Torture Memos

Liz Cheney's Impeccable Timing

by: Daphne Eviatar Human Rights 1st

Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 13:53

It's nice to see that even conservatives are disgusted with Liz Cheney's latest attack on Eric Holder. As you've no doubt heard, Cheney is miffed that there are attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in the past, have defended people accused of nasty crimes.  Of course, that's what defense lawyers are supposed to do, but that doesn't stop Liz Cheney from sponsoring scary videos insinuating that defending someone swept up by US forces and accused of terrorism is just fundamentally worse than defending an ordinary serial murderer, rapist or corporate swindler.
There's More... :: (0 Comments, 606 words in story)

Pressure Mounts on DOJ to Produce Missing E-Mails

by: Daphne Eviatar Human Rights 1st

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 13:02

The pressure is growing on the Justice Department to produce supposedly "deleted" e-mails that could reveal whether government lawyers during the Bush administration were instructed to devise legal justifications for torture.
There's More... :: (0 Comments, 558 words in story)

Who Told John Yoo To Do Those 'Bad Things'?

by: Daphne Eviatar Human Rights 1st

Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 18:44

Among the many striking aspects of the Justice Department's recently-released ethics report on the creation of the "torture memos" are the repeated indications that John Yoo, the memos' principal author, was in frequent direct contact with the White House and under intense pressure to quickly approve abusive interrogation techniques that policymakers had already chosen to implement but knew might amount to torture.
There's More... :: (0 Comments, 1635 words in story)

Obama DOJ: It's official! Nazis were right, Nuremberg prosecutors wrong!

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 13:00

Don't look now, but Obama may have actually earned his Hitler mustache--By covering for Bush/Cheney

Josef Altstötter. Wilhelm von Ammon. Günther Joel. Herbert Klemm. Ernst Lautz. Wolfgang Mettgenberg. Rudolf Oeschey. Oswald Rothaug. Curt Rothenberger. Franz Schlegelberger.

These were the Nazi judges found guilty in the Judges Trial, the third of twelve Subsequent Nuremberg Trials, following the initial trial of the highest level Nazis.  The principal charges they were convicted of were:

* War crimes through the abuse of the judicial and penal process, resulting in mass murder, torture, plunder of private property.
* Crimes against humanity on the same grounds, including slave labor charges.

(Rothaug was acquitted of the first, convicted of the second.)

The Judges Trial was immortalized in the 1961 movie Judgment at Nuremberg starring Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Richard Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, Maximilian Schell, Judy Garland, and Montgomery Clift.  Now that is an all-star cast.  And the quality of the cast was a way of underscoring the seriousness and importance of the film's message--the message of the original trial itself.

Judgment at Nuremberg was the sort of movie that helped me feel like I was not a freak when I was growing up.  It helped me feel that I was the real American, and bigoted wingnuts I ran into from time to time were the despicable un-American scum.

But now, Obama & his "Department of Justice" has effectively declared that those men were unjustly convicted.  They were right, and the men who prosecuted them were wrong.  They may have been guilty of bad advice, or bad legal decisions, but misconduct?  Come on!

This isn't just a matter of "being on the wrong side of history."  This is changing sides more than 60 years after the fact, on the great issue of what constituted good and evil in World War II.  Sure, we expect the sociopathic neocons to come down on the side of the Nazis, and clueless fratboy Bush to sign on with his signature, "Whatever."  But Obama was supposed to be elected to clean up that mess.  To restore us to constitutional rule, at the very least.  Instead, he has given his impremature to reversing the judgment at Nuremberg.

Now, to be sure, the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility found that there had been misconduct, and that sanctions were appropriate.  And they were over-ridden by a career attorney--David Margolis--not an Obama appointment.  But it's also the case that Obama & Holder knew that it would play out this way, that Margolis was determined from the outset to shield Woo Yoo and Bybee, and by letting it play out this way, by the sin of ommission they are fully responsible for this outcome.

This is an act of pure evil.  It doesn't get any evilier than this.  You make think the act of torture is as evil as it gets.  But sending the message that those who set torture in motion were just a bit careless, nothing more--that opens the way for a future descent into the abyss, in which acts of torture become the norm.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.

Obama & Bush, together in "whatever."  The banality of evil on steroids.

Discuss :: (29 Comments)

Condoleezza Rice avows; President is above law

by: Betsy L. Angert

Fri May 01, 2009 at 21:07


Condi Rice Pulls a Nixon: If the President Orders Torture, It Must be Legal

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Students at Stanford stood still as they listened to former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice speak.  As the scholars pondered the words of the prominent woman who presented her case for waterboarding, many mused; "Is it Richard Nixon, or Condoleezza Rice?  Which person thinks a President is above the law?" One might wonder.  Those who viewed a video taped classroom conversation with Secretary Rice, today express astonishment as well.  In her defense for actions she took to advocate for this extreme interrogation techniques Condoleezza Rice both blamed her former boss, George W. Bush and justified his decision.

"The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture."
There's More... :: (2 Comments, 1969 words in story)

Tortured

by: Betsy L. Angert

Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 14:16

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Never for a moment in my life have I been "in love."  I do not believe in the notion.  Fireworks have not filled my heart.  Flames of a fiery passion do not burn within me.  Indeed, my soul has not been ablaze.  Thoughts of a hot-blooded devotion seem illogical to me.  Such sentiments always have.  Fondness too fertile is but torture for me.  I admire many, and adore none.  For me, the affection I feel for another is born out of sincere and profound appreciation.  To like another means more to me than to love or be loved.  Excitement, an emotional reaction to another, rises up within me when I experience an empathetic exchange with someone who has glorious gray matter.

Today, it happened.  I felt an a twinge that startled me.  I stood still as he entered the room.  I expected nothing out of the ordinary, or at least nothing other than what has become his recently adopted, more avoidant, routine.  Although long ago, I had become accustomed to his face, his voice, and his demeanor, for I have known the man for more than a few years.  In the last few weeks, while essentially he is who he always was, some of his stances have changed.  Possibly, Barry has felt a need to compromise his positions, but I wonder; what of his principles.

There's More... :: (1 Comments, 2740 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox