***BREAKING NEWS***
POLITICS. WASHINGTON, D.C.
AP is reporting that the first draft of Dick Cheney's memoirs have been rejected. Anonymous sources claim an editor was heard yelling, "I wanted to read about his time in the White House, not another novel defending the virtues of Mephistopheles!"
SPORTS. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
Former Ohio State running back, Maurice Clarrett, has filed another lawsuit against the NFL. According to lawyers familiar with the case, Clarrett is now claiming that he should have been allowed to enter the draft early since the Minnesota Vikings were just allowed to sign a baby!
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dick Cheney. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The following is a response to my post, No Habla "War Crime", followed by my response...
Hey there... I'm fixin' to lay down a heavy-duty reply... I hope my comment will be received in the same spirit as your post, which was well-contemplated and deeply felt.
One of the harsh realities of being in charge of the nation with the greatest military might known to mankind is sometimes, the weight of the lives of millions of citizens is what sinks the scale favoring a choice while the human rights of a self-professed ultra-lethal individual non-citizen will just have to be weightless, comparatively.
I am not here to defend Dick Cheney. I have a whole separate set of long standing issues with him. His speaking out against BO (hey, the Dems had "Dubya") bothers me a little less than it might otherwise largely thanks to the carpings of Carter. And Gore. And Clinton. And Clinton. And MoveOn (insulting GEN Petraeus). And the harridans of Code Pink. And the anarchist shitting on my flag. I remember all of that, and more.
Most of all, I want someone, anyone to come to the defense of my soldiers, to the defense of the other civil servants who signed on to make sure my country never, ever, gets attacked like that again. All those people, humans just like me and you, who have families in cities like New York and LA, too. Seriously, I consider it my duty to defend my warriors.
I used to work in the Library Tower, when it was called the Bank Tower. The days following 9-11 were filled with barely subsurface anxiety. The city moved in cement street barriers in front of it. We had to evacuate every time some sick fukk would call in a fake bomb threat. We lived like incipient zombies. We dreaded the clear, blue sky. We watched every single jumbo jet from the moment it poked around the edge of the building until it fully left our view.
People like me demanded, without reservation, that the monsters responsible be found and made to pay and to give up anything and anyone to further our search for the top monster, UBL. Every time I softened that demand inside myself, thinking of the pictures of caught men being roughed up, messed up, fukked up, I'd remember the people who jumped rather than incinerate in jet fuel. I remember the woman fully engulfed in flame who walked into the lobby of one of those buildings and endured as she was beheld in horror by the others escaping and firemen rushing in. I remember the hard hats carefully, earnestly, cleaning the gaping wound of 16 acres.
And any feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the others would instantly evaporate. His rights meant absolutely nothing. And they still mean absolutely nothing. And they always will. That's just how it is... and that is just how it always will be. For me. And, likely, there are millions like me.
I will not resort to putting myself in his place in order to help me remember the higher purpose of the American-style democracy aspiring to ideals that soar in our hearts. That would be cowardice. We want to pull up during a stall, because it just feels wrong to point the bird down. And that's how it feels to me, the urgings and promptings to identify with the enemy feels like wanting to pull up.
How better to retreat, pre-surrending for our enemy's convenience, than to identify with him as our prisoner? I do not think that he is no different from me, or better put, that I am no different from he, but for our positions in space and time. My good fortune as an American citizen does not mean I must throw out the value of it as the highest score, and toss out his lower score because he's not an
American, in order to achieve a mean balance.
So while Dick Cheney does not resemble the intercessor I'd like to speak up on the behalf of those fellow citizens who work to find those responsible, he'll do. And thank goodness. For if no one stands up to an unchallenged ACLU, our soldiers, while still in combat, could expect to be stabbed in the back. By us. Us. No... no... no.
I think Dick Cheney would have preferred to not be discussing the interrogations, or the memos, or the briefings, or the photos or any of it at all. He is a cagey sonofabitch, no doubt. I'm pretty sure, he does not see himself as the fall guy for Bush. That doesn't fit his persona. I get the sense that he told the people he commanded that he would do whatever it took to cover their backs. I think that's what he's doing.
What I'm about to add is, and likely always be, something we will agree to disagree on. Reality demands that I acknowledge some shit works. We might not like how it works, but it does work.
Waterboarding did work. So, some of it will be dirty and images without context will outrage the immature, the unfamiliar, the uncritical and weak-minded. But what if some of what is revealed is success? Can we handle good news delivered even by someone we're pretty sure we hate?
I do not agree that waterboarding is torture. While some legal minds and decisions have deemed it so, that doesn't persuade me to agree. Humans often make, shall we say, interesting laws that we later determine to be mistakes. One of the grave concerns I have about BO is that he is a lawyer. I used to work for lawyers.
I certainly don't want anything released to me, a member of the Ungrateful Public, that will endanger the security of our soldiers. But some people do. I don't understand the animus of people who want to punish the actors of the previous administration, demonizing them all, especially if they're agents and warriors who acted in good faith. The lunacy that attends them makes me want them to drop dead. I see their lips moving but I don't care what they're saying. You ever feel that way?
I wish there was something I could say that would relieve that gnawing in your craw about America using waterboarding on our enemies. I think that will have to come to you at your pace, in due time, if at all. But I find myself unbothered by that because, well, I keep remembering the suffering of all the people on 9-11. Their voices, saying goodbye to their loved ones, knowing they were about to die in a field is what haunts me. Not the cries of Khalid.
We were really scared it would happen again... we were very scared. Any frightened beast, human or otherwise, will bring to bear all weapons and all resources to get out alive and in one piece. And when the fear lasts long enough, it converts to anger. You need your anger to keep the energy, the heat, right there, on the tips of your fingers, to stay focused, to settle for nothing less than victory. I've been there. And when the raw animal edge of me demanded I stop at nothing to survive... that's exactly what I did.
To borrow another Spanish slogan, "si se puede... asi es que, por supuesto, si se quiere." It is a truth about humans that, as devoted masters of our destinies and captains of our souls (or so I keep hearing), we will make it up as we go and we will see it our way until and unless we don't. This is an inalienable right... and a skill. We will not stop improvising clear up until the pupils fix. Nor should we. And if I have to lie to make you think I will, when I most certainly will not, then... ok.
Half of us detest the voting habits of the other half of America. Not just dislike, but detest. So to that has the odor of America's politics in recent generations degenerated. That smell does not signal an improvement of our republic.
I sensed you'd at least hear me out about this. Maybe even want to discuss it civilly. I'm hoping you won't judge me an apologist or a defender of the indefensible, at least, not without trying to talk some sense into me. ;) I genuinely fear the state of political discourse these days, particularly when conducted across the interwebs. This binary language... it really does tempt us to be more barbaric, rather than less. Ain't that a kick in the head....
Anyway, I hope that all made sense.
-alexa
Alexa,
First off, thank you for your extended and obviously heart-felt response.
Second off, there is a cricket hiding in my apartment that just won't SHUT THE HELL UP! (Though I still believe waterboarding it would be cruel:)
The issue that keeps gnawing at me is not that we waterboarded. What's stuck in my craw is that nobody seems to realize that the actual issue is whether or not the Bush Administration waterboarded merely to justify the invasion of Iraq; and if that is case, than doesn't that mean that waterboarding didn't work?
Waterboarding the enemy not to gather information, but simply to attain a certain response does not protect our citizens or our troops and, in fact, only makes us less secure and more susceptible to attack; (according to the Art of War, "moral influence" is the first of the 5 fundamental factors for success in war).
But your response illustrates the essential disconnect between the two parties - Is the moral issue concerning "Enhanced Interrogations" about "them" or about "us"? Do we not waterboard because we don't waterboard, or do we not waterboard because they don't waterboard?
I believe that we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture because we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture...regardless of who they are.
(The "Jesus/Confucius" view – "Do unto others.../What the superior man seeks is within himself...")
My friend, the greatest "American" that I've ever known, was on the 102nd floor of Tower #2, and was only there because he was working to put his sister through college. Do not assume that opponents of the Bush Administration's policies and actions did not suffer the same, if not a greater, emotional and psychological trauma as a result of 9/11. Recalling my friend's last voicemail still, and will always, illicit a visceral response so strong that I am left temporarily incoherent and physically useless.
Everybody was terrified by 9/11 – that's the objective of "terrorism." To remain vigilant is necessary but to remain terrified, and to devalue other's humanity, means it worked and that "they" are winning.
Please do not misunderstand or believe that I have "feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others." If I were to be let into a room with KSM, I would cause him extreme physical harm. And that is my point: My intent to enter the room would not be to gather information, and I would not wait outside the door until I received a guarantee that my actions would not be punished.
It is not that I oppose the policies and actions of the Bush Administration because I don't understand the complexity or scale of their responsibilities – It is, in fact, the exact opposite.
As FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, famously said this week, "It's easier to hit somebody than outsmart them." Running the USA was too important of a job to consistently take the easy way out and to constantly make the shortsighted decisions that are the culprit for most of our nation's current ills.
And it is not as if the current fervor over these memos was a far fetched idea during the confusing days immediately following 9/11. I agree that groupthink is very powerful but the assumption that our leaders were under tremendous strain and thus should be given a pass for their behavior is utterly ridiculous. On January 26, 2002 Colin Powell drafted a memo stating exactly what going down this path of reversing "over a century of U.S. policy and practice" would lead to: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.26.pdf
When we went into Iraq I was the loudest one shouting "remember 9/11?" As a student in Los Angeles, majoring in theater, mine was not the most popular view. I was naïve, I was racist, I was wrong. But even knowing what we know now about WMD, "yellowcake", and no link to al-Qaeda, had we been out of Iraq in two years, without our soldiers continuing to be maimed and slaughtered there, the invasion would have been the right decision. The war in Iraq was strategically and tactically terribly mismanaged and the Bush Administration is at fault.
The truth is: Criticizing the Bush Administration IS coming to the defense of our "warriors." Sending our troops into (an unnecessary) war, without a clear objective or "end game," without the resources necessary for their survival, (ammo, armor, H2O), and then to enact a "stop-loss" policy which affectively forced them to serve against their will, while at the same time engaging in, and demanding, behavior that erases any moral influence that they may have, and THEN to not give them adequate care when they returned home is the antithesis of "supporting our troops."
You are absolutely right that Dick Cheney is a "cagey sonofabitch." But he is also a selfish coward and the poster child for "chicken-hawk."
Dick received 5 Vietnam draft deferments. In January of 1963, when he turned 22, Dick enrolled in Casper Community College, (after he had already attended Yale), and applied for his first student deferment in March. He transferred to the Univ. of Wyoming and sought his 2nd deferment in July.
22 days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved and the war escalated rapidly, Dick got married, (he was still a student but being married REALLY protected him from the draft).
9 months and 2 days after the ban against drafting married men was lifted, Dick had his 1st daughter. 9 MONTHS and 2 DAYS! During the first trimester of his wife's pregnancy, Dick applied for a "hardship" exemption which excluded men with children from being drafted.
Dick always says that had he been drafted he would have served, and in all fairness, a lot of men avoided the Vietnam draft by legal means and the overwhelming majority of our vets joined voluntarily, but Dick's 5 draft deferments reveal that he believes his existence is more valuable than a lowly serviceman, and that he doesn't give 2 shits for the honor or importance of our military. If not for Dick's 5 draft deferments my Dad might not have taken shrapnel or had friends die in his arms. And if not for Dubya's sweet pilot gig in Alabama he might not think that being a soldier in Afghanistan is "romantic" (remember that?). It is the height of hypocrisy for Dick to question anybody else's patriotism, and please do not be tricked into thinking that Dick has any concerns other than self-preservation.
That being said, I LIKE DICK CHENEY! I love his resolve and his tenacity. Personality-wise I have a lot more in common with Dick, and Dubya, and John McCain than I do Barack Obama; but even if I were running for office against Obama, I would vote for Obama.
You need not worry that Obama is a lawyer, our "grave concern" should be that one day he wakes up and realizes that America does not deserve him.
Also during the Face the Nation interview Dick acknowledged what you believe are his motivations for his conitnuing public presense when he explained, "If I don't speak out than where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have a free run and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."
If what we did was so honorable, and "the right thing to do," than why would Dick's absence mean that his critics would have a "free run"?
The reality is: Not speaking out would be the hard thing to do and, as is obvious from Dick's biography, the hard thing to do is most likely not even under consideration.
You don't think that waterboarding is torture. My intent is not to "attack the arguer," but have you ever been waterboarded? A lot of those who have, believe waterboarding is torture. And excuse my vulgarity, but qualifying waterboarding based on the victim is like saying, "Rape is only wrong if you don't rape a nymphomaniac."
The fact that this debate has devolved into "some shit works" is the exact reason why our government should not have sanctioned torture.
9/11 was devastating but the harsh reality is in 1993 al-Qaeda used a bomb to kill 6 people at the World Trade Center, and in 2001 they used box cutters to kill over 3000. There was a lack of attention to detail at the NSA and communication barriers between the FBI and CIA, but 9/11 still could have been avoided if airport security would have just simply paid attention to metal detectors.
I agree that reducing the opposition to less than human or inferior is a problem – Whether it's al-Qaeda, a Democrat, or a Republican – and that doing so is way too common and not healthy for our republic. But I believe that doing such is more prevalent in certain personality-types and a higher percentage of those personalities are "conservatives."
I am not too familiar with MoveOn or Code Pink and it is probably because I believe that a person's motivation should be considered – do they believe what they believe out of sympathy or out of malice? And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" are motivated by malice.
I believe that our government is way too important to be just another team sport. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" view our government as merely a game of "Us versus Them."
I believe that anybody who thought President Clinton should have been impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob and then accused the President of "wagging the dog" after he ordered the bombings of al-Qaeda facilities in 1998 is partially responsible for 9/11. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" accused Clinton of "wagging the dog."
I believe that the current state of the Republican Party is hilarious and well deserved, but without Obama, the Democrats would go right back to being the Republicans' "whipping boy."
I believe that an educated populous is essential for a democracy, and I believe that the study of logic (argument) is just as important as an understanding of history. And I believe that both parties take advantage of the uneducated and uninformed but right now a higher percentage of "conservatives" are doing so.
I believe in Science, and I believe that knowledge is good. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" don't.
I believe that the beauty of our democracy is minority rights, not majority rule. And I believe that the ACLU is the essence of "America" because I believe that "shitting on my flag" is one of the highest expressions of freedom of speech.
I believe that because you actually read and consider views opposing yours that you do not represent "conservatives."
And I believe that I am right...but I could be wrong.
(And I believe that my initial intentions for this post were good, but it ultimately deteriorated into a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay.)
(Thank you for causing me to write a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay:)
(And I am leaning closer towards waterboarding this damn cricket!)
Hey there... I'm fixin' to lay down a heavy-duty reply... I hope my comment will be received in the same spirit as your post, which was well-contemplated and deeply felt.
One of the harsh realities of being in charge of the nation with the greatest military might known to mankind is sometimes, the weight of the lives of millions of citizens is what sinks the scale favoring a choice while the human rights of a self-professed ultra-lethal individual non-citizen will just have to be weightless, comparatively.
I am not here to defend Dick Cheney. I have a whole separate set of long standing issues with him. His speaking out against BO (hey, the Dems had "Dubya") bothers me a little less than it might otherwise largely thanks to the carpings of Carter. And Gore. And Clinton. And Clinton. And MoveOn (insulting GEN Petraeus). And the harridans of Code Pink. And the anarchist shitting on my flag. I remember all of that, and more.
Most of all, I want someone, anyone to come to the defense of my soldiers, to the defense of the other civil servants who signed on to make sure my country never, ever, gets attacked like that again. All those people, humans just like me and you, who have families in cities like New York and LA, too. Seriously, I consider it my duty to defend my warriors.
I used to work in the Library Tower, when it was called the Bank Tower. The days following 9-11 were filled with barely subsurface anxiety. The city moved in cement street barriers in front of it. We had to evacuate every time some sick fukk would call in a fake bomb threat. We lived like incipient zombies. We dreaded the clear, blue sky. We watched every single jumbo jet from the moment it poked around the edge of the building until it fully left our view.
People like me demanded, without reservation, that the monsters responsible be found and made to pay and to give up anything and anyone to further our search for the top monster, UBL. Every time I softened that demand inside myself, thinking of the pictures of caught men being roughed up, messed up, fukked up, I'd remember the people who jumped rather than incinerate in jet fuel. I remember the woman fully engulfed in flame who walked into the lobby of one of those buildings and endured as she was beheld in horror by the others escaping and firemen rushing in. I remember the hard hats carefully, earnestly, cleaning the gaping wound of 16 acres.
And any feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheik Muhammed and the others would instantly evaporate. His rights meant absolutely nothing. And they still mean absolutely nothing. And they always will. That's just how it is... and that is just how it always will be. For me. And, likely, there are millions like me.
I will not resort to putting myself in his place in order to help me remember the higher purpose of the American-style democracy aspiring to ideals that soar in our hearts. That would be cowardice. We want to pull up during a stall, because it just feels wrong to point the bird down. And that's how it feels to me, the urgings and promptings to identify with the enemy feels like wanting to pull up.
How better to retreat, pre-surrending for our enemy's convenience, than to identify with him as our prisoner? I do not think that he is no different from me, or better put, that I am no different from he, but for our positions in space and time. My good fortune as an American citizen does not mean I must throw out the value of it as the highest score, and toss out his lower score because he's not an
American, in order to achieve a mean balance.
So while Dick Cheney does not resemble the intercessor I'd like to speak up on the behalf of those fellow citizens who work to find those responsible, he'll do. And thank goodness. For if no one stands up to an unchallenged ACLU, our soldiers, while still in combat, could expect to be stabbed in the back. By us. Us. No... no... no.
I think Dick Cheney would have preferred to not be discussing the interrogations, or the memos, or the briefings, or the photos or any of it at all. He is a cagey sonofabitch, no doubt. I'm pretty sure, he does not see himself as the fall guy for Bush. That doesn't fit his persona. I get the sense that he told the people he commanded that he would do whatever it took to cover their backs. I think that's what he's doing.
What I'm about to add is, and likely always be, something we will agree to disagree on. Reality demands that I acknowledge some shit works. We might not like how it works, but it does work.
Waterboarding did work. So, some of it will be dirty and images without context will outrage the immature, the unfamiliar, the uncritical and weak-minded. But what if some of what is revealed is success? Can we handle good news delivered even by someone we're pretty sure we hate?
I do not agree that waterboarding is torture. While some legal minds and decisions have deemed it so, that doesn't persuade me to agree. Humans often make, shall we say, interesting laws that we later determine to be mistakes. One of the grave concerns I have about BO is that he is a lawyer. I used to work for lawyers.
I certainly don't want anything released to me, a member of the Ungrateful Public, that will endanger the security of our soldiers. But some people do. I don't understand the animus of people who want to punish the actors of the previous administration, demonizing them all, especially if they're agents and warriors who acted in good faith. The lunacy that attends them makes me want them to drop dead. I see their lips moving but I don't care what they're saying. You ever feel that way?
I wish there was something I could say that would relieve that gnawing in your craw about America using waterboarding on our enemies. I think that will have to come to you at your pace, in due time, if at all. But I find myself unbothered by that because, well, I keep remembering the suffering of all the people on 9-11. Their voices, saying goodbye to their loved ones, knowing they were about to die in a field is what haunts me. Not the cries of Khalid.
We were really scared it would happen again... we were very scared. Any frightened beast, human or otherwise, will bring to bear all weapons and all resources to get out alive and in one piece. And when the fear lasts long enough, it converts to anger. You need your anger to keep the energy, the heat, right there, on the tips of your fingers, to stay focused, to settle for nothing less than victory. I've been there. And when the raw animal edge of me demanded I stop at nothing to survive... that's exactly what I did.
To borrow another Spanish slogan, "si se puede... asi es que, por supuesto, si se quiere." It is a truth about humans that, as devoted masters of our destinies and captains of our souls (or so I keep hearing), we will make it up as we go and we will see it our way until and unless we don't. This is an inalienable right... and a skill. We will not stop improvising clear up until the pupils fix. Nor should we. And if I have to lie to make you think I will, when I most certainly will not, then... ok.
Half of us detest the voting habits of the other half of America. Not just dislike, but detest. So to that has the odor of America's politics in recent generations degenerated. That smell does not signal an improvement of our republic.
I sensed you'd at least hear me out about this. Maybe even want to discuss it civilly. I'm hoping you won't judge me an apologist or a defender of the indefensible, at least, not without trying to talk some sense into me. ;) I genuinely fear the state of political discourse these days, particularly when conducted across the interwebs. This binary language... it really does tempt us to be more barbaric, rather than less. Ain't that a kick in the head....
Anyway, I hope that all made sense.
-alexa
Alexa,
First off, thank you for your extended and obviously heart-felt response.
Second off, there is a cricket hiding in my apartment that just won't SHUT THE HELL UP! (Though I still believe waterboarding it would be cruel:)
The issue that keeps gnawing at me is not that we waterboarded. What's stuck in my craw is that nobody seems to realize that the actual issue is whether or not the Bush Administration waterboarded merely to justify the invasion of Iraq; and if that is case, than doesn't that mean that waterboarding didn't work?
Waterboarding the enemy not to gather information, but simply to attain a certain response does not protect our citizens or our troops and, in fact, only makes us less secure and more susceptible to attack; (according to the Art of War, "moral influence" is the first of the 5 fundamental factors for success in war).
But your response illustrates the essential disconnect between the two parties - Is the moral issue concerning "Enhanced Interrogations" about "them" or about "us"? Do we not waterboard because we don't waterboard, or do we not waterboard because they don't waterboard?
I believe that we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture because we don't participate in government-sanctioned torture...regardless of who they are.
(The "Jesus/Confucius" view – "Do unto others.../What the superior man seeks is within himself...")
My friend, the greatest "American" that I've ever known, was on the 102nd floor of Tower #2, and was only there because he was working to put his sister through college. Do not assume that opponents of the Bush Administration's policies and actions did not suffer the same, if not a greater, emotional and psychological trauma as a result of 9/11. Recalling my friend's last voicemail still, and will always, illicit a visceral response so strong that I am left temporarily incoherent and physically useless.
Everybody was terrified by 9/11 – that's the objective of "terrorism." To remain vigilant is necessary but to remain terrified, and to devalue other's humanity, means it worked and that "they" are winning.
Please do not misunderstand or believe that I have "feelings of mercy or pity for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others." If I were to be let into a room with KSM, I would cause him extreme physical harm. And that is my point: My intent to enter the room would not be to gather information, and I would not wait outside the door until I received a guarantee that my actions would not be punished.
It is not that I oppose the policies and actions of the Bush Administration because I don't understand the complexity or scale of their responsibilities – It is, in fact, the exact opposite.
As FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, famously said this week, "It's easier to hit somebody than outsmart them." Running the USA was too important of a job to consistently take the easy way out and to constantly make the shortsighted decisions that are the culprit for most of our nation's current ills.
And it is not as if the current fervor over these memos was a far fetched idea during the confusing days immediately following 9/11. I agree that groupthink is very powerful but the assumption that our leaders were under tremendous strain and thus should be given a pass for their behavior is utterly ridiculous. On January 26, 2002 Colin Powell drafted a memo stating exactly what going down this path of reversing "over a century of U.S. policy and practice" would lead to: www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.26.pdf
When we went into Iraq I was the loudest one shouting "remember 9/11?" As a student in Los Angeles, majoring in theater, mine was not the most popular view. I was naïve, I was racist, I was wrong. But even knowing what we know now about WMD, "yellowcake", and no link to al-Qaeda, had we been out of Iraq in two years, without our soldiers continuing to be maimed and slaughtered there, the invasion would have been the right decision. The war in Iraq was strategically and tactically terribly mismanaged and the Bush Administration is at fault.
The truth is: Criticizing the Bush Administration IS coming to the defense of our "warriors." Sending our troops into (an unnecessary) war, without a clear objective or "end game," without the resources necessary for their survival, (ammo, armor, H2O), and then to enact a "stop-loss" policy which affectively forced them to serve against their will, while at the same time engaging in, and demanding, behavior that erases any moral influence that they may have, and THEN to not give them adequate care when they returned home is the antithesis of "supporting our troops."
You are absolutely right that Dick Cheney is a "cagey sonofabitch." But he is also a selfish coward and the poster child for "chicken-hawk."
Dick received 5 Vietnam draft deferments. In January of 1963, when he turned 22, Dick enrolled in Casper Community College, (after he had already attended Yale), and applied for his first student deferment in March. He transferred to the Univ. of Wyoming and sought his 2nd deferment in July.
22 days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was approved and the war escalated rapidly, Dick got married, (he was still a student but being married REALLY protected him from the draft).
9 months and 2 days after the ban against drafting married men was lifted, Dick had his 1st daughter. 9 MONTHS and 2 DAYS! During the first trimester of his wife's pregnancy, Dick applied for a "hardship" exemption which excluded men with children from being drafted.
Dick always says that had he been drafted he would have served, and in all fairness, a lot of men avoided the Vietnam draft by legal means and the overwhelming majority of our vets joined voluntarily, but Dick's 5 draft deferments reveal that he believes his existence is more valuable than a lowly serviceman, and that he doesn't give 2 shits for the honor or importance of our military. If not for Dick's 5 draft deferments my Dad might not have taken shrapnel or had friends die in his arms. And if not for Dubya's sweet pilot gig in Alabama he might not think that being a soldier in Afghanistan is "romantic" (remember that?). It is the height of hypocrisy for Dick to question anybody else's patriotism, and please do not be tricked into thinking that Dick has any concerns other than self-preservation.
That being said, I LIKE DICK CHENEY! I love his resolve and his tenacity. Personality-wise I have a lot more in common with Dick, and Dubya, and John McCain than I do Barack Obama; but even if I were running for office against Obama, I would vote for Obama.
You need not worry that Obama is a lawyer, our "grave concern" should be that one day he wakes up and realizes that America does not deserve him.
Also during the Face the Nation interview Dick acknowledged what you believe are his motivations for his conitnuing public presense when he explained, "If I don't speak out than where do we find ourselves, Bob? Then the critics have a free run and there isn't anybody there on the other side to tell the truth."
If what we did was so honorable, and "the right thing to do," than why would Dick's absence mean that his critics would have a "free run"?
The reality is: Not speaking out would be the hard thing to do and, as is obvious from Dick's biography, the hard thing to do is most likely not even under consideration.
You don't think that waterboarding is torture. My intent is not to "attack the arguer," but have you ever been waterboarded? A lot of those who have, believe waterboarding is torture. And excuse my vulgarity, but qualifying waterboarding based on the victim is like saying, "Rape is only wrong if you don't rape a nymphomaniac."
The fact that this debate has devolved into "some shit works" is the exact reason why our government should not have sanctioned torture.
9/11 was devastating but the harsh reality is in 1993 al-Qaeda used a bomb to kill 6 people at the World Trade Center, and in 2001 they used box cutters to kill over 3000. There was a lack of attention to detail at the NSA and communication barriers between the FBI and CIA, but 9/11 still could have been avoided if airport security would have just simply paid attention to metal detectors.
I agree that reducing the opposition to less than human or inferior is a problem – Whether it's al-Qaeda, a Democrat, or a Republican – and that doing so is way too common and not healthy for our republic. But I believe that doing such is more prevalent in certain personality-types and a higher percentage of those personalities are "conservatives."
I am not too familiar with MoveOn or Code Pink and it is probably because I believe that a person's motivation should be considered – do they believe what they believe out of sympathy or out of malice? And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" are motivated by malice.
I believe that our government is way too important to be just another team sport. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" view our government as merely a game of "Us versus Them."
I believe that anybody who thought President Clinton should have been impeached for lying about an extra-marital blowjob and then accused the President of "wagging the dog" after he ordered the bombings of al-Qaeda facilities in 1998 is partially responsible for 9/11. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" accused Clinton of "wagging the dog."
I believe that the current state of the Republican Party is hilarious and well deserved, but without Obama, the Democrats would go right back to being the Republicans' "whipping boy."
I believe that an educated populous is essential for a democracy, and I believe that the study of logic (argument) is just as important as an understanding of history. And I believe that both parties take advantage of the uneducated and uninformed but right now a higher percentage of "conservatives" are doing so.
I believe in Science, and I believe that knowledge is good. And I believe that a higher percentage of "conservatives" don't.
I believe that the beauty of our democracy is minority rights, not majority rule. And I believe that the ACLU is the essence of "America" because I believe that "shitting on my flag" is one of the highest expressions of freedom of speech.
I believe that because you actually read and consider views opposing yours that you do not represent "conservatives."
And I believe that I am right...but I could be wrong.
(And I believe that my initial intentions for this post were good, but it ultimately deteriorated into a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay.)
(Thank you for causing me to write a hackneyed "This I Believe" essay:)
(And I am leaning closer towards waterboarding this damn cricket!)
Saturday, May 16, 2009
No Habla "War Crime"
I was half asleep, (and still a little drunk), when I first watched this Sunday's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer but even I didn't miss the lyrics for the music when Dick Cheney actually said, "(Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) did not cooperate fully in terms of interrogations until after waterboarding. Once we went through that process he produced vast quantities of invaluable information about al-Qaeda."
This was after Dick justified his refusal to abide by the common protocol of refraining from immediate public discourse after leaving office by accusing President Obama of upholding campaign promises: "They campaigned against these policies, across the country, and then they came in now and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with."
And it was also after Dick inferred that it is only proper to have all the information concerning a controversial issue available to the public: "If we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate, and those memos oughta be out there for people to look at, and journalists, like yourself, to evaluate in terms of what we were able to accomplish..."
(Seriously? Dick Cheney? "A complete debate"? Involving the media...and dissenters should have access to classified information? Seriously? The "Valerie Plame" Dick Cheney? The "fourth branch of government" Dick Cheney? That guy? The Dick Cheney that drafted a memo suggesting using the Justice Department in order to exact revenge on New York Times reporter, Seymour Hersh, because Hersh exposed the government's cover up of the My Lai Massacre? That Dick Cheney? Seriously?)
And it was right after Dick confirmed that KSM was captured in March of '03.
Immediately, (and ad nauseam all week), I screamed at my TV, "How much time was devoted to other interrogation techniques if KSM could be captured in March and still be waterboarded 183 times within the month of March?"
Mathematically Dick, how the hell is it possible to use other forms of interrogation and still start waterboarding right away? Or was "time travel" also a "legalized" "Enhanced Interrogation" tactic?
And did waterboarding lead KSM to give up "vast quantities of invaluable information about al-Qaeda" or did it prevent an imminent threat?
I apologize if my posts regarding "Enhanced Interrogations" are redundant, but this issue just keeps gnawing at me because every argument endorsing waterboarding can be ceded and the point that the Bush Administration's behavior was reprehensible and criminal can still be made apparent with a few, very simple, and obvious questions that nobody seems to be asking!
If waterboarding and "walling" and "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded so ferociously because he did not corroborate what Abu Zubaydah revealed during waterboarding, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
If "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded in order to attain information that would justify the invasion of Iraq, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
And if "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, isn't the fact that there were more al-Qaeda attacks after "Enhanced Interrogations" were used than there were before, (e.g. Tunisia, Karachi, Yemen, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Mombasa, Mumbai, Jakarta, Istanbul, Madrid, (and that's just between 4/02 and 3/04), proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, didn't avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration merely created more "terror" and made the world less safe?
In all fairness to Bob Schieffer, it may simply be that Dick speaks and hears a language other than our popularly accepted version of English.
When explaining that he has formally requested that memos be declassified Dick said, "I started that process, as I say, 6 weeks ago – I haven't heard anything from it yet..."
Bob Schieffer then interjected: "They haven't responded to you as yet?"
And Dick responded: "No. That's right. Up 'til now I've got a letter of notification saying they've started the process..."
To most of us fluent in communicating via English, a "letter of notification" constitutes a "response," but apparently not in Dick's head because if so, Dick would have basically just said, "You're absolutely right, no, they haven't, because yes, they did..."
And this wasn't the only response that left me wondering if there is a Rosetta Stone for "War Criminal."
Later Bob Schieffer prodded: "...I'm not asking you to violate any rules of classification but is there anything you can tell us specifically...some fact that we got that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise?"
And Dick immediately replied: "That's what's in those memos – It talks specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped. It talks about how the volume of intelligence reports that were produced from that."
Then Bob asked: "Does it talk about planning for attacks or attacks that were actually stopped?"
And Dick stammered: "Umm, well I need to be careful here, Bob, because it's still classified..."
So let me get this straight, Dick, there is nothing wrong with saying the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" but explaining that the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" is too specific?
On the surface it appears that Dick no comprende the Ingles, but the truth may be that he is communicating more sophisticatedly than any of us have assumed. Every time Dick says "what we did was honorable" he may really be saying "you should have pardoned Scooter." Maybe Dick realizes that he was being set up to be the Bush Administration's scapegoat/sacrificial lamb, (ironic that goat and lamb are the main meats in Middle-Eastern dishes?), and his refusal to go away is simply the political-legacy equivalent of the Bush Doctrine. (I'll explain it to you later, Sarah.)
But it is far too rare that someone sifts through the emotional rhetoric and asks the Bush Administration defenders the practical questions that force them to explain how the enemy is the reason that the United States either does or does not torture prisoners of war; and thus, into the corner where the "we were really, really, scared" defense is their only excuse.
The "we were really, really, scared" defense may be the only retribution that we are going to be able to extract from this administration, and the Bush Administration should be forced to keep reminding us just how frightened they were because there are only so many times that someone can say "we were really, really, scared" before the public rightfully starts hearing "we were inept, incompetent, and totally unqualified for the jobs that we had."
I am not morally opposed to torture, but I am patriotically opposed to our nation's government-sanctioned torture, (as, I believe, the majority of the country is). But, "if we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate," and the people need to look at, and "evaluate, ["Enhanced Interrogations"] in terms of what we were [really trying, and] able to accomplish."
-Rocky
This was after Dick justified his refusal to abide by the common protocol of refraining from immediate public discourse after leaving office by accusing President Obama of upholding campaign promises: "They campaigned against these policies, across the country, and then they came in now and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with."
And it was also after Dick inferred that it is only proper to have all the information concerning a controversial issue available to the public: "If we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate, and those memos oughta be out there for people to look at, and journalists, like yourself, to evaluate in terms of what we were able to accomplish..."
(Seriously? Dick Cheney? "A complete debate"? Involving the media...and dissenters should have access to classified information? Seriously? The "Valerie Plame" Dick Cheney? The "fourth branch of government" Dick Cheney? That guy? The Dick Cheney that drafted a memo suggesting using the Justice Department in order to exact revenge on New York Times reporter, Seymour Hersh, because Hersh exposed the government's cover up of the My Lai Massacre? That Dick Cheney? Seriously?)
And it was right after Dick confirmed that KSM was captured in March of '03.
Immediately, (and ad nauseam all week), I screamed at my TV, "How much time was devoted to other interrogation techniques if KSM could be captured in March and still be waterboarded 183 times within the month of March?"
Mathematically Dick, how the hell is it possible to use other forms of interrogation and still start waterboarding right away? Or was "time travel" also a "legalized" "Enhanced Interrogation" tactic?
And did waterboarding lead KSM to give up "vast quantities of invaluable information about al-Qaeda" or did it prevent an imminent threat?
I apologize if my posts regarding "Enhanced Interrogations" are redundant, but this issue just keeps gnawing at me because every argument endorsing waterboarding can be ceded and the point that the Bush Administration's behavior was reprehensible and criminal can still be made apparent with a few, very simple, and obvious questions that nobody seems to be asking!
If waterboarding and "walling" and "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded so ferociously because he did not corroborate what Abu Zubaydah revealed during waterboarding, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
If "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, if KSM was waterboarded in order to attain information that would justify the invasion of Iraq, isn't that proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, weren't used to avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration SHOULD be punished?
And if "Enhanced Interrogations" are a "means to an end" and SHOULD be used in "ticking time-bomb" situations, isn't the fact that there were more al-Qaeda attacks after "Enhanced Interrogations" were used than there were before, (e.g. Tunisia, Karachi, Yemen, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Mombasa, Mumbai, Jakarta, Istanbul, Madrid, (and that's just between 4/02 and 3/04), proof that "Enhanced Interrogations" didn't work, didn't avert an imminent threat, and that the Bush Administration merely created more "terror" and made the world less safe?
In all fairness to Bob Schieffer, it may simply be that Dick speaks and hears a language other than our popularly accepted version of English.
When explaining that he has formally requested that memos be declassified Dick said, "I started that process, as I say, 6 weeks ago – I haven't heard anything from it yet..."
Bob Schieffer then interjected: "They haven't responded to you as yet?"
And Dick responded: "No. That's right. Up 'til now I've got a letter of notification saying they've started the process..."
To most of us fluent in communicating via English, a "letter of notification" constitutes a "response," but apparently not in Dick's head because if so, Dick would have basically just said, "You're absolutely right, no, they haven't, because yes, they did..."
And this wasn't the only response that left me wondering if there is a Rosetta Stone for "War Criminal."
Later Bob Schieffer prodded: "...I'm not asking you to violate any rules of classification but is there anything you can tell us specifically...some fact that we got that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise?"
And Dick immediately replied: "That's what's in those memos – It talks specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped. It talks about how the volume of intelligence reports that were produced from that."
Then Bob asked: "Does it talk about planning for attacks or attacks that were actually stopped?"
And Dick stammered: "Umm, well I need to be careful here, Bob, because it's still classified..."
So let me get this straight, Dick, there is nothing wrong with saying the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" but explaining that the memos talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped" is too specific?
On the surface it appears that Dick no comprende the Ingles, but the truth may be that he is communicating more sophisticatedly than any of us have assumed. Every time Dick says "what we did was honorable" he may really be saying "you should have pardoned Scooter." Maybe Dick realizes that he was being set up to be the Bush Administration's scapegoat/sacrificial lamb, (ironic that goat and lamb are the main meats in Middle-Eastern dishes?), and his refusal to go away is simply the political-legacy equivalent of the Bush Doctrine. (I'll explain it to you later, Sarah.)
But it is far too rare that someone sifts through the emotional rhetoric and asks the Bush Administration defenders the practical questions that force them to explain how the enemy is the reason that the United States either does or does not torture prisoners of war; and thus, into the corner where the "we were really, really, scared" defense is their only excuse.
The "we were really, really, scared" defense may be the only retribution that we are going to be able to extract from this administration, and the Bush Administration should be forced to keep reminding us just how frightened they were because there are only so many times that someone can say "we were really, really, scared" before the public rightfully starts hearing "we were inept, incompetent, and totally unqualified for the jobs that we had."
I am not morally opposed to torture, but I am patriotically opposed to our nation's government-sanctioned torture, (as, I believe, the majority of the country is). But, "if we are gonna have this debate, it ought to be a complete debate," and the people need to look at, and "evaluate, ["Enhanced Interrogations"] in terms of what we were [really trying, and] able to accomplish."
-Rocky
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Emily Post-Election
Today on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Liz Cheney, (daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney), actually said that the only reason that people want her father to go away is because they don't agree with him. She told Pulitzer Prize-winning, Washington Post columnist, Eugene Robinson, "...It seems to me that you want him to shut up because you disagree with what he is saying...I haven't seen similar columns...saying that Al Gore should go back to Tennessee..."
Al Gore should go back to Tennessee?
Al Gore DID go back to Tennessee! And much to the chagrin of his supporters! Remember?
After the controversial election that was arguably stolen from him and non-arguably decided by a 5-4, strictly partisan, "burn after reading," Supreme Court decision, Al Gore disappeared and didn't re-emerge until he had a full beard. A FULL BEARD!!!
The dude left as the Vice President who had just presided over 8 of the United States' most prosperous years and returned as Theodore Kaczynski!...And when he did resurface it was in praise of George Bush and his administration's handling of the 9/11 situation!
That should be the rule: After leaving office, in order to criticize the succeeding administration, a captured Unabomber-like, lower-facial, hair-mask is required. Only former Vice Presidents who have had enough time to change their appearance to the point that they look like they’re either Amish or run moonshine are allowed to publicly argue against the policies of the current President, (or they must be participating in the filming of a future Academy Award-winning documentary).
Thank you Liz Cheney for revealing what proper political etiquette should be. Now tell your Dad to go borrow your sister's beard.
(Though this post is based on actual events, its intent is purely comedic. Gay rights are civil rights, and I am an advocate for equality.)
Fuck Dick Cheney!
Al Gore should go back to Tennessee?
Al Gore DID go back to Tennessee! And much to the chagrin of his supporters! Remember?
After the controversial election that was arguably stolen from him and non-arguably decided by a 5-4, strictly partisan, "burn after reading," Supreme Court decision, Al Gore disappeared and didn't re-emerge until he had a full beard. A FULL BEARD!!!
The dude left as the Vice President who had just presided over 8 of the United States' most prosperous years and returned as Theodore Kaczynski!...And when he did resurface it was in praise of George Bush and his administration's handling of the 9/11 situation!
That should be the rule: After leaving office, in order to criticize the succeeding administration, a captured Unabomber-like, lower-facial, hair-mask is required. Only former Vice Presidents who have had enough time to change their appearance to the point that they look like they’re either Amish or run moonshine are allowed to publicly argue against the policies of the current President, (or they must be participating in the filming of a future Academy Award-winning documentary).
Thank you Liz Cheney for revealing what proper political etiquette should be. Now tell your Dad to go borrow your sister's beard.
(Though this post is based on actual events, its intent is purely comedic. Gay rights are civil rights, and I am an advocate for equality.)
Fuck Dick Cheney!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Torture is a Semantics Issue
Watching the usual-suspect talking-heads discuss waterboarding and the "Enhanced Interrogations" memos this past week has been like watching people who speak different languages argue with each other.
Adversaries of waterboarding made "legal" arguments causing defenders of the Bush Administration's policies to respond with "literal" rationalizations for "practical" explanations of "philosophical" justifications...And not once did I hear a legal arguer make a literal objection to the practical application of a philosophical defense.
According to the dictionary, "uncomfortable" is not "torture" (literal), but according to the Geneva Conventions, waterboarding is (legal). But so what?! In the real world, if sitting across the table from someone who has knowledge of an imminent terror threat, it is obligatory to do whatever it takes, law be damned, to attain that information in order to protect the lives of innocent civilians because the value of a human life is greater than the inconvenience one might suffer by serving time in prison (practical and philosophical). AND THAT'S THE POINT!!! That is why these memos are so egregious - Waterboarding someone 183 times is a violation of the Geneva Conventions (legal), is physical abuse (literal), is not a "means to an end" because it does not work and is only used to attain a certain response (practical), and is evidence of it not being a "ticking time-bomb" situation (philosophical).
Article III of the Geneva Conventions states: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...who have laid down their arms...shall in all circumstances be treated humanely..." and "the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever...violence to life and person...cruel treatment and torture."
These "Enhanced Interrogations" violate the Geneva Conventions because the detainees were not active participants on a battlefield, they had laid down their arms, and subjecting them to waterboarding was inhumane, violent, and cruel (legal).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't care if waterboarding causes physical discomfort or results in lasting psychological damage to a person who has caused, or has knowledge of, an attack that will result in the permanent physical and psychological trauma to innocent civilians (practical and philosophical), but by definition, waterboarding IS torture (literal). These memos required that there be a doctor in the immediate vicinity while waterboarding was taking place in order to prevent death to the detainee - Not because waterboarding is simulated drowning without the threat of death but because waterboarding is simulated death without the threat of drowning. Waterboarding shuts off oxygen to the brain thus triggering physical responses such as causing the brain to try and run on carbon dioxide. Shutting off oxygen to the brain is not good and results in lasting neurological trauma...especially after 183 times!
But regardless of whether waterboarding is torture (legal and literal), the point is that it doesn't work (practical). Torture causes the victim to say or do whatever is necessary to make the torture stop. No matter how short-term the cessation of agony - humans will do whatever it takes to stop the pain. If that means telling the truth, than so be it, if that means lying, than so be it. Torture results in the torturers being told what they want to hear, and that is why the information attained through torture is unreliable – it could or couldn't be the truth. It's very simple, if waterboarding is done to get the truth, than that means that it is done AGAIN because it didn't get the truth. It is not a "means to an end" because in reality, waterboarding is not done to get information, it is done to get a specific response.
And that is the real concern regarding these memos. Before these memos were drafted the CIA (allegedly) discreetly used these techniques in "ticking time-bomb" situations (philosophical), but these memos reveal that the Bush Administration instructed interrogators to use these methods in instances when the intent was not to thwart an imminent threat (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical). If there was enough time to draft legal memos, how imminent was the threat? If there was enough time to waterboard someone 183 times over the span of a month, how imminent was the threat? And if a detainee that was captured in March wasn't waterboarded until August, how imminent was the threat?
But the most damning revelation concerning these memos could be that these "Enhanced Interrogations" were ordered merely to validate an invasion of Iraq. The fact that these waterboardings were ramped-up preceding the invasion of Iraq most likely means that the Bush Administration was not concerned with attaining information but that they were simply using these tactics to acquire the justification to wage war. These "Enhanced Interrogations" were not done to avert an imminent threat, but rather, to create one (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical).
Whether or not that threat was that there WAS a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq – the Bush Administration told us that there was...and they were wrong. Whether or not that threat was that Saddam Hussein HAD weapons of mass destruction – the Bush Administration told us that he did...and they were wrong. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq WAS the result of faulty intelligence – the Bush Administration told us that it was...and they were right.
But one frightening and very revealing issue pertaining to these memos that nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that THERE HAD TO BE MEMOS!!!
Military personnel and high-ranking security officials are not in the business of questioning authority. A 2nd Lieutenant has to lead his platoon into more than one, (usually numerous), ambushes before his troops start questioning their leader's map-reading abilities. Chain of command is the backbone of our military and security agencies; and these memos reveal that the CIA would not follow a Bush Administration order unless written legal rationale accompanied, and justified, their instruction.
These memos illustrate that George W. Bush had a fundamental lack of understanding of the enemy, of human psychology, and of reality in general; and had already demonstrated so much incompetence as Commander in Chief that his charges were justifiably insubordinate. And his administration's defense of these memos only shows that they will do whatever it takes to protect...THEIR EGOS!
But, though what these memos say is easily comprehensible, the most articulate response is still unclear.
The past 8 years with the Bush Administration has been like playing Wheel of Fortune. Some folks saw what was hidden right away, a lot of us needed most of the vowels being on the board to solve the puzzle, and a lot of people, even after most of the letters had been revealed, still had absolutely no clue as to what was being concealed, (and even after the mystery is completely exposed they will probably still just be left saying, "hmmm - that's not a Popular Phrase at all").
But the United States of America is more important than a nightly game show, and it was the duty of the majority of us who realized what was being kept out of sight by the Bush Administration, to make known those secrets, and to hold our democratically elected officials accountable for their corrupt conduct the moment that we recognized it. Though it is appropriate and necessary to trust our leaders until they prove that they cannot be trusted, when it is apparent that betrayal has become policy it is the citizens' task to take action. We are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," not a government "for the party in power, by the party that was out of power, to go after the party that is no longer in power." George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others in their administration should be punished for their actions but to ask President Obama to do what was our responsibility is irrationally selfish and could be disproportionately detrimental to our Union.
Obviously moving forward without the lessons being learned from this chapter in our nation's history is negligent and dangerous, and thankfully our Department of Justice is no longer a faith-based initiative. An Independent Counsel is probably the correct course, but our democracy is our obligation, and though George W. Bush committed war crimes and was an absolutely inept president, the true shame is that he was democratically elected twice because he was the best man for the job both times, (anybody who is not resourceful enough to win an election against George W. Bush is not sophisticated enough, (and thus, not qualified), to be the most powerful person on the planet). Sadly, what these memos reveal is that the America of the past decade most likely deserved its leaders.
Adversaries of waterboarding made "legal" arguments causing defenders of the Bush Administration's policies to respond with "literal" rationalizations for "practical" explanations of "philosophical" justifications...And not once did I hear a legal arguer make a literal objection to the practical application of a philosophical defense.
According to the dictionary, "uncomfortable" is not "torture" (literal), but according to the Geneva Conventions, waterboarding is (legal). But so what?! In the real world, if sitting across the table from someone who has knowledge of an imminent terror threat, it is obligatory to do whatever it takes, law be damned, to attain that information in order to protect the lives of innocent civilians because the value of a human life is greater than the inconvenience one might suffer by serving time in prison (practical and philosophical). AND THAT'S THE POINT!!! That is why these memos are so egregious - Waterboarding someone 183 times is a violation of the Geneva Conventions (legal), is physical abuse (literal), is not a "means to an end" because it does not work and is only used to attain a certain response (practical), and is evidence of it not being a "ticking time-bomb" situation (philosophical).
Article III of the Geneva Conventions states: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...who have laid down their arms...shall in all circumstances be treated humanely..." and "the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever...violence to life and person...cruel treatment and torture."
These "Enhanced Interrogations" violate the Geneva Conventions because the detainees were not active participants on a battlefield, they had laid down their arms, and subjecting them to waterboarding was inhumane, violent, and cruel (legal).
Now don't get me wrong, I don't care if waterboarding causes physical discomfort or results in lasting psychological damage to a person who has caused, or has knowledge of, an attack that will result in the permanent physical and psychological trauma to innocent civilians (practical and philosophical), but by definition, waterboarding IS torture (literal). These memos required that there be a doctor in the immediate vicinity while waterboarding was taking place in order to prevent death to the detainee - Not because waterboarding is simulated drowning without the threat of death but because waterboarding is simulated death without the threat of drowning. Waterboarding shuts off oxygen to the brain thus triggering physical responses such as causing the brain to try and run on carbon dioxide. Shutting off oxygen to the brain is not good and results in lasting neurological trauma...especially after 183 times!
But regardless of whether waterboarding is torture (legal and literal), the point is that it doesn't work (practical). Torture causes the victim to say or do whatever is necessary to make the torture stop. No matter how short-term the cessation of agony - humans will do whatever it takes to stop the pain. If that means telling the truth, than so be it, if that means lying, than so be it. Torture results in the torturers being told what they want to hear, and that is why the information attained through torture is unreliable – it could or couldn't be the truth. It's very simple, if waterboarding is done to get the truth, than that means that it is done AGAIN because it didn't get the truth. It is not a "means to an end" because in reality, waterboarding is not done to get information, it is done to get a specific response.
And that is the real concern regarding these memos. Before these memos were drafted the CIA (allegedly) discreetly used these techniques in "ticking time-bomb" situations (philosophical), but these memos reveal that the Bush Administration instructed interrogators to use these methods in instances when the intent was not to thwart an imminent threat (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical). If there was enough time to draft legal memos, how imminent was the threat? If there was enough time to waterboard someone 183 times over the span of a month, how imminent was the threat? And if a detainee that was captured in March wasn't waterboarded until August, how imminent was the threat?
But the most damning revelation concerning these memos could be that these "Enhanced Interrogations" were ordered merely to validate an invasion of Iraq. The fact that these waterboardings were ramped-up preceding the invasion of Iraq most likely means that the Bush Administration was not concerned with attaining information but that they were simply using these tactics to acquire the justification to wage war. These "Enhanced Interrogations" were not done to avert an imminent threat, but rather, to create one (legal, literal, practical, and philosophical).
Whether or not that threat was that there WAS a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq – the Bush Administration told us that there was...and they were wrong. Whether or not that threat was that Saddam Hussein HAD weapons of mass destruction – the Bush Administration told us that he did...and they were wrong. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq WAS the result of faulty intelligence – the Bush Administration told us that it was...and they were right.
But one frightening and very revealing issue pertaining to these memos that nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that THERE HAD TO BE MEMOS!!!
Military personnel and high-ranking security officials are not in the business of questioning authority. A 2nd Lieutenant has to lead his platoon into more than one, (usually numerous), ambushes before his troops start questioning their leader's map-reading abilities. Chain of command is the backbone of our military and security agencies; and these memos reveal that the CIA would not follow a Bush Administration order unless written legal rationale accompanied, and justified, their instruction.
These memos illustrate that George W. Bush had a fundamental lack of understanding of the enemy, of human psychology, and of reality in general; and had already demonstrated so much incompetence as Commander in Chief that his charges were justifiably insubordinate. And his administration's defense of these memos only shows that they will do whatever it takes to protect...THEIR EGOS!
But, though what these memos say is easily comprehensible, the most articulate response is still unclear.
The past 8 years with the Bush Administration has been like playing Wheel of Fortune. Some folks saw what was hidden right away, a lot of us needed most of the vowels being on the board to solve the puzzle, and a lot of people, even after most of the letters had been revealed, still had absolutely no clue as to what was being concealed, (and even after the mystery is completely exposed they will probably still just be left saying, "hmmm - that's not a Popular Phrase at all").
But the United States of America is more important than a nightly game show, and it was the duty of the majority of us who realized what was being kept out of sight by the Bush Administration, to make known those secrets, and to hold our democratically elected officials accountable for their corrupt conduct the moment that we recognized it. Though it is appropriate and necessary to trust our leaders until they prove that they cannot be trusted, when it is apparent that betrayal has become policy it is the citizens' task to take action. We are a government "of the people, by the people, for the people," not a government "for the party in power, by the party that was out of power, to go after the party that is no longer in power." George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others in their administration should be punished for their actions but to ask President Obama to do what was our responsibility is irrationally selfish and could be disproportionately detrimental to our Union.
Obviously moving forward without the lessons being learned from this chapter in our nation's history is negligent and dangerous, and thankfully our Department of Justice is no longer a faith-based initiative. An Independent Counsel is probably the correct course, but our democracy is our obligation, and though George W. Bush committed war crimes and was an absolutely inept president, the true shame is that he was democratically elected twice because he was the best man for the job both times, (anybody who is not resourceful enough to win an election against George W. Bush is not sophisticated enough, (and thus, not qualified), to be the most powerful person on the planet). Sadly, what these memos reveal is that the America of the past decade most likely deserved its leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
