Home for the Holidays

Bush is letting detainees out of the CIA-operated clandestine "black sites" and shipping them to Guantanamo Bay. What's the deal? Nobody knows for sure what secrets lurk in the heart of Bush, but Spencer Ackerman has informed thoughts:

Unless it rejiggers the military tribunals to bless torture/coercion, KSM and other Al Qaeda figures might in fact be set free by the courts. Is Bush so cynical as to force Congress into the odious position of either setting the stage for murderers to walk out of Gitmo or blessing torture? Of course he is!

What a lovely country we've become.

Comments

I found it a bit odd that the President received a standing ovation when he announced the names of detainees that had been transferred to Guantanamo for prosecution. Isn't he the same person that has been preventing this type of prosecution? It seems to me that saying "It's about time" would be the more appropriate response to this announcement. The only thing we've gained from the delay of this outcome is the ire of much of the world and a loss of the moral authority that 9/11 most certainly provided.

The fact that these "high profile" names were released...and that one might presume that these individuals will be paraded in the media for all to see...almost immediately after the President and the GOP have just rolled out their campaign strategy for the November midterm election seems all too convenient. Granted, it may well be coincidental but I'm not convinced. Nothing would serve the President better than having Americans see some "tangible" results of our effort to fight the war on terror.

Read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by Daniel DiRito | September 6, 2006 4:07 PM

Spencer Ackerman has informed thoughts

No, he doesn't.

First of all, Ackerman says "(Bush wants the new military tribunals to be just like the old, unconstitutional tribunals.)" Wrong! The prior tribunals were struck down in Hamdan because they violated the UCMJ, not because they were "unconstitutional". Jeez.

Secondly, if the CIA did nothing worse than making KSM too hot, or cold, or waterboarding him, or making him crouch for a long time, then it's not torture.

But anyways, I agree with Ackerman to the extent that Bush is really shoving it at Congress. You want a policy of "if you forget to ask the terrorists 'pretty please' then it is torture", then Congress is going to be setting the architect of 9/11 free. Up to them. And if the Congress is going to prohibit the use of classified information, then the architect of 9/11 will go free. Personally, if the Democrats want to campaign on that, more power to 'em.

Posted by Al | September 6, 2006 4:17 PM

First of all, Ackerman says "(Bush wants the new military tribunals to be just like the old, unconstitutional tribunals.)" Wrong! The prior tribunals were struck down in Hamdan because they violated the UCMJ, not because they were "unconstitutional". Jeez.

What? The executive violating a law established by congress, unless the law itself is in contrivance of the constitution, is itself unconstitutional.

These college republicans just get dumber and dumber.

Posted by MAX HATS | September 6, 2006 4:30 PM

"But anyways, I agree with Ackerman to the extent that Bush is really shoving it at Congress."

No doubt. I'd expect the GOP to try to come up with language that has a Poison Pill for Dems, ala the Homeland Security Dept scheme of '02.

Posted by Petey | September 6, 2006 4:42 PM

"What a lovely country we've become."

Dunno if you watched the speech, but Bush was actually bragging about torture at one point.

Posted by Petey | September 6, 2006 4:47 PM

Here's the transcript.

Posted by JP | September 6, 2006 5:01 PM

I can't predict what Congress will do; so this may (for all I know) be good stategery on Bush's part, in trying to roll Congress to do what Ackerman suggests Bush's goal is.

But for once, I think the move is an improvement, objectively and morally speaking, over the prior policy. There are lots of reasons to want to increase the openness of our detention policies, even if it has a short-term cost in public the public image of the U.S. There is no way that justice is compatible with holding detainees in secret, incommunicado, outside any reach of public scrutiny.

Admittedly, that won't convince many people that this is a good thing. So, it seems worth reminding people that of the following: It has been suggested that the the issue here is whether Congress should give its blessing to torture, lest top Al-Qaeda leaders go free. Evidence gained from them on the basis of torture is not to be relied upon, and torture is simply not to be condoned. (To permit the use of evidence gained by torture is to condone torture and to encourage its use in the future.) If we don't have sufficient evidence to convict Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin Al Shibh, et al. on the basis of information gathered outside of, and untainted by torture, then we have no reason to convict them. If the U.S. can't convince whomever really cares that it has detained the right people on the basis of evidence untainted by torture, then it deserves the ignominy it would receive for detaining (not to mention torturing) them.

So of course Congress should not craft rules that weaken the embargo on evidence gained on the basis of torture. And it's not too difficult to make that case, I think.

Ump.

Posted by Umpteenth | September 6, 2006 5:26 PM

Bush was actually bragging about torture at one point

Link to the transcript is above. Care to tell us what part of the speech was "bragging" about torture? Especially since Bush explicitly said "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it." Or maybe the phrase "United States does not torture" means something else in Democratspeak than it does in English?

Posted by Al | September 6, 2006 5:31 PM

Yes indeed we have become a lovely country. We have the best government money can buy and have embraced the lie as the word of God. We get our morality from a proved hoax, the Holy Bible.

Bush like all before him place his hand on the Bible while swearing to uphold and defend the constitution. He has accepted the dogmas of the lie. Lies that cause people to believe, have faith are moral for that reason alone. Without fatih all is lost. It's a monster that feed on itself and continually attempts to destroy itself out of guilt.

http://www.hoax-buster.org for a Bible lesson not approved by any government agency. It will allow you to understand what is happening.

Posted by BG | September 6, 2006 5:40 PM

"Care to tell us what part of the speech was "bragging" about torture?"

I recommend seeing the video version, rather than the transcript, but here 'ya go:

Within months of September the 11th, 2001, we captured a man known as Abu Zubaydah. We believe that Zubaydah was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted associate of Osama bin Laden. Our intelligence community believes he had run a terrorist camp in Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained, and that he helped smuggle al Qaeda leaders out of Afghanistan after coalition forces arrived to liberate that country. Zubaydah was severely wounded during the firefight that brought him into custody -- and he survived only because of the medical care arranged by the CIA.

After he recovered, Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. ... We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures.

These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

But again, you get a much better flavor of his meaning by watching it rather than reading it.

Posted by Petey | September 6, 2006 5:55 PM

I see, Petey! Bragging about torture by calling it "safe" and "legal". Tha man certainly knows how to brag!

Posted by Al | September 6, 2006 6:24 PM

"I see, Petey! Bragging about torture by calling it "safe" and "legal". Tha man certainly knows how to brag!"

As said, Bush's inflection told part of the story.

Alll of what Bush was describing above was defined as torture. Getting the fruits of that torture into tribunals is currently illegal, and Bush will be requesting a legal loophole to stage trials of KSM et al, so he isn't required by law to set KSM freee.

He will dare Congress to deny him him the law, probably inserting an extra Poison Pill to ensure dems can't go along.

And then the last month of the campaign writes itself.

Posted by Petey | September 6, 2006 6:37 PM

Ah, it's all in the inflection. You must be a better inflection decipherer than me.

Posted by Al | September 6, 2006 6:41 PM

"Ah, it's all in the inflection. You must be a better inflection decipherer than me."

Or perhaps you have a Republican dictionary rather than an English dictionary. Happens all the time.

Posted by Petey | September 6, 2006 6:56 PM

If Bush were to brag about torture, he'd be sick but at least honest. Instead, he brags about acts which in fact constitute torture, without having the decency to admit such. But remember, "I never had sexual relations with that woman" was a contemptible lie; "we do not torture" is acceptable nuance.

Posted by Steve | September 6, 2006 7:10 PM

Oh c'mon Al. Surely even you can detect the smug understatement and sly, gloating tone in a line like this:

And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures.

This is Bush saying "Vee haf vays of makink zem talk."

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 6, 2006 11:21 PM

If you're not disgusted by this, you're not paying attention. The Cornerites get it: by moving people to Gitmo, Bush is daring Democrats to vote against legalising all the shit that he's carried on behind their backs, and risk being smeared as pro-terrorist before the elections. It's cheap and sleazy and outrageous and scary.

And what a genius Al is. What a paragon of virtue and moral authority and clarity of thinking. A breath below Jesus Christ in my estimation.

Note that you can't quite tell my inflection in print. But you should have a sense of what I'm saying.

Posted by ahem | September 7, 2006 12:11 AM

Frankly, I don't get it. Bush is doing everything you want him to do, and you're still pissed at him?
1) Holding people in secret CIA prisons is bad. Bush is stopping that.
2) Bush making unilateral decisions on what to do with detainees is bad. Bush is stopping it.
3) Congress not offering their mandated oversight is bad. Bush is forcing them to do so.
4) Dealing with detainees has been 'extralegal' -outside of the law. By forcing Congress to accept their responsibility and write up laws for dealing with detainees, Bush is doing what he should do.

The only part of this that you should dislike is that Bush is apparently doing it in a polity savvy way. Is that all? You like the substance of what Bush is doing, but you don't like that it makes you look bad?

Steve

Posted by Steve | September 7, 2006 11:05 AM

"The only part of this that you should dislike is that Bush is apparently doing it in a polity savvy way. Is that all? You like the substance of what Bush is doing, but you don't like that it makes you look bad?"

The part of this I don't like is that this WH sees the defense of America as secondary to winning domestic political battles.

Posted by Petey | September 7, 2006 11:26 AM

"The part of this I don't like is that this WH sees the defense of America as secondary to winning domestic political battles."

That's exactly what I don't understand. How is he sacrificing the defense of America? What substantial decision is he making that you think he should not make? Should he continue to have secret CIA prisons? Not let congress to write detainee laws? What?

Steve

Posted by Steve | September 7, 2006 12:00 PM

"That's exactly what I don't understand."

This is not an attempt to pass actual detainee legislation over the next month. This is pure political theater to sway the '06 elections.

Posted by Petey | September 7, 2006 2:13 PM

"This is not an attempt to pass actual detainee legislation over the next month. This is pure political theater to sway the '06 elections."

The President doesn't pass actual detainee legislation-Congress does. How is Bush sacrificing America's defense by not doing Congress' job?

Steve

Posted by Steve | September 7, 2006 2:39 PM

"The President doesn't pass actual detainee legislation-Congress does. How is Bush sacrificing America's defense by not doing Congress' job?"

I agree with you that Congress needs to do a far better job, Steve. That's why I think November 7th, 2006 will be such a happy day.

Cheers.

Posted by Petey | September 7, 2006 3:05 PM

The President doesn't pass actual detainee legislation-Congress does.

coughsigning statements... secrecy, consolidation of power into the executive branch cough cough

Posted by Dan | September 7, 2006 6:27 PM

"coughsigning statements... secrecy, consolidation of power into the executive branch cough cough"

cough so Bush sending the detainees to Gitmo to obligate Congress to take over the responsibility for policing them-i.e. deconsolidation of power into the executive branch- is a good thing, right? You agree with Bush on this one? Cough Cough

Posted by Steve | September 8, 2006 9:17 AM