What do we know and when did we know it?
By John Amato Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 3:30pmDan Froomkin has a great post up about the newly released torture memos and he knows this is only the beginning.
The full extent of what was done in our name remains unclear, and there are still big gaps in our understanding of how it all came to pass. Just how many people were detained by the U.S. government in the so-called “war on terror”? How many of them should never have been held in the first place? How many of them were mistreated, and how badly? Did torture and abuse produce valuable information? How much did it embolden our enemies? How many people knew what was going on? Where in the chain of command does the responsibility lie? Why didn’t more people object? How direct was the link between what happened in the offices of the president and vice president and the cells of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib? How willful was the administration’s corruption of the law?
And it’s not just torture and detention. When it comes to warrantless surveillance, for instance, what little we know about the program as it still exists today is still considerably more than we know about the program as it operated before the revolt in Bush’s own Justice Department. What were we doing from 2001 to 2004 such that even John Ashcroft couldn’t bring himself to approve it any longer? How many people have been wiretapped without a warrant? What happened to all the data?
The public overwhelmingly wants some sort of official inquiry. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll, nearly two thirds of Americans support an investigation into the treatment of terror suspects during the Bush administration – although they are split on whether it should be conducted by an independent panel or by federal prosecutors.
Journalists have a special role here. Not only can we keep chipping away at the truth – but we can and should remind members of the public, over and over again, about all the facts that remain hidden from them, including information about acts committed in their name that had -- and continue to have -- profound moral and legal implications. We should also remind Americans that our moral stature on the globe has been -- and will remain -- seriously damaged until or unless there is some sort of process of reckoning and accountability. And while there’s no need for journalists to get involved in partisan battles, when the question at hand is whether the nation will avert its eyes or face up to the truth, it’s entirely appropriate for journalists to take a stand.
NiemanWatchDog is having a series devoted to these questions. Journalists, please do your jobs.
Login or Register to post comments.
http://www.stinque.com/2009/04/21/punkin-the-...
. . The system is broken beyond repair. The ruling class is not predisposed to investigate itself, much less prosecute.
Torture. Uh huh. Nothing will come of this. The CIA has done whatever the hell they wanted to for decades and will continue to do so. Obama himself, when giving his re-election speech the other day at the CIA, gave them all high fives and told them how great a job they were doing. Nothing will come of this. You don't rally the troops and give them your undying love, if you or your administration had even the slightest inkling of pursuing justice. And there is no way, the man the president appointed, is going to go against the Prez' wishes.
The most distrubing thing about the statements from Obama are the subtle authoritarian perspective they inadvertently reveal.
First, by saying it is not time for retribution Obama asserts that crimes have indeed been committed.
Second, by taking the position that we must put it all behind us and move forward Obama asserts that he has all the information needed to know the full extent of the crimes and can unilaterally decide that it is appropriate to move on with no further investigation or judgement.
This is nearly as dangerous as the mindset of the perpetrators who believed that they could "protect" the country by any means necessary - even if it means abrogating the Constitution and violating international laws and treaties.
How can Obama, or anyone else, decide to not investigate and prosecute crimes known to have been committed? How can Obama endorse the mea culpa that crimes were committed while "in good faith following legal advice"?
Both these perspectives reveal a basic contempt for the rule of law, an impartial judiciary and a government based on a balance of power.
It has only been 3 months, but Obama's position on Justice issues is deeply troubling.
So roughly 33% of those polled don't want any investigations, aka the neocon Base of proven lunatics. Extrapolating, it's safe to say that all sane americans want to get to the bottom of this, and to know what happened.
Yes, people were locked up for years for no good reason. Many, if not most, were subjected to physical and/or mental torture.
But we know for a fact that some died as a result.
Folks, this is a murder investigation.
Cheney's assertion that the documents on the fruits of torture should be released is a confession of guilt. If the actions taken by CIA interrogators were legal, it would be a easy to defend them. Instead, in effect, Cheney is saying that they WERE NOT legal but warranted nonetheless. We are a country of laws and we have signed a treaty saying that we would not torture. Waterboarding and other methods cause prolonged mental suffering, and thus, are torture. The information that was gathered as a result of this torture is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether there was wrongdoing. Why do people keep talking about that. What if Iran chooses to torture the Iranian-American journalist they've jailed? Are we OK with that? We must hold ourselves to a high standard, an American ideal.
What if Iran chooses to torture the Iranian-American journalist they've jailed? Are we OK with that?
Or, suppose they just decided to charge her with spying and then jail her for 5 or 6 years, waterboard her 30 or 40 times, and then put her on trial and keep their evidence of spying secret, because that evidence may compromise their national security? Sound familiar? Seems the Bush justification for holding detainees caught in the "war" on terror and denying them rights as defined under the Geneva Convention was that they were technically not "prisoners of war" due to the fact that they are not uniformed members of any nation's army. Doesn't she fall into that category?
.
If, God forbid, the Iranians did happen to consider her an enemy combatant, as Bush did with the detainees we hold, and should follow his lead. Consider:
David Gregory: Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test. These critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning.
And that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea and they were roughed up and those governments said, "Well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions," and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that as commander in chief?
BUSH: My reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you name adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction.
Source: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/15/cnr.02.html
Today I am happier.
Biblically?
And it puts our national security at risk. When a country loses the respect of the entire world because its government has committed egregious crimes and the next government lets them go without consequences, that country is no longer a safe place to live or a safe "international friend" to have. It becomes a focus of the world's anger and determination to bring that country into line. That focus may be overt or covert, but it has quite a different meaning than a focus on an America that is relatively moral and lawful. It could well affect everything of importance that America wants to accomplish in the future.
That's the situation if we knew everything at the moment. But if we don't, and I'm sure that's true, we will become a country viewed with utter contempt on a global basis.
Maybe reporters CAN dig up the truth -- some have done an excellent job so far. Let's give them all our support.
I think if they actually get around to look for answers they'll find the nothing.
The hard drives missing, the servers replaced, the paperwork shredded and burnt.
Remember the millions of WH emails missing, the trucks at Cheneys house shredding nonstop before the election, official correspondence being done on private email accounts?
These people have had a lifetime of experience of covering their tracks and hiding the bodies.
They make the mafia look like pussies.
well, who would Jesus torture? you still haven't answered.
and are ya'll really ready to go to Hell if you're wrong?
No matter what blog you go to, the ultimate question for supposedly inquiring, concerned, minds should be but never is, how many people did they murder during the torture process and is everyone accounted for including the children tortured? People were killed, children were tortured, people are missing. Obama does not want all this dirty laundry to come out. Stay the course, keep looking forward, and lets not dwell on the past. Bullshit pal.
That the newest-released memo has information that the CIA interrogators were instructed by Rumsfeld to "get a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq"
Now, anyone recall Richard Clarke's mentioning of how Bush (or)Rumsfeld insisted that he FIND A CONNECTION that Iraq was involved in 9/11?
Login or Register to post comments.