Heed Not What They Say -- Heed Much What They Do

[Gary Sisco]

McCain's Retreat
Praise for the president's yielding to John McCain ignored the awful details in fine print

by Nat Hentoff
December 23rd, 2005 6:03 PM








Let the world see America's devotion to human rights.
photo: Paul Morse whitehouse.gov
Now we can move forward and make sure that the whole world knows that, as the president has stated many times, we do not practice cruel, inhuman treatment or torture. John McCain, at the White House, December 15, sitting alongside George W. Bush


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concessions already obtained by the administration from Mr. McCain, and a separate amendment [agreed to by McCain] authored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), could prevent any foreign detainee from seeking relief in a U.S. court in the event that he was tortured. . . . Mr. Graham and Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) recently agreed [along with Senator McCain] to yet another administration provision that would—incredibly—allow evidence obtained by torture to be considered by military review panels (at Guantánamo.) Editorial, The Washington Post, December 16, the very day after Bush and McCain congratulated each other on ending human rights abuses, including torture, of U.S. prisoners anywhere in the world



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newspaper editorials after the McCain-Bush summit meeting cele- brating America's dedication to human rights were glowing: "President Backs McCain on Abuse" ( The New York Times); "Bush Backs Down on Proposed Torture Ban" ( USA Today); "White House, McCain Reach Deal on Terror Suspect Torture Policy" ( The New York Sun); "Principled McCain Prevails Over the White House" ( Financial Times, U.S. edition, December 17/18)

In a few of the stories, those readers going beneath the headlines found harsh revelations of the shell game that McCain and Bush are playing. These discoveries add to the accelerating exposure of how George W. Bush—with the cooperation of the once principled John McCain and of other members of Congress—is engaging in the cruel and inhumane debasing of the values we are fighting for against homicidal terrorists.

To begin, McCain, before his White House rapprochement with the president, had accepted administration language in his human rights amendment to give paid legal counsel and a certain amount of legal protection to interrogators—including the CIA's—accused of abusing prisoners. Their defense would be that a "person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful." Also, as at the Nuremberg trials after World War II, the defendants would say they were only following orders.

But as Josh White pointed out in the December 16 Washington Post, if these orders were plainly illegal, they would have to be disobeyed. In that case, what penalties would the commanders themselves, who gave the unlawful orders, face— including the top of the command at the Defense Department, the Justice Department, and the White House?

The Bush administration pressured McCain to accept this additional language in fear that, eventually, courts would decide that U.S. "coercive interrogations" have indeed violated U.S. law and international treaties we have signed. The ACLU and human rights organizations have already filed lawsuits making these claims against high levels of the administration.

Much more serious— and ignored by most of the media—is an amendment— voted for by McCain—to the Defense Authorization bill by Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Carl Levin (D-Michigan), and Jon Kyl (R-Arizona).

Tom Wilner, a constitutional lawyer who represents a number of Kuwaiti detainees (a/k/a prisoners) at Guantánamo, gets to the chilling core of the amendment:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This amendment [which McCain has approved] tears the heart out of anything good that the McCain prohibition [against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment] does. It strips the right of habeas corpus from detainees at Guantánamo, prohibits them from suing U.S. officials for their treatment, and in new language slipped into the bill [during the House-Senate conference committee sessions] actually authorizes the tribunals at Guantánamo [for enemy combatants] to use statements obtained through coercion [including torture] as 'probative' [testimony]. That provision works a significant change of existing U.S. and international law and actually provides an incentive for U.S. officials or officials from other governments through [CIA] rendition [sending terrorism suspects to other countries to be tortured], to obtain such coerced statements." (Emphasis added.)

Accordingly, Tom Wilner tells me, this "McCain/Graham/Levin/Kyl package is a disaster—a giant step backward for human rights. . . . By eliminating the Great Writ [habeas corpus] and authorizing the use of coercion, this amendment un- dermines the very foundation of our system.

"These changes far out- weigh the language for which Senator McCain has been so complimented, prohibiting the government from torturing or engaging in cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment."

Furthermore, how does this administration actually define torture anywhere? From a December 16 Washington Post editorial after Bush's "surrender" to McCain: "Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice Department [Alberto Gonzales at the top] and the Pentagon [Rumsfeld et al.] have redefined both 'torture' and 'cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment' as not covering in all circumstances such CIA techniques as 'waterboarding,' or simulated drowning; 'cold cell,' the deliberate inducing of hypothermia; mock execution; and prolonged and painful 'short-shackling.' It has taken these positions, even though 'cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment' as defined by the Senate [passage of the McCain amendment] covers everything that also would be prohibited by the Constitution [against prisoners held in the U.S.]. . . .

"[Accordingly,] the administration has adopted logic that accepts, in principle, the idea that the FBI could constitutionally use them on U.S. citizens in certain circumstances." (Emphasis added.)

Eventually, I expect to see an announcement by John McCain declaring his candidacy for the presidency—as he reminds us of the principled stand he and George W. Bush took to show the world how deeply the United States values human rights.

[Monte Smith]

Was the title of this thread written by Yoda?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Was the title of this thread written by Yoda?

No one can say you're not trying, Monte. I don't really want to look at this story too closely, either.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

McCain's Retreat
Praise for the president's yielding to John McCain ignored the awful details in fine print

by Nat Hentoff
December 23rd, 2005 6:03 PM


Let the world see America's devotion to human rights.
photo: Paul Morse whitehouse.gov
Now we can move forward and make sure that the whole world knows that, as the president has stated many times, we do not practice cruel, inhuman treatment or torture. John McCain, at the White House, December 15, sitting alongside George W. Bush


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concessions already obtained by the administration from Mr. McCain, and a separate amendment [agreed to by McCain] authored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), could prevent any foreign detainee from seeking relief in a U.S. court in the event that he was tortured. . . . Mr. Graham and Senator Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) recently agreed [along with Senator McCain] to yet another administration provision that would—incredibly—allow evidence obtained by torture to be considered by military review panels (at Guantánamo.) Editorial, The Washington Post, December 16, the very day after Bush and McCain congratulated each other on ending human rights abuses, including torture, of U.S. prisoners anywhere in the world

I don't know about you, but the picture of John McCain hugging Dubbya is the one that I can't get out of my mind.
I think that no matter what principled stand McCain takes, on his quest for the Presidency, the idea that he would debase himself that way haunts me.
That, combined with the character assassination that Dubbya's people performed on McCain, during the nomination process before 2000 makes me wonder what kind of man would forgive, even embrace the perpetrator of such a personal sliming? This is the most amazing example of turning the other cheek I've seen for some time.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Was the title of this thread written by Yoda?

Uncertain the future is. Cloud everything the darkside does.

[Gary Sisco]

It's amazing to watch Americans mock their political heritage away.

I don't accept the system itself, regardless of who's in charge of it. I don't even think of myself as an American other than by the chance accidents of biography. My alienation is near complete, but there are rational reasons for it, grounded in ideas and actions of my own choosing.

But I still find it infinitely sad to see how easily they're willing to lose it, without a whimper, even, of struggle, as it gets flushed down a sewer. But the saddest part is to see what little they're willing to settle for. Basically, any little crumb or bone they're tossed will do, so long as they can worship at their mall of choice.

If this is the end of history, it's a long, bloody, senseless tale that ends with a retarded Mad magazine reject and his even bloodier crew.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

My alienation is near complete....

Yes. After rural Vermont, there is really only the Dagobah system.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

It's amazing to watch Americans mock their political heritage away.

I don't accept the system itself, regardless of who's in charge of it.

It would have been the perfect post had you stopped here.

[Gary Sisco]

Geez, I'm so sorry to have disappointed you, Commissar.

[Gary Sisco]

This just in from Veterans For Common Sense (who've done much to make torture and such a public issue for real in Congress):

<
What does this mean? Veterans for Common Sense has long argued that success in Iraq is dependent on helping the Iraqis rebuild their country, and shifting emphasis from military operations, which often result in civilian casualties and alienate Iraqi civilians, to civil reconstruction and political reconciliation. By cutting off those funds, while continuing military operations, the President has effectively announced the continuation of a losing strategy.>>

Exactly.

Deeds, not words. The US always, since Vietnam forward, has given a lot of lip service but nothing else to the hearts and minds question.

Bush also recently ruled out even talking with any Iraqis among the insurrectionists. Which is the same thing as declaring total war, if he had that much sophistication of thought, which he doesn't. But conscious or no, that's what refusing to talk with one's enemy means, in military terms. It means that the only goal can be total military defeat a la WW2.

But there's never been a military defeat of a guerrilla force.

Therefore, since we can expect not much else from whomever replaces him, either, er, "party," we can look forward to a long and ultimately unsuccessful war in Iraq -- and Iraqis civilians can look forward to many thousands more dead and many, many more wounded, maimed and homeless.

Idiots. Americans have to get over this idea they have that history is meaningless (as in, "Come on, ______ is history, already."

You can't know where you are, never mind where you're headed, if you don't know where you're coming from or how you got to where you are. No one can.