If you have any doubts that waterboarding is torture, take a look at this article from Salon which summarizes the contents of internal CIA documents recently released.
The documents … lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding “session.” Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to “dam the runoff” and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee’s mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second “applications” of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee’s nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.
***
One of the more interesting revelations in the documents is the use of a saline solution in waterboarding. Why? Because the CIA forced such massive quantities of water into the mouths and noses of detainees, prisoners inevitably swallowed huge amounts of liquid – enough to conceivably kill them from hyponatremia, a rare but deadly condition in which ingesting enormous quantities of water results in a dangerously low concentration of sodium in the blood. Generally a concern only for marathon runners , who on extremely rare occasions drink that much water, hyponatremia could set in during a prolonged waterboarding session. A waterlogged, sodium-deprived prisoner might become confused and lethargic, slip into convulsions, enter a coma and die.
Therefore, “based on advice of medical personnel,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury wrote in a May 10, 2005, memo authorizing continued use of waterboarding, “the CIA requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyponatremia.”
The entire range of techniques used by the CIA and explicated in the article is beyond sickening and horrifying. I cannot comprehend how this country could have allowed this to have happened, and to have planned the torture sessions in a careful and systematic manner to enhance the discomfort and terror of the victim.
How can the Obama administration continue to take the position that a criminal investigation of these activities is not essential to restore our country to the rule of law, both domestic and international?
Compare and contrast these two Republican views on ending “don’t ask, don’t tell.” (via Andrew Sullivan)
The reason why I supported the policy to start with is because General Colin Powell, who was then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the one that strongly recommended we adopt this policy in the Clinton administration. I have not heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position.
In the almost 17 years since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed. I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Paul Campos joins the ranks of those who view our current response to threats of terrorism realistically and not emotionally. He notes the remote risk than any particular US citizen will be a victim of terrorism, and yet we persist in imposing upon ourselves a huge costs in loss in freedom and efficiency in our impossible quest to make any terrorist incident “unacceptable.” Politicians also try to increase irrational fear for their own political gain. All of this makes clear that under our current approach the terrorists in fact are winning.
Far worse events than terrorists attacks occur in great numbers every day in the United States without being declared “unacceptable.”
Consider that on this very day about 6,700 Americans will die. When confronted with this statistic almost everyone reverts to the mindset of the title character’s acquaintances in Tolstoy’s great novella “The Death of Ivan Ilyich,” and indulges in the complacent thought that “it is he who is dead and not I.”
Consider then that around 1,900 of the Americans who die today will be less than 65, and that indeed about 140 will be children. Approximately 50 Americans will be murdered today, including several women killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and several children who will die from abuse and neglect. Around 85 of us will commit suicide, and another 120 will die in traffic accidents.
No amount of statistical evidence, however, will make any difference to those who give themselves over to almost completely irrational fears. Such people, and there are apparently a lot of them in America right now, are in fact real victims of terrorism. They also make possible the current ascendancy of the politics of cowardice—the cynical exploitation of fear for political gain.
It is well beyond time that we, as a country, focus on the reality of terrorism and understand that no terrorist can bring down our country. But we collectively can do the damage ourselves if we play the terrorist’s game.
It’s a remarkable fact that a nation founded, fought for, built by, and transformed through the extraordinary courage of figures such as George Washington, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. now often seems reduced to a pitiful whimpering giant by a handful of mostly incompetent criminals, whose main weapons consist of scary-sounding Web sites and shoe- and underwear-concealed bombs that fail to detonate.
The case of Maher Arar, a Candadian citizen, is appalling. David Cole, writing in the current issue of The New York Review of Books, outlines the terrible injustice done by the United States to this man, and the shameful failure of our court system to provide justice for violations of national and international prohibitions on torture. Here are the opening paragraphs, but read the entire story for yourself if you care about the duties of the United States that have been destroyed in the name of the war on terror
In the fall of 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen on his way home from Tunisia, was pulled out of line by US officials while changing planes at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport. He was locked up for twelve days, much of that time incommunicado, and harshly interrogated. When he was finally allowed to make a phone call, after a week in captivity, he called his mother in Canada, who found him a lawyer.
The lawyer saw Arar on Saturday. The very next night—a Sunday evening—immigration officials held an extraordinary six-hour hearing starting at 9 PM, orchestrated from Washington, D.C. When Arar asked to have his lawyer present, they told him that she had chosen not to participate in the hearing. In fact, the only “notice” they had provided was to leave a message on the lawyer’s office voice mail that Sunday night. She got the message Monday morning, and immediately called the immigration service. They told her, falsely, that Arar was being transferred to New Jersey, and she could contact him the next day. In fact, that night federal agents took him on a federally chartered jet to Jordan, and from there to Syria.
In Syria, Arar was handed over to intelligence officials who imprisoned him in a cell the size of a grave, three feet by six feet by seven feet. Syrian security agents tortured him, including beating him with an electric cable, while asking the same questions that FBI interrogators had been asking at JFK—was he a terrorist, was he linked to al-Qaeda, did he know various other persons thought to be associated with al-Qaeda? (The Syrian security forces are widely known for their use of torture, as the US State Department reports every year in its annual Human Rights Country Reports.) After a year, the Syrians released Arar, concluding that he had done nothing wrong.
Call it bait-and-switch. Obama ran on a platform that included stronger financial regulations and changes in the behavior that caused the economic collapse.
What has been the reality? Obama has filled the ranks of financial regulators and his economic advisors with Wall Street insiders. Matt Taibbi explicates:
Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it’s not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.
Then he got elected.
What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history.
I’m sure somebody will eventually be able to convince me that this is a bad idea, but my initial reaction to UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling’s temporary 50% bank bonus tax is why the heck not?
There are several reasons. One, this approach only applies to 30 individuals in all of Goldman. Two, Goldman has often paid large portions of bonuses in the past in the form of equity so this isn’t all that new. Three, the 30 affected individuals will receive only their bonuses in stock; they all received exceedingly large cash compensation. Keep in mind that Goldman this year has set aside $16.7 billion to pay its workers, or roughly $700,000 per employee. Four, you may recall that last year Goldman converted to a bank in order to receive large amounts of aid from the Federal Reserve, which they continue to profit from. Five, and most importantly, the only reason that Goldman stock is worth anything at all is that the Federal government bailed out both Goldman and, at least as importantly, AIG which was Goldman’s counterparty in a huge amount of toxic derivatives.
For those concerned about the likelihood of success in the upcoming 9/11 prosecutions in New York, you should understand that the DOJ believes it can be successful. For example, the United States Department of Justice, in a June, 2006, report, outlined its overwhelming success in prosecuting terrorism suspects in the United States courts. I would encourage reading at least the Executive Summary section of the report, which includes this:
Our international terrorism and terrorism-related cases draw on the full range of criminal charges available in the federal criminal code, according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The material support statutes have been a cornerstone of our success in terrorism financing cases as well as in a wide range of other cases addressing all types of support to terrorism. Our effective use of these statutes has allowed us to intervene at the early stages of terrorist planning, before a terrorist act occurs. We also have effectively used other terrorism and weapons of mass destruction statutes, and have drawn on more general statutes, such as immigration fraud and false statement offenses, where they apply in terrorism investigations. These statutes of more general application have been so important to our disruption efforts that U.S. Attorneys’ Offices around the country have undertaken numerous initiatives to expand their use of these statutes to further our prevention strategy.
Our successful prosecutions have produced cooperating defendants who have, in turn, provided intelligence information to investigators, prosecutors and national security officials, leading to further investigation, disruption and prosecution. This is one of a number of classic criminal enforcement approaches discussed below. Cooperation with our foreign partners has led to counterterrorism successes in foreign courts as well as in our own, and we discuss some of these cases in which such cooperation has been critical to success.
As for those concerned about the defendants making a spectacle out of the trial, and using it as a platform, I would ask why you believe that the statements from such individuals are more powerful than a presentation of the evidence against them in open court? Is our country (or our system of criminal justice) so fragile that it cannot stand strongly against the words of killers?
Further, compare the results obtained in terrorism cases in the courts versus the record of military convictions as of November 2008.
Although some have defended the commissions as an efficient form of military justice, their track record in prosecuting terrorism cases has been abysmal. Since their establishment, the commissions have concluded only three cases, two after trials and one based on a guilty plea. During the same time period, the federal courts have tried more than 107 terrorism cases, obtaining 145 convictions. Several defendants have been sentenced to life in prison.
Hold the trial of alleged 9/11 plotters in civil court, using American standards for criminal justice, and in New York, a scene of the attack, is an opportunity to show the world that our criminal justice system can handle the hardest cases, and at the same time provide defendants with fairness and openness. The complexity will be high, but the return to respect for the rule of law makes the effort worthwhile.
Republican lawmakers and the self-promoting independent senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, pounced on the chance to appear on television. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they said military tribunals are a more secure and appropriate venue for trying terrorism suspects. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a former judge who should have more regard for the law, offered the absurd claim that Mr. Obama was treating the 9/11 conspirators as “common criminals.”
There is nothing common about them — or Mr. Holder’s decision. Putting the five defendants on public trial a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center is entirely fitting. Experience shows that federal courts are capable of handling high-profile terrorism trials without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. Mr. Bush’s tribunals failed to hold a single trial.
If there’s one general lesson to be gleaned from Christie’s victory over Jon Corzine in New Jersey, it’s surely that in today’s zeitgeist it’s less of a stigma to be fat than a former Goldman Sachs fat cat, even in a blue state.
…
The Obama administration does not seem to understand that this rage, left unaddressed, could consume it. It has pushed aside the entreaties of many — including Paul Volcker, the chairman of the White House’s own Economic Recovery Advisory Board — to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Those behemoths, cushioned by the government’s bailouts, low-interest loans and guarantees, are back making bets that put the entire system at risk. Yet last Sunday, we once again heard the Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, on “Meet the Press” dodging questions about the banks in general and Goldman in particular with unpersuasive bromides. “We’re not going to let the system go back to the way it was,” he said.
– Frank Rich, warning about Democrats seeming embrace of the bankers and financiers who are primarily to blame for the economic collapse.
Did you know that the major countries around the world are in the process of negotiating a treaty to govern copyright law around the world? The treaty is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). No surprise if you didn’t know, because the treaty is being negotiated in secret, based on claims of national security.
Despite the lack of transparency, provisions are leaking out. Those particularly that relate to the Internet are outrageous and over-reaching to a degree unprecedented. Take a look. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is working the issue and deserves your support if you care about unfettered access to the Internet.
The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.