Month: April 2008

Going The Distance

by digby

I hate writing about this primary because I’m nearly alone in my opinions and everyone on both sides mistrusts me for them. But what the hell. Last night was not unexpected so I’m a little bit surprised at all the rending of garments this morning. The polls all predicted a Clinton victory of about the percentage she got. I guess people were expecting some sort of late breaking shocker.

It appears obvious now that this campaign isn’t going to end until everyone has voted in the primaries. And it’s entirely possible that at that point, neither candidate will have been able to reach the magic number. If that’s so, then the party rules (much like the constitutional requirement that the election go to the House of Representatives in the case of an electoral tie) the decision will fall to the superdelegates. (They may weigh in sooner rather than later to hit that magic number and that’s fine too, although I don’t see why it should be required.)

My views are horribly out of step with most of you, I recognize that. But I honestly think it’s going to be nearly impossible to lose in the fall (although I think the outside Democratic groups need to start working on McCain’s favorables sooner rather than later) so I’m just not feeling the panic about the primary. I like it when the voting process plays itself out rather than having the campaign spin and the media narratives telling the people what they are supposed to do. I’ve always felt that way. I still don’t see this campaign as being particularly harsh by historical standards and I remain where I was at the beginning, believing that either candidate would be a good president and having no qualms about supporting either one of them. I just don’t feel particularly emotional about it (except to the extent that I’m personally attacked for failing to feel properly emotional….) In fact, I hardly ever feel emotional about primaries. It’s the conservatives (and chickenshit Dems, which neither of these candidates are) who really get my blood boiling.

To me, this primary is actually a good thing for the fall. All this hand wringing strikes me as typical Democratic nervous nellie-ism. A huge increase in Democratic voter registration, building of strong ground operations in most states, new technologies being beta tested, lots of media coverage and battle testing for the nominee are of benefit to the nominee in the fall. Meanwhile, the Democrats stay at center stage while McCain wanders around in obscurity, failing to raise money and leaving a trail of gaffes in his wake. As long as they don’t know at whom to aim their fire the Republicans can’t cement their narrative. In the end, I remain convinced that we are going into an election that is so fundamentally seismic that either of them can win it, even if more closely than we might want, due to the breakthrough nature of their campaigns. The primary continuing on is not going to change that.

I don’t think people realize that the democratization the internet has brought to the system is also one of the main reasons why the campaign goes on. If you think superdelegates are undemocratic, back in the bad old days (of a couple of cycles ago) big party donors pulled the strings by pulling the money when they decided that someone had no chance to win. Today, both candidacies are where they are on the basis of avid small donor supporters contributing online and that’s prolonged things past the point where it would have in the past. Thousands of Clinton supporters keep sending her money– ten million since last night, apparently. So, if you don’t like the fact that the campaign continues, blame the internet. It wouldn’t have happened under the old paradigm.

Who’s going to win? Like most people, I expect it will be Obama, but I can see that the idea of a unity ticket might begin to look like a way for the superdelegates to settle this. I don’t think this campaign is hurting him — he’s getting needed experience and learning how to counter punch. (It’s also pin pointing the places where he needs to improve his campaign for the fall.) And the fact that Clinton is still winning big primaries and getting campaign contributions makes it ridiculous to expect her — or any politician — to quit (no matter what the NY Times editorial board says.) She has a legitimate constituency (nearly half the voters) in the party that wants her to see this through. As Somerby says in response to Maureen Dowd’s typically daft (and equal opportunity insulting) column this morning:

This year’s campaign has shown what can happen when a party has two closely-matched candidates. There are potential downsides for the party, as anyone can see. But journos like Dowd think it’s their role to demand that the person they hate should just quit. Those million-plus Democrats [who voted for her yesterday] don’t exist in Dowd’s world. In Dowd’s world, Dowd wants Clinton to quit. And so, by the laws of childish dreams, “the Democrats” must want that too.

Since I don’t think the Democratic Party will crumble from the stress of finishing up the primaries (or even a brokered convention for that matter) until Obama officially wraps up the number of delegates and superdelegates to go over the magic number, I think she has a right to continue.

Finally, yes, I’m personally looking forward to the end of this tedious campaign. I’m sure there isn’t anyone in the blogosphere who doesn’t feel that way. We are set up to fight Republicans, not each other, and this is taking its toll on our communities (and our sanity.) But, you know, that’s tough. This is politics, and politics are unpredictable. The blogosphere will survive and so will the party.

Update: For a taste of what harsh attack ads really look like, check out what the Republicans are running down in North Carolina:

This one, done by Floyd Brown of Willie Horton fame is more likely to become a web hit, but I would think we’ll see more of this sort of thing too.

St McCain has written one of his patented sanctimonious letters saying that he doesn’t approve of these awful ads. He’s very upset and wants them to take them down. (Isn’t he awesome?) Sadly, they told him no. It’s really too bad the presumptive head of the Republican party he really can’t control what those terrible people are doing. C’est la vie! At least we all know where St. McCain stands on the issue and that his heart is totally in the right place.

Nice scam, don’t you think? I wonder if he can get away with it all the way to November?

.

The First Salvo In The Next Nuremberg

by dday

A Daily Kos diarist and several other citizens were able to question John Ashcroft last night on the subject of torture. His denials were outright revealing and show the nervousness these people feel.

TOM: This story was made public by ABC a few weeks ago. It claims that you, Rice, Tenet and others met in the White House to discuss different methods of “enhanced interrogation,” is that correct?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Correct? Is what correct? Is it correct that this story ran on ABC? I don’t know that. I don’t know anything about it! Is it a real story? When was this story, huh? Huh?

TOM: Um, early April, April 9th, I think…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) You think? You think? You don’t even know! Next question!

TOM: The article says that you discussed “whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning”…

ASHCROFT: I said, next question!

So when confronted with the fact, Ashcroft deliberately misinterprets the question, asks an irrelevant technicality, (which the kid answered correctly, it was April 9), and uses the technicality to wiggle out of the question. Here the lack of follow-up on the ABC story is crucial, as Ashcroft is able to sow confusion about the story itself because it just hasn’t been widely reported.

Next:

Another student asked if Ashcroft’s position on torture violated the Geneva Conventions or other international laws:

ASHCROFT: No. No it doesn’t violate the Geneva Conventions. As for other laws, well, the U.S. is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture. And that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the Senate to be ratified, and when the Senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow. Now, I don’t have a copy of the convention in front of me…

ME: (holding up my copy) I do! (boisterous applause and whistling from the audience) Would you like to borrow it?

ASHCROFT: (after a pause) Uh, you keep a hold of it. Now, as I was saying, I don’t have it with me but I’m pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage…

A STUDENT FROM THE AUDIENCE: Liar! You liar! (the student is shushed by the audience)

ASHCROFT: So no, waterboarding does not violate international law.

Well, that’s just not true. The UN human rights chief has said waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture. The definition of the UN Convention Against Torture is right here.

“severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession….”

And members of the UN Committee Against Torture have agreed that waterboarding falls under it.

Now, watch the sleight-of-hand here, remembering that Ashcroft brought up the UN Convention Against Torture in the first place.

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I’d like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. It was uncalled for–we can disagree civilly, we don’t need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents. One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about “lasting physical damage”…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?

ME: No, I don’t. Do you happen to know what they are?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don’t have them memorized, no. I don’t have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. I just don’t want these people in the audience to go away saying, “He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!” Because that’s not true. It’s a lie. If you don’t have the reservations, you don’t have anything. Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but…

Well, actually, he WAS wrong, because he tried to claim that the UN Convention was strictly defined as physical harm. That being wrong, he retreated to the idea of reservations and qualifiers. I have those reservations right here (scroll down for “United States”), and here’s the key line:

(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Waterboarding simulates drowning (actually, to be more precise, per the comments, it’s CONTROLLED drowning). That would fall under the intentional inflicting of suffering and the threat of imminent death.

So, you know, Ashcroft was wrong again.

Now watch Ashcroft try to muddy a clear precedent.

ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal. After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan. Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. And among the tortures listed was the “water treatment,” which we nowadays call waterboarding…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question. I don’t mind, but it’s not a question.

ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment. The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, “the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.” One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information. Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country–exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do–do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of “Good question!”)

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here. You’re comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. We don’t do anything like what you described.

ME: I’m sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water down their throat…

ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said? “Putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water on them.” That’s not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!

ME: Sir, other reports of the time say…

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of “Answer her fucking question!” from the audience) Read it!

ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!

ME: “The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”

ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that? You hear it? “Forced!” If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…does this college have an anatomy class? If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…

ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano’s sentence was unjust? Answer the question. (pause)

ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It’s not a fair question; there’s no comparison. Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)

Well, if Ashcroft thinks he can bully an international criminal court the way he tried to bully a few college students last night, he’s going to come off looking just as foolish. Because Ashcroft had the foresight to say “History will not judge us kindly” during the Principals meetings on torture, some have made the effort to rehabilitate him to a degree. I think we can end that now. He’s guilty and he knows it, that’s why his arguments were so very shallow. A court of law would convict in a matter of minutes.

.

More Salad

by digby

The Man Called Petraeus gets a promotion. His resume is looking good.

The Associated Press has learned that Gen. David Petraeus has been tapped to become the next commander of U.S. Central Command.

Perhaps someone can tell me what this means for Iraq? (I know what it means for his future political career.)

Update: Ok, now here’s something guaranteed to cause a mutiny:

Bill: Stop selling Playboy, Penthouse on base

Concerned that the military is selling pornography in exchange stores in spite of a ban, one lawmaker has introduced a bill to clean up the matter.

“Our troops should not see their honor sullied so that the moguls behind magazines like Playboy and Penthouse can profit,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., unveiling his House bill April 16.

His Military Honor and Decency Act would amend a provision of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act that banned sales of “sexually explicit material” on military bases.

The new language would “close existing loopholes” in regulations to bring the military “into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law,” Broun said.

“Allowing sale of pornography on military bases has harmed military men and women by escalating the number of violent, sexual crimes, feeding a base addiction, eroding the family as the primary building block of society, and denigrating the moral standing of our troops both here and abroad,” Broun said.

Broun said he wants to bring the Defense Department into compliance with the intent of the 1997 law “so that taxpayers will not be footing the costs of distributing pornography.”

Exchange officials noted that tax dollars are not used to procure magazines in the system’s largely self-funded operations.

But Broun’s spokesman John Kennedy contended that taxpayer dollars are involved — “used to pay military salaries, so taxpayer money is, in effect, being used to buy these materials,” he said.

Broun’s bill, which has 15 co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Armed Services Committee for consideration, would tighten the definition of pornography. One part of the provision states that if a print publication is a periodical, it would be considered sexually explicit if “it regularly features or gives prominence to nudity or sexual or excretory activities or organs in a lascivious way.”

Previously, defense officials have said, they do not consider nudity in itself to be “lascivious.”

Of course nudity is lascivious. And if any of those boys over in Iraq even look at themselves in the mirror they’re obviously gay and should immediately be discharged.

Seriously, Playboy? What about Betty Grable pin-ups? Their own dirty minds?

.

Friedman Units, Election-Style

by dday

Rachel Maddow basically just namechecked Atrios on MSNBC and called the race a series of Friedman Units, where pundits and media types say “the next primary will be over!” and then nothing happens. This was the ultimate inconclusive result, in Pennsylvania, 30-40 million to get a 10-point win with probably around ten delegates in Clinton’s favor. The media has a real desire to keep this thing going and hype up the “this is it!” nature of the next primary, and then nothing happens. I’m with Matt Yglesias – this kind of has to end. There really isn’t a whole lot more information that superdelegates are going to get. There’s a saturation level that has been reached. We know the strengths and weaknesses of these candidates. We know what demographics they win against one another and what demos they lose. About half the Democrats in the country like Clinton and about half like Obama. She’s from the Northeast and he’s from the Midwest, and they get a tilt in their favor in each of those regions. He can’t knock her out because she’s really good at campaigning, and she was swamped by him early because he’s really good at campaigning. The level of competition is far higher here than it will be in the fall against John McCain, actually. So the superdelegates can make their choice. They could make it today.

And I agree with Stoller, we’re going to be fine. Democrats forced a runoff, and came within a hair’s breadth of winning, in a seat in the middle of Mississippi (MS-01) tonight, an R+10 seat. The “Clinton/Obama voters will vote for McCain if their guy doesn’t win” polling is about as relevant in the middle of a hotly contested primary as a national Paul-Richardson head-to-head (You might have noticed that Ron Paul got 16% of the vote in the GOP primary in PA tonight, and Huckabee 21% 11%. Does that mean core Republicans won’t vote McCain? Uh, no). There were high numbers for disafffected McCain supporters voting for Gore over Bush in 2000. This is essentially a Parliamentary country among core party members, the kind who vote in primaries.

Obama lost the plot in the last several weeks, and Clinton capitalized with a faintly divisive, but strong campaign. Obama needs to get back on his feet in two favorable states. He has not lost a single state that shares a border with his home state of Illinois (Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri). His speech tonight was pretty much a replay of his 2004 DNC keynote, and he’s trying to return to the themes on which he won early. If he wins those two states it will be very significant. But the superdelegates need to come out from under the rocks where they’re hiding and end this.

.

Non-Gasbag Election Coverage

by digby

If, like me, you would rather stick sharp objects in your eyes than watch another edition of overheated primary coverage from the cable gasbags, I would recommend Pollster.com for live blogging of exit polls and the latest extrapolations of the real numbers as they come in.

Just think, you don’t have to look at Bill Bennett or Tim Russert. Makes for a much better election night experience, no matter who you favor.

.

Even Steven

by digby

Andrew Sullivan catches a wingnut being stupid:

You begin to glimpse the mindset of the far right reading a say-anything apparatchik like Hewitt:

We have Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. They have Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

Leave aside the idiotic right-left, us-them crapola. Are we really supposed to believe that Chris Matthews is equatable with Michael Savage? That Olbermann, however partisan and shrill he can be, is the equivalent of the fag-baiting, Hitler-equating bigot, Coulter?

Sullivan’s new attentiveness to the wacko right is kind of adorable. (It’s kind of like watching a two year old discover what he makes in his nappy.)

The really funny thing is that comparing Savage and Coulter to Olbermann and Matthews is actually an improvement on their long standing liberal media critique. It wasn’t long ago that Savage and Coulter were considered to be the answer to Dan Rather and Katie Couric. Baby steps.

(It’s even funnier, by the way, to read the whining on the right about the left’s fearsome message machine and well-funded infrastructure. Booga-booga.)

.

Torturers Among Us

by digby

Following up on D-Day’s post from earlier about Guantanamo interrogators who got hard-ons talking about torture techniques, I thought some of you who haven’t been reading here all that long might get something out of this post of mine from back in 2005.

Nobody is going to ask me who should be hired at The New York Times to replace Judith Miller, but if they did I would say that they should hire the best and most unsung national security reporter in the country — Jason Vest. If you are unfamiliar with his work, do yourself a favor and have Mr Google look him up. He’s a real reporter, not a stenographer, but he also has an impressive interest and grasp of the history of various groups, cabals and individuals who make up the current national security establishment and the Bush administration. And lo and behold, he actually writes about them. This is a huge key to understanding these otherwise inexplicable people and their motives. I highly recommend that you read his pieces wherever they come up and I will continue to bring them to your attention.

Today, he has written a piece on torture for the National Journal that is fascinating because he’s spoken to old guard CIA who have had some experience with this stuff in the past. They all agree that the moral dimension is huge, but there are good practical reasons for not doing it as well. These range from the difficulty in getting allies to cooperate because of their distaste for such methods to the fact that the information is unreliable.

But the thing I found most interesting is the observation that it does something quite horrible to the perpetrators as well as the victims:

“If you talk to people who have been tortured, that gives you a pretty good idea not only as to what it does to them, but what it does to the people who do it,” he said. “One of my main objections to torture is what it does to the guys who actually inflict the torture. It does bad things. I have talked to a bunch of people who had been tortured who, when they talked to me, would tell me things they had not told their torturers, and I would ask, ‘Why didn’t you tell that to the guys who were torturing you?’ They said that their torturers got so involved that they didn’t even bother to ask questions.” Ultimately, he said — echoing Gerber’s comments — “torture becomes an end unto itself.”

[…]

According to a 30-year CIA veteran currently working for the agency on contract, there is, in fact, some precedent showing that the “gloves-off” approach works — but it was hotly debated at the time by those who knew about it, and shouldn’t be emulated today. “I have been privy to some of what’s going on now, but when I saw the Post story, I said to myself, ‘The agency deserves every bad thing that’s going to happen to it if it is doing this again,'” he said. “In the early 1980s, we did something like this in Lebanon — technically, the facilities were run by our Christian Maronite allies, but they were really ours, and we had personnel doing the interrogations,” he said. “I don’t know how much violence was used — it was really more putting people in underground rooms with a bare bulb for a long time, and for a certain kind of privileged person not used to that, that and some slapping around can be effective.

“But here’s the important thing: When orders were given for that operation to stand down, some of the people involved wouldn’t [emphasis mine –ed]. Disciplinary action was taken, but it brought us back to an argument in the agency that’s never been settled, one that crops up and goes away — do you fight the enemy in the gutter, the same way, or maintain some kind of moral high ground?

To some extent civilization is nothing more than leashing the beast within. When you go to the dark side, no matter what the motives, you run a terrible risk of destroying yourself in the process. I worry about the men and women who are engaging in this torture regime. This is dangerous to their psyches. But this is true on a larger sociological scale as well. For many, many moons, torture has been a simple taboo — you didn’t question its immorality any more than you would question the immorality of pedophilia. You know that it’s wrong on a visceral, gut level. Now we are debating it as if there really is a question as to whether it’s immoral — and, more shockingly, whether it’s a positive good. Our country is now openly discussing the efficacy of torture as a method for extracting information.

When Daniel Patrick Moynihan coined the phrase “defining deviancy down” he couldn’t ever have dreamed that we would in a few short decades be at a place where torture is no longer considered a taboo. It certainly makes all of his concerns about changes to the nuclear family (and oral sex) seem trivial by comparison. We are now a society that on some official levels has decided that torture is no longer a deviant, unspeakable behavior, but rather a useful tool. It’s not hidden. People publicly discuss whether torture is really torture if it features less than “pain equavalent to organ failure.” People no longer instinctively recoil at the word — it has become a launching pad for vigorous debate about whether people are deserving of certain universal human rights. It spirals down from there.

When the smoke finally clears, and we can see past that dramatic day on 9/11 and put the threat of islamic fundamentalism into its proper perspective, I wonder if we’ll be able to go back to our old ethical framework? I’m not so sure we will even want to. It’s not that it changed us so much as it revealed us, I think. A society that can so easily discard it’s legal and ethical taboos against cruelty and barbarism, is an unstable society to begin with.

At this rather late stage in life, I’m realizing that the solid America I thought I knew may never have existed. Running very close, under the surface, was a frightened, somewhat hysterical culture that could lose its civilized moorings all at once. I had naively thought that there were some things that Americans would find unthinkable — torture was one of them.

The old Lebanon hand that Vest quotes above concludes by saying this:

I think as late as a decade ago, there were enough of us around who had enough experience to constitute the majority view, which was that this was simply not the way we did business, and for good reasons of practicality or morality. It’s not just about what it does or doesn’t do, but about who, and where, we as a country want to be.”

Now that we’ve let the torture genie out of the bottle, I wonder if we can put that beast back in. He looks and sounds an awful lot like an American.

Update: BTW, did you know that CIA agents are going on trial in Italy for kidnapping? Neither did I. It’s an incredible story, too. Let’s just say that if this is a good example of the quality of the CIA’s spy work we’d all better get the duct tape and visqueen out.

.

Playing The “Press Card”

by digby

I wrote yesterday about how the right wing gasbags pushing the media narrative about McCain’s “x-treme maverickosity” is the only possible way the Republicans can win. Media Matters caught one of the MSM super kewl-kidz helping him out, just as expected:

GREGORY: You know, I think it’s more likely than not the Democratic Party does come together behind the nominee despite how passionate and, at times, divisive this primary battle — and protracted this battle has become. There’s no question, you know, this does appear to be a Democratic year, but the Republicans, I think, were smart to nominate John McCain because he’s not your average Republican. And he’s got a pretty strong brand identity as being a maverick and being anti-politics and anti-Washington. He’s got a lot of cards to play here.

Especially the “press card.” They are the ones who branded him in the first place, after all.

Meanwhile, here’s how our scrupulously honest, straight talking, Republican reformer actually conducts his business:

Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test.

Only if anyone pays attention to it.

The New York Times did put this on the front page today — the day of the most hotly contested Democratic presidential primary in decades. Far be for me to think they might have held this story until a day when people would have focused on it. If another McCain corruption story hits and nobody reads it, did it actually happen?

Update: fergawd’s sake. Is there no McCain trait that reflects badly on his sterling “character?”

Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars caught Tweety with this one:

Matthews: Cindy McCain guest-hosted on The View today. Here she is, talking about her husband’s alleged temper problem.

[START VIDEO]

Cindy McCain: Like anybody who is concerned about America, he is passionate about issues. All of us are. We all have our pet issues. We all have whatever it is we’re involved in. He is passionate about the future of this country. Some people mistake that for temper. It’s not.

[END VIDEO]

Matthews: Well, please give me the list of great politicians who lack a great temper. I hear these stories about everybody in public life. They all got a temper. Seems to come with the territory.

Right, but Hillary putting gift tags on presents in a Christmas video means she’s Evita Peron and Obama getting a low bowling score means he’s Perez Hilton. But McCain? As Nicole says: “He’s just a great politician with a matching temper, just like all the other greats.”

.

The Watchers

by dday

Let’s be clear about the acts of torture planned and authorized out of the White House that The New York Times has editorialized about. Some of the details were laid out in the 2002 Haynes memo signed by Donald Rumsfeld.

These techniques were new to the military. Category I comprised two techniques, yelling and deception. Category II included 12 techniques, aiming at humiliation and sensory deprivation, including stress positions, such as standing for a maximum of four hours; isolation; deprivation of light and sound; hooding; removal of religious and all other comfort items; removal of clothing; forced grooming, such as shaving of facial hair; and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress.

Finally came Category III. These methods were to be used for only a very small percentage of detainees – the most uncooperative (said to be fewer than 3%) and exceptionally resistant individuals – and required approval by the commanding general at Guantánamo. In this category were four techniques: the use of “mild, non-injurious physical contact”, such as grabbing, poking and light pushing; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family; exposure to cold weather or water; and, finally, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation. This last technique came to be known as water-boarding, described on a chat show by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as a “dunk in the water” and a “no-brainer” if it could save lives.

Many of these alone were a violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. But rather than coming from a few bad apples at the various detention sites, there was a parallel process of improvisation and brainstorming happening at the highest levels. Before the activities were codified, the interrogators got to play Jack Bauer and draw up a wish list.

(Staff Judge Advocate at Guantanamo Diane) Beaver told me she arrived in Guantánamo in June 2002. In September that year there was a series of brainstorming meetings, some of which were led by Beaver, to gather possible new interrogation techniques. Ideas came from all over the place, she said. Discussion was wide-ranging […]

Jack Bauer had many friends at Guantánamo Bay, Beaver said, “he gave people lots of ideas.” She believed the series contributed to an environment in which those at Guantánamo were encouraged to see themselves as being on the frontline – and to go further than they otherwise might […]

The younger men would get particularly agitated, excited even: “You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas.” A wan smile crossed Beaver’s face. “And I said to myself, you know what, I don’t have a dick to get hard. I can stay detached.”

However, an authoritarian Administration was not going to let the sexually aroused grunts drive this policy. In fact, proxies to the highest-ranking officials in the executive branch went on a field trip to carry out their boss’ desires.

Dunlavey told me that at the end of September a group of the most senior Washington lawyers visited Guantánamo, including David Addington, the vice president’s lawyer, Gonzales and Haynes. “They brought ideas with them which had been given from sources in DC.” When the new techniques were more or less finalised, Dunlavey needed them to be approved by Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, his staff judge advocate in Guantánamo. “We had talked and talked, brainstormed, then we drew up a list,” he said. The list was passed on to Diane Beaver.” […]

Beaver confirmed what Dunlavey had told me, that a delegation of senior lawyers came down to Guantánamo well before the list of techniques was sent up to Washington. They talked to the intelligence people, they even watched some interrogations. The message from the visitors was that they should do “whatever needed to be done”, meaning a green light from the very top – from the lawyers for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the CIA.

The interrogators were allowed some jollies in the idea formation phase, but once the rules were put in place, it was Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush – their top deputies, sitting around and WATCHING live interrogations, and demanding that the most strenuous techniques be employed, going around Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers, whose bitterness suggests he was a key source for the ABC story.

In his new book, Torture Team, Philippe Sands QC, a professor of law at University College London, reveals:

• Senior figures in the Bush administration pushed through previously outlawed measures with the help of unqualified and inexperienced military officials at Guantánamo.

• Myers believes he was a victim of “intrigue” by top lawyers at the department of justice, the office of the vice president, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld’s defence department.

• Myers wrongly believed interrogation techniques had been taken from the army’s field manual.

This is a familiar pattern of the power center in this Administration, Rumsfeld and Cheney, subverting the will of everyone else and implementing their agenda. In this case, Myers was flat-out lied to and told that the techniques were covered under the UCMJ.

And today there’s a new allegation – prisoner drugging.

Adel al-Nusairi remembers his first six months at Guantanamo Bay as this: hours and hours of questions, but first, a needle.

“I’d fall asleep” after the shot, Nusairi, a former Saudi policeman captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2002, recalled in an interview with his attorney at the military prison in Cuba, according to notes. After being roused, Nusairi eventually did talk, giving U.S. officials what he later described as a made-up confession to buy some peace.

“I was completely gone,” he remembered. “I said, ‘Let me go. I want to go to sleep. If it takes saying I’m a member of al-Qaeda, I will.’ “

Nusairi, now free in Saudi Arabia, was unable to learn what drugs were injected before his interrogations. He is not alone in wondering: At least two dozen other former and current detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere say they were given drugs against their will or witnessed other inmates being drugged, based on interviews and court documents.

I don’t know if drugging was part of the SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) program on which most of the tactics were based, the very program used to train American troops for what they expected to face if captured by a brutal enemy. I do know that these tactics resulted in an unknowable amount of murders, more of which are just coming to light.

Today’s documents reveal charges that Special Forces beat, burned, and doused eight prisoners with cold water before sending them into freezing weather conditions. One of the eight prisoners, Jamal Naseer, died in U.S. custody in March 2003. In late 2004, the military opened a criminal investigation into charges of torture at Gardez. Despite numerous witness statements describing the evidence of torture, the military’s investigation concluded that the charges of torture were unsupported. It also concluded that Naseer’s death was the result of a “stomach ailment,” even though no autopsy had been conducted in his case. Documents uncovered today also refer to sodomy committed by prison guards; the victims’ identities are redacted.

Here we see how this thing was both tightly controlled and yet uncontrolled at the same time. The White House offered a menu of techniques, but they also gave that “green light.” A bunch of kids who relished the power to an almost sexual degree came up with their own plans and saw that they were basically unleashed and protected from prosecution. So we advance to drugging, sodomy, and murder.

I’m watching the President dancing with a mariarchi band on cable news right now, despite our knowing all this. There are those who are paying attention, however. The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility are looking at the memos used to justify torture, and I imagine that will continue beyond the term of this President. Those who have been following the story see the potential for criminal indictments, and legal experts agree, at least in theory. This, by the way, is why it’s going to be nearly impossible to close Guantanamo, because the human rights abuses there will find standing should detainees be allowed on US soil. Behind the scenes there is likely to be a furious effort to indemnify and immunize this President and his senior staff.

We need truth and reconciliation.

.

Bush At 69% Disapproval

by tristero

Bush At 69% Disapproval. That’s the highest ever disapproval for a president. And 28% approve.

You may think that sounds like very low approval but it’s not. Actually, it’s disturbingly high. Let me explain by way of an example.

You’re driving down a highway, minding your own business. However approximately 28 of every 100 drivers hurtling towards you at 55 to 65 mph plus are so utterly unhinged from reality they actually think Bush is doing a good job. Your life is in their hands..

At any time, a Bush-lover’s gut could tell him to play “chicken” with a timid, pathetic, reality-based driver like you, a twerp who thinks – hah! – that traffic laws should be obeyed. Another could, just for the hell of it, decide to smash into another car causing a monstrous pile up you can’t avoid. A third Bush supporter may have neglected to check her tires despite numerous warnings by her Bush-hating cousin that those tires look mighty old and should be replaced. Really, who could possibly have predicted a double blowout on a highway and the subsequent fatal accidents and fires?

Suddenly that 28% doesn’t seem like such a low percentage, does it now, my friends?

Drive safely, people.