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.

OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STILL ARGUING "STATE SECRETS"

Dan Froomkin in his White House Watch blog in today's The Washington Post reminds us that Obama's Justice Department has inexplicably maintained the bogus doctrine of "state secrets" to try to quash three cases being brought in federal court against government trampling on the Constitution.

The whole notion of "state secrets" as a defense against individuals claiming tortious and harmful action by the federal government is riddled with bogus legal reasoning. What possible could be so sensitive that it could not be revealed to a federal judge sitting in chambers reviewing a case? The whole concept seems intent in bypassing the federal courts and arrogating to the executive privileges and powers not granted in Article II of the Constitution.

On the basis of "state secrets," the Obama Justice Department wants the courts to deny pleas from Guantanamo internees as well as to dismiss a law suit charging AT&T with violating the Fourth Amendment in enabling phone taps. This state secrets argument is just bull, for which there is no credible legal basis. The courts should maintain their own constitutional duties and disregard the Obama government's self-serving legal arguments that revelation of certain facts will jeopardize national security.

If the Obama Justice Department prevails, every suit initiated against the executive or against the federal government is in jeopardy of failing in the face of an argument in favor of "state secrets." Obama should end this charade now, right now, and allow the federal courts and the public to evaluate the cases on their own merits, instead of relying on the specious line of "state secrets."

DAN FROOMKIN'S MUST-READ POST TODAY - WHITE HOUSE ORDERED PHONY LETTER LINKING SADDAM WITH ATTA

Dan Froomkin has a fascinating post in his blog in The Washington Post today about Ron Suskind's new book, The Way of the World, in which Suskind recounts that the White House ordered the CIA in 2003 to make up a phony letter saying that there was a definite connection between 9/11 mastermind Mohammad Atta and Saddam Hussein.

Writes Froomkin:

"Investigative reporter Ron Suskind's new book charges that the White House, seeking to justify its invasion of Iraq, ordered the CIA in late 2003 to forge evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

"Suskind, a Pulitzer-winning reporter and relentless chronicler of this administration's secrets, depicts a White House with a simpleminded bully in the Oval Office taking direction from a paranoid vice president -- and caps off his latest expose with what he acknowledges sounds a lot like an impeachable offense."

Froomkin always reports the latest on the machinations of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the White House gang, but his post today introduces Suskind's startling assertions that Bush and Cheney just made things up so that the "evidence was made to fit around the policy," as the British Foreign Secretary reported to Tony Blair in early 2003.

IS TORTURE OKAY IF WE SUSPECT TERROISTS PLANT BOMB IN U.S. CITY?

Thanks to Dan Froomkin in The Washington Post for alerting me to this opinion piece by Neil C. Livingstone in AJC.com, the web page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Livingstone argues for waterboarding and other techniques including those in situations where there is intelligence that terrorists have planted a nuclear device, and the only way to find out where it is and stop it is through these "enhanced interrogation techniques." Livingstone of course stops short of saying that American forces or the CIA can inflict "torture," just like Bush, Cheney and the other apologists for the dark side. Livingstone argues against total prohibitions on such "techniques."

Writes Livingstone:

"Even if one believes that waterboarding should not be practiced by the United States, does that mean under all circumstances? What if a bomb has been hidden aboard a school bus and there is not enough time to find it? Do we simply write off the lives of the children on board, or do we use an extreme technique to avert an unfolding tragedy?

"Even more to the point, what if there is solid intelligence that a chemical, biological or radiological weapon has been smuggled into one of our great cities and set to detonate in an hour? The probable consequences are dire: thousands dead, the U.S. economy severely damaged, the public and policy-makers so traumatized that they are likely to take precipitous action, perhaps even a nuclear strike, against the nation that harbored the perpetrators. Is that really what we want, or should the president have the authority to use extraordinary means to try to prevent such a catastrophe before it occurs? . .

"The U.S. should employ them only with presidential authorization. Interrogators should come from the intelligence community, be highly trained and skilled, and be carefully monitored and held accountable for abuses."

Livingstone uses that argument about the deadly weapon about to go off in a U.S. city. We must find out where the device is, otherwise there will be thousands dead. If the bomb goes off, U.S. authorities will do crazy things, "perhaps even a nuclear strike, against the nation that harbored the perpetrators . . ."

Wait a second. This is the same argument all torturers make. "We have noble purposes in mind. We want to protect our citizens. We really don't like to inflict the torture on this prisoner, but . . ."

This was the same argument that the torturers in the Inquisition made when it came to interrogating a "heretic." "We know this lady is a witch allied with Satan. She poses a threat to the faithfuls' eternal salvation. A mortal threat to the morals of the community. If we leave her be, the devil will poison the immortal souls of our children. So let's get the information she has by one way or another (meaning on the rack or with the "water-test.") Eternal salvation demands that we learn what Satan plans against God's children."

How many "witches" were thus put up on the rack or subject to the water-test, as a result? How many "heretics" confessed that, yes, they were allied with the devil, and yes, they were trying to corrupt the souls of the children?

If we follow Livingstone's prescriptions, how many "terrorists" are going to admit they were allied with the bomb-planters just so that the waterboarding would stop? To get an ideal of the answer, let's subject Livingstone himself to these "techniques," and see how long it takes for him to admit that he himself is part of a plot to plant a nuclear device in New York City.

The argument by those like Bush and Livingstone and Cheney for applying "enhanced interrogation techniques" (not torture!) has always been the same. "There is a deadly threat. We must stop it!" Forget about the rights of the individual subjected to these techniques. Forget about human dignity. There are no absolute rights of man. Do anything you want as long as your motives are pure.

The Constitution of the United States was written to protect all of us from the results of this thinking. The group cannot trump the rights of the individual, or else we sink back into the Dark Ages of the pre-Constitution centuries when human life and basic liberties were strange and foreign and meaningless to whoever occupied the seat of power.

BUSH THINKS HE IS MORALLY RIGHTEOUS EVEN AFTER APPROVING UNJUST INVASION, GUANTANAMO AND EVEN TORTURE

Dan Froomkin today has a good post about Bush's attempt to position himself as one taking the high road on ethics and morality during his formal greeting of Pope Benedict XVI in Washington yesterday.

Bush claims that his fight is against terrorists who invoke God's name in order to kill innocent people and deprive them of their God-given rights. Yet this definition of a "terrorist" applies to Bush himself. He is the one who started the unjust and immoral invasion of Iraq that probably has killed over 600,000 Iraqis not to mention the U.S. soldiers killed or maimed for life. Bush is the one who deprives suspects of their liberty and freedom by locking them up without recourse in Guantanamo. Bush is the one who approved the extraordinary harsh interrogation methods that are torture by any other name.

Bush tries to position himself as God-fearing and ethical, yet he is the one, as Froomkin points out, who constantly says that 9/11 changed everything, and his main job is to protect the American people, as if the horrible event of September 11th or his mandate to thwart any more attacks could justify the most evil of methods and procedures.

DAN FROOMKIN HAS EXCELLENT POST ON RECKLESS CLAIMS OF BUSH & CO. TOWARDS IRAN

Dan Froomkin has an excellent run-down in washingtonpost.com on the signals coming out of the Bush administration about its bellicose policy towards Iran. Froomkin lays out many of the reckless statements of Bush, Cheney, Gates and the generals on how Iran is arming "special groups" and Shiite militias, and how these weapons kill U.S. troops.

But as Froomkin notes, there is never any proof. Everything is innuendo and conjecture. Like Defense Sec. Robert Gates claiming Ahmadinejad knows about weapon shipments from Iran to Iraq. Here Froomkin quotes Yochi J. Dreazen of the Wall Street Journal:

"Yochi J. Dreazen reported in Saturday's Wall Street Journal (subscription required): "Senior U.S. defense officials accused Iran of stepping up its shipments of weapons to Shiite militias in Iraq, underscoring a marked hardening of American rhetoric about Iran in recent days.
"Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iranian support for the Shiite-extremist groups had grown, while Defense Secretary Robert Gates said for the first time that he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knew about the shipments.
"'I find it inconceivable that he does not know,' Mr. Gates told reporters at the Pentagon, adding that Iran was playing a 'malign' role in Iraq.""

Note all that Gates can say is, "I find it inconceivable . . . " But where is the proof that Ahmadinejad knows or directs these shipments? And where is the proof that "Iranian support for the Shiite-extremist groups had grown," as Admiral Mullen claims?

As Froomkin writes:

"Where's the proof? Who knows? Also left unaddressed is the widespread assumption that the Iranians actually supported both sides in the recent Shiite-on-Shiite conflict. And then there's the fact that it was Iran that brought both sides together to end hostilities. . . "

"A rare voice of skepticism about these claims came on Sunday from Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "[I]n this hearing on Iraq, Iran kept being mentioned. The fact that the Iranians are intruding. A proxy war is being fought. In other words, it was almost as if we were justifying our continued presence in Iraq with the fact that we may be in a conflict with Iran, and furthermore, the al Qaeda, wherever they may be. It's a very confusing picture to say the least.""

DAN FROOMKIN ASKS HOW COME CLINTON, OBAMA & EDWARDS SAY LITTLE CRITICAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLICIES?

I see where Dan Froomkin in Nieman Watchdog suggests that the Democratic candidates do something more than fill their speeches with "hope" and "change." Specifically, Froomkin wonders why Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not confronting the disastrous polices of George W. Bush.

Where do we see their arguments against the War in Iraq? Where is Obama on the violations of the Fourth Amendment in Bush's illegal wiretapping? How come we don't hear from Hillary on the disgrace of Guantanamo and the removal of the the protection of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus? And how come we have heard little to nothing from Edwards on Bush's policy of torturing suspects to obtain " valuable information"?

Instead of just mouthing platitudes, the Democratic candidates must confront the pressing problems created by Bush. They must go on record as against them. They must also explain why the polices constitute an American disaster, and how Democratic policies would remedy these problems.

BUSH SHOWS HIS MEGALOMANIA IN DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS WORLD'S HERO

George W. Bush has made some recent statements that show what an egomaniac he is. Indeed in his remarks to Arab journalists on the eve of his trip to the Middle East, he often refers to himself in the third person as "this guy," as if some impartial observer were engaging in a Bush encomium. Talk about an inflated sense of self-importance! This Bush actually believes all the rosy and boastful claims he makes about himself and his "principles."

Dan Froomkin points these out in his column yesterday in The Washington Post. This is George W. himself talking:

""I can predict that the historians will say that George W. Bush recognized the threats of the 21st century, clearly defined them, and had great faith in the capacity of liberty to transform hopelessness to hope, and laid the foundation for peace by making some awfully difficult decisions," Bush told Yonit Levi of Israel's Channel 2 News. Bush held several interviews with Middle Eastern journalists last week in anticipation of his trip to the region, which starts tomorrow.

""When he needed to be tough, he acted strong, and when he needed to have vision he understood the power of freedom to be transformative," Bush said of himself to Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

"As for the people of the Middle East, Bush told Hisham Bourar of al-Hurra Television: "I would hope that they would say President Bush respects my religion and has great love for the human -- human being, and believes in human dignity.""

This stuff is unbelievable. Bush thinks of himself as a hero, as a great humanitarian, as the saviour of the world. Here's Froomkin:

"Here's Bush talking to Hisham Bourar of al-Hurra TV:

"Q. "Last question, Mr. President. How do you think people in the Middle East will remember you?"

"Bush: "I hope they remember me as the guy who was willing to fight extremists who murdered the innocent to achieve political objectives, and at the same time, had great faith in the people, the average citizen of the Middle East, to self-govern; that the Middle East has got a fantastic future and that I admire the great traditions of the Middle East and believe that the average man can succeed mightily; that societies are best served when they respond to the will of people, and that we must reject the extremists who have a different view of that, the people that only prey on hopelessness. That's what I would hope.

""I would hope that they would say President Bush respects my religion and has great love for the human -- human being, and believes in human dignity. I know my image can be different at times, but I had to make some tough choices on war and peace. On the other hand, I hope people are now beginning to see the emergence of a free Iraq, based upon a modern constitution, is part of my vision for achieving peace that we all want.""

Thanks to Dan Froomkin for picking up on Bush's megalomaniac statements. After reading this tripe, perhaps we should petition for Bush to be canonized a saint. Then we could all bow down and pray to him, "Dear St. George W. Bush . . . help us mere mortals to be more freedom-loving . . . "

FROOMKIN ASSEMBLES QUESTIONS FOR PETRAEUS AND CROCKER

Dan Froomkin today in his White House Watch in The Washington Post assembles questions suggested by news organizations and commentators for Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker who are testifying today before Congressional panels.

Froomkin notes that the appearances today by Petraeus and Crocker are merely charades, and that Bush is not going to change his tactics or strategy, because he hopes to prolong the War in Iraq until at least he is out of office.

FROOMKIN ON WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENTS DINNER

Dan Froomkin's White House Watch in today's Washingtonpost.com describes last Saturday night's White House Correspondents' Dinner as "a delusional dinner." Froomkin points out the inappropriateness of reporters laughing and drinking with the objects of their reporting, as well as the hypocritical seriousness of Bush about Virginia Tech with not one word from his lips on the omnipresent and continuous blood-letting in Iraq.

"But I was struck by what seemed to be among the sentiments emanating from the head-table:
* That a has-been impressionist was a more appropriate choice for entertainment than the acerbic and brilliant political satirist who last year hurt some people's feelings.
* That the tragic Virginia Tech massacre required solemn observation and expressions of great respect, while the seemingly endless war that often claims as many victims in a day deserved virtually no mention at all.
* That a night full of journalists sucking up to their sources is not just defensible but actually honorable because of all the aggressive reporting that goes on every other day."

I commented several days ago on this Correspondents' Dinner, and complained that because it is crammed with apparent conflicts of interest, it should be cancelled. Reporters have a duty to readers to report the truth even though it means making enemies of those in power who are consequently held to account. By cozying up to Bush and Co. and drinking and joking with those guys, reporters will be less likely to hold Bush & Co. to account.

BUSH, THE GREAT HIGH PRIEST OF AMERICA - MORE EXCERPTS

I wrote yesterday April 17, 2007, of the phenomenon of George W. Bush as the new High Priest of United States.

Now today, Dan Froomkin blogs in the Washington Post on what I call Bush's role as HIGH PRIEST for the nation. Froomkin gives the URL for the text of Bush's "sermon" to the grieving students, friends and relatives at Virginia Tech. Froomkin remarks that Bush sounds more like a preacher than a president.

"Here is the text of his nine-minute remarks, in which he sounded more like a preacher than a president.


"In this time of anguish, I hope you know that people all over this country are thinking about you, and asking God to provide comfort for all who have been affected," he said.


"Across the town of Blacksburg and in towns all across America, houses of worship from every faith have opened their doors and have lifted you up in prayer. People who have never met you are praying for you; they're praying for your friends who have fallen and who are injured. There's a power in these prayers, real power. In times like this, we can find comfort in the grace and guidance of a loving God. . . .

"May God bless you. May God bless and keep the souls of the lost. And may His love touch all those who suffer and grieve."