CHENEY CLAIMS TORTURE SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES

Dan Froomkin in his blog in today's washingtonpost.com points me to the dangerous and silly utterances of Dick Cheney when appearing on CBS Face the Nation yesterday. Apparently Cheney is still pushing the line that his "harsh interrogation methods" saved thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives. And that most Americans would support such "methods" if they knew how effective they were.

First of all, Froomkin points out that there is no credible evidence that torture or waterboarding produced any actionable intelligence that saved lives. Zubayda was waterboarded some 80 times and Khalid Sheik Mohammed over 150. If waterboarding were so effective as Cheney implies, how come it had to be done on multiple occasions to these two prisoners.

But more importantly, even if torture and waterboarding did produce evidence that the government used, would it ever be morally justified? Can we sacrifice the life of an individual for the good of the nation? Do the rights of the majority trump the rights of the individual? Morally, there is no way to justify waterboarding or Cheney's other harsh interrogation methods.

Furthermore, from a legal perspective, waterboarding is a supreme offense against the U.S. Constitution. The rights of an individual are supreme in the Constitution. Consider the Bill of Rights. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and freedom from being tortured by the state. If the individual did not possess these basic and fundamental rights in the U.S., then the U.S. would not be the land of the free or the paragon of democracy.

Historically, states and regimes have always resorted to torture and especially to waterboarding to make the accused tell "the truth." Consider the practices of the Inquisition where the Church turned "heretics" over to the king and the state for tests by water and/or by fire. Imagine if the Church suspected you were in consorts with Satan. Would you confess if you were subject to the trial by water? Would you admit that you were in fellowship with the devil? Suppose it were a test by fire, such as with hot irons? How long would you last without confessing "everything"?

Cheney claims that his interrogation techniques saved thousands of lives. That still is not justification for using them on suspects. If Cheney persists in his argument for this constitutionally abhorrent and immoral practice, I suggest that he himself undergo both water and fire and see how long he can endure without admitting he was the 20th hijacker.

STOP USE OF WAR PLANES IN AFGHANISTAN

To prevent civilian deaths and injuries in Afghanistan, I want to see the U.S. military ground all war planes permanently. Dropping bombs from F-16s will kill innocent civilians, no matter what precision guidance system the military says it is using.

Airplanes should be restricted to transportation and other peaceful purposes. They should not be used to fire at people on the ground or to drop high explosives on rural agrarian Afghani villages.

CNBC'S REPUBLICAN WHINING AND CRITICISMS OF OBAMA'S POLICIES

Why must CNBC populate its hosts with people like Michelle Cabruso-Cabrera, Larry Kudlow and Dennis Neal? These guys are rabid Republicans who make no pretense in their disdain for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress, who criticize every single initiative of Pres. Barack Obama, who rail against increasing taxes for the 5% who earn over $250K.

One of the worst ideologues is a guest commentator from the WSJ editorial board, Steve Moore. This guy never lets a chance go by without taking a whack at Obama or Democratic values.

I watch just a few minutes of CNBC a day, I can't take the Republic whining and spin. No wonder that they lost the last election both as to the presidency and congress. People like Moore have no plans other than that reducing taxes will work that miracle cure to whatever troubles the economy.

JOHN BOLTON FEARS SPANISH JUDGE WILL INDICT CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE

John Bolton is aghast at the prospect of a Spanish judge prosecuting higher-ups such as Cheney, Addington, Rumsfeld and Rice. In an op-ed today in The Washington Post, Bolton warns Obama not to let the Bush crowd be indicted by Judge Garzon. Perhaps Bolton is afraid for himself - that he might also be included and put on the list of suspected torturers and war criminals.

Perhaps Bolton forgets we live in a world where no nation, such as the U.S. under Bush, the torturer-in-chief, can get away with war crimes without being held accountable in world courts. So much for Bolton's American exceptionalism.

The sooner these Bush war criminals are brought into the dock, the better. Otherwise we will have this same sorry policy of "harsh interrogation methods" being resurrected the next time some Republican comes into office.

STOP U.S. AIR ATTACKS IN AFGHANISTAN

Taimoor Shah and Carlotta Gall report in today's The New York Times that U.S. bombing has killed up to 100 villagers in western Afghanistan, many of them women and children. Apparently Afghan forces attacked a suspected Taliban house and then called in U.S. war planes. The result is all too predictable.

Write Shah and Gall:

"Dozens of civilians, including women and children, have been killed during bombing raids by United States forces in western Afghanistan as Afghan troops battled Taliban fighters in heavy fighting, the Red Cross said Wednesday, confirming earlier accounts by Afghan officials.

"Enraged villagers brought between 20 and 25 bodies from their district to the capital of Farah Province to show them to officials, the officials said Tuesday. Villagers’ accounts put the death toll at 70 to 100, they said."

I have been long arguing for a complete cessation of U.S. air attacks. There is no way that such attacks are not going to inflict unacceptable civilian casualties. Perhaps the U.S. government still permits these attacks, misunderstanding who the "enemy" is. Members of the Taliban are just ordinary Afghanis, undereducated, simple farmers living with their families in agrarian villages. The Taliban thus represent a true insurgency against U.S. occupying and invading military. If the U.S. and Obama are going to "defeat" the Taliban, it cannot be by force of guns or war planes dropping bombs.

Consider the following from the Shah and Gall report:

"Villagers told Afghan officials that they had put children, women, and elderly men in several housing compounds away from the fighting to keep them safe. But the villagers said fighter aircraft later attacked those compounds in the village of Gerani, killing a majority of those inside, The A.P. reported.

"Mohammad Nieem Qadderdan, the former top official in the district of Bala Baluk, said he had seen dozens of bodies when he visited the village of Gerani.

"“These houses that were full of children and women and elders were bombed by planes. It is very difficult to say how many were killed because nobody can count the number, it is too early,” Mr. Qadderdan, who no longer holds a government position, told The A.P. by telephone. “People are digging through rubble with shovels and hands.”"

ISRAEL AT THE BEGINNING OF CAMPAIGN OF ETHNIC CLEANSING - NO PALESTINIANS ALLOWED

I understand Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to AIPAC last night via TV hookup and said that the Palestinians must accept Israel as "the Jewish State."

This is an outrageous and unreasonable demand. No one should be forced to recognize a state as ethnic or religious in character.

What Netanyahu really means is that Israel is off limits to any Palestinians, that only Jews should be allowed to live in Israel, and that Netanyahu wants all Palestinians to leave Israel.

Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is really the beginning of an Israeli campaign of ethnic cleansing. First seize Palestinian ancestral lands, then build Jewish settlements, then put up at 20 foot wall, then demolish Palestinian homes and claim they were illegally put up.

ROBERT GATES SHOULD STOP PREJUDICING U.S. POLICY TOWARDS IRAN

Was it necessary for Defense Secretary Robert Gates to inject his own opinions on the state of the incipient talks with Iran? Today in Egypt Gates promised the Egyptians that the U.S. would keep its "friends" informed as to negotiations with Iran.

By the way, why should the U.S. consider the dictatorial government of Egypt to be friendly as opposed to considering Iran an "enemy"? The Egyptian government routinely cracks down on dissenters, on people who criticize the government, on newspapers that oppose Mubarak. Furthermore, Egypt denies rights to women. And in Gates' view, Egypt is a "friend"?

We know why Egypt and other Arab countries in the Middle East oppose a detente between the U.S. and Iran. Iran is Persian in ethnic origin, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are all Arabs. Furthermore, the Arab countries by and large are Sunnis, Iran however is Shiite. So for both ethnic and religious reasons, Egypt and the others consider Iran a "threat."

But the U.S. and its government has no embedded biases. It happens that Iranians are better educated than most Arabs and are generally more sophisticated in the arts. The U.S. should not allow its foreign policy towards Iran be shaped by Iran's ancient antagonists, the Sunni Arab nations. And Robert Gates should keep his own counsel regarding Iran. He is not the president or the U.S. secretary of state.

U.N. REPORT HARSHLY CRITICIZES ISRAEL'S AGGRESSION AGAINST PALESTINIANS IN GAZA

The BBC reports that the United Nations examination of Israel's actions during its three week attack on Palestinians in Gaza shows that Israel and its IDF used disproportionate force against a civilian population.

The BBC gives the U.N.'s major findings:

1. Israeli army responsible in six cases in which UN property was damaged and UN staff and other civilians hurt or killed
2. No military activity was carried out from within UN premises in any of the incidents
3. Israeli military's actions "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness"
4. Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside.

HOLD CONDOLEEZA RICE TO ACCOUNT FOR POLICY ON TORTURE

The answer Condoleeza Rice gave to a Stanford University student when asked if waterboarding is torture was a perfect example of trying to deflect blame and guilt on to some higher-up (Bush). In effect Rice said that the president told her waterboarding was perfectly legal and not torture. So her conscience was clear. She went ahead and fully endorsed waterboarding which from then on she deemed legal and proper. She merely conveyed legitimate presidential policy.

We can all see through this answer. It was not my fault. The president said it was legal, and all my doubts were thus erased. Besides I never gave the orders, only served as a messenger of the president's policies.

Today Alec MacGillis writes in The Washington Post about another Rice obfuscation, this time involving a fourth grader asking a similar question about the U.S. policy on torture. Writes MacGillis:

"Then Misha Lerner, a student from Bethesda, asked: What did Rice think about the things President Obama's administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?

"Rice took the question in stride. saying that she was reluctant to criticize Obama, then getting to the heart of the matter.

""Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, we wanted to protect the country," she said. "But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country."

"She added: "I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country. September 11 was the worst day of my life in government, watching 3,000 Americans die. . . . Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country.""

When we get around to calling all of the Bush flunkies to account, Condoleeza Rice needs to be one of the first to stand trial.

CONDEMN TORTURE IN ALL CASES

When you think that Republicans and conservatives have sunk as low as possible in matters of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, along comes Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer and endorses torture in two situations, the ticking time bomb and the high value prisoner.

In arguing for torture, Krauthammer misunderstands the nature of American democracy. The U.S. Constitution incorporates basic human rights of the individual. The Constitution does not endorse rights for the majority. Rather it accords a bill of rights for each person. Each individual in the U.S. and more broadly in the world has a right to be free from torture, from being killed, wounded, threatened, beat up. A government or a state must not use its superior power to do any of these things. This is what individual constitutional rights mean - freedom from the overarching infringement by the state.

Mr. Krauthammer, would you justify torture during the 400 years of Inquisition in Europe? Suppose you were a churchman and believed that a certain person was involved in witchcraft or Satan worship. Suppose you honestly believed that witchcraft gravely harmed little children's chance for eternal salvation. Would you permit the wrack? How about the test by water? Or perhaps the hot irons?

Furthermore, if you allow a government or state to use torture in the ticking time bomb scenario, what happens if you perform your dark science on the wrong guy? Would your torture be justified? Of course the answer is NO!

And it would be just as wrong if you tortured the right guy. Torture is never acceptable, never okay. Mc Cain says bizarrely in my opinion that it is not about them, rather it is about us. I disagree. It is all about the person you say it is okay to torture. It is about his or her human dignity, his personhood, his individual humanity. Torture deeply offends human rights, and I reject Krauthammer's arguments that it should be allowed in certain cases.