WATERBOARD ALL THOSE SAYING IT IS NOT TORTURE

Let's have a full and open investigation of how George Bush and Dick Cheney instituted a policy of torture on captives believed to be Qaeda supporters.

Recall that the Inquisition lasted about 400 years in Europe from about 1300 to 1700 when the leaders of the French Enlightenment exposed it and its shameful practices of torture to daylight.

Some of the very same methods used by churchmen in the Inquisition to extract confessions of devil worship and witchcraft show up in what we know about Bush and Cheney's policy of "harsh interrogation methods." Trial by water is a good example. Water has long been used to separate the good from the evil. Suspected thieves and robbers were thrown into the water in 13th Centrury England; if their hair stayed dry, they were exonerated. Officials poured water down the throats of suspects. Most confessed within a few seconds. Of course, even after receiving church absolution, these unfortunates were then taken and burned at the stake in the city center.

Of course water was not the only method. Churchmen used hot coals and the wrack to test the innocence of suspected heretics. Surely God would protect them if pure and innocent. Most were found to be allied with Satan.

Those who claim waterboarding is not torture should watch the video of Christopher Hitchens being recently waterboarded. Hitchens volunteered. He lasted about 20 seconds before he could not take any more. Better yet, defenders of waterboarding - Hannity, Thiessen, Cheney, Rice, Addington, Tenet, et al. - we should waterboard all of them and not stop unless they make a full and complete confession. First let's accuse them of (take your pick): supporting Al Qaeda, practicing witchcraft, planning to detonate a dirty bomb in NYC, being in consort with Satan, practicing socialism, or whatever. Let's see how much water they can stand before they confess.

BUSH TO AWARD MEDAL OF FREEDOM TO COLOMBIAN ALVARO URIBE, TONY BLAIR, AUSTRALIAN JOHN HOWARD

The reason that Barack Obama and family cannot stay at the Blair House during these few days before inauguration is that it is being occupied by the former Australian premier, John Howard. Howard is being awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush on January 13, together with Alvaro Uribe of Colombia and Tony Blair, former British premier.

Philip Rucker and Al Kamen write in today's Washington Post website:

"Howard and his entourage will be bunking at Blair House on Jan. 12, the night before he, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe are to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush, two White House officials said today. The three current and former heads of state are longtime political allies of Bush, and Blair and Howard were key partners in the U.S.-led war in Iraq."

So Bush is awarding his favorite medal to those toadies who supported his disastrous and immoral War in Iraq. The question is, will Iraqis who suffered through these last six years caused by Bush and Co. throw their shoes at all of them?

Recall other famous recipients of the Medal: Gen. Tommy Franks, Paul Bremer and CIA former director George Tenet, three guys who really helped Bush screw up in enabling his unjustified war and then causing ruin and mayhem in Iraq after the invasion.

READ ANDREW SULLIVAN'S PIECE ON BUSH/CHENEY APPROVED "COERCIVE TECHNIQUES"

There are those in the Bush administration, such as Dana Perino as well as George Bush himself, who insist that the U.S. does not "torture." Harsh interrogation techniques, yes, torture no.

The most shocking thing is that it seems that the Republican faithful eat this up and willingly transmit this canard. You would think that Republicans could see through the charade and that they all would condemn these harsh interrogation techniques for what they are. But no, Republicans stand solidly behind Bush and Cheney in approving torture as an approved policy.

Andrew Sullivan has a must read post on his blog The Daily Dish for The Atlantic Monthly:

"This is the defining line of torture: not some arbitrary comic book technique, but a psychological and physical fact: pushing another human being to the point where choice becomes unavailable to him or her. You can do this in any number of ways; it can take three seconds of electrocution or it can take two months of sleep deprivation, hypothermia and darkness. But the line it eventually crosses is the same line. Throughout human history, human beings have known what that line is, and the West was constructed on a disavowal of ever crossing it again. Why? Because a society that endorses torture commits itself not to limiting, but to extinguishing human freedom. And a protection of human freedom in its most minimal form is what our entire civilization is premised on."

Sullivan goes on to describe some of the Bush/Cheney et al. approved techniques:

"Even the word "torture" can be too vague and abstract a term. So let us state in plain English how Bush, Cheney, Tenet, et al. actually got information. They did it by subjecting prisoners to repeated drowning, or freezing, or heating, or sadistically long sleeplessness, or shackling or crucifying them until the pain could be borne no longer, or beating them until they pleaded for mercy, or threatening to kill or torture their children or wife or parents. Or all of the above in combination, in isolation, and with no surety of ever seeing the light of day again, with no right to meaningful due process of any kind, sometimes sealed off from light and sound for months at a time, or bombarded with indescribable noise day and night in cells fro which there was no escape ever. This is what "under coercive conditions" actually means. It drove many of the victims into become mumbling, shaking, insane shells of human beings; it killed dozens; it drove others still to hunger strikes to try to kill themselves; and it terrified and scarred and "broke" the souls of many, many others."

ISRAELI OFFICIALS WARN AGAINST OBAMA CONDUCTING TALKS WITH IRAN

It is curious that in the last few days before president-elect Obama's news conference and his statements on Iran, two high-ranking officials from Israel thought it necessary to come out and warn Obama about establishing talks with Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Foreign Minister Tzipy Livni offered that Obama's acceptance of talks with Iran would show "weakness."

"US President-elect Barack Obama should not talk to Iran just yet, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Thursday, warning that such dialogue could project "weakness."
"We need to fight extremism," Livni said as she stood next to visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in the home of the American ambassador to Israel.. "We need to continue the pressure on Iran and I believe that the idea of continuing the pressure comes with more intense and effective sanctions on the Iranians."
Although she described Obama's election as "a source of inspiration to millions around the world," and congratulated him on his "historic victory," her comments marked a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration. Obama has stated a willingness to talk to Iran about its nuclear program without condition, telling The Jerusalem Post in July that he would engage "in tough, direct talks" with Teheran."

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said it would allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons behind the pretense of engaging in diplomatic talks. Tovah Lazaroff reports for The Jerusalem Post:

"Israel is not ruling out any option when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday.

"Following a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem, Barak said he told her that Israel is "not taking any option off the table, and we don't recommend that others take any option off the table," stressing, "We mean what we say."

"Barak insisted that Iran was continuing to "trick the world" in negotiations over the monitoring of its nuclear activities. "

The question is why we are getting all of these anti-Iranian statements from Israeli officials at this time.

I though that Barack Obama's statement on Iran at his news conference was bellicose enough with the push of the Israelis. Obama said he would never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that furthermore, Iran should stop giving aid to "terrorists."

By "terrorists," I assume Obama meant Hezbollah in Lebanon. If so, Obama is no better than George W. Bush in a simplistic approach to Hezbollah and the Shiite Muslims spread throughout the Middle East. Israel calls Hezbollah a terrorist group, so does the United States. But it is not clear that Hezbollah is anything more than a political entity infused with Shiite Islam that fights against Israel for land and civil rights. In other words, Hezbollah is an insurgency against the Israelis.

And as far as Iran's approach to nuclear weapons, Iranian leaders claim they have no desire to make nuclear weapons, and certainly, the IAEA has found no evidence to the contrary. All statements by Israel and Bush about Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is based on supposition and conjecture.

The question then is, would Obama allow Israel to attack Iran on the basis of conjecture? Obama's statements don't seem to reassure me on this important question.

WHY NO INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT PHONY LETTER LINKING SADDAM & MOHAMED ATTA

The new book by Ron Suskind, The Way of the World, makes the sensational charge that the White House instructed the CIA to create a bogus letter from the former head of Saddam's Intelligence Agency that Saddam had ties with Mohamed Atta.

The White House has issued non-denial denials, calling the assertion "ridiculous" but not saying that it is false. So has George Tenet, formerly head of the CIA, that "to the best of [his] knowledge," he received no such instructions.

But where are the reports we should expect about this in the public media? Where are the stories in The New York Times or on CBS? Investigative reporters should be swarming all over this story, but so far, there has been relative silence.

CHENEY'S TRIP TO MIDDLE EAST MAKES NO SENSE

So VP Dick Cheney is leaving today for a trip to the Middle East. Tom Raum of the Associated Press (published today in the Washington Post) reports the countries Cheney plans to visit:

"Cheney's first stop will be Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. Other announced stops include Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Cheney also will visit the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf."

Tom Raum explains the purpose of Cheney's visit:

"Vice President Dick Cheney is reaching out to moderate Arab leaders for help in bringing stability to Iraq, a mission that will include pleas for postwar support for minority party Sunnis."

Consider this: Cheney plans to visit Arab countries with a population made up of Sunnis. There are no countries on Cheney's itinerary that have a majority of Shia. The resulting question must be how can Cheney effect any change in the catastrophic situation and civil war in Iraq if the only governments he will be visiting are Sunni regimes? Iraq is predominantly Shia. The minority Sunnis and the majority Shia in Iraq are in the throes of a fierce civil war. What does Cheney think he can accomplish? Get the Arab Sunni governments to tell their Sunni counterparts in Iraq to cool it, and thus expose themselves to the guns and bombs of their Shia enemies?

This Cheney trip exposes the desperation of Bush & Co. over the looming American defeat in Iraq. A stinging defeat self-caused by Bush and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Tenet and all those other neo-cons like Wolfowitz and Perle and Feith.

TENET STILL TRIES TO JUSTIFY "AGGRESSIVE TECHNIQUES"

There has been lots of interest in George Tenet's forthcoming book, "At the Center of the Storm," to be released this coming Monday. Karen DeYoung writes in the Washington Post that Tenet thought the plan to invade Iraq was hatched well before September 11, 2001, and that his "slam dunk" comments were taken out of context and used by Bush to blame Tenet for faulty intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion.

However right Tenet may be about the phony basis used by Bush/Cheney for the unjustified invasion and bombing of Iraq, he is certainly wrong when he tries to justify the CIA's use of "torture." Of course Tenet does not use that word but instead calls the CIA's methods "the most aggressive" techniques. Tenet says these methods were used only on "a handful of the worst terrorists on the planet."


What is surprising is that there still are people like Tenet who think these "most aggressive techniques" are somehow justifiable. Have these people ever read the history of the Inquisition in Portugal and Spain? How people totally innocent will under the most aggressive techniques admit they were witches, and in consort with Satan and other dark forces of the imagination?

Let's put these aggressive methods to the test. Let's take Tenet and Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice and John Yoo (who as a lawyer tried to justify the use of these methods of torture) and let's subject them to water-boarding. Let's see who is the first to admit consorting with Osama bin Laden. Let's see who is the first to admit the most horrible crimes of murder and treason.

Better yet, instead of water-boarding which might be too "aggressive," let's put their delicate hands in a vice and turn the screw. No lives or organs would be in danger, only fingers and small bones. Then let's observe who is the first to yell uncle.