RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Right Wing Tortured Logic

One would think that conservatives and neo-conservatives hold sacred our country’s founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence. Penned by Thomas Jefferson, the second paragraph of the Declaration provides probably the most memorized passage of that document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is the sentence that separates America from all other countries. Our founders asserted that each and every person had basic rights that could not be repudiated or transferred to another. In other words, the importance of the individual supersedes that of the community. It is this concept that lies at the heart of our nation’s traditional abhorrence of torture.

George Washington, although the head of a rebel Army and accused of treason, early on set a high standard for how enemy prisoners should be treated. The writing and acceptance of the Geneva Convention were made by people who knew first-hand the burdens, horrors and confusion of war. It was in the aftermath of the slaughter of almost 60 million people in World War II, including the Nazi effort to exterminate more than six million Jews as well as homosexuals and gypsies. The conventions prohibiting torture were written with the full knowledge of the violence and carnage crazed fanatics could inflict.

Yet George Bush and his Strangelovian Vice President, Dick Cheney stridently insisted pushing their ahistorical nonsensical view that the “war on terror” was without antecedent. I suppose we should not be surprised by this. Since each man found a way to shirk any combat experience in Vietnam one can easily understand why they were completely clueless of the fact that the Viet Cong, many years before there was an Al Qaeda, disguised themselves as civilians, organized into cells without a traditional military hierarchy and carried out terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers, diplomats and civilians. Neither Lyndon Johnson nor Richard Nixon asserted the right to torture the Viet Cong.

Today’s Washington Post offers an important illustration of the stupidity of the Bush Administration’s use of torture on Al Qaeda suspects. Detainee’s Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots by Peter Finn and Toby Warwick details the evil our country inflicted on a suspected terrorist. According to Finn and Warwick,

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as “al-Qaeda’s chief of operations,” and other top officials called him a “trusted associate” of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Now here comes the right wing’s tortured logic. A former Bush speechwriter, Bruce Theissen, has a screed up at National Review’s The Corner were he stomps his metaphorical feet and rants:

The Left’s assault on the CIA program continues with today’s front-page story about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah: “Detainees Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots.” The story, like so many on this program, is rife with errors and misinformation.

For example, the Post states:

“Abu Zubaida quickly told U.S. interrogators of [Khalid Sheikh] Mohammed and of others he knew to be in al-Qaeda, and he revealed the plans of the low-level operatives who fled Afghanistan with him. Some were intent on returning to target American forces with bombs; others wanted to strike on American soil again, according to military documents and law enforcement sources. Such intelligence was significant but not blockbuster material. Frustrated, the Bush administration ratcheted up the pressure — for the first time approving the use of increasingly harsh interrogations, including waterboarding.”

This is either uninformed or intentionally misleading.

In fact, what Abu Zubaydah disclosed to the CIA during this period was that the fact that KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and that his code name was “Muktar” – something Zubaydah thought we already knew, but in fact we did not. Intelligence officials had been trying for months to figure out who “Muktar” was. This information provided by Zubaydah was a critical piece of the puzzle that allowed them to pursue and eventually capture KSM. This fact, in and of itself, discredits the premise of the Post story – to suggest that the capture of KSM was not information that “foiled plots” to attack America is absurd on the face of it.

I do not know if it is willful ignorance on the part of Thiessen or just flat out ignorance. Regardless, he is ignoring some critical facts. The FBI elicited the information about Padilla from Zubaydah aka Zubayda without torture. He gave it up while conversing with FBI personnel, who did not and refused to engage in torture of any kind. And when it comes to the so-called golden nugget about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9-11 Commission noted in its report that the CIA had the information in their files before 9-11 identifying the true identify of Muktar.

Zubayda’s case, unfortunately is not unique. Jane Mayer’s book, The Dark Side, is the best unofficial indictment of the Bush Administration as war criminals that exists. She extensively documents her work and lays out the litany of abuses and crimes in such a way that no fair minded person, regardless of political allegiance, can ignore. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney led an effort that deprived individuals, including at least two American citizens, of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. The Washington Post piece is not a “whitewash.” To the contrary, it is a belated effort to start setting straight the public record of the crimes the American people willfully ignored because we let our fear of terror smother the guiding principles of our nation’s heritage.

  • SHV

    The US War Crimes Law..Title 18, 2441 has no statute of limitations…Bush, Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, et. al…can’t run out the clock..they will have to worry for as long as they live or until they are indicted.

    • Baba Rum Raisin

      Since the first person who even hints at this will be slimed by the Right Wing Smear Machine as being treasonous and supportive of al-Quaeda, don’t hold your breath.

  • Eastan McNeal

    Larry

    I hope our conscientious troops are protected from prosecution for following orders under their chief. I would not want the young tech to be sent to jail for guiding the drone that hit across the Paki border, under the order from Obama, to go on trial for war crimes.

    We had a massacre trial in the U.S. that tore the military, congress the administration and public apart during the fading years of the Vietnam fiasco. I hope we are careful to select investigators who will quietly work to find truth before dragging the entire country into the dark clouds of guilt.

    Often, when trying to bring charges against past and present leaders of a country the entire populous can be painted with the stench of the smelly crimes being investigated.

    Let us hope that does not happen to our children or us.

    • Eastan McNeal

      Often, when trying

      should have been:

      Often, when PEOPLE ARE trying

    • Eastan McNeal

      WRITE TOO FAST.

      In first para. After Obmaa, the word OR should be next.

      Larry

      By Strangelovian, what did you mean? “How I Stopped Worrying and Loved the Bomb?”

    • elise

      Eastan, the stench is already there in the White House. The only way to clear the air is to make the information available and let us decide for ourselves. The GOP will never accept even proven facts about Iraq anymore than the DNC will admit Obama lied. “We the people” need to get away from partisan politics and unite in defense of our Constitution before we lose it all. Not in a flood, but one drop at a time.

  • elise

    I thought I was a cynic about politicians and government, but even after 9/11 I wouldn’t have dreamed the VP of American would show up on the Senate floor to argue for torture. Illegal wiretaps were used by Nixon, but no one argued they were defensible. Bush and Cheney used them without apology and insisted they had the right to do so and the Democratically controlled congress voted to give immunity from prosecution to telecoms who broke the law by turning over private communications of US citizens. Black sites, renditions and suspension of habeas corpus (even though or perhaps because the last one has been done before) mean one more victory for those who would like to see the end of our country as we know it. Perhaps another country will hold them responsible, but we won’t. To do so, we would have to admit: first it is wrong and second, we closed our eyes and didn’t care. We would have to accept part of the responsibility.

  • termo

    “George W. Bush and Dick Cheney led an effort that deprived individuals, including at least two American citizens, of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.”

    We know whom you are referring to regarding the “at least two individuals.”

    We were doing some Spring cleaning. I came upon VCR tapes I had of the first Mets and Yankee games after 9/11 as well as the celebrity commemorative TV show.

    I sat there and vividly remembered that day in Manhattan, the people who I knew that were killed and how it affected their children. And then I was stunned by how, in so little time, many of the very people who I was watching on TV forgot completely and became leaders of the appeasers – the people who blamed the U.S. and blamed Bush, and eventually protested against the very security policies that were necessary to secure the country and keep us safe.

    During those days all anyone cared about was that the government made us safe – however they had to do it. Then came the political opponents who, as Monday Morning Quarterbacks, flip-flopped on their initial approvals and began making wild accusations that slanderous.

    Regarding the waterboarding, Cheney and the administration claim that they were only done to, I believe, 3 terrorists and that critical information was learned that did prevent another attack. It is classified and until such time that it is unclassified I will take their word for it.

    As far as the Geneva Convention it applied to nation-states in conventional warfare. This war is unconventional and it is with ideological religious groups, which Obama doesn’t get yet. These prisoners are also not entitled to our rights under the law and our due process in our court system.

    Regarding your friends, Plame and Wilson, they were not prisoners and therefore were not tortured, although her rights were abused.

    As far as the security measures put in place by the Bush Administration after 9/11 I have yet to meet someone whose rights have been denied as a result of the Patriot Act or any of the related measures.

    • elise

      termo, if the Geneva Conventions do not apply in this “War”, what conventions do apply. You have given your opinion and I hope you will share the blame as our Constitution is ripped to shreds, first by Bush/Cheney and now by Obama. Ben Franklin said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”.He was a wise man. I’m an American and I don’t like the things being done in my name and if I don’t speak up, I am a coward and I am at least partly responsible. If we approve of these tactics, we are no better than those who have killed and/or tortured Americans. Maybe you don’t remember, termo, why the FISA court was established? Because Nixon was using illegal wiretaps on those who disagreed with him. Now think about this. Bush took those powers, Obama voted for them in the Senate so he can now legally listen to your phone conversations or intercept your emails and text messages. Does it make you feel safe to know that? Unless the Patriot Act is repealed now, every president in the future will have those powers because the “War on Terror” or “Human Caused Disasters” will never end. Obama might want to repeal the Second Amendment just as Bush effectively repealed the Right to Privacy.

      • termo

        “share the blame as our Constitution is ripped to shreds,”

        Specifics please. I’ve heard this tired mantra over and over again from the same appeasers.

        “Franklin said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”.’

        Again, what liberties have you, personally, lost. Same old tired B.S.

        “so he can now legally listen to your phone “conversations or intercept your emails and text messages”

        Once again, please let me know what conversations of yours that the government has listened into or emails or texts that were intercepted.

        “Unless the Patriot Act is repealed now”

        And watch how quickly we are attacked again. Then I would like to hear your bledding heart B.S. about rights.

        Going back to the founding fathers, we have the right to life, liberty,a nd the pursuit of happiness. But you don;t get the latter two unless you have “life.”

    • TeakwoodKite

      Regarding your friends, Plame and Wilson, they were not prisoners and therefore were not tortured, although her rights were abused.

      Termo, I respectfully differ with you on this point.

      The Wilson in piticular were prisoners. To suffer at the hands of those that would do you harm, without being able to speak openly and candidly about the lies, was and is torture. What happened to the people accociated with Mrs wilson we will never know but if they were in Iran, they were tortured.

      Anytime those who speak truth to power are silence, those who would torture another human being, are always nearby.

      As far Mrs. Wilson’s rights being abused, it was not her rights she was primarily concerned with. It was yours.

      • elise

        “Anytime those who speak truth to power are silence, those who would torture another human being, are always nearby.”

        Absolutely right, Teak, and beautiful response.

      • termo

        Please don’t group in Plame/Wilson work related legalisties with the issues concerning September 11. There is zero comparison.

        • Mr.Murder

          Paul Johnson and Todd Staheli, two Americans.

        • TeakWoodKite

          Termo… a document produced by the CIA.

          Aug 27 PDB….

  • I’mFedUp

    My feeling on the Patriot Act? Well, they can listen to my phone calls, search me, whatever, if it helps stop some terrorist from murdering Americans. That’s a sacrifice I am willing to make because I have nothing to hide, and because 9/11 was a big fat intelligence mess IMO.

    It’s funny how people with nothing to hide are screaming about the Patriot Act, but they don’t mind the fact that on a rapid, daily, escalating basis Obama, Pelosi, Geithner, Rahm, Frank, Dodd, and all the scum in DC are raping us of our Constitutional freedoms. I pray that some day the people who spend their entire days hating the right will pay some attention to what is going on under their noses as we speak, which is way worse than anything I could have ever believed would happen to my country.

    I’m not going to speak to the impeaching Bush and Cheney thing. I would imagine though that the crooks in DC aren’t running out to do it any time soon. That would mean that the GOP could tell the truth about Obama and spill his dirty little secrets too.

    • JozefAL

      So, would you feel as fine if the police decided to simply stop you and asked you a bunch of questions just because they had the right to do so?
      It’s always fine and dandy to say “I’ve got no problem with it” until “it” happens to become a major inconvenience that does NOTHING to further (in this case) a criminal investigation.
      We’ve got LAWS that are supposed to presume INNOCENCE and the authorities are supposed to present EVIDENCE (or, at the very lease, a CREDIBLE reason to a COURT or JUDGE) if their intentions may, in any form or fashion, deny you of your liberties as a citizen.
      I find it funny how so-called conservatives only become concerned with civil liberties when THEIR liberties may be mildly infringed. (For instance, how many “conservatives” are going ballistic over plans to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Why do “conservatives” get all worked up when companies want to recognize that not all consumers are Christians and that there are other holidays that fall in late December? Why does Judicial Watch–a friend to right-wing nutjobs–almost NEVER highlight their legal filings against Bush and Cheney yet constantly promote how they’re pursuing efforts against their latest liberal/progressive boogeyman?)

      • I’mFedUp

        JosefAl…LMAO…They don’t want me. And the Patriot Act still has certain limitations. So, you would rather just allow any and all terrorists to enter the country, murder millions of Americans, all because someone might ask you some questions? Wow. Just…wow.

        • elise

          DRIP, DRIP, DRIP. There go your rights and mine, I’mFedUp. How do you feel about Americans being blackmailed into endorsing a particular candidate because an adulterous phone call is intercepted? Or someone being forced to do something they don’t want to do if they have purchased an illegal drug, watched pornography on the Internet or any other crime, large or small? Big Brother Is Watching!!!!

          • I’mFedUp

            elise…I think that’s extreme. Frankly, like I said, they don’t want you or me. I know you lefties would rather sacrifice American lives for that Patriot Act thing…but, honestly, right now I am worried that this country is going to resemble Venezuela in a few months. I wish you guys worried about the safety and security of this country, rather than pissing on what you consider to be the policies of the right. Elise, trust me, you have bigger things to worry about right now than Republican hate.

            • Senneth, formerly Snickers

              I’m Fed Up, you can’t have it both ways. Either you venerate and uphold the Constitution – all of the Constitution, or you violate it – perhaps one amendment at a time or simply throw the whole thing out. That’s what Elise and JozefAl are saying and I agree with them. Pastor Martin Niemoller said it best. I keep repeating those words to myself as I see this administration, right on the heels of the last one, come after one group/individual after another. What is it one of our Founders said, “either we all hang together or we hang separately.” We need to put aside our partisan politics and come together and save this country.

              • I’mFedUp

                Senneth, I don’t believe my rights are being violated by the Patriot Act. I do believe that my rights are being violated in other areas. What I feel really bad for you guys is that everything you don’t like always comes down to the word Republican. My God, I only registered Republican a year ago after I saw what your party did, and you brought us Obama.

                I’m a big Constitution lover, but I would also like to retain a pulse. I don’t buy your argument that we should just let terrorists walk among us, worry like hell about preserving their rights, when they murder US Citizens. Don’t you love America and your fellow countrymen? You guys piss and moan about the things that protect us, but in the meantime you want Obama to violate the Constitution and give everyone a free ride, and tax people without representation. Sigh. I don’t get it.

                I agree that we need to stop the partisan politics. I am concerned about one thing and one thing only…stopping Obama from destroying us. Conjuring up some phony assault on my phone calls, that doesn’t exist and never will, isn’t the first battle I want to fight. The first thing I want to do is rid this country of the cancer in the White House and Congress. That’s my focus. I don’t want to talk about Bush all day long. I want to stop what’s wrong now, what’s being done now. I don’t want to hear about Republicans causing every problem in the world, because that’s the biggest lie on the planet and worthless. I want to hear that people are waking up, smelling the coffee, stopping the blame game, moving forward and reclaiming America.

                • ziggy

                  Do you understand what Bush quietly put in place in 2007 with NSPD-51 and HSPD-20?

                  In plain language, by presidential decree Bush conferred upon himself the ability to assume dicatorial powers in a time of national emergency–with “national emergency” so broadly defined that virtually any disruptive national event could be made to fit the definition. The directives empowered the president to make that call himself, without input from Congress. He gave himself that power. Congress had nothing to do with it.

                  If that doesn’t disturb you, consider that the directives currently remain in full effect.

                  Certain provisions of Directive 51 are so secret that the White House refused disclosure to the Congressional Homeland Security oversight committee, even after multiple formal requests.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Homeland_Security_Presidential_Directive

                  • termo

                    I am so tired of the whining bleeding heart BS about the abridgement of our rights and liberties.

                    I am waiting for any of you tell relate to us a specific example of your rights being denied because of the Patriot Act and if they were when did you go to court to sue the government?

                    This is not a conventional war by any measure and old laws and regulations do not apply – in fact they help this enemy.

                    We have been kept safe every since 9/11 and whatever has been done is fine with me, sinc I have not seen a mass of people going to court suing the government for denial of their right.

                    • WMCB

                      The question is, whether you think Bush used those sweeping provisions wisely or not, do you now trust OBAMA to use them wisely?

                      The problem with giving the president those kind of powers is NOT that that one particular president may misuse them. Maybe he won’t. Maybe he hasn’t. Maybe Bush has used them wisely in your view, and you are entitled to it.

                      The problem is that once those provisions are in place, with no protections, there is nothing to stop a maniac like Obama to use them for entirely different purposes, because they are powers granted to the president with no oversight, and no recourse to control him if he is abusing them.

                      You can’t cede powers to a president you LIKE, without facing the fact that you are also ceding power to whoever might occupy that office in the future.

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      We have been kept safe every since 9/11 and whatever has been done is fine with me, sinc I have not seen a mass of people going to court suing the government for denial of their right.

                      What exactly, has kept us safe? The Patriot Act. Nope-post hoc ergo propter hoc and unknown fact fallacy. There could be any number of contributing reasons including our presence in Afghanistan. You have not demonstrated that this particular law has kept us safe. Specifics, please.

                • WMCB

                  So let me get this straight:

                  You have no problem with Obama being able to declare a national emergency and take over everything if he chooses, with zero input from congress.

                  You have no problem with Obama having the power to decide who is an enemy of the country, and torture them if he chooses.

                  You have no problem with Obama, Pelosi, and Rahm being able to listen to anyone’s phone calls, and have no restrictions or controls on how they can use that information.

                  Forget Bush – do you have no problem with OBAMA having that sort of power, subject only to their own discretion, and no recourse for you if you think they are using it for political ends?

                  • Ferd Berfle

                    Excellent questions WMCB.

                    • WMCB

                      People often forget that when they cede power to a president they LIKE, they are also ceding that power to anyone who may occupy that office in the future.

                      So, if you think that Bush used those powers carefully and judiciously, and has not consistently violated the rights of Americans, you are entitled to that opinion, and may be at least partly right.

                      THAT’S NOT THE POINT. The point is that those exact same powers are now in the hands of Barack Hussein Obama, and NO ONE, not Congress and not us, can tell him how to use them.

                  • termo

                    “You have no problem with Obama having the power to decide who is an enemy of the country, and torture them if he chooses.”

                    My problem with BHO is not that he will continue those policies – my problem is that he won’t.

                    My problem with BHO is that he has no sensitivty to the lives lost either are Ground Zero, the Pentagon, in Shankesville PA, or on any of our battlefields. I think BHO is not fit to be commander-in-chief and regards 9/11 as a political punchline.

                    Obama is a socialist ideologue and American values are an obstacle to his objective.

                    In times of war I have no problem with a CIC bending our rights to keep the country safe. I have trusted every President whether I have fully agreed with them or not – until now.

                    Obama is not a CIC and frankly I am deeply concerned about his motives.

                    • ziggy

                      So, you don’t object to dictatorial powers? You only object to who might become the self-appointed dictator?

                    • termo

                      Ziggy:

                      “So, you don’t object to dictatorial powers? You only object to who might become the self-appointed dictator?”

                      First try learning what the difference is between a dictator and a commander-in-chief acting within the framework of the Constitution.

                      And if he was not acting within that framework, why wasn’t he brought up on impeachment charges – afterall democrats have controlled both houses during his last two years.

    • Ferd Berfle

      My feeling on the Patriot Act? Well, they can listen to my phone calls, search me, whatever, if it helps stop some terrorist from murdering Americans.

      While I agree with your sentiment, I have yet to see any objective that this act has brought one person to justice. If they’re listening to your phone calls (or mine), I’d say they’re wasting you money and my money.

      One of the reasons the Last Refuge of Scoundrels, aka Patriot, Act is such a terrible bit of law is that it is so broadly written it can be used for all sorts of chicanery (and I’ve read the damn thing). Everyone here is rightly upset that the Stimulus bill was enacted without much of a review. The Patriot Act was written with even less review. I don’t like one man having that much power, i.e., the President, because that sort of power is corrosive and corrupting. Perhaps with a person of integrity in the WH, this law might not be such a bad thing but we all know who the electorate entrusted with this power. Unfortunately, the die has been cast and the genie released from the bottle.

      And the left-wing gets my ire, too. They were dead-set against the act until That One was in office. Now there is nary a peep from those bozos. Why am I not surprised?

      Ultimately, this law is an anathema to a free society because it punishes the innocent and the bystanders, instead of taking the punishment to the perpetrators. A better means of “protecting” the public would have been to actually go after bin Laden and his henchmen, round them up, and bring the before the bar of justice. This little detail frequently goes unnoticed.

      I would bet my bottom dollar that when That One starts to use this power with impunity, there will be a lot of people suddenly come around to my position.

    • WMCB

      So Barrack Hussein Obama can listen to your phone calls, stop you, search you, and all he has to do is say that its for national security reasons. He doesn’t have to prove a damn thing.

      And you are fine with that?

      • Peggy Sue

        I, for one, am not all right with that. Benjamin Franklin has been quoted often here. But some obviously fail to hear the message:

        “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

        It’s not party-partial. George Bush and Dick Cheney expanded these “powers” presumably for national security reasons. Now Obama and his minions have the same power. It was wrong, wrong, wrong when the Republicans initiated it. And it’s just as wrong now.

  • FrenchNail

    Thank you for mentioning the gypsies. They paid the heaviest price of the war seeing their population exterminated at a 90% level. So much that the remaining were never enough to be heard by the collective consciensousness.

  • http://theheraclitanfire.blogspot.com/ Craig Della Penna

    And yet Nancy “Impeachment is off the table” Pelosi remains Speaker of the House. Her cowardly cohort in the Senate, Harry Reid, remains in power. No Bush II administration official is under any threat of indictment, nor, according to Obama, is anyone likely to be indicted. No war crimes charges have been brought by the World Court. Robert Gates – the man who covered for Ollie North’s treasonous activities in regard to the Contras – was asked to remain as SoD by Obama.
    I don’t see much progress in bringing miscreants to justice…

    • candymarl

      Agreed. It’s unlikely any of these folks will be brought to justice. The right wing may have committed the crimes. The left wing (Reid, Pelosi, Obama) seem equally determined to sweep the matter under the rug.

  • JozefAL

    Since each man found a way to shirk any combat experience in Vietnam one can easily understand why they were completely clueless of the fact that the Viet Cong, many years before there was an Al Qaeda, disguised themselves as civilians, organized into cells without a traditional military hierarchy and carried out terrorist attacks against U.S. soldiers, diplomats and civilians.

    One might also note that such behavior was quite common among the various resistance movements in Europe and Asia during the Second World War. The French maquis, for instance, operated under the principle of “hide in plain sight”.

  • SHV

    As far as the Geneva Convention it applied to nation-states in conventional warfare. This war is unconventional and it is with ideological religious groups,
    ********
    The United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ( 000 U.S. 05-184 ) that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applied to the War on Terrorism..

    Under US Law a “War Crime” is defined as:

    (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
    (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
    (3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character;….

  • Doc99

    Novak’s source was Armitage. Where’s the outrage about his conduct?

    • Baba Rum Raisin

      Given the loose cannon/asshole that Armitage has been for several decades, I must ask:

      About WHAT conduct of Armitage are you asking?

  • daisyjane

    What are we supposed to do, seriously?

    In the middle of the battlefield, we are to construct a yellow taped line “Police Do Not Cross” and read Miranda rights? While the bullets are flying over the heads of our sons and daughters? This, friends, is the choice we have. And why this has been so hard to solve.

    Larry, you’re a good man. I can tell this, just by how you run this internet “ship.” So how ’bout let’s make a deal: I’ll go along with your literal translation of the founding documents if YOU go along with abandoning Wickard v. Filburn.

    Fair enough? :)

    P.S. The Repubs kicked me out years ago because we disagree on drugs and prostitution.

    • WMCB

      daisy, so let me grant you that Bush has limited what he has done with the Patriot act to what you describe – picking up suspected combatants on the battle field. Your position is that he hasn’t abused the powers granted him, so what’s the problem?

      the problem is that the wording of it allows much, much more. And now that same Patriot Act is in the hands of Barrack Hussein Obama. And if HE begins to use that act as HE sees fit, in the name of “national security”, there is not going to be a damn thing you can do about it.

      That’s the danger. That’s what I couldn’t get conservatives to see about FISA etc, and what I now can’t get LIBERALS to see with the expanded powers for Treasury.

      It doesn’t MATTER if you think the guy currently in power is going to use a law in a benevolent manner. What matters is how it CAN be used, and whether there is any protection should a maniac get into the White House and ecide to use it entirely differently than the last guy did.

    • http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

      Who has called for “yellow tape?” Don’t be ridiculous. You watch too much 24. Unlike you I hold security clearances and work with the US military forces that have the combating terrorism mission. Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan they rarely have the opportunity to do anything.

      I am talking very clearly about our responsibility to treat every human being with respect and dignity, even the murderers. That does not mean they are not tried or executed. But their is a humane process where the burden is on the state to prove the guilt of an accused. Otherwise we devolve into a fascist state where the “Leader” gets to define by declaration who is and is not an enemy.

  • Ferd Berfle

    Something that has rarely been tried might go a long way towards making our country safer and as an added bonus, work better–actually electing politicians with competence and integrity and hiring only the best people to be government employees (With all due respect to the few with said character currently employed/elected). When you put clowns in office and on the government payroll, you will get a three-ring circus every time.

  • Sassy

    Larry, you have been very clear and consistent about your feelings on this issue, and I admire you for it!
    As usual though, I would add many more people to the list. The enablers of the Bush/Cheney team are vast!
    The media, Congressional members from both sides of the aisle, the Justice Department, military members, and even some in the intelligence community.
    We have set a precedence for shameful behavior, and I don’t know if it was solely driven by fear!

  • TheWinterSolstice

    Mr Larry NoQuarter Johnson,

    If I have one criticism against the Bush administration it is this: that they did not torture enough terrorists, and that they did not kill those they finished torturing. All these murdering terrorists will end up either working as [1] writers for The Nation magazine, or, [2] diversity teachers at Berkeley, or, [3] community organizers with ACORN. They should have been killed and fed to the sharks.

    Instead we have self-hating insane lefties blabbering about the rights of the terrorists. What is it about left wing people that makes them admire and defend pedophiles, terrorists, murderers and Sean Penn? What is it in the sick soul of the liberal lefties that makes them do that? Is it the drugs, the vegetarianism, the Birkenstocks, the influence of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore? What is it?

    Terrorists do not have rights. Period. Since they come to destroy, they will be destroyed. That is what our government is for, to defend us. The pursuit of happiness means, we need to have safe lives. Free of terrorism and Sean Penn.

    Have some common sense. Your opinions and your bleeding heart and your alligator tears, all, do not make you smarter than anyone. It just proves that you are either an insane or a stupid person. You are willing to be killed by terrorists to show everyone how progressive you are.

    That is why you also despise and hate Israel. Because they dare to defend themselves. You know what, they have every right to defend themselves, and they are not going to be told by a demented psycho like you whether they have the right to live and how they are going to defend themselves to stay alive.

    You call the day – night, and the night – day. Liberals have an upside-down world. Get some medication dude.

    I wish Dick Cheney had been president, he would have wiped terrorists off the face of the US. And we would have been better off for that. Except you of course, you would have been heart-broken, because you choose to love terrorists, to show everyone how sophisticated and better you are.

    Get some medication.

    Best Regards,
    TheWinterSolstice

    • ces

      All I know if I’m off to start the popcorn machine…this is gonna be fun.

      Larry, can ya wait 3.5 minutes til I get the butter and salt on before responding? Please?

      Thanks,
      .c

    • Ferd Berfle

      In essence, you’re calling McCain a leftist. I need go no further to demonstrate the unreasonableness of your comment. And I’m no f-ing liberal.

  • I’mFedUp

    Instead we have self-hating insane lefties blabbering about the rights of the terrorists. What is it about left wing people that makes them admire and defend pedophiles, terrorists, murderers and Sean Penn? What is it in the sick soul of the liberal lefties that makes them do that? Is it the drugs, the vegetarianism, the Birkenstocks, the influence of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore? What is it?

    Thank you. The left hates themselves, and this country, so much that they are going to get us blown up. I wonder how that terrorist love will work out for them when their children are dying in their arms?

    • Seattle Moss

      Hey Fed Up,

      The left look at themselves as victims. They see in the terrorists their own miserable life. Every time the market is down they secretly rejoice as they want everyone else to be brought down to their pathetic level of existence.
      Furthermore the extreme left are jealous of those that have “Skin in the Game” and just can’t understand why the rest of us believe that working being productive responsible individuals is a noble and patriotic thing to do.

      • I’mFedUp

        Seattle Moss,

        I can live with the whining that people have money and they don’t. Personally, I feel sorry for them that they can’t just focus on their own lives, get out of everyone else’s business and earn their own livings. Oh well.

        What I do take offense to is coddling terrorists. That means I might be dead. I don’t like that. Society is a CONTRACT between citizens who agree to live within the bounds of the law. The terrorists don’t honor that contract. In fact, they live to make us a small chapter in world history. Therefore, why does the left want to protect them? It’s the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard. But, worse than that, they are putting people like us in danger when we have the brains to know better.

        • Seattle Moss

          I was talking to an Obot who said…

          “I’m against all war”

          Duh!!! All of us are against war.

          The difference between the pacifists and us is that we would rather die free than be enslaved by others.

          • Baba Rum Raisin

            >>> Duh!!! All of us are against war.

            So long as I get paid enough, I don’t have a big problem with it, having been a Conscripted Killer for LBJ/Tricky Dick for much less than minimum wage.

            Forty years later, I can STILL fire EXPERT with the M-14 and M-60, and field strip an re-assemble both blindfolded. Really, really fast.

            I need help getting up from PRONE position, but I’m hell on wheels when horizontal.

            “I don’t need no teen-aged queen,
            I just want my M-Fourteen!”

            • cynic

              You’re gonna give me a flashback with the cadence calls. I usually only get them these days when I hear a certain sort of helicopter coming in from the distance.

              • Baba Rum Raisin

                UN-happiness is living in an area which uses the Bell 206 for air rescue work and practices near your home. Thwock-thwock-thwock-thwock…

                Although, I haven’t Been Right since the AF retired the last of the F4G model “Wild Weasels” from Nellis and Red Flag exercises. A flight of Phantoms plugging in Burner is a joy to hear!

    • ziggy

      It’s not about the rights of terrorists, friend. It’s about the Constitution, the exercise of unconstitutional powers by any president, and certain standards of behavior that all true Americans have always stood for. Those things transcend partisan politics. I reject anyone on either side of the political divide who thinks otherwise.

  • Texas Rose

    Well said, Moss. You put the nail on the head with your comments.

    • Seattle Moss

      Thank You Texas Rose!

      There’s a yellow rose in Texas
      That I am a going to see
      No other darky knows her
      No one only me

      She cryed so when I left her
      It like to broke my heart
      And if I ever find her
      We nevermore will part

      And continues:

      She’s the sweetest rose of color
      This darky ever knew
      Her eyes are bright as diamonds
      They sparkle like the dew

      You may talk about dearest May
      and sing of Rosa Lee
      But the yellow rose of Texas
      Beats the belles of Tennessee

  • TexasBuckeye

    I’mFedUp, termo, TheWinterSolstice:

    I have hated the left as much as, maybe more than, you do and for the same reasons. I wanted to disrupt their party and their sick agenda so much that I participated in Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos by voting for Hillary against Obama. I’m a hard-core, card-carrying, SUV-driving, gas-guzzling, energy-consuming, free-market loving, capitalist, Christian, conservative and dang proud of it.

    The fraud perpetrated against Hillary voters during the Democratic caucuses enraged me because I wanted Hillary to win the DNC nomination. I detest Obama with every shred of my being. I came to NQ back in March ’08 to discuss what happened at the caucuses, to share my experiences with Hillary supporters, to rally the troops against Obama.

    And then I discovered something extremely amazing, extraordinary, and very shocking …

    There are moonbats who love this country and the principles upon which she was founded. There are moonbats who hate political corruption. There are moonbats who embrace fiscal conservatism.

    What I discovered on this amazing intellectual journey is that I disagree with liberals on a few key points, but that those points need not separate me from them through hatred.

    We conservatives supported Bush in his efforts to fight terrorism because we believe that he had our best interests at heart. What the liberals on this site want you to recognize is that someday, now in fact, there may be a POTUS in office who doesn’t have our best interests at heart and will use the newly-created Executive powers to abuse our rights. This time, it’s won’t be under the auspices of keeping us safe from terrorism, which is a very real threat.

    While I disagree with the liberals about the extent to which Bush/Cheney violated civil rights and trashed the Constitution, I recognize that the Bush Administration did, in fact, clearly infringe upon the Constitutional rights of “the individual.” And because they did so, it makes it easier for the Obama Administration to do so.

    Now, we conservatives face the prospect of being labeled domestic terrorists because we want to rise up and take back our government from a corrupt Washington establishment. It’s not unrealistic to imagine conservatives being labled “enemy combatants” because we are well-armed and organized. Do we want to be subject to the same treatment (legal or physical) that we handed out so generously and unquestioningly? I think not.

    And that’s their point. If we let it happen to others with whom we disagree, for whatever reasons, we are, in effect, sanctioning the same treatment for ourselves under a philosophically different regime.

    Regards,
    TexasBuckeye

    • I’mFedUp

      Great post TexasBuckeye…I hate the liberal agenda, mainly because it is 100% Anti-American. Period. But, that’s not the point. We come to NQ and we debate the past, who did what, why Bush should be incarcerated or shot at dawn for treason, etc. Blah blah blah. I get it. I couldn’t care less about Bill Clinton. I put up with it, although I didn’t agree on everything. No big deal. I supported Hillary and I exposed as much as I could of the Fraud. Then she went to work for him. Oh well. I’m heartbroken, but I’m alive.

      Obama? Like I have said…he is just off the charts. It’s not even up for discussion to call him the “President” because he has designated himself something far more powerful than the powers this country bestows on our leaders. Bush never did this. You have to remember that he just signed the bills, not wrote them. Someone was agreeing with him, somewhere. In the meantime, the hard left brought us Obama. Now we are going down hill faster than we can even watch. I blame them. Period. It’s one thing to have Kerry, Gore, Clinton, whatever. But this is the end of America. The Dems will go down in history as destroying us. Nice legacy to have. I hope that if there is one plot of land left to rebuild this country on that there is no such thing as the DNC.

    • WMCB

      Thank you TexasBuckeye. Our founding fathers were not stupid. Our constitutional protections are not there to protect you only when “your” guy is in office, they are there to protect us no matter WHO is in office.

      I am now having the exact same problem with my Liberal friends regarding this expansion of the powers of the Treasury.

      They claim that it’s okay, because bambi will use those powers to save the country.

      I keep telling them that i don’t agree, but that even if I did, IT DOESN’T MATTER, because they are granting those powers to ANY president in the future, and they should be very very afraid of that.

      Once the People give power away, because they like or trust the guy currently in office, they ned to understand that they have given it away – no matter if your worst nightmare takes office.

      It is really hard to get past the partisan bullshit and make people see that. We the People need to defend our Constitution for the long term, even if doing so might hurt our particular party in the short term.

      • TexasBuckeye

        The primary obstacle that keeps us (conservatives and liberals) from uniting in support of our Constitutional rights is the desire to seek revenge against our opponents.

        We continue in cycles of revenge meant to undo the policies of each previous administration instead of uniting under a core set of principles.

        Until we can temporarily set aside divisive political issues to focus on restoring the basic role of government and restoring individual liberties, we’re doomed to repeat these damaging cycles.

        The far left and the far right who seek to implement their collective will upon everyone else through government legislation are destroying this nation.

        The founding fathers never intended majority rule.

    • beachnan

      Well stated Texas. I agree wholeheartedly. It is a slippery slope once we start giving the office of the President additional powers.

  • Mr.Murder

    To score political points Bushco. ended up letting info about known knowns out of the bag re:AQ Khan and our ability to monitor proliferation activities.

    Why did America’s reich wingers not get livid about the fact that such tactics made it easier for proliferators to change their methods to avoid our detection?

    Ditto our discussions about Iran or North Korea.

    Not to mention the fact he tried to use hindsight for political cover re: our warnings to India before the Mumbai bombings, etc. There goes more wasted intelligence capability squandered as a meaningless measure of retrospective political capital.

    Any one of the above instances was worth a trial or hearing at the very least.

  • xax

    I know everyone is still on the “I hate Bush and right wingers” train but last time I checked Clinton was willing to engage in torture as well. Stop laying this at one side’s feet. It’s plain dishonest.

    The justification of both presidents was if they could stop attacks on many innocent people they would do what’s neccessary.

    Feel free to agree or not. When it comes to torture the fact that people constantly frame it as an argument against conservatives or Republicans or Bush does nothing to address the real issues.

    • beachnan

      Have you been reading the comments? It seems that there has been many comments made both pro and con about torture, and a fair amount of blame for both sides.