First; the good news:
Over the past few days it has been reported by various news services that Dick Cheney has been indicted in Nigeria for crimes committed while CEO of Halliburton.
And now; the bad news:
Neither Cheney nor Bush have yet been indicted for the war crimes committed during their administration. Cheney will likely remain free as he is in an undisclosed location supervising Halliburton's reconstruction of the Death Star.
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Dick Cheney: War Criminal
I know, the headline is no surprise. It's just that the man keeps admitting it. This past Sunday, Valentine's Day 2010, Dick Cheney bragged that he had opposed the Bush Administration's attempts to back off torture and stop waterboarding. Making his round on the morning news shows, Cheney unequivocally indicated that he supported waterboarding. He then continued on to criticize the Obama Administration's handling of national security.
What's up with this guy? Eight years in office, he spent most of it in an "undisclosed location," emerging only to shoot his friend in the face in a hunting (if releasing birds from boxes is hunting) incident. You couldn't get this guy to answer a question or utter a word while in office. Even his residence was blurred on satellite map sites. Now that he's out of office, he won't shut up.
Please Dick, go back to an undisclosed location.
What's up with this guy? Eight years in office, he spent most of it in an "undisclosed location," emerging only to shoot his friend in the face in a hunting (if releasing birds from boxes is hunting) incident. You couldn't get this guy to answer a question or utter a word while in office. Even his residence was blurred on satellite map sites. Now that he's out of office, he won't shut up.
Please Dick, go back to an undisclosed location.
Friday, January 8, 2010
"No Siege Mentality"
Yesterday Barack Obama spoke about the Christmas Day bombing attempt by Umar Abdulmuttallab. He did something rarely seen in these days by a politician - he took responsibility. Using a phrase borrowed from Harry Truman, Obama stated that "The buck stops with me." He then went on to point out that this was a series of screw ups that culminated in a person already on watch lists being allowed to board a plane with explosives. Pettiness, infighting and human error all seemed to play a part in the act. Since Christmas Day there have been a series of events at various airports that show the generally shoddy nature of security.
But it was not just the taking of responsibility that made this speech noteworthy While stating that "We are at war," Obama also stated that we would be "no siege mentality." In a stark contrast to the previous administration Obama advocated that we not panic and be ruled by fear. In refusing to make our remaining liberties sacrificial lambs in the name of the illusion of safety, Obama has taken a step towards restoring the belief in the values on which the country was founded. It is these actions, taking steps towards restoring our democracy that the last administration so trampled that have been his most important actions since taking office.
By refusing to accept the notion that we must live as we are under siege at all times, Obama also took a step towards the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda. Turning the country into a military police state and shredding the Constitution in the name of security is not what a strong leader would do. That is what Bush tried to do - he tried to act strong because he felt he was weak. Obama did the converse. By stating that we are going to be true to our values, Obama showed real strength and a confidence in the underpinnings of our nation. A confidence that all of those who supported the Patriot Act and advocated surrendering our liberties in the name of security did not and do not have.
In taking the occasion to further announce that Guantanamo would be closed, he demonstrated a further commitment to the rule of law. This event could have provided a perfect excuse to delay or stop the closing of Gitmo, but instead, he used it as an opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to the legal process. It should be noted that Abdulmuttallab has reportedly been providing a great deal of intelligence completely within legal confines.
This speech is being examined for what it says about security. The truth is, no matter how secure, no matter what we do, something will eventually happen. The important part of what Obama said is that it signaled a change to a view that is consistent with the purported values of our country. In refusing to undermine them, not only refusing to go further, but pulling back on the mentality that sacrifices liberty for security he has already surpassed his predecessor in understanding what it takes for a country to be great.
Let's hope Dick Cheney shuts up and goes back to an undisclosed location.
But it was not just the taking of responsibility that made this speech noteworthy While stating that "We are at war," Obama also stated that we would be "no siege mentality." In a stark contrast to the previous administration Obama advocated that we not panic and be ruled by fear. In refusing to make our remaining liberties sacrificial lambs in the name of the illusion of safety, Obama has taken a step towards restoring the belief in the values on which the country was founded. It is these actions, taking steps towards restoring our democracy that the last administration so trampled that have been his most important actions since taking office.
By refusing to accept the notion that we must live as we are under siege at all times, Obama also took a step towards the ultimate defeat of al-Qaeda. Turning the country into a military police state and shredding the Constitution in the name of security is not what a strong leader would do. That is what Bush tried to do - he tried to act strong because he felt he was weak. Obama did the converse. By stating that we are going to be true to our values, Obama showed real strength and a confidence in the underpinnings of our nation. A confidence that all of those who supported the Patriot Act and advocated surrendering our liberties in the name of security did not and do not have.
In taking the occasion to further announce that Guantanamo would be closed, he demonstrated a further commitment to the rule of law. This event could have provided a perfect excuse to delay or stop the closing of Gitmo, but instead, he used it as an opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to the legal process. It should be noted that Abdulmuttallab has reportedly been providing a great deal of intelligence completely within legal confines.
This speech is being examined for what it says about security. The truth is, no matter how secure, no matter what we do, something will eventually happen. The important part of what Obama said is that it signaled a change to a view that is consistent with the purported values of our country. In refusing to undermine them, not only refusing to go further, but pulling back on the mentality that sacrifices liberty for security he has already surpassed his predecessor in understanding what it takes for a country to be great.
Let's hope Dick Cheney shuts up and goes back to an undisclosed location.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
See Dick Lie
Former Vice-President Dick Cheney never ceases to amaze me. While vice-president he often appeared to have more power and influence than the actual president. His former firm, Halliburton, received no-bid government contracts without raising even the slightest concern of influence peddling. He accuses the current administration of "dithering" even after his administration spent eight years doing nothing.
He has managed to top all of the above. During questioning about the leak in the Valerie Plame debacle in which an active CIA operative was outed in the press, Cheney responded 72 times that he "Did not recall," or "Could not remember," in response to Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Cheney's right hand man, Scooter Libby, was convicted of perjury for his failure to disclose information. Cheney, on the other hand, got away without even a slap on the wrist.
Some of the information Cheney couldn't recall was whether anyone had ever mentioned to him that the wife of administration critic Joe Wilson was a CIA operative. He also could not recall how he found out that information. Interestingly though, he was able to describe in great detail his lunch with Nancy Reagan. This does not pass the stink test. He couldn't remember details of a major embarrassment to himself but he could remember what was for lunch.
Cheney has long been known for his great memory for details. When it is to his advantage he seems able to recall every detail of a decision making process. He revels in pointing out when others seem unclear on information.
In response to another politician claiming that he did "not recall," details of a scandal, Cheney famously blasted him for his poor memory. He pointed out that it was hard to believe anyone who conveniently forgot information that would convict them in a court of law. On that occasion he told the truth.
When it comes to his own lapses of memory, suddenly Cheney doesn't buy his own rhetoric. See Dick forget. See Dick lie. See Dick subvert the Constitution. See Dick commit treason.
He has managed to top all of the above. During questioning about the leak in the Valerie Plame debacle in which an active CIA operative was outed in the press, Cheney responded 72 times that he "Did not recall," or "Could not remember," in response to Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Cheney's right hand man, Scooter Libby, was convicted of perjury for his failure to disclose information. Cheney, on the other hand, got away without even a slap on the wrist.
Some of the information Cheney couldn't recall was whether anyone had ever mentioned to him that the wife of administration critic Joe Wilson was a CIA operative. He also could not recall how he found out that information. Interestingly though, he was able to describe in great detail his lunch with Nancy Reagan. This does not pass the stink test. He couldn't remember details of a major embarrassment to himself but he could remember what was for lunch.
Cheney has long been known for his great memory for details. When it is to his advantage he seems able to recall every detail of a decision making process. He revels in pointing out when others seem unclear on information.
In response to another politician claiming that he did "not recall," details of a scandal, Cheney famously blasted him for his poor memory. He pointed out that it was hard to believe anyone who conveniently forgot information that would convict them in a court of law. On that occasion he told the truth.
When it comes to his own lapses of memory, suddenly Cheney doesn't buy his own rhetoric. See Dick forget. See Dick lie. See Dick subvert the Constitution. See Dick commit treason.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Conventional Wisdom and a Bucket of Spit
In the past week, former Vice-president Dick Cheney has argued with the tactics taken by the Obama Administration towards Afghanistan. Cheney referred to Obama as "dithering" about the issue. This from a man who, in the eight years he largely directed the war, utilized a strategy that can be summarized by the words ignore and under-resource. Cheney's advice should be seen for what it is worth - a warm bucket of spit.
Also in the news this week was the action of the Obama Administration to limit the pay of executives of bailed out banks. As soon as this was announced, pundits began to offer the conventional wisdom that limiting the pay of these executives would lead to a "brain drain." Their stated fear was that the best talent would flee the industry. First let me take issue with the idea that the very people who caused the financial crisis are talented. If these people had known what they were doing to begin with the world's economy would not have teetered on the brink of collapse. A collapse averted only because the U.S. taxpayer bailed them out. The other notion, that they would flee the banking industry for other jobs that paid similarly shows just how out of touch they are with reality. Where else will they find a job that rewards them millions in bonuses for failing? They want what they are worth - then let's give them their bucket of spit.
Also in the news this week was the action of the Obama Administration to limit the pay of executives of bailed out banks. As soon as this was announced, pundits began to offer the conventional wisdom that limiting the pay of these executives would lead to a "brain drain." Their stated fear was that the best talent would flee the industry. First let me take issue with the idea that the very people who caused the financial crisis are talented. If these people had known what they were doing to begin with the world's economy would not have teetered on the brink of collapse. A collapse averted only because the U.S. taxpayer bailed them out. The other notion, that they would flee the banking industry for other jobs that paid similarly shows just how out of touch they are with reality. Where else will they find a job that rewards them millions in bonuses for failing? They want what they are worth - then let's give them their bucket of spit.
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Nation of Laws
Recent reports have revealed that the CIA under the Bush (mis)Administration subcontracted assassination squads from Blackwater and manipulated Homeland Security alert levels for political purposes. This last revelation comes from none other than former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge.
I really hate to keep bringing up the Bush-Cheney reign of error and terror - but will there be no end to the trail of crimes revealed? Follow the link on this site to "Hugh's List" for just a sampling of the treachery of the Bush (mis)Administration.
It is all well and good to wish to put matters behind us. However, when a litany of abuses and crimes have already been revealed and continue to be revealed, accountability must occur. At the very least, prosecutions for torture and war crimes must occur for the United States to be taken seriously again as a nation of laws. When one small group of people can lie us into a war, hire private assassination squads, manipulate the public into a frenzy of fear in order to gain politically, run clandestine prisons to specifically circumvent U.S. and international law, can rationalize torture and then claim that there should not even be investigations, there is no longer justice for all. There is a privileged elite that has become above prosecution.
There biggest crime I likely have left out: mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren when Bush with his henchman Hank Paulson turned the Treasury over to greedy banks. Did this really need to happen in retrospect? See this move for what it was - Bush rewarded his base, the have mores, at the end of his presidency. In so doing, he robbed your children and mine.
To act as if there is nothing to investigate or prosecute in the past administration is absurd. To allow the Bush (mis)Administration to go unchallenged is to turn your back on this country as a nation of laws.
I really hate to keep bringing up the Bush-Cheney reign of error and terror - but will there be no end to the trail of crimes revealed? Follow the link on this site to "Hugh's List" for just a sampling of the treachery of the Bush (mis)Administration.
It is all well and good to wish to put matters behind us. However, when a litany of abuses and crimes have already been revealed and continue to be revealed, accountability must occur. At the very least, prosecutions for torture and war crimes must occur for the United States to be taken seriously again as a nation of laws. When one small group of people can lie us into a war, hire private assassination squads, manipulate the public into a frenzy of fear in order to gain politically, run clandestine prisons to specifically circumvent U.S. and international law, can rationalize torture and then claim that there should not even be investigations, there is no longer justice for all. There is a privileged elite that has become above prosecution.
There biggest crime I likely have left out: mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren when Bush with his henchman Hank Paulson turned the Treasury over to greedy banks. Did this really need to happen in retrospect? See this move for what it was - Bush rewarded his base, the have mores, at the end of his presidency. In so doing, he robbed your children and mine.
To act as if there is nothing to investigate or prosecute in the past administration is absurd. To allow the Bush (mis)Administration to go unchallenged is to turn your back on this country as a nation of laws.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The False Patriotism of the Right Wing
It has recently been revealed that the Bush-Cheney (mis)Administration considered sending troops of the U.S. military into American cities to arrest suspected terrorists. According to the New York Times of July 25, 2009, administration officials, notably Dick Cheney, argued that the Constitution and the Posse Comitatus Act were irrelevant. Where is the outcry from the right wing?
It has been revealed over time that the last administration engaged in a systematic campaign of surveillance, wiretapping, email snooping and other forms of activity prohibited by the Constitution and other laws of this nation. Where is the outcry from the right wing and its so-called patriots when the nation's very values were being undermined?
When a Harvard professor was arrested in his own home by a policeman, there was not an uporoar of concern about the sanctity of one's home from the right wing. I thought they believed in the home as castle theory. Mormon polygamists suspected of child abuse raise the right wings' concern about the intrusion of government, but not a liberal black man in his home.
The right wing of Amerika has long viewed anyone who does not agree with their viewpoint as "un-American" and any other derogatory term that might stick. They are all for the symbols of the country. Claiming ownership of the flag and Constitution, all they really represent is a false patriotism that owes allegiance to their political leaders rather than to the well being of the nation.
The right wing tends towards an authoritarian viewpoint that is ultimately undemocratic. Although heir speech seems to champion the values of liberty and freedom their actions belie a different agenda. When it comes to actions, the right wing shows what it really wants. Control over the reproductive choices of women, state sponsored religion, censorship of art and literature, domestic spying on U.S. citizens, and a general suppression of individual liberty.
Demonstrating the self serving nature of the right wing and its willingness to distort language for their own advancement is the Tea Bagger Movement. The same people who sat by while their own party engineered the largest transfer of wealth from the public purse to the private sector, who watched out government give away the public wealth to cronies of Bush, Cheney and the other war criminals (can you say Halliburton), who complained not one bit while the deficit and debt exploded, now sing a different tune. Now that someone they didn't vote for is in office there is an urgent necessity for fiscal responsibility.
Then there are the Bonkers "Birthers". Accusing the State of Hawaii of engaging in a massive conspiracy, and believing in a plot so complex that birth announcements were inserted in Honolulu newspapers in 1961, all in an effort to falsify a birth record, these conspiracy theorists have already seceded from the world of rational thought.
Speaking of secession, why is it that all those advocating secession seem to be right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the flag. Does advocating secession really mark one as a patriot.
For too long the right wing has held itself out as the purveyors of all that is right and good. But when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road they are just partisan authoritarians who believe only in their own political views and not the nation.
It has been revealed over time that the last administration engaged in a systematic campaign of surveillance, wiretapping, email snooping and other forms of activity prohibited by the Constitution and other laws of this nation. Where is the outcry from the right wing and its so-called patriots when the nation's very values were being undermined?
When a Harvard professor was arrested in his own home by a policeman, there was not an uporoar of concern about the sanctity of one's home from the right wing. I thought they believed in the home as castle theory. Mormon polygamists suspected of child abuse raise the right wings' concern about the intrusion of government, but not a liberal black man in his home.
The right wing of Amerika has long viewed anyone who does not agree with their viewpoint as "un-American" and any other derogatory term that might stick. They are all for the symbols of the country. Claiming ownership of the flag and Constitution, all they really represent is a false patriotism that owes allegiance to their political leaders rather than to the well being of the nation.
The right wing tends towards an authoritarian viewpoint that is ultimately undemocratic. Although heir speech seems to champion the values of liberty and freedom their actions belie a different agenda. When it comes to actions, the right wing shows what it really wants. Control over the reproductive choices of women, state sponsored religion, censorship of art and literature, domestic spying on U.S. citizens, and a general suppression of individual liberty.
Demonstrating the self serving nature of the right wing and its willingness to distort language for their own advancement is the Tea Bagger Movement. The same people who sat by while their own party engineered the largest transfer of wealth from the public purse to the private sector, who watched out government give away the public wealth to cronies of Bush, Cheney and the other war criminals (can you say Halliburton), who complained not one bit while the deficit and debt exploded, now sing a different tune. Now that someone they didn't vote for is in office there is an urgent necessity for fiscal responsibility.
Then there are the Bonkers "Birthers". Accusing the State of Hawaii of engaging in a massive conspiracy, and believing in a plot so complex that birth announcements were inserted in Honolulu newspapers in 1961, all in an effort to falsify a birth record, these conspiracy theorists have already seceded from the world of rational thought.
Speaking of secession, why is it that all those advocating secession seem to be right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the flag. Does advocating secession really mark one as a patriot.
For too long the right wing has held itself out as the purveyors of all that is right and good. But when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road they are just partisan authoritarians who believe only in their own political views and not the nation.
Monday, July 13, 2009
What Will It Take?
We've already had allegations of eavesdropping and spying on the American people. Government officials have not only defended torture, they have championed it. Now we have learned in the past few days that the CIA has continued to operate programs from the Bush years apparently even out of sight of their director, Leon Panetta. In addition, it turns out that Dick Cheney ordered certain programs kept secret from Congress.
How many broken laws must be revealed before there is an investigation of Bush Administration. What will it take?
How many broken laws must be revealed before there is an investigation of Bush Administration. What will it take?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Scales of Justice?
Donte Stallworth, 28, of the Cleveland Browns received a 30-day sentence for a manslaughter conviction incurred while driving drunk. The NFL is reportedly reviewing the matter for further sanctions.
Michael Vick, 28, formerly of the Atlanta Falcons, received a year in jail, is still under house arrest and is banned from the NFL for life for a conviction for dog fighting.
Dick Cheney, 68, formerly of the Washington Torturers and now of the Wyoming Revisionists, walks around free.
Michael Vick, 28, formerly of the Atlanta Falcons, received a year in jail, is still under house arrest and is banned from the NFL for life for a conviction for dog fighting.
Dick Cheney, 68, formerly of the Washington Torturers and now of the Wyoming Revisionists, walks around free.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Going Medieval: Watching Too Much Pulp Fiction
In my previous post I attempted to explain why Dick Cheney is out on his "Justification of Torture Tour". Primarily, he is attempting to shape the debate so he can avoid going to prison for war crimes. At least his motivation, covering his own behind, is understandable. Treasonous, but understandable.
What is more difficult to pin down is why so many other people are going out of their way to justify torture. In some ways, the focus on waterboarding has made many people forget that other actions also occurred. We now know that methods such as sleep deprivation, chaining to ceilings and walls, banging heads against walls, intimidation with dogs, enforced and prolonged isolation were among the methods used in addition to waterboarding (please see ACLU website to read the torture memos in their original).
It is too easy to say that torturers and defenders thereof are sadistic. They may be, but that is not the total sum of the answer. As Stanley Milgram discovered in his classic studies on obedience, most individuals will carry out rather cruel and inhumane acts with a minimum of prodding (Milgram, 1963, 1974). However, this research demonstrates what people will do in an unexpected situation. What is shocking to me is that people are actually advocating torture after having time for reflection.
Psychologically, torturers are acting out feelings of inferiority and fear. The desire to dominate and totally control others is internally generated by feelings of fear and anxiety that results from feelings of being out of control. By subjecting the detainees to torture those who authorized, carried out and support torture are demonstrating their absolute fear of these individuals.
For more evidence of the sheer terror in which those attempting to justify torture live, witness their reaction to bringing prisoners from Gitmo to the U.S. mainland and placing them in the federal or military prison system. Hysteria surrounds this issue with politician after politician denouncing such moves. There is no rationale for this position. In a nation with over two million people incarcerated, locking people up is one of the things we do exceedingly well. If we can keep serial killers like Charles Manson and the rest of the criminal element incarcerated, then certainly we can keep religious fanatics contained. We already have Ramsi Yousef and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in confinement and I don't believe I have heard any concern about their incarceration endangering the country.
Torture is similar to the rage expressed by abusive parents who delude themselves that the only way to control the child is to beat them. In a similar vein, many of those defending torture engage in the self deluded notion that the only way to get the information they seek is through the means they have chosen.
Let us not leave revenge out of the equation. Just as in the movie Pulp Fiction when the character of Marcellus Wallace announces he is going to "go Medieval," on someone out of revenge, there is a tendency to support those who fight back against extreme abuse. Of course, Marcellus was a thug whose desire for control again points to feelings of inferiority.
The parallel does not end there. Just as Marcellus was emasculated by being sodomized in the backroom of the gun store, so were the members of the Bush (mis)Administration. Reeling helplessly as the nation was attacked, they sought to restore their own emasculation. Failing to protect the nation, despite their claims about what has happened since, the attacks of 9/11 rendered the nation psychologically impotent.
Torture, renditions, and contrived wars since have only served to fan the flames of the very problems that led to 9/11. Like a gangster noir film, the good guys and the bad guys seem pretty much the same.
Life is not a movie. Being guided in our actions by Pulp Fiction and 24, is insane. That's why Quentin Tarantino is not Secretary of Defense. Too bad Donald Rumsfeld, with his classic narcissistic facade, could not have become a film director.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority; an experimental view. Harper Collins.
What is more difficult to pin down is why so many other people are going out of their way to justify torture. In some ways, the focus on waterboarding has made many people forget that other actions also occurred. We now know that methods such as sleep deprivation, chaining to ceilings and walls, banging heads against walls, intimidation with dogs, enforced and prolonged isolation were among the methods used in addition to waterboarding (please see ACLU website to read the torture memos in their original).
It is too easy to say that torturers and defenders thereof are sadistic. They may be, but that is not the total sum of the answer. As Stanley Milgram discovered in his classic studies on obedience, most individuals will carry out rather cruel and inhumane acts with a minimum of prodding (Milgram, 1963, 1974). However, this research demonstrates what people will do in an unexpected situation. What is shocking to me is that people are actually advocating torture after having time for reflection.
Psychologically, torturers are acting out feelings of inferiority and fear. The desire to dominate and totally control others is internally generated by feelings of fear and anxiety that results from feelings of being out of control. By subjecting the detainees to torture those who authorized, carried out and support torture are demonstrating their absolute fear of these individuals.
For more evidence of the sheer terror in which those attempting to justify torture live, witness their reaction to bringing prisoners from Gitmo to the U.S. mainland and placing them in the federal or military prison system. Hysteria surrounds this issue with politician after politician denouncing such moves. There is no rationale for this position. In a nation with over two million people incarcerated, locking people up is one of the things we do exceedingly well. If we can keep serial killers like Charles Manson and the rest of the criminal element incarcerated, then certainly we can keep religious fanatics contained. We already have Ramsi Yousef and Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in confinement and I don't believe I have heard any concern about their incarceration endangering the country.
Torture is similar to the rage expressed by abusive parents who delude themselves that the only way to control the child is to beat them. In a similar vein, many of those defending torture engage in the self deluded notion that the only way to get the information they seek is through the means they have chosen.
Let us not leave revenge out of the equation. Just as in the movie Pulp Fiction when the character of Marcellus Wallace announces he is going to "go Medieval," on someone out of revenge, there is a tendency to support those who fight back against extreme abuse. Of course, Marcellus was a thug whose desire for control again points to feelings of inferiority.
The parallel does not end there. Just as Marcellus was emasculated by being sodomized in the backroom of the gun store, so were the members of the Bush (mis)Administration. Reeling helplessly as the nation was attacked, they sought to restore their own emasculation. Failing to protect the nation, despite their claims about what has happened since, the attacks of 9/11 rendered the nation psychologically impotent.
Torture, renditions, and contrived wars since have only served to fan the flames of the very problems that led to 9/11. Like a gangster noir film, the good guys and the bad guys seem pretty much the same.
Life is not a movie. Being guided in our actions by Pulp Fiction and 24, is insane. That's why Quentin Tarantino is not Secretary of Defense. Too bad Donald Rumsfeld, with his classic narcissistic facade, could not have become a film director.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority; an experimental view. Harper Collins.
Cheney: The New Grand Inquisitor
The Werewolf of Wyoming, Dick Cheney, is howling again. After hiding in an undisclosed location for eight years, cloaked in secrecy to the degree that his house was blurred on Google Earth and even the attendees of his energy policy meetings are still classified, he has emerged from the shadows. The man who was not seen and who did not talk is suddenly everywhere. Classified memos must be released, he now claims, for the good of the country.
Appearing on Face the Nation, Cheney not only advocated torture, he went further in contending that any other course would "sacrifice" American lives. Bush, and all the others from his (mis)administration, must be cringing as Cheney admits to crimes against humanity. Cheney's argument, that these acts are not criminal because a lawyer told them so, is patently ridiculous. Clearly, the only reason to even seek such legal memos is to provide cover down the road when the actions are revealed.
There is a method to his seeming madness. What Cheney is attempting to do is reframe the prosecution of torture into a seeming policy debate. He would prefer that this be viewed simply as a disagreement rather than a sanctioning of crimes against humanity.
Cheney uses two lines of reasoning to justify torture. First he argues that it provides information and second that those being tortured are evil. The first argument, that of information, is not only debatable, it is also historically ignorant. Torture has been used historically as a means to make people lie, not to tell the truth. The victims of the Inquisition, the accused in the witch trials, U.S. soldiers in Vietnam who were used for propaganda purpose, all were tortured to make them confess to something they did not do and/or believe. Even thinking that torture provides reliable information is to deny its purpose and its genuine intent, which is to inflict harm.
The idea that those being tortured are bad people and somehow deserve it, is philosophically void. Rationalization to the nth degree, this is the justification of every torturer throughout history, that the tortured somehow deserve it.
I have mockingly referred to Cheney as the Werewolf of Wyoming in a number of past columns. I now see that I was being too kind to Cheney and insulting to werewolves. Cheney is a cold blooded torturer who has no moral compass. He is attempting the "Big Lie." Just keep saying over and over that you're right and that there was no other choice. Classic brainwashing, say it over and over and eventually they'll all believe it.
Like the Grand Inquisitor before him, it is clear that Cheney does not believe in the very ideals he claims to support and defend. He is now willing to undermine the nation in order to thwart efforts that could hold him accountable.
Appearing on Face the Nation, Cheney not only advocated torture, he went further in contending that any other course would "sacrifice" American lives. Bush, and all the others from his (mis)administration, must be cringing as Cheney admits to crimes against humanity. Cheney's argument, that these acts are not criminal because a lawyer told them so, is patently ridiculous. Clearly, the only reason to even seek such legal memos is to provide cover down the road when the actions are revealed.
There is a method to his seeming madness. What Cheney is attempting to do is reframe the prosecution of torture into a seeming policy debate. He would prefer that this be viewed simply as a disagreement rather than a sanctioning of crimes against humanity.
Cheney uses two lines of reasoning to justify torture. First he argues that it provides information and second that those being tortured are evil. The first argument, that of information, is not only debatable, it is also historically ignorant. Torture has been used historically as a means to make people lie, not to tell the truth. The victims of the Inquisition, the accused in the witch trials, U.S. soldiers in Vietnam who were used for propaganda purpose, all were tortured to make them confess to something they did not do and/or believe. Even thinking that torture provides reliable information is to deny its purpose and its genuine intent, which is to inflict harm.
The idea that those being tortured are bad people and somehow deserve it, is philosophically void. Rationalization to the nth degree, this is the justification of every torturer throughout history, that the tortured somehow deserve it.
I have mockingly referred to Cheney as the Werewolf of Wyoming in a number of past columns. I now see that I was being too kind to Cheney and insulting to werewolves. Cheney is a cold blooded torturer who has no moral compass. He is attempting the "Big Lie." Just keep saying over and over that you're right and that there was no other choice. Classic brainwashing, say it over and over and eventually they'll all believe it.
Like the Grand Inquisitor before him, it is clear that Cheney does not believe in the very ideals he claims to support and defend. He is now willing to undermine the nation in order to thwart efforts that could hold him accountable.
Friday, May 8, 2009
What Did Pelosi ( and Others) Know?
It was reported in the Washington Post that leaked CIA memos confirm Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was informed about the practice of torture being used against detainees. Pelosi, in an interview in February with Rachel Maddow stated that she was only informed that these techniques had been authorized and that she had no knowledge of their use. Curiously she also stated that anything she had been told was covered by national security laws that prevented her from disclosing the details of her briefing.
Pelosi's protestations do not appear to stand up to scrutiny. Why would she have thought that she would be informed that certain methods had been authorized if there were no plans to use them? That now appears to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to cover her own behind. Now it seems abundantly clear that she was informed of the actual torture plans.
More ridiculous is her assertion that national security laws prevented her from disclosing the information to the public. Is it really her assertion that she was obligated to keep anything disclosed to her secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to engage in genocide would she have kept that secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to bomb an American city so that the flames of war could be further whipped, would she have kept that secret?
The answer to the above questions is certainly "No." As a member of Congress her duty is to the nation, not to keeping secret the violation of international agreements that ultimately caused harm to the nation through damaging its' reputation. Her duty to the nation was to inform the citizenry of the great crimes being committed in our name, even if that resulted in her being imprisoned for her actions. Yes, it was her duty, and that of the others who were briefed, to inform the nation as to the violation of our laws. In point of fact, it was only Pelosi and the other three members so briefed, who could have prevented this.
What prevented her from disclosing this information was her fear that the disclosure would be used against her politically. She, and other members of Congress, went along with torture because it was politically expedient. Like many politicians, Pelosi was afraid to challenge anything the Bush (mis)Adminiatration did for fear that they would be accused of being in league with al-Qaeda. It was just this lack of political courage that enabled the most egregious crimes For that, she bears culpability for these actions.
Pelosi has been one of the people standing in the way of investigations into the dirty little secrets of the last administration. Now we know why she seems to be holding up a thorough accounting of the acts of the Bush (mis)Administration. She is afraid her own complicity will be revealed.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, Bybee, the list goes on. To it we can now add the names of Pelosi (and Rockefeller and on and on). All those who were complicit in these actions, in both parties, must be held accountable. They placed their political careers before the nation and its ideals. At the time at which it mattered most that they fulfill their Constitutional duties, they bowed to pressure and acted primarily in the interests of their own political careers.
Pelosi's protestations do not appear to stand up to scrutiny. Why would she have thought that she would be informed that certain methods had been authorized if there were no plans to use them? That now appears to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to cover her own behind. Now it seems abundantly clear that she was informed of the actual torture plans.
More ridiculous is her assertion that national security laws prevented her from disclosing the information to the public. Is it really her assertion that she was obligated to keep anything disclosed to her secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to engage in genocide would she have kept that secret? If she had been told that there was a plan to bomb an American city so that the flames of war could be further whipped, would she have kept that secret?
The answer to the above questions is certainly "No." As a member of Congress her duty is to the nation, not to keeping secret the violation of international agreements that ultimately caused harm to the nation through damaging its' reputation. Her duty to the nation was to inform the citizenry of the great crimes being committed in our name, even if that resulted in her being imprisoned for her actions. Yes, it was her duty, and that of the others who were briefed, to inform the nation as to the violation of our laws. In point of fact, it was only Pelosi and the other three members so briefed, who could have prevented this.
What prevented her from disclosing this information was her fear that the disclosure would be used against her politically. She, and other members of Congress, went along with torture because it was politically expedient. Like many politicians, Pelosi was afraid to challenge anything the Bush (mis)Adminiatration did for fear that they would be accused of being in league with al-Qaeda. It was just this lack of political courage that enabled the most egregious crimes For that, she bears culpability for these actions.
Pelosi has been one of the people standing in the way of investigations into the dirty little secrets of the last administration. Now we know why she seems to be holding up a thorough accounting of the acts of the Bush (mis)Administration. She is afraid her own complicity will be revealed.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Yoo, Bybee, the list goes on. To it we can now add the names of Pelosi (and Rockefeller and on and on). All those who were complicit in these actions, in both parties, must be held accountable. They placed their political careers before the nation and its ideals. At the time at which it mattered most that they fulfill their Constitutional duties, they bowed to pressure and acted primarily in the interests of their own political careers.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Torture Memos Reveal National Disgrace
The Obama Administration has recently released a number of memos from the Bush Justice Department that portray in painstaking detail the depths to which agents of the U.S. government sunk in their green-lighting of torture against prisoners detained as terror suspects. The memos, released in response to lawsuits filed by the ACLU (you may follow a link on this page to their website to read the memos and to sign a petition requesting a further inquiry of these charges), discuss in great detail the techniques that would be used and seek to provide legal justifications for these actions.
Immediately, the apologists for torture have lambasted the decision to release the memos primarily based on three notions; 1) that terrorists will be better able to prepare against these techniques, 2) that we can't use the techniques again and 3) that they sully the reputation of the United States. All three of these objections are patently absurd. First and foremost, the techniques have been widely discussed and are well known so the idea that terrorists can now better prepare is specious at best. The argument that the release of the memos, really the overt admission of torture, prevents future use of the methods is precisely the point of releasing them and is related to the idea that admitting this somehow sullies the nation's reputation.
It was not admitting to torture that damaged that country, it was ENGAGING IN TORTURE that damaged the nation's reputation. The very reason that we are involved in this ongoing clash is because of our actions. Only by coming clean and admitting to these acts and taking steps to ensure that they will never occur again can there be a way forward.
The complete disgrace revealed by these memos though has been lost in the debate about their release. What these memos really reveal is that the torture had nothing to do with making the nation safe. It has long been recognized that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering intelligence due to the fact that you can't trust the information. Tortured people will tell you anything and try any effort to make the pain stop. In the case of those tortured by CIA operatives and others, it is becoming abundantly clear that information gathered through torture was a complete bust.
In the case of Abu Zubaydah, one of the more infamous torture cases, he had provided a plethora of information prior to being tortured. Once the torture started, he ceased to provide useful and reliable information.
Reading the memos it becomes apparent the sadistic nature of those who plotted, condoned and justified these actions. Abu Zubaydah, for example, was apparently subjected not only to repeated water boarding, but also to sleep deprivation and having his head banged against the wall. When it became known that he was afraid of insects there were plans to put him in a confined space with an insect and make him believe its sting was poisonous. Another prisoner had an artificial leg taken from him so that episodes of prolonged standing would be even more arduous. As I said, sadistic. Sexual humiliation and personal degradation were common elements of the interrogations. It had nothing to do with gathering information it was all about the torture. As Scott Shane reported in the New York Times, senior officials from CIA headquarters were so involved in the micromanagement of the torture that some actually showed up to watch the final water boarding of Abu Zubaydah.
Why everyone seems so shocked now is the big surprise. Cheney has practically bragged about his part in the torture, former detainees have given detailed interviews about their torture and who can forget Donald Rumsfeld rationalizing the techniques years ago when they were first brought into question. The Red Cross, recognized as the arbiter of torture claims, has already filed a report that firmly accused the U.S. of torture. The fact of torture no longer seems disputable.
The national disgrace is that so many knew for so long what was going on. The national disgrace is that so many attempted to rationalize and concoct legal justifications for what was clearly wrong, clearly and indisputably war crimes. The only way to even begin to repair this stain on the nation is by dragging the criminal behavior out into the light of day and holding those responsible accountable.
The greatest national disgrace would be to let those responsible get away with it.
Shortly after posting the above blog, I learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times in one month. What could the interrogators possibly have learned on the 183rd time that they could not have learned on the 182nd time? This one bit of information demonstrates that the purposes of these actions were not to gather intelligence but simply the infliction of torture.
Immediately, the apologists for torture have lambasted the decision to release the memos primarily based on three notions; 1) that terrorists will be better able to prepare against these techniques, 2) that we can't use the techniques again and 3) that they sully the reputation of the United States. All three of these objections are patently absurd. First and foremost, the techniques have been widely discussed and are well known so the idea that terrorists can now better prepare is specious at best. The argument that the release of the memos, really the overt admission of torture, prevents future use of the methods is precisely the point of releasing them and is related to the idea that admitting this somehow sullies the nation's reputation.
It was not admitting to torture that damaged that country, it was ENGAGING IN TORTURE that damaged the nation's reputation. The very reason that we are involved in this ongoing clash is because of our actions. Only by coming clean and admitting to these acts and taking steps to ensure that they will never occur again can there be a way forward.
The complete disgrace revealed by these memos though has been lost in the debate about their release. What these memos really reveal is that the torture had nothing to do with making the nation safe. It has long been recognized that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering intelligence due to the fact that you can't trust the information. Tortured people will tell you anything and try any effort to make the pain stop. In the case of those tortured by CIA operatives and others, it is becoming abundantly clear that information gathered through torture was a complete bust.
In the case of Abu Zubaydah, one of the more infamous torture cases, he had provided a plethora of information prior to being tortured. Once the torture started, he ceased to provide useful and reliable information.
Reading the memos it becomes apparent the sadistic nature of those who plotted, condoned and justified these actions. Abu Zubaydah, for example, was apparently subjected not only to repeated water boarding, but also to sleep deprivation and having his head banged against the wall. When it became known that he was afraid of insects there were plans to put him in a confined space with an insect and make him believe its sting was poisonous. Another prisoner had an artificial leg taken from him so that episodes of prolonged standing would be even more arduous. As I said, sadistic. Sexual humiliation and personal degradation were common elements of the interrogations. It had nothing to do with gathering information it was all about the torture. As Scott Shane reported in the New York Times, senior officials from CIA headquarters were so involved in the micromanagement of the torture that some actually showed up to watch the final water boarding of Abu Zubaydah.
Why everyone seems so shocked now is the big surprise. Cheney has practically bragged about his part in the torture, former detainees have given detailed interviews about their torture and who can forget Donald Rumsfeld rationalizing the techniques years ago when they were first brought into question. The Red Cross, recognized as the arbiter of torture claims, has already filed a report that firmly accused the U.S. of torture. The fact of torture no longer seems disputable.
The national disgrace is that so many knew for so long what was going on. The national disgrace is that so many attempted to rationalize and concoct legal justifications for what was clearly wrong, clearly and indisputably war crimes. The only way to even begin to repair this stain on the nation is by dragging the criminal behavior out into the light of day and holding those responsible accountable.
The greatest national disgrace would be to let those responsible get away with it.
Shortly after posting the above blog, I learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 183 times in one month. What could the interrogators possibly have learned on the 183rd time that they could not have learned on the 182nd time? This one bit of information demonstrates that the purposes of these actions were not to gather intelligence but simply the infliction of torture.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Es Verdad? Spain Steps Forward
Will there be justice at last? It is being widely reported that Spanish courts are soon to indict former Bush (mis)Administration members, Alberto Gonzalez, John Yoo, David Addington, Douglas Feith, Jay Bybee and William Haynes II for their part in the torture of persons held in U.S. custody. Gonzalo Boye, the lawyer who filed the suit, submitted a complaint on behalf of five Spanish citizens held in Guantanamo. The case is expected to be heard before Baltazar Garzon, the judge who brought the indictments against Pinochet.
There are two great questions lurking beneath the surface in all of this; why a Spanish court and why not Bush and Cheney as well?
The answer to the question of why a Spanish court is apparently because they take allegations of torture and the disregard of treaties seriously. Under international law it is the duty of the nation involved to investigate war crimes. Since it appears that there is no political will in the U.S. to follow through on these obligations, it seems that the Spanish are merely fulfilling their rightful role as a signatory of the Geneva Conventions given that the nation that should lead this prosecution is unwilling. Note that the Geneva Conventions require investigation and prosecution when credible allegations are made. Clearly, that legal hurdle has been surpassed long ago.
The second question, why not Bush and Cheney too, bears more scrutiny. Cheney has come as close to admitting and bragging about torture as it is possible. Bush has long justified any and all of his actions under the guise of his imperial presidency. Their very actions have destroyed the reputation of the country internationally and have sullied the nature of their offices. Their actions in causing an undermining of the protections of the Constitution on U.S. citizens through their wiretap and spying programs likely rise to the level of treason. Their part in the authorization of torture must be investigated if international law has any meaning.
Could it be that the Spanish courts are giving us our chance to get Bush and Cheney ourselves? Or are they bowing to political pressure in leaving them out of this. Americans who are upset by the Spanish taking these actions against members of the Bush (mis)Administration should demand that these actions be taken here. At present, the Spanish have been forced to take the lead. Will we do the right thing and take over as we should have long ago?
One more question: Why is it that right wingers who have cataleptic fits over the "rule of law," always seem to look the other way when it's their political compatriots who are breaking the law?
There are two great questions lurking beneath the surface in all of this; why a Spanish court and why not Bush and Cheney as well?
The answer to the question of why a Spanish court is apparently because they take allegations of torture and the disregard of treaties seriously. Under international law it is the duty of the nation involved to investigate war crimes. Since it appears that there is no political will in the U.S. to follow through on these obligations, it seems that the Spanish are merely fulfilling their rightful role as a signatory of the Geneva Conventions given that the nation that should lead this prosecution is unwilling. Note that the Geneva Conventions require investigation and prosecution when credible allegations are made. Clearly, that legal hurdle has been surpassed long ago.
The second question, why not Bush and Cheney too, bears more scrutiny. Cheney has come as close to admitting and bragging about torture as it is possible. Bush has long justified any and all of his actions under the guise of his imperial presidency. Their very actions have destroyed the reputation of the country internationally and have sullied the nature of their offices. Their actions in causing an undermining of the protections of the Constitution on U.S. citizens through their wiretap and spying programs likely rise to the level of treason. Their part in the authorization of torture must be investigated if international law has any meaning.
Could it be that the Spanish courts are giving us our chance to get Bush and Cheney ourselves? Or are they bowing to political pressure in leaving them out of this. Americans who are upset by the Spanish taking these actions against members of the Bush (mis)Administration should demand that these actions be taken here. At present, the Spanish have been forced to take the lead. Will we do the right thing and take over as we should have long ago?
One more question: Why is it that right wingers who have cataleptic fits over the "rule of law," always seem to look the other way when it's their political compatriots who are breaking the law?
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Werewolf Howls: Part 3
Throughout the Bush (mis)Administration, Darth Cheney, the Werewolf of Wyoming, was conspicuously out of sight. Famously hiding in his "undisclosed location," Cheney was rarely seen and could not be coaxed into any sort of appearance with the press. Now that he has left office, he is suddenly all over the media attempting to revise history and deny his crimes.
On the heels of reports that Cheney may have directed assassination squads that operated in at least 10 countries, Cheney appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" where he defended his actions as "lawful," and Constitutional. Listening to Cheney opine on the Constitution is like asking Caligula for a lecture on morality. Constitutional matters aside, Cheney's most ridiculous assertion was that the Bush (mis)Administration bore no responsibility for the economic crisis.
The misstatements above, however, were not the most reprehensible part of the interview. Instead, the most reprehensible moment was when he stated that Obama's actions of attempting to restore the rule of law, would "raise the risk" of future attacks. This statement ignores the plethora of data that suggest the actions of Bush, Cheney and their henchmen actually created terrorists. That their policies served as a catalyst for recruitment by al-Qaeda was conveniently ignored. According to Cheney, Iraq has been a success.
But it is not just the revision of history and the attempt to deflect his crimes that make this so repulsive. It is that Cheney is deliberately trying to make Obama responsible for any attacks that follow. This is to deny 60 years of American foreign policy and eight years of open antagonism towards an entire religion that served to do little more than empower the extremists and marginalize the moderate voices.
Should we be surprised to hear such balderdash from Cheney? Probably not. Anyone who can shoot a lawyer in the face and then get the lawyer to apologize likely thinks he can get away with anything. So far he has. In addition to the already mentioned assassination squads, the subversion of the Constitution, and a shooting, Cheney also engineered the outing of a CIA agent, violated open government laws and authorized torture.
Given all that has occurred, there really is only one question to ask: When do the trials begin? For Cheney, there is only one comment that will do: "Grass mud horse you, Dick Cheney" (see previous column for explanation.)
On the heels of reports that Cheney may have directed assassination squads that operated in at least 10 countries, Cheney appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" where he defended his actions as "lawful," and Constitutional. Listening to Cheney opine on the Constitution is like asking Caligula for a lecture on morality. Constitutional matters aside, Cheney's most ridiculous assertion was that the Bush (mis)Administration bore no responsibility for the economic crisis.
The misstatements above, however, were not the most reprehensible part of the interview. Instead, the most reprehensible moment was when he stated that Obama's actions of attempting to restore the rule of law, would "raise the risk" of future attacks. This statement ignores the plethora of data that suggest the actions of Bush, Cheney and their henchmen actually created terrorists. That their policies served as a catalyst for recruitment by al-Qaeda was conveniently ignored. According to Cheney, Iraq has been a success.
But it is not just the revision of history and the attempt to deflect his crimes that make this so repulsive. It is that Cheney is deliberately trying to make Obama responsible for any attacks that follow. This is to deny 60 years of American foreign policy and eight years of open antagonism towards an entire religion that served to do little more than empower the extremists and marginalize the moderate voices.
Should we be surprised to hear such balderdash from Cheney? Probably not. Anyone who can shoot a lawyer in the face and then get the lawyer to apologize likely thinks he can get away with anything. So far he has. In addition to the already mentioned assassination squads, the subversion of the Constitution, and a shooting, Cheney also engineered the outing of a CIA agent, violated open government laws and authorized torture.
Given all that has occurred, there really is only one question to ask: When do the trials begin? For Cheney, there is only one comment that will do: "Grass mud horse you, Dick Cheney" (see previous column for explanation.)
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Cheney Howls Again: Werewolf of Wyoming, Pt. 2
Dick Cheney, in an undisclosed orbit somewhere above Earth, signaled from his DeathStar today. Seeking to rewrite history, he attempts to justify Guantanamo, torture and domestic spying. Claiming that these actions were necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, Cheney conveniently overlooks the damage these acts have done to the U.S. Moreover, Cheney's comments are an obvious effort to clear his name by betting on the inevitable.
Cheney, in an interview with Politico.com, predicts another terrorist attack if Obama shows respect for human dignity and international law. What Cheney realizes, of course, is that it is inevitable that there will be another terrorist attack, no matter what is done. It is statistically only a matter of time. Perhaps there already have been attacks, but with the secrecy of the Bush-Cheney (mis)Administration, how would we know?
By predicting attack, Cheney has set up a perfect, "I told you so," scenario. If it happens, then he will claim to be vindicated, if it doesn't, then he'll claim it's only a matter of time (which, again, I agree that it is).
When it happens, it won't be because the U.S. has suddenly restored the rule of law. It will be because for seven years, Cheney and his puppet Bush stirred up a hornet's nest. Their actions at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. coupled with their pig-headed arrogance, ("Bring it On") bred more and more enemies. Rather than solving anything by their misguided maneuvers, they made the situation worse.
Secretly, Cheney is afraid that there won't be another attack, that Obama might not blow it. Why? Because if that happens, it will be irrefutable proof that all of the war crimes committed by the Werewolf of Wyoming and the village idiot of Crawford, Texas were for nothing. Already indefensible, their only rationale for these actions has been to claim necessity.
These efforts at spin are ultimately are about Cheney's awareness that he knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes. Seeking to justify his actions as necessary is but one smoke screen. In another act, his minions have engaged in a whisper campaign that Obama might still allow renditions and torture under the right circumstances. This is an overt attempt to muddy the debate by claiming that Obama will continue something he has said will stop. The underlying implication is that this somehow justifies the abuse.
Cheney is howling all these lines about necessity and continuity to hide one incontrovertible fact: He authorized, plotted and committed war crimes. His defense is that he had to do it. He wasn't just following orders, he was giving them. He was seeking the final solution to terrorism. Atrocities can not be rationalized.
Cheney, in an interview with Politico.com, predicts another terrorist attack if Obama shows respect for human dignity and international law. What Cheney realizes, of course, is that it is inevitable that there will be another terrorist attack, no matter what is done. It is statistically only a matter of time. Perhaps there already have been attacks, but with the secrecy of the Bush-Cheney (mis)Administration, how would we know?
By predicting attack, Cheney has set up a perfect, "I told you so," scenario. If it happens, then he will claim to be vindicated, if it doesn't, then he'll claim it's only a matter of time (which, again, I agree that it is).
When it happens, it won't be because the U.S. has suddenly restored the rule of law. It will be because for seven years, Cheney and his puppet Bush stirred up a hornet's nest. Their actions at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc. coupled with their pig-headed arrogance, ("Bring it On") bred more and more enemies. Rather than solving anything by their misguided maneuvers, they made the situation worse.
Secretly, Cheney is afraid that there won't be another attack, that Obama might not blow it. Why? Because if that happens, it will be irrefutable proof that all of the war crimes committed by the Werewolf of Wyoming and the village idiot of Crawford, Texas were for nothing. Already indefensible, their only rationale for these actions has been to claim necessity.
These efforts at spin are ultimately are about Cheney's awareness that he knowingly and deliberately committed war crimes. Seeking to justify his actions as necessary is but one smoke screen. In another act, his minions have engaged in a whisper campaign that Obama might still allow renditions and torture under the right circumstances. This is an overt attempt to muddy the debate by claiming that Obama will continue something he has said will stop. The underlying implication is that this somehow justifies the abuse.
Cheney is howling all these lines about necessity and continuity to hide one incontrovertible fact: He authorized, plotted and committed war crimes. His defense is that he had to do it. He wasn't just following orders, he was giving them. He was seeking the final solution to terrorism. Atrocities can not be rationalized.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama's First Week
On Inauguration Day I decided not to comment on any decisions, pronouncements or policies until at least one week had passed. I will now join the cacophony with my thoughts on the first week. Before any evaluation of decisions I would first like to note that the sheer volume of work turned out by the Obama Administration in its first week appears to be about six months worth of policy from the previous administration of George number 2. There is so much that I have resorted to a mere listing of the various actions.
The Good:
- Begin the Closing of Guantanamo. Necessary if we are to ever begin the restoration of the moral integrity of our nation and honor our treaty obligations.
- Categorically Prohibit Torture. Adherence to the Army Field Manual and International law is beginning to be restored.
- Restore Transparency to Government. After eight years of a secretive government that classified everything including the lunch menu, this is unbelievable.
- Pay Freeze for Staff. Symbolic, but at least in the right direction. Were they going to get a raise anytime soon? They just started.
- Recognition of the Depth of the Economic Crisis. Compared to the floundering of the Bush Administration which managed to blow another $350 billion in its final days by giving it to banks with no effort at accountability, even acknowledging that the problem is serious and long term was a welcome step forward.
- Advocacy for Green Infrastructure. Needs to push for even more. Solar panels on 100 million houses and building would sure stimulate the economy and provide for a greater degree of energy independence (see previous blogs and link "The Myth of Energy Independence," to see why this won't happen).
- Al- Arabiya interview that set a new tone for American foreign policy. In a complete about face of the previous administration's policy, Obama set the stage for an effort at resolution of the long standing grievances between the rest of the world and the U.S. That's right, the whole world. Bush has turned everyone against us, even putative allies. Obama already possesses greater stature on the international stage than Bush ever had.
The Bad:
- Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner, who will oversee the IRS, did not pay his taxes.
- Bill Lynn, ex-lobbyist for Raytheon, nominated to number two post in the Pentagon. Violating the pledge of no lobbyist in the administration, Lynn requires an exception to the ethics rules outlined by Obama.
- Economic Compromise: his efforts to gain GOP support for the economy recovery will only be weakened by attempting to enlist their support. As a party they have no coherent philosophy and can only result to being in opposition. Mitigating this is his "I won," statement that suggests he may impose his will upon them if they continue to obfuscate.
The Ugly:
- Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang at the OK Corral are still walking around free. I can't tell if Obama is just trying to stay clear of the issue and let Congress do the work of investigating the Bush (mis)Administration or if he doesn't have the will to defend the Constitution. If he believes that what they did were crimes and he does anything to prevent their prosecution, he is acting as an accessory.
- Bombing of Pakistan by CIA. Allegedly he was briefed, so it would appear he gave his consent, unless, of course, the CIA is running its own war.
& We'll See:
- Iraq: So far, just talk. When do we leave?
All in all a very good start. Clearly though, this first week, especially Pakistan, shows us that change will not be immediate or complete. However, compared to his predecessor, he is inconceivably better.
I'm sure I've missed many things. As I said it was a busy week. It good to have a President who is not an embarrassment. Above all else, this makes me proud to have Obama in office. Also sad, because I realize how much George W. Bush destroyed this country. We are now proud to simply not be embarrassed.
The Good:
- Begin the Closing of Guantanamo. Necessary if we are to ever begin the restoration of the moral integrity of our nation and honor our treaty obligations.
- Categorically Prohibit Torture. Adherence to the Army Field Manual and International law is beginning to be restored.
- Restore Transparency to Government. After eight years of a secretive government that classified everything including the lunch menu, this is unbelievable.
- Pay Freeze for Staff. Symbolic, but at least in the right direction. Were they going to get a raise anytime soon? They just started.
- Recognition of the Depth of the Economic Crisis. Compared to the floundering of the Bush Administration which managed to blow another $350 billion in its final days by giving it to banks with no effort at accountability, even acknowledging that the problem is serious and long term was a welcome step forward.
- Advocacy for Green Infrastructure. Needs to push for even more. Solar panels on 100 million houses and building would sure stimulate the economy and provide for a greater degree of energy independence (see previous blogs and link "The Myth of Energy Independence," to see why this won't happen).
- Al- Arabiya interview that set a new tone for American foreign policy. In a complete about face of the previous administration's policy, Obama set the stage for an effort at resolution of the long standing grievances between the rest of the world and the U.S. That's right, the whole world. Bush has turned everyone against us, even putative allies. Obama already possesses greater stature on the international stage than Bush ever had.
The Bad:
- Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner, who will oversee the IRS, did not pay his taxes.
- Bill Lynn, ex-lobbyist for Raytheon, nominated to number two post in the Pentagon. Violating the pledge of no lobbyist in the administration, Lynn requires an exception to the ethics rules outlined by Obama.
- Economic Compromise: his efforts to gain GOP support for the economy recovery will only be weakened by attempting to enlist their support. As a party they have no coherent philosophy and can only result to being in opposition. Mitigating this is his "I won," statement that suggests he may impose his will upon them if they continue to obfuscate.
The Ugly:
- Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang at the OK Corral are still walking around free. I can't tell if Obama is just trying to stay clear of the issue and let Congress do the work of investigating the Bush (mis)Administration or if he doesn't have the will to defend the Constitution. If he believes that what they did were crimes and he does anything to prevent their prosecution, he is acting as an accessory.
- Bombing of Pakistan by CIA. Allegedly he was briefed, so it would appear he gave his consent, unless, of course, the CIA is running its own war.
& We'll See:
- Iraq: So far, just talk. When do we leave?
All in all a very good start. Clearly though, this first week, especially Pakistan, shows us that change will not be immediate or complete. However, compared to his predecessor, he is inconceivably better.
I'm sure I've missed many things. As I said it was a busy week. It good to have a President who is not an embarrassment. Above all else, this makes me proud to have Obama in office. Also sad, because I realize how much George W. Bush destroyed this country. We are now proud to simply not be embarrassed.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Christmas Deferred
It's January 20th and today I finally find out if I get my Christmas wish. Yes, the excitement of the inauguration of Obama adds a special lustre to the day, but his election was already a done deal by Christmas. For Christmas, I made a wish for the nation.
What I really wanted for Christmas is accountability for the Bush Administration. If I get my wish, as soon as he has taken the oath of office, Obama will order Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few others (Gonzalez and Yoo, for two) to be immediately taken into custody and tried for their War Crimes against the world and the American people.
Obama has talked a great deal about "moving forward," but I would argue that it will be impossible to move forward until we deal with the sorry spectacle of the past eight years. The election of Obama stunned the world precisely because we lived up to our ideals. In doing that we regained some of the authority we once had in the world.
However, in order to fully regain our moral authority in the world we must clean our own house. We have committed torture, we have engaged in acts that are direct violations of treaties we have signed. We have also admitted it. Cheney even seemed to brag about it. To let it go without prosecution is to make a mockery of our values.
Imagine the reaction of the world should we prosecute these miscreants who have sullied our reputation and made us a lawless and feared pariah on the world stage. Stating that no one is above the law, especially those in government, would allow the U.S. to once again exhibit the ideals that have drawn countless people to our shores.
Over the past eight years this nation has come as close to fascism as I hope it ever gets. If Bush and the rest of his administration is allowed to fade into history without answering for their crimes, we the people, will be the ultimate victims. Our nation will be permanently damaged and the scars will continue to grow as history begins to realize what happened in our country during the Bush II years.
Okay, so I don't really think that Obama will have Bush taken into custody at the inauguration. I will continue to let this Christmas wish be deferred for a little longer. But if we fail to act as a nation, if we do not address the wrongs, the crimes, the evil that has been committed in our name, we will NEVER be a great nation again.
In order to move forward, we must first address the past. If this is allowed to pass, no matter the success of the Obama Administration, we will forever join the list of nations that have sanctioned torture and rationalized war crimes.
In the next few days I will present the case for war crimes trials against the Bush Administration. Further, I will also establish the case for the rest of the world to act against Bush et. al should the U.S. fail to act.
What I really wanted for Christmas is accountability for the Bush Administration. If I get my wish, as soon as he has taken the oath of office, Obama will order Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few others (Gonzalez and Yoo, for two) to be immediately taken into custody and tried for their War Crimes against the world and the American people.
Obama has talked a great deal about "moving forward," but I would argue that it will be impossible to move forward until we deal with the sorry spectacle of the past eight years. The election of Obama stunned the world precisely because we lived up to our ideals. In doing that we regained some of the authority we once had in the world.
However, in order to fully regain our moral authority in the world we must clean our own house. We have committed torture, we have engaged in acts that are direct violations of treaties we have signed. We have also admitted it. Cheney even seemed to brag about it. To let it go without prosecution is to make a mockery of our values.
Imagine the reaction of the world should we prosecute these miscreants who have sullied our reputation and made us a lawless and feared pariah on the world stage. Stating that no one is above the law, especially those in government, would allow the U.S. to once again exhibit the ideals that have drawn countless people to our shores.
Over the past eight years this nation has come as close to fascism as I hope it ever gets. If Bush and the rest of his administration is allowed to fade into history without answering for their crimes, we the people, will be the ultimate victims. Our nation will be permanently damaged and the scars will continue to grow as history begins to realize what happened in our country during the Bush II years.
Okay, so I don't really think that Obama will have Bush taken into custody at the inauguration. I will continue to let this Christmas wish be deferred for a little longer. But if we fail to act as a nation, if we do not address the wrongs, the crimes, the evil that has been committed in our name, we will NEVER be a great nation again.
In order to move forward, we must first address the past. If this is allowed to pass, no matter the success of the Obama Administration, we will forever join the list of nations that have sanctioned torture and rationalized war crimes.
In the next few days I will present the case for war crimes trials against the Bush Administration. Further, I will also establish the case for the rest of the world to act against Bush et. al should the U.S. fail to act.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Dick Cheney: Werewolf of Wyoming
If you claim that the crime you admit to is not a crime, should that prevent your prosecution? Dick Cheney seems to think so. On the heels of a bipartisan report from the Senate Armed Services Committee that stated that the actions of Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and Cheney aide David Addington, "led directly" to the violation of laws and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, most of the named parties attempted to hide behind legal interpretations designed to give cover for torture.
Cheney, give him credit for being so self defined, went one step further, admitting in a televised interview, that he condoned and sanctioned waterboarding. His cavalier attitude in this admission brushes off worldwide condemnation of the practice as torture. In admitting that he not only approved this action, he admitted to a war crime.
Waterboarding has been defined as torture since the time of the Spanish Inquisition, when the practice is reputed to have been developed. Refined over time, the United States actually prosecuted Japanese soldiers for this very action after World War II. During the War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg the defense of "following orders," was no defense at all. What about those giving orders?
If Cheney's seeming claim that nothing is a crime if you don't believe it is, is allowed to stand then every sociopath in prison could claim the same defense.
Therein lies the answer to Cheney's admission. Only a relatively small minority could imagine even attempting to rationalize torture. Only a sociopath could order it. To brag about it puts one in a whole new category.
Cheney, give him credit for being so self defined, went one step further, admitting in a televised interview, that he condoned and sanctioned waterboarding. His cavalier attitude in this admission brushes off worldwide condemnation of the practice as torture. In admitting that he not only approved this action, he admitted to a war crime.
Waterboarding has been defined as torture since the time of the Spanish Inquisition, when the practice is reputed to have been developed. Refined over time, the United States actually prosecuted Japanese soldiers for this very action after World War II. During the War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg the defense of "following orders," was no defense at all. What about those giving orders?
If Cheney's seeming claim that nothing is a crime if you don't believe it is, is allowed to stand then every sociopath in prison could claim the same defense.
Therein lies the answer to Cheney's admission. Only a relatively small minority could imagine even attempting to rationalize torture. Only a sociopath could order it. To brag about it puts one in a whole new category.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
