But Obama won’t torture, he’s said so, hasn’t he? He was a constitutional scholar, surely he’s way too high-minded, moral and gosh-darned exceptional to do such a terrible thing?
But he has a problem: his employees do and have tortured. Over the past eight years the mammoth intelligence and security apparatus built by Bush and Cheney (and no doubt still loyal to them and their neocon associates) has been allowed and even encouraged to use their virtually unlimited power to kidnap, torture, murder and just generally disappear pretty much anyone it wanted, worldwide.
That kind of malevolent power is not easily contained once unleashed on the world, particularly as Bush and Cheney were careful to make sure that those they put in charge of intelligence and security were politically in tune with their worldview.
Those people are still there. I think they’re still rendering people and having them tortured abroad – and I think Obama probably knows it and can’t stop it. The rot is too deep and too wide.
So rather than mar that shiny new presidency with any speck of unpleasantness, he’s going with the flow, banning torture but allowing rendition.
Voila,Americans don’t do torture and his pristine reputation as the Lincoln de nos jours need never be sullied.
Woah, what a night. How was it for you, Ron Paul supporters?
Ah. Maybe I shoudln’t have asked.
I have to say myself I’ve never been so glad to say I was wrong; wrong, wrong, wrong, double underlined wrong, in illuminated letters wrong. The Republicans didn’t ratfuck the election, martial law was not declared, no-one was assassinated, the American people spoke up louder than this cynic could ever have hoped and finally, the right thing was done.
After 8 years of unbelievable criminality and ineptitude, there’s a breath of hope in the air.
But while we’re all sharing a metaphorical post-coital cigarette and basking in the afterglow, let’s not relax too much; that’s always the moment when you accidentally roll onto the wet patch.
The wet patch in this instance is a proper conundrum and it’s a key question for the incoming Democratic administration – what is to be done about George Bush? Will he, his sidekick Dick Cheney and their many criminal associates be allowed to walk away from their numerous crimes? Will Bushco ever face any kind of justice? If you listen to campaign rhetoric, the answer’s yes:
In an Obama-Biden administration, we will not have an attorney general who blatantly breaks the law,” Biden said at a town-hall meeting in West Palm Beach, Florida, his voice at times drowned out by applause. “We will not have a president who doesn’t understand the Constitution. And I will not be a vice-president who thinks he’s not part of any of the three branches of government.”
Biden ripped the Bush administration for wasting a chance to unite the nation in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
“George Bush and his administration are going to be judged harshly by history,” said the Delaware lawmaker. “Not for the mistakes they made, but for the opportunities to unite America and the world they squandered.”
Biden also promised to go through the Bush adminstration’s records with a ‘fine-toothed comb’ for criminality:
.
“If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation,” he said, “they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution – out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law.”
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.
So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.
Experience teaches us different. It’s become customary for incoming presidents to pardon their predecessors’ crimes; presidents can even indemnify against crimes yet to be committed; the person pardoned need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.
Many pardons have been controversial; critics argue that pardons have been used more often for the sake of political expediency than to correct judicial error. One of the more famous recent pardons was granted by President Gerald Ford to former President Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974, for official misconduct which gave rise to the Watergate scandal. Polls showed a majority of Americans disapproved of the pardon and Ford’s public-approval ratings tumbled afterward. Other controversial uses of the pardon power include Andrew Johnson’s sweeping pardons of thousands of former Confederate officials and military personnel after the American Civil War, Jimmy Carter’s grant of amnesty to Vietnam-era draft evaders, George H. W. Bush’s pardons of 75 people, including six Reagan administration officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton’s pardons of convicted FALN terrorists and 140 people on his last day in office – including billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, and George W. Bush’s commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison term.
I see the outgoing President Bush has already started on wangling for his own presidential pardon, inviting President-elect and Mrs. Obama to the White House. Although he has, in effect, already pardoned himself, it’s thought to be unconstitutional to do so:
But there’s one person at least who won’t let Bush leave without a reckoning and that’s former mafia prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi:
I may be sounding presumptuous to you right now, [Amy and Juan], but I?m telling you this: I am going after George Bush. I may not succeed, but I?m not going to be satisfied until I see him in an American courtroom being prosecuted for first-degree murder.
[…]
we know?not ?think,? but we know?that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October the 7th, 2002, Cincinnati, Ohio, that Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. So if we had nothing else at all, this alone shows us that he took this nation to war on a lie, and therefore, all of the killings in Iraq of American soldiers became unlawful killings and therefore murder.
But it gets worse. October 4th, three days after the October 1st classified top-secret report, Bush and his people had the CIA issue an unclassified summary version of the October 1st classified report, so that this report could be issued to the American people and to Congress. And this report came to be known as the ?White Paper.? And in this White Paper, the conclusion of US intelligence that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country was completely deleted from the White Paper. Every single one of these all-important words were taken out. And the question that I have is, how evil, how perverse, how sick, how criminal can George Bush and his people be? And yet, up to this point, unbelievably?and there?s no other word for it?he?s gotten by with all of this.
Indeed he has. It’s not enough for me, and I doubt it’s enough for everybody else either, that Bush be out of office, out of the White House and out of power: there has to be a reckoning too. Some crimes stink so high that there has to be justice – and if the new president won’t do it, then the people, even in the person of Bugliosi and who knows how many other outraged lawyers, will have to.
Bugliosi again:
This is a very real thing that we?re talking about here. I?ve established jurisdiction on a federal and state level for the prosecution of Bush for two crimes: conspiracy to commit murder and murder. On a federal level, we?re really only talking about the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., operating through his Department of Justice. But on a state level, I?ve established jurisdiction for the attorney general in each of the fifty states, plus the hundreds of district attorneys in counties within those states, to prosecute George Bush for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who died fighting his war in Iraq. And with all those prosecutors?
Well quite, if only all that collective pent-up outrage doesn’tget swamped by the big, pink, fuzzy wave of post-election euphoria. However, there are encouraging signs that the sins of George Bush have not been forgotten, that there may well one day be a reckoning, even if I don’t live to see it. The people (and not just the American people) will see that it’s so: and if anyone should respect the power of the people to do what they say, it’s Obama.
Was John McCain even tortured at all? If (underlined twice) this story is true then the central plank of his self-constructed personal mythology is rotten:
From the Corriere della Serra via this morning’s Guardian:
The Republican US presidential candidate John McCain was not tortured during his captivity in North Vietnam, the chief prison guard of the jail in which he was held has claimed.
In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Nguyen Tien Tran acknowledged that conditions in the prison were “tough, though not inhuman”. But, he added: “We never tortured McCain. On the contrary, we saved his life, curing him with extremely valuable medicines that at times were not available to our own wounded.”
McCain, who fell into enemy hands after his plane was shot down in 1967, has frequently referred to being tortured and has cited his experiences as a reason for vigorously opposing the endorsement by the Bush administration of the use of techniques such as “water-boarding” on terrorist suspects.
Whether Tran’s story is true or not – and there’s no way to judge at this point – just as a matter of interest, how long have the Democrats been sitting on him? The timing does seem a little fortuitous, and leads me to wonder what, if anything the Dems have in reserve against McCain’s increasingly enraged and erratic campaign as it ramps up the nastiness in the final weeks. Is this story the only bombshell in the Democratic political armoury or just the first of many?
An officer appears to have violated police department guidelines when he used a Taser stun gun on a naked, distraught man teetering on a building ledge, officials said Thursday.
Inman Morales, 35, was pronounced dead at a hospital after his nearly 10-foot fall Wednesday. Police said he suffered serious head trauma when he hit the sidewalk.
[…]
Witnesses and neighbors said Morales had become distraught and threatened to kill himself earlier in the day. When police arrived in response to a 911 call, he fled naked out the window of his third-floor apartment, clambered down to a ledge and began jabbing at officers with an 8-foot-long fluorescent light.
An amateur video posted on the Web site of the New York Post shows one of the officers raising a stun gun at Morales, who freezes and topples over headfirst as the crowd screams.
“They didn’t try to brace his fall. They did nothing. I’ve seen a lot of things in my time. But what they did was wrong,” said neighbor Kirk Giddens, 39, in Thursday editions of the Daily News.
In Ron Suskind’s new book, Suskind describes a disturbing case in Washington, D.C., where security officials detained and interrogated Usman Khosa, a Pakistani U.S. college graduate, because he was “fiddling” with his iPod near White House gates. Officials took Khosa to an interrogation room “beneath” the White House:
He turns as a large uniformed man lunges at him. The backpack!” the man yells, pushing Usman against the Italianate gates in front of Treasury and ripping off his backpack. Another officer on a bicycle arrives from somewhere and tears the backpack open, dumping its contents on the sidewalk. […]
Usman is trundled from the SUV, escorted through the West Gate, and onto the manicured grounds. No one speaks as the agents walk him behind the gate’s security station, down a stairwell, along an underground passage, and into a room — cement-walled box with a table, two chairs, a hanging light with a bare bulb, and a mounted video camera. Even after all the astonishing turns of the past hour, Usman can’t quite believe there’s actually an interrogation room beneath the White House, dark and dank and horrific.
“Usman Khosa is a Pakistani national in his early twenties, a graduate of Connecticut College now working for the International Monetary Fund,” Suskind notes.
I bet that video camera has a direct link to Cheney’s office too, so he can sit there and wank in decent privacy without putting too much strain on his dicky ticker.
Via Ellroon, Hat tip to Avedon posting at Atrios’ gaff.
