GW Bush: Forget the Torture Report, CIA are Patriots

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Sun Dec 14, 2014 at 12:57:17 PM EST
Tags: GW Bush, Torture (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

GW Bush: Forget the Torture Report, CIA are Patriots | 50 comments (50 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

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.