If you listened to NPR Tuesday morning you might be surprised to know that in the US there are such things as laws on torture and that those who flagrantly violate them are subject to prosecution. In Tuesday morning's coverage of the torture memo release there was no suggestion that law has anything to do with it, or that we actually have a Constitution that requires that treaties and laws be enforced.
What we do get is Mary Louise Kelly issuing a vigorous defense of the CIA's right to torture detainees. She begins her defense with some rather bold disinformation as she covers President Obama's reception by members of the CIA, a reception which was according to Montagne "a surprisingly warm welcome." After hearing the CIA employees whooping and cheering for Obama (keep in mind that he just released the torture memos) Kelly concludes
"clearly the silent warriors of the CIA needed to blow off some steam."That's odd, because the last time I looked, blowing off steam is what people do when they're really angry at someone. In case you still don't buy Kelly's dishonest fabrication she declares - apropos of nothing -
"the roaring reception for President Obama belied the deep concern CIA officials feel for his decision to declassify the memos. On FOX News this past weekend..."Did I say apropos of nothing? Oops, I stand corrected - Kelly picked up her facts from FOX News! Kelly's not done, either. Anyone who gives a crap about our country's Constitutional values and about the rule of law might be a tad appalled at the sickening details of torture in the released memos and might even be wondering when investigations and prosecutions will begin. But not Mary Louise
"the big question hanging over all this is what happens now if the US government finds itself holding a terrorist with knowledge of an upcoming attack on the US who won't talk."What more can you say to this? Well, Kelly has plenty. She asserts that
"there seems to be general consensus on this point that whatever legal guidelines the task force eventually agrees on, the President must still be able to grant the CIA emergency authorization for more aggressive tactics."To prove her point she turns to a former general counsel to the CIA and a former Deputy Director of the CIA, who - surprise - agree wholeheartedly with Kelly.
And then there was Juan.
After Kelly's assault, why not just go right to the FOX himself, Juan Williams? Montagne and Williams spend four minutes rehashing all the authoritarian protorture critiques of Obama's release of the memos.
There is never a mention of law, treaties, or the Constitution. Instead Williams cites Cheney several times, noting that Cheney "says they got critical information out of these detainees" and this whopper:
"that there's no benefit to the US in confirming these reports and Vice President Cheney's point is that those reports and the memos contain only the detainees' side of the story because they don't reveal what further terrorist acts were prevented by getting this information at that point, arguably a critical point."
According to Montagne and Williams its not about the rule of law, or the threat to all of us that torture represents - it's about attitude. And what is that attitude? Let's let Montagne sum it up in her inimitable way:
"...how much is this about extreme techniques preventing another 9-11 as many critics have claimed?"
Fortunately in the real world we still have some semblance of laws and citizens can act to pressure officials and representatives to enforce these laws. You can visit the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights or Amnesty International among others to take action now.
9 comments:
Had he not committed suicide in the bunker, Goebbels would have surely faced charges at the Nuremburg War Crimes trial. I hope there's a place in the dock in the Hague for NPR when Bush, Cheney, Yoo and the others finally get what's coming to them.
"the big question hanging over all this is what happens now if the US government finds itself holding a terrorist with knowledge of an upcoming attack on the US who won't talk." M.L. Kelly
The big question hanging over all this SHOULD be somewhat different I think. If there is evidence that the US adopted, as policy, activities known to be criminal in nature according to both domestic and international law (i.e. torture), and there are no legal remedies isn't the US simply claiming ground that they denied Japanese and German "war criminals"?
edk
"the big question hanging over all this is what happens now if the US government finds itself holding a terrorist with knowledge of an upcoming attack on the US who won't talk." M.L. Kelly
Ah, yes, the old "Ticking Time bomb" scenario put forward by great legal minds like Harvard Law School's Alan Derschowitz.
As others have noted (too many times to list here), there is a fatal flaw in the logic of the "Ticking Bomb" scenario and it is pretty simple to spot (my niece in high school saw it immediately when I asked her about it)
How can you know that the person you "find yourself holding"**
1) actually is a "terrorist" (by what standard and by what evidence? [whose claim?])
2) actually has "knowledge of an upcoming attack on the US" and simply refuses to talk about it?
**stunning use of euphemistic imagery, by the way. "hey, I just 'found' this guy in the 'terrorist holding tank' this morning. must have wandered in last night looking for a place to sleep...either that or he was plotting with his other friends that we found ourselves holding last week"
Putting aside for the moment the questions about the legality of torture under US laws and Constitution including treaties the US has ratified (questions that, as we all know, are merely of academic interest and even then, only of interest at certain ultra-left-wing-liberal law schools)
How willing are you to torture an innocent person?
How willing are you to torture a "terrorist" (by what standard and based on what evidence?) who does not know anything about "an upcoming attack"?
How do you know there is an "upcoming attack on the US?"
How do you know (ahead of time) that the information the tortured person gives you (presumably) will be either true or accurate?
"there seems to be general consensus on this point that whatever legal guidelines the task force eventually agrees on, the President must still be able to grant the CIA emergency authorization for more aggressive tactics." -- MLK (not Martin Luther King, of course)
Obviously, ionce you set aside the "confining" restrictions of US laws, US ratified treaties and the US Constitution, the President can do anything he damned well pleases so whether "the President [is] still able to grant the CIA emergency authorization for more aggressive tactics" is a bit of a moot issue.
Just a bit.
for anyone who has not listened to the above NPR piece, I'd simply say "don't bother" (unless you want heartburn or worse)
Any "journalist" who "fails to discuss" the issue of "illegality of torture under US and international law" is simply not worthy of a listen. They are a joke and not a very good one at that.
For anyone who actually wants to learn something, I suggest you listen to a program like "Between the Lines"
I have been emailing NPR's Ombudsman about this all freakin' week. I have yet to hear a response about their stupid, vacuous, incorrect, and unethical "reporting" on torture. I have also asked them repeatedly why they refuse to use the word "torture" to describe TORTURE. I am so sick of NPR I can't see straight anymore.
I've emailed Glenn Greenwald and others about this. I sincerely hope someone takes NPR down -- where is Jon Stewart when you need him?! Too bad he doesn't deal with radio...
I have sent many e-mails to a show called "Speaking of Faith" asking them to do a show about the morality of torture being used by a so-called Christian country. They have even stopped sending robo-acknowledgements of the receipt of my suggestion. Guess Krista Tippets has more weighty issues to discuss. Like Wiccans. Gheese Louise!
edk
They have even stopped sending robo-acknowledgements of the receipt of my suggestion. "
As george Will learned recently when he got spanked by the blogosphere 9and scientists) over his false comments on sea ice, the blogosphere is a double edged sword.
of course, one can simply ignore bloggers entirely (because as every "journalist knows" bloggers are no treal journalists).
But as Will found out, one ignores them at the expense of one's credibility -- and not just among bloggers.
Even Will's own colleagues at the Washington Post are now spanking him on the sea ice issue and on global warming in general.
Those who do not acknoweldge the power of bloggers and other members of the alternative media do so at their own peril and risk becoming entirely irrelevant except among a relatively small group of cheerleaders.
When NPR ignores the legitimate gripes of its listeners, it too risks becoming irrelevant (if it has not already become irrelevant, that is).
It depends on whether or not one defines waterboarding and sleep deprivation as torture. It's a fair question to ask, as being uncomfortable and sometimes in fear (justifiably or not) for ones life does not demand a definition of torture. If it does, then all of us are tortured by someone, or something. What about our own detainees in this country - it sounds to me like their environment is infinitely more torturous than GITMO, or does some arbitrary verdict of guilty absolve us of treating them as well?
"It depends on whether or not one defines waterboarding ...as torture."
What matters is not whether you or I define it as such, but whether US law (including treaties that the US has ratified) defines waterboarding as torture.
And the relevant laws and treaties DO.
You (and Dick Cheney) are free to disagree, but that does not change the law.
You may not be aware of it, but The US government executed Japanese prisoners during WWII for waterboarding.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html
"On November 29, 2007, Sen. McCain, while campaigning in St. Petersburg, Florida, said,
"Following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding."
Post a Comment