From al Arabiya, after Abu Ghraib:

"It's important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse ... there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered. ... It's very important for people and your listeners to understand that in our country, when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way in which leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. ... In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn't be answering questions about this. A dictator wouldn't be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation." - Bush Al Arabiya interview.

"But we are not asked to judge the President's character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the President, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subverted--for whatever purpose--the rule of law," - John McCain arguing for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury in a civil suit, February 1999.

"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot," - John McCain, October 2007.

"We've got to move on," - John McCain, April 26, 2009, reacting to incontrovertible proof that George W. Bush ordered the waterboarding of a prisoner 183 times, as well as broader treatment that the Red Cross has called "unequivocally torture."

As I said in China this spring, there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions. There is no place for intolerance of dissent. While we walked through the Rotunda. I explained to President Jiang how the roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend. - Newt Gengrich http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-28404541.html

John Lopresti noted that it might be helpful to have a timeline of all the torture documents released in the last several weeks. And you know I can't resist requests for timelines. So here goes:

April 6: NYRB posts the Red Cross report on high value detainees

April 9: CIA Director Leon Panetta bans contractors from conducting interrogations

April 16: Obama statement on memo release, torture memos released:

* August 1, 2002: Memo from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA
* May 10, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA ["Techniques"]
* May 10, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA ["Combined"]
* May 30, 2005: Memo from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA

April 21: Senate Armed Services Committee releases declassified Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in US Custody

April 22: Senate Intelligence Committee releases declassified Narrative Describing the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel's Opinions on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program (Jello Jay's statement on the release)

April 23: Ali Soufan, FBI interrogator, publishes NYT op-ed describing early interrogation of Abu Zubaydah

April 23: DOJ announces it will release a number of photos showing detainee abuse that had previously been FOIAed, along with thousands more

April 24: Greg Sargent gets a copy of Cheney's request for two documents to make his "efficacy" case

April 24: In ACLU FOIA case, Judge Hellerstein orders a more expansive response on torture tape documents from CIA

April 24: WaPo releases JPRA memo--which had been circulated among the torture architects--using the word "torture" and warning that torture will beget false information

Ya know what QM? You will never be a highdileeho.

My karma is different from his. I respect his decision to serve and he has to live with his life decisions like everyone else. Same with Corporal Twinkie, who is doing his brothers and sisters a grave disservice, even if he is sincere. If any of you think the war against this SCUM is anywhere near over, guess again. Jihadists don't give up until they're dead. Or you're dead. Or both.

He put his life on the line for his country, and will never have the same bloodthirst that you spout here.

My "bloodthirst" is mostly limited to jihadist fktards who want to kill Americans and other civilized peoples. That's the price I gladly pay for not being a moral relativist: recognizing there is real evil in the world, and that this world has real consequences for appeasement stupidity.

I'm a non-combat veteran...now, I don't know if that meets the high standards liberals set for everyone but themselves, and I've never had to shoot anyone, but the US GOV could've sent me into the fire and I would've gone. Unlike in Congress, military oaths to defend the Constitution mean something.

- Article 3 of Geneva conventions requires humane treatment of all persons held. Furthermore on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution. International and American rights apply to them.

Well, guess what, the dumbshts in the legal system have been wrong plenty of times before. They tried this bullsht with captured Nazi spies, that is, attempting to give them Constitutional rights, but the country was more sane in the 1940s and instead they were dealt with properly.

"The ones that have been released quickly rejoin [...] their jihad."

National security expert and CNN analyst Peter Bergen, states that some of those "suspected" to have returned to terrorism are so categorized because they publicly made anti-American statements, "something that's not surprising if you've been locked up in a U.S. prison camp for several years." If all 18 people on the "confirmed" list have "returned" to the battlefield, that would amount to 4 percent of the detainees who have been released.

Ah, so that's acceptable to you, those "small" numbers? How many a-holes did it take to bring about 9-11? Oh, that's right, that doesn't count, because the 9-11 jihadist scum were from Country X and not Country Z. Brilliant reasoning, libs.

The US looked for legal loopholes to justify its detention program at Gitmo, nor could it trail them as it had torture testimony which is inadmissible in a court of law.

Well, given the choice of calling this a real war against a real enemy or "Bush's Game" I'll gladly err on the side of real war. Let the animals run wild and free over some "clever" legal ACLU wrangling and before long you won't have a society to defend.

Wouldn't you rejoin? I mean if this group of jihadists captured you and put you in a shitty hole with crappy accommodations, when you were released wouldn't you come running back and join military...well you wouldn't cause you're a pussy, but somebody with balls would...

LOOKIT ME EVERYONE!...I'M TALKIN' TOUGH...ON THE INTERNETS. I CALL YOU NAME!

It's not some alien we're dealing with...it's people. So I don't know why you act so surprised when humans follow their own nature to feel hatred when they're mistreated.

I understand the "feelings" of Gitmo detainees and nothing they do surprises me. Go to any prison in America and you'll find plenty of the same resentment, since every one of those guys is ALSO not guilty! They'll tell you so! They were set up!

Why do liberals act surprised that there is real hatred towards jihadist animals sawing off heads, homicide bombing, beating women, honor killing, etc.

Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America first and "the oppressed" last. They just don't see this, the way a fish can't see the water. Maybe they're too fking far gone to notice, who knows. NYC could be suitcase nuked tomorrow and they'd use Gitmo to justify it.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America; nothing new there.
Boy, I was expecting graphic stories of beatings, starvation, etc. Instead I see Corporal Twinkie here talking about one head punch and some scrape-ups, due to cruel soldiers attempting to UNLOCK handcuffs on one prisoner and FEED another.
It's really telling that the captive in the first story thought he was going to be executed. If the poor guy got his news of the West from the New York Slimes I wouldn't blame him.
Regardless of how much the ACLU whines to the contrary, Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war nor enemy combatants fighting under any nation's flag, so American and International rights don't apply to them. The ones that have been released quickly rejoin--that's REjoin--their jihad. So fk' em, feed 'em fish heads. I'm more ashamed of Obama's end-runs around the Constitution to nationalize everything and the liberal media's refusal to do their job.

Wouldn't you rejoin? I mean if this group of jihadists captured you and put you in a shitty hole with crappy accommodations, when you were released wouldn't you come running back and join military...well you wouldn't cause you're a pussy, but somebody with balls would...

It's not some alien we're dealing with...it's people. So I don't know why you act so surprised when humans follow their own nature to feel hatred when they're mistreated.

Liberals are always angry and ashamed of America; nothing new there.

Boy, I was expecting graphic stories of beatings, starvation, etc. Instead I see Corporal Twinkie here talking about one head punch and some scrape-ups, due to cruel soldiers attempting to UNLOCK handcuffs on one prisoner and FEED another.

It's really telling that the captive in the first story thought he was going to be executed. If the poor guy got his news of the West from the New York Slimes I wouldn't blame him.

Regardless of how much the ACLU whines to the contrary, Gitmo detainees are not prisoners of war nor enemy combatants fighting under any nation's flag, so American and International rights don't apply to them. The ones that have been released quickly rejoin--that's REjoin--their jihad. So fk' em, feed 'em fish heads. I'm more ashamed of Obama's end-runs around the Constitution to nationalize everything and the liberal media's refusal to do their job.

>> ^Psychologic:
If the Bush administration is to be condemned for anything then it should be direct policy decisions, not the actions of individual soldiers. If they ordered torture then that is perhaps something to pursue in court.
However, if the soldiers down there were being abusive on their own (ie- not because of orders) then they should be the ones facing responsibility for it (and perhaps there direct supervisors). It's difficult to tell who was allowing what without being directly involved in the situation.



It was called the "Torture Memo" authored by John Yoo.

Basically, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rummy and the rest of the gang literally signed off on allowing torture, and stating that the 4th amendment doesn't apply for them.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/yoo_army_torture_memo.pdf


It's right there. It wasn't just individual soldiers. It was a policy that came from the top down. During Nuremberg, the Int'l courts decided that prosecuting every single German soldier who went against international conventions on treating detainess would just be ludicrous. That's why they only went after commanders.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The debate of freedom of speech and censorship is on going, am not parroting one line or the other. I believe in freedom of speech myself and have disagreed with the inane protests that occurred during the publishing cartoons, but the question has to be raised when you have a film that is negative of an entire religion while any similar criticism is labeled as anti-semetic when applied to the Jewish community. The hypocrisy is there.

Of course it's hypocritical. And I decry the suppression of Mein Kampf just as much as Fitna. That's my point. It's absurd to outlaw stupid or unpleasant ideas, because usually the arguments for them are so pathetic that they should be easy to dismiss. That they cause diviseness is an even worse reason for censorship. Imposed homogeneity is far worse - and terribly boring. When unpleasant ideas are not so easily dismissed, it is even more important to guard their right to be expressed. It was certainly more socially cohesive for the Vatican to outlaw the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, but obviously very wrong for it to do so.


Furthermore society censors ideas because it finds them offensive and detrimental to social cohesion, I don't think you would find many defending the freedom of speech of people burning crosses, wearing KKKs masks and calling black people the n word, using Nazi symbols in German or denying the holocaust.

Cross burning is not an act of free speech - it is an act of violent intimidation (not to mention arson). Wearing KKK gear isn't outlawed in the U.S., and it may surprise you to learn that the ACLU itself has fought for the rights of even those loonies to be able to assemble or march in various towns. Saying nigger is clearly not illegal - ever listen to gangsta rap?

Obviously there are limits to free speech. Directly inciting violence/riots, causing dangerous panic ("Fire!" in a theater) and libelous speech are all outlawed, but not because the ideas contained in such speech are "bad". They are outlawed because they can directly cause damage to people and property. I agree that stuff like Fitna falls somewhere in that grey area in that it could cause people to commit violent acts, but it does not itself call for violence upon Muslims.

>> ^mharvey42:
I see things very differently than you. Ignorance is not one of my vices. Perhaps you need to recognize that reasonable people can disagree (strongly) on some issues.

[snip]

The group that produced the webpage and graph is B'Tselem, a Liberal advocacy group in Israel which seems a bit like the ACLU is here. In other words, an enemy of the society which hosts it.


I think you just effectively proved that you're not reasonable right there.

>> ^joedirt:
mharvey, you are either a good troll or you like remaining ignorant.
I recommend this post which has some illustrative graphs and links to show Israel breaking the peace.

JoeDirt, I'm no troll. I see things very differently than you. Ignorance is not one of my vices. Perhaps you need to recognize that reasonable people can disagree (strongly) on some issues.

I checked out your graph, and am not impressed. As Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." This looks to be both.

The group that produced the webpage and graph is B'Tselem, a Liberal advocacy group in Israel which seems a bit like the ACLU is here. In other words, an enemy of the society which hosts it.

Their stated mission is, "to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B'Tselem

They start with an agenda, and not surprisingly, manufacture proof that their presuppositions are correct.

To my knowledge, the Palestinian leadership has never made an honest peace (going back to Arafat), but will frequently agree to a hudna in order to regroup and strengthen.

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.

I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as
fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Let me rephrase, because I want this to be crystal clear: the
atheist, by default, has declared him or herself to be the
sole judge of what is right and what is wrong, and no other
standards other than their whims or how they're feeling at any
given moment defines morality, goodness, evil, etc.

Even if they do not do so, atheists still must believe that
they are free to pick and choose which laws to obey, the
same exact way those hypocritical religious people pick and
choose which parts of their religion they will follow.

Atheists' highest authority is...themselves.



Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow
the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think
"Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I
actually hating them?".

Who is to say you're not blindly following the people
declaring that, 'Christians all hate gays?'

Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are
open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking
about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to
suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit,
emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact
moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your
emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel
love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible
says so.

The Bible has many passages about slavery, yet it was the
political movements of religious people the world over that
freed the slaves. To blanket-condemn the Bible or even the Quran seems a tad harsher even than the false assertion that all Christians must hate gays.

I understand atheists' contempt for the blind obedience of
fundamentalists, but if you're declaring all religion as evil
because of one segment of an infinite human endeavor, I'd
suggest you're being a tad closed-minded.



I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with
certainty that, "There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of
saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY
THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest
there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something
that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're
happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY
would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that
there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god,
but those with an open mind are happy to accept further
evidence on the matter.

I understand what you're saying, yet the definition of an
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no God" and
"Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I
could be wrong, but you have stated in other words that
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no
God...until proven otherwise."


Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA,
usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you
may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off
google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny
minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look
at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort
of number is fraught with problems in classification, self
identification etc.

I agree it's hard to quantify atheists. You could've just
said, "China makes up one-quarter of the world's people and
they're atheist."

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to
eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case
of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT
when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the
populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law
based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is
all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no
way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be
religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the
religious folk who are making those without religion feel
fearful because of the way they are being treated.

You bring up many issues here, most of them political. The
ACLU is trying their damnedest to remove all traces of
religious expression from public life. Not all atheists are in
the ACLU, but there are zero I know of protesting the ACLU's
bullying either. Government schools are screwed from all
sides. Not to make light of your plight, but everyone claims
to be persecuted these days.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad
consequences except when discovered by others.

This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious
people are only good because they fear for the repercussions
of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do
bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so
why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's
FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of
repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

But what happens when you meet an atheist who thinks what's FAIR isn't what YOU think is FAIR. There's no ultimate authority, even something as open-ended as the golden rule may not apply.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

Um... yep. I see no issue here.

Then why be "good?" Why punish evildoers at all?

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than
anyone else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass
"conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil
governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier
either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are
necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of
lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being
religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like
their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I
don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

And how many of those lovely religious people would be upset
by your approval/endorsement of this obnoxious video? Some might get "the joke" but then others may not...

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have
converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell
does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that
unless you want to defend the crusades and violent
missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't
even go there, that's just nuts...

Communism makes the state the highest authority, therefore any
and all religious belief and expression was banned in those countries by human monsters, inflicted a nightmare on their own people. These dictators were atheist NOT because they wanted to usher in an Age of Reason but to
maintain their power.

The Crusades were an anomaly compared to the 100 million murdered worldwide by communism.

And no, I'm not saying all atheists are commies, but when one form of "control" like religion dies, another fills the void. Maybe we should all just honor each others' delusions instead.

For me personally there is no greater litmus test for President Obama to fulfill then to revoke and repel the civil rights infractions passed through the 8 years of Bush rule under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Glenn Greenwald has a insightful discussion with the executive director of the ACLU Anthony Romero about the steps towards restoration of core liberties. From Salon.com:

The ACLU recently released a detailed plan for the restoration of core liberties in America under an Obama administration. We discuss the most important priorities for civil libertarians in reversing the anti-constitutional abuses of the past, as well as strategies for holding Obama to his campaign pledges for doing so.

- Glenn Greenwald: Salon Radio: Anthony Romero.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
It must be emotionally wrenching to be gay and in CA right now.


CP420 shows some empathy, and gets slapped for it. Harsh.

It must be equally emotionally wrenching to be a Conservative Republican now. I feel for the folks who have to suffer through what we did the last eight years, thinking that the country has gone insane.

>> ^Crosswords:
I bet the Senate will refuse to seat Stevens, and then Palin will get to hand pick someone (Todd) to take his place.


Thankfully, whomever Palin appoints could only make a mess of their Senate seat for about four months max. I checked the Alaska Constitution last night -- When an Alaskan U.S. Senator leaves his or her seat, the governor does appoint a temporary Senator, but also must hold a special election within 60-90 days of the elected Senator's departure.

I don't think there's anything in the AK Constitution preventing Palin from appointing herself, however.

>> ^lucky760:
The 14th Amendment is on our (opponents of Prop side.


I'm not sure it is -- If marriage is between a man and a woman, then prohibiting same-sex marriage would not be prohibited under the 14th Amendment. Since marriage is adjudicated by the state, I doubt federal law could be used to enforce a particular definition of marriage. I wish the courts had stepped in to decide this *before* the election.

For the record, I'm a straight male who is outraged and saddened by prop 8's passage. Ideally states would only issue certificates of civil union, which could be between any two (or more?) consenting adults. Marriage would be a religious issue that was not issued or recognized by the state.


Edit: After a bit more thought, I think a 14th Amendment challenge could work, but depends on showing that civil unions are essentially the same thing as marriage. At that point judicial precedent (Brown v. Board) would kick in.

I was gonna say it's gotta suck balls to be gay in CA right now, but it just sounds like a good thing.

This was a weird prop and it does seem like ACLU has a case and it should be overturned.

I love me some ACLU. *quality