Month: April 2008

Answering Booman’s Serious Question

by tristero

About the admissions that torture was planned at the highest level with the approval of the president:

If you were strategizing a blogswarm to get Congress, the press, and the administration to do something, what would you suggest we focus on? Should we focus on the lack of media coverage? Should we focus on getting a special prosecutor? Should we focus on getting the administration to comply with requests for documents and testimony from congressional committees?

My answer is none of the above, but we should support all these efforts. Instead I think bloggers should focus on the essential issue and constantly remind our readers what it is:

There is no longer the shadow of a doubt that the torture of prisoners was planned at the highest levels of the US government with the explicit knowledge and approval of the president. How do we know this? Bush himself admitted it.

What we also need to do is to remind people exactly what it means to torture, and that torture is profoundly immoral. Furthermore we should make it clear that among the numerous reasons that torture is profoundly immoral is that torture makes societies who torture less safe. Specifically, there is no correlation between torture and accurate, actionable intelligence, despite Bush’s lies and the propaganda fed to the American public in shows like “24.”

The media will do what it does. If the blogs keep it up, they may notice, they may not, but our readers will. And, if our readers find opportune moments to bring the subject up – say, at a passover meal while pondering the issues of oppression and torture in the passover story itself – the horror and disgust we feel will spread. We will never get an effective special prosecutor as long as Republicans control the Justice Department, and the administration will never release all the documents or testify to the true extent they tortured. But what is doable is to make it clear that Bush, his cronies, and his party which so enthusiastically green-lighted all his torture, have driven the United States into the moral gutter and have thereby greatly weakened the United States’ ability to defend itself.

The influence we have may be limited to a kind of word of mouth, given the nearly complete – and hardly unintentional – decision to ignore Bush’s public admission of torture planning in the White House. But that word of mouth may influence this election somewhat and help prevent the Party of Torture from holding onto power.

This is my opinion. If the consensus amongst bloggers is that our voices can and should be used to focus on a demand for a special prosecutor, I will support it, of course, and blog about it in my own voice. Ditto the call for doc dumps and testimony. But since Booman asked, I think it’s via grassroots word of mouth blogs can most effectively speak out on the unspeakable topic of torture planning at the White House. And there are many ways to address this subject, make it compelling, and sustain our sense of moral outrage.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Don’t nobody move: The art of the heist caper

By Dennis Hartley

Glancing over the most recent theater schedules, it would seem that the “heist caper” is back (not that it ever really went away). As of this writing, we have the Michael Caine and Demi Moore diamond heist flick, Flawless, running concurrently in theaters and on PPV. Kevin Spacey stars in 21, which concerns an attempt to fleece a Vegas casino. IFC Films has an offering called How to Rob a Bank, which is in limited release and on PPV.

I haven’t had a chance to screen any of the aforementioned yet, but there is another new heist caper that I have seen, and would like to recommend to you. I’ll admit, I didn’t rush right out to see The Bank Job, for several reasons: 1) The generic title, 2) I usually equate star Jason Statham’s name with mindless action flicks, and 3) I had never forgiven director Roger Donaldson for spilling Cocktail onto theater floors (a pity-he had shown such promise back in his early New Zealand days with the astounding Smash Palace)).

But I must say, Donaldson has redeemed himself quite well with his new film, which is based on a high-profile robbery that took place in England in the 1970s. Statham plays a low-level London criminal who is approached by an acquaintance (the lovely Saffron Burrows) with a plan to rob some safe-deposit boxes in a prestigious London bank. Unbeknownst to Statham and his gang, some of the boxes contain sex blackmail material that could potentially unseat several highly-placed members of the British government. To tell you much more would risk spoilers, so we’ll just say many twists and turns ensue.

Regardless as to how much artistic license may have been taken here, Donaldson has fashioned a terrific and surprisingly multi-layered entertainment. In fact, it not only works as a heist caper, it’s an involving political potboiler and espionage thriller as well. Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais have crafted a script that is pleasingly complex without being needlessly complicated (not an easy balance to strike). The movie is fast paced, but not in the headache-inducing flash cut/jerky cam manner that seems requisite these days; in this respect it harkens back to a more classic era of moviemaking. Not to be missed.

So, with all these heist capers in the multiplexes, I thought I’d share my Top Ten Favorites of the genre with you. As I always emphasize whenever I compile such a list, please note that it reflects my personal favorites, not the “top ten greatest of all time” or the “most influential” (your outrage at my “failure” to include The Asphalt Jungle, The Killing, Reservoir Dogs, etc. etc. has been duly noted in advance, thank you very much.)

So, in no particular order of preference, let us commence to crash Haloscan:

Bob le Flambeur – This is the premier “casino heist” movie, as well as a highly stylized homage to American film noir from writer-director Jean-Pierre Melville. “Bob” (Roger Duchesne) is a suave, old-school gangster who plans “one last score” to pay off his gambling debts. The film is more character study than action caper; in fact its slow pace is the antithesis to what contemporary audiences expect from a heist movie. Still, patience has its rewards, and discerning viewers will find many riches here. The film belies its low-budget, thanks to the wonderfully atmospheric B & W location shooting in the Montmartre and Rue Pigalle districts of Paris. The real revelation here is 15 year-old Isabel Corey, an earthy, wise-beyond-her-years Bardot-like nymphet who had never acted before (Melville literally spotted her walking down the street and thought she would be perfect for his film). The deliciously ironic twist of the dénouement makes a great kicker.

The Oceans Eleven (1960) – This (very) loose remake of Bob le Flambeur is the ultimate Rat Pack extravaganza. Frank Sinatra stars as Danny Ocean, a WW2 vet who enlists 11 of his old Army buddies for an ambitious takedown of five big Vegas casinos in one night. Yes, they are all here: Sammy Davis, Jr., Dean Martin, Peter Lawford, Joey Bishop, Angie Dickinson, Henry Silva and the original “Joker” himself-Cesar Romero. Lewis Milestone directed, and supposedly Billy Wilder had a non-credited hand in the script. To be sure, it’s basically an in-jokey vanity project, and may not hold up well to close technical scrutiny (direction, set design, lighting, etc. are so-so); but every time Sammy warbles “Eee-ohhh, eee-leaven…” I somehow feel that all is right with the world. Steven Soderbergh’s current remake franchise is slicker, but nowhere near as hip, IMHO.

Heat -This is writer-director Michael Mann’s masterpiece, perhaps the best “cops and robbers” film ever made. While it does spotlight the precise planning and execution of several heists, as well as some genuinely exciting action sequences, the heart of this film lies within its very deliberately paced character development. Robert De Niro portrays a master thief who plays cat-and-mouse with a dogged police detective (Al Pacino). Mann not only examines the “professional” relationship these two men have with each other, but takes great pains to show us how they each relate to the significant others in their life. De Niro and Pacino only share one relatively brief scene together in the same room, but it’s a doozy. There’s able support on hand from Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore, Jon Voight, Wes Studi, Amy Brenneman and Ashley Judd. Those who have been anticipating another De Niro/Pacino pair-up will be happy to hear that they will be reunited in Righteous Kill, due out this fall (I saw the previews recently, and surprise surprise, its…a crime film!)

Dead Heat on a Merry-Go-Round– James Coburn is at his winking, rascally best as a con artist who schemes to knock over a bank located in the heart of LAX, ingeniously manipulating the airport’s own scheduled security lockdown for the visit of a controversial foreign dignitary as a distraction. The first half of the film is reminiscent of The Producers; in order to raise the money he needs to buy the schematic blueprints for the bank, he needs to patiently seduce several women and bilk them out of their bank accounts (it’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it!). Aldo Ray, Severn Darden and Robert Webber give good supporting performances. Sadly, it’s the only real film of note by writer-director Bernard Girard, but one could do worse for a one-off.

Topkapi– Undoubtedly, I will be raked over the coals by some readers for choosing director Jules Dassin’s relatively light-hearted 1964 caper romp over his much darker and inarguably more influential 1956 casse classic Rififi for my top 10 list, but there’s no accounting for some people’s tastes-eh, mon ami? The wonderful Peter Ustinov heads an impressive international cast that also includes Melina Mercouri, Maximilian Schell, Robert Morley and Akim Tamiroff. They are all involved in an ingeniously planned heist to nab a priceless bejeweled dagger that sits in an Istanbul museum. There’s plenty of intrigue, suspense and good laughs (mostly thanks to Ustinov’s presence). There’s also a great deal of lovely and colorful Mediterranean scenery on hand. Vastly entertaining fare. And god help us, a remake is due out in 2009. Well, it’s going to be a remake (slap!!) and a sequel. Paul Verhoeven (!) is directing and Pierce Brosnan stars in The Topkapi Affair, which is being billed as a sequel to The Thomas Crown Affair, which was the 1999 remake of the 1968 film that…oh, never mind (will this remake madness ever stop?!)

The Ladykillers (1955) – This black comedy gem sits perched at the zenith of the British Ealing Studios era. A league of five quirky criminals, posing as classical musicians, rent a flat from nice little old Mrs. Wilberforce and use it as a front for an elaborate bank robbery. To watch Alec Guinness, Peter Sellers and Herbert Lom working together in the same film is to achieve a sublime cinematic nirvana. William Rose wrote the script (he also penned Genevieve, another Ealing classic). Director Alexander Mackendrick would go on to make one of the darkest noirs of them all, The Sweet Smell of Success, in 1957. The 2004 remake by the Coen brothers was a case of “if it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.”

The Andersen Tapes – The great Sidney Lumet directed this nearly forgotten thriller, which has puzzlingly evaded domestic DVD release. Sean Connery plays an ex-con, fresh out of the joint, who masterminds the robbery of an entire NYC apartment building. What he doesn’t know is that the job is under close surveillance by several interested parties, official and private. It’s one of the first films that I know of to ruminate on the insidious encroachment of electronic monitoring technology into our daily lives and the resulting loss of privacy ( The Conversation was still just a gleam in Francis Ford Coppola’s eye in 1971). Nice ensemble work from a fine cast that includes Dyan Cannon, Martin Balsam, Ralph Meeker, Alan King and Christopher Walken (in his first major feature film role). The tough, smart script was adapted from the Lawrence Sanders novel by Frank Pierson, and a hip Quincy Jones score puts a nice bow on the package. Word has it that a remake is in the works, slated for 2010 release (stars and director unknown.)

The Hot Rock– Although it starts out as a fairly standard, by-the-numbers diamond heist caper, this 1972 Peter Yates film delivers a unique twist halfway through: the diamond needs to be stolen all over again (so its back to the drawing board!). There’s even a little political intrigue thrown into the mix. The film boasts a William Goldman screenplay (adapted from a Donald E. Westlake novel) and a knockout cast (Robert Redford, George Segal, Zero Mostel, Ron Leibman, Paul Sand and Moses Gunn). Redford and Segal make a great team, and the film hits a nice balance between suspense and humor. Lots of fun.

That Sinking Feeling – Sort of a Scottish version of Big Deal on Madonna Street, this was the 1979 debut from writer-director Bill Forsyth (Local Hero, Comfort and Joy). An impoverished Glasgow teenager, tired of eating cornflakes for breakfast, lunch and dinner, comes up with a scheme that will make him and his underemployed pals rich beyond their wildest dreams-knocking over a plumbing supply warehouse full of stainless steel sinks. Funny as hell, but with a wee touch of working class weltschmertz that gives a certain sense of poignancy to the story; this underlying subtext makes it a precursor to films like The Full Monty, Waking Ned Devine and Brassed Off!. Nearly all of the same delightful young cast members returned in Forsyth’s 1982 charmer, Gregory’s Girl.

Kelly’s Heroes – The Dirty Dozen meets Ocean’s Eleven in this clever hybrid of WW2 action yarn and elaborate heist caper, directed by Brian G. Hutton. While interrogating a drunken German officer, an opportunistic platoon leader (Clint Eastwood) stumbles onto a hot tip about a Nazi-controlled bank, secretly stashed with millions of dollars worth of gold bullion. Clint plays it straight, but there’s plenty of anachronistic M*A*S*H style irreverence on hand from Donald Sutherland, as the perpetually stoned and aptly named bohemian tank commander Oddball. The excellent cast includes Telly Savalas, Don Rickles, Carroll O’Connor, Gavin MacLeod and Harry Dean Stanton. Mike Curb (future Lt. Governor of California!) provided the memorable theme song “Burning Bridges”.

…And just for fun, there’s this, which is my favorite short film/ music video of all time. See if you can spot the cameos from John Goodman, Peter Riegert and Treat Williams!

.

ACLU Calls for Independent Counsel

by digby

The ACLU is calling on congress to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the administration’s little torture reenactment parties at the white house.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON – In a stunning admission to ABC news Friday night, President Bush declared that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA’s use of torture. Bush reportedly told ABC, “I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” Bush also defended the use of waterboarding.

Recent reports indicate that high-level advisers including Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and George Tenet were part of the National Security Council’s “Principals Committee” that met regularly and approved the CIA’s use of “combined” “enhanced” interrogation techniques, even pushing the limits of the now infamous 2002 Justice Department “torture memo.” These top advisers reportedly signed off on how the CIA would interrogate suspects – whether they would be slapped, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning.

“We have always known that the CIA’s use of torture was approved from the very top levels of the U.S. government, yet the latest revelations about knowledge from the president himself and authorization from his top advisers only confirms our worst fears,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “It is a very sad day when the president of the United States subverts the Constitution, the rule of law, and American values of justice.”

Romero added, “It is more important than ever that the U.S. government, when seeking justice against those it suspects of harming us, adhere to our commitment to due process and the rule of law. That’s why the ACLU has taken the extraordinary step to offer our assistance to those being prosecuted under the unconstitutional military commissions process. We unfortunately can’t erase or make up for what has already happened, but at least we can attempt to restore some of the values and some semblance of due process that the Bush administration has squandered in the name of national security.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is calling on Congress to demand an independent prosecutor to investigate possible violations by the Bush administration of laws including the War Crimes Act, the federal Anti-Torture Act, and federal assault laws.

“No one in the executive branch of government can be trusted to fairly investigate or prosecute any crimes since the head of every relevant department, along with the president and vice president, either knew or participated in the planning and approval of illegal acts,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Congress cannot look the other way; it must demand an independent investigation and independent prosecutor.”

Fredrickson added, “Congress is duty-bound by the Constitution not only to hold the president, vice president, and all civil officers to account, but it must also send a message to future presidents that it will use its constitutional powers to prevent illegal, and immoral conduct.”

Isn’t it pretty to think so?

Troutfishing over at Daily Kos has issued an action alert on this to write letters to congress.

I will be contacting all the major newspapers and broadcasters myself to ask them why they aren’t interested in this story. (You can access all the email addresses here.)

.

The Torture President

by tristero

From November, 2007:

I am prepared to accept whatever risk that goes along with living in a country that doesn’t ever torture its enemies. Because I know that there is no such risk, that in fact torturing people places a country at greater risk, morally and existentially, than not. Whatever the reasons [Bush] has for torturing people, he is not doing it for the good of ordinary Americans and I reject his insinuation that either my fellow Americans or myself are somehow the reason he feels he must indulge in such perversions…

What Bush and his henchmen have done, and what they are presently doing is, in fact, truly hateful, if that word has any meaning at all. But not only are Bush’s actions capable of being hated by all reasonable people (and deserve to be). They are also acts which themselves are full of hate and sadism. There’s another thing I hate:

Bush will go down in history as the torture president. I hate that this country ever had a president who made the torture of human beings official government policy.

Back then the issue was that Mukasey’s nomination was in danger because he refused to assert that the drowning torture known as “waterboarding” was, in fact, torture.

Now we know he had good reason. If he had, he would be under legal obligation to arrest the president of the United States if he became AG.

[UPDATE: In a post that urges us neither to scapegoat Yoo or let the torture enabler off the hook, Greenwald suggests that if the US government will not investigate the torture regime, perhaps Berkeley should to determine if Yoo violated any ethical standards (of course he did, the question is how badly he violated them). It’s fine with me if Berkeley wants to investigate.

And if Yoo resigns to short circuit the investigation, that’s also fine with me, provided wherever else he tries to hang his shingle and peddle his trash, they also launche an investigation into his behavior and the extent of his culpability.]

Whatever

by digby

Updated below

Both tristero and I have weighed in with stunned, slack jawed incredulity that the president of the United States has blithely admitted that he approved of the highest members of his administration meeting to discuss and approve specific torture techniques and regimes for specific prisoners. This news was buried in a Friday news dump, but even so you would think news organizations would highlight this amazing story on the front page of their web site and mention it in their newscasts. Who would have ever thought you’d have a president casually say something like this?

In the interview with ABC News Friday, Bush defended the waterboarding technique used against KSM.

“We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it,” Bush said. “And no, I didn’t have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew.”

Well, Marcy Wheeler notes that even ABC, which broke the story, has decided the story is no big deal:

never mind.

Update: Reader David F. reminds me of this anecdote from The Nelson Report, back in May 2004, via Josh Marshall:

We can contribute a second hand anecdote to newspaper stories on rising concern, last year, from Secretary of State Powell and Deputy Secretary Armitage about Administration attitudes and the risks they might entail: according to eye witnesses to debate at the highest levels of the Administration…the highest levels…whenever Powell or Armitage sought to question prisoner treatment issues, they were forced to endure what our source characterizes as “around the table, coarse, vulgar, frat-boy bully remarks about what these tough guys would do if THEY ever got their hands on prisoners….”

— let’s be clear: our source is not alleging “orders” from the White House. Our source is pointing out that, as we said in the Summary, a fish rots from its head. The atmosphere created by Rumsfeld’s controversial decisions was apparently aided and abetted by his colleagues in their callous disregard for the implications of the then-developing situation, and by their ridicule of the only combat veterans at the top of this Administration.

In October 2005, Nelson reported this, when Powell aide Larry Wilkerson started talking, via Steve Clemons:

Another topic of emotional importance in Wilkerson’s talk, which clearly echoes Powell’s personal concerns, was his denunciation of the “torture memo” and its effects, predicting “ten years from now, when we have the whole story, we are going to be ashamed.”

What is he hinting? In some of the private chats noted above, Powell and Armitage have quoted President Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney as leading a collective round of ridicule when Powell, at Cabinet meetings, and Armitage, at Subcabinet, sought to put limits on mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. . .long before the cancer of Abu Ghraib.

I think we know what was happening now, don’t we? The “principals” were all sitting around the table devising torture techniques based on the previous episode of “24” (or their favorite S&M website), and when Powell meekly objected, they called him a faggot. In the White House. If Bush wasn’t in the room, he was listening on speaker phone. This has codpiece written all over it.

Not that even this made Powell resign, of course. But then he proved a long time ago that there was literally nothing he wouldn’t defend publicly while whispering in interested ears behind the scenes the exact opposite.

.

A Mystery Solved, Another Concern, And An Open Letter To Juan Cole

by tristero

In a review so shamelessly fawning it simply boggles the mind , Niall Ferguson writes of Philip Bobbitt’s latest book length typing:

This is quite simply the most profound book to have been written on the subject of American foreign policy since the attacks of 9/11 — indeed, since the end of the cold war. I have no doubt it will be garlanded with prizes. It deserves to be. It is more important that it should be read, marked and inwardly digested by all three of the remaining candidates to succeed George W. Bush as president of the United States.

What makes Bobbitt’s book so profound?

Bobbitt’s central premise is that today’s Islamic terrorist network, which he calls Al Qaeda for short…

Hold it right there, Mr. Ferguson. Did I read that correctly? I did:

Bobbitt’s central premise is that today’s Islamic terrorist network, which he calls Al Qaeda for short…

And now we know why McCain keeps on thinking Iran supports al Qaeda. According to Bobbit’s definition, all radical Islamist groups, Shiite AND Sunni, can be referred to as “al Qaeda” because they form a network of “Islamic terrorism.”

In case you think I’m clowning around here, that McCain’s idiotic confusion surrounding Iran and AQI has nothing to do with Bobbitt’s ideas, I assure you I am quite serious. Ferguson makes the McCain/Bobbitt connection explicit in his last two paragraphs:

Yet it is striking that, despite being a Democrat, Philip Bobbitt so often echoes the arguments made by John McCain on foreign policy. He sees the terrorist threat as deadly serious. He is willing to fight it. But he wants to fight it within the law, and with our traditional allies.

Perhaps — who knows? — this brilliant book may also be an application for the post of national security adviser. In times of war, stranger bedfellows have been known than a Democratic Texas lawyer and a Republican Arizona soldier.

How unbelievably profound is Bobbitt’s insight. Well, it’s profoundly unbelievable, that’s for sure. Equally unbelievable is the only criticism Ferguson levels at this “masterpiece” of foreign policy analysis:

Only one point seems to elude Bobbitt, and that is what seems to me to be the great defect of any pre-emptive action by a democratic regime: the electoral rewards for success are slight because the public finds it hard to be grateful for a nonevent. Retaliation, by contrast, is a surefire vote-winner. That is a major difficulty, I think, since the United States can scarcely be an effective “claviger” (key bearer) and “steward” of the states of consent if its executive cannot secure enduring domestic consent for its “preclusive” actions.

I find it hard to read this as anything other than a barely disguised advocacy for an authoritarian form of government not beholden to the whims of an electorate. I also find it hard to believe I read this call for dictatorship in the New York Times Book Review.

Dear Professor Juan Cole,

I know you are a very busy person, but for personal reasons, I urge you to review Philip Bobbit’s new book, Terror and Consent and give it the public evisceration it has, apparentely so well earned. If you are unwilling to do so, and no other expert is, either, then I will feel morally obligated to read it and review it myself. The problem is that I know as little about the topics Bobbitt addresses as Bobbitt does himself. Therefore, it would take me a whole hour of googling to find the primary sources needed to refute Bobbitt’s basic premises. And I would need to provide at least five links to be convincing.

Frankly, Professor Cole, I don’t want to waste my time like that, when an expert could dismantle Bobbitt’s arguments in a fraction of that time and space. Thanks in advance for your consent.

Best,

tristero

“They did this in your name, Americans. “

by tristero

I’d like to register my own sense of shock and disgust at the revelations of torture planning at the highest levels of the Bush administration that Digby discusses below. Of course, my own reactions, like yours, are of little import compared to the agonies of those tortured by the men and women our government hired. Nor do my reactions mean anything compared to the evaporation of any vestige of moral credibility the US had with other nations. Still, it is impossible for any American with an ounce of self-esteem not to take this as a betrayal of so much we hold self-evident and good about our country.

Myths that the United States is a nation of laws, not men, die hard. When, back in ’05, I wrote The “F” Word, I was neither kidding nor exaggerating: Schiavo demonstrated that we are living in a fascist state.* But it illustrates how much even a very alarmed observer cut the Bush administration some utterly uncalled-for slack that I wrote:

[S]ince Bush first took his oath in 2001, American and foreign citizens have been held without trial or communication so many times it’s almost routine. Torture is ubiquitous, all but official US policy; one well-respected pundit even suggested amending the Constitution to allow retributive torture of those convicted of capital crimes.

How wrong I was. By 2005, torture was official US policy and had been for quite a while.**

One final point. As horrifying as this latest news is, I’d like to remind you that we don’t know the half of it. The fact that Bush felt comfortable confirming his own approval of White House torture planning indicates that far more dreadful moral outrages were planned and committed by these bastards. And that those horrors are official United States policy.

This is not some puerile propaganda-disguised-as-entertainment like ’24,’ dear friends, where the guns fire blanks and the blood is ketchup. This is the real thing. People are being tortured with your tax dollars. And let us not forget that there are no “utilitarian” excuses that trump this immorality. “Our” goals are not intrinsically benign and therefore justify these obscenities. Torture has not saved a single American life.

Should Bush, et al immediately be impeached and removed from office for these and other heinous activities? Should he and the others stand trial? Of course they should, it goes without saying.It is a measure of how far removed we are from a representative democracy that, politically, it is simply inconceivable that the top level of planners will ever encounter justice.

Oh America, America…

*In the context of the present revelations, let’s not quibble technically about whether America is “a fascist state,” “an authoritarian state,” or “a dictatorship.” The difference matters not at all to those being tortured in your name, Americans.

**The pundit who wanted to torture capital crime perpetrators later changed his mind.

“This Is Your Baby, Go To It”

by digby

I thought I was long past the point of being shocked at anything the Bush administration did. They suspended the constitution after 9/11 and set forth a series of legal opinions that said the president can do anything he deems necessary to “protect the country.” Once you truly absorb that fact, it’s hard to be emotionally affected by anything else you learn.

But I was wrong. This shocks me. The president of the United States casually admits on television that he approved of his national security team personally deciding which specific torture techniques should be used against prisoners:

“Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people.” Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. “And, yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”

As first reported by ABC News on Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

There was a time when the Village clucked and screeched about “defiling the white house” with an extra marital affair or hosting fund raising coffees. I would say this leaves a far greater stain on that institution than any sexual act could ever do. They did this in your name, Americans.

The vice president, national security advisor and members of the president’s cabinet sat around the white house “choreographing” the torture and the president approved it. I have to say that even in my most vivid imaginings about this torture scheme it didn’t occur to me that the highest levels of the cabinet were personally involved (except Cheney and Rumsfeld, of course) much less that we would reach a point where the president of the United States would shrug his shoulders and say he approved. I assumed they were all vaguely knowledgeable, some more than others, but that they would have done everything in their power to keep their own fingerprints off of it. But no. It sounds as though they were eagerly involved, they all signed off unanimously and thought nothing of it.

Naturally, the saintly General C. Lukewarm Powell was his usual evasive self when asked about it. (And if I hear one more person say he should be on the Democratic ticket I’m going to have an aneurysm):

Powell said that he didn’t have “sufficient memory recall” about the meetings and that he had participated in “many meetings on how to deal with detainees.” Powell said, “I’m not aware of anything that we discussed in any of those meetings that was not considered legal.”

The Attorney General(!) also present and approving, was concerned that this was being done inside the white house:

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

That’s what passes for integrity in the Bush white house.

He’s certainly right about history not judging this kindly. Neither would a war crimes tribunal. It’s hard to imagine that these people can ever feel comfortable travelling around the world again after this; perhaps they believe there’s safety in numbers or something. But I don’t know how you avoid being held personally responsible for torturing people under these circumstances if you find yourself in a legal proceeding. Simply saying it wasn’t “real torture” won’t cut it, particularly at this level of detail. They actually went beyond the scope of the Yoo memo:

The Principals also approved interrogations that combined different methods, pushing the limits of international law and even the Justice Department’s own legal approval in the 2002 memo, sources told ABC News.

At one meeting in the summer of 2003 — attended by Vice President Cheney, among others — Tenet made an elaborate presentation for approval to combine several different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time, according to a highly placed administration source.

A year later, amidst the outcry over unrelated abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the controversial 2002 legal memo, which gave formal legal authorization for the CIA interrogation program of the top al Qaeda suspects, leaked to the press. A new senior official in the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, withdrew the legal memo — the Golden Shield — that authorized the program.

But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: “This is your baby. Go do it.”

There was a time when a scene like this would have been so outlandish that people would have said “it sounds like some kind of Oliver Stone conspiracy.” I have a sneaking suspicion that old Ollie is furiously working on rewrites for his Bush Biopic this week-end. But I doubt even his fertile imagination is going to find it easy to make a scene play in which all the top players in the Bush administration casually decide which torture techniques to use that day. Its something out of a bad spy novel — or a nightmare.

John Conyers has invited some of the players to come up to the hill and testify about these meetings. I have sneaking suspicion they won’t be available. And since the congress has rendered itself impotent to enforce its subpoenas in the face of Bush recalcitrance, I don’t think we’ll be seeing them.

Perhaps someone on the campaign trail could ask Senator McCain, the allegedly anti-torture Republican what he thinks about this. I’m sure he’ll say that he’s “against torture,” which they all do. But in this case the highest levels of the Bush administration personally approved water boarding, which even he has admitted is actual torture. I’d like to see someone pin him down on this. He gets a tremendous amount credit and affection for his bravery and “principles” on this issue, when his history is actually one of real political cowardice.

.

The Difference Between Pizza and Orange Juice

by dday

I actually saw this on Hardball yesterday and decided not to post on it because I wanted to erase it from my memory. But Media Matters brought it back to my brain.

MATTHEWS: Did you see him there?

SHUSTER: — but that’s —

MATTHEWS: He’s not that good at that — handshaking in a diner.

SHUSTER: No —

MATTHEWS: Barack doesn’t seem to know how to do that right.

SHUSTER: — he doesn’t do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that’s why, Chris, we’ve seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean —

MATTHEWS: What’s so hard about doing a diner? I don’t get it. Why doesn’t he go in there and say, “Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?” Just some regular connection?

SHUSTER: Well, here’s the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, “I’ll have orange juice.”

MATTHEWS: No.

SHUSTER: He did.

And it’s just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, “Here, have some coffee,” you say, “Yes, thank you,” and, “Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?” You don’t just say, “No, I’ll take orange juice,” and then turn away and start shaking hands. That’s what happens [unintelligible] —

MATTHEWS: You don’t ask for a substitute on the menu.

SHUSTER: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.

After that, Matthews went to a stunned Bob Casey and asked him about why Obama just can’t connect in diners. I thought he was going to turn off-camera and say “Did he just ask me that question?”

Now, this isn’t limited to Democrats, actually, here’s a recent report about how McCain couldn’t fold his pizza in half like a real New Yorker. The difference is that those quick hits on Republicans don’t usually make that metaphorical leap to turn some random event about bowling or orange juice into a symbolic manifestation of the candidate and Democrats in general. I mean, if this did hit Hardball, someone would say that everyone knows McCain’s a real man and he just isn’t used to New York’s way of chowing down on pizza but he made a game attempt and isn’t it great that he tried? What a guy!

Which really doesn’t matter to me, they shouldn’t be spending 5 seconds commentating on campaign trail events like they’re in the skybox watching the Patriots and the Giants. But when it comes to a Democrat in a similar situation, they plug whatever “gaffe” they’ve decided on into the overall narrative. That’s because the conservative noise machine has been browbeating the media for years and years and basically setting up the themes. Democrats are weak, they’re effete, they don’t “play in Peoria,” they can’t connect with reg’lar folks. So this puts the media types on the lookout for this garbage, and then eager to take the slightest of opportunities to play them up into some reflection of character. It’s a typical game, and it’s easier than using your brain. It’s also a lot cheaper. Sending out a tracker to film Obama on the road beats doing a hard analysis of policy positions. One requires researchers and a need to probably locate and film experts, and come up with graphics and fact-check – but a tracker just points and shoots, and you don’t even need a microphone because the tea-leaf readers are just going to show the visuals and talk over them anyway. It’s both vapid and cost-effective, and that’s why it’s so ubiquitous. And with each passing day, everyone in the country dies just a little bit inside.

.

It Depends On Your Definition Of Appalling

by dday

So Fourthbranch Cheney went there on Obama and Rev. Wright:

“I thought the controversy over Rev. Wright was remarkable,” Cheney said. “I thought some of the things he said were absolutely appalling. And, you know, I haven’t gotten into the business of trying to judge how Sen. Obama dealt with it, or didn’t deal with it, but I really, I think — like most Americans — I was stunned at what the Reverend was preaching in his church and then putting up on his website.”

Really, some of the things Wright said were appalling?

Hm.

OK. Can we talk about some of the actions you took, then?

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned […]

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

“If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you’d see a correlation,” the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that “there’d need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics” before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said […]

The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA’s interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.

At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of “principals” fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

I don’t think Jeremiah Wright has cornered the market on things that should make us APPALLED. In fact, I think Fourthbranch has far more real estate on that street.

Conservatives continue to frame morals and patriotism as based entirely on lip service and words, instead of whether you live up to those precepts with your deeds.

By the way, the AP article makes it seem like Bush was blissfully ignorant of the whole “signing off on torture inside the White House” thing, except there are actual documents signed by Bush authorizing the practices. Here’s a PDF of one, if you like. Not one of them, certainly not Bush, is insulated from this horror.

.