Bill Moyers tonight -US Torture and Consequences? Bruce Fein and Mark Danner

US TORTURE AND CONSEQUENCES?
A new debate followed the release of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel memos approving extreme measures of interrogation under the Bush administration. Bill Moyers sits down with Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, and Mark Danner, who has been reporting on the US treatment and interrogation of detainees for the NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS.



STEVE MEACHAM AND THE HOUSING CRISIS
The JOURNAL profiles Steve Meacham, a Massachusetts community organizer fighting to keep working people in their homes.

HOUSING HELP
Find resources in your community to help with foreclosure and housing issues.

INSIDE THE BANKING CRISIS
Explore the JOURNAL's coverage of the American collapse.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
add link

This is serious business. Cheney is telling America that we should still be torturing people so this is not the past.

death will be too easy for him. He and all the rest needs to spend long days and nights with nothing to do except think about what it is they have done. I really do feel there will be many convictions on this before its all said and done. Hey I an hope and dream can't I???:-)

one bit.

it is illegal, there are two choices..prosecute or pardon...and a pardon would require admission of wrongdoing..or at least i think thats what he said

statement.

It's profound

Excellent discussion.
The torture debate is not going away.
Now for the banks and Durbin.
Bankers didn't kill the bill - the Senate did.

Sooner or later they'll get what's coming to them.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05012009/transcript4.html

Also this statement of his near the end, which reminds me of the article below by Naomi Klein from 2005.

"MARK DANNER: There's no question that there have been many times in American history when the United States is attacked, when it responds by breaking its own laws. You could cite the Palmer Raids, Korematsu, as you just did, the McCarthy period. You can cite a number of examples. But you asked why this is different. And I'll tell you what it seems to me is dramatically different. This was made legal, within the American Government. I say "made legal" with quotes. This was officially done. This was ordered by the President. The Department of Justice made memos saying you can do this. The principals, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, sat in meetings and talked about interrogations that were plainly illegal, according to our laws, and according to treaties we have signed.

All of it is now laid out before the public, and finally, if you look at Fox News, if you look at discussion of this — usually on the conservative side, not always, but usually on the conservative side — you find a strong attempt, basically, to say, "Not only should this stuff have been done, but we should not handcuff ourselves. We should keep doing it." So, we're talking about not simply what happened before. We're talking about the politics of now. And that's why it's important."


'Never Before!' Our Amnesiac Torture Debate
by Naomi Klein

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1209-22.htm

"...Other cultures deal with a legacy of torture by declaring "Never again!" Why do so many Americans insist on dealing with the current torture crisis by crying "Never Before"? I suspect it has to do with a sincere desire to convey the seriousness of this Administration's crimes. And the Bush Administration's open embrace of torture is indeed unprecedented--but let's be clear about what is unprecedented about it: not the torture but the openness. Past administrations tactfully kept their "black ops" secret; the crimes were sanctioned but they were practiced in the shadows, officially denied and condemned. The Bush Administration has broken this deal: Post-9/11, it demanded the right to torture without shame, legitimized by new definitions and new laws.

Despite all the talk of outsourced torture, the Bush Administration's real innovation has been its in-sourcing, with prisoners being abused by US citizens in US-run prisons and transported to third countries in US planes. It is this departure from clandestine etiquette, more than the actual crimes, that has so much of the military and intelligence community up in arms: By daring to torture unapologetically and out in the open, Bush has robbed everyone of plausible deniability..."

what is very clearly a crime -- the torture of a prisoner.

What interests me is the way that the administration kept a detailed account -- via the legal memos -- of each type of act of torture -- and how doctors were presumed to be available and to be recording or at least noting the subtle difference between torture resulting in death and torture taking the torture victim to the brink of death but not across the line.

This methodical attitude toward the brutal acts of torture reminded me very much of the NAZI experiments of Dr. Mengele.

http://www.mengele.dk/

I know DUers will argue -- the torture is not comparable to the crimes of the NAZIS because the Holocaust killed and maimed millions while Bush's torture fewer prisoners.

But, I must remind everyone that Hitler was elected in 1930. He did not begin the really violent actions against Jews until 1938 -- and even then he was cautious. Criminals often start with small crimes. A sociopathic child may, for example, begin by torturing animals -- and only move slowly to torturing people.

As for the argument that we may have closed our eyes to torture by our allies. Let's try to set a higher standard of conduct for the future. We are the greatest military power on earth. No nation can begin to challenge us. This is our opportunity to set a high standard for human conduct everywhere.

Torture is wrong -- especially acts that have been known to end in death or long-term psychological or physiological damage -- as these acts of torture did.

It is disgusting to see these men who live comfortable lives, who are respected in the way they are, try to think of excuses for torture, try to figure out ways to avoid prosecuting or of requiring those tho authorized the torture to serve prison sentences.

As I have reminded everyone so often here, the only difference between a gang member in L.A. tho tortures a hostage and these men is their social station. The sadism, the hunger for power, the evil of the acts is exactly the same. They are all criminals. Take off their clothes. Change their names. Forget their stations in life. They all should meet the same fate. They should all answer to the same law.

If we fail to prosecute the Bush administration criminals just as we would any ordinary gang members, then we are no longer a democracy. We have officially become an oligarchy with one law for the high and mighty and one for the low. After all, if you were to ask the gangs of L.A. why they fight, why they murder, they will tell you they are protecting their neighborhoods against the criminals from other areas. And, indeed, very often, in a sense, they are. Of course, they are themselves criminals -- not because they were born lowly criminals but because of the way they act. If Bush and Cheney acted like gang leaders, they should be treated like gang leaders.

I liked the point that they could have changed the law had they wished to do so. That is my thought precisely. If they had sincerely believed that what they were doing was necessary, hey would have asked Congress to change the law. I assume that since they did not ask for that change, they enjoyed violating the law. It made them fell that much more powerful. And personally, I think that is why they tortured in the first place. They were angry about 9/11. They felt weak and emasculated. The torture made them feel powerful -- manly. How sick can you get?

mentions a pardon only if the Obama administration does not want to go forward with prosecutions.

"BRUCE FEIN: The President of the United States, the Attorney General, when I was in office, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Meaning, to enforce it. And there's a way out of that. You can issue pardons. You don't have a right to consult the political forces, say, "I'll just ignore the law."

And in fact, in 2004, we confronted the same problem we had with Nixon. He wasn't going investigate Watergate and the obstruction of himself. That's why I had a special prosecutor, and ultimately an independent counsel. That hasn't been done in this case. But now, the President and the Vice President who authorized this are gone. So, there's no obstacle. If President Obama didn't want to be President and faithfully enforce the laws, he shouldn't be there.

MARK DANNER: You know, let's--

BRUCE FEIN: He should issue a pardon....



BRUCE FEIN: If Obama thinks that these people, and he's said, have committed torture, and he doesn't believe it should go forward for political reasons, he needs to pardon them..."


I agree that most times crimes start small and continue to grow if people are not held accountable, also that everyone should have to abide by the laws, regardless of who they are.

to violate the law and to be even more secretive about it.

The Obama administration needs to allow investigations, prosecutions if warranted and sentences if warranted. No pardons. Mitigation of the sentences, maybe, but no pardons.

not willing to prosecute...doing nothing should not be an option.

"BRUCE FEIN: I would have asked him, since he's agreed that what was done was torture, and that the United States criminal code makes torture a crime. And there's no national security exception, no exception if you get useful information. And because we had impeached, in the House Judiciary Committee, a former President, called Richard Nixon, for failing faithfully to execute the laws. How he can justify not moving forward with an investigation when we have a former President and Vice President openly acknowledging they authorized water boarding, what he has described as torture, is a crime.

Or in the alternative, if he thinks that there are mitigating circumstances, and there's body language suggests that, then he should pardon them like Ford did Richard Nixon. And the reason why the difference between a pardon and non-prosecution is important, is because a pardon requires the recipient to acknowledge guilt. That there was wrongdoing. There was a crime. Just forgetting and sweeping it under the rug suggests this wasn't illegal."

have it one now :hi:

:rofl:

-Hoot

on both torturing and wire taping. Throw away the keys

... about the banks owning the government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html
<snip>
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.

On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion: the banks own the Senate.

"And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," he said on WJJG 1530 AM's "Mornings with Ray Hanania." Progress Illinois picked up the quote.

Excellent although I do not support any pardons for these war criminals particularly when they're still supporting torture.

The act of "pardoning" is an acknowledgement that wrong-doing was committed. Just ignoring the wrong-doing is much worse.

sw

the war criminals are on air screaming that it will be Obama's fault if America is attacked because he will not participate in torture because it is illegal.

They will have to acknowledge that torture is illegal. No fugging pardon for them.