Month: April 2009

By far the most alarming thing yet said by the Obama administration was secretary of state Clinton’s assurance that

That means the risk of being committed to an unending occupation – what Johnson did to Nixon. And sure enough, we see backsliding on withdrawal only three months into the Obama administration:

“Mosul is the one area where you may see U.S. combat forces operating in the city” after June 30, the United States military’s top spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. David Perkins, said in an interview.

In Baghdad, however, there are no plans to close the Camp Victory base complex, consisting of five bases housing more than 20,000 soldiers, many of them combat troops. Although Victory is only a 15 minute drive from the center of Baghdad and sprawls over both sides of the city’s boundary, Iraqi officials say they have agreed to consider it outside the city.

In addition, Forward Operating Base Falcon, which can hold 5,000 combat troops, will also remain after June 30. It is just within Baghdad’s southern city limits.

It seems perfectly clear to me that the current Iraqi government will not be able to resist waging war on the Sunnis and vice-versa in the absence of a constant US force. If the US really is committed to a stable, unified Iraq, then the withdrawal will not take place. Not now; not in 2011; not in Obama’s first term. The logic of empire is very, very strong.

E.D. Kain furrows his brow at torture apologists:

It may seem necessary now, to many of them, to rewrite history or clean the slate or whatever – but in the end can this really be anything more than political suicide?  Maybe for the architects – the Cheney’s and the Yoo’s – it makes sense.  They face a real (if unlikely) chance at prosecution.  When the media finally starts using the word “torture” instead of “harsh interrogation tactics” and all of this comes spilling out – the pictures, the video recordings, etc. – is this the side you want to be on?  Standing over there in the spotlight with Cheney and Bush and Bybee and Yoo?

History is merciless.

While you were having a life, the Dish's coverage of the torture issue did not relent over the weekend. We learned Cheney lied again, Bybee conveyed some regret, the King of Jordan called torture torture (as have Reagan and the Church), and the NYT still cannot do so. And while David Broder has, doing anything about it would be partisan "vengeance." We also discovered that our brains produce pot and that Miss California was sent to us from the future. Frum warned Obama not to be "overzealous" on torture, a legend of the bloggy right has had enough of the teabag crowd, Dreher sneered glibly, and the New Yorker and Slate discussed the drug of the millennial generation. Finally, after a frantic week of blogging, I took a step back and addressed the torture scandal from a little distance, if distance is possible in bloggery.

Green shoots:

More American Workers Outsourcing Own Jobs Overseas

I like this kind of bipartisanship:

The Atlantic.com is up to all sorts of mischief. My piece on Obama as America's new anchor is here.

Don't let anyone tell you it isn't crystal clear.

I don't see how proof that government officials waterboarded a prisoner 183 times leaves the attorney general any discretion at all. Here's the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, explaining the treaty that Ronald Reagan signed and championed:

So when does the U.S. formally withdraw from the UN Convention on Torture? And why isn't the pro-torture right advocating that?

"We're the United States of America, and we don't do that kind of thing."

In the months ahead, as the full details of the Bush administration's decision to leave the rule of law behind and illegally torture human beings for intelligence, the experience of Ali Soufan will be vital for understanding how what happened happened. Like many other individuals along the way – Ian Fishback, Alberto Mora, Antonio Taguba come to mind – Soufan saw what was going on, understood immediately that it was illegal and immoral and did all he could to stop it. He failed but he may provide critical evidence of the war crimes of Cheney in the invesitigations that should and will come. He was the first to interrogate Abu Zubaydah and he gained a treasure trove of information without violating the law or core American values. From Mike Isikoff's must-read:

"We kept him alive," Soufan says. "It wasn't easy, he couldn't drink, he had a fever. I was holding ice to his lips." Gaudin, for his part, cleaned Abu Zubaydah's buttocks. During this time, Soufan and Gaudin also began the questioning; it became a "mental poker game." At first, Abu Zubaydah even denied his identity, insisting that his name was "Daoud."

But Soufan had poured through the bureau's intelligence files and stunned Abu Zubaydah when he called him "Hani"—the nickname that his mother used for him. Soufan also showed him photos of a number of terror suspects who were high on the bureau's priority list. Abu Zubaydah looked at one of them and said, "That's Mukhtar."

Now it was Soufan who was stunned.

The FBI had been trying to determine the identity of a mysterious "Mukhtar," whom bin Laden kept referring to on a tape he made after 9/11. Now Soufan knew: Mukhtar was the man in the photo, terror fugitive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and, as Abu Zubaydah blurted out, " the one behind 9/11."

As the sessions continued, Soufan engaged Abu Zubaydah in long discussions about his world view, which included a tinge of socialism. After Abu Zubaydah railed one day about the influence of American imperialist corporations, he asked Soufan to get him a Coca-Cola—a request that prompted the two of them to laugh. Soon enough, Abu Zubaydah offered up more information—about the bizarre plans of a jihadist from Puerto Rico to set off a "dirty bomb" inside the country. This information led to Padilla's arrest in Chicago by the FBI in early May.

The reason Cheney and his acolytes are waging such a tough war in the public arena right now is because they know that men like Soufan know the truth. The more desperately the torture-defenders insist that their tactics gained results, the more they reveal how only those alleged results can justify the law-breaking and evil they trafficked in. But let it all come into the sunlight. Let's get a commission to look at everything in proper context. Then decide whom to prosecute. And by then, the junta party may be a little less flecked with spittle.

"The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy," – George W. Bush, urging the investigation and prosecution of prisoner abuse and torture under his command, June 26, 2003.

Among the specific techniques cited by Bush were repeated beatings, something he authorized, along with waterboarding and stress positions, for prisoners in US captivity.

Why should we not apply George W. Bush's public standards to George W. Bush?