I've never liked the death penalty. When I was a reporter, I saw several cases where the wrong person was prosecuted, and unless you have enough money for a good defense attorney, there's not a lot you can do if you're caught up in that kind of nightmare.

So I've always opposed the death penalty, with one exception: Polluters. From the dumpers who unload toxic chemicals in a small stream where children play, to politicians and organized crime figures who bring tons out-of-state toxic waste into unsuspecting communities, there's nothing that makes me more angry.

Because you've poisoned a place where children play. You've polluted a watershed, and people will eat the fish they catch there. Toxins will seep into the soil, and the air. And while it may be impossible to prove anytime soon, you've almost certainly killed people.

Now, we're hearing all kinds of stories that indicate that BP executives, managers, regulators and engineers either knew or had serious concerns that the Deepwater Horizon rig was at risk for an explosion.

And what else have we seen? A "Three Little Pigs" memo where BP makes it clear it's cheaper to pay long-shot damages than to make the rig safe. Memos where engineers warned of danger. Interviews with BP employees who talked about how the safety tests were rigged.

If you gave your friend a ride to the 7-Eleven, and while you were sitting in the car waiting, he pulled a gun and killed someone during a robbery, you could be tried for murder. Just for sitting there, just on the off chance that you knew something and were knowingly involved.

I think the fine people who are poisoning the world deserve the same treatment. Don't you think we should start applying that same legal standard to corporate malfeasance? No, we can't create a law specifically to punish BP - but we can make a real impression on all the other multinational corporations.

And I'll bet some smart D.A. or U.S. Attorney can find a way to make it happen.

After the Citizens United ruling from the Supreme Court, we were all pretty depressed. After all, the tidal wave of money that washes through the political system is downright devastating to democracy. And what are the odds that our spineless Congress will fix it in any meaningful way?

Ah, but we do love our law and order. If we can institute the death penalty for reckless endangerment of our national resources and the human beings affected, we will have finally created a constitutional way to counteract the effects of money in our political system.

Think how much it would do to clean up corporate corruption if employees could say to their managers, "I could get the death penalty for covering that up -- and so could you." Imagine if they were required BY LAW to report their bosses for telling them to cut corners on high-risk products because it was cheaper - or risk being tried if something goes wrong.

Talk about (finally) being held accountable. Wouldn't you love to see it happen?

In China, when executives are found to have manufactured items that are killing people -- well, at least they have the good grace to kill themselves. We can't count on that; we don't have enough healthy shame left in this country.

Here's Patty Larkin with "Metal Drums", a song she wrote about the Superfund site in Holbrook, Massachusetts:

News broke like a lightning bolt
Across a red hot sky
In the blue TV light
Joanne O'Donnell cried
Seemed like the kiss of death
Hung in the air
When a whole town found out
They'd been poisoned for years

DOWNLOADS: (841)

PLAYS: (1536)

Embed

Karl Rove goes on the BBC and defends waterboarding and tries to justify its use by saying that it's not a black and white issue and reasonable people can disagree. Huh? In his twisted mind the Iraq war was pretty awesome too even though there were no WMD's found.

Leave it to the BBC to not pussyfoot around with an interview.

In a BBC interview, Karl Rove, who was known as "Bush's brain", said he "was proud we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists".

He said waterboarding, which simulates drowning, should not be considered torture.

In 2009, President Barack Obama banned waterboarding as a form of torture.

But the practice was sanctioned in written memos by Bush administration lawyers in August 2002, providing legal cover for its use.

--

"I'm proud that we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists and gave us valuable information that allowed us to foil plots such as flying aeroplanes into Heathrow and into London, bringing down aircraft over the Pacific, flying an aeroplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and other plots," Mr Rove told the BBC.

"Yes, I'm proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They're appropriate, they're in conformity with our international requirements and with US law."

Hey, Turdblossom----waterboarding is torture. It's always been considered torture and there is no reasonable middle ground position to argue that point. The Geneva Conventions addressed that and the interviewer reminded him of those pesky treaties. The Bush administration even said it was so in their own memos.

A Bush administration memo from 2005, intended to establish a legal basis for aggressive interrogation techniques, contains a footnote that actually describes waterboarding as falling within the administration's definition of torture.

The footnote, found within one of the Office of Legal Council memos released by the Obama administration on Thursday, suggests that officials in the previous White House likely knew that they were torturing terrorism suspects at a time when they claimed to not be involved in such a practice. Bush officials also acknowledged in a different footnote that for a period of time, waterboarding was "used with far greater frequency" and "intensity" than advised, so much so that medical personnel could not confirm the safety of the detainees.

The Brad Blog: Discredited wingnuts lawyer up with GOP attorneys, blame 'liberal media'

Whiskey Fire: Muck

Brain Rage: How To Report The News

Balkinization: John Yoo's explanation of the purpose of the Torture Memos, and their actual purpose

Justice Watch: Republican obstructionism delays justice

They gave us a republic: Nightowl Newswrap

Many thanks to Blue Gal and Batocchio for their stellar roundup work during my absence

(Suzanne Ito writes for and manages Blog of Rights, the blog of the national ACLU.)

June 26 of this year marked the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, and the anniversary of the United Nations' Convention Against Torture. On that day, the ACLU joined countless other human rights groups in calling for Accountability for Torture. We asked people to send Attorney General Eric Holder the Office of Legal Counsel memos—the actual evidence released through ACLU lawsuits that revealed the fact that high-level Bush administration officials had sanctioned these illegal acts—and urged him to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these crimes.

We were pleased when Newsweek's Daniel Klaidman reported that Holder was indeed considering an investigation. But now a month has passed, we haven't heard much from the Justice Department. So last week, the ACLU renewed its call for accountability by launching a new video, featuring director Oliver Stone, composer Philip Glass, Rosie Perez, and many others reading from the torture memos, and calling for accountability.

The public knows that detainees were tortured during the Bush presidency. From the photos from Abu Ghraib, to congressional reports (PDF), to the torture memos themselves, it's crystal-clear that these abusive interrogation practices were authorized by the highest levels of the Bush administration. Even Dick Cheney couldn't resist a little cheerleading about how effective he thought waterboarding was.

It is a core premise of American democracy that no one—not even the president—is above the law. When we hear Attorney General Holder is considering only investigating those who carried out the torture, not those who authorized the torture in the first place, it sickens us to think how this clashes with the most fundamental American ideals of fairness. Too much evidence of high-level orders exists to limit criminal investigations to "a few bad apples." We cannot compromise the rule of law because we're afraid the outcome might be politically messy, inconvenient or even painful. To not investigate is to tell future presidents and their administrations that they're above the law, and that would render our system of justice meaningless.

So please watch the video, and send it to Attorney General Holder. It's time for a comprehensive investigation of the Bush era torture policies.

DOWNLOADS: (4244)

PLAYS: (25967)

Jesse Ventura has been going on TV a lot lately because he's promoting his new book, but he's been littering the airwaves with the carcasses of dead conservative talking points when it comes to the topic of torture and George Bush.

Elisabeth Hasslebeck had had the misfortune of trying to tackle Ventura earlier on The View, and had been exposed for the moron she is, especially on torture. So Ventura was on "Hannity" last night and much the same kind of complete and utter smackdown proceeded.

Best of all, get this: Sean Hannity thinks America is better off after George Bush instead of before. I'm serious. I'll do a Conservative/Pelosi impression on him and say that he's either a very sick man mentally a complete liar, a hairpiece hag or all three.

Hannity also did his teleprompter bit on Obama. Here's just a few of Hannity's insane ramblings (buckle up, it's a rough ride). Sean tried his best to get Jesse to bite on the "Bush inherited a rescession" bit -- which, um, didn't go very well...

Ventura: You're telling me that the United States was better off after George Bush or before him?

Hannity: After.

Ventura: Oh, my God. How can you make that statement?

Hannity: I just did..and I'll tell you why...

Ventura: It's ridiculous...This country was far better off (No.) before George Bush then it is after George Bush.

Hannity then read off his usual list of Islamofascist horrors confronting America and he asks Ventura what he would do.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1591)

PLAYS: (2053)

Embed

The hysteria has reached new heights by FOX News as they spin the Pelosi outrage as far as it can go. How far is that? The CIA will just stop working and America may be attacked because of her. Wingnut Du Jour, ex-CIA agent and FOX Newser Wayne Simmons said that Pelosi has. What is the impact of Nancy Pelosi saying that the CIA lied to her and members of Congress? We're doomed!!!

Simmons: The best thing about not being a diplomat or a politician is that I can tell you that first and foremost Nancy Pelosi, the woman whose third in line to be President of the United States, the Speaker of the House is a pathological liar and her attacks on the CIA, the release of the CIA memos has so sent a chill through the CIA to guys like me who were not only interrogated in our entire careers, but ran interrogations and interviews that I can assure you that we are not going to go the extra mile EVER in this climate to secure information and intelligence that's going to protect the Untied States so understand that the American people need to, this has directly affected the National Security of the United States.

Martha MacCallum: The Church Commission in the seventies and eighties, a lot of people think that those cracked down on our intelligence and made them very hesitant to do the job that hey needed to do and that those failures may have led to September eleventh.

Martha MacCallum, the FOX host, actually blames the Church Committee for the 9/11 attacks, and Simmons agrees. They always bring it back to 9/11. The FISA courts were instituted because of the Church Committee.

Simmons paints the CIA as one big chickenshit outfit that can't take a little criticism from the big bad Nancy Pelosi. They will even abandon their posts and let terrorists attack the country because their itty-bitty feelings are so hurt. I say they should all quit right now if Simmons is correct.

This clip also speaks volumes about the type of agent Simmons is. Don't call me names or I'll let Cleveland get bombed. Of course the CIA would never do that, but that's how coordinated this attack of Pelosi is by the entire right wing. Doesn't the media ever get tired of the robotic responses by the Right whenever they want to push a narrative to the American people?

DOWNLOADS: (1367)

PLAYS: (2429)

Embed

Will any media member ask Dick Cheney why HE never released any memos when he was in power? is that too much to ask. He's playing games right now and trying to suck the media and the American people in.

Dick Cheney was having a grand old time defending torture, saying that he wasn't in the torture business, but hey, we waterboarded a few people because his buddies at the OLC helped him out. He was spinning his web and telling us that the OLC and the Bush administration acted within the law when they starting waterboarding prisoners on Face the Nation. He denies that they ever used torture. Cheney also said George Bush knew and approved everything they did. I guess when he said we didn't use torture his was misleading America.

He also used the GOP talking point that we used the same techniques on our own troops in the SERE program so it ain't torture. His daughter (Liz Cheney) learned a lot from him because she used the same defense to Norah O'Donnell which didn't even pass her smell test.

He absolutely wouldn't change a thing and still wants more memos released. When will journalists ask Cheney why he didn't released these documents when he was in power? Bush was taking a tremendous amount of heat over the torture issue at the time.

Schieffer was asking him if he would allow himself to be questioned about these topics and go "under oath." Cheney dodged the question by saying he'd have to look into it legally and see what precedent he would set , but he's talking now. He WILL NEVER go under oath.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was on this broadcast recently. And I said, do you intend to ask the former vice president to come up? And he said if he will testify under oath. Would you be willing to testify under oath?

CHENEY: I'd have to see what the circumstances are and what kind of precedent we were setting. But certainly I wouldn't be out here today if I didn't feel comfortable talking about what we're doing publicly. I think it's very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done.

He's just trying to justify torture and he's using TV to promote his views. Let's see if he'll go on with Lawrence O'Donnell and face some real questions. If Cheney will never appear with another guest or interviewer that uses facts to question him with, what makes you think he'll go in front of Leahy?

CBS has the full transcript and you can read more below the fold:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (2371)

PLAYS: (4705)

Embed

Sean Hannity is so upset that Barack Obama believes waterboarding is torture. He's dumbfounded that one of the great intellects of the conservative movement, George Bush committed war crimes by breaking the Geneva Conventions:

McCain: I believe torture is unacceptable and a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I believe however that these memos were not necessary to be released. We cannot criminalize people giving bad legal advice which is what some in the Congress want to do and it's time to move on.

Hannity: Do you think that what President Obama said the other night, what I believe the waterboarding that was used was torture, that President Bush was sanctioning torture?

McCain: I believe it was wrong to waterboard. I think it was wrong to do it because it's in violation with the Geneva Conventions, but I think we've got to move forward. We must move forward.

Giving advice that allows our country to torture is not criminalizing politics, but enforcing laws and treaties we faithfully signed on to. "Just turning the page" is Beltway talk for "getting a free pass."

I'm not sure why Hannity even bothered bringing this up with McCain. I guess he figured that if he brought it up in the context that Bush sanctioned torture, he would get McCain to change his tune. I know math isn't one of Hannity's strong suits so I'll give him a little math equation. If 1+1=2, then if waterboarding=torture and Bush approved of it, then:

Bush+waterboarding=the sanctioning of torture.

Not content with its past role in screening candidates for positions in the Bush judiciary and Justice Department, the conservative Federalist Society is back to defend the Bush torture team it helped create. Ironically, the Federalists' conference call Monday came just three days after McClatchy reported that Steven Bradbury - one of its members and a figure at the center of the storm over the release of the OLC torture members - refuted their claim that the military's SERE training program proved the United States did not torture terror detainees.

As Politico reported, the National Review hosted a media conference call featuring many of the usual suspects among the Bush torture apologists:

The lawyers' group, which was a pipeline for judges in the Bush White House, is hosting a call this morning with National Review writer Andy McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, lawyer David Rivkin, and Chapman University Law School Dean John Eastman.

Their claim, as Politico noted, was that the "much-criticized memos from the Office of Legal Counsel were perfectly reasonable." McCarthy brushed off the CIA's use of waterboarding on terror suspects by proclaiming "they were not going to be killed by the tactic." Eastman, whose university is hosting Federalist Society member and Bush torture architect John Yoo as a visiting professor, insisted the treatment was no worse than that undergone by American service personnel:

Eastman responded to The New York Times's Scott Shane about the use of waterboarding during the Spanish Inquisition and by the Japanese military, and responded "that psychological reviews of graduates of the military's SERE program, in which members of the U.S. military were waterboarded, is a more relevant example.

"Why would I go and look at something the Spanish Inquisition did just because it was also called 'waterboarding'?" he asked.

Perhaps because, as the Bush Office of Legal Counsel chief and 2005 torture memo author Steven Bradbury concluded four years ago, "SERE trainees know it is part of a training program."

Continue reading »

They just can't seem to get their stories straight. No matter how hard they try to justify torture, the facts don't seem to support them:

WASHINGTON — The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.

[...] "It is difficult to quantify with confidence and precision the effectiveness of the program," Steven G. Bradbury, then the Justice Department's principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a May 30, 2005, memo to CIA General Counsel John Rizzo, one of four released last week by the Obama administration.

"As the IG Report notes, it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks. And because the CIA has used enhanced techniques sparingly, 'there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness'," Bradbury wrote, quoting the IG report.

Nevertheless, Bradbury concluded in his May 2005 memos that the program had been effective; that conclusion relied largely on memos written after the still secret report by Inspector General John Helgerson.

Helgerson also concluded that waterboarding was riskier than officials claimed and reported that the CIA's Office of Medical Services thought that the risk to the health of some prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence benefit, according to the memos.

The IG's report is among several indications that the Bush administration's use of abusive interrogation methods was less productive than some former administration officials have claimed.