Why we must prosecute

It's simple. Do we want to be much worse hypocrites than we already are?

Why We Must Prosecute
Torture Is a Breach Of International Law
By Mark J. McKeon
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

On Sept. 11, 2001, when the twin towers were hit, I was sitting in a meeting in The Hague discussing what should be included in an indictment against Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Bosnia. I was an American lawyer serving as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and there was no doubt that Milosevic should be indicted for his responsibility for the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners. As the head of state at the time those crimes were committed, Milosevic bore ultimate responsibility for what happened under his watch.

While at The Hague, I felt myself standing in a long line of American prosecutors working for a world where international standards restricted what one nation could do to another during war, stretching back to at least Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. Those standards protected our own soldiers and citizens. They were also moral and right. So I didn't understand why, a few months after the attacks in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew its consent to joining the International Criminal Court. Wasn't accountability for war crimes one of the things America stood for? Although staying with the court did mean that the United States would be subject to being charged in that court, how likely was that to happen? Surely we would never do these things. And, in any event, the court could only assume jurisdiction over a person whose own government refused to prosecute him; surely, that would never happen in the United States.

And yet, seven years later, here we are debating whether we should hold senior Bush administration officials accountable for things they have done in the "war on terror."

In 2001 and the following few years, we at the international tribunal built a strong court case against Milosevic. We presented evidence that he had effective control over soldiers and paramilitaries who tortured prisoners, and did worse. We brought into court reports of atrocities that had been delivered to Milosevic by international organizations to show his knowledge of what was happening under his command. And we watched as other heads of state were indicted for similar crimes, including Charles Taylor in Liberia and, of course, Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

At the same time, I watched with horror the changes that were happening back home. The events are now well known: Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; secret "renditions" of prisoners to countries where interrogators were not afraid to get rough; secret CIA prisons where there appeared to be no rules. I tried to answer, as best I could, the questions from my international colleagues at The Hague about what was happening in and to my country. But as each revelation topped the last, I soon found myself without words.

I hope that the United States has turned the page on those times and is returning to the values that sustained our country for so many years. But we cannot expect to regain our position of leadership in the world unless we hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of others. That means punishing the most senior government officials responsible for these crimes. We have demanded this from other countries that have returned from walking on the dark side; we should expect no less from ourselves.

To say that we should hold ourselves to the same standards of justice that we applied to Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein is not to say that the level of our leaders' crimes approached theirs. Thankfully, there is no evidence of that. And yet, torture and cruel treatment are as much violations of international humanitarian law as are murder and genocide. They demand a judicial response. We cannot expect the rest of humanity to live in a world that we ourselves are not willing to inhabit.

The writer was a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia from 2001 to 2004 and a senior prosecutor from 2004 to 2006.

The original is here.

Frank Rich - Now We Know

Frank Rich lays it all out. I highlighted a couple of passages below in red. We are sorely in need of some justice. Question is: will we get it?

The Bush White House's Appalling and Evil Legacy: Now We Know the Whole Story

By Frank Rich, The New York Times.

Did we torture to extract bogus "intelligence" from detainees to make the case for Iraq?

We don't like our evil to be banal. Ten years after Columbine, it only now may be sinking in that the psychopathic killers were not jock-hating dorks from a "Trench Coat Mafia," or, as ABC News maintained at the time, "part of a dark, underground national phenomenon known as the Gothic movement." In the new best seller "Columbine," the journalist Dave Cullen reaffirms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were instead ordinary American teenagers who worked at the local pizza joint, loved their parents and were popular among their classmates.

On Tuesday, it will be five years since Americans first confronted the photographs from Abu Ghraib on "60 Minutes II." Here, too, we want to cling to myths that quarantine the evil. If our country committed torture, surely it did so to prevent Armageddon, in a patriotic ticking-time-bomb scenario out of "24." If anyone deserves blame, it was only those identified by President Bush as "a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values": promiscuous, sinister-looking lowlifes like Lynddie England, Charles Graner and the other grunts who were held accountable while the top command got a pass.

We've learned much, much more about America and torture in the past five years. But as Mark Danner recently wrote in The New York Review of Books, for all the revelations, one essential fact remains unchanged: "By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it." When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.

Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government's highest levels; that it was carried out in scenarios that had no resemblance to "24"; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks.

The newly released Justice Department memos, like those before them, were not written by barely schooled misfits like England and Graner. John Yoo, Steven Bradbury and Jay Bybee graduated from the likes of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Michigan and Brigham Young. They have passed through white-shoe law firms like Covington & Burling, and Sidley Austin.

Judge Bybee's rsum tells us that he has four children and is both a Cubmaster for the Boy Scouts and a youth baseball and basketball coach. He currently occupies a tenured seat on the United States Court of Appeals. As an assistant attorney general, he was the author of the Aug. 1, 2002, memo endorsing in lengthy, prurient detail interrogation "techniques" like "facial slap (insult slap)" and "insects placed in a confinement box."

He proposed using 10 such techniques "in some sort of escalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique." Waterboarding, the near-drowning favored by Pol Pot and the Spanish Inquisition, was prosecuted by the United States in war-crimes trials after World War II. But Bybee concluded that it "does not, in our view, inflict 'severe pain or suffering.' "

Still, it's not Bybee's perverted lawyering and pornographic amorality that make his memo worthy of special attention. It merits a closer look because it actually does add something new -- and, even after all we've heard, something shocking -- to the five-year-old torture narrative. When placed in full context, it's the kind of smoking gun that might free us from the myths and denial that prevent us from reckoning with this ugly chapter in our history.

Bybee's memo was aimed at one particular detainee, Abu Zubaydah, who had been captured some four months earlier, in late March 2002. Zubaydah is portrayed in the memo (as he was publicly by Bush after his capture) as one of the top men in Al Qaeda. But by August this had been proven false. As Ron Suskind reported in his book "The One Percent Doctrine," Zubaydah was identified soon after his capture as a logistics guy, who, in the words of the F.B.I.'s top-ranking Qaeda analyst at the time, Dan Coleman, served as the terrorist group's flight booker and "greeter," like "Joe Louis in the lobby of Caesar's Palace." Zubaydah "knew very little about real operations, or strategy." He showed clinical symptoms of schizophrenia.

By the time Bybee wrote his memo, Zubaydah had been questioned by the F.B.I. and C.I.A. for months and had given what limited information he had. His most valuable contribution was to finger Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as the 9/11 mastermind. But, as Jane Mayer wrote in her book "The Dark Side," even that contribution may have been old news: according to the 9/11 commission, the C.I.A. had already learned about Mohammed during the summer of 2001. In any event, as one of Zubaydah's own F.B.I. questioners, Ali Soufan, wrote in a Times Op-Ed article last Thursday, traditional interrogation methods had worked. Yet Bybee's memo purported that an "increased pressure phase" was required to force Zubaydah to talk.

As soon as Bybee gave the green light, torture followed: Zubaydah was waterboarded at least 83 times in August 2002, according to another of the newly released memos. Unsurprisingly, it appears that no significant intelligence was gained by torturing this mentally ill Qaeda functionary. So why the overkill? Bybee's memo invoked a ticking time bomb: "There is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks."

We don't know if there was such unusual "chatter" then, but it's unlikely Zubaydah could have added information if there were. Perhaps some new facts may yet emerge if Dick Cheney succeeds in his unexpected and welcome crusade to declassify documents that he says will exonerate administration interrogation policies. Meanwhile, we do have evidence for an alternative explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.

The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantanamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: "A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful." As higher-ups got more "frustrated" at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, "there was more and more pressure to resort to measures" that might produce that intelligence.

In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration's ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee's memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) "Downing Street memo," in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." A month after Bybee's memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on "Meet the Press," hyping both Saddam's W.M.D.s and the "number of contacts over the years" between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus "intelligence" from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.

Last week Bush-Cheney defenders, true to form, dismissed the Senate Armed Services Committee report as "partisan." But as the committee chairman, Carl Levin, told me, the report received unanimous support from its members -- John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman included.

Levin also emphasized the report's accounts of military lawyers who dissented from White House doctrine -- only to be disregarded. The Bush administration was "driven," Levin said. By what? "They'd say it was to get more information. But they were desperate to find a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Five years after the Abu Ghraib revelations, we must acknowledge that our government methodically authorized torture and lied about it. But we also must contemplate the possibility that it did so not just out of a sincere, if criminally misguided, desire to "protect" us but also to promote an unnecessary and catastrophic war. Instead of saving us from "another 9/11," torture was a tool in the campaign to falsify and exploit 9/11 so that fearful Americans would be bamboozled into a mission that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The lying about Iraq remains the original sin from which flows much of the Bush White House's illegality.

Levin suggests -- and I agree -- that as additional fact-finding plays out, it's time for the Justice Department to enlist a panel of two or three apolitical outsiders, perhaps retired federal judges, "to review the mass of material" we already have. The fundamental truth is there, as it long has been. The panel can recommend a legal path that will insure accountability for this wholesale betrayal of American values.

President Obama can talk all he wants about not looking back, but this grotesque past is bigger than even he is. It won't vanish into a memory hole any more than Andersonville, World War II internment camps or My Lai. The White House, Congress and politicians of both parties should get out of the way. We don't need another commission. We don't need any Capitol Hill witch hunts. What we must have are fair trials that at long last uphold and reclaim our nation's commitment to the rule of law.

This "feels" like the truth. For once. Bastards! The original is here.

Back from vacation

Yes, indeed, back safely from a week of driving across Texas and visiting with friends and family. Not what we have typically thought of when we think of the term "vacation," but, hey, these days are strange ones.

Spent a few days in Killeen visiting an old friend of my wife. Oddly enough, the second day we were there was the 30th anniversary of the night that my wife and I met, AND on that night, my wife was with this very same friend. The two of them were out having a drink at a bar, and in walks yours truly. The rest is, as they say, herstory.

During this leg of the trip, we went to visit The Vineyard at Florence, which is noted here, but here's another pic.


My wife and her friend love to go to thrift shops, so we made plenty of time for that. While they were out getting all excited about 50 cent clothes (hey, we scored big on this trip), I was most-calmly sitting in the backyard, reading a book and being kept company by the constant cooing of mourning doves and other birds.


Her backyard does remind one of Sanford and Son.


Good coffee, a good book, peace and quiet, now THIS is more like vacation.


All things must end, and we eventually drove west and south into Marble Falls to visit an old college chum of mine. He's now one of the golf pros at Horseshoe Bay, which is just a gorgeous place on the south side of Lake LBJ.


The hill country of Central Texas is always a nice change of pace from Houston's pancakeland. My favorite golf pro took us on a tour of part of the three golf courses at Horseshoe Bay in golf carts, which, incidentally, would do very well in urban settings when your typical ride would be under five miles. Oops, wrong post.

We even took some time to play some miniature golf. Not exactly Putt-Putt, but an actual golf course layout, without the windmills and marauding pirates, but in miniature. You only putt. No irons, no woods, just putters. It was a hoot.

Here are a coupla pics from the "Whitewater" course.


Do I have to say that my favorite golf pro beat the two of us handily?


We stayed at a bed-and-breakfast, the Wallace Guest House, in downtown Marble Falls. Very nice place. Damn comfortable bed.


When I was making the reservation, they told me that, when I arrived, the key would be in the door. Say what? The key to the room will be in the door. Ok. Oh, yeah, Marble Falls is a small town. We don't really do things like that in Houston anymore.


Sure enough, the key was in the door when we arrived. And when we left, we left the key inside the room. We never even saw the proprietors. A little odd. And breakfast was a coupon good for two at the Blue Bonnet Cafe, a couple of blocks away. Hey, no problem, it was awesome. Haven't had bacon like that in a restaurant in years.

They had a few odd things on the walls, including some odd grammar. Is it me? Or them?


But the clock keeps ticking, and eventually we had to get to Austin.

Hey, a word of warning. If you have even a little tendency towards carsickness or vertigo, do not, I repeat, do NOT EVER take FM 1431 from Marble Falls east into Austin, Texas. My favorite golf pro told me it was the "scenic" route. Oh Lord, I have never been on such a roller coaster in my life. Up, down, up, down, right bank up, left bank down, tilt, roll, hang on! The wife had to close her eyes for most of the trip. I was nauseous and I have an iron stomach.

In Austin we had dinner with a guy and his wife that I had not seen since 1969. The guy, that is. He married her in 1979. We used to live back-to-back growing up in East Texas, and he was one of, if not my best friend. Oh, the whiffleball games we played. For some reason, I totally lost track of him after we moved. Just never kept in touch. I wish I hadn't done that, but it's a little late now. It was great catching up, but we only really had the time of one dinner, so I hope we can get together again and spend more time next time.

Out of all of the things that we regret in our lives, and everybody probably has a few, I regret losing touch with everyone I grew up with in East Texas. There's simply no good reason for it.

Spent the night in Austin at a Marriott. Hey, nicely done on the breakfast Marriott, with free wi-fi too, as it should be. Any hotel that still wants to charge you for internet service, fuck 'em! You hear that sis in Minnesota?

After Austin, it was a short drive down south to San Marcos to visit our two nephews, who are attending school there at Texas State University at San Marcos, nee Southwest Texas State University when I went there in the 1970's. It's twice the size now as it was then.

We were going to hit the outlet malls in San Marcos before getting back home, but we suddenly decided to skip that and hightail it back to Houston. This way, we'd get two full days to recuperate, unpack and unwind before getting back to work. And fortunately, we still have good jobs to get back to. Even better, our new irrigation system for the garden worked great while we were gone! But that's another post.

Here's hoping that America pulls its head out of its ass real soon, prosecutes the Bush Gang, restores the economy, revives peace, solves the energy crisis and builds sex hotels in space. Can't help it! I'm feeling optimistic (today).

Rush and hate speech

It's always refreshing to hear someone speak truth. It's a rarity. There's something really weird about the truth. It can be really powerful. Not that it will be, in this case, but it's nice to hear someone besides the "usual suspects" take Rush Limbaugh to task for his awful talk show bile.

Still, it's rather distressing, and it says nothing good about America, to know that Rush makes $80 million a year spewing filth and is the "most popular" talk radio voice out there. $80 million! For that garbage! What a country!

Freed Pirate Hostage Accuses Limbaugh of 'Hate Speech'
Shane Murphy Returns to Seekonk Home

SEEKONK, Mass. -- Shane Murphy, the second-in-command aboard the American merchant ship seized by pirates, lashed out at Rush Limbaugh for the talk show host's racial characterization in discussing the rescue of the ship's captain by the Navy. Click To Comment | Watch Video Murphy, who returned to his Seekonk, Mass., home Friday, called Limbaugh a purveyor of "hate speech." In commenting on the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips by the Navy Seals who shot and killed the three Somali pirates who were holding him captive, Limbaugh generated controversy when he called the pirates "black teenagers." "There you have it, three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama," said Limbaugh according to a transcript of an April 14 broadcast on his Web site. "Just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas," Limbaugh said. Murphy said Limbaugh's remarks were unacceptable. "It feels great to be home," Murphy said. "With the exception of Rush Limbaugh who is trying to make this into a race issue. It's disgusting." "The president did the right thing. It's a war. It's about good versus evil. And what you (Limbaugh) said is evil, that is hate speech. I won't tolerate it," Murphy said. SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images Murphy said he and his family have had a difficult time since his release and return to the United States. The intense public attention on the rescue of the crew of the Maersk Alabama has made adjustment to a normal family life difficult, he said. "We have not been left alone. We have not been allowed to go out and even do routine things," Murphy said. Murphy, who took command of the ship after Phillips was taken hostage, said he and his family are trying to get through it all.

Original is here. Or was, at least.