Can somebody explain to me why American interrogation techniques seem to always involve sticking objects up prisoners’ asses? This has got to be some sort of “method” because it is reported over and over again:
“He had two, 10-hour beatings from the Americans and I said to David, ‘Sure they were Americans?’ (because) he said he had a bag over his head and he said, ‘Oh look … I know their accents, they were definitely American’,” Mr Hicks told Four Corners.
“Some pretty horrific things … were done to him.”
The program reported the abuse had included Hicks being injected and then penetrated anally with various objects.
Hicks’ lawyers say they have witnesses relating to the abuse and that the United States has photographic evidence.
His American lawyer, Major Michael Mori, would not comment on the specifics of what information he had.
“I’d say it’s an area that I’m investigating and that I’ve already found some evidence and witnesses that support that occurring,” he told Four Corners.
Former Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mamdouh Habib, who was released earlier this year, has also claimed that he was abused while on foreign soil.
In February, Mr Habib detailed how he was tortured in a military airport in Pakistan.
During a particular episode of abuse, Mr Habib said 15 men stripped him, inserted something into his anus, put him in a nappy and tied him up.
Is this some sort of American sexual panic or is it official policy that sexual violence is the best way to “interrogate” prisoners?
Every time I read this stuff it makes my stomach churn. What is being described is depraved sexual violence— rape. And I wonder about the men and women who are perpetrating these horrifying acts. This is a license to unleash the darkness which I assume exists to some extent or another in most people — and then they are going to come back into society and we are going to expect them to behave like decent people.
I’m beginning to think that we’re not dealing with interrogation at all. We’re dealing with something insidious and familiar: rape camps. It appears that based upon some strange reading of Islam that says being raped is unusually unpleasant for Muslims, we are using rape as a military strategy. The same thing happened in Bosnia to Muslim women:
…the Mission accepted the view that rape is part of a pattern of abuse, usually perpetrated with the conscious intention of demoralising and terrorising communities, driving them from their home regions and demonstrating the power of the invading forces. Viewed in this way, rape cannot be seen as incidental to the main purposes of the aggression but at serving a strategic purpose in itself
Americans are apparently doing the same thing — to men. There is just too much evidence of this wierd sexual violence and humiliation for it to be a coincidence. We have become the Serbs.
I’m reading a lot of comments in the blogosphere saying things like this today:
“…we’d be far better off politically if Roe were overturned and Griswold were curbed. And if a couple states — say Kansas and Alabama — enacted medieval restrictions that made the rest of the country puke.”
This is a great idea and I don’t know why we don’t use it for everything. For instance, why don’t we stop talking about torture. Our position is “soft” and it turns off the NASCAR dads we need to reach. Certainly, the prohibition against torture, which nobody even considered was in danger of being repealed until a couple of years ago, cannot be easily abandoned. Once people become aware of this medieval behavior, they will “puke” and step in to do something about it, right? Isn’t that how it works? When the right pulls some outrageous stunt, the country stands up en masse and rejects it.
There is a lot of action on the right these days about due process. If we just keep very quiet about the threat to habeas corpus and the right to confront your accuser, trial by jury of your peers — all of these fundamental constitutional rights, people will see how bad it is when our system of justice becomes “medieval” and then they will rebel.
Following this strategy, we should allow the Republicans to have their way on tort reform and consumer rights. Once people get ripped off badly enough they will look at the Republicans and see that they don’t have their best interests at heart and they will vote for us instead. Indeed, I think that we should carefully consider whether or not it’s smart to keep harping on tax policy too, for that matter. If we let the Republicans completely bankrupt the country so that we have a catastrophic economic meltdown, destroy social security and medicare, all those old, poor and unemployed people on the streets will surely wake people up. It will probably make them puke.
I’m not sure why that would lead to anyone voting for the Democrats, though. After all, we’ll have sat idly by and let these things happen without fighting because we thought it would be politically helpful to our cause to force women to have back alley abortions, enable torture, destroy our judicial system, let common citizens be conned out of their hard earned money, and their lives destroyed in economic calamity — in order to make a political point. But hey, it’s a good plan anyway. We’ll run on the “we told you so” platform and everyone will love us.
“Men’s liberation” aside, there are many many people, both male and female, who believe that a woman should be required to inform her husband that she is pregnant — after all, they reason, the baby is his too, right?
I don’t believe that women should have to inform anyone of their decision to have an abortion because it infringes on her fundamental right to personal autonomy. But even those who disagree with that should recognise that it’s not always so simple:
The name of the woman pictured below is Gerri Twerdy Santoro. She was just 28 years old. She was a sister, a daughter, and she was the mother of two daughters when she died a very painful and frightening death.
This New York coroner’s picture first appeared in MS Magazine in April 1973. When Gerri’s picture appeared in MS, no one knew her name or all the circumstances that surrounded her death from an illegal abortion. While it was assumed that she died at the hands of a back alley butcher, the family later confirmed that she died the way most women died before Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion in this country in 1973; she died from a self-induced abortion attempt.
Gerri was estranged from her abusive husband when she met Clyde Dixon and became pregnant by him. Terrified that once her abusive husband returned to town and learned it was Dixon’s baby she was carrying, he would kill her. She was determined and desperate to end her unintended pregnancy. That desperation and determination made her akin to thousands upon thousands of women in those days that were desperate and determined enough to terminate their unintended pregnancies in spite of the fact that abortion was illegal. Illegality affected the safety of abortion but it never affected the number of abortions that were performed.
Gerri was 6 ½ months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri’s boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment. They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion. When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room. She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn’t. How frightened she must have been, knowing she was going to die. She was found like this, on her stomach with her knees under her, her face not visible, bloody, nude, alone and dead.
You can go to the link to see the picture, if you need to see the horror.
The new nominee for the Supreme Court voted that a woman today, in the same position this woman was in in 1964, would probably have to do the same thing Gerri Santoro did. Informing her husband would put her in the exact position she is desperate to avoid. And that woman might very well end up the same way Gerri Santoro did.
Now, I’m sure there are many on the right who believe that this poor woman deserved what she got for being unfaithful to her abusive husband. Her crime was having unauthorized sex and she should have had to “pay the price” by bringing a child into an angry abusive marriage — or perhaps being killed by her violent husband.
Indeed, great thinkers on the right are now saying this right out loud.
The sexual revolution that liberated (especially) female sexual desire from the confines of marriage, and even from love and intimacy, would almost certainly not have occurred had there not been available cheap and effective female birth control — the pill — which for the first time severed female sexual activity from its generative consequences.
[…]
Her menstrual cycle, since puberty a regular reminder of her natural maternal destiny, is now anovulatory and directed instead by her will and her medications, serving goals only of pleasure and convenience, enjoyable without apparent risk to personal health and safet
[…]
Her sexuality unlinked to procreation, its exercise no longer needs to be concerned with the character of her partner and whether he is suitable to be the father and co-rearer of her yet-to-be-born children.
How touching. If it weren’t for birth control we could pretend we’re in Victorian England and have a nice cup of tea. Sadly, his little fantasy wasn’t even true during that time for any but the richest Mayfair heiresses (who were also bartered off like cattle) and it sure wasn’t true for women who had no means.
I think it’s time to call upon some down home wisdom from somebody red staters revere about the “character” of partners and the “generative consequences” for women in a life without repropductive freedom:
You wined me and dined me When I was your girl Promised if I’d be your wife You’d show me the world But all I’ve seen of this old world Is a bed and a doctor bill I’m tearin’ down your brooder house ‘Cause now I’ve got the pill
All these years I’ve stayed at home While you had all your fun And every year thats gone by Another babys come There’s a gonna be some changes made Right here on nursery hill You’ve set this chicken your last time ‘Cause now I’ve got the pill
This old maternity dress I’ve got Is goin’ in the garbage The clothes I’m wearin’ from now on Won’t take up so much yardage Miniskirts, hot pants and a few little fancy frills Yeah I’m makin’ up for all those years Since I’ve got the pill
I’m tired of all your crowin’ How you and your hens play While holdin’ a couple in my arms Another’s on the way This chicken’s done tore up her nest And I’m ready to make a deal And ya can’t afford to turn it down ‘Cause you know I’ve got the pill
This incubator is overused Because you’ve kept it filled The feelin’ good comes easy now Since I’ve got the pill It’s gettin’ dark it’s roostin’ time Tonight’s too good to be real Oh but daddy don’t you worry none ‘Cause mama’s got the pill Oh daddy don’t you worry none ‘Cause mama’s got the pill
Loretta Lynn 1972
Scalito doesn’t want women to have family leave when they get pregnant, and he thinks that women should have to inform their husbands if they want an abortion (at least until he can outlaw it all together.) Considering his views are considered to be in the same ballpark as Scalia, I assume that he thinks that Griswold should be overturned as well — all the best right wing fascists do.
Good luck with this. If these guys have their way it’s going to be a rude awakening for the women in this country.
Update: Excuse me, I just found out that Scalito believes that there should have been an exception to the “inform the husband” provision — she would have had to go to court and reveal all of her private business to a judge in order to get permission not to tell her estranged, abusive husband. The supreme court found that to be an undue burden. I’m sure he and Nino will take care of that nonsense the first chance they get.
Alito, schmalito. Of course, he stinks, and stinks worse than usual. You expected a reasonable nominee from Bush? Are you joking?
Now look. Of course, if Alito isn’t vigorously opposed and if he gets to the court, the extreme right will advance one more ominous giant step along the road to establishing the US as a Christian Taliban state (and no, rightwing nuts: I don’t think they’ll convert baseball stadiums for use as mass execution centers of heretics, liberals, abortion doctors, their patients, and gays. Well, at least not for a few more years, anyway.)
But look at where we were up to 1 second before Bush announced Alito’s name, and where we still are. Bush is perceived by the press and politicos as wounded. And the wound is serious: The perception of his administration’s ability to protect us, to keep our secrets, and to tell us the truth is heavily, perhaps permanently damaged. With Bush injured, now is the time to press harder exactly where it hurts, and vigorously rub it with salt.
By contrast, Alito is for Bush as Oxycontin is for Limbaugh. Alito is intended to ease the pain of Fitzgerald’s indictments and continuing investigation by changing the subject. Bush, Cheney and Rove expect us to play along on their timetable, which requires that the country get distracted quickly from the brief glimpse Fitzgerald provided everyone, even Kristof, of the enormously fetid swamp of crimes and traitorous behavior behind the sealed gates of the Bush White House. No one, except Bush’s base, can be anything but disgusted at what was revealed on Friday.
And Bush’s base will rally around Alito no matter what. They have their carefully honed defenses of Alito ready to roll out. But they are not planning on having the country stay focused on Traitorgate. And that is why I’m saying we must.
I’m NOT saying ignore Alito. What I’m saying is DON’T LET BUSH CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Yes, we should attack Alito hard, but only when it’s entirely to our advantage to do so, and not when Bush thinks we will, when it he expects it to work mostly to his advantage. And so, don’t forget:
It’s Traitorgate, stupid.
It’s the foul stench of betrayal of country that will follow Libby around for the rest of his life. And in the mainstream (and even some places on the right), the sense that Rove and even Cheney have engaged in utterly unacceptable, if not outright criminal, behavior has begun to catch on as within the bounds of acceptable discourse. Look at what Reid said, he’s calling for Rove to resign regardless of indictment! (And he’s right.)
And so, it is on Traitorgate we should push. Alito can wait a bit for that heavy concerted effort to oppose him. Please, folks, think twice before jumping whenever Bush snaps. It’s Traitorgate right now, not rightwing courtpacking. Let’s make sure no one forgets it.
Let me be frank: it has been a long political nightmare. For some of us, daily life has remained safe and comfortable, so the nightmare has merely been intellectual: we realized early on that this administration was cynical, dishonest and incompetent, but spent a long time unable to get others to see the obvious. For others – above all, of course, those Americans risking their lives in a war whose real rationale has never been explained – the nightmare has been all too concrete.
[SNIP]
So the Bush administration has lost the myths that sustained its mojo, and with them much of its power to do harm. But the nightmare won’t be fully over until two things happen.
First, politicians will have to admit that they were misled. Second, the news media will have to face up to their role in allowing incompetents to pose as leaders and political apparatchiks to pose as patriots.
It’s a sad commentary on the timidity of most Democrats that even now, with Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, telling us how policy was “hijacked” by the Cheney-Rumsfeld “cabal,” it’s hard to get leading figures to admit that they were misled into supporting the Iraq war. Kudos to John Kerry for finally saying just that last week.
And as for the media: these days, there is much harsh, justified criticism of the failure of major news organizations, this one included, to exert due diligence on rationales for the war. But the failures that made the long nightmare possible began much earlier, during the weeks after 9/11, when the media eagerly helped our political leaders build up a completely false picture of who they were.
So the long nightmare won’t really be over until journalists ask themselves: what did we know, when did we know it, and why didn’t we tell the public?
It’s hard to believe how isolated a voice Krugman was from, say, about Spring 2000 to about January, 2004. There was all but nowhere else in the mainstream press where Bush’s total absence of presidential qualifications, his incompetence, and his lack of personal integrity were being honestly discussed.
And no one believed him. He was ignored and ridiculed by fellow journalists as shrill, he went mostly unread by mainstream politicians. He was disbelieved by ordinary readers including literally all of my milieu, who seemed desperate to believe that Bush – whose negligence and incompetence were crystal clear to me even when the towers were still smoking and the networks were overwhelmed with ominous reports and rumours – would actually save and protect us from the horrible fate that befell our fellow New Yorkers.
So now, if Krugman wants to tell the country and especially his colleagues, “I told you so,” he deserves to. He told us exactly so. When no one else dared.
Fitzgerald made another visit early Friday morning—shortly before the grand jury voted to indict Dick Cheney’s top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby—to the office of James Sharp, President George W. Bush’s own lawyer in the case, to tell him the president’s closest aide would not be charged.
Holy Shit. Can someone tell me why Fitzgerald would go to President Bush’s personal lawyer on Friday to tell him that Bush’s “closest aide wouldn’t be charged?” Is it in any possible sense ethical for the prosecutor to be telling the president’s lawyer information that isn’t available to the public about members of the president’s staff in the middle of an investigation?
If this is true, I think Mr Fitzgerald has some splainin’ to do, otherwise it might look like he’s got some back channel communication with the White House about a case that directly affects it. This would not seem in character for Mr Fitzgerald, who is by all acounts a very ethical prosecutor. If this is true, it’s a bomb shell. Fitzgerald has no business discussing Karl Rove with anyone but Karl Rove and Karl Rove’s lawyer.
Michael Isikoff repeats this line as if it is a matter of objective truth, but there is no way to know that, of course. This prosecutor doesn’t leak so this is coming from Rove’s lawyer, Luskin, or Bush’s lawyer, Sharp. I’m unaware of any leaking from Sharp but there has been a ton of it from Luskin over the past few months. I think reporters like Isikoff should probably take a little inventory of all the blind alleys they’ve been led down by Robert Luskin these past few months. Here are just a few of the highlights:
“Karl has truthfully told everyone who’s asked him that he did not circulate Valerie Plame’s name to punish her husband, Joe Wilson,” Luskin said. Asked if that included President Bush, Luskin said, “Everyone is everyone.”
Added Luskin, “Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn’t disclose Valerie Plame’s identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else … Who outed this woman? … It wasn’t Karl.” Luskin said Rove “certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information.”
“If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it’s not Karl he’s protecting.”
Luskin is a defense lawyer. It’s part of his job. I’m not criticising him for it. But, he and Rove are working overtime to get Rove out of this jam — and prepare the ground for a big PR push if Rove is indicted — and all reporters should think carefully about credulously repeating what they are saying.
You’d think Luskin would be very careful before he charges Fitzgerald with unauthorized discussions of the case with Bush’s lawyer. If it isn’t true, Fitzgerald might just get a little testy about it.
Karl Rove is spinning like Tanya Harding at the nationals right now, telling everyone who will listen that he wasn’t part of any conspiracy to leak Plame’s identity to the press, that he has a major case of CRS disease (can’t remember shit.) But it just doesn’t hold water.
One thing we do know is that Official A in LIbby’s indictment has been acknowledged to be Rove. Here’s the passage that refers to him:
On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.
Interesting phrasing, isn’t it? Rove knew that Novak was writing a story “about Wilson’s wife” — not about Cheney’s non-involvement, not about Joe Wilson never submitting a report, but “about Wilson’s wife.”
And here I thought Karl was just trying to warn reporters off Wilson’s allegations and mentioned Wilson’s wife to Cooper as an afterthought. Byron York interviewed Rove’s lawyer Luskin back in July:
“Look at the Cooper e-mail,” Luskin continues. “Karl speaks to him on double super secret background…I don’t think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson’s wife.”
According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are “indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out.”
Yet Karl “Official A” Rove specifically informed Libby that Novak would be writing a story “about Wilson’s wife.” Perhaps they were just idly sharing small tid-bits of their conversations with journalists over the urinals, but it certainly would seem that Karl had an interest in “Wilson’s wife” as opposed to Wilson’s alleged misstatements.
I am not a lawyer so I’m probably missing something vitally important here, but can someone explain to me why this item is included in the obstruction count? From what I gather the obstruction charge rests on the fact that he lied so often and so completely that the Grand Jury concluded that he was actively obstructing the investigation. But it does not appear that he lied about this conversation, or at least it isn’t mentioned in the enumerated lies in the perjury counts. So, what does this conversation with Rove have to do with Libby’s obstruction activities?
Karl, of course, has been telling everyone who will listen that he’s only potentially on the hook for perjury about Matt Cooper and that he just forgot. Luskin has been spinning this as Karl presenting evidence at the eleventh hour that gave Fitzgerald “pause” because Karl never mentioned his conversation with Cooper to his flunky so he must not have remembered it. (I think Jane has the best take on that silly defense.)
Karl has a history of memory lapses about his ratfucking activity going way back. But it’s always been a little bit hard to swallow, since he can recall the most arcane electoral information for any district in the country and can recite passages of books he’s read verbatim. You see, Karl doesn’t just have a good memory, or a prodigious memory — he has a photographic memory.
[His sister Reba] told journalist Miriam Rozen the family used to rely on Rove’s photographic memory for evening entertainment.
“The game was, “see if you can stump Karl,” she said in an interview published in the Dallas Observer. His older brother Eric would read a passafe from abook Karl had read the week before. That challenge was to guess which word his brother had intentionally left out. (Bush’s Brain, p.116)
Once people with photographic memories see something they remember it. If Karl Rove wrote an e-mail, he remembered it.
The situation is, as per any and all analyses, profoundly dire. The statistics speak for themselves, both in terms of the damage done and the lives lost, but more importantly, for the people still at risk (at least 3.5 million). By UN estimates, the relief challenge is three times that of the tsunami.
As we have discussed, my family is actively involved in social and development work in Northern Pakistan; I myself have spent much time working in the region. I am writing to you because, having just visited the region and spoken to many community leaders across the NWFP and Pakistani-held Kashmir, it is apparent that there is a tremendous strategic opportunity for the United States and its allies. For a fraction of the cost of what is spent in other arenas of the War on Terror, an extremely volatile region and country’s hearts and minds can be won over. All that is required is a very substantial, very visible US relief effort. [Emphasis added.]
‘Nuff said. And needless to say, if the US doesn’t help in a substantive way, it will be interpreted as the worst kind of punishment and abandonment.
What is wrong with this country? Bush’s approval is at 39%. True, it’s the lowest ever for the Post/ABC survey but think about it. How could more than 1/3 of the people think this president, whose performance in office makes it clear that Yale was already cursed with serious grade inflation when they gave him a C+, be so clueless? Look at it this way.
We just got a wonderful puppy who loves everyone; he’s trusting, affectionate, and was easily housetrained. But what if I was so negligent that I let a known dog hater from the next block attack him so violently that two of his legs had to be amputated? What if I forced him through obedience training to sit, to beg, to rollover, and then as a reward, I gave all the well-fed dogs on the block delicious yummy treats while putting my puppy on a starvation diet? What if, then, on the hottest days of the year, I arranged for my dog to participate in a totally pointlesss cockfight with no end, a fight which left him bleeding, exhausted, and humiliated? What if I grabbed other dogs off the street and tortured them right in front of my dog, so they associated their pain with my dog’s loving face? What if I then nearly drowned my dog in a clogged sewer, leaving him there for half a week while I joked about how I once partied hard down there, when it was an elegant cabana?
Yes, the average puppy scores twice as high as Jeb Bush on scholastic aptitude tests, but let’s face it: there are smarter critters out there. But even so, don’t you think that any puppy, if they endured what I’ve imagined mine enduring, would just about now start thinking there was something majorly seriously wrong with the guy tugging his leash? Don’t you think that any puppy would snap and bite whenever I came within 10 feet of him? Or snarl menacingly whenever I pretended once again to feed him but gave his food away to the big fat dogs who regularly stomp on him at the dog run?
Am I saying that over 1/3 of the American public is dumber and more complacent than my 10 month old puppy? Not at all. Here’s another possible explanation.
