Why did you use a picture of a Marine? As far as I remember, I wasn't allowed to hold mock executions or even yell at insurgents, so who knows what the fuck these guys were up to. Lord knows that if a troop decided to do this, they would have thrown him to the fucking wolves. Just gonna throw that out there. Not all of us are war criminals, y'know.
@NicholasSnipe: Noted. I think that they used the pic because it is an American being all badass and brutal, though it has nothing to do with the story. Also I don't know the story of the photo. For all I know, that bootneck just detained that guy for stabbing a little girl and is being generously restrained in his reaction. Probably not, but you never know.
@NicholasSnipe: No kidding. Is there any sort of editor/grown-up at Gawker on the weekends? You can't just throw up pictures of identifiable people (and as you point out...a Marine, not CIA) to illustrate your story about mock executions. Phone call from law office in 3...2...1...
@NicholasSnipe: I think that's obvious. I used a picture depicting the use of force; I don't think it's reasonable to connect this with an assertion of Marines exclusively using force, nor would it be outrageous to suggest that finding the picture and post as a catchall for all members of the military is anything less than projecting. That said, you've been heard. Picture changed.
The CIA isn't the military. There's about a half dozen intelligence agencies who are responsible for the torture and murder of detainees. The soldiers are just the folks ordered to carry the body out and shut up and back off and let the intelligence people do their job, because Americans are dying and WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING GOD DAMMIT!! Quick, give me the rubber hose. Stress positions. Tie him up. Hang him there. OK AHMED (air quote) THE CAB DRIVER (close air quote), I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU THIS ONCE . . .
Please, Jack Bauer does all that by 9 am.
They can release all the gory details of the horrors that happened during the Bush years, and every ex-staffer can write a book telling the stuff they should have maybe mentioned while it was going on, but it won't lead to any substantial charges against anyone.
"Best viewed at 800 X 600 resolution" was practiced on every continent through every time period and by every race of mankind until the death of SVGA displays in this century.
@ConAir34: I would love to see a lot of high-powered Dems taken down. They have done SHIT for the country, rolling over and whining about it since 1994. (I'm talking about Congress.)
You know, as thirsty for blood as we all are, I'd like to point out that even in countries where there are actual, like, MASSIVE WAR CRIMES AND DISAPPEARANCES, countries where like THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS are disappeared or straight-up murdered by the government, there are often not truth commissions. They tear a country apart, and perpetuate divisive issues indefinitely (Spain, for instance).
Even when they do happen, they drag out for decades and rarely result in what you'd call "justice" (Pol Pot died before he could be brought to trail, ditto Slobodon Milosivic, and I think we'd all agree there was little "justice" in the trial of Saddam Hussein). It's kinda complicated, dudes.
Yes, that's always an excellent reason not to pursue investigations or even a semblance of justice like toothless truth commissions. It's complicated, so why bother? If the process doesn't yield instant gratification and immediate "closure" in that venerable American way, let's forget about it.
Also, mass murderers in other countries often aren't brought to full justice. If they can get away with it, why can't we?
By the way, thousands and thousands of citizens did die and disappear as a result of the Bush Administration's war crimes. But I guess because they're Iraqis, they don't count in your calculus.
(P.S. I love Jarvis Cocker, and I'm dead certain he couldn't disagree with your dubious "let's move on" argument more.)
Hmm, what a baffling mystery. What on Earth could all these silly people be getting all upset about? I mean President Change said he wanted to move on and that there was nothing to see here folks,, move along please. So what is with people continuing to ask questions? It's not like the constitution and civil liberties were violated, or crimes against humanity were committed in the name of the United States. Oh, no wait, my bad, that is what happened and why people are pissed off. Because apparently our country is no longer the country the vast majority of Americans thought they lived in and actually were silly enough to believe in. So President Change-o-rama was apparently banking on all the warm fuzzies of hope and change. To give him free reign to not do a good god damned thing of any real importance to the citizens of this country. It is disgusting and people are complete idiots, in denial or complacent in crimes against this country and others. If they still think "change" is on the way. Yes we can be full of shit,, oh yes we can. I so wanted him to be what he was apparently pretending to be. He was good, he was believable, but he is no different. The sad truth is there is filth and rot from the top to the bottom in this so called government of the people. The people keep making themselves pretty damn clear and yet nothing of real import changes for the better. Hmmm,, how odd,, what mystery could lie behind it all? Na, I'm sure everything is fine. You just wait and see. I am sure some soothing words with the opposite actions will come along to save the day and make all well and we can skip though the fields singing merrily.
@TruthBeTold: So what you're saying is that people don't want to move on? That, in fact, they were pretty happy with the rule of law, and the 'moving on' basically means going downhill fast with no brakes?
I REALLY am getting annoyed at Liberals pulling the same shit as the Right Wingers did.
Not talking about Obama but this dumb ass group of concerned leaders.
For way too long Bush abused the power of the president for his own use. Obama is getting away from that, putting the burden of doing their jobs on the people who should be doing it (in this case it should be congress who is going after the previous administration, NOT the presedent) and people are whining like crazy about Obama actually doing his god damn job and not treding on the legislative or judicial branches like Bush did.
OUR PRESIDENT IS NOT A FUCKING KING YOU IDIOTS, listen to what he is saying and do your damn jobs.
Yeah, what a bunch of dumbasses trying to get the President to enforce the United States Constitution he is sworn to uphold.
Lying to start an illegal war, suspension of habeus corpus, admitted torture to fabricate evidence to sell previously mentioned illegal war... what the hell crawled up their crazy whiny asses and died?
But, hey, let's go with the torture thing, but fuck limiting it to national security. I say, with crime rates rising once again, that we apply it to all law enforcement. Think of the lives we'll save.
I mean, if security is all that matters then let's have a secure, crime-free society. I lived in one once. Here's how it works. If a crime gets committed, you just round up 100 of the likeliest suspects, beat the shit out of them until one or more confess, then throw everyone who confesses in jail for life. Just call them enemy combatants in the war on crime.
By the way, this was a country that had been battling Islamic terrorism since 1982. They were able to go decades at a time without a serious terrorist incident by use of something called the "black slave," which was a super-heated knife positioned beneath a chair with a hole cute in the seat. A lot of people confessed to their terrorist activity just looking at that thing.
Also, their journalist tended to write only friendly stories about the regime and there was no political opposition to speak of so, you know, no bitter partisan debates.
I think the point Obama is missing is that everyone wants to have this out: liberals, conservatives and especially the champions of torture like Dick Cheney and John Yoo.
So let's debate it. If torture is the way we want to go then fine. I have absolutely no problem renouncing my citizenship in a country that acts on that belief.
But President Obama needs to realize that a good percentage of his 53% majority voted that way not just because they were tired of Republicans, but also because they wanted a legal repudiation of "Enhanced Interrogation." Presumably, the best way to repudiate the findings of Yoo and his gang of hacks is to subject them to legal proceedings.
Finally, as many have suggested, the reason there is so much pressure on Obama to not act on torture allegations is that a lot of Democrats in the House and the Senate colluded in these decisions. It's much harder for Obama to buck his own party, especially when many of the guiltiest are part of his own cabinet.
@oneinsixbillion: The difference is between having my government just assume that that is a policy I want and having that be the stated policy of my country.
@oneinsixbillion: Whereas you would just as well we allowed the government to do whatever the fuck they want in our names because you're an idiotic pussy. Got it.
@Mediahohoho: No, I just find it amusing that the conduct of the Bush Administration has made them "lose faith" in their country but the decades of crimes from the beginnings of the post-war order through our Latin American adventures up to our insensitive and counterproductive approach to Somalia are A-OK. I mean, President Obama ordered the killing of 3 African teenagers for ARMED ROBBERY ON THE HIGH SEAS. But the CIA tortures a handful of captured terrorists and we're indignant about that.
@oneinsixbillion: But the CIA tortures a handful of captured terrorists and we're indignant about that.
You probably know that the use of torture was a lot more widespread than that, and that at least some of those tortured were suspected terrorists, not actual terrorists, but honesty doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
@oneinsixbillion: You, sir, are amazing. You just know--fucking know--that I (as one of them) know nothing (or didn't care) about the Contras or Archbishop Romero or Suharto or Mossadeq or Somalia or Allende or Somalia or...well anything, really. You know all this without knowing the first fucking thing about me. You even assume I don't know that Navy Seals killed three pirates a few weeks ago.
All that you know...you brilliant fucking mind reader, you, and yet you believe that the torture regime is limited, really oddly, to three terrorists at Gitmo and a bunch of hillbillies at one prison (out of tens of prisons) in Iraq. And absolutely did not extend, no sir, to any part of the prisons in Afghanistan to which we apparently haven't been sending people we pluck off the street in the west and by all means does not include hundreds if not thousands of luckless bastards in either of those theaters of war. Why you don't know these things (when you know so much about people you don't know) is beyond me. But here's one thing I know...
You've got a lot of fucking nerve lecturing other people.
@Mediahohoho: I didn't assume you don't know, I assume you don't care. I base that assumption on the fact that you threatened to renounce citizenship over our stance on enhanced interrogations when decades of crimes commited to preserve our global position of power (which has allowed us to grow wealth as we have, and is allowing us presently to continue to dodge culpability for the economic mess we've wrought) have not driven you from this country. That seems like a pretty clear inconsistency to me.
@oneinsixbillion: All I'm saying, and--I'll concede in an overly dramatic way--is that we citizens have a right to know if the official policy of our country is to ignore the Geneva Conventions and torture (or interrogate in an enhanced fashion if you insist on using Newspeak) our enemies. If you want to extend that thought to our sponsorship of participation in acts of state in the name of wealth creation and resource exploitation around the globe, be my guest. I get to choose the things that bother me the most, but that doesn't mean I'm not bothered by the things that bother you. I just happen to have a thing about torture.
I would love to see Cheney brought to justice. But I could see that as a rallying point for repugs and lord knows we don't want to have any kind of cohesion. Gobama!
The problem is that all of the ideas that we are hearing about are bad.
What is the value of a "Truth Committee?" You can't compel people to testify against their own interest without charging them. If you offer the officials immunity in exchange for their testimony, then you stand the chance of letting criminals escape prosecution as the truth is revealed. If you don't, then the Fifth Amendment applies and savvy lawyers are probably not going to allow the testimony. In other words, no truth actually comes out.
Going after one key prosecution when you have multiple persons guilty of a crime is selective justice. You are going to let the most culpable people go to secure on indictment? Isn't that the definition of "scapegoat?:"
Legally proving that a crime was committed is also difficult. No one has denied that there was water-boarded of prisoners or that attorneys interpreted the definition of torture so that water-boarding did not qualify. But then you have to show that the attorneys knowingly manipulated the law. Until you can establish that a crime may have occurred (legally - not gut feeling) pulling people in for questioning is pointless.
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/23/09
08/24/09
The CIA isn't the military. There's about a half dozen intelligence agencies who are responsible for the torture and murder of detainees. The soldiers are just the folks ordered to carry the body out and shut up and back off and let the intelligence people do their job, because Americans are dying and WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING GOD DAMMIT!! Quick, give me the rubber hose. Stress positions. Tie him up. Hang him there. OK AHMED (air quote) THE CAB DRIVER (close air quote), I'M ONLY GOING TO ASK YOU THIS ONCE . . .
(Bleep . . . beep . . . beep . . . beep . . . beep.)
08/22/09
They can release all the gory details of the horrors that happened during the Bush years, and every ex-staffer can write a book telling the stuff they should have maybe mentioned while it was going on, but it won't lead to any substantial charges against anyone.
08/22/09
So I googled it and turned up this: [www.trepanationguide.com]
And all I can say is ... HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
08/22/09
08/22/09
08/22/09
An entire web site devoted to this, huh? Holy fucking shit, indeed.
08/22/09
And no, I've never heard the word either.
08/22/09
05/21/09
A "truth commission" would most likely take a lot of high powered Dems down as well and be a general embarrasment to his own party.
As you see with the ongoing Pelosi scandal the shrill voices of the Democratic Party knew many things and did nothing.
I am not against some investigation. I am just telling you that
A) The people you think are guilty aren't the only ones
B) It isn't going to happen anyway.
05/21/09
Signed, a powerless Dem
05/21/09
Even when they do happen, they drag out for decades and rarely result in what you'd call "justice" (Pol Pot died before he could be brought to trail, ditto Slobodon Milosivic, and I think we'd all agree there was little "justice" in the trial of Saddam Hussein). It's kinda complicated, dudes.
05/21/09
Yes, that's always an excellent reason not to pursue investigations or even a semblance of justice like toothless truth commissions. It's complicated, so why bother? If the process doesn't yield instant gratification and immediate "closure" in that venerable American way, let's forget about it.
Also, mass murderers in other countries often aren't brought to full justice. If they can get away with it, why can't we?
By the way, thousands and thousands of citizens did die and disappear as a result of the Bush Administration's war crimes. But I guess because they're Iraqis, they don't count in your calculus.
(P.S. I love Jarvis Cocker, and I'm dead certain he couldn't disagree with your dubious "let's move on" argument more.)
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/22/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
Not talking about Obama but this dumb ass group of concerned leaders.
For way too long Bush abused the power of the president for his own use. Obama is getting away from that, putting the burden of doing their jobs on the people who should be doing it (in this case it should be congress who is going after the previous administration, NOT the presedent) and people are whining like crazy about Obama actually doing his god damn job and not treding on the legislative or judicial branches like Bush did.
OUR PRESIDENT IS NOT A FUCKING KING YOU IDIOTS, listen to what he is saying and do your damn jobs.
05/21/09
Yeah, what a bunch of dumbasses trying to get the President to enforce the United States Constitution he is sworn to uphold.
Lying to start an illegal war, suspension of habeus corpus, admitted torture to fabricate evidence to sell previously mentioned illegal war... what the hell crawled up their crazy whiny asses and died?
05/22/09
05/21/09
I mean, if security is all that matters then let's have a secure, crime-free society. I lived in one once. Here's how it works. If a crime gets committed, you just round up 100 of the likeliest suspects, beat the shit out of them until one or more confess, then throw everyone who confesses in jail for life. Just call them enemy combatants in the war on crime.
By the way, this was a country that had been battling Islamic terrorism since 1982. They were able to go decades at a time without a serious terrorist incident by use of something called the "black slave," which was a super-heated knife positioned beneath a chair with a hole cute in the seat. A lot of people confessed to their terrorist activity just looking at that thing.
Also, their journalist tended to write only friendly stories about the regime and there was no political opposition to speak of so, you know, no bitter partisan debates.
05/21/09
So let's debate it. If torture is the way we want to go then fine. I have absolutely no problem renouncing my citizenship in a country that acts on that belief.
But President Obama needs to realize that a good percentage of his 53% majority voted that way not just because they were tired of Republicans, but also because they wanted a legal repudiation of "Enhanced Interrogation." Presumably, the best way to repudiate the findings of Yoo and his gang of hacks is to subject them to legal proceedings.
Finally, as many have suggested, the reason there is so much pressure on Obama to not act on torture allegations is that a lot of Democrats in the House and the Senate colluded in these decisions. It's much harder for Obama to buck his own party, especially when many of the guiltiest are part of his own cabinet.
05/21/09
"I have absolutely no problem renouncing my citizenship in a country that acts on that belief."
What, are you unaware of the torture committed in your name already? Drama queen.
05/21/09
But way to go to name calling.
05/21/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
How enlightened.
05/21/09
You probably know that the use of torture was a lot more widespread than that, and that at least some of those tortured were suspected terrorists, not actual terrorists, but honesty doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
05/21/09
All that you know...you brilliant fucking mind reader, you, and yet you believe that the torture regime is limited, really oddly, to three terrorists at Gitmo and a bunch of hillbillies at one prison (out of tens of prisons) in Iraq. And absolutely did not extend, no sir, to any part of the prisons in Afghanistan to which we apparently haven't been sending people we pluck off the street in the west and by all means does not include hundreds if not thousands of luckless bastards in either of those theaters of war. Why you don't know these things (when you know so much about people you don't know) is beyond me. But here's one thing I know...
You've got a lot of fucking nerve lecturing other people.
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/21/09
05/21/09
What is the value of a "Truth Committee?" You can't compel people to testify against their own interest without charging them. If you offer the officials immunity in exchange for their testimony, then you stand the chance of letting criminals escape prosecution as the truth is revealed. If you don't, then the Fifth Amendment applies and savvy lawyers are probably not going to allow the testimony. In other words, no truth actually comes out.
Going after one key prosecution when you have multiple persons guilty of a crime is selective justice. You are going to let the most culpable people go to secure on indictment? Isn't that the definition of "scapegoat?:"
Legally proving that a crime was committed is also difficult. No one has denied that there was water-boarded of prisoners or that attorneys interpreted the definition of torture so that water-boarding did not qualify. But then you have to show that the attorneys knowingly manipulated the law. Until you can establish that a crime may have occurred (legally - not gut feeling) pulling people in for questioning is pointless.
05/21/09
That said, subpoena power is a lovely thing.