Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen - New England Patriots Forums

otis p. driftwood · 04-11-2008, 07:21 PM

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../09/democrats/

Salon dot com...hardly FoxNews, huh?
Oh, and the writer? He's:

Quote:

Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory

I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. I am the author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?" (May, 2006), a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, and "A Tragic Legacy" (June, 2007), which examines the Bush legacy. My third book, "Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics", examines the manipulative electoral tactics used by the GOP and propagated by the establishment press, and will be released in April, 2008, by Random House/Crown.

Quote:

Jay Rockefeller was one of the key Democrats briefed on the torture methods who never objected. But it's far worse than that. In September, 2006, Rockefeller was one of 12 Senate Democrats to vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act, one of the principal purposes of which was to explicitly authorize the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program" to proceed (even though it continues to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions). Thus, not only did Rockefeller remain silent when continuously briefed on illegal torture methods by the CIA, he then voted to legalize those methods by voting in favor of one of the most Draconian laws in modern American history. That law also retroactively immunized government officials from any liability for past lawbreaking.

Rockefeller is not just any Democrat. He is the individual whom the Democratic Senate caucus thereafter elected -- and still chooses -- to lead them on all matters relating to intelligence. Just consider how compromised he is and they are when it comes to investigating abuses by the intelligence community over the last six years. Rockefeller was complicit in all of those abuses, and the Democrats voted for him -- and still support him -- as their Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. How can Rockefeller possibly preside over meaningful investigations into conduct and policies -- including the destruction of the videotapes and the conduct which those videotapes would reveal -- of which he approved? And how can Senate Democrats pretend to be outraged at such policies when the leader they chose supports them?

This is exactly why I was so ambivalent, at best, about the Democrats' melodramatic protest that Michael Mukasey's refusal to condemn waterboarding as torture somehow placed him beyond the realm of the mainstream. Torture didn't become an American policy despite the best efforts of a righteous Democratic leadership to stop that. Torture became an American policy precisely because a meek and often outright supportive Democratic leadership continuously allowed it. As I wrote at the time the Democrats were pretending to consider impeding Mukasey's confirmation:

This notion that Mukasey's unwillingness to declare waterboarding categorically illegal crosses some sort of bright Beltway line seems equally unconvincing, even somewhat manipulative. It has long been known that the Bush administration directed the CIA (at least) to waterboard detainees who were convicted of nothing. There was very little real protest about any of that from any genuine Beltway power circles, including Senate Democrats.

In fact, even knowing that, the Military Commissions Act was enacted merely a year ago, deliberately leaving an unclear legal landscape (at best) as to whether waterboarding was outlawed. And Democrats did not even engage in the debate, and did not even try to mount any serious opposition to it. Quite the contrary, most of them were mute when the debate was being held, preferring to hide behind the McCain/Warner/Graham trio, and were even prepared to vote in favor of the Act until some last minute tinkering made without their participation offended them enough (on procedural grounds) to cause them to cast meaningless votes against it, long after its passage was guaranteed. . . .

But now, [Mukasey's radical beliefs] and he are well within mainstream Beltway ideology, thanks to some combination of acquiescence and active support from the core of both political parties. And there is something deeply artificial and manipulative about a Congress that has decided to permit all of these things to take root to pretend suddenly that they are so offended by them, that what Mukasey believes crosses their bright lines so clearly that he cannot be confirmed.

***IcyPatriot*** · 04-11-2008, 08:51 PM

Bump...........

***patsfan13*** · 04-11-2008, 11:03 PM

Looks like some folks are hiding.....

***weswelker#83*** · 04-11-2008, 11:07 PM

Wait a minute , what is is this ?

Quote:

UPDATE: Law Professor Michael Froomkin has an insightful refutation to the claim that Rockefeller, Harman and friends were "helpless" upon learning of the administration's illegal torture program based on the excuse that they were legally compelled to maintain the secrecy of this classified information. I actually have some additional thoughts on this topic as well regarding other mechanisms they could have invoked (which I touched on the other day here, and will write more about tomorrow), but Froomkin raises an important point I hadn't thought of.

Wildo7 · 04-12-2008, 02:54 AM

While the democrats were inexcusable in not standing up to this (amongst many other things); every time they voiced any opposition to the "war on terror" they were accused of "sympathizing with terrorists" and idiots like Fake World claimed that they "supported Saddam" because they opposed certain methods of the administration. This is a criticism that Americans should have of democrats for failing to be a sufficient opposition party. However; because they were the driving force behind these crimes, and because of their own "Rovian" devices in quelling dissension, the right cannot seriously cite the democrats' complicity in their atrocities as justification for their crimes. sorry.

***DarrylS*** · 04-12-2008, 03:26 AM

Does not make any different who is complicit, torture is something that the US should not take part in.. to publicly condone it will have ripple effects on the US for a very long time.

otis p. driftwood · 04-12-2008, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

Does not make any different who is complicit, torture is something that the US should not take part in.. to publicly condone it will have ripple effects on the US for a very long time.

So when it's all GWB and Dick Cheney they're evil creatures who need to be hunted down, arrested and executed, but when Democrats are complicit, "it doesn't make any difference" or they have to do it because they get called names if they don't?

Okay, I see how it is.

***DarrylS*** · 04-12-2008, 03:32 AM

As you feel the Glen Greenwald has credibility, figured I would post this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...an_hypocrites/

Quote:

All of the radical and reprehensible events of the last eight years -- the commencement and endless prosecution of an indescribably disastrous war, the accelerated dismantling of our Constitutional framework, the creation of a lawless Surveillance State and a virtually omnipotent President, the legitimization of truly grotesque torture and detention regimes, the complete corruption of our political discourse -- have individuals and a political movement behind them, causing all of that to happen. They have cultivated the ability to manipulate media behavior, largely as a result of a media eager to help. But what they do not have is popular support for virtually anything they are doing. And yet they continue to win elections.

How and why that happens -- the deceitful electoral tactics and manipulative personality-based myths the Right has perfected and continuously deploys to win elections, and the ways in which our slothful, vapid and complicit establishment press propagates those myths -- is the principal subject of this book. And understanding and exposing that right-wing/media partnership is a necessary precondition for weakening it.

In a minimally rational world, a Republican presidential candidate like John McCain who has enabled all of that would have no chance. But -- in the absence of anything changing the way this works -- the establishment press will remove those considerations from its election coverage and the GOP's exploitation of bottom-feeding personality-based psychological, cultural and gender themes will predominate. In 2008, the GOP will dedicate itself single-mindedly to these same personality-based, manipulative electoral tactics because that is their only hope for winning.

There simply cannot be any greater priority than preventing a John McCain Presidency, one which would empower the same faction and continue the same policies that have been slowly though inexorably destroying this country, its institutions and political values. Understanding and neutralizing these tactics and the enabling media behavior is a prerequisite for preventing that.

otis p. driftwood · 04-12-2008, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weswelker#83

Wait a minute , what is is this ?

Don't try to play with the big dogs Wes. Stay on the porch, if that's all you're going to pull out of there. Because your cute little "wait, what's this?" act is BS.

Quote:

Digby has additional thoughts on this same subject here. The bottom line is that the law requires that Intelligence Committee members such as Pelosi, Harman and Rockefeller be briefed on such activities not because briefings are fun or intrinsically valuable. Rather, the whole point of their being briefed is that they are expected to engage in oversight, which means that they are supposed to do something when they learn that the President and the CIA are breaking the law.

Why would they even bother to go to the briefings if they tell themselves ahead of time: "even if intelligence officials confess to serial, deliberate lawbreaking and vow to continue breaking the law, there is absoultely nothing I can do about it, because I'm sworn to secrecy"? That's absurd. Their obligation to maintain the secrecy of classified information applies to proper and legal intelligence activities. They're not only able, but duty-bound, to act to impede patent lawbreaking (such as torture). That's the whole purpose of "oversight."

otis p. driftwood · 04-12-2008, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GJAJ15

As you feel the Glen Greenwald has credibility, figured I would post this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...an_hypocrites/

Hmm. A nice stab at deflecting the point of the OP, changing the subject and stuff. Go put it in your own thread, and lets talk about it there.