Filthy Pictures

They certainly don’t need the intense provocation that torture photos will cause among the Pashtun tribes, which is why, I think, the President has decided to oppose their publication.
.
Well then that’s okay. Because they certainly won’t know about the abuses going on at our prison in Afghanistan.
.
But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances. This was right after 9/11. There were 3000 dead. There was anthrax in the air.
.
You realize, right, that a lot of these interrogations took place in order to forge a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda to give us a false pretext for invasion. Can you explain to me how that’s okay? How that kept us safe?
.
And the publication of these photos is far more likely to inflame–and endanger–than inform or illuminate. We don’t need to see them, especially now.
.
Do you have something more appropriate to get worked up about?

I’m totally with you on this one, Joe. Daily Kos, Andrew Sullivan and other left leaning blogs that I admire and read will never see it any other way but in my gut, I feel that Obama is right.

The fact that these pictures exist and that American lives have been lost as a result of the underlying practices belies any claims that the torture program was effective. I agree that release of these pictures endangers lives. But it is really what they represent that endangers lives.

If Mr. Klein had listened to the hearings today he would understand the paucity of his argument that there were mitigating circumstances or that it is only civil liberties absolutists who see a clear case against the Bush Administration designers of the torture program.

Mr. Klein should stop at his assertion that release of the pictures will endanger lives. Beyond that, he is only indicating that he has neither the time nor the expertise to get at the underlying issues and must rely on advice from his old, discredited friends. Like Pete Hoekstra, maybe?

Joe Klein:
.
All the energy devoted to this will result in…what?
.
It will hopefully result in it never, ever happening again.
.
That’s the goal –nothing more, nothing less.

Ah well. When it happens the next time, you can act shocked again and argue against doing anything about it again. Won’t that be fun.

It is obvious that the people who opposed the illegal war in Iraq and believe in the rule of law are in the wrong here. After all, it isn’t the torturing and war mongering that caused the world to hate America, it is pictures of those acts that are the real problem.

I’d be a lot less worked up about sending Cheney and the rest of the neocons to the dock if they weren’t on my television every night attacking Obama and Democrats as terrorist sympathizers. Yet whenever I turn on the television there they are, accusing “liberals” of wanting to let terrorists kill Americans.
.
My Dad and Uncle still walk around with Vietcong shrapnel in their bodies. They would kill me if I ever voted for a Republican like Dick Cheney. While my Dad was getting shot, Dick Cheney, George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and the rest of the GOP leadership were sitting the fight out. I’d love to see Cheney tell my Dad he was un-American for voting for Obama. It wouldn’t be pretty.
.
As long as the drug-addled gas bag and five-time-deferment Cheney are accusing good Americans of being “anti-Americans” and spreading fear, then it is war. No rest and no quarter until Cheney and Bush are investigated and, if found guilty, jailed for any crimes they committed.

Joe, here is my problem with this. Skip aside the whole torture issue. There are millions of poor people in jail right now for crime, including drug usage. We are tough on them. Whenever an administration in Washington is filled with corruption, typically the call from the establishment is to let bygones be bygones.
.
I remember James Carville’s “touching” letter to just let Scooter Libby go free. This impulse is bi-partisan. Why go after the opposition when they break the law. Heavens! They may go after you when you do the same.
.
It’s hypocritical and it helps foster the cynical attitude people in this country have towards politics and politicians. The media has gotten too cozy with the people they are covering. A permanent media class is as bad as a permanent political class. How can you suggest that your neighbor needs to go to jail for corruption? His kid and yours are on the same t-ball team for goodness sake. They aren’t some low level hoodlum who deserves punishment for lawbreaking.
.
It’s institutionalized B.S. Joe. I hope you can step aside your box for a second and see it.

As a civil liberties absolutist all I can do is shout at you, so I’ll spare you. At least you know where I’m coming from on this.

But I have one more objection to your post: that climate of fear after 9/11 wasn’t necessary. It was understandable but it didn’t have to be that way and our leaders should have said, “I know we’re all freaked out but we’re going to follow our laws and abide by our ideals.” So no I can’t forgive people for looking the other way and maybe I’ll never know what it’s like to have a position of authority like Pelosi but no, I don’t think I’d allow torture if I knew it was happening, not even right after 9/11.

9/11 was a horrible thing but it’s not an excuse for everything that followed.

The same people who want to waive the rule of law here are all gung ho to impose the rule of law on Iraq and Afghanistan. This has turned into a two party cover up and justice will only be served outside of those two parties.

Can someone explain to me why every discussion of prosecution includes the phrase “Bush officials” or “Bush administration lawyers”? It’s like some mass dementia has taken over the media (including you, Joe) that makes it impossible to ask if we should prosecute GEORGE BUSH himself. Not his lawyers. Not his CIA interrogators. Him.

I have yet to see a single news story that honestly poses this question. If you want to prosecute the lawyers, that’s fine with me, but if the goal isn’t to get to the top, then it’s a waste of time. It would be real shame if only the underlings pay for all of this.

Joe, your rationale for not releasing the pictures is witless. Abu Ghraib and its images have been out there for a good long time. By refusing to release these pictures, Obama is now effectively saying “It was worse than Abu Ghraib”. Imagine what AlQaeda can now say: “The Americans use such vile torture that even Obama is afraid to tell the truth”. They can then add a list of what was “really” to be seen in those pictures, and enjoy watching as recruits pour in to resist the Torturers.

1. You don’t have to be a “civil liberties absolutist” to disagree with Obama’s decision. Joe, reflexively painting those with whom you disagree as “absolutists” is unappealing and not persuasive. It’s OK to say that reasonable people disagree.
.
.
2. Is it at all possible that finding out the truth (even absent criminal prosecution) would help restore America’s reputation and make America safer? Is it at all possible that there are people who are not “absolutists” who just want to make America as safe as possible? The idea that safety is best achieved through force and “dark” means only is the exact reason we’re in this mess to begin with.

Anyone? Does anyone else care to mention how the Iraq War was founded on false confessions obtained by torture?

Joe Klein:
.
As it is, they have to overcome the disastrous impact of civilian casualties caused by aerial bombing…
.
Perhaps then we need to take the necessary step of suppressing video, photos or even reports of such civilian casualties, right?
.
Don’t you see what this facile logic of yours leads to, Joe Klein? Have you really thought this through in great detail?
.
If we accept that the potential harm to our troops in the field is the determiner in our rationale regarding state censorship of information, what truly differentiates such a policy from Cheney’s sordid secrecy fetishes?
.
How is the Obama position substantially different than, say, Bush/Cheney’s position on the release of evidence from Abu Ghraib?

March 29, 2006 | The Bush administration agreed Tuesday to release dozens of disputed photographs and videos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, two weeks after Salon published an official Army criminal archive that included many, if not all, of the same images.
.
The government’s decision ends a nearly two-year legal battle with civil liberties advocates over whether the publication of the material would harm national security.

…And does it not trouble you at all that the Obama Administration has done a literal about-face on the issue?

Obama Reverses Position on Release of Photos of Detainee Abuse
.
In Reversal, Obama Seeks to Block Abuse Photos
President Barack Obama says the detainee abuse photos he wants to block from release are ‘not particularly sensational’ but would do not good if publicized.
.
By Michael D. Shear and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 13, 2009; 4:58 PM
.
President Obama has decided to oppose the release of several dozen photos depicting abuse of detainees held in U.S. military custody abroad, reversing his previous position on the grounds that the pictures could inflame anti-American sentiment and endanger U.S. troops.
.
In a brief statement to reporters before flying to Arizona for a speech late this afternoon, Obama said he believes “that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals. In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

Are you truly fine with this, Joe?
.
“Not particularly sensational” says our President of the evidence, who then goes on to say that its release will inevitably “put our troops in greater danger“?
.
This isn’t pure Bushian logic?
.
Don’t you think that you’d rather not be a knee-jerk apologist for this sort of thing until you really understand what’s going on, Joe Klein?

Just so everyone’s clear on this:
Obama, at the urging of the pentagon, has been forced to hide the behavior of the Bush administration because acknowledging that behavior would harm the nation’s security and endanger our troops in the field.
.
For those of you who still don’t understand the damage that the republican torture policy caused, here’s a concrete example. The generals are saying that acknowledging it would benefit our enemies and harm us. Only people with five draft deferments or a medical deferment for boils on the a$$ seem unable to understand this.

All the energy devoted to this will result in…what? Justice, you say? Well, maybe.
Justice, and deterrence. You know, just like how we prosecute murderers for murdering, rapists for raping, and thieves for stealing. Do we hem and haw about whether justice is truly attained in those situations? No, because the idea is to deter future criminals from committing the same crimes.
So what does it say when we let our nation’s leaders get a pass on torture? That we are unwilling to hold people accountable for actions that are illegal and unjustified. Just as in previous expansions of Presidential power that go unchecked, future presidents will point to the Bush Adminstration and say “See? No one will stop us. We can torture all we want.” And they’ll be right. Laws for the powerless, anarchy for the powerful. Is that what you really want?

OK, I’m done lambasting the likes of Joe Klein and co. I’m done with Cheney & co. too. As if we’d expect anything less of either part of the estab. But now Obama owns this, he’s in bed with these f@ckers, complicit with war criminals he was ostensibly running against last year. Cheney attacked, waging what many of us thought was fruitless PR campaign, and Obama blinked. It’s as simple as that. Anyone striving to be an Obama apologist at this point, anyone who wants to condemn the media or “neocons” without equal scorn for the current president, well, you’re disingenuous at best and plain stupid at worst.
~
And as a world citizen first and shamed US citizen a distant second, let me just say we in the rest of the world can’t wait to hear more about the US being Winthrop’s city upon a hill (of hypocrisy), and we can’t f’ing wait to hear pontificating lectures about our lack of human rights.

“I think Dick Cheney…is pretty close to a criminal”
Hey, seriously, what the hell is that supposed to mean?
Release the pictures, lock up the torturers — anyone who thinks it should be the other way around is seriously f**ked up in the head.

Joe Klein is sliding back into his old ways and has decided that our conquest of the Middle East is too important to be derailed by mere questions of civil liberties. With such a mindset, there will always be mitigating circumstances permitting torture and other war crimes.

Our entire system of justice is based on absolutist ideas called natural law.

“All the energy devoted to this will result in…what?”
.
Um, the knowledge by all “literate” Muslims (and whomever they talk to) that we are not a country of easily frightened, lawless, immoral, murderous, torturing, thugs?
.
Here’s a true north for your spinning moral compass, Joe: doing the right thing usually means also doing the hard thing. But it does have the benefit of leaving you standing on the moral high ground. I’m hoping that you can the utility of that, even if you can’t grasp the other merits.

While I strongly disagree with Klein that we should somehow use 9/11 rules as absolution for torture, I also don’t entirely see what we gain by the release of additional pictures. Think of them as pictures of a crime scene: how many of them do we really need? I don’t see the rationale that somehow releasing more pictures will make torture less likely in the future.

If *no* pictures had been released that would be different, since it is important that some pictures came out. The American people need to know what was done in their name, and those responsible, at whatever level, need to be punished. But I think many people commenting here are getting overwhelmed by their desire for the punishment of those responsible, as if the release of additional pictures would somehow galvanize the public. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I just don’t see this.

OTOH, it does seem to me that there is a much greater risk that releasing more pictures will inflame the situation in the Middle East. So if there is little additional to gain and something potentially to lose, on balance I support Obama’s decision.

Joe,
-
You managed to take a great insight – a lot of the people in the countries we’re fighting in can’t read, and pictures are a very important means of communication with them – and turn it into a bunch of political claptrap.
-
“I oppose torture.”
-
That’s good, because it’s like totally a violation of the law, international treaties, and the constitution.
-
“But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances.”
-
Wait. Torture isn’t really a gray area issue. Either you’re completely against it, or you’re for it as an information gathering tool, and to do that effectively you have to torture lots of innocent people. So is your first statement right or your second one? You can’t have both.
-
“I can understand Nancy Pelosi’s impulse to look the other way–if I’d been in a position of authority, I might have acted the same way”
-
Ah, now I see. It’s morally wrong and everything, unless I’m scared and possibly personally threatened. Then it’s ok. That Joe, is pretty much the definition of cowardice.
-
Additionally, you kinda WERE in a position of authority as a nationally syndicated reporter and pundit. Does this mean you did look the other way? Is this post some kind of half-a$$ed confession and justification?
-
I don’t know what you knew or when you knew it. And you have repeatedly and forcefully spoken out against torture. But crap like this really, really makes me wonder. This isn’t a political issue. It’s a crime. It’s a complete rejection of the fourth and eighth amendments. If you’re an American dedicated to the preservation of the constitution there are literally only two answers on this. One involves pushing for a constitutional amendment repealing significant parts of the fourth and all of the eighth amendment, the other involves putting everyone involved in jail, regardless of party or power.
-
And to address your final point, yes, the case will be exceedingly difficult to make. That doesn’t mean we don’t try, and try hard. We are AMERICA. WE DO NOT TORTURE.

what really gets me about apologists for torture like Klein is the racism he displays here — he seems to think that because Afghanis have a low literacy rate, that they’re not as smart as Americans, and are more likely to react “emotionally” to pictures of detainees being abused by American personnel. But American are just as, if not more, susceptible to “pictures” — indeed, political campaigns are all about “images” to the point where actual policy positions no longer matter.
_
I’d not mind this “lets not release these pictures” attitude if they were accompanied by the desire to hold those responsible for the atrocities. Indeed, were those pictures disclosed as part of criminal prosecutions, their release might actually do some good (i.e. by releasing them within the context of prosecution, we can send the message that America rejects what is shown in the pictures, and holds even its highest leaders accountable when their actions result in such crimes.)
_
as Cliff notes, Afghanis don’t need these pictures released to be aware of US war crimes — and release of the pictures would have very little impact on how the US is perceived (except perhaps among those who have bought US propaganda about how “we don’t torture“)

Bold and insightful post; The authors clarity on the issue of social and environmental activism and truth it brings to bear on the prospects for the future give us all reason for hope. The question is: Are people ready to hear the good news yet? I for one AM!

Way to go, we’ re all behind you, and were all in this together.

Joe, what was your position about releasing photos of Monica’s blue dress. I seem to recall that a lot of people in DC were insisting that releasing those photos was CRITICAL, ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL, to protecting the integrity of the Office of the President.
.
Having a bit of sport with the ladies got Clinton impeached. Torturing, murdering, and imprisoning dozen of likely innocent people gets the Neocons jobs and respect. The MSM is proving once again that there is NOTHING a Republican can do to lose something as frivolous as “status” in DC. The thrice-married, draft dodging Newt Gingich is lauded as an intellectual and moral pillar of American political thought instead of being shunned for the monster that he actually is.
.
Dick Cheney is, at the very least, the American equal one of the Burmese military leaders. But, yes, let’s turn our head and pretend that crimes weren’t committed. We did it when Ford pardoned Nixon. We did it when Reagan sold arms to Iran – OUR SWORN ENEMY.
.
Facts are malleable. Truth is relative. Reality is nothing but a concept . . . unless you are a Democrat.

I can’t get on board with the outrage. Obama is “in bed” with these guys? Applying “Bushian logic”?
.
That sounds like “you’re either with us or against us”. I think people need to slow down. This didn’t happen over night, and it most certainly will not be corrected over night.
.
You guys are thinking best case scenario for a prosecution. They go to trial, we throw tomatos at them and then they’re carted of to prison. What if it doesn’t go like that? What if it’s a rallying cry for the crazies that unites them? What if an attack occurs during the trial? What do the fence sitters say then?
.
The need to satisfy your urges, regardless of how just you may think them, is what got us into this mess. Obama’s cool and patience is why I voted for him. Can we trust him a little?

The need to satisfy your urges, regardless of how just you may think them, is what got us into this mess. Obama’s cool and patience is why I voted for him. Can we trust him a little?
_
like the country “trusted” Bush?

Hmmm… I guess if we score for wisdom, somepeoplelikeit wins the thread.

Cheney is “pretty close to a criminal?” You surprise me. We don’t know all the details, but the preponderance of the evidence points to his being a criminal.
.
I think I would indeed understand having gone over the line right after 9/11, but torture was not limited to then.
.
Whether it works is totally, totally, beside the point. It would probably work to threaten to torture family members of the detainees, too. Should we do anything that “works?” I’m disappointed that has somehow become a measure of whether this is okay. Besides, the preponderance of the testimony we have heard from those who know is that it does not work.

It’s a sad irony to see “liberals” rushing to embrace positions for which they denounced Bush. The howls of “Traitor” and “Troll” echo throughout the liberal blogosphere whenever anyone points out that Obama is now shielding war criminals, and is thus complicit in their crimes. DailyKos is in typical full hypocrisy mode on this one.

Kathy, I believe that Joe has widened his intellectual horizons. Once he simply embraced truthiness. Now he embraces criminaliness as well.

P luck, I understand your sentiment…but if we hold to that rationale can we ever trust a leader ever again? Do you really believe this is an “apples to apples” comparison of Obama right now vs. GWB right after 9/11? I personally don’t think so.

Somepeoplelikeit says, “Can we trust him (Obama) a little.”
.
No.
.
And I say that as someone who was giving cash to him the day he announced he was running. Trusting politicians, even a little, is what gets people killed and your tax dollars spent on gold plated defense contracts. That fact has been true forever, with very very few exceptions to the rule.

“It’s a sad irony to see “liberals” rushing to embrace positions for which they denounced Bush.”
.
Right now I’m of a mind that “liberals” are being exactly defined as those for whom authority means relatively nothing compared to morally and practically important principles, such as the rule of law, and those for whom not calling that authority to account must be rationalized in some way. Joe has already been asked to turn in his smelly sandals and DFH decoder ring.

That should read: “vs those for whom not calling that authority to account must be rationalized in some way.”

I for the first time, applaud President Obama’s decision not to release these abhorant photos. The only outcome would be innocent men and women in our military risk being really tortured, should they ever become a captive of the Taliban or al-Qaeda.
.
Everyone has their own opinion of what is and what is not torture. I do not see any positive outcome with releasing these photos, and only see dire consequences to our military if they are released.
.
On behalf of my family members serving in the military and at risk in the War on Terror, I thank you Mr Obama for doing the right thing.
.
Anyone with any different opinion, should first go put your own life on the line and join the military to defend out country. Once you have done that, then you may voice your opposition to this decision.

rustyreturns you can vote for him the next time he asks too.

The DC establishment decided, on the basis of false information, that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Now, they are trying to shrug off any any accountability for the torture that was used to create that false urgency.
-
The country’s political elites eschew legal and moral hard work (to say nothing of our economic elites) for soft, self-excusing excuses.
-
We are squandering every lesson and advantage our forefathers fought to secure.

Perhaps I may, Derek. If he makes these types of decisions, and places National Security above all else, perhaps I may. I have said, and will say, the number one role of the Federal Government is the Nation’s security. Protecting its citizens from all sworn enemys. Everything else is secondary. If a government cannot protect its citizens and keep them safe, then there is no other reason for it to exist.

Well, given that ringing endorsement by a moral cretin like Rusty, I think it’s now blindingly clear that Obama just f*cked this one up beyond belief.

rustyreturns says: “Anyone with any different opinion, should first go put your own life on the line and join the military to defend out country. Once you have done that, then you may voice your opposition to this decision.”
.
First, since when does voicing an opinion require joining the military?
.
Second, by your logic I assume that the opinion of every current leader of the GOP is now invalid.
.
Third, there were no torture photos in existence when al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11. Yet they did it anyway. But you are asserting that us releasing photos of us torturing people is somehow going to make the terrorists more dangerous? Like they weren’t going to torture any servicemen or women they capture?
.
On behalf of my family members serving in the military, and all of us who are citizens of the US, I want to ask Mr. Obama why he is failing to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution of the US. (Oh, that’s right, you right wing nuts thing he didn’t actually take the oath. My bad.)
.
Let’s just say it one more time. Whether we torture isn’t about the terrorists. What we are talking about is whether or not the rule of law and American values means anything anymore. People like Dick Cheney clearly never cared or understood what it means to be an American. They just exist to accumulate power and make a buck. Whether or not an innocent person gets tortured, or the very nature of what it means to be an American gets trampled, is secondary.
.
A lot of good Americans have died defending the Constitution and the ideals of America. Of course, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh aren’t among those people since they had “better things to do” and boils on their butts when their country needed them.

Obama has simply caved to the demands of Dick Cheney on the photo issue…

http://www.political-buzz.com/

rustyreturns I won’t bother asking you what proof you have that the pictures would make anyone less safe but I imagine you believe that is a far greater problem than torturing people in the first place, or invading and destroying a country that did nothing to us, justified by a pack of lies. The latter two acts must make you very proud, especially if torture was used to build the body of lies that led to the Iraq invasion.

BHO isn’t king. This has been ruled on by the courts. This is only delaying the inevitable release.

“I have said, and will say, the number one role of the Federal Government is the Nation’s security.”
.
That’s what all federal officers swear an oath to alright. The Nation’s security. Oh wait, it’s to defend the Constitution.
.
It’s hard to remember the cries of RULE OF LAW just 11 years ago.

Well choska, if you believe that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden didn’t attack us on 9/11 for their perverted opinions of our Country and ideals. Then please tell me why did they attack us in the first place? What was the rationale for the terrorist attacks in the first place?
.
Also, please defend al-Qaeda when they chopped off the heads of those unfortunate souls who were captured by the heathens shortly after 9/11. Danny Pearl?
.
” “We have now established enough links and credible evidence to think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” — the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks — “was involved in your husband’s murder,” the official told Mariane.”
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/10/22/pearl/index.html
.
I also assume you condone innocent people to be be-headed too, choska for absolutely no reason?
.
Your precious constitution is of no use to you, when enemies of our country are set to destroy not only this country but anyone living within its borders. The oath Obama took on January 26th, was not only to protect and defend the constitution, but also the citizens of the United States of America. That my dear, is the first and foremost reason he is called “Commander in Chief”.

“Your precious constitution”?
.
You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Obama releasing the fotos or not was actually precipitated by pending court action. He backtracked based on appeals by military officials, claiming battlefield danger if they were released. It is still in the courts, and I suspect that the fotos will be released. I don’t buy the harm and danger argument. That has already been done. Of all possible options, I think witholding the fotos, not prosecuting, and hoping it will all blow over is the worst one, and least realistic, the head in the sand, state secrets position. Whether the fotos are realesed or not, the greatest damage is doing nothing about blatant violation of law, the Constitution, and international treaties.

Let me also ask, the esteemed know-it-alls of strict absolutist and neo-constistutionist where it says that enhanced interrogation techniques is strictly forbidden? Where in laws passed does it also say, “you may not use enhanced interrogation techniques and specifically spells out it is against the law to use water-boarding, sleep deprevation or hummiliation?”. Please also tell me where the treaty is that I can read between the United States of American and the Taliban / al-Qaeda that was agreed upon we would not use enhanced interrogation techniques?
.
When the Taliban or al-Qaeda become a recognized country THEN and only then does your feeble arguments have any validity. Until that day happens, they are no less than terrorists scum who have no rights under our laws.

Maybe prosecution would go down better if it started with members of Congress for complicity, and proceeded up the line.

choska, Trusting politicians, even a little, is what gets people killed and your tax dollars spent on gold plated defense contracts. That fact has been true forever, with very very few exceptions to the rule.
.
If that’s your opinion then trust isn’t the issue. You don’t trust politicians. Period.
.
I voted for him for a 4 year term. For me to withdraw my trust after 110 days is knee jerking in the extreme. When he’s up for re-election I will decide if he’s earned my vote again. Until then, I won’t jump on the outrage bandwagon everytime something doesn’t go exactly my way.
.
I submit to you that right now may not be the best time we will ever have to prosecute. Joe Klein called him an “incrementalist” and that stuck with me. Patience. Progress.

Joe Klein reveals an ugly truth about himself here. He states that fear is a loophole to permit torture. Thus, Joe Klein is lying through his teeth when he says he opposes torture. A thoroughly dishonest, ill-conceived post that, if not retracted, puts Joe Klein firmly in the Cheney-Limbaugh torture defender camp.

Next thing you know, he’ll be telling us that he supports a preventative war on Iran. You know it’s coming.

“I can understand Nancy Pelosi’s impulse to look the other way–if I’d been in a position of authority, I might have acted the same way…and you might have, too.”
.
Joe-Just because you admit that you would violate the law because you are scared. Does that mean you expect us to agree with you?
.
But even if I give you that you were doing what you thought was best. Does that mean that I should just take your word for it?
.
Finally, does that mean you should face no accountability. Because I can cite you case after case where mothers, fathers and other relatives have killed people that have attacked or abused their kids and those people have gone to jail.

Anybody other than myself notice that neither Joe Klein who may oppose torture but DEFINITELY opposes investigations into torture, nor any other Swamplander posted about the hearing today on the hill where Ali Soufan testified? Why exactly do you think that is? Might it have something to do with this?
.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=3842&wit_id=7906
.

Immediately after Abu Zubaydah was captured, a fellow FBI agent and I were flown to meet him at an undisclosed location. We were both very familiar with Abu Zubaydah and have successfully interrogated al-Qaeda terrorists. We started interrogating him, supported by CIA officials who were stationed at the location, and within the first hour of the interrogation, using the Informed Interrogation Approach, we gained important actionable intelligence.
.
The information was so important that, as I later learned from open sources, it went to CIA Director George Tennet who was so impressed that he initially ordered us to be congratulated. That was apparently quickly withdrawn as soon as Mr. Tennet was told that it was FBI agents, who were responsible. He then immediately ordered a CIA CTC interrogation team to leave DC and head to the location to take over from us.
.
During his capture Abu Zubaydah had been injured. After seeing the extent of his injuries, the CIA medical team supporting us decided they were not equipped to treat him and we had to take him to a hospital or he would die. At the hospital, we continued our questioning as much as possible, while taking into account his medical condition and the need to know all information he might have on existing threats.
.
We were once again very successful and elicited information regarding the role of KSM as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and lots of other information that remains classified. (It is important to remember that before this we had no idea of KSM’s role in 9/11 or his importance in the al Qaeda leadership structure.) All this happened before the CTC team arrived.
.
A few days after we started questioning Abu Zubaydah, the CTC interrogation team finally arrived from DC with a contractor who was instructing them on how they should conduct the interrogations, and we were removed. Immediately, on the instructions of the contractor, harsh techniques were introduced, starting with nudity. (The harsher techniques mentioned in the memos were not introduced or even discussed at this point.)
.
The new techniques did not produce results as Abu Zubaydah shut down and stopped talking. At that time nudity and low-level sleep deprivation (between 24 and 48 hours) was being used. After a few days of getting no information, and after repeated inquiries from DC asking why all of sudden no information was being transmitted (when before there had been a steady stream), we again were given control of the interrogation.
.
We then returned to using the Informed Interrogation Approach. Within a few hours, Abu Zubaydah again started talking and gave us important actionable intelligence.
.
This included the details of Jose Padilla, the so-called “dirty bomber.” To remind you of how important this information was viewed at the time, the then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft, held a press conference from Moscow to discuss the news. Other important actionable intelligence was also gained that remains classified.
.
After a few days, the contractor attempted to once again try his untested theory and he started to re-implementing the harsh techniques. He moved this time further along the force continuum, introducing loud noise and then temperature manipulation.
.
Throughout this time, my fellow FBI agent and I, along with a top CIA interrogator who was working with us, protested, but we were overruled. I should also note that another colleague, an operational psychologist for the CIA, had left the location because he objected to what was being done.
.
Again, however, the technique wasn’t working and Abu Zubaydah wasn’t revealing any information, so we were once again brought back in to interrogate him. We found it harder to reengage him this time, because of how the techniques had affected him, but eventually, we succeeded, and he re-engaged again.
.
Once again the contractor insisted on stepping up the notches of his experiment, and this time he requested the authorization to place Abu Zubaydah in a confinement box, as the next stage in the force continuum. While everything I saw to this point were nowhere near the severity later listed in the memos, the evolution of the contractor’s theory, along with what I had seen till then, struck me as “borderline torture.”
.
As the Department of Justice IG report released last year states, I protested to my superiors in the FBI and refused to be a part of what was happening. The Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, a man I deeply respect, agreed passing the message that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out.
.
As you can see from this timeline, many of the claims made in the memos about the success of the enhanced techniques are inaccurate. For example, it is untrue to claim Abu Zubaydah wasn’t cooperating before August 1, 2002. The truth is that we got actionable intelligence from him in the first hour of interrogating him.

.
Seriously go read the whole thing. Every single Villager and Winger justification for torture and or excuse for not investigating torture is pretty much eviscerated by Soufan’s testimony. I apologize for the length but I wanted to make sure that Joe Klein couldn’t say he hadn’t seen or heard about the information.

I’m old enough to remember watching the Watergate debacle unfold over what seemed like forever. This stuff is going to come out sooner or later. Do we want it to be parceled out every few months and keep the outrage and debate going on for years or would it be better to put it all out at once? I’m of the opinion to put it all out now. It may even lessen the impact somewhat because there will be so much to choose from. If the material is put out now time will still pass. It may be better to face the music now and let the cards fall where they may. There are going to be endless court challenges and putting this stuff out a little bit at a time is only going to postpone the inevitible. I don’t believe that anybody can realistically believe that we can keep it hidden away forever. It’s going to see the light of day one way or another.

As an individual with a nephew in harms way I believe there is a legitimate argument for not releasing these photos at this time. However, I’m afraid that the best argument does not begin with the words mitigating circumstances. September 11th didn’t just happen to Cheney and his inability to get a grip does not excuse his criminal behavior. However, I do not buy the idea that these photos are critical to our ability to fact find, gather evidence, solicit testimony and prosecute if warranted. However, you can guarantee these pictures will be circulated better than food and water. Do we need hearings yes, do we need to examine the records and reports absolutely, do we need to see these photos on the cover of every magazine and on signs being carried through the streets Afghanistan — I think not. Say what you will but I’m glad we have a president who will take the heat to do what is right over what would be politically easy.

For those who support hiding the information, what evidence do you have that this will endanger soldiers in the field? What other types of information, visual or text based, ought to be hidden, because it may endanger soldiers? How do you know releasing this information might not help the soldiers, because it will prove to the Afghans that we do not tolerate war criminals, and actually believe in the rule of law?

Re: “Obama’s cool and patience is why I voted for him. Can we trust him a little?”
~
What Choska said. Sadly, the fanboy syndrome that created George II is alive and well in the democratic body politic. Obama is to be commended for his ability to play that larger segment of his support off of minority progressives, helped mightily by the press’ free ride (protecting a man who has now clearly shown himself to be an estab. figure). Like the MSM, Obama has no interest in dealing with the dirty left–we are as Joe says, absolutists, we are a deviant subculture or liberal legal scolds unworthy of his attn.
~
Anyway, thank goodness O’s saving his pol-cap to really wade into the health care fray, fighting tooth and nail for single payer, or to cut off welfare for Wall St. swine Wait a second…
~
We have a cowardly triangulator redux. Four months in, the blueprint is set for the remainder of his likely 8 years. Sept. 12, 2001, and Jan. 21st, 2009, were the two best opp’s in American history to fundamentally change the course of a failing nation. Both moments are now officially over.

Here is Phillip Zelikow’s testimony.
.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/09-05-13ZelikowTestimony.pdf
.
Look out for the “CID standard” recommended to the Bush Administration by the 9-11 commission which they rejected. Joe Klein should you find your way on Morning Joe anytime soon I would expect you to be able to slap Scarborough upside his head with the knowledge from these two men’s testimony that will torpedo his “ticking time bomb”, “torture saved lives” bullsh*t arguments.

Dee: I agree with much of what you say and see the logic in it, but there is also the possibility that what people imagine the photos to be are worse than the actual photos. They’re going to be bad, there’s no question about that, but sometimes the rumor is worse than the truth. I’m also glad we have a President that I trust to make the right decision. What did he ever do to deserve this mess? How anyone could even think about voting another republicaqn into the White house is beyond me.

jcapan: I disagree that the moment for change has passed. Obama is dealing with political realities and cleaning up messes that he had no part in creating. It’s going to take years, not months.

I just have one question, how will releasing pictures prove anything about upholding the “rule of law”? Those pictures no matter how inflammatory or tame will do nothing other than prove there was torture. If you think I am wrong then tell me who has or hasn’t been prosecuted for the torture depicted in the photos. I don’t know if releasing the pictures would hurt our soldiers or not but I DO know that this is a bullsh*t tempest in a teapot born mostly of civil libertarians going ape sh*t because President Obama changed his mind. There was an ACLU guy on Hardball and while I didn’t appreciate the wingnut they had opposite him the ACLU guy did a VERY sh*tty job of selling the need for these pictures to come out. He couldn’t say how they would help any investigations. So if someone could kindly explain to me how it would help an investigation or basically do anything more than satisfy our voyeristic instincts then I am open to hearing it. If can’t really muster any outrage over some damn pictures.

Derek ordinarily I would agree with you and if we investigate and prosecute I would have no problem with releasing pictures of Cheney in handcuffs. I think prosecuting the Bushies would definitely restore our credibility. Hoewever, I don’t think not releasing the photos is the same or needs to be the same as hiding evidence. There are many times in a court of law where visuals that are deemed too prejudicial are not allowed, this is similar. We can get evidence and testimony without giving the enemy a propaganda tool. These photos will not be seen as having taken place in the past, as far as my nephew is concerned, those pictures will be today and those whose hate will be further fueled by those pictures and the civilian populations that will be more sympathetic to the enemy because of those pictures for them those pictures will be today. And how do we know how they will respond? Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib.

Pistures could end the abstraction about whether or not the acts constituted torture. It’s one thing to discuss torture but quite another to see the physical evidence. I don’t know the legalities involved, but I’d prefer to see the pictures released to a committee, viewed only by the committees and then destroyed. There’s probably very little chance of that happening. Even closed trials should be discussed.

After a long day of working in the yard and my last lousy post, I’m calling it a night. All of this is way beyond my pay grade.

It seems to me that all this focus on the photos is obscuring the devastating testimony taking place in these hearings. Sacred, I remember watergate too and I also remember Iran-Contra and I will never forget hearing testimony about selling drugs in the inner city to get money to buy guns to ship to Nicaragua in the middle of the afternoon. Of course years later it has become an urban legend but I heard the testimony myself. Oliver North took the weight and let Reagan and Bush off the hook. So we don’t need photos because I can guarantee Bush and Cheney won’t be in them. Show me the memos.

Dee the only people who have paid for the crimes at Abu Ghraib are the soldiers, who were simply following orders. Now we are in a position to do something about it, after voting the spineless coward Obama into office, and he is using the soldiers as an excuse to let the real criminals walk free once again. It’s sad and laughable at the same time. We finally know why Pelosi didn’t push too hard to stop the war in Iraq. I hope the pictures are released, if for no other reason that it may anger the people so much that they will bypass the two political parties, who are trying to cover this up, along with their hand maidens in the press. Maybe when they see children being raped they will not be so complacent. I see absolutely no evidence to support the fear mongering associated with releasing the pictures, just like there was no reason to believe the fear mongering that got us into Iraq.

I want everyone to remember that things the Federal Government will do. States will do. Be prepared.

”Rape is employed as a weapon because it is effective,” Verveer said. ”It destroys the fabric of society from within and does so more efficiently than do guns or bombs.”
.
Rape is an effective weapon of war because it breaks apart families and communities, Verveer said.
.
”In addition to these rapes and gang rapes, of which there have been hundreds of thousands over the duration of the conflict, the perpetrators frequently mutilate the woman in the course of the attack,” she said. ”The apparent purpose is to leave a lasting and inerasable signal to others that the woman has been violated.”
.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/13/us/politics/AP-US-African-Conflicts-Rape.html

“…if you believe that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden didn’t attack us on 9/11 for their perverted opinions of our Country and ideals.”
.
Their “perverted opinions” of our ideals was that they were mostly convenient rhetorical standards that we held others to but not ourselves. It took “conservatives” and centrists of many stripes, as well as the public itself, to prove that they were essentially correct.

Late to the party but I have to pipe in.
First off, these are the types of posts by Joe Klein that make me cringe. He absolutely wants to be able to reach a certain conclusion. The conclusion he wants to reach feels ‘reasonable’ to him. But the plain reading of the law and simple rules of logic don’t lead themselves to the desired result so he has to write off people who insist on reading the plain language of the law and following it to the logical conclusion “absolutists”
.
Even if I sympatize with his motives, I know that with every sentence, the hole of illogic that he digs gets deeper.
.
Second off, what everyone seems to be forgetting is that the pictures in dispute aren’t any striking revalations of how the CIA was extracting information. It’s how the culture and thinking behind the waterboarding infected the whole military apparatus to the point where prisoner abuse was Standard Operating Procedure in Iraq. Add to that the fact that the people being abused were Iraqis who were defending their Homeland against a foreign invader and you have an exceedingly ugly situation.
.
Obama will lose in court and the picture will be released. In the meantime he’s gained some cred among the people most interested in keeping a lid on things.
.
Here by the way, is the actual law that has been violated:
.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
.
1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) 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;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) 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;
.
And by the way, sleep deprivation is a mind-altering procedure calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.

After throwing a huge bone to his anti-military, fringe, freak show base, Obama has now caved to his sworn enemies (i.e., the pro-America community) and will not release photos from an Iraqi prison, which had been requested by al Qaeda’s legal team at the anti-American, anti-civil rights, self-described ACLU. ROTFLMAO! Of course, Obama wants to release the photos because he agrees with his anti-military, freak show base, but he’s too much of an effeminate coward to defend his true position.

The remark about Pelosi is both over the line and reinforcing Republican talking points. Pelosi was in no position to “look the other way.” She could not go public with whatever she was told, if she was in fact told anything accurate.
.
It may turn out that she was more complicit than what evidence we have seen, and I strongly support getting everything out in the bright sanitizing sunlight. Joe’s complicity, his joining the monsters, is a huge part of the problem. If a war in Afghanistan, for unclear objectives and no defined mission can’t be waged because of some photographs, the simple solution is to withdraw the troops.
.
In any case, the pictures people have mentally drawn, based on the torture that has already been documented, serves just fine as a reason to hate Americans, and America. Covering up torture, ineffectively, will not restore our place in the world. Exposing, trying and jailing the perpetrators is the only way. And, since when is law and order a liberal position? Is that not what Nixon ran on? What Reagan ran on?

Where is the change!!! This is the same stuff…No Transparency,Clarity, only protecting the previous rulers.Its like ok I will let you off if you dont get me when I am done!
I dont see a difference between the elephants and the asses!
I think we have been taken again!!!And I voted for Change!!!

tas1951
.
Should we break out the fainting couch for you?

“But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances. ”

If there were, the US apologies to Germany and Japan, because that was NOT our position after WWII.

Why don’t you write one in your column, Joe? C’mon…you can do it. It feels GOOD not to be a hypocrite.

And, since when is law and order a liberal position? Is that not what Nixon ran on? What Reagan ran on?
-
Since “law and order” was perceived to negatively affect white elites, rather than the black underclass.

Dee: I’m glad you brought up Iran-Contra. I remember being riveted as the story unfolded day by day. At the time, it seemed inevitable that someone would be held accountable for such a flagrant violation of the law. In the end, nothing much happened, pardons were issued, and the Beltway went about its business.
.
That may be why I feel so adamantly about the torture issue. It seems to be trending in the same direction. The truth will come out in the end, but nobody will pay, nothing will be done, until the next scandal.

Also, I can disagree with Obama on an issue without thinking there is “no difference” between Obama and Bush. That’s pure Naderism.
.
Lastly: “Dick Cheney [...] is pretty close to a criminal.” Hmmm. If only there were some way to determine whether someone is actually a criminal or merely “close” to a criminal. Perhaps some kind of system … or framework …

I keep trying to bring people back to the hearing earlier today about torture and I was just reminded about one more major nugget in Ali Soufan’s testimony. He talked about the harsh interrogation method in general.
.

The harsh technique method doesn’t use the knowledge we have of the detainee’s history, mindset, vulnerabilities, or culture, and instead tries to subjugate the detainee into submission through humiliation and cruelty. The approach applies a force continuum, each time using harsher and harsher techniques until the detainee submits.
.
The idea behind the technique is to force the detainee to see the interrogator as the master who controls his pain. It is an exercise in trying to gain compliance rather than eliciting cooperation. A theoretical application of this technique is a situation where the detainee is stripped naked and told: “Tell us what you know.”
.
If the detainee doesn’t immediately respond by giving information, for example he asks: “what do you want to know?” the interviewer will reply: “you know,” and walk out of the interrogation room. Then the next step on the force continuum is introduced, for example sleep deprivation, and the process will continue until the detainee’s will is broken and he automatically gives up all information he is presumed to know.
.
There are many problems with this technique.
.
A major problem is that it is ineffective. Al Qaeda terrorists are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, the al Qaeda training prepares them for much worse – the torture they would expect to receive if caught by dictatorships for example.
.
This is why, as we see from the recently released Department of Justice memos on interrogation, the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods, until they reached waterboarding and then there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again. Abu Zubaydah had to be waterboarded 83 times and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times. In a democracy there is a glass ceiling of harsh techniques the interrogator cannot breach, and a detainee can eventually call the interrogator’s bluff.

.
Now the pro torture crowd including Liz Cheney’s deranged ass keep saying that going by the Army Field Manual hurts us because terrorists can look it up on the internet. But the truth is as Soufan pointed out that the terrorists train for sh*t that would never under any circumstances be legal even in Cheney’s world for us to do to them. And because they know this then when we torture them we actually give them the upper hand. So unless the pro torture crowd is prepared to go the full Syrian doing “harsh interrogation” probably does more harm than good.

This is meant to address some of the intelligent commentary that essentially apologizes for Obama’s reversal by way of acceptance at face value of the (strangely familiar) “endangering the troops” rationale put forward by the Administration.
.
I would recommend that you folks play devil’s advocate to your own positions for a moment, and consider the idea that this isn’t really a policy decision as much as a political posture.
.
The centrist ideologues in the political-media class are salivating:

Obama’s Sister Soulja Moment?
.
By David Ignatius | May 13, 2009; 12:37 PM ET
.
President Obama’s decision this week to reconsider release of inflammatory Pentagon interrogation photos may mark a shift in his administration’s handling of politically charged national security issues — upsetting his allies on the left but making some new friends among conservatives in the military.
.
Obama seems to have concluded that to achieve the right balance on controversial Bush-era issues such as interrogation — summed up in the president’s frequent admonition that we need to look forward rather than backward — he will have to disappoint some liberal supporters.
.
Is this a “Sister Soulja” moment on national security, like bill Clinton’s famous criticism of a controversial rap singer during the 1992 presidential campaign — which upset some liberal supporters but polished his credentials as a centrist? We’ll have to wait and see, but certainly military officers I spoke with this week were pleased — even as the ACLU was indignant.

Shorter Ignatius: “Oooooooooohh! Take that, Dirty F*cking Hippies!”
.
The Post’s editorial staff were apparently even emboldened into cutesy sloganeering/Obama bandwagon-jumping, as they have now branded their online editorial page “PostPartisan: Quick takes by The Post’s opinion writers” (I’m not kidding). Get it?! PostPartisan. PostPartisan! Get it?! Tee-hee!
.
Through the wonder of the internets, let’s recall David Ignatius’ interest in this debate, shall we?
.
From the recent

How Obama’s Decision Hurt the CIA
.
By David Ignatius April 22, 2009
.
If Obama means what he says about protecting the CIA work force and its operational edge, he must give up the idea that he can please everyone on this issue. He should recommend limits on any congressional inquiry and resist demands for a special prosecutor. Instead, he should push the White House’s preferred alternative — a commission that can review secret evidence behind closed doors, then report to the nation.
.
America will be better off, in the long run, for Obama’s decision to expose the past practice of torture and ban its future use. But meanwhile, the country is fighting a war, and it needs to take care that the sunlight of exposure doesn’t blind its shadow warriors.

, to the not-as-recent-but-still-pretty-recent

Best of All Possible Presidencies
.
By David Ignatius – Thursday, January 15, 2009; Page A19
.
I also saw the pessimist’s wariness of potential disaster in Obama’s discussion of intelligence issues with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” Asked about Vice President Cheney’s warning to be careful about fulfilling campaign promises to ban harsh interrogation techniques and other tactics in combating terrorism, Obama said, surprisingly, “I think that was pretty good advice.”
.
To underscore the message, Obama indicated that he would oppose retrospective investigations of wrongdoing by the CIA and other agencies, arguing: “When it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed [to] looking at what we got wrong in the past.” This is the kind of realism that will disappoint liberal score-settlers, but it makes clear that Obama has a grim appreciation of the dangers America still faces from al-Qaeda and its allies.

The common theme that runs through this crowd’s pronouncements is that accountability means pure liberal vengeance for the past eight years of conservative-centrist coalition rule. Now that the centrists have reversed course, and are attempting rapprochement with liberals, they view accountability for their complicity in the almost total degradation of our nation as a betrayal of their new-found allegiance, and a threat to their power as technocratic elites.
.
As such, evidence –especially television-friendly photographic evidence– of criminality/gross incompetence must remain hidden from view, as this inevitably bolsters reasonable calls for accountability, either in the form of investigations, prosecutions or admittance of wrongdoing or error in some significant public form –all of which implicate the people who have been reliable sources for the major news organizations, and their enablers at editorial boards and executive production conference rooms. It proves right out there in the bright, sunlit open air what we on the left have known for quite a few years now: that the criminality, venality and gross incompetence brutally exposed by photographic evidence of institutionalized torture are the systemic product of Beltway elites like Gen. Michael Hayden or David Ignatius.
.
What Ignatius in his glee at imagined “disappointed liberal supporters” inadvertently reveals is that which Klein is hurriedly yet prudently careful to keep any whiff of from his apology: that this is all about the politics, and not about real policy goals.
.
Ignatius’ naked politicization of the turnaround is summed up quite perfectly in the lede, i.e. that this is not a single carefully considered, regretfully arrived at conclusion based on some new evidence, but instead an inherently political “Sister Souljah Moment”, designed to forcefully declare Obama’s deep and abiding allegiance to the centrist political-media establishment at the expense of his “allies on the left”.
.
Lest we be concerned that an editor inserts that premise on top of Ignatius’ column, he himself refers to this event as a political “Sister Souljah moment”, and all but wets himself in his anticipation of the display of Obama’s “credentials as a centrist”.
.
There can be very little doubt amongst reasonable people that the meaning of Ignatius’ exultation at Obama “upsetting…the left”, “achiev[ing] the right balance”, “disappointing…liberal supporters”, “polished his credentials as a centrist”, and “mark[ing] a shift in his administration’s handling of politically charged national security issues” has little to do with Obama’s purported concern over “the troops”, and everything to do with the political message Obama is sending to his centrist allies in the Beltway cocktail-party circuit that, for now at least, accountability and the rule of law as applied to elites are off of the table.
.
Joe Klein, perhaps even tangentially because of his exposure to the blogosphere and commentary, is more hip than his friend, colleague and ideological ally David Ignatius. Joe Klein realizes that for the new center-left coalition to function, we on “the left” can not quite be as freely and openly condemned and rejected as once was the case in Ignatius’ wonder year of 1992. Perhaps Joe Klein has even looked at a few polls, and has seen that “a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds majorities in favor of investigating some of the thorniest unfinished business from the Bush administration: Whether its tactics in the “war on terror” broke the law.“. However he has come to these significant realizations of political reality in the year 2009, Joe Klein intelligently soothes us by reassuring us that, even as misguided as we are, he thinks “the impulse of some on the left to perseverate on this issue is understandable“. He selflessly scrunches up his resolve to make a calculated, persuasive political case to his ideological inferiors, and even admits that dreaded proponents of the rule of law “have a point“. He does this because Joe knows what Ignatius (even at this late date) can’t bring himself to accept: that the center has to accept some measure of humility (and reality), and play ball with the left while the Republicans are still at 20 percent.
.
At the very least, the overt rejoicing of Beltway establishment, anti-accountability, anti-populist anger, anti-rule-of-law-for-elites, pro-technocracy, pro-insider access, pro-secrecy, centrist ideologues like Klein and Ignatius at this political move on Obama’s part –cast explicitly by both as “Obama vs the left”– should bring up the guards of people supremely dissatisfied with the fruits of the center-right ruling coalition of the Bush/Cheney years…even those who have invested some measure of trust in the gifted politician named Barack Obama.
.
Thanks so much for reading and considering this.

[...] Time argues that releasing the additional torture photos would only inflame. [...]

The notion that releasing some photos will put soldiers in danger is bogus. The enemy will not hate a little more with the photo than they already did. The bigger question is are we after truth or not?

Stuart: Thanks for that post.

Deterrence. Somewhere, sometime, an example must be set. If these pictures are not that opportunity, then there better be some other time and place that the case for justice is made.

Impeach Bybee, get Yoo and Rice to resign their tenured positions.

Honor must be restored for our country. Otherwise a new Dick Cheney shows up in 2032 and tries to restore the Bush torture policies the way Cheney showed up in 2000 to restore Nixon’s imperial presidency.

But it’s interesting to watch the shifting of the conventional wisdom.
.
At first, the debate was whether it was torture. Then they trotted out the argument that, well, it was probably torture, but at least Bush & Co made a good-faith effort to get a legal opinion about it.
.
Then we moved to: Well, it wasn’t such a good faith effort, but Nancy Pelosi knew, so that makes it OK.
.
Now the argument is: It was so bad, we can’t even look at it.
.
The only constant is that under no circumstances must anyone be held accountable, despite what the law-and-order hippies want.

One aspect of this is the humiliation or other profound consequences to the prisoners who might be identified in the photos. There is some duty for confidentiality here, as we don’t know the consequences of disclosure and should proceed with caution.

This is one situation where, although it’s essential that there be full disclosure of all aspects of the treatment of prisoners in custody, there is an argument in favour of delaying publication of the photos and any footage, in the same way as presidential papers are sealed for a certain period. America is still at war with a dangerous and irrational enemy. A simple cartoon in Denmark unleashed a hurricane not too long ago.

There was a heated debate tonight on Chris Matthews, where some people (Donny Deutsch) STILL think that there’s an argument in favour of torture if it will save American lives. As someone who in the wake of 9/11 was also in favour of torture for a short time, I understand the emotional appeal of this.

Missing from this debate is the understanding that the use of torture in this case operated to the EXACT REVERSE EFFECT: i.e. the false information that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein led directly to the invasion of Iraq and cost thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives.

That torture sometimes produces “actionable intelligence” is a deceptive mental trap. If you take a cancer test that has a 50% accuracy rating, what do its results tell you? Nothing more than you knew before you took it.

The very fact that this happened at all leaves us in a complete Scheißeck now. If we release the photos and implement public hearings into torture of “Enemy Combatants” we will initiate an Al Qaeda recruiting bonanza in AfPak at a time where we really need to be rebuilding faith in our involvement there.
.
But if we agree to keep the pictures secret and refuse to investigate how the use of torture came to be recommended and approved, then we are setting a precedent that people who approve this behavior shouldn’t be held accountable for that. I personally feel strongly that Governments should be accountable for the actions they carry out on behalf of the people.
.
So I have a suggestion. Lets allow the subject to drop for a while until we have a better handle on the AfPak situation. We agree that investigations will be carried out at a time when the situation on the ground is better.

Joe,

Here’s where you’ve gone wrong:
1) The torture was not enacted to gain information on future attacks on America. It was used to elicit false confessions that Iraq and Al Qaeda were in bed together. How is it understandable that Pelosi and others “looked the other way” when Cheney et al. were using torture as a cover-your-ass maneuver? And how does it do us any good to avert our eyes, too?
2) Would prosecuting these cases be any more difficult — or less morally relevant — than prosecuting torturers at Nuremberg and Tokyo at the end of WWII? Even if it is, should a prosecuter *ever* back down because of the difficulty of the task ahead? You seem to suggest both, and I’m relatively certain that the answer to both questions is a resounding “no”.
3) You seem to pooh-pooh the notion that justice is possible, or that we can even know what “justice” means in this case. I don’t see why it isn’t possible, and I think it’s clear what “justice” means in this, as in other criminal cases, and I think it’s clear how we can best try to obtain it: Those guilty of breaking the law are discovered and verified through due process in the courts, at the end of which they receive sentences according to the crimes for which they have been convicted. It works the same for torturers as it does for muggers and embezzlers, Joe.
4) If it’s evil and illegal when Nazis did it to Jews, and it’s evil and illegal when the Chinese and North Vietnamese do it to Americans, then it’s evil and illegal when Americans do it to Muslims. I don’t see how that chain of logic is so hard for so many people, including you, Joe.
5) Doesn’t the maintenance/rehabilitation of America’s moral standing — that famous “soft power” that we’ve all been concerned with losing under George II — demand that we hold ourselves accountable for the same actions for which we freely excoriate other nations? Or is it okay for the rest of the world to view us as a bunch of hypocrites who love to talk all high-and-mighty to the Chinese while we pursue some of the same dirty business?

Maybe withholding those pictures has a use in protecting American troops that’s more important than their edifying effect on the American voter. I disagree with the notion, but I think it’s open to debate.

However, I’ve never seen a single substantial argument for why we shouldn’t have a full investigation of these war crimes, including public trials and punishment for those who’ve been found guilty.

Thanks for your contribution SZ.
Indeed recasting with the Villager/DFH split in mind indeed shines new light on Joe’s word choices.
.
I’d like to once again remind everyone that the pictures that were going to be released aren’t CIA types carefully applying graduated techniques to elicit confessions but are home-movies of US soldiers run amok. If nothing else, they serve as a stark reminder that when cruelty is officially sanctioned, the normal checks to evil behavior are gone and this is what ensues. It’s simple human nature and labels like “American” or “Taliban” don’t change the basic equation.
.
The the moral authority that the US has enjoyed in the past is a direct result of our adherence to the principles of human rights even when it was inconvenient (or frightening). It’s not too late to regain that authority, but if there isn’t a sharp break between the current administration and the last one, then all the justification we have to engage in geopolitics in our current “world leader” role will dissolve into dust.

SZ that was an interesting post but no matter what Ignatius writes to elevate himself and remain relevant, it doesn’t change the fact that our president made a decision based on a desire to create an environment to make reaching our objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan most possible. Despite Ignatius’ cavalier attitude and obvious beltway cynicism I will not believe that this president acted out of a craven political imperative and the fact that Ignatius, who by the way was usually wrong when he wrote about Obama during the campaign, feels the need to imply that this is the case in order to sell a provocative column, says a lot more about him than the president. I know we want accountability and we may or may not get it, but being on the left ought to not mean that considering the lives of our soldiers is an irrelevant consideration, or that the possible disintegration of a nuclear state is not a major concern.

Thanks to folks who read, considered and commented upon my post, whether we agree or not.

God Forbid! We have a POTUS that actually hears facts from all sides and considers the consequences of his decisions!
Anyone that has been tortured (cough, cough…John McCain) will tell you that you will say anything to get it to stop.
In the “ticking time bomb” scenario, anyone captured that has information about the “time bomb” knows how much time you have to stop it, and can send you on 40 wild goose chases to kill time while the scenario plays out, torture or no. So that kills your #1 argument.
So what are you left with? It’s fun? You can feel like a real man for once in your life?
Let me put you at a negative 45 degree slant with a towel on your face, and pour water on the towel until your body feels like it is drowning, you convulse, and pass out. That is not the SERE version of waterboarding, but it’s the GITMO version. (The SERE version is to dampen the towel till you are uncomfortable breathing, then they stop).
The hilarity of the Ann Coulters of the world is that they know these facts.
Will you break if you are kept awake 48 hours or you are kept in a stress position for 12 hours or you ar ewaterboarded for 2 hours?
YES!
But in every scenario you are so mentally broken down that you can barely remember your name, let alone facts about who is where.
Will you tell actual facts? Maybe. Probably not.
And if you are trained in evading torture (like Al Quaida), you will know to tell insignificant facts and send your enemy far from the actual problem area to kill their time. That is a F’n fact.
Torture is generally useless, in “ticking timebomb” scenarios it’s totally useless, and if you don’t see that you are a moron.
PALIN LIMBAUGH 2012!

“but being on the left ought to not mean that considering the lives of our soldiers is an irrelevant consideration”

Who on the left are you referring to?

That said, more pictures of Dubya’s idiocy will not help our awesome country, so Obama is right on this one. I pray that Obama restores us to the mantle of the world’s conscience. it was a great place to be and I’d like to return there soon. But I don’t know, I’ll have to check my “Google Machine” to see how we’re doing these days.

“… pretty close to a criminal…”
.
How close, Joe?

But we’ve gotten the picture: we know what American torture looks like.

do we? what if the photos show that we waterboarded not three but dozens or hundreds of people, very few of whom were “al qaeda’s #3″? no, that could never happen. just bad apples, imprison token rabble, keep walking.

The oath Obama took on January 26th, was not only to protect and defend the constitution, but also the citizens of the United States of America.

Actually, the president’s oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution, but you can make up your own words if you like.

That my dear, is the first and foremost reason he is called “Commander in Chief”.

Actually, darling, he’s the “commander-in-chief” of the military, not the country, you bootlicker.

Thank God we’ve dropped the “war on terror” label. In fact, it’s good we no longer will use “war on drugs”. “War” should never be used unless it actually refers to armed combat. Using the word “war” as means of highlighting a serious problem/situation has been ineffective and often counterproductive (war on poverty, the Cold War).

When we say “war”, it automatically conjures up the idea of a beginning and an end. But terror used as a threat, drugs and poverty will always be with us. And certainly the US mindset over our rivalry led us to some pretty stupid tactics in Latin American and the Mid East.

“War” seems to imply we have cart blanche to use any means necessary to achieve our goal. And before you know it, you’re conducting strip searches on 11-year-old children.

[...] Obama’s Image Problem on Prisoner Abuse Posted by James Poniewozik | Comments (0) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This Yesterday President Obama announced that he would oppose the court-ordered release of photos depicting abuse of prisoners by U.S. authorities overseas. As I did when the Bush Administration opposed similar photo releases, or fought the depiction of caskets of war dead returning from Iraq, I believe this is the wrong move. (Among the people who disagree with me is TIME’s Joe Klein, who blogs on the subject at Swampland.) [...]

Hi folks, I’ve been gone for awhile. But so has the old Joe Klein.
`
I see we’re both back.

[...] post, please subscribe to read more content on this topic.In yet another miserable Joe Klein essay validating the morally depraved, inside-the-beltway establishment consensus that on government torture and war crimes, we should all just move along people nothing to see [...]

The photos ire important but not the real issue.

We all know what they show. So does the rest of the world.

What’s more important is who knew what and when?

We can’t prevent it from happening again until that information is brought to light and if guilty of war crimes if it is determined that we deed indeed violate the laws and treaties we have signed on and agreed to.

The photos are important but not the real issue.

We all know what they show. So does the rest of the world.

What’s more important is who knew what and when?

We can’t prevent it from happening again until that information is brought to light and if guilty of war crimes if it is determined that we deed indeed violate the laws and treaties we have signed on and agreed to.

The photos ire important but not the real issue. We all know what they show. So does the rest of the world. What’s more important is who knew what and when? We can’t prevent it from happening again until that information is brought to light and if guilty of war crimes if it is determined that we deed indeed violate the laws and treaties we have signed on and agreed to.

The photos ire important but not the real issue.
We all know what they show. So does the rest of the world.
What’s more important is who knew what and when?
We can’t prevent it from happening again until that information is brought to light.
If there are US officials guilty of war crimes and if it is determined that we did indeed violate the laws and treaties we have signed on and agreed, to then those who created or condoned the torture should be tried and if convicted… punished.

[...] Joe Klein in [...]

Sorry. New to this. Didn’t realize there were more than one page.

Won’t happen again.

” .. the distribution of these photos … constitutes something akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. “

” ..I oppose torture. ..But I also believe there were mitigating circumstances. “
MOST of those tortured by (our democracy of American values) were INNOCENT fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, kids – as innocent and as far removed from the belligerency as many of the commenters here.

What were the “mitigating circumstances” behind the atrocities at Auschwitz?