The CIA asked for it; Ashcroft’s department delivered it; White House counsel read it; Rumsfeld’s Pentagon reviewed it. Oh, but only ”a few bad eggs” engaged in torture.

The President of the United States can declare anyone an ”enemy combatitant.” As such, you will be held incommunicado without any rights. You can be tortured and killed. Just what is Bush protecting us from? mjh

Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002
By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers

In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad ”may be justified,” and that international laws against torture ”may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations” conducted in President Bush’s war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo. [mjh: re-read this — ANTI-torture laws may be UN-constitutional.]

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, ”he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network,” said the memo, from the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. …

The memo seems to counter the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, assumption that U.S. government personnel would never be permitted to torture captives. …

[The memo] was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department’s detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical, policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques. …

[T]he 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the Bush administration’s desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having information that could thwart future attacks. …

”It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I’ve seen since this whole Abu Ghraib scandal broke,” said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. ”It appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war crimes and looking for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations.” …

At the time, the Justice Department’s legal analysis, however, shocked some of the military lawyers who were involved in crafting the new guidelines, said senior defense officials and military lawyers. …

”It’s really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we’ve taught the Geneva Convention one way,” said a senior military attorney. ”Once you start telling people it’s okay to break the law, there’s no telling where they might stop.”

A U.S. law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon group’s report, prepared under the supervision of General Counsel William J. Haynes II, said that ”in order to respect the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.”

The Pentagon group’s report, divulged yesterday by the Wall Street Journal and obtained by The Post, said further that the 1994 law barring torture ”does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel” at Guantanamo Bay.

It also said the anti-torture law did apply to U.S. military interrogations that occurred outside U.S. ”maritime and territorial jurisdiction,” such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it said both Congress and the Justice Department would have difficulty enforcing the law if U.S. military personnel could be shown to be acting as a result of presidential orders.

mjh’s Weblog Entry – 02/13/2003: “Bush Endorses Assassination”

President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech:

”All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Let’s put it this way, they are no longer a problem for the United States and our friends and allies.”

Please note the word ”suspected.” In what used to be America, a suspect was presumed innocent until proven guilty. Now, suspicion is a death sentence.

”One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice.”

Aren’t we all. mjh

When I set this blog up, I imagined some who visited would have something to say about it. I knew that not everyone would agree with me (most polls and surveys indicate few people agree with me). That’s OK. To paraphrase Mo Udall, if everyone agrees with you, you’re wrong. So, I was ready for disagreement, even some flames; still, I tried to make commenting easy and to encourage it.

I never anticipated ”blog spammers”. These low-lifes post ‘comments’ on blogs that link to porn or sell products for penis enlargement or Viagra; recently, there has been a spate of debt-consolidation postings. In truth, these postings are few but more than once a day on the half a dozen blogs I manage. I’m tired of dealing with these pests, so I’m shutting down comments. To those who legitimately wish to comment, I’m sorry. You can still send me email (which, of course, the spammers do); if you want me to, I will post your comments (with some limitations).

To the spammers — oh, what the hell, they couldn’t care less what harm they do. To them, I recommend GeorgeWBush.com :: Official Blog.

peace, mjh

Remarks by Al Gore
May 26, 2004

George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

He promised to ”restore honor and integrity to the White House.” Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon. …

How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words ”We Are All Americans Now” and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world — to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib. …

There was then, there is now and there would have been regardless of what Bush did, a threat of terrorism that we would have to deal with. But instead of making it better, he has made it infinitely worse. We are less safe because of his policies. He has created more anger and righteous indignation against us as Americans than any leader of our country in the 228 years of our existence as a nation — because of his attitude of contempt for any person, institution or nation who disagrees with him. …

The unpleasant truth is that President Bush’s utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. …

How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein’s torture prison. …

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability…

The Diebold Variations

Two jokes from MHS (gracias!). mjh

One sunny day in 2005, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he’d been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, ”I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.”

The Marine looked at the man and said, ”Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here.”

The old man said, ”Okay,” and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, ”I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.”

The Marine again told the man, ”Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer president and no longer resides here.” The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U. S. Marine, saying, ”I would like to go in and meet with President Bush.”

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, ”Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I’ve told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don’t you understand?”

The old man looked at the Marine and said, ”Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.”

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, ”See you tomorrow.”

*****************************************************************
Subject: The GOP Told Us So

The GOP warned us what would happen if Gore was elected in 2000:

1. We would go to war.
2. The national debt would soar.
3. The US economy would plummet.
4. The stock market would plunge.
5. Unemployment would be rampant.
6. The US dollar would quickly decline in value.
7. We would have a huge budget deficit.

They were right. Gore won, and all those things happened.

New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan

New Mexico is going Kerry, if a new interactive poll from the Zogby group has it right. The poll, conducted May 18 thru the 23, shows the Prez losing his grip fast on our swing state. Kerry pulls 48.4% to Bush’s 43.3. Independent Ralph Nader grabs 2.9% and just a slim 5.4% are undecided. The margin of error in the poll is pegged at 4.6%. …

Among men the Prez garners 55% of the vote, but only 32% of the females. Kerry gets a whopping 62% of the women, but falls to 35% of the men.

Here’s pollster Zogby’s analysis of the Prez race here with Kerry leading by about five points:

”While President Bush predictably lags here in the state’s big cities, the good news for his re-election campaign is that there aren’t many of them. Instead, this southwestern state shoehorned between the vacation mecca of Arizona and the president’s home state of Texas is dotted with small towns and rural life, which treat him better, the poll shows. While Democrat John Kerry leads in the big cities, 54% to 33%, Mr. Bush leads in small cities, 50% to 45%, and by an even greater margin, 56% to 40%, in rural New Mexico.”