Torture PTSD, Twinkies and Galileo

In "No Harm No Foul" Digby links an important piece on lasting psychological damage from torture, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Further proof for the pile. "It's Never The Crime ..." covers news from The Daily Telegraph (UK) that the unreleased Abu Ghraib photos include evidence of rape and sexual abuse reported by General Taguba previously. The Obama White House has pushed back on the Telegraph's credibility. Several questions remain. Are rape photos part of the group of photos requested through the Freedom of Information Act and now being withheld? And, as Nick Baumann asks, if there's clear photographic evidence of rape, why has no one been prosecuted for that?

Think Progress has a ten-page piece on "Why Bush’s ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program Failed" that can be read on their site or downloaded as a PDF. It's also further proof for the pile, and a useful overview.

Finally, Scott Horton has two valuable pieces, "Cheney Prepares the Twinkie Defense," dissecting Cheney's speech from last week, and "Galileo and Gitmo." Horton's always insightful, but this latter piece is a cut above for all that. If you're a fan of both Galileo and Brecht (as I am), you'll really appreciate it, and even if you're not, I think you'll find it memorable.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Eclectic Jukebox 5/28/09

Philip Glass – "Knee 1" from Einstein on the Beach

Just the music, but if you're a Glass fan, who needs more?

Cheney's Gambit

When Dick Cheney and the rest of the chipper Cheney clan make a media appearance, the only real question is whether they'll try out any new lies or stick with their favorites. McClatchy provides a great fact-checking of Dick Cheney's speech this past Thursday.

Talking Points Memo also does some fact-checking, and Matthew Alexander thoroughly rebuts and dissects Cheney. Dick Durbin was wise enough to cite Alexander on Meet the Press - leading Newt Gingrich to smear Alexander, a decorated officer. (As always, Gingrich and his ilk only care about the troops as props.)

In "Cheney's Desperate Defense," Dan Froomkin does a superb job zeroing in on Cheney's most crucial lie:

Former vice president Dick Cheney's snarling, duplicitous speech contrasting Bush and Obama administration counter-terrorism policies yesterday is best seen in the context of his understandably strong desire to avoid investigation or prosecution in the near future -- and ignominy in the history books.

While his speech is primarily being touted as a ferocious attack on President Obama -- and it certainly was that -- what Cheney is really doing is playing defense.

Running through his remarks were several familiar themes: That investigating what really happened during the past eight years is tantamount to prosecution, that criminalizing political behavior would be a terrible precedent, and that the Bush administration had absolutely nothing to do with the kind of abuse illustrated by the notorious photographs from Abu Ghraib prison.

That final point is really key. For five years, ever since the photos became public, Bush officials have been engaged in a concerted disinformation campaign aimed at denying that White House policy was in any way responsible for the widespread abuse of detainees.

I describe new evidence of that disinformation campaign in an article on NiemanWatchdog.org today. One of the torture memos released last month proves how baldly then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was lying in June 2004, as he tried to distance the administration from what happened at Abu Ghraib.

The latest iteration of the campaign has been Cheney's relentless focus on debating the appropriateness and efficacy of the techniques used on "high-value" detainees at CIA secret prisons. Cheney realizes that even if he loses this argument, as far as the American public is concerned, it's a close call.

To avoid more scrutiny, it's essential that he keep distancing the administration from the kind of abuse that is universally considered indefensible.

This is exactly right, and can't be emphasized enough. The abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were authorized at the very top, they were deliberate policies, and current estimates indicate over one hundred prisoners are dead as a result. Additionally, Cheney wants cherry-picked releases to come out, not the whole picture.

Froomkin links some other very valuable pieces, including Fred Kaplan's debunking of some Cheney straw men, and Dana Milbank's tally of the fear count in Cheney's speech and a valuable observation from Joe Conason:

Beyond the distortions and the lies, there was one passage in Cheney's speech that underlined the authoritarian character of the former vice president and his hosts. Not only must we not reverse the policies of the previous administration, but according to him, we should not even debate them -- because the merest discussion of the troubling issues raised by the war on terrorism only encourages the enemy.

Froomkin also highlights an excellent piece by attorney Eric Lewis:

Former Vice President Cheney has masterfully shifted the debate about torture from the realm of law and ethics to that of pure efficacy...

The absolute prohibition on torture is not based on a consensus that it never works. Rather, it is based on the sad realization that the impulse to torture is ever-present; that human beings who are frightened or zealous or full of rage -- as human beings invariably are -- will feel a powerful need to torture and a powerful justification for acting on that need. It is useful to recall the understandable fear and anger after September 11 not to justify or excuse torture, but to understand that it is precisely at the moment of most stress that the norm against torture must be powerfully affirmed...

We do not allow torture in the ticking time bomb scenario because when the would-be torturer looks out on the landscape, he sees it littered with ticking time bombs and people who might know something about them. We do not balance the costs and benefits to see if torture works because there will always be some argument that can be made that it works or it might work or people believed at the time that it would.

I'd recommend reading all of Lewis' piece, and Froomkin's.

Moving on, Publius makes a good observation on the long game of Cheney:

It’s a pretty neat trick. The Bush/Cheney administration radicalizes a new generation of terrorists through actions like torture and unnecessary wars. Then, when the blowback comes, they’ll try to blame it on someone else – specifically, on the people trying to clean up their mess. It's like dousing a house with gasoline, and then blaming the cleanup crew when someone comes along with a match trying the burn the thing down.

The Daily Show has a great take on all this silliness, of course.

As Eric Martin observes (and Stewart and Colbert show), fact-checking public figures typically isn't too hard – but mainstream media outlets frequently avoid it, so credit goes to McClatchy. I caught Bob Schieffer's commentary on a CBS newscast, and predictably, he only spoke of the politics of whether Obama could sell his Gunatanamo plan. Schieffer didn't raise any civil liberties concerns about Obama's speech, and he completely ignored glaring lies by Cheney.

As with almost every other issue, the media's problem with the torture "debate" is that they do not fact-check, give context or call bullshit. Regardless of how crazy, dishonest or outrageous a speaker is (as long as s/he is a conservative), s/he will be granted legitimacy, and the Overton window is generally pushed to the right. This also reduces almost every issue or "debate" to a matter of mere opinion and headline-filling partisan attacks, versus an examination of facts or a discussion of the consequences of policies. Difference of opinion are one thing, but often viewers are left to decide between two different realities, generally without the context to do so - and "splitting the difference" down the middle usually will lead to an inaccurate picture (as is intended by hacks). For a variety of reasons, the media hold conservatives to a much lower standard than they do Democrats and liberals, and while plenty of congressional Dems are less than honorable, conservatives simply lie more often and about more serious matters. I wish none of this was the case, but it is. As Geoffrey Nunberg's observed, political talk shows are essentially cast as sitcoms versus being news to inform the public.

See also Emptywheel 1, Emptywheel 2 and Roy Edroso. Greg Sargent and Steve Benen take a look at the media's crazy deference to - and defense of - Dick Cheney. The busy Benen also weighs in on the possible role of the Cheney book deal, the false claim that DNI Dennis Blair endorsed torture, Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich's ridiculous number of media appearances and Liz Cheney's ridiculous number of media appearances:

There's no modern precedent for such a ridiculous arrangement. Dick Cheney launches a crusade against the White House, and major outlets look for analysis from Cheney's daughter? Who everyone already realizes agrees with everything he says about torture?

To be fair and balanced, they'll book Lynn Cheney next.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Not Writing for Power

Scott Horton recently interviewed Chinese playwright and activist Sha Yexin. One exchange particularly stuck out for me:

5. At the recent Beijing meeting on Chinese drama and literature, you said that playwrights should never forget the role of literature and the aim of writing, and that they should never write for power. Could you elaborate on that?

Why shouldn’t one write for power? Here are my reasons:

First, power corrupts. The British historian Lord Acton said: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This famous quotation has now become political common sense. Its correctness has been borne out by the intensifying corruption in China, where power is exercised without oversight or restraint. When corruption and power exist in co-prosperity, how can people fight corruption? In present-day China, anti-corruption is kept at a certain level to ensure that people will not revolt while power will not get out of control. In some districts, corrupt elements have become leaders of the anti-corruption effort. Undiscovered corrupt officials are fighting those already exposed.

Second, power makes people stupid. By using mathematical theories, the American scholar Jonathan Bendor proves the great value of independent thinking and the limitations of decision makers. When leaders are too busily occupied with myriad state affairs, institutional methods can be used to ease their cognitive constraints, by seeking wise solutions from among the people and encouraging independent thinking in government officials. But in a totalitarian country, such institutional methods do not and cannot exist.

Most power-holders in such countries are fond of dictatorship. Each of them puts forward his “ideas” and “theories” when it is his turn to rule the country, hoping to see his thought adopted as the “guideline” to unify the thinking of the whole nation. Acting in this way, they deprive themselves of the kind of wisdom and talent that are needed to solve the thorny problems facing the country. As a bunch of dumbbells, they can not help becoming an object of ridicule among the people.

Third, power brings flip-flops and hence suffering to the people. Since power has reduced the wisdom and intelligence of the power-holders and their think tanks, setbacks caused by repeated policy changes including the adoption of reactionary measures are bound to occur. Frequent ideological reversals and repeated changes in ideas and policy bring about great social instability. It becomes very difficult to attain a truly harmonious society and avoid more flip-flops in the future.

Fourth, power produces cruelty. Those who hold power can be overwhelmed by the glare of the spotlight that accompanies power. They may experience a peak period in which they feel accomplishment, happiness, or pleasure. But according to Abraham Maslow, the American psychologist, this peak period does not last long. The powerful had problems coping with the end of this period. Once they reject oversight, checks and balances that come from outside, they immediately become completely irrational and inhuman. If someone wants to share power with them or seeks to replace them with new power-holders, they become mad and cruel, and have no scruples in resort to guns, cannons, and tanks, producing huge social disasters.

If you are a writer who writes for power, objectively you are working, directly or indirectly, for corruption and stupidity, for more suffering and cruelty for the people. You may have some excuses if you are forced to write for power. If you write for power out of your own will, how can you evade your responsibility as an accomplice?

As may be easily understood, what I am speaking about is power in a totalitarian state. It is power without oversight and constraints, as compared with power born from democratic elections. Refusing to write for power also means refusing to write according to the will of those in power, or to promote their ideology in one’s writings.

One may choose to write for any other purpose: to write for art, for life, for oneself or others. But he or she must not write for power.

I haven't read any plays by Sha Yexin yet, but now I want to seek them out. There are many different reasons to write, but over here in the States it can be easy to take the freedom to write for granted. The stakes for Sha Yexin are higher.

When I briefly studied in Russia, my group was told harrowing tales of how artists of all sorts were treated in the Soviet era (The Great Terror has a good chapter on it). Some stories were absolutely heart-breaking. One of my favorite writers, Mikhail Bulgakov, was basically tormented by Stalin, despite Stalin's love of Bulgakov's play The White Guard (also known as Last Days of the Turbins). Bulgakov's masterpiece, The Master and Margarita, was passed around for years in underground samizdat copies after his death (he died at age 48 before he could fully revise the second half). Decades later, an abridged version was published, and eventually, a full version. (The German film The Lives of Others captures a similar samizdat dynamic very well.)

I'll pass on some other images. An arts patron we met temporarily renamed his restaurant "Speak Out" after the end of the Soviet Union, because it felt important to him at the time. And our lead teacher – who was more brilliant even when drunk (a rarity) then almost anyone I've ever met - showed us with his lectures and conversations that simply surviving, remembering what had actually happened in the Soviet era, and telling it to others became an act of conscience. I had a movement teacher (who used to design nuclear missile silos!) who once lived in a border town where he was able to get records of jazz and rock music, which were banned or restricted. To escape detection, he and others would set up their record players in their basements, and dance away to the music, often alone. This guy had crazy moves – he had a tall, lanky build and could move his hands and legs to different rhythms in different time signatures - and I've always loved that image of secret dancing at night in the basement.

In general, what I value the most from my time in Russia is coming to understand that many Russians have much deeper expectations for their art. I had an acting teacher who said he had mixed feelings about a new production of Chekhov's Three Sisters we saw, that it was beautifully staged, but that "it wasn't life." At first, I thought that was a bit harsh, but by the end of my stay, I understood what he was talking about. (And he was a phenomenal teacher – the best audience for a monologue you could ever hope to have, living and dying with every line. He was the Michael Chekhov expert, stressing: zydes, ceychas, civodnya - here, now, today.)

It's not as if every act of writing is political or needs to be profound, though. For instance, The Master and Margarita is quite profound, but it's also a comic novel, witty and entertaining. Use whatever metaphor or motivation for writing works for ya - Annie Dillard's "living like weasels," Natalie Goldberg's "writing down the bones," Lanford Wilson's "burn this" or something else altogether. But I appreciate Sha Yexin's great observation above about not writing for power, and it's a good one to remember. It also makes me think of one of my favorite pieces on writing, William Faulkner's Nobel speech (although it seems a crime to quote just a section). The last line below is my favorite:

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Obama's Speech on Security and Values

Questiongirl posted the video of the speech here, and you can read the transcript here.

I appreciate that Obama actually speaks to the public as adults, and am sympathetic to the ridiculous amount of challenges before him, many with powerful, entrenched interests against him, and an conscienceless, obstructionist minority party. (Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I want him to succeed, and plenty of conservatives do, too.) In the speech, Obama offered some on-target critiques to puncture some of the astounding idiocy of our national discourse, particularly the current fear-mongering over terrorists killing everyone in their beds after escaping from prison.

However, the speech had plenty of troubling sections, too. Dan Froomkin has a great overview (emphasis mine):

But in some parts of his speech, Obama appeared to be defending actions and even taking positions that didn't live up to his own professed standards.

When it came to what to do with the detainees at Guantanamo, he declared that he would work to create a system that would enable the indefinite detention without trial for a limited number of people whom the government is unable to prosecute for past crimes, but whom are nevertheless considered to be threats to the country. Even though he spoke of establishing lawful standards and periodic reviews, that's a dangerously extreme policy proposal. He once again expressed his intention to use a reformed military commission process for some detainees -- but gave no reason to think it won't run into many of the same legal challenges that Bush's process did. He spoke of sending many detainees to face trial in federal courts -- but then promised that no one would be released who endangers our national security. The whole point of a fair judicial system is that the executive can't guarantee the results.

Obama spoke passionately about his commitment to transparency, but offered up the same lousy and unpersuasive excuses he did last week for his decision to fight the court-ordered release of more photos of prison abuse. In particular, the weight he put on his responsibility not to release information that would inflame our enemies was deeply disturbing.

He offered no additional clarity regarding his position on the state secrets doctrine, where his lofty promises still stand in dramatic conflict with what his administration is actually doing.

And in continuing to oppose the creation of an independent commission that would fully investigate the abuses of the Bush administration, he marginalized those of us who want to find out what happened as polarizers, much like those who continue to doggedly defend Bush policies. He said the recent debate has obscured the truth -- when all we want is to let it free.

See also Glenn Greenwald, DDay and Digby. As they say, look at Obama's actions. And what disappoints me about Obama is the many places he's running things too closely to the horribly ineffective Bush playbook – as captured in this Tom Toles cartoon. It'd be one thing if Obama were letting Attorney General Eric Holder do his job and enforce the law when it came to Bush era abuses, but DDay's piece passes on a troubling report:

On at least one issue, though, Obama seems to have made up his mind. Isikoff reports that Obama announced his opposition to torture prosecutions--an unsurprising admission, perhaps, but one that must have disappointed many in attendance. Previously he had said that the question of investigation and prosecuting Bush administration officials was one for Holder to answer. But with Holder sitting right beside him, there's no doubt he's feeling pressure to, as they say, look forward, not backward.

If this is true, it's not good. I'm glad Obama's meeting with civil rights groups, but we've seen that the GOP will not stop gross abuses of power voluntarily. I understand Obama not publicly leading the charge on an investigation, and he was correct that Congress and the courts can proceed. But the Justice Department can and should, and is in fact legally obligated to do so. The Departments of Defense, Treasury, Energy, and Health and Human Services all have steep tasks ahead of them, but that's why there's more than one department in the government and more than one cabinet official. While I continue to hope the best for Obama and his administration, there is absolutely no scenario where public pressure to do the right thing won't make things better. We need a full investigation into human rights abuses (and on Wall Street, among other places). These aren't distractions, they're the tasks at hand, and essential to address for a successful long game.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Eclectic Jukebox 5/21/09

Metric - "Sick Muse"

Just the music, although I hear there's an official video coming out at some point.

A Venn Diagram on Torture Apologia

(Click for a larger view.)
This isn't entirely tongue-in-cheek, although if we're discussing the subject seriously, the diagram has its, uh, limitations. The common characteristic of an apologist is that he or she is working from the conclusion backwards, which is why some of his or her arguments are so weak or nonsensical. Working from left to right:

"No prosecutions" - A percentage of people who oppose prosecutions can't fairly be called apologists. They oppose torture, know most of the evidence but think that prosecutions will be nearly impossible to obtain. Consequently, they support a truth commission or something similar instead, to get the truth out and, they hope, stop such abuses from happening again. I don't think there's any good reason to believe the perpetrators and their ilk won't abuse power again without prosecutions, but at least one can have a good faith debate with this section of the "no prosecutions" group. (Thankfully, some in this camp have changed their minds due to new revelations.)

Most in the "no prosecutions" crowd, however, are Beltway pundits who have chosen to ignore the major evidence while simultaneously inveighing against any accountability. It makes little sense to oppose prosecutions before everything is investigated – and makes even less sense when what we've learned to date is absolutely damning. Their rhetoric can be evasive, but many in the chattering class actually back:

"No investigations" - Among the Beltway crowd, a slightly smaller subset of the "no prosecutions" group doesn't want any sort of real investigation, either. This attitude is precisely what David Gregory expressed this past Sunday. He and his kind don't want to know the truth (then they might feel obligated to do something). Pretending Nancy Pelosi forced Dick Cheney to order torture helps them pretend that it's bipartisan wisdom to ignore everything that happened. (No one opposes investigations but supports prosecutions – although that was kind of the Bush administration position with Guantanamo prisoners.)

Obviously, the perpetrators themselves and their closest allies don't want any investigation, and certainly want to avoid a trial at all costs.

"Don’t stop torture" - Most of the partisan, diehard torture apologists such as David Rivkin and the happy Cheney family are out there falsely claiming that torture "worked" – that our national security is endangered without torture – and that torture shouldn't be called torture when they do it. The Fox News crew are glad to spread this propaganda, and the more idiotic talking heads at other news outlets parrot this as well.

Some among this set talk about disclosure, but they don't really want a full investigation – they only want some cherry-picked documents released. A small percentage of true believers out there believe a full investigation will vindicate them and their pro-torture stance, but the professional hacks and perpetrators know better. The ridiculous Pelosi witch hunt is a calculated distraction, an aggressive, bullying poker bluff (I'm sure I can mix one more metaphor) to try to get people to back off. If they really wanted the truth to come out, they wouldn't just be focused on Pelosi, but would back the obvious solution – a full investigation. (Pelosi has supported this, and the truth seems to be catching up with some of the national hullabaloo on this.)

"You can have this torture victim's cold, dead body when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" – Some apologists are zealous proponents of torture. Others just play them on TV. You may remember the competitive machismo of the Republican primary candidates during the Fox News debate, when they were thrown a softball question straight from 24 about a ticking time bomb. Save for John McCain and Ron Paul, they all bragged about how much and how quickly they'd torture a dastardly terrorist. Stephen Colbert had a great segment on it, and quipped, "Nothing pumps up a crowd of primary voters in my home state like endorsements of fictional torture."

Meanwhile, in terms of what we should push for, I think it looks something like this:

(Click for a larger view.)
The law mandates that credible allegations of torture must be investigated, and the evidence to date does not support a good faith defense. It's hard to believe that, were the law followed, unhindered by political considerations, some of the targets would not serve jail time. As retired Major General Antonio Taguba states, "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account." But let's have a full investigation un-hobbled by immunity given out prematurely and indiscriminately, and see where it leads.

(Much more in "Torture Versus Freedom.")

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Anti-Terrorist Fantasy Dream Team on the Case

Together Again for the First Time!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC – Seeking to quell fears of terrorists somehow breaking out of America's top-security prisons and wreaking havoc on the defenseless heartland, President Barack Obama moved quickly to announce an Anti-Terrorist Strike Force headed by veteran counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer and mutant superhero Wolverine. Already dubbed a "dream team," their appointment is seen by experts as a crucial step in reducing the mounting incidents of national conservatives and congressional Democrats crapping their pants.

"I believe a fictional threat is best met with decisive fictional force," explained President Obama. "Jack Bauer and Wolverine are among the very best we have when in comes to combating fantasy foes." Mr. Bauer said, "We're quite certain that our prisons are secure. Osama bin Laden and his agents wouldn't dare attempt a break-out, and would fail miserably if they tried. But I love this country. And should Lex Luthor, Magneto or the Loch Ness Monster attack, we'll be there to stop them."

The move has already earned widespread praise, and veteran columnist David Broder hailed the bipartisan nature of the team. But not all were convinced. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) scoffed, "I thought the president was a Spiderman guy. And what a surprise that a Canadian would use knives on his hands versus a good ol' fashioned American Uzi."

Mr. Wolverine, who also goes by Logan, responded, "What's wrong with Canada? I fought alongside Captain America in World War II, bub. I'm happy to help out."

Some critics have expressed concerns as to whether Mr. Bauer is the best choice to counter the potential threat of a super-villain such as Magneto, a dinosaur stampede or an alien invasion. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded that while Bauer lacks conventional super-powers, he can withstand extreme amounts of pain, has near infallible judgment, can teleport across Los Angeles and Washington D.C. at will, and can go 24 hours without sleep or relieving his bladder.

Should the task of protecting the country prove too difficult for the super-agent and super-hero on their own, Crime-Fightin' Jesus has offered to lend a hand "in a pinch," although he says he would rather spend his time helping the poor "if at all possible." Republicans insist that a law-enforcement approach to terrorism is ineffective.

The Kimberly-Clark Corporation, manufacturers of Depends adult diapers, has already come out strongly against the announcement of the Bauer-Wolverine dream team, claiming that their increased sales are helping spur the nation's economic recovery. Republican Newt Gingrich also condemned the president's actions. "President Obama seems to think that crapping one's pants is a bad thing somehow," said the former Speaker of the House, "but crapping one's pants is what this country was founded on. The Reagan Revolution wouldn't have happened without fear of evil Soviets and welfare queens. And say what you will about President Bush, he kept this country crapping its pants for seven long years after 9/11."

The White House declined to comment.

(See also Hilzoy's video, and The Daily Show on brain eaters, muppets and (most recently) Gunatanamo Baywatch: The Final Season. Plus, there's Dan Froomkin, Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Drum and I'm sure many more.)

Update 5/21/09: Check out Adam Serwer's great piece, "If Magneto Can Escape, Can KSM?" (via Steve Benen) and this cartoon by Mike Luckovich. Clearly, that we're all thinking about (mutant) super-villains is good news for the GOP.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

Thirteen Who Tortured

Guardian of the timeline Marcy Wheeler (Emptywheel) has a great article for Salon, "The 13 people who made torture possible," which gives a valuable overview of the key players and weaves in much of the basic timeline as well as key facts. (Her more detailed timeline is here.) Appropriately enough, Dick Cheney and David Addington top the list. It's a very good introduction or refresher to the subject, and the piece and its accompanying links demolish the "good faith" defense of torture apologists.

(These people ordered and justified torture rather than doing it themselves – that's work for the "help," perhaps - but I chose my title because, reading Marcy's piece, I thought of this:)



(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)

The Amazing Kagro X, Ladies and Gentlemen

By now, I hope you've seen this already (my computer was in the shop, so I only saw it yesterday). Regardless, the work of David Waldman (Kagro X) here deserves another round of applause:



The full segment can be viewed here.

What I especially appreciate is that David Waldman starts by hitting a few essential points, and he keeps coming back to them. He knows his facts, and his opponents can only attack him on propriety, popularity (the popularity of investigating torture) and him personally. It's the best (or at least the most satisfying) appearance by a torture opponent I've seen in a few months, a refreshing change from the parade of unrelenting obtuseness and deception on the subject in the mainstream media.

As DDay writes, "This is how it's done." Jane Hamsher has started a Facebook group called "I Oppose Torture, and Kagro X Is My Hero." She also summarizes nicely:
:

The successful hijacking of the torture debate by its proponents obscures the underlying facts, as Kagro makes abundantly clear:

1. Private contractors were conducting torture
2. It was torture for political gain
3. Pollsters should be asking if Americans support using torture to extract false confessions for political purposes, because that's what happened

There were no "ticking time bombs" -- as former State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson and McClatchey have confirmed, torture was conducted to extract false evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. It was ordered by Dick Cheney and George Bush just as it was during the Spanish Inquisition, to force political compliance.

The Washington Examiner's Chris Stirewalt objects when Kagro invokes the obvious parallel, shamelessly hiding behind the military when he says "On behalf of American soldiers, on behalf of American soldiers, that's not cool." In classic Yellow Elephant fashion, Stirewalt apparently never served in the military.

Nicole Belle at Crooks and Liars also posted on this, and Glenn Greenwald dissects poll data and more in "Distorting public opinion on torture investigations." (He also links Erica Williams' apology over her appearance.)

More like this, please. The more guests can keep steering the "debate" back to the damning facts we already know and how much more we still need to know, the better.

(Cross-posted at Blue Herald)