be the fault of Bush.

  • The Reverend

    Roe was determined by the Supreme Court. I'm perfectly willing to allow the memos and this whole torture thing to be decided by the Supremes. Bush's "if the president does it, it's legal" bullsh*t was thrown back at him in Hamdan…..so let's go for it.

    The Roe lawyers used our right to privacy to determine Roe. What is it, again, that the Bush lawyers based their "findings" upon?

    Surely, you can't be serious in your defense of a totalitarian president. A president who pledges an oath to the Constitution….according to your comments…..can violate any law at any time, and only at his singular discretion….as long as he says he's protecting the country.

    Nixon believed that too. He was forced to resign or face impeachment proceedings.

    I reject this out of hand….

    "setting a bad precedent of prosecuting lawyer advisors for advice and counsel they provide to the administration"

    Lawyers are prosecuted all the time for malfeasance….breaking laws. What, in effect, you are saying is that prosecuting, now obvious, crimes would set a bad precedent. Quite a claim.

  • The Reverend

    For larry…

    " George W. Bush's Justice Department said subjecting a person to the near drowning of waterboarding was not a crime and didn't even cause pain, but Ronald Reagan's Justice Department thought otherwise, prosecuting a Texas sheriff and three deputies for using the practice to get confessions.

    Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case – which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later – was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week."

    http://www.truthout.org/042709J

    Took me five seconds to find it.

  • Quidpro

    Reverend,

    Your comments are so silly that one does not have enough time to address them adequately. I will therefore restrict my comments.

    First, you apparently believe that there was greater Constitutional warrant to strike down the laws of various states that restricted abortion than for the President, as Commander in Chief, to take necessary and appropriate action to protect the couontry in a time of war. In which article or amendment of the Constition is the "right to abortion" or even the "right to privacy" to be found?

    Second, although you accuse me of supporting totalitarianism, you claim that lawyers who give advice with which their political opponents disagree can be criminally prosecuted. Assuming you were correct in this mistaken belief, please provide the statutory predicate upon which such a prosecution would be based. I trust that the lawyers in the Obama administration would appreciate this public service.

    Finally, in your response to Larry, you conflate the rights accorded to criiminal defendants within the criminal justice system with the treatmant of terrorists in wartime. Do you really believe that the procedures of the criminal justice system should be applied to the battlefield? Should Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheik Mohammed have been read their Miranda rights before interrogation?

  • The Reverend

    Taking them in reverse order….

    The Supremes said all detainees, not imprisoned in a country we are at war with, are entitled to habeas rights. That includes prisoners at Guantanomo. And it's a conservative court. Do you reject that ruling?

    You insist, wrongly, that the torture argument is all about "political opponents (who) disagree." Nazi lawyers were not excused for penning "legal" crimes against humanity. Libby was convicted on multiple felony counts in what the far right extremists deemed "political differences."
    Funny…the judge and jury never accepted that thinking.

    So you would also disagree with the Texas sodomy case where ALL state criminal laws against sodomy were negated? The right to privacy is what the 4th amendment is all about…."secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects". Scalia must be your hero.

    Finally,…." take necessary and appropriate action to protect the country in a time of war." This is the Nixon defense. I'm sure you recognize it. Congress, alone, has the right to make laws and declare war and how we conduct war is bound by national and international treaties and conventions. Are you arguing for unilateral lawlessness powers for the president? If so, was Reagan mistaken when he signed the Convention Against Torture in 1984? Or was he simply play-acting….never intending on obeying?

    My comments are not in the least bit "silly". High level law professors and judicial decisions often say exactly the same things.

  • Quidpro

    Thank you, Reverand, for not failing to bleat liberal platitudes. I especially liked your appeal to "high level (whatever that is) law professors and judicial decisions". Why engage in reasoned argumentation when you can invoke the gnostic utterances of the politically-motivated decisions by our robed masters?

    Since you raise the issue, yes, I do reject the idea that there is a Constitutional right to sodomy. The Fourth Amendment states, in its entirety: "The right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be siezed." Apparently, only "high level law professors" and leftist bloggers could find in this Amendment addressing procedure the substantive right to commit sodomy.

    Certainly you can do better, Reverand! Think hard! Look at other provisions of the Constitution. The right to sodomy must be in there somewhere. After all, as you say, "judicial decisions" have said "exactly the same thing".

    Scooter Libby was convicted for obstruction of justice, not for authoring a legal memorandum with which a subsequent administration disagreed. Your unsubstantiated reference to "Nazi" lawyers is a nice rhetorical trick, much beloved by the Left, but once again it belies the substantive weakness of your arguments.

    That leaves the role of Congress. You are correct that the Constitution vests in Congress the authority to declare war. Congress did authorize the President to use military force against Iraq. Congress could also have specifically banned "waterboarding" and other enhanced techniques with which you disagree. Although the Democratic leadership knew that these techniques were being used as early as 2002, Congress took no action, even after the Democrats assumed the majority after the 2006 election. Congress could have resolved the legal ambiguities of "waterboarding" but took no action, even though the Speaker of the House had been briefed on the issue. The failure of Congress to prohibit these techniques, given the circumstances, indicates acquiesence, if not affirmation. It certainly does not support your rash conclusion of the "unilateral lawlessness" of the President.

    Still silly, Rev.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).