"Want some torture with your peanuts?"

It's too early for this:

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers.

This bracelet would:

• take the place of an airline boarding pass

• contain personal information about the traveler

• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage

• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes

The Electronic ID Bracelet, as it’s referred to as, would be worn by every traveler “until they disembark the flight at their destination.” Yes, you read that correctly. Every airline passenger would be tracked by a government-funded GPS, containing personal, private and confidential information, and that it would shock the customer worse than an electronic dog collar if he/she got out of line?

Jesus H. Motherfucking Christ.

Once again, I am surprised at my lack of cynicism. I am also reminded of something a friend of mine used to shout at passerby from cars: "Sheep! You are all sheep!"

Baaaaaaaa.

Remember this when he becomes McCain's VP choice.

From (of all places) redstate.org:

Today, Gov. Jindal signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill"...

SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.

As far as I know, this is not a joke.

No one deserves chemical castration. No one.

McCain and Torture

Digby:

The Armed Services Committee is holding hearings this morning on torture. The ranking Republican member (John McCain) couldn't make it. So he sent his faithful hound Huckleberry in his place.

The leading voice in the nation on the subject of torture, a living symbol of everything that is wrong with it, a man who cannot raise his arms above his head today because of the wounds he suffered under it, is out on the campaign trail today, ducking the subject. It seems his days of being a hero are long behind him.

If McCain had been steadfast since Vietnam that torture should be legal, that would be one thing. But until the last few years, he was solidly against torture.

I can only marvel at how complex and complicated an issue this must be, and how much he looks like a craven politician because only now that he's running for President as a Republican does he endorse some of the same types of torture that were used on him.

There is no sarcasm in this sentence: The lack of ethics here is colossal.

Compare and Contrast

Hering in October 2007:

“This government does not torture people,” the president said again last week. Of course not. But if the world thinks we do, we are losing the battle for hearts and minds — the most important battlefield in this prolonged war.

Hering today:

For years, there has been a public argument about the use of torture in the terror war. (Whether we employ it; whether it might be justified.) Now we have new answers, and they make unpleasant reading.

The Office of the Inspector General of the

U.S. Department of Justice has reviewed how FBI agents were involved in or observed “harsh” interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq. In general, it found that the hundreds of FBI agents engaged in this work did not abuse prisoners but that they heard of and saw plenty.

Abuse is too mild a term.

“A few FBI agents,” the summary says on page xxii, “reported other harsh or unusual interrogation techniques used by the military at GTMO. These incidents tended to be small in number, but they became notorious at GTMO because of their nature.

“They included using a growling military dog to intimidate a detainee during an interrogation; twisting a detainees’ thumbs back; using a female interrogator to touch or provoke a detainee in a sexual manner; wrapping a detainee’s hand in duct tape; and exposing a detainee to pornography.”

Other techniques the FBI heard about or saw included sleep deprivation, blindfolding or “hooding” prisoners, exposing them to strobe lights and loud music, keeping them in isolation for long periods of time, and chaining them in painful positions, sometimes to the floor, for hours at a time.

In one interrogation described in the report, prisoners were chained in a kneeling position while an interrogator poured water down their throats. (A footnote makes the point that this was not the same as waterboarding, but the footnote does not say whether it was not as bad or worse.)

The gist of the report is that these techniques were illegal for the FBI to use, but that they had been authorized for military personnel by the Department of Defense until, acting on complaints, the harsh techniques were again disapproved.

One telling element of the review: The FBI believes that another way of interrogating people, by building rapport with them, works much better and faster than the harsh techniques that the Defense Department authorized for a time.

Inflicting physical pain and psychological terror on prisoners is what the movies teach us we might have expected two or three generations ago from dictatorial and totalitarian regimes. Our motives are different, but this report from the Department of Justice confirms that our techniques in some cases were just as brutal.

Regardless of the outcome, the history of our struggle against terrorism will be marked by that regrettable fact. (hh)

Oops.

While I'm glad Hering addressed the issue, he managed to do so in amazingly weasel-like fashion. Notice how, in comparison with pretty much every other editorial he writes, no one is to blame for this? And how no one is directed to take responsibility? Or that he describes the U.S. practice of torturing people as a "regrettable fact"? It's not even a condemnation, for fuck's sake.

Jeebus, Hering. Even I thought you'd summon a little more outrage than this. This editorial reminds of the little boy who has to apologize after being caught red-handed and does so, but in an oh-so-sullen manner: He's obviously feeling humiliated, but he's not mature enough to openly own up to his mistakes.

I actually expect better than this from Hering.

...

It's somehow hard for me to believe that people are willing to do this to each other:

Some Detainees Are Drugged For Deportation

Any comments attempting to justify this practice will be ignored.

FUCK.

Yes, that's FUCK, in BIG FAT LETTERS.

What else do you say to this?

The exact circumstances surrounding the dealings between Haynes and Yoo that led to the development of this memorandum are unclear. However, it is clear that Haynes had previously authorized the use of the torture techniques, and had secured an order from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld authorizing them.

Following the implementation of these techniques, more than 108 detainees died in detention. In a large number of these cases, the deaths have been ruled a homicide and connected to torture.

I know: It was done in our name and we didn't stop it.

I Give Up; Hasso, You Win [Especially For Folks Who Tune Out When They See the Words "Hasso Hering"]

I can't compete with Hering anymore - after all, I am just some dude with a blog... who apparently is more of a journalist than Hering.

Why do I say that? And how am I so full of myself as to be dead serious?

This:

Michael Hayden, the new chief of the Central Intelligence Agency, is trying to explain to Congress why the agency under his predecessors destroyed videotapes it had made of the interrogation of terrorist suspects. Congress wants to know. But why?

According to testimony Tuesday, the questioning in 2002 produced immediate results in the capture of the 9/11 mastermind. Suppose those tapes showed waterboarding or any other normally indefensible way of interrogating suspects? It would not do the country any good to have them lying around, to be leaked and played on YouTube worldwide.

Whoever destroyed the tapes saved the country a lot of additional and needless grief. (hh)

To quote the person who sent this to me: "When does a journalist ever advocate the destruction of records?"

I agree completely.

Real journalists don't advocate the destruction of records - especially records almost guaranteed to show criminal acts up to and including violations of the Geneva Convention. That's the role of Republican Party operatives. REAL journalists value the truth.

Hering is actually very clear here: When it comes down to supporting the U.S. (my country, right or wrong!) or supporting the rule of law, Hering has no interest in supporting the rule of law.

Which is shameful, and kind of sad, and a whole long list of things that aren't fit to say in public.

The question is not can Hering be the editor of a daily newspaper, it's should he be?

The answer is clearly no.

UPDATE: Apparently there was a standing court order against destroying the tapes.

High-Ranking Democrats Approved of US-Sponsored Torture as Early as 2002

This WaPo story is certainly making the round, with most folks condemning the Dems involved and at least one person defending them. First, the story:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

This does not actually surprise me - but it does disappoint. I would have hoped that the Dems in the room would have at least raised objections in private.

Aravosis at Americablog has a decent counterpoint:

It's also clear that had Pelosi raised any private objections during the meeting - remember, it took place in the first year after September 11 - Bush and the Republicans would have leaked that fact to the public (like they just did) and destroyed her career and marked her publicly as a traitor. No member of Congress, no American, could have spoken up about anything in the months after September 11 and survived. It's patently unfair to suggest that somehow because Pelosi didn't object then that she doesn't have the right to object now.

I'm not sure I agree with Aravosis about the potential for a career-destroying leak; this presupposes the Dems would continue to give in to the narrative regarding the necessity of the War on Terrah in the first place. I don't want to see recent history rewritten that way; it was not a foregone conclusion that anyone who differed from Bush was going to lose. Please.

Second, Aravosis conflates two things: He claims that we shouldn't deny Pelosi her chance to object now because she didn't object then, but I think the point most people are making is that she (and the other Dems in the room) should have objected then on moral, not political, grounds. Torture is immoral in any political environment.

Lambert at Correntwire makes the semi-obvious point:

Well, I guess now I know why impeachment was “off the table.”

Meaning, of course, that since the Dems were in on it too, they could not reasonably expect to pin the whole thing on Bush.

He then proceeds to call Jane Harman (who I despise) a c***, meaning I'm not listening to him - or her - anymore. That's way beyond the pale (yes, this is coming from someone who other four-letter words on a regular basis).

The point: This is another reason why I think the Dems are marginally - if at all - better than the Republicans. They have failed to raise any serious objections to the prospect of the U.S. torturing people since 2002, and to this day have failed to act on the moral imperative that their position creates.

Go Ron Paul!

(That's a joke, by the way. He's insane.)

The U.S., Jose Padilla, and Torture

From the Christian Science Monitor:

Miami - Jose Padilla had no history of mental illness when President Bush ordered him detained in 2002 as a suspected Al Qaeda operative. But he does now.

The Muslim convert was subjected to prison conditions and interrogation techniques that took him past the breaking point, mental health experts say.

Two psychiatrists and a psychologist who conducted detailed personal examinations of Mr. Padilla on behalf of his defense lawyers say his extended detention and interrogation at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., left him with severe mental disabilities. All three say he may never recover.

....

The judge in Padilla's criminal case has already ruled that Padilla is suffering from a mental disability, but she refused to allow defense lawyers to explore the issue of whether the disability was caused by Padilla's treatment in the brig.

It's a long story that I didn't totally finish, but I will say this: I would like to see an explanation as to why the judge in the case did not allow defense lawyers to explore the possibility that Padilla's condition was occurred while he was in the brig. As it stands, the ruling serves the function of helping cover up the fact that there has been lots of torture at the hands of the U.S. Government.

And then there is this non-denial:

Defense Department officials reject charges that Padilla was mistreated. "The government in the strongest terms denies Padilla's allegations of torture..." writes Navy Commander J.D. Gordon, a spokesman for the secretary of Defense, in an e-mail.

He adds, "There has never been a substantiated case of detainee abuse at Charleston Navy brig."

Funny thing, that. Padilla was held at Guantanamo Bay for a long time before being transferred to the Charleston Navy brig (I believe the transfer was the result of a court case that the Bush Administration lost). So that denial doesn't really mean shit.

Medical Ethics? What are Those?

From TPM Muckracker, questions about the role of medical doctors in all the torture that's been going on under the US flag.

For me, this is a no-brainer: Doctors who advised anyone on torture methods should lose their licenses, permanently and everywhere. Same goes for psychiatrists. Not only is that a proper response, I think it's in the self-interest of both professions.

Though I imagine that one rationale used to justify the participation of medical professionals is that "national security" or the "threat of another terrorist attack" trumps everything else. It's been a tried and true talking point for conservatives for some time, and I can see it getting into the head of people who are nominally professionals.

A much harder question to answer is whether or not doctors and psychiatrists should make themselves available to treat victims of torture, since they stand a good chance of becoming enablers.

Thoughts?

Making a Statement

Apparently 50 high school students, all part of the Presidential Scholars program (whatever that is), presented Bush with a signed letter the other day asking the President to place a ban on torture and human rights violations.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Laugh, because the idea that Bush would listen to these folks is ridiculous on its face, or cry because they had the guts to do it - guts that are in very short supply these days.

My, um, favorite part:

"The president enjoyed a visit with the students, accepted the letter and upon reading it let the student know that the United States does not torture and that we value human rights," deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

I love/hate how Bush always just repeats his lines like he's the smartest one in the room, or that what he says goes because of his status. I associate that trait with, well, a massive lack of awareness about the world. Hm.