GW Bush: Forget the Torture Report, CIA are Patriots

Former President GW Bush was interviewed on CNN about the Torture Report. He said:

Whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it's way off base..... The CIA are patriots and ...."really good people and we're lucky as a nation to have them.

We're luckier not to have GW Bush in charge anymore.

Update: Memo to GW Bush: It's not cool to defend those who commit rape and forced sodomy. "Good people" don't threaten to rape or cut the throat of another person's mother. These "good" CIA officers have also put our military at risk to have the same done to them. As Afghan President Ashrafn Ghani correctly observed, "When a person is tortured in an inhumane way, the reaction will be inhumane."

< Indian Police Reactivate Shami Witness' Twitter Account | Mass Arrests of Erdogan Media Critics in Turkey >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bush needs to pay for his crimes. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 01:18:11 PM EST

    He knew nothing! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    Nothing! :)

    Given all these denials, ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    ... Washington, D.C. must be holding a séance.

    The Only Politician... (none / 0) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 09:16:15 AM EST
    ...in all of human history in which that claim is most likely true.  I remember the days when conservatives would flip out when someone said GBW knows nothing, now they are more than happy to say the same.

    I wish I had time to go over of the Nuremberg transcripts because I distinctly remember Goring going off several times about people serving their countries should be considered heroes, not war criminals.  And I bet their is a gem in there that is almost identical to Cheney's last round of non-sense.

    People with souls are incapable of realizing their mistakes in regards to the pain and suffering they inflict upon others.


    Scott, I think you meant to say, (none / 0) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    ..."people without souls...."

    I agree, they're called "sociopaths."


    Correct. (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 10:15:23 AM EST
    Human Rights First just aired (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    A commercial on CNN that there isn't a link to yet.  Amazing ad with CIA interrogators who say torture is of no benefit along with FBI interrogators, and military officers discuss how it makes living for our soldiers more precarious.

    Thank you to the individuals who participated and signed their names.

    You'd never know (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 02:10:00 PM EST
    that GW Bush wasn't in charge anymore.

    I do fault Obama for not calling that s.o.b. out as soon as he took office. What was the promised "change" supposed to be about, if not that?

    And Cheney too has reared his foul head and is spouting his hateful stream of filth.

    And the media seek them out, and give considerable importance to their verbal excrescences.

    In fact, their point of view is dominating. Torture is patriotic. Those CIA boys are patriots doing what is necessary to protect us.
    That is the prevailing narrative.

    And on the other side, that what the CIA did in our name is an abomination - that voice has no one to speak it here. In the UN, yes. Internationally, yes. But here, no.

    Obama is "troubled". That's about it. Very brave.
    Hillary, if she said anything, I haven't heard about it.
    Kerry, who is making noises that suggest he might try again in 2016 has, typically, nothing to say. Yeah. He can't. OK. But if he could, he wouldn't.

    As I said, I fault Obama for not confronting this as soon as he took office. Now, instead of "moving on", we're stuck in this never-ending nightmare in which our country sinks into the mire of practices and ethics that it once reviled.

    What's Worse... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 09:25:39 AM EST
    ...is Obama has done nothing to ensure the justifications, which are still in place, can't be used again.  In other words, nothing has changed except this boss man says 'not on my watch'.

    The CIA could be doing ti right now, as there is no penalties in lying to Congress and un-stated belief that people who commit crimes for their country, will never be held accountable.

    The real question is why wouldn't people who are convinced it works, not do it ?


    Someone needs to explain to me why, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    if Obama's so "troubled" by the revelations (revelations of which he's been aware for at least 2 years, which seems like a long time to just be "troubled"), he named John Brennan to be CIA director.  

    Apparently, he isn't "troubled" by Brennan's saying that whether the US ever returns to torturing again will be up to future policymakers; I guess we didn't close that door as firmly as the public was led to believe.

    I guess how this works is, if you're the president, it's absolutely essential that you have some key players who don't mind doing the dirty work, so perhaps that's why Brennan - among others - not only got promoted to the job he has now, but will likely get to keep it.  And I guess the gullible public will continue to believe whatever cliches roll off Obama's tongue from the high moral ground on which he stands.

    Ugh.  The whole thing just disgusts me.


    From, Convention Against Torture (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 02:31:00 PM EST
    and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report to UN, Feb 9, 2000, prepared by the US Dept of State with the assistance of US DOJ (Convention against torture ratified Oct 1994, entered into force Nov. 1994.)

    "Torture is categorically prohibited by law throughout the US. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offense under the law of the US."

    "No official of the government (federal, state, local, civilian, military) is authorized to commit or instruct anyone else to commit torture.  Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form.  No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification for torture. US law contains no provision permitting inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances, for example during a state of public emergency."

    Under article VI,cl.2, of the US Constitution duly ratified treaties become part of the "Supreme Law of the Land," equivalent in legal stature to enacted federal statutes (and the issue is federalized if it touches state or local governments.)

    "Torture has alwasy been proscribed by the eight Amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment."  (note: in 1994, USC 2340 includes acts outside of US territory, and adopts Convention definitions of torture.)

    In light of the above, the counteroffensive campaign to discredit  the Senate summary report is understandable in the cases of those culpable, particularly the ringleaders, former President Bush and Vice President Cheney.  Cheney, is of course, being Cheney--he would do it all again, because it worked. And, those rectal feedings were medical treatments.  Yes, necessary treatments as prescribed by the $80 million psychology team of  Marquis and de Sade.  Hopefully, Cheney is in better care than a medical gang who expects solid nutrients to be effectively absorbed from the rectum and lower intestine. And, to counter dehydration with an enema.  Bush should bend over his easel and let Cheney give it an enhanced Patriotic try.  

    The categorical prohibition and criminalization (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 07:24:27 PM EST
    of "torture," is why they had to hire a tenured U.C. Berkeley law prof and former Supreme Court law clerk (yes, I'm talking to Yoo), and similar conscience-free sophists to come up with a "lawyerly" redefinition of the term.  "The question is, which is to be master, that's all."

    Yoo is looking for someone to blame (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ZtoA on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 11:43:25 PM EST
    "Looking at it now, I think of course you can do these things cumulatively or too much that it would cross the line of the anti-torture statute," Yoo said on C-SPAN. On CNN, Yoo said if the instances outlined in the report are accurate, "they were not supposed to be done. And the people who did those are at risk legally because they were acting outside their orders."

    Yoo is not Some Aberration (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    ...in conservative thinking.  Had Yoo not justified it, there was/is a never ending list of lawyers who would considering a legal justification for not adhering to the law, a great privilege and professional highlight.  The vandals have taken the handles, and now the pump don't work and no one is interested in fixing it.

    It's actually a rather well designed system, give the people doing it cover because they were ordered to.  Give the people who ordered it cover by drafting a legal justification.  Then all you have left is the attorney, and who in the hell is going to hold an attorney criminally responsible for war crimes.

    I am missing a lot of the intricacies, like courts ensuring their is no civil financial responsibility for any of the members, and guarantee their legal defenses are taken care of.  Which is interesting, the DoJ would not only he the ones prosecuting them, they would be the ones defending them.

    They is literally no crime that cannot be circumvented with that system and the most unfortunate part of the whole debate, is that system has not been dismembered, discredited, or given oversight.
    In other words:

    There exists a blueprint in our government to circumvent any law, domestic or international.

    And if I had to guess, there are memos out their justifying all kinds of bad deeds should they ever be uncovered.

    Peter (none / 0) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    Have you read about this and what would you say in rebuttal?

    Scalia also said that while there are U.S. laws against torture, nothing in the Constitution appears to prohibit harsh treatment of suspected terrorists. "I don't know what article of the Constitution that would contravene," he said. Scalia spent a college semester in Switzerland at the University of Fribourg.

    I, too, am interested in Peter's (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    take on Scalia's utterances.  But here is my take: It is sophomoric jurisprudence and pandering politics.  In fairness, however, Scalia's brain may have become addled by the fact that the Canton of Fribourg/Freiburg straddles the French/German linguistic borders.

    And, that in the original German, das achte amendement governance nicht gut, sounded better.  Right up his authoritative alley. Thereafter, the shaping of his boneheaded thinking on the eighth amendment was on automatic.  

    But, sadly, the Swiss interview was not a sole performance.  Scalia also gave an interview on the BBC.  From the transcript, Scalia claimed that cruel and usual punishment is not necessarily banned under the 8th Amendment. To Scalia, the cruel and unusual part refers to punishment for a crime. You see,  a Court can punish, say a witness who refuses to testify and send him to jail until they fess up, as a way to coerce a witness into testifying. "And, I suppose it is the same thing with so called torture." Scalia concludes.   "Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow-up L.A. prohibited by the Constitution.?  Not an easy question."

    Yes, not an easy question. Or a relevant one.  Scalia presents an inverse of the reductio absurdum argument--use an absurdly framed hypothetical to reach a justification and then implicitly expand it to general situations.  

    To accept Scalia's argument, it would seem to me, that we would have to accept that as long as arrestees have not been convicted of a crime, they can be subjected to whatever treatment that the authorities would like.  So constitutionally, according to Scalia's interpretation, authorities could "smack" an arrestee around but only until a verdict on the crime is reached.  Only then, does the 8th kick in.  

    Moreover, it seems to me that the 8th amendment's "...nor cruel punishments inflicted"  does not only apply to Courts and/or conviction of crimes.  Indeed, "Courts" are not mentioned.  So Scalia, here is my punishment for you:   Go to your room, and no more Jack Bauer programs.  


    What Justice Scalia is getting at (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 05:35:07 PM EST
    is that the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, at least since 1979, as regulating court-imposed punishment on account of a conviction for crime, including the conditions under which that punishment is carried out, and not other forms of governmental (mis)conduct. The conditions in a jail during pretrial confinement, for example, are not permitted to constitute "punishment" at all, so the question of "cruel and unusual punishment" is immaterial. But the Constitution does forbid all deprivations of liberty (not to mention life) without due process of law. "Liberty" include freedom from arbitrary bodily restraint and harm. No narrow or technical verbal categories limit that guarantee. Due process of law includes international humanitarian law where it applies, such as to military detainees.  So that would be my answer: yes, it is true that technically the Eighth Amendment does not apply.  But the Fifth Amendment due process clause does apply, and it bans torture as an inherently arbitrary and lawless deprivation of liberty.

    Thanks for taking (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    The time to address this.

    Peter, Scalia's interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    seems at odds with the U.S. Report to the UN, Feb 9, 2000, Convention Against Torture (cited in my comment above), prepared by the State Department with the assistance of the DOJ.

     In Section C, Number 49, it states: "Torture has always been proscribed by the 8th Amendment..which prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment.'  This Amendment is directly applicable to actions of the Federal Government, and through the 14th Amendment to those of the ..states."   (note the cases cited on this are Robinson v Calif, 1962 and Estelle v Gamble, 1976.)

    "The protections of the right to life and liberty, personal freedom and physical integrity found in the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments provide a nationwide standard.  ....it applies to the action of officials throughout the US and all individuals enjoy protection under the Constitution regardless of nationality and citizenship."

    The final determination, if it ever got that far, would be whatever the Court said it was.  But, in my view, Scalia, who is supposed to be smart, betrays that intelligence, with the ticking bomb underpinning to his reasoning.  As seems to be the case, more and more, the Supreme Court pivots on politics--the law becoming whatever five votes determines it to be.


    I do not agree with your interpretation (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 12:21:28 PM EST
    Yes, torture is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment, to the extent it is imposed or inflicted as punishment for a crime. But not otherwise; its illegality in other contexts is based on other laws. The detainees who are the subject of the Senate Report were not held on account of being judged guilty of a crime. Any part of their horrific maltreatment that was inflicted for the purpose of punishing them (for perceived complicity in 9/11 or whatever) was illegal, whether cruel or not, simply because no punishment can be lawfully imposed or inflicted before an adjudication of guilt. The nature and quality of the "punishment" is immaterial, and the Eighth Amendment does not apply. To that extent, I agree with Scalia. But that doesn't make it legal (or constitutional). The torture that was used was illegal on a different rationale. On that point, I disagree with Scalia. He adopts a much narrower and less flexible interpretation of "liberty" under the Due Process Clause than I do; in this, I think I am clearly in the majority.

    Has it ever been absolutely established... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by unitron on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 02:55:19 PM EST
    ...that "punishment" specifically means only a penalty for being convicted of a violation of the law?

    Depends what you mean by (none / 0) (#50)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    "absolutely established."  If you accept U.S. Supreme Court interpretations that have stood unchallenged for over 35 years, then yes.

    It did not seem (none / 0) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 16, 2014 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    that Scalia was as absolute as your interpretation on the inapplicability of the 8th Amendment to torture. The transcripts of his interviews take us through the punishment for a crime interpretation, and present the pre-verdict/pre-punishment example of jailing a witness as coercion to answer questions.

    But, he also appeared less definite with his.."and, I suppose it is the same about "so called" torture.  The "so called" torture reference, I also found interesting, as to his definition,  or where he would look to find it.

    Scalia found it "not to be an easy question," to determine if what can't be done for punishment, can't also not be done to extract information.  But, as you explain,  the focus of the illegality of the torture (or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, as included in the Geneva Conventions) does not hinge, at all  (or, necessarily, in my interpretation) on the 8th Amendment. Scalia did not go beyond the 8th in his interviews. But, it is clear to all who care to see, that violence has been visited upon the Constitution as well statutes.


    anyone who commits/condones/approves of (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    torture is a criminal, whether or not they're prosecuted. they are by no means "patriots", unless you're using some kind of bastardized definition of the term. the whole lot of them should be facing charges at the Hague, not making the rounds of the news/political talk shows.

    as it is, this report has made it problematic for any of them to leave the country, for fear they'll be arrested by a foreign gov't, and "renditioned" to the Hague, to stand trial.

    Interesting idea (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:13:13 PM EST
    if the rest if the world started grabbing these guys and "renditioning" them what basis would we have to complain about that?  I wonder.  

    What basis? (none / 0) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    "Might Makes Right."

    Or, so they say.


    I've heard that (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:42:18 PM EST
    i guess we better hope we remain "mighty" or we might end up like Q on that episode of the Next Generation when he lost his powers and everyone in the universe he ever messed with came looking for him.

    How about if a "patriot" (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 05:52:02 PM EST
    inflicts a wound upon the enemy from which he or she dies an agonizing death?

    And torturing a captured enemy combatant is certainly no more reprehensible than the "strategic bombing" of an entire city. Less so in fact.

    Torture of the prisoners for "intelligence".. murder and rape and child abuse and theft and fraud and loss of civil liberties; there's never been a war anywhere that didn't come with these.

    What? Are we from now on going to aim for a hyper-militarized yet more civilized country? Good luck with that.  


    The two "psychologists" (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:50:45 PM EST
    Jesson and Mitchell were paid more than 81million dollars to develop a torture program and have their names made synonomous with torture and cruelty far beyond their lifespans.
    In the "Salt Pit," a then-secret CIA prison in Afghanistan, John "Bruce" Jessen watched carefully in late 2002 as five agency officers rushed into a darkened cell and grabbed an Afghan detainee named Gul Rahman..

    "It was thoroughly planned and rehearsed," Jessen later explained, according to a CIA investigator's report. "They dragged him outside, cut off his clothes and secured him with Mylar tape," before beating him and forcing him to run wearing a hood. When he fell, they dragged him down dirt passageways, leaving abrasions up and down his body.

    Jessen added a critique. "After something like this is done, interrogators should speak to the prisoner to give [him] something to think about," he told the investigator.

    On Nov. 20, 2002, Rahman was found dead in his unheated cell. He was naked from the waist down and had been chained to a concrete floor. An autopsy concluded that he probably froze to death.

    Just Sick (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 10:13:05 AM EST
    From your link:
    As lieutenant colonels in the Air Force, the two psychologists had devoted their military careers to studying how various forms of torture had affected American servicemen taken captive in the Korean and Vietnam wars.

    So instead of taking note about it actually effected human beings, these two clowns are making note on what was most effective and cashing in on the suffering of American soldiers.

    And this:

    Working at the school for survival, evasion, resistance and escape, known as SERE, at Fairchild Air Force Base near Spokane, they trained U.S. airmen how to resist and survive if they were captured by countries that do not adhere to the Geneva Convention.

    Put the US on the list.

    There can be little doubt these two knew it was torture and it was illegal.


    If I wasn't so morally opposed ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by sj on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:05:49 PM EST
    ... to torture I would say that what really needs to happen is that Jessen and Mitchell should really be personally evaluating the effectiveness of their recommendations.

    81 freaking million dollars.


    Well (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:46:24 PM EST
    it seems to me there might be a downside to their becoming famous and plastering their faces on any network that with point a camera at them.

    If you know what I mean.  Their tentacles are long and so is their memory.


    Rahman is a good example (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:35:52 PM EST
    of torture not working.

    Was that supposed to be funny? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 09:05:36 PM EST

    I can't bring myself to give that a 5 (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    but thank you for posting it.

    After the affront of seeing the clips (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:44:00 PM EST
    of Dick Cheney on MTP, not just defending torture but asserting he'd do it all again, I thought the following accurately reflected some of my own thoughts:

    More pointedly, when journalists write about torture and depredations of current or former regimes, journalists don't feel the need to get the torturers' side of the story. No one is rushing to ask Assad's torturers in Syria if their tactics are necessary to keep "terrorists" in check. No one is asking North Korean guards if their treatment of their people is OK because some other country is worse. No one rushes to counterbalance the accounts of Holocaust victims with the justifications of Nazi guards. It simply isn't done, any more than we "balance" stories of child sexual abuse with a hot-take counterpoint from a member of NAMBLA. The reason we don't provide "balance" in these cases is that to do so would be to normalize those behaviors as part of legitimate discourse.

    So why in the world are the torturers who subjected innocent people to anal feedings and dungeon ceiling hangings given the courtesy of "balance" in the press? Where is the line that separates issues that require balance from those that do not?

    In a decent moral universe, torturers don't get the benefit of explaining themselves to the press any more than serial killers do, except potentially out of morbid curiosity.

    How refreshing would it have been had the media not had their usual Pavlovian response and just said, "No, sorry - we're not bringing Dick Cheney on here and giving him another opportunity to talk about why it was good that we tortured people."

    As if.

    When I first saw he was (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:50:39 PM EST
    going to be on, I posted a comment to that effect which you responded to, I almost posted another asking why on earth do they keep giving this person a platform.

    But I quickly answered myself.  Because people will watch.

    (Btw, when I answer my self I do it in Dolly Partons voice)


    I sorry (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    dont think levity means I don't take this seriously.  It's really how I deal with horror.

    This was a guy who publicly (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    mocked a woman awaiting execution in Texas..

    Who was in bed with that den of thieves Enron..

    Yet 50 million schmucks voted for him like it was going to get them into Heaven..

    So very, very sad (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    Listening to CBS news this evening, I heard this: Whereas 67% of interviewees in a new CBS poll said that "waterboarding" constituted "torture," a full 49% said that it may be ok in certain circumstances and 67% considered that info extrapolated could be useful info.

    As I said in a note to my friend, S: Back to basic values and elementary school level.  IMO, that is what we are talking about ... the forming of expectations and what becomes known as a conscience.  More and more, it seems to me, that we may be too late in looking at where people are when they are 30 or 40 years old.  Rather, what did they learn and inculcate in their formative years; what should be taught?

    Why are they not just hunkering down and (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 08:16:14 PM EST
    thanking god no one has the guts to prosecute them? Do they really have to offend us with these statements?

    No definition of a 'good person' includes performing forced rectal feeding for any reason.  Not one. If they had to hire sadists to do these horrible things for what they misguidedly thought were good reasons, then own up to that.

    All those big newspapers (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Mon Dec 15, 2014 at 08:37:22 PM EST
    that recently professed such offense following the release of the details of the Senate report on torture ... I look for their response (here's looking at you Judith Miller's NYTimes) to Dick Cheney's weekend visit to Meet the Press in addition to his PR circuit now to say how he would-do-it-again.  Will the Times and the WashPo and the LATimes and the Chicago Tribune, as well as our lackluster Denver Post here, actually and directly address the in-your-face Cheney??? Or do they only talk about "morality" at a distance?

    Torture (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    is a good thing according to George W. Hmm, does he think Obama should send him out to be tortured so he can be a true "patriot"? Ugh.

    Dadler, please stop posting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    inappropriate comments. This is the second one I've deleted today. Namecalling and vulgarity is not allowed.

    "The jail was completely dark, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    its prisoners subjected to constant white noise and freezing cold. They were kept naked, forbidden to speak or be spoken to. One man died from hypothermia, others had food inserted into their anuses on behalf of the US, after medical sign-off. But the most sickening thing that happened at the CIA's torture site in Afghanistan, codenamed Cobalt, was when people from the ordinary US prison system visited. They were, says the Senate intelligence committee report, "wowed" by it, convinced by the CIA that there was "nothing inhumane" in the regime.

    The American term "enhanced interrogation" closely mirrors the Gestapo's term "sharpened interrogation", whose rules were spelled out by its chief, Heinrich Müller, in an infamous directive in 1942. Permitted Gestapo techniques included a starvation diet, sleep deprivation, dark cells and exhaustion, with beatings only allowed in the presence of a doctor.

    - Paul Mason, The Guardian

    "Those who carry out the penalty tend to become an autonomous sector; justice is relieved of responsibility for it by a bureaucratic concealment of the penalty itself," wrote sociologist Michel Foucault, a quarter of a century before Abu Ghraib.


    "Verschärfte Vernehmung" (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    - from a generally hideous description of the Muller memorandum and its Red, White, and Blue Reich derivatives.

    I was reading some of this (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 05:14:45 PM EST
    and I just had to stop.  It was literally making me sick to my stomach.

    I am so ashamed this stuff was done in my name.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:09:54 PM EST
    it is horrible and disgusting but you and I and many others at least have the conscience that we didn't vote for George W. Bush small as that may be.

    It's pretty small (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    the couple of years I spent in Canada I usually introduced myself "name-I didn't vote for Bush"

    Sounds (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    like you had the bad luck of living in Canada during Bush.

    Yeah, it's a sliver but still it's a sliver which is better than some.