The newest round of “torture memos” have just been released by the Department of Justice. I’m only just beginning to go through them, but I have a preliminary thought.
The first, and very chilling memo in the group is an analysis of the various techniques that were used by C.I.A. interrogators on Abu Zubaydah. The author of the memo, which is dated August 1, 2002, is Jay S. Bybee, who was the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Bybee concludes that all of these various techniques, including waterboarding, do not constitute torture under American or international law.
Bybee is generally the forgotten man in torture studies of the Bush era. The best known of the legal architects of the torture regime is John Yoo, who was a deputy to Bybee. For better or worse, Yoo has been a vocal defender of the various torture policies, and he remains outspoken on these issues. But whatever happened to his bossë/p>
Today, Bybee is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was confirmed by the Senate on March 13, 2003—some time before any of the “torture memos” became public. He has never answered questions about them, has never had to defend his conduct, has never endured anywhere near the amount of public scrutiny (and abuse) as Yoo. It is an understatement to say that he has kept a low profile since becoming a judge.
It’s a lesson in the vagaries of politics, and timing, that Bybee could slip through the cracks of this story so easily.
- digby
Bybee and Yoo and Addington and all those lawyers in the Bush administration who worked on this cannot actually be explained in quite this way [Arendt about Eichmann]. They obviously knew they were legally exposed, they researched the issue and in the course of that must have read the reasoning behind the laws they were seeking to circumvent. They weren't mere functionaries carrying out orders, as you might be able to argue the actual torturers were. (Which also wasn't considered adequate at Nuremberg, but never mind... )These were lawyers who were actively engaged in creating a legal rationale for something they clearly understood was controversial and which required them to think about what they were doing on a deeper level than someone like Eichman.
The psychology may have been the same --- they were just doing their jobs. But the act of doing their jobs required a consciousness that goes beyond the average bureaucrat, even the average Nazi bureaucrat ca. 1942. They thought it through.
The man who wrote that memo now sits on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and his conscious judgment is at issue every single day. This country should not have anyone who authorized twisted and depraved behaviors sitting in judgment of anyone. If Obama refuses to take action against this man, the legal profession should do it for him and disbar him. And if the congress can impeach someone over illicit oral sex, they can surely impeach a federal judge for authorizing torture.
It's bad enough that we have war criminals running free. Having one of them sitting on one of the highest courts in the land is mind-boggling.
Headline in the Times-On-Line
Slight Course Change
The tone is different, but the substance of President Obama’s foreign policy has much in common with that of his predecessor.
- The comments section takes him to pieces.
Yglesias: Rahm Offers Tough Talk on Two States
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was said to badly want Kadima chief Tzipi Livni to join his coalition, but the price she was asking—for Netanyahu to say he supports the idea of a two state solution—proved too high for the Likud leader. Instead, he formed a coalition with far-right leader Avigdor Lieberman who also opposes a two state solution, has disavowed the Annapolis process, and wants to entrench greater levels of discrimination against Israel’s Arab citizens. Given that Livni wasn’t even talking about any concrete concessions to the Palestinians, this makes the outlook for peace look quite bad. But according to this M.J. Rosenberg item, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emannuel is signaling that Barack Obama is very serious about pursuing a two state solution:
Yedioth Achronoth, the largest circulation daily in Israel, reports today that President Obama intends to see the two-state solution signed, sealed and delivered during his first term.
Rahm Emanuel told an (unnamed) Jewish leader; “In the next four years there is going to be a permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it doesn’t matter to us at all who is prime minister.”
He also said that the United States will exert pressure to see that deal is put into place.”Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory,” the paper reports Emanuel as saying. In other words, US sympathy for Israel’s position vis a vis Iran depends on Israel’s willingness to live up to its commitment to get out of the West Bank and permit the establishment of a Palestinian state there, in Gaza, and East Jerusalem.
That sounds like a good approach to me, though foreign press reports are often unreliable.
Ygleisias: Obama’s High-Speed Rail Plan
tristero: Misinformation And Its DiscontentsI’m watching Barack Obama’s remarks on high-speed rail, which I think are excellent, but I’m more interested in the fact sheet I’ve gotten in the old inbox from the White House since it sheds some light on something that I and others have been wondering about—how is this money supposed to be spent? The answer is that there will be a two-stage competitive grant process. In the first stage “applications will focus on projects that can be completed quickly and yield measurable, near-term job creation and other public benefits” and then there will be a “next round to include proposals for comprehensive high-speed programs covering entire corridors or sections of corridors.” What corridors are we talking about?
—California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)
—Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC)
—South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)
—Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, , Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)
—Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville,)
—Florida Corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami)
—Southeast Corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville)
—Keystone Corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)
—Empire Corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo)
—Northern New England Corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)
Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor (Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, New Haven, Providence, Boston) to compete for funds for improvements to the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service, and for establishment and upgrades to passenger rail services in other parts of the country.
My take on this is that the most promising projects on the merits, from a federal point of view, are probably those that upgrade the existing Northeast Corridor (where we know demand exists) and those that connect to the Northeast Corridor since the existing passenger rail corridor extends the utility of the new link. The Chicago Hub Network and the California Corridor concepts strikes me as very important for the long-term future of their regions, but for it to be useful will take a lot of time and money. I assume that the relevant state-level politicians for the Gulf Coast and South Central Corridors aren’t going to be interested in ponying up the sort of state funds that would make these projects competitively viable, and that may be for the best since I think those corridors may be a bit ill-conceived. It seems strange to build so much track in Texas and not manage to link Houston with Dallas.
Here's a Republican misinformation talking point that, in the hands of Bloomberg News, goes transparently awry:Think Progress: Politico’s Mike Allen claims that author of DHS report on right-wing extremism couldn’t be from ‘real America.’President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $2.73 million last year and paid $855,323 in federal taxes, an amount that would be higher by about $102,000 if his budget plan were in effect.But the article also reports Biden's income and taxes:The administration also released the tax return filed by Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill. It shows they paid $46,952 in federal taxes for 2008 on $269,256 in adjusted gross income. They also paid $1,827 in alternative minimum tax, a levy the Obamas avoided because their income was too high. The Bidens paid $11,164 in Delaware state income tax.You notice something?
Ok. We learn that the Obamas' taxes will rise, But for some strange reason, no one at Bloomberg bothered to calculate what the Bidens - who reported a low, but nevertheless quite comfortable, six-figure income last year - would pay in taxes if Obama's budget plan goes into effect.
There's a good reason for that omission. The article implies, or if you prefer, insinuates:
Because Obama's own taxes will rise under his plan, and because politicians never act against their own interests, therefore everyone's taxes will rise.
Now, that screwy logic would be contradicted if they reported that Biden's tax rate wouldn't return to pre-Bush levels - which, of course, is precisely the case (see the third comment to this post, from Brian J, for example ), and which the article leaves for readers to work out for themselves.
On Tuesday, the Washington Times revealed a recent Department of Homeland Security assessment that warned about increased activity by “rightwing extremists.” Conservatives have responded with hyperventilation, claiming that the report meant the government was targeting them. On Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Tuesday night, Politico’s Mike Allen added fuel to the outrage fire, claiming that the report couldn’t have been written by someone from “the real America”:
ALLEN: I think it’s a big story — I don’t know, I think some bureaucrat who wrote this report like misstated in a way that doesn’t comport with your or my observations about the real America. I think it was somebody, who written inside the Beltway, who maybe has fantasies about what happens outside in the real America. But I think it was obviously overstated that I can only get so like excited about that.
Listen here:
Allen’s “real America” rhetoric is ridiculous. In fact, it is reminiscent of far right talker Michael Savage’s claim yesterday that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano should be fired over the report and replaced with a “real American.” It’s doubtful that Allen is comfortable sounding so similar to Savage.
Transcript: ...
Fox News actually getting it right for a few minutes.
C&L: Shepard Smith blows the 'DHS is picking on the Tea Parties' meme out of the water
By David Neiwert Thursday Apr 16, 2009 9:30amDOWNLOAD (132)
PLAY (981)
Shepard Smith brought that rarest of things to Fox News yesterday: amid the cacophony over the Tea Parties, he actually committed an act of journalism. In the process, he also managed to also bring a voice of sanity to the nonstop right-wing shrieking at Fox over the recent Department of Homeland Security alert about the possible rise of right-wing extremism.
In fact, Smith confirms everything we've reported here: Not only is the report focused entirely on the very real problem of the lethally violent potential of extremist right-wing terrorism, but mainstream conservatives' wailing and teeth-gnashing over it is -- besides being an egregious display of a persecution complex -- if anything a tacit admission of their own complicity in fueling extremist rhetoric.
Catherine Herridge looked into the claims of the Malkinites and essentially blew it all out of the water:
Herridge: Essentially, the driver in these intelligence assessments is the downturn in the economy. What they say, essentially, is that when people have less money, that they're out of work, they feel disenfranchised. This is fertile ground for groups on the left as well as groups on the right.
And you remember, from reporting on this show, Shep, that even at the end of last year, prior to the inauguration, the Department of Homeland Security under the Bush administration was sounding the alarm about the potential for right-wing groups to act, specifically because of the economy, and also because America was going to have its first African-American president.
Smith: So if this bulletin from April 7 looks at the right-wing groups, is there a bulletin that looks at left-wing groups as well?
Herridge: Yeah, we were able to obtain that bulletin as well. It came out in January, and didn't get -- there it is -- didn't get the same attention. It looked specifically at groups like the Earth Liberation Front, or ELF, groups that in the opinion of Homeland Security, in the future will try and attack economic targets and specifically use cyber-attacks, because they see that is sympatico, or in concert with some of their other beliefs.
So there are two assessments. The one on the left, the one on the right is the one that's getting the attention because of the leak.
... I would point out that both of these assessments, Shep, were commissioned under the Bush administration. It takes some time to do them. They only came out after he left office.
Smith then featured an interview with intelligence specialist Mike Baker, who confirmed Herridge's reporting further and suggested that conservatives were grasping at some self-revealing straws here.
Still, that didn't prevent Sean Hannity, only a few hours later, from pontificating at length with Joe the Plumber about how the mean DHS was targeting the tea parties:
DOWNLOAD (28)
PLAY (251)
They never learn. Indeed, it seems the more wrong the wingnuts are, the more relentless they become. This morning, Janet Napolitano went on Fox to try to explain, and apologized that it came out looking bad -- though that was more the fault of her critics. Here's DHS' official statement.
Indiana Rep. Steve Buyer, the ranking Republican on the House Veterans' Affairs committee, said it was "inconceivable" that the administration would consider military veterans a potential terrorist threat.Republicans are now arguing that, for politically correct and politically expedient reasons, we should ignore this possible domestic terror threat identified by George Bush's FBI and George Bush's Department of Defense.
I understand that it's politically correct, and fun political fodder, for Republicans to express false outrage over a new Department of Homeland Security report that noted, among other things, that right-wing extremists were trying to recruit US military members. But are the Republicans really now saying that Homeland Security should not keep an eye on terrorists' efforts to recruit former US military members?
Yes, they are.
I give examples below, from George Bush's FBI and DOD, detailing the problem of far-right extremists infiltrating the US military, and trying to recruit former members of the US military. The media does all of us a disservice by not demanding the Republicans explain why they are now for us abandoning efforts to monitor a threat that George Bush himself pointed out to us.
Now, let's examine the facts, since last night, Republican leaders and the Republicans at the American Legion asserted that Timothy McVeigh was the ONLY current or former member of the military to be involved in any domestic terrorism, and therefore we don't need to keep an eye on this potential threat.
Department of Defense investigators estimate thousands of soldiers in the Army alone are involved in extremist or gang activity
From the Southern Poverty Law Center, 7/7/06:Under pressure to meet wartime manpower goals, the U.S. military has relaxed standards designed to weed out racist extremists. Large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the armed forces.This was George Bush's Defense Department, Donald Rumsfeld's DOD - they determined that thousands of extremists were at that time members of the US military. So the media needs to ask the Republicans what they are talking about. Do they think we should not keep tabs on Aryan Nation members of the US military?
Department of Defense investigators estimate thousands of soldiers in the Army alone are involved in extremist or gang activity. "We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad," said one investigator. "That's a problem."
FBI report: "White Supremacist Recruitement of Military Personnel since 9/11," 7 July 2008
This is a report from George Bush's FBI:Although individuals with military backgrounds constitute a small percentage of white supremacist extremists, they frequently occupy leadership roles within extremist groups and their involvement has the potential to reinvigorate an extremist movement suffering from loss of leadership and in-fighting during the post- 9/11 period....The Bush administration's FBI and DOD documents thousands of cases of US soldiers being members of far-right extremist groups. Yet the Republicans are now saying that our anti-terror organizations should not keep an eye on this potential domestic terror threat because it wouldn't be politically correct.
FBI reporting indicates extremist leaders have historically favored recruiting active and former military personnel for their
knowledge of firearms, explosives, and tactical skills and their access to weapons and intelligence in preparation for an
anticipated war against the federal government, Jews, and people of color. FBI cases also document instances of active
duty military personnel having volunteered their professional resources to white supremacist causes....
A review of FBI white supremacist extremist cases from October 2001 to May 2008 identified 203 individuals with confirmed or claimed military service active in the extremist movement at some time during the reporting period....
According to FBI information, an estimated 19 veterans (approximately 9 percent of the 203) have verified or unverified service in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Twelve of these have primary affiliations with the national organizations NSM (7), NA (4), and AN (1), six with skinhead groups, and one with white supremacist criminal gangs. FBI information indicates the activities engaged in by these individuals reflect those by veterans in the extremist movement generally since 9/11.
This is yet another example of how the far-right takeover of the GOP has led the Republicans to demagogue on every serious issue affecting our country, from the economy to terrorism. The GOP doesn't think we should have a stimulus bill, preferring to risk another Great Depression, because they think opposition to stimulus is a political winner for them, regardless of the economic costs to the nation. Republicans don't think the Dept. of Homeland Security should be paying any attention at all to domestic terrorists' efforts to recruit members of the US military, because they think "defending the military" will earn them political points, even if it means risking another Oklahoma City style terrorist attack, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the process. Saving the country from another Great Depression or another major terrorist attack has taken a back seat to earning political points.
I hope the Republican party and the American Legion hire a good crisis management expert, and an even better lawyer, the next time a Timothy McVeigh wannabe blows up a federal building, killing hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans. Because they're going to have some serious explaining to do as to just whose side they're on.
- Aravosis Georgia Senate threatens to secede:
What do they plan on fighting with, peaches? Mind you, this comes on yesterday's threat by the GOP governor of Texas to secede as well.
Of course, what's really going on here is that Republicans are intentionally fanning the flames of violence because they've been out of power for a grand total of 100 days. They began pushing their followers towards violence during the presidential campaign, and have actually increased the inflammatory language over the past few months. Culminating, today, with a call for the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to no longer investigate known domestic terror threats.
The Republican party has a serious problem with extremists, not just in its midst, but among its leadership and its key allies in the faux media (FOX News) and its grassroots (Limbaugh, the blogs, and the religious right). The GOP is quite literally pushing their most extreme followers to violence. And now that they're calling on the government to ignore known terrorist threats, it's only a matter of time before something violent happens, and then the Republican party will find itself out of power permanently.- Aravosis: Rep. Bennie Thompson can't decide if he's for or against domestic terrorists
In 2005, Representative Thompson (D-Alabama, figures) was against far-right extremist domestic terrorism. But today, he apparently has a soft-spot for them. So whose side is Bennie Thompson on? Check the wind. From Plum Line:A Democrat, Rep. Bennie Thompson, is now trying to grab some of the media attention on this story for himself, aggressively criticizing the Obama administration over the “right wing extremists” report, even though the controversy fomented by the right on this is largely bogus.I do hope if the media plans on continuing to interview Rep. Thompson about this matter, they plan on asking him why he called for investigations of such extremists only a few years ago. And the next time Timothy McVeigh evil twin decides to blow up a building, Bennie Thompson needs to be the first witness on the stand explaining why he didn't want our government keeping an eye on these extremists.
But it turns out that some time ago, Thompson himself aggressively called for the Department of Homeland Security to do much more to crack down on “right wing extremists.”
No comments:
Post a Comment