TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | torture

There Once Was A Girl Named Karma

By on 28 March 2009
Photobucket

Well, I guess if the Congress of the United States doesn’t have the sense of purpose to honor the rule of law, we can always depend on… Spain?

Via Scott Horton:

Spain’s national newspapers, El País and Público reported that the Spanish national security court has opened a criminal probe focusing on Bush Administration lawyers who pioneered the descent into torture at the prison in Guantánamo. The criminal complaint can be examined here. Público identifies the targets as University of California law professor John Yoo, former Department of Defense general counsel William J. Haynes II (now a lawyer working for Chevron), former vice presidential chief-of-staff David Addington, former attorney general and White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, now a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith.

Majority leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi should really be ashamed that certain nations are applying their own laws, a sort of bank shot off of international jurisdiction, to hold the Bush Administration accountable. For a very long time I’ve been contending that Congress has become a generally spineless group on these sorts of issues, all of them more wedded to political party than doing what’s right or letting U.S. law be their guide. The Gerald Ford litmus test has never served us, so ignoring what happened during Bush-Cheney won’t either. The international community seems intent on proving my case, taking the lead as Congress yawns. It’s a horrible stain on one of the most venerable institutions in this country; a body that has a commission fetish instead of doing their jobs.

Spain follows a move by Britain that targets the C.I.A.

The attorney general, Lady Scotland, announced the unprecedented move in light of damning evidence that Britain’s security and intelligence agencies colluded with the CIA in Mohamed’s inhuman treatment and secret rendition.

She said the police inquiry would look into “possible criminal wrongdoing” in what the high court described as Mohamed’s unlawful questioning. [...]

Not being a lawyer I tend not to cover these things very often, so if you are of a legal mind it would be helpful that you weigh in.

It also seems to me that President Obama would do well to encourage A.G. Holder to pursue the truth and let that be his guide. The President does not have to get embroiled at all, but cleansing this country of what the Bush Administration let run amok would be the moral road to take.

Congress is obviously not interested.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dick Cheney Ignores that 9/11 Happened on Their Watch

By on 15 March 2009

Mr. Cheney’s “stuff happens” economic glibness is getting a lot of attention today, but it’s not what caught my ear.

The man who brought us Ahmed Chalabi and Paul Wolfowitz, as well as “Curveball,” with Judy Miller’s greatest hits on WMD pushing the way at the NY Times, thinks Scooter Libby was left “hanging in the wind” by Bush, and that Scooter deserved a pardon. Having the pleasure of interviewing Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson, the drivel from Mr. Cheney today is especially reprehensible. The lack of respect Dick Cheney has for independent intelligence professionals ends with Valeria Plame (and her colleagues) being dispensable. Never mind that later in the interview he lauds the intelligence community, but only when they validate the political agenda of Bush-Cheney. That tells you how we got into Iraq from the man who helped concoct the invasion. Accurate intelligence was never solicited or even required, but just got in their way. So when Joe Wilson outed the White House for manufacturing their primary avenue of proof against Saddam, it was nothing to Cheney that a career C.I.A. officer was burned in the process to send a message. Oh! But the hit man sent to do the dirty deed is worthy of a pass.

From there it was an easy jump to torture, illegal wiretapping, Justice department tampering, etc., etc., which resulted in America’s image and trust across the globe damaged in a way that will require Obama’s entire administration, especially Secretary Clinton, to begin from scratch to try and tape back together what Bush and Cheney destroyed.

However, the interview clincher came when John King asked Mr. Cheney if President Obama “has made Americans less safe.” The reply was blunt and short: “I do.” It’s Mr. Cheney’s evaluation of President Obama’s adherence to the U.S. Constitution that is so startling even today, as he applauds the illegalities that had George W. Bush circumventing the rule of law during his terms in office.

I urge you to read “Tales From Torture’s Dark World,” by Mark Danner, which appears today in the Times. It will prove why President Obama’s commitment to distancing the U.S. from their national security policies is one of the most important things he can do if we are to bring terrorists who target Americans to justice. You simply cannot do it without adhering to the rules and tenets of American justice.

[...] From everything we know, many or all of these men deserve to be tried and punished — to be “brought to justice,” as President Bush vowed they would be. The fact that judges, military or civilian, throw out cases of prisoners who have been tortured — and have already done so at Guantánamo — means it is highly unlikely that they will be brought to justice anytime soon.

For the men who have committed great crimes, this seems to mark perhaps the most important and consequential sense in which “torture doesn’t work.” The use of torture deprives the society whose laws have been so egregiously violated of the possibility of rendering justice. Torture destroys justice. Torture in effect relinquishes this sacred right in exchange for speculative benefits whose value is, at the least, much disputed. [...]

Mr. Cheney scoffs at the notion that “the rule of law” is important in fighting radical Islamic jihad. It’s obvious that his idea of justice, and those of his former boss George W. Bush, is a 21st lynch mob mentality. I remain stunned that Congress never did anything about it and that President Obama seems sanguine to “look forward” without reconciling what happened in the past, at least so far. This sort of moral cowardice and squeamishness about the importance of law inforcement is how we got here in the first place.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Closing Gitmo, New Envoy Appointed

By on 11 March 2009

Obama has a Gitmo envoy. A former Bush 43 diplomat, Daniel Fried has a thankless job with overarching challenges.

Milt Bearden was on C-SPAN this morning and was asked a question about Gitmo and released prisoners, the latest detainee making news this week for his new roll in raising hell in southern Afghanistan

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007.

He is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a nom de guerre that Pentagon and intelligence officials say is used by a Taliban leader who is in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.

Bearden’s response was predictable. What do you expect considering the conditions and the treatment of detainess at Guantanamo.

Yet another inheritance issue from Bush-Cheney.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Saudi Court Sentences 75-year-old Woman to 40 Lashes

By on 10 March 2009

People who are talking about Afghanistan and how we shouldn’t expand our military involvement in that country are ignorant of what women in many of these countries across the Middle East, but also into Central Asia experience. Hell of a deal the Taliban made in the Swat region of Pakistan that imposed Sharia.

Meanwhile, the Saudis continue their brutal 15th century treatment of women.

A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom’s ultraconservative religious police and judiciary. …

State spokesperson Robert Wood was asked over and over again in yesterday’s briefing about the issue of possible Taliban negotiations and how the Obama administration will reconcile this with Clinton’s commitment to women’s civil rights. Wood wouldn’t answer the question in any meaningful way, stating simply that the policy is under review and that Clinton’s passions towards Afghanistan women is steadfast.

That’s undeniable, but it’s a real issue as people review our Afghanistan policy and the reality of having to negotiate with the Taliban. It’s what got Steve Clemons and I into a debate recently, when he agreed with an article Dana Priest had written, agreeing that tunneling out women from Afghanistan may be our reality. I took him to serious task for his statements made in an interview with Rachel Maddow. Steve and I talked about this at the Middle East forum I covered recently, as he mentioned my criticism several times that day, agreeing that it’s not only a difficult subject but one worth discussing. The door is open for more debate between Steve and myself in the future. But others against a stronger military presence in Afghanistan, even as we negotiate with the Taliban, don’t seem to get the price that will be paid by the women. I also wonder how anyone expects to keep that country from becoming a failed state, as is Obama’s goal, without addressing the issue of women’s rights. You can’t have a stable country without them.

It will be interesting to see if Secretary Clinton weighs in on the 75-year-old woman whom the Saudis have decided to punish in a manner (I’ve got a call in) that is as barbaric as it is flagrantly against Clinton’s core belief in women’s rights being human rights.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Dick Cheney Steamrolls Politico

By on 04 February 2009

Reading this article today on Politico, I was suddenly thrown back in time when the late Tim Russert interviewed Dick Cheney right after 9/11. It basically turned into an open forum for the vice president to say any unsubstantiated thing he wanted because everyone who wasn’t stunned into submission at this early point was rendered mute by the attack. But today, John F. Harris and Jim Vandehei, who started the site after leaving the Washington Post, along with Mike Allen, who spread enough manure during HRC’s State Department nomination to fertilize a field, all basically play stenographer for Cheney. Oh, and guess the message. I know, too easy, America is going to get attacked because Barack Obama policies, but particularly because he intends to close Gitmo.

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Citing intelligence reports, Cheney said at least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration — “that’s about 11 or 12 percent” — have “gone back into the business of being terrorists.” [...]

According to John, Jim and Mike, Mr. Cheney was in “a self-vindicating mood.” Well, I’m shocked. Stating the obvious after the longest legacy rehabilitation tour we’ve seen in recent memory is hardly worthy of writing, but on and on they go. We won’t even get into the fact that Cheney’s “61 of the inmates” parable is false. But it gets worse, as the Politico boys allow Dick Cheney to do what he did on the run up to the Iraq war. Spin nonsense that forgets one salient element, the truth.

“If it hadn’t been for what we did — with respect to the terrorist surveillance program, or enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees, the Patriot Act, and so forth — then we would have been attacked again,” he said. “Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.”

Dick Cheney, like every other Republican, forgets to mention that it was on George W. Bush’s watch that we got hit, even after warnings, signs and a PDB screaming “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.”

The deal with Politico must have been with a tape recorder, with the “reporters” present in order to push record.

Read full story · Comments { 56 }

Holder’s Promise

By on 28 January 2009

There’s a story today in the Washington Times that Eric Holder promised personally that there would be no prosecutions looking backwards on interrogation.

Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, Missouri Republican and vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.’s nomination for attorney general because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama’s Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.Mr. Holder’s promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. [...]

But via Greg Sargent, a Holder aide is denying it.

Not prosecuting CIA officers and others on that level involved wouldn’t surprise me, however, that doesn’t mean we can’t investigate what’s been going on during Bush-Cheney regarding torture.

Time to ask Holder what, if anything, he told Kit.

Read full story · Comments { 45 }

Fox News v. Robert Gibbs

By on 26 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2-Bm7x2QV0

The discussion that broke out between Major Garrett and Robert Gibbs this morning is instructive. Sowing doubt about American safety under an Obama administration begins with the close of Gitmo. At the briefing today, it began with Abu Sufyan al Azdi al Shahri, a detainee released who joined al Qaeda in Iraq:

…Two men released from America’s Guantanamo Bay terror prison appear in the video, which has also been posted on jihadist websites.

Abu Hareth Muhammad al Oufi is seen venting his fury at the West while holding an automatic rifle and brandishing a grenade.

Former inmate Abu Sufyan al Azdi al Shahri is filmed sitting with two other men before a flag of the Islamic State of Iraq, the symbol for the al Qaeda terror network in Iraq.

The central issue during exchange between Garret and Gibbs is below:

Major Garrett (FOX NEWS): “[...] As (President Obama) is considering what is clearly represented to the American people a more lenient approach to detention releases than the Bush administration…

GIBBS: Well…

Major Garrett (FOX NEWS): ..or whatever…

GIBBS: Let’s not do “whatever.” If you want to rephrase that part of your question I’ll let you do that.

Major Garrett (FOX NEWS): A different standard from the Bush administration of evaluating those to be dealt with (trails off…)

“More lenient” wouldn’t fly with Gibbs, who made a point of stopping Garrett, also pointing out Garrett’s trivialization of what he said. Minor moment that many won’t get, but is critical to understanding the policy dynamics playing out on Obama’s executive orders, including on Gitmo.

Review process, a “prudent process,” will be put in place, but since some at Gitmo don’t even have files, as the Washington Post reported, I’d say the difficulties are amped up. This is exactly what was expected, because Bush-Cheney secrecy meant we had no idea what Obama would find once in office.

Commander Jeffrey Gordon, Pentagon spokesman declined to comment specifically on Said Ali Al Shahri. However he did say “We remain concerned about ex-Guantanamo detainees who have re-affiliated with terrorist organizations after their departure” adding “We will continue to work with the international community to mitigate the threat they pose.” (source)

President Obama isn’t stupid. He knows the risks, but they outweigh the damage Gitmo has already caused and could escalate if Obama doesn’t get this done. Continuing Bush-Cheney policies like Gitmo and torture would be the worst thing Obama could do.

Garrett didn’t let it drop either, insinuating later to Gibbs that the Obama administration may not be able to put in place a policy that will simulateously close Gitmo and protect America. That’s paraphrased, but Garrett’s statement weaves the storyline into the briefing that neocons hope to broaden.

I just hope Mr. Garrett goes to the gym regularly, because carrying the neocons water on Gitmo is going to be backbreaking work.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Clinton Arrives at State to Applause

By on 22 January 2009

Back to work for Clinton, as she was welcomed with wild applause at State.

“I believe with all my heart that this is a new era for America. President Obama set the tone with his inaugural address. The Obama-Biden administration is committed to advancing America’s national security, furthering America’s interest and respecting and exemplifying America’s values around the world. There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy and development and we are responsible for two of the three legs. And we will make clear as we go forward that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States. [...] At the heart of smart power are smart people and you are those people. … This is going to be a challenging time, and it will require 21st-century tools and solutions to meet our problems and seize our opportunities. I’m gonna be asking a lot of you, I want you to think outside the proverbial box. I want you to give me the best advice you can, I want you to understand there is nothing that I welcome more than a good debate, and the kind of dialogue that will make us better. [...] This is not going to be easy. … It’s gonna be hard. But if it weren’t hard somebody else could do it besides the professionals of the foreign service… ” – Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton

Clinton will host Obama and Biden at around 2:30 p.m. (eastern), give or take.

[HTML1]

UPDATE… Thought I’d also add something that was in Obama’s executive orders today: The Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to seek international cooperation aimed at achieving the transfers of detainees. Tall order, because foreign governments haven’t been receptive to receiving their citizens during Bush.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Obama to Shut Gitmo, End C.I.A. Prisons

By on 22 January 2009
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrdZda7kcZc&feature=player_embedded

Important as anything Obama could do, beyond Iraq or anything else:

President Obama is expected to sign executive orders Thursday directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons and ordering the closing of the Guantánamo detention camp within a year, government officials said.

…And the orders would bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said. [...]

UPDATE: Just received from Obama’s office, thought you might be interested:

Executive Order regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees

Executive Order requires closure of the Guantanamo detention center no later than one year from the date of the Order. Closure of the facility is the ultimate goal but not the first step. The Order establishes a review process with the goal of disposing of the detainees before closing the facility.

The Order sets up an immediate review to determine whether it is possible to transfer detainees to third countries, consistent with national security. If transfer is not approved, a second review will determine whether prosecution is possible and in what forum. The preference is for prosecution in Article III courts or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but military commissions, perhaps with revised authorities, would remain an option. If there are detainees who cannot be transferred or prosecuted, the review will examine the lawful options for dealing with them. The Attorney General will coordinate the review and the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security as well as the DNI and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will participate.

The Executive Order directs the Secretary of State to seek international cooperation aimed at achieving the transfers of detainees.

The Order directs the Secretary of Defense to halt military commission proceedings pending the results of the review.

Finally, the Executive Order requires that conditions of confinement at Guantanamo, until its closure, comply with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and all other applicable laws.

Executive Order regarding Detainee Policy

Executive Order creates a Special Task Force, co-chaired by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, to conduct a review of detainee policy going forward. The group will consider policy options for apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, or release of detainees. Other Task Force participants include the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Special Task Force must submit its report to the President within 180 days.

Executive Order regarding Interrogation

Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13440 that interpreted Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines. The Order also prohibits reliance on any Department of Justice or other legal advice concerning interrogation that was issued between September 11, 2001 and January 20, 2009.

The Order requires all departments and agencies to provide the ICRC access to detainees in a manner consistent with Department of Defense regulations and practice. It also orders the CIA to close all existing detention facilities and prohibits it from operating detention facilities in the future.

Finally, the Order creates a Special Task Force with two missions. The Task Force will conduct a review of the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines to determine whether different or additional guidance is necessary for the CIA. It will also look at rendition and other policies for transferring individuals to third countries to be sure that our policies and practices comply with all obligations and are sufficient to ensure that individuals do not face torture and cruel treatment if transferred. This Task Force will be led by the Attorney General with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence as co-Vice Chairs.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

At Last

By on 21 January 2009

We’re toasting the Obama’s tonight, as is the entire nation. That there will reportedly be a gathering of friends at the White House to toast President Obama in the wee hours is fitting. But amidst the party atmosphere comes news that President Obama has ordered a pause in Gitmo military tribunals. At last may be a song, but it applies across the board as Obama takes charge.

President Obama in white tie was the epitomy of class. First lady Michelle Obama wore a dress by Jason Wu. Vice President Joe Biden wore the traditional black tie, with Jill Biden in a deep red strapless dress.

Commander in chief Obama was immediately greeted with cheers.

“It’s a proud moment for us,” said Brigadier General Steven Huber, commander of the base, where many of the soldiers hail from Illinois, also Obama’s home state. “He is our new commander-in-chief and we will serve him with honour,” he told AFP.

But tomorrow, the party ends and the work begins. It starts with a meeting with President Obama’s “war council.”

Obama was summoning his holdover defense secretary, Robert Gates, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, to the White House, along with other members of his National Security Council, to discuss a way ahead in the war, according to two senior military officers. … The war in Afghanistan also was to be discussed, with the commander overseeing both conflicts, Gen. David Petraeus, scheduled to attend. Also scheduled to participate via videoteleconference were Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq. [...]

Read full story · Comments { 26 }

President Obama: America is ‘Ready to Lead Once More’

By on 20 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pknUNyc5r0I

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founder fathers faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man. A charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedient’s sake. And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, to the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born. Know that America is a friend to each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more. …” – President Barack Obama

In case you missed it, the carnage of the Bush-Cheney administration has been cut off like a withered limb.

President Obama’s speech today started slow and traveled through tedium, but once it got into the soul and spirit of what President Obama represents as heard through his rhetoric over the last years, the man who will lead us finally landed on the heart of what his presidency represents to us all. A turning of the page from what has come before on every level, but most specifically the changing of the guard from fear and the use of death turns, into something that has been manifest to encourage and inspire peoples and nations to follow the American lead because we stand for right, not just out of fear of our might.

Responsibility may have been the foundation of Obama’s speech, but it was not heard in just what we must do at home. President Obama today turned to the world to say that the United States of America has a duty to the world, as important as when the founders envisioned this land. To be the moral guide and inspiration of all that’s humanly possible through individual freedom, understanding that if America falls victim to our base fears, succumbing to the lowest human denominator, dreams of everyone around the world to rise above what divides us dies.

We will not give up America’s ideals for expedient’s sake. A new era has dawned.

Read full story · Comments { 110 }

Obama Should Let Holder Do His Job

By on 19 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghMeeXxYbho&eurl

…and let the truth fall where it may.

“We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam,” Mr. Holder said. “Waterboarding is torture.” (source: NY Times)

I’m against a “truth commission” on torture. I’m also against going after people down the chain who followed orders. Torture was deemed legal from the top, with everything falling from there. Christopher Hitchens is simply stark raving mad to say the demand for torture came from “our society.” I’ll leave Hitchens’ demand for “tongue” from Andrew Sullivan alone. To note, Digby thinks Hitches just “mildly insane,” so I could be wrong.

President Barack Obama, as of noon tomorrow (whether the oath has yet been administered or not), doesn’t have to do anything more than he has done regarding changing U.S. policies on torture. All he has to do is trust his appointment to Justice, A.G. Eric Holder, to do his job, following the law wherever it leads.

In fact, it would be beneficial to President Obama if he and his attorney general had a public and open debate about where the investigation would lead. Protecting the presidency, Obama could hold one view on “looking forward,” while Holder demands accountability in the law, because that’s his job, with is independence from the presidency secure through duty.

The U.S. has already lost through Bush-Cheney’s policy of torture. We should not make it policy to let torturers get off.

“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution. – Washington Post (1.14.09)

President Bush admitted to torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed on Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Now, the enhanced interrogation techniques, as some call them — torture, as others call them— are being argued over to this hour. Some are saying you never get any good information by rough stuff, and others have said — more than once — that if we hadn’t used these techniques we wouldn’t have had vital information and attacks could have been or would have been carried out on this country. Your view of that.

G.W. BUSH: My view is that the techniques were necessary and are necessary to be used on a rare occasion to get information necessary to protect the American people. One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He was the mastermind of the September the 11th, 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people on our soil.

And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him, and they gave me a list of tools. And I said, are these tools deemed to be legal. And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made. And I think when people study the history of this particular episode they’ll find out we gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to protect our country.

Torture is illegal. It is also a war crime.

The Attorney General of the United States of America should do his job. President Obama must summon the courage to let him. If we don’t, Bush and Cheney might as well surrender their passports, because the world will likely not be as forgiving.

President Gerald Ford did this nation no favors by pardoning Nixon. Barack Obama would do well to look back on history, and though we’re not talking about pardons, not make the mistake of protecting the presidency over the rule of law.

Read full story · Comments { 44 }

Operation So Long Dick… and George

By on 18 January 2009

Got executive orders? Expect a few, but manifestation will unfold slowly.

Then there is Speaker Pelosi on Fox today, which is getting a lot of play. Fox News has quite a headline: Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials.

“I think that we have to learn from the past and we cannot let the politicizing, for example, of the Justice Department, to go unreviewed,” Pelosi said. “Past is prologue. We learn from it.” Asked if she wants to see investigations, Pelosi responded, “Well, I want to see the truth come forth.” (via Think Progress)

“Prosecuting” and “investigating” seem to be the hyperbole of the day. I’m not buying it. “Unreviewed” is the word Pelosi used, along with “truth.” There is no inherent punishment implied in either.

Read full story · Comments { 14 }

Is Afghanistan Worth The Fight?

By on 16 January 2009

It’s something Obama and his team will have to decide.

The coming debate on Afghanistan and the policy review the Obama administration will do will happen amidst a fierce conversation among progressives. “Get Afghanistan Right” has been created for just that purpose, arguing against any further military involvement. Once Obama takes office it is sure to get even more intense. No one could suggest with a straight face that military alone will change Afghanistan. At the same time, the same applies to the U.S. having no military presence at all. Obama also has to convince other nations to commit troops in dangerous areas of Afghanistan, with renewed commitment.

Bush’s Iraq-centric focus leaves an inheritance around the world but especially in Afghanistan. A limited troop increase is being reported as “buying time” for Obama and his team to evaluate what should be done next. Amidst that evaluation is the core definition of what comprises America’s strategic interest post-Bush.

There are two main talking points used against increasing U.S. troop levels, though John Kerry did bring up the Vietnam syndrome during HRC’s confirmation hearing. One is obvious and it is what has been wrought in Iraq. Second is the constant refrain from people using the Soviet embarrassment in Afghanistan as prologue and projection. Neither of these reasons work, especially the first, considering Iraq is so totally different and it was completely botched from the start. Ilan Goldenberg of Democracy Arsenal takes it on:

… I don’t disagree that there needs to be a serious discussion of the issues before a large number of troops are deployed into the region. And I am not really sold one way or the other on troop increases.

However, I do think that any discussion, must start with a candid assessment of American interests. And I do think that there is a major difference between the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Particularly in the FATA) and that of Iraq in 2003. In this case what is going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan does in fact present a direct and immediate threat to American security and interests. [...]

As for the Soviet projection on what the U.S. could face, most people arguing this line are simplifying the history and the complexity of what happened back during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. One of the most formidable aspects was Reagan’s C.I.A. Director William Casey. Carter may have signed the directive to move against the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, but the extra legal lengths Casey went to in order to thwart the Soviets is historic. It was a trap that worked beautifully. Robert Gates, who will stay on as Defense Secretary, knows this all too well.

Digging out Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars (pgs. 104-105), I now play stenographer:

At the same time, ISI’s Afghan bureau selected small teams among the mujahedin who would be willing to mount violent sabotage attacks inside Soviet Central Asia. KGB-backed agents had killed hundreds of civilians in terrorist bombings inside Pakistan, and ISI wanted revenge. Mohammed Yousaf, the ISI brigadier who was the Afghan operations chief during this period, recalled that it was Casey who first urged these cross-border assaults during a meeting at ISI headquarters late in 1984… [...]

Robert Gates, Casey’s executive assistant and later CIA director, has confirmed that Afghan rebels “began cross-border operations into the Soviet Union itself” during the spring of 1985. These operations included “raising cain on the Soviet side of the border.” The attacks took place, according to Gates, “with Casey’s encouragement.”

[...] And as Gates reflected later, referring more generally to his sense of mission, Casey had not come to the CIA “with the purpose of making it better… Bill Casey came to the CIA primarily to wage war against the Soviet Union. …

Enter Gorbachev, the self-proclaimed reformer, though at first everyone in the U.S. government doubted it from Reagan on down.

The Soviet Union’s economy was failing. Its technological achievements lagged badly behind the computerized West. … Some analysts captured some of these pressures in their classified reporting, but on the whole the CIA’s analysts understated the Soviet Union’s internal problems. [...] This included the basic insight that the Soviet Union was so decayed as to be near collapse. [...] The Reagan administration was bound by a belief in Soviet power and skepticism about Gorbachev’s reforms. (Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars, pg. 159)

No one should underestimate the challenges in Afghanistan, but if Obama’s commitment against allowing failed states is real, we all need to understand what this means in terms of the Af-Pak region. Is leaving Afghanistan to warring tribalism, as Pakistan continues to spiral downward, in U.S. interests? Are we willing to relegate Afghan women and girls to a pre-9/11 existence, reading stories of acid attacks on school girls, saying how horrible it is, while ignoring the standard that human rights is women’s rights, something that can only manifest with world engagement?

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — In a country where many crimes against women are still swept under the rug, the case of a 14-year-old girl whose baby was allegedly aborted by her mother and brother using a razor blade has outraged doctors and human-rights workers. [...]

Afghanistan will be a long-term commitment and much more difficult than Iraq. Nobody is happy about it. We either pick up the pieces and do it now. Or be forced to do it later. It’s about adding security so that the other side of the equation, building infrastructure and institutions, revitalizing Afghan agriculture and a host of other necessities can be done.

Helping Afghans continue to build security is the foundation for it all.

President-elect Obama’s national security adviser Gen. Jim Jones on the importance of Afghanistan:

In his own words: “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.” — The startling assessment of a study this year led by General Jones for the Atlantic Council of the United States, a nongovernmental organization. He also has said that the war in Iraq caused the United States to “take its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan, and has warned that the consequences of failure are just as serious in Afghanistan as they are in Iraq. “Symbolically, it’s more the epicenter of terrorism than Iraq. If we don’t succeed in Afghanistan, you’re sending a very clear message to the terrorist organizations that the U.S., the U.N. and the 37 countries with troops on the ground can be defeated.”

There is nothing but tough choices ahead.

Read full story · Comments { 61 }

Eric Holder Grilled

By on 15 January 2009

According to Holder, “waterboarding is torture.” Calls for prosecutions will continue, though if Democrats aren’t going to go after Bush and Cheney I still don’t understand the ethics of putting others in the crosshairs.

Specter went at Holder hard on Marc Rich. The committee is on break, but you can watch it online at C-SPAN 3.

The L.A. Times reports Blagojevich will also be an avenue Republicans exploit.

[HTML1]

In other related news to this hearing, according to Eric Lichtbau, an intelligence court will rule that wiretapping is legal even without a court order.

A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion. …

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

Jack Bauer Returns

By on 11 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRVnRNngelU&eurl

What seems like ages ago, Rush Limbaugh launched into a ownership tirade of the TV series “24,” but most specifically Jack Bauer, saying he was obviously a Republican. I wasn’t surprised, but as a fan of the show I was infuriated. How could a television show and character belong to any party? After all, it’s TV. But most importantly, Rush seemed to be regurgitating that wingnut favorite that any strong, lethal warrior is automatically a Republican. Why quibble, right? After all, who wants to claim someone who tortures his prisoners. It’s more complicated, proved by the two decades of conversations going back to the 1980s when the C.I.A., in the midst of a war inside Afghanistan, started to re-evaluate Gerald R. Ford’s action banning assassination, which began the long, curved trek to rendition, secret prisons and Bush-Cheney’s torture policy post 9/11. Anyway, the response from me to Rush’s hilarious attachment to Jack Bauer as a Republican was “Jack Bauer is a Democrat.” It infuriated non political types who were fans of the show, because they didn’t want politics brought into it, but especially wingnuts, as emails poured into me.

This Christmas I received the DVD “24″ movie. It was a lot of fun to watch and very much off the usual storyline of the TV “24.” We also spent some marathon hours watching the DVD collection of the show to get primed for the new season, which was fun because my hubby hadn’t seen the early episodes. As for my excuse, I have none. This is the action stuff I love watching.

Tonight, Bauer is back in a new season, with Tony Almeida returning, this time supposedly as an adversary. There’s much in the show that inspires conversation about the TV “hero,” even as some, especially progressives, think he’s an awful character to which the word “hero” should never be ascribed. I’ll let you argue that one out.

There’s not been much good on the small flat screen lately. That’s not a good thing, especially as economics forces people inside. I’m rooting for Jack Bauer and “24″ to change that, at least one hour a week. I’m glad Jack is back.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Progressive Bankruptcy on Afghanistan

By on 09 January 2009

cross-posted at Huffington Post

It begins in Iran, where a cleric was caught with his pants down. Daily Beast has the story, which got me thinking about the plight of women in that corner of the world, but specifically in Afghanistan, especially since some leading progressives, Steve Clemons and Rachel Maddow in this instance, seem willing to relegate them to the Taliban and tunnels, with their flippant judgment that going into Afghanistan is simply not worth the fight. Thankfully, President-elect Obama doesn’t agree. But first things first:

The cleric was apparently a member of the government-run Friday Prayers Committee in Hamadan province. Semi-official news sites tried to downplay the impact of the video, which leaked out of an Intelligence Ministry investigation. But their reports did acknowledge that the man involved was a married cleric, and that the video depicts the consummation of an unlawful affair. [...]

We all know what would happen if this video was of a woman committing adultery, now don’t we.

It got me thinking about something that was said on Rachel Maddow’s show this week during an interview with Steve Clemons. The conversation was about Afghanistan and what would happen if we walked away, with Clemons quoting Dana Priest from an online chat. Saying that we’d simply have to smuggle the women out when it got bad.

“… (Dana Priest) is increasingly of the view that we’re going to probably have to come to terms with the Taliban and just find a way to tunnel out women, because it will be an awful reality for them, otherwise this will be a never ending war …” – Steve Clemons

Coming to terms with the Taliban is a reality, agreed. But count me out on treating Afghan women as collateral damage that we will try to smuggle out via tunnels. I mean, really.

Progressives are getting quite flippant about the Afghanistan quagmire and how we shouldn’t escalate at all in that country, seemingly content to smuggle women out instead of trying to work in selected areas/cities to help Afghans restore security. Of course, Afghanistan cannot be seen in a vacuum, with the Af-Pak challenge joined, which is why Afghanistan remains important. Anyway, I have no answer on this one, but find the type of dialogue I heard between Maddow and Clemons anything but enlightened, even considering he was quoting Dana Priest. I’m not in favor of escalating in Afghanistan like Iraq, mainly because Afghans have never had a central government, so it won’t work. I also have the utmost respect for Steve Clemons, who is a consummate expert on foreign policy, and someone I know and continues to teach me every day. I’m also certainly not one of the “elitist” or “traditional” viewpoints he talks about in the interview either. But the notion that we allow another human rights disaster to unfold for women in Afghanistan, until we can smuggle them out, a suggestion being regurgitated by respected progressives, is unconscionable to me.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as first lady, human rights are women’s rights. Countries that disavow women’s rights also have fewer democratic values and freedoms. Maybe progressives against action in Afghanistan should consider looking at a broader picture in Afghanistan, one that includes women’s rights, but also the rights of young girls to go to school, and whether that is a long term strategic interest to the U.S., not some luxury for which we can’t afford to fight. Are we really willing to allow Afghanistan to go back to the days before 9/11, shrugging off what women and girls will suffer as a result? This is the progressive line on Afghanistan? No troops in Afghanistan; deal with the Taliban, and we’ll just smuggle the women out when things get bad? Unacceptable foreign policy thinking in the 21st century. Women’s rights are human rights.

President-elect Obama is right to be turning his attention and military focus to Afghanistan, which is really a broader subject to include Af-Pak, with Pakistan the number one priority in the region. The policy won’t be easy to implement, especially with progressives losing their moral courage, but leaving the women and girls of Afghanistan to the mercy of the Taliban and tunnels should not be U.S. policy under President Obama.

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Panetta and Blair Announced; Steve Kappes Stays

By on 09 January 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf1eN7yXWlQ&eurl

Today at the announcement (with a brief statement on Iran included in the video above):

“… under my administration, the United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. That we will uphold our highest values and ideals. And that is a clear charge I have given to Admiral Blair and Leon Panetta. I think it’s important for us to do that not only because that’s who we are, but because ultimately it will make us safer and will help in changing hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists. …” – President-elect Obama

Got that?

It should put any questions to rest about Kappes prior role, because that was not in the Obama administration, which sends an entirely different signal, especially with Brennan in the White House. Good people inside the Agency aren’t thrown overboard because of Bush policies.

Aides to Mr. Obama say they have no intention of directing Mr. Panetta to oust C.I.A. officials who played a role in the agency’s secret interrogation and detention program. Instead, they say, the new administration will focus on reversing the rules that authorized the C.I.A. to carry out aggressive interrogations.

Indeed, in deciding to retain Stephen R. Kappes as the agency’s second-ranking official, Mr. Obama will keep in place an official who had direct oversight of the agency’s network of secret prisons when he held in succession the top two jobs in the C.I.A.’s clandestine service from 2002 to 2004. [...]

Read full story · Comments { 43 }

John Brennan as Obama’s Counterterrorism Guru

By on 08 January 2009

According to the New York Times, John Brennan is back and it looks like he may get Richard Clarke’s old job. It also appears as if Obama is going to reorganize the way we approach counterterrorism.

The plan being discussed would eliminate the independent homeland security adviser’s office and assign those duties to the National Security Council to streamline sometimes overlapping functions. A deputy national security adviser would be charged with overseeing the effort to guard against terrorism and to respond to natural disasters.

Democrats close to the transition said Mr. Obama’s choice for that job was John O. Brennan, a longtime C.I.A. veteran who was the front-runner to head the spy agency until withdrawing in November amid criticism of his views on interrogation and detention policies. His appointment would not require Senate confirmation. [...]

That gust of wind you just felt on the back of your neck is the collective C.I.A. breathing an easy exhale.

Brennan took a lot of heat from Glenn Greenwald and many others when he was first being considered for C.I.A. chief, with my main objection to him his strong backing of rendition. But he knows his stuff and inside the White House he’ll be able to give Obama what he needs. He also won’t have to worry about a confirmation hearing either, which would likely get ugly.

I doubt this will soothe Bill O’Reilly, who is leading a one man fear campaign directed at Barack Obama, repeating ad nauseam that Obama’s plans for the C.I.A. will cause another attack. That getting rid of torture will make the U.S. vulnerable. O’Reilly has Obama’s presidency in shambles before he’s even sworn in.

But the thing I like best about what the Times is reporting is that Obama may eliminate the homeland security adviser’s office, assigning them to the NSC instead. This is exactly what’s needed. I’ve been bitching about the homeland security island inside the White House since it was created. Besides, any time I hear the word “streamline” when it comes to security it makes me think people just might be talking to each other.

Read full story · Comments { 33 }

The Set Up and The Sting

By on 07 January 2009
by Paul Szep

Well, this is getting messy. Jeff Stein is reporting more disgruntled intel folks over the Panetta pick.

This is just noise, because Panetta has plenty of support where it’s needed and Obama should get whomever he wants at the C.I.A., but the reaction should have been foreseen and a strong front prepared. First, Obama underestimated the importance of having leading intel Democrats like Feinstein on board with his pick of Panetta. Her reaction to being stiffed was utterly predictable and now there is blood in the water, so to speak, because the leading Democrat in the Senate on intel sent a message that she’s not impressed. There are only wingnut sharks circling, but they’ve got lots of media outlets from which to squeal. Obama knew Panetta’s resume, so he should have prepared on all sides for what might come as a response to someone outside the intel community.

Which brings me to a rhetorical wild goose chase Rachel Maddow went on last night, which one can only surmise was meant to help Barack Obama, something that can be appreciated, but went way off the tracks. She argued that because Obama went to Wyden on the intelligence committee, but not Feinstein, the president-elect was sending a signal that Dems involved in any way with not holding Bush accountable for his torture policies would be punished. This is ridiculous on its face, that is if you think Obama is politically savvy, which I do. Because the trouble caused by cutting Feinstein out of the process on Panetta allowed an opening for critics to take hold and run with their reviews, which are becoming more and more negative across the traditional media, as I predicted. Additionally, if Rachel’s Wyden gambit is true, then why in the world would Obama apologize “profusely” to Feinstein, reported by multiple sources, with Biden saying not informing her was a “mistake.” You can dissect the rest regarding Feinstein and Wyden on the subject through Glenn Greenwald, but however you come down the bottom line is that keeping DiFi out of the loop didn’t help the cause for Panetta, which is costing them both. No way Obama wanted that to happen or would set up such a scenario purposefully.

This whole drama sets up the one storyline Obama has worked diligently to keep from getting started with his strong national security cabinet picks. Republicans now have their opening line on the “Democrats can’t protect America” pet talking point, which the traditional media is always all too eager to regurgitate on cue. Though no doubt they would have found another opener anyway, it’s just that they were given this one by the Democrats themselves.

It also means that Steve Kappes is likely to stay on (something I wholeheartedly support), though some still are unhinged about the rendition of Abu Amur, as well as other intel programs in which Kappes could be involved. Ackerman has more, making the very important point that the nature of intel, especially during Bush-Cheney, isn’t at all transparent when it comes to truth. Broad brush and all.

Read full story · Comments { 63 }