"Torture, Torture Everywhere But Don't You Make A Peep"

[Ed. note: You can find a much longer post on this torture case documentary, and on the torture brouhaha itself, at All Things Democrat, here and here including Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia insisting that, despite the Constitution's 8th Amendment, we shouldn't prohibit torture - (the fat bastard, why does he HATE America and our Constitution so much?).]

The longer the far right and the Bush Administration keep insisting that torture is a "good thing" (I suspect they'd like to torture Martha Stewart, too, since I believe she votes Democrat) while they condemn anyone, anywhere, at any time for questioning its legality, morality, the future repercussions of as well as the accuracy of the information obtained from those we extraordinarily rendition, the more important it becomes for each and every one of us, as American citizens and taxpayers to learn all they can.

Unfortunately, one very good tool to understand the dynamics of torturing detainees, even very innocent ones grabbed up by mistake everyday, is an independent documentary entitled, "Taxi To The Dark Side", has been pulled from the broadcast schedule of The Discovery Channel which bought the rights to show it. "Too controversial" is the only reason given.

To suggest that Americans should not see what is being done by their own government, especially given how loudly and aggressively we have prosecuted other war criminals (and yes, I consider Bush-Cheney two of the largest of all time) for using torture, is almost as obscene as the act of waterboarding and other forms of torture itself.

Speaking Of The Government Investigating Itself For No Good End...

[See my previous posting on the Justice Department now "suddenly" wanting to investigate the Bush Administration's/CIA's willful and most criminal destruction of two videotapes depicting the torture of uncharged suspects "in our name".]

Glenn Greenwald has an excellent comprehensive piece about how the 9/11 commission - with its strangely picked crew by Bush and Cheney who fought the idea tooth-and-nail - had its work obstructed by... well, I bet you can guess that right on the very first try.

Another Government Probe Of Itself That, Like The 9/11 Commission And the Torture Probe, Won't Amount To Jack Shit

My only question here is, "Why even bother?"

While some seem ready to applaud that the Justice Department announced this evening it WILL (ha!) investigate the willful destruction of the two known CIA torture tapes a judge ordered those under the Bush Administration involved in the matter NOT conveniently destroy, to me it's just another sad, piss poor example of the fox being allowed to investigate the case of chickens murdered in the hen house when it was one of the Fox's minions (in this case, the CIA with marching orders from the fox) who arranged not just the initial crime but the destruction of the evidence.

We see this again and again - hardly new to the Bushies yet they have taken it to ridiculously extremes as they have everything else - as when the Pentagon investigates its own.

This, my friends, is beyond criminal. And, as Bush would smirk and smug-it-up as he tells you, there's not one damned thing we can do to stop it while, at the same time, we know exactly what the results will be: nada, zap, ZERO. At best, they'll point to some very insignificant, powerless peon, throw the book at him while they feed him to the wolves, and then pretend it never happened.

Some democracy. And the new Attorney General Michael Mukasey can control everything this special prosecutor does and, as we've seen with his strange ignorance regarding torture and the American Constitution, he'll prove himself a loyal Bushie regardless of his distinctly token status as an alleged Democrat.

Repugnicants Love Torture - So Long As It's Done To Others

Much of the time, it's easy to believe you've heard it all, that nothing else can shock you.
But listening to MSNBC later Monday night, in a discussion of AG Nominee Mukasey, the way he's hedging on whether something like waterboarding is torture or not (gee, what is it if not torture?), and how this is making "a sure-fire nomination" into a testy affair, my "delicate sensibilities" were once again tested.

The offender in this case in Michael Reagan, the adopted son of former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, a right-wing talk show host who has always played very desperately into the extreme right fold because he knows he possesses neither the brain power nor the pizzazz to be anyone in his own right. Reagan, making fun of Sen. Lindsey Graham, a GOPeer himself - for having the nerve to question the Bushies' insistence that God WANTS America to torture anyone Muslim (or Dem or Progressive), uttered something like, "heck, the only thing we can be sure of is now we'd like to see Lindsey Graham waterboarded."

Nice. Really nice.

Michael Reagan has always sickened me. But this is a new low, even for him. That anyone in this country is even advocating torture - let alone making it sound like something fun to do to those who disagree with them - tells us a lot about the very wrong direction in which this country has been taken.

Terrorists on 9-11 didn't destroy our way of life - our leaders did it, and any of us who stood up and declared they could take away any rights or liberties or human rights protections from us just to keep us safe destroyed our way of life.

Why, oh why, do the extreme righters - and surprise others like Alan Dershowitz - hate America so much?

Torture And The Laws Bush Won't Even Pretend to Follow

At the same time he stands by his unmitigated nerve to cry foul against Russia in 2001 for its human rights abuses (talk about the skanky pot calling the Putey-Put kettle black), Bush wants everyone to notice he's "making illegal" what was already illegal to do but which he practices with all the fervor of a Republican Christian moralist paying a dominatrix for kinky sex (can you say William "Morals Czar" Bennett, anyone?).

Thus, may we assume (oh, yeaaaaahhhhh!) that President Bush signed a new law designed to "stop" torture in interrogations used against detainees and so-called terror suspects using invisible ink, with his fingers crossed behind his hand, AND with a signing statement that says, "this law applies only to Democrats and others not named Bush & Cheney"?

Meanwhile, the CIA is now allowed to return to interrogating whoever the hell they want, after many appropriate (and too many unasked) questions arose about how they conducted them.

In Bush's Constant Warmongering, We Do Unto Others As We Most Fear They Could Do Unto Us

So we can dish it out, but we can't accept that it be served to us? Isn't "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto Us" part of the Bible? Donald Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense and the crazed leader of the Pentagon/Defense Department, only thought he walked on water.

From TPM Muckraker:

Many of the controversial interrogation tactics used against “war on terror” detainees in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan are similar to strategies the United States feared its worst enemies would use against captured soldiers during the Cold War.

Time magazine catches this connection in a recently declassified report, "Review of DoD-Directed Investigations of Detainee Abuse,” that has received little media coverage.

The same potential enemy tactics the U.S. military trained forces to face during the Cold War became interrogation strategies used on enemy combatants.

You know how badly this will work; we've already seen it with the grisly and gruesome deaths (by torture, by decapitation/beheading) of some soldiers and aid workers.

Bear in mind that, while U.S. Attorney Greed4all er.. Alberto Gonzales called the Geneva Conventions "quaint", these rules about combat and treatment of the enemy was developed in large part to keep American soldiers safe. But we can't demand better treatment for our men and women GIs than we afford others.

America's Own Hostages: Conditions At Guantanamo Bay Worsening

So says the BBC of Gitmo where Bush has kept hundreds of detainees, almost all Muslims, with only 10 people ever charged. The same detainees the Supreme Court played coward to this week knowing they could not legally protect the Bush Administration's inhumane treatment of these prisoners if they took the case for consideration.

And yet how the U.S. and Great Britain howled at the "terrible" treatment of the Brit sailor hostages Iran gave new clothes and gift bags to upon release yesterday. Yeah, we've got standing to talk about "inhumane treatment" all right.

Nation's Highest Court Shows Themselves To Be Supreme Cowards

Where it comes to the Bush Administration's wholly illegal detainment of people who have never been charged with any crime whatsoever, the U.S. Supreme Court shows themselves to be cowards of epic proportions and unworthy of their jobs!

Supreme Court Rules Against Bush Spewings

From The New York Times:

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court found today that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the E.P.A.’s contention.

However, the Mediocres among the Supremes also voted against an appeal by Guantanamo detainees:

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want to challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration's legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.

The victory may be only temporary, however. The high court twice previously has extended legal protections to prisoners at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. These individuals were seized as potential terrorists following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and only 10 have been charged with a crime.

Despite the earlier rulings, none of the roughly 385 detainees has yet had a hearing in a civilian court challenging his detention because the administration has moved aggressively to limit the legal rights of prisoners it has labeled as enemy combatants.

A federal appeals court in Washington in February upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges.

At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.

The detainees' core argument is that no matter where they are held by American authorities, they are entitled to access to U.S. courts. They want the court to strike down the new law as unconstitutional.

Explain to me how these detainees can be faulted for WHERE they are held when it's the Bushies, rather than the detainees, who decide where they will be held. This is fucked up behond any possible sense.

While New DOD Chief Wanted to Close It Down, White House Reports Bush Will Likely Never Close Gitmo

This may be just about the ONLY information about Donald Rumsfeld's replacement as Department of Defense secretary, Robert Gates: that in his first few weeks in his new job, he sought to close down the American gulag known as Guantanamo Bay (a/k/a Gitmo) in Cuba.

Yet, as always (the only thing besides completely shredding the English language as he speaks and a complete and utter lack of understanding about history and everything else - odd for an history major at Yale), Bush is making it clear that he will NEVER allow the detention facility to be shut down.

Mind you, we've had more than 2,000 detainees go through there and subjected to truly abusive, torturous, and mind-bending/breaking psy-ops and interrogation techniques yet we have only lodged charges against about 10.

Ten out of more than 2,000. What the hell does that say about the Bushies, especially given their great comfort level with trumping up charges through lies, cooked intelligence, and a steady diet of torture (with the "dressed up" name of "extraordinary rendition")? Certainly, the Pentagon and all these defense contractors have acted as Bush's co-dependent enablers.

Sheik Mohammed And The Beheading of Journalist Daniel Pearl: How Do You Trust The Confessions Of The Tortured

Today, the Bushies purposely let slip that Sheikh Mohammed, whom we've had in custody for more than a few years and whom we apparently torture on a near daily basis (Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld both noted he was an excellent candidate for "waterboarding" torture to find the truth, has claimed he was responsible for the kidnapping and videotaped execution of American journalist Daniel Pearl. They also claim he's admitted to being one of the masterminds behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Reports AP:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's capture four years ago didn't shut down al-Qaida or bring the Americans to Osama bin Laden. But if his mega-confession is to be believed, his arrest was a crushing blow to bin Laden's plans for even more deadly attacks in the wake of 9/11.

But after more than four years in custody, and exposed to torture-torture-torture, how can we be sure what he really did or didn't do? That's one of the huge problems with torture; the information you get is notoriously unreliable. I don't buy that these admissions are true when they were elicited so very long after his capture.

Actually, I can say that there have been at least four or five separate statements/alerts offered up by Sheikh Mohammed in the past that turned out to be completely false, including some of the silliest possible attack on America scenarios. Yet now, the Bushies insist we believe him. Right.

Did I Happen to Mention...?

I'm not sure I posted this except perhaps parenthetically but it's worthy of note (and a few sad tears, as well):

Bush was in such a big frickin' rush to surge to get more troops into Iraq before anyone on Capitol Hill could even begin shaping their lips around the word, "No!" with regard to Bush's "Iraq escalation" that many of the 21,700 or so men and women of our armed services that he shipped them out BEFORE they could begin special training courses on anti-insurgency techniques.

::grrrrrrrroowllllll::

I'm beginning to think that American citizens like you and me need to become insurgents. No, we won't blow up vehicles or people, but we should oust the Bush crew. I'm sure we can find room for George, Dick, Condi, Bob Gates and Rummy, Tony Snow(job), etc. at Guantanamo Bay/Gitmo. And, of course, they shouldn't have access to lawyers or mental health professionals or proper food, or get to face their accusers. What's good for brown people should be plenty good enough for the brown nosers and the boobs.

Also according to Bush's own words, it's fine and dandy if we make them sit there the rest of their (un)natural lives without ever filing a single charge against them since the Constitution allows it, they insist - the Bushies seem to operate off a diferent version of it compared with the rest of us -and it's just good homeland security to "disappear" them without their families knowing where they have gone.

Political Cartoons - Part II

Also available from Political Cartoons.

The first one is my political favorite, but the one with Uncle Sam fascinated by Anna Nicole Smith's death while Iran and North Korea watch is powerful.

Bad For Detainees, Bad for Democracy, Bad For America, Bad for the World

I have been meaning to write about Tuesday's really B-A-D federal appeals court decision FOR Bush's terror kangaroo court system and against detainees. While I am NOT a constitutional lawyer, I have been back and forth over it today and before and I do not see that its tenets are limited exclusively to American citizens. And that's not even arguing the never-never-land of limbo Bush has put many of these folks into at Gitmo and in secret prisons the world over!

For those who don't know about Tuesday's disastrous decision, here's CNN's piece and with it, their point summary:

• Judges OK anti-terrorism provision barring detainees from civilian courts
• Foreigners held in U.S. normally have right to contest their detention
• Justice Department: Constitution doesn't protect foreign enemy combatants
• Ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court

Restore Habeas Corpus And Much of the Rest of the U.S. Constitution - PLEASE!

From Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, one of four Dem authors of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 (with a nod to GOTV blog for the link):

Please take a moment to watch the video and read the text of the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, sign on as a citizen co-sponsor, and forward the bill to your personal networks. While you and I are acutely aware of the damage President Bush has done to our country's national reputation, too many of our family, friends and neighbors have no idea how far this Administration has gone.

You may want to add Restore Habeas Corpus to your blog list!