They can’t say they weren’t warned

One of the more frustrating aspects to the Bush White House’s scandals is that, in almost every instance, they were warned about the very problem they were about to face. True to form, the Bush gang was convinced they knew better — dissent from the official line simply helped identify those who were insufficiently loyal.

In the latest in a series of examples, the Navy’s general counsel warned the Defense Department two years before the Abu Ghraib scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees’ treatment would invite abuse. He was, of course, largely ignored.

One of the Pentagon’s top civilian lawyers repeatedly challenged the Bush administration’s policy on the coercive interrogation of terror suspects, arguing that such practices violated the law, verged on torture and could ultimately expose senior officials to prosecution, a newly disclosed document shows.

The lawyer, Alberto J. Mora, a political appointee who retired Dec. 31 after more than four years as general counsel of the Navy, was one of many dissenters inside the Pentagon. Senior uniformed lawyers in all the military services also objected sharply to the interrogation policy, according to internal documents declassified last year.

But Mr. Mora’s campaign against what he viewed as an official policy of cruel treatment, detailed in a memorandum he wrote in July 2004 and recounted in an article in the Feb. 27 issue of The New Yorker magazine, made public yesterday, underscored again how contrary views were often brushed aside in administration debates on the subject.

“Even if one wanted to authorize the U.S. military to conduct coercive interrogations, as was the case in Guantanamo, how could one do so without profoundly altering its core values and character?” Mr. Mora asked the Pentagon’s chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II, according to the memorandum.

Before Mora is dismissed as a disgruntled employee — or worse, a Democrat — it’s worth noting that we’re talking about “a loyal Republican, he was known as a supporter of President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the fight against terrorism.”

It didn’t make much of a difference. Mora kept arguing his case and asking the right questions (Mora asked Haynes, “Had we jettisoned our human rights policies?”). His concerns were — surprise, surprise — not taken seriously.

Raise your hand if you’re surprised.

So, according to the New York Times, being “a supporter of … the fight against terrorism” is an indicator of being “a loyal Republican”? Our liberal media at work.

  • A lawyer writes that terrorist savages deserve due process. That is news up there with “Dog Bites Man”

  • A lawyer writes that terrorist savages deserve due process.

    I’m going to regret feeding a troll, but I’m curious. bogie, why are you here? You don’t like CB, or this site, or any of our comments, or anything we stand for. You don’t say anything interesting or persuasive. You show up to annoy others.

    What’s the point? I mean, why bother?

  • A loyal Republican recognizing the rights on which this country were founded. Now that IS dog bites man!

  • I do not dislike CB and I am curious why you would think I do. I have pointed out several times that calling a person names does not engender or consist of debate and there are some here who degrade all on this site by their posts.

    The point of my above post is that a lot of the left’s time and energy is spent spinning old news that those of us in “fly over country” have already digested. The left forfeits “mindshare” with this constant barrage of old news.

    This country is about to face challenges as great as any since the Civil War, focus on those and you again might win elections outside the “Blue” area.

    Do terrorist savages deserve due process?

  • dander
    ??

    A “Scott Peterson” type trial is not the answer. (I use the Scott Peterson analogy because all watching knew he was guility, the only times in recent memory that it has not been the husband is “The Fugitive” and “The Shawshank Redemption”: wait they were fiction). Too much of the “how” evidence is collected into the hands of the defense.

    I believe the protections of The Constitution are reserved for US citizens.

  • It’s funny bogie even your own don’t much like you. Today in a over at the TheHighRoad.org you posted the following on a thread entitled “Negros with Guns”,

    Howzabout the folks in New Orleans, who were “victimized” at the dome, who couldn’t get up the gumption to walk about 4 miles or so to where help was?

    There were enough able bodied folks there to assist others. If they would…

    This brought the following response from Hollowdeweller,

    Yeah, how about those folks in the old folks home who drowned? They shoulda got right out of those wheelchairs and walked to safety.

    There were people who tried to get out from what I read and the cops wouldn’t let them out.

    and this one from from crazed_ss,

    I wasnt there so I cant pass judgement.
    From what I saw on TV…….
    It looked like a giant chaotic disaster area with no organization whatsoever. There were lots of children and eldery also. I’m sure if those people knew where the help was or if help was actually available, they would have taken advantage of it.

    Now your “shinny side out” comment from earlier this week makes sense. You are a racist and on Saturday we established that you are liar. You are, in fact, the model Bush supporter: a not terrible bright frightened little man.

    You come over here picking fights when your own turn on you.
    I’ll tell you what, I won’t challenge you to anything which requires shooting. I suggest you don’t challenges us to anything which requires thinking.

    Take note. Before anyone here jumps to conclusions about the “Negroes with guns” post. It is making the point that guns helped the blacks defend themselves from the KKK. It is a pro-gun post not anti-black post. The guy’s over at the TheHighRoad.org are not all ignorant rednecks.

  • Do “terrorist savages” deserve due process? I suppose that depends on whether you believe in the fundamental principles of the United States or not. One of those fundamental principles is that everyone deserves due process. If you start choosing certain persons who don’t, there is no principled bright line for who is in and who is out. So then I start choosing, and our lists aren’t the same. And eventually, noone has due process. Our founding fathers were smarter than that, of course, and made the line very, very bright. Everyone, even “terrorist savages” (for the reason Dander raises) is protected from loss of life, liberty and property without due process. Period. I should actually think that is a very, very conservative position.

  • Rege

    I am not a member or poster to the high road.
    You are wrong, I admit to being right wing, I am not a lair (at least not this time).

  • Zeitgeist

    You are right in principle, how do you protect the Constitution from those who hate us because we have one?

    A line has to be drawn, I draw it at US citizenship. Not perfect but better than no line.

  • bogie – Surely you don’t believe that the fantics of the Middle East hate of because of our Constitution? Out of all the lies that Bush has told while he has been president, this has to be the most obviously false. I think the truth is a little closer to they hate us because we have supported brutal and repressive regimes so that we could maintain access to their oil.

  • bogie, see if you can understand this:
    A HUGE number of Americans (I include myself) DO NOT TRUST BUSH.

    When you trustingly spout the Bush lines of “they hate us for our freedoms” or that all of the detainees are “terrorist savages,” it shows us that you believe and trust this current administration.

    Do you recognize the line “trust, but verify”?

    When there are verification sources for Bush’s policies, they have shown those policies to be wrong. Terribley, deadly wrong.

    Can you remove your belief in Bush long enough to absorb some facts?

  • bogie – Surely you don’t believe that the fantics of the Middle East hate of because of our Constitution?

    Yes I do, a central tenet of Islam is the combination of church and state. Also they hate us because we are infidels.

    Out of all the lies that Bush has told while he has been president, this has to be the most obviously false.

    Bush has always called Islam the “religion of peace”, I can not see where you find a lie here.

    I think the truth is a little closer to they hate us because we have supported brutal and repressive regimes so that we could maintain access to their oil

    Our post WWII foreign policy has been something like “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Bush has started a fundamental change to that policy, the results of which will take a very long time to see.

  • Funny, I seem to recall that bin Laden’s beef with the United States had something to do with the United States building military bases in Saudi Arabia. After the use of ‘torture friendly’ countries for our rendition policy I can’t see that our foreign policy is changing one iota, it’s just more rhetoric that can’t stand up to close examination.

  • The following interview was done on C-SPAN today:
    Survey of Top 10 President’s Mistakes conducted by a Univ of Louisville Political Science Professor. His survey was sent to presidential scholars, and those who wrote books on presidents:
    1. James Buchanan – failure to oppose succession.
    2. Andres Johnson – reconstruction. Also, he was Lincoln’s VP and showed up at Lincoln’s inaug drunk.
    3. Lyndon Johnson – escalated VietNam war.
    4. Woodrow Wilson – failure to compromise on Treaty of Versailles.
    5. Richard Nixon – Watergate scandal.
    6. James Madison – war of 1812 was a war of choice.
    7. Thomas Jefferson – war of 1807. Was meant to harm the British, but actually hurt the New England states and they threatened to succeed.
    8. John Kennedy – Bay of Pigs.
    9. Ronald Reagan – Iran Contra scandal.
    10. William Clinton – Lewinsky scandal, with notes that he might not have been on this list if this happened in his first term.

    Those not mentioned in survey, but discussed:
    – Herbert Hoover – Smoot Harley Act caused depression
    – George Bush, II – Iraq war (see James Madison, above)
    – Jimmy Carter – Iran hostages
    – Franklin Roosevelt – trusting Stalin at Yalta

    For more info on survey, check out C-SPAN’s site:
    http://www.AmericanPresidents.org

  • Over a billion Muslims, and they all subscribe to the same beliefs, right?
    Just like all the Christians. The Southern Baptists embrace the Christianity of Catholics and Mormons, right?

    Simplicity does not work in this context. Throw in a civil war (as the linked article above does), and you have some serious complexity to consider. Can you handle that, bogie?

    When Bush moves to challenge the House of Saud, I will consider bogie’s claim that Bush has started a “fundimental change.”

    I currently feel that the theocracy of Bush’s followers are more of a threat to the USA than Islamists are.

  • Listen to Zeitgeist. He’s the only person I’ve seen in ages who articulated what I’ve thought for years.

    We don’t have Constitutional rights. We have inalienable rights. The US government was not formed to give us rights, it was formed to protect the rights endowed to us by our Creator from the abuses of other types of government.

    That our government would abuse the inalienable rights of others in order to “protect” us makes me ill.

  • ALL Christians have a New Testament. Islam does not.

    I currently feel that the theocracy of Bush’s followers are more of a threat to the USA than Islamists are.

    I will agree after President Bush orders a wholesale assalt on an American city. (oh wait terrorists savages did that).

  • Chuck

    I agree, the rights protected by The Constitution are endowed by God. How would you protect the USA (thus The Constitution) from those who will use our system against us?

  • How would you protect the USA (thus The Constitution) from those who will use our system against us?

    We vote ’em out of office. Or frog-march them (see Nixon).

  • Bogie, here’s my opinion:
    Karl Rove advised (told) GWB to ignore the warnings that “bin laden determined to strike the US.”
    He did this because the PNAC people needed another Pearl Harbor to enable the embrace of their plan. This is one of the reasons that GWB was out of Washington (remember, D.C’s attack, too?) for so long. GWB is a coward. Remember, this is my opinion.
    Karl Rove enables the US theocrats. They are shredding the Constitution, and this is a bigger threat to our country than terrorism is.
    My opinion is that people who fear terrorism more than an attack on our Constitution are COWARDS.
    And my opinion is that you are wetting the bed, praying:
    “OH Pwease big strong Mistah Bush, Pwease, pwease keep us safe fwom those tewowist savages.”

  • BuzzMon

    See if I have this straight: Rove (not GWB as he is too dumb to tie his shoes, even though he has won the Pres and the Supreme Court) told Pres Bush ala Pearl Harbour to allow the attack to happen just so he could force prayer in schools and stop the killing of millions of the unborn? (makes me wonder if the end justifies the means)

    SHINY SIDE OUT

  • There is a problem with a PDB titled “bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” to which Bush’s response was to immediately go on vacation. I don’t know if I’m ready to go down the road that the attack was engineered within the halls of our government, but it’s painfully obvious that Bush had his head up his butt.

    I think that we ought to move onto the next winger talking point, and since I can probably type faster than you can I’ll save you the trouble.

    But the president had the same intelligence as the Congress. Or maybe the freeper talking point, them thar Iraqi’s snuck them WMD’s over into Syria. Forget about all the intelligence that said Iraq didn’t have WMD’s or our superior satellite technology, no sense in muddying the waters with facts.

  • I’m with Mr. Mora. If we abandon our principles to “save” them, what do we have? And, I believe that “due process for all” is an important principle and one that sets this nation apart from many others in an important, positive way. But, I also feel the question of torture goes beyond mere due process. It is a matter of our humanity and decency and our ability to hold on to them – even in the face of knowledge that we probably could not expect humanity and decency if the tables were turned and we were the ones being held. Torture harms the person being tortured, but it also degrades the practitioner. And, when we ask members of the military or intelligence services to torture detainees, we are degraded. It gives the lie to our mythology that “we do not do that kind of thing.” We also are degraded if we outsource the torture to governments who are less accountable to the public than ours. We have resorted to practices that make us more like the “enemy” we have defined for ourselves and less like the ideal we revere. I think that is sad, and I am heartened that people like Mr. Mora have argued for the ideal.
    Finally, there is a lot of evidence that many of the so-called “savage terrorists” are neither terrorists nor savages. I would like to think our systems protects such people, rather than tortures first and says, “Oh sh*t” later. The “torture first” approach works only if (1) you see the person before you as something lower than yourself, something less than a human being, and (2) you have confidence that you are all knowing.

  • What constitutes “torture”, panties on a terrorist’s savages head or cutting the head off? Which side is guility of each and which side has prosecuted those responsible?

    The consensus here is to treat terrorism as a “law enforcemrnt problem” as opposed to the current administrations treatment as a war.

    Have I missed something?

  • dander

    Nixon resigned because a delegation of Republican leaders marched upon the White House and told Richard Nixon he needed to resign for the good of the USA.

    My question applied to terrorist savages and was a serious one.

  • bogie — I think you’re playing coy, but, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, once.
    Go Here click on the the link in the second paragraph to watch the video. Watch the video and come back here tomorrow and make the statement that it was just some women’s panties put on some savage’s head.

  • Again, those abused are still alive and those responsible were prosecuted, to assign “moral equivalence” to terrorist savages cutting off heads is a stretch.

    I am not playing coy! What will you do when you are in charge? Do you think this is a law enforcement problem or a war? What would you do to protect the USA?

    These are serious questions which, if you read all above, I do not pretend to know the answers to; this is the major issue of our time.

    BTW I am not happy that Lindi England (I know spelling is wrong) is taking a big part of the fall for this. A not too bright lady (please no comments here) who allowed peer pressure to overide judgement. The Brass who allowed this to happen are cupable, but again, to assign to the terrorist savages “moral equivalance” based on these laspes does not help at the polls.

  • bogie, all i can figure is that you don’t really like the American system very well.

    providing process and rights no more establishes a “moral equivalence” between “terrorist savages” who behead westerners and GIs who commited torture than it does between Timothy McVeigh and a petty shoplifter.

    In each pair, it is easy to see who is more culpable, who is “worse,” although each of the 4 committed a violation. you engage in the logical fallacy of false dichotomy (actually, worse – you ascribe to our entire system the inability to process anything more subtle than a false dichotomy) by suggesting that the world is either a 1 (terrorist savage, entitled to to rights) or 0 (US Citizen, presumed good, entitled to process).

    But giving suspected terrorists process or acknowledging they have rights is not denying their savageness or their evil. This isn’t about them. Providing process and rights is what a civilized system does. Regardless of who the beneficiary is. You seem to like to define this in “us versus them” terms, but this is ultimately what separates us from them. They didn’t give Daniel Pearl process or acknowledge his rights. Turnabout does not make us stronger or wiser — it makes us more like the terrorist savages.

    Nor does this mean we here in this discussion see this as a job for law enforcement (although i think the language of war is unhelpful abroad and harmful at home – it is demagoguery to bludgeon people in unrelated domestic efforts). If this were a law enforcement effort, no one would be hunting bin Laden with F16s, Predators, and special ops. Again, this is because there are shades between the binary poles; we do recognize the differences and we do adapt the rules accordingly. What I (and I think others) are saying is that you seem to suggest there should be no rules; I think that is contrary to what America stands for and the principles on which it was founded.

  • Well, I don’t think that I can put it quite as succinctly as zeitgeist, but you need to spend 15 minutes and watch the video. The fact is we tortured some of these people to death.

    We can do all the research for you, but you’re the one that will ultimately have to digest the information and arrive at the truth, and I hate to burst your bubble, but the truth is not being put forth in the American press.

    As for whether our efforts against terrorism should be considered a law enforcement issue, or a war effort, there are laws and treaties that our government is bound to follow. I don’t consider our Constitution or the Geneva Convention quaint.

  • Well put, zeitgeist. Bogie (and FYI for anyone else who read this far down) you are a liar, but I enjoy that you provoke debate. More enjoyable and everyone gets to show off.

    btw, bogie, can you respond to any of the patently convincing evidence showing you are, in fact, the poster in question on The High Road? Or are you a Bushite “lie and run” type, just hopin’ that saying the same thing enough times will make it true?

  • Comments are closed.