Tag Archives: CIA torture
Well, let’s see?
The current CIA Director testifies to both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives that former Vice-President Dick Cheney ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to withhold information from the Congress.
Yep, he violated the law.
So, now what?
If the Congress has a backbone – and that’s a really big if – then it has little choice than to begin an investigation.
But not just Congress; the United States Justice Department also has to investigate, and probably prosecute a case against, the former Vice-President.
Note, that’s the United States Department of Justice – not the Department of Law in the White House as incorrectly identified by the soon-to-be former Governor of Alaska, a.k.a. the former GOP Vice-Presidential hopeful, a.k.a. the “slutty flight attendant” looking hockey mom.
No person in our country is above the law. Not Richard Nixon. Not Henry F. Potter; and definitely not Dick Cheney.
Former Vice-President Cheney helped send our country into a war based on lies, gathered through illegal torture of prisoners, who then lied to stop being tortured. He then – unlawfully, and unconstitutionally- ordered the CIA to not disclose information to the Congress. Is there anyone, besides, Rush, Hannity, et al, and their ever shrinking audience, who thinks this was more than slightly immoral, as well as unlawful?
The Congress, and the Justice Department, must investigate, and if evidence is found, then these bodies must also prosecute. To do otherwise would establish a precedence too damaging to imagine. Federal law was established to ensure that our intelligence agencies would have checks and balances. The CIA – part of the Executive Branch – answers to the oversight of Congress.
It’s time for the men and women of the Congress to fulfill their constitutional responsibility and make sure the CIA understands its place in the political pecking order of our Republic. To make sure that the Executive Branch understands that it does not have unlimited power to do as it pleases.
The CIA answers to Congress, and the Congress, and Vice-Presidents answer to We the People.
During the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” did United States personnel torture, or abuse, prisoners in violation of international treaties prohibiting such torture or abuse?
This prisoner had electric wires attached to his genitals, and was forced to stand like this for hours. If he dropped his arms or moved from the box, he was shocked.
Why would American soldiers take a prisoner, strip him of his clothes, and then threaten him with guard dogs?
Stripping a prisoner; forcing woman’s underwear on his head, and tying him to a metal bunk. The purpose of this interrogation technique would be?
Forcing prisoners to lie on top of each other naked. This would be necessary because?
And here we have an example of the non-torture technique known as waterboarding.
Forcing an injured prisoner to lie naked on the cement floor. This is humane treatment of the wounded?
And the purpose of tying a prisoner, naked and upside from a metal bunk would be?
The above images point out quite clearly that American personnel, under the Bush Administration, committed criminal acts in violation of international treaties regarding the humane treatment of prisoners. There is no valid reason for this. Someone ordered our country off of this cliff, and the only way to place the United States back on the moral high ground is to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible.
This morning, April 30, 2009, during his self aggrandizing morning talk fest, Rush claimed that Barack Obama lied during his primetime press conference last night when he said Winston Churchill didn’t torture captured German pilots.
Answering a question addressing the use of torture by the Bush Administration, the President said, “We could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values,” he said, “in ways that were consistent with who we are.”
Using Britain’s experience in the Second World War, “when London was being bombed to smithereens”, President Obama pointed out that Winston Churchill had refused to allow torture of 200 German prisoners because to have done so would have corroded “the character of a country”.
While Rush said nothing about the point the President was making, which was although the British certainly would have had a reason to torture, in order to find out information on future raids, or locations of airfields etc, they didn’t. Rush instead attacked the British and Mr. Churchill’s memory, stating that it was a well known fact that Britain tortured German POWs after the war, starving them, beating them, etc…
Rush also stated that when British Intelligence Operatives during the war gave captured German spies a choice to be hanged as spies, or to assist MI5 by sending false or misleading messages regarding the allied landings in France, that this was torture. Spies are hung Rush. The British gave them a choice. They didn’t hang them until they almost died and then got them to help. They were told, in essence, help fight the Nazi Government of Adolph Hitler, or die as the spy you are.
During the Bush Administration we weren’t capturing spies in America and then giving them a choice; we took prisoners and tortured them. The men at Abu Ghraib and GITMO were not spies. And oh, by the way, you’re not allowed to torture spies either. You can execute them, but you can’t torture them.
Rush continued to try to show that Churchill wasn’t a paramour of virtue to be held up as a shining example, “One thing, about Obama last night, all of a sudden singling out Churchill as some moral guidepost for not torturing, or being cruel or mean, or whatever you have to do to get information from prisoners.” Rush tried to make a connection between Churchill’s government and the torture of German prisoners at one of two locations Bad Nenndorf, near Hanover, or the “London Cage” following the end of World War II.
Is this the same Rush who was furious over a statue of Churchill being returned to the UK? The same Rush who on so many occasions has sung the praises of Churchill’s courage and leadership, who claims that Britain is our strongest ally? Um, Maha Rushdi, pretty sure Brits aren’t going to think very highly of you demeaning a national icon and hero like Winston Churchill.
There is of course one huge historical problem in trying to tie the British torture of German POWs to Churchill; Churchill was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from May 10, 1940 to July 26, 1945. The torture of POWs took place beginning in late 1945 to 1948, during the government of Prime Minister Clement Richard Attlee, of the Labour Party; wrong PM “truth detector”.
Rush, why attack a man who has been looked at for years as a great and inspirational leader? Why? Because Rush has an irrational hatred of President Barack Obama that’s why. If Obama praises someone then they’re a target for El Rushbo. So Rush, who’s next on your hit parade? Moses?Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan? Jesus Christ? I mean after all the President claims to be a Christian, you’d better make sure no one holds up Christ as a paramour of virtue either.
This evening, listening as the contents of memo after memo was read, revealing how dark, sinister and twisted the Bush Administration really was when it came to authorizing and using torture, I found myself hoping there was just one hero. Just one person in either the Defense Department or the CIA who on some level said no; who on some level said, “This is wrong”; someone like Tom Clancy’s hero Jack Ryan.
But as the memos keep arriving, and as the digging goes deeper, the realization sets in that there were no Jack Ryans, or John Clarks, in the Bush Administration, just room after room and department after department of Robert Ritters and James Cutters.
I shed the first of many tears this evening, as I heard how torture was used to trump up the so-called 9-11/Iraq connection in order to justify America’s invasion of the latter. I cried for my friends, my comrades, my brothers and sisters, who have paid the last full measure of devotion in defense of their country believing in their leaders. Believing in men and women who are not worthy to lace up the boots of those they sent off to die.
I cried as I realized that unless my country prosecutes those responsible to the fullest extent of the law we will forever be stained with this abuse of power, this abuse of trust, this abuse of all that was good and sacred in our country.
I cried when I realized that unless there is a Jack Ryan out there somewhere, who stood up and said no; then my country, and all for which has stood for two hundred years is gone, and everything that is left behind is a mere shadow; an after thought of what it was before.
Jack Ryan, your country could have used you.