VP of Torture

It came out this past week Vice President Vader was ultimately responsible for signing off on and even "micromanaging" the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against suspected terrorist agents during a series of meetings in 2002 and 2003 which included, among others, such noted figures as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and then CIA Director George Tenet.

What's remarkable is the sheer lack of newsworthiness about the revelation. It's been something everyone has "known" for years, it's just a question of the details being confirmed.

The torture inflicted involved more than dressing Condi up in kinky latex and whips, and even more than tying the terrorists to chairs, propping their eyes open with toothpicks and forcing them to watch around-the-clock reality television (which would either have forced confessions, true or not, or reduced the participant to the blithering state many of our fellow citizens sadly reside in). No, we're talking about all forms of physical abuse, up to and including sleep deprivation and water boarding.

For those who brush off the effects of water-boarding, or like to hide it behind euphemisms such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" or "simulated drowning", I encourage you to read this thread, written by someone who decided to find out for himself what the process was like last December. It's worth noting that, prior to conducting the experiment, the author favored the use of the technique. His thoughts after the experiment I leave for you to discover.

Don't just read the initial post ... there are a number of interesting questions and responses by the author throughout.

As has been noted, here and elsewhere, many, many times, these are techniques applied to individuals who have been found guilty of absolutely nothing. They have not been tried. They have not had a chance to confront their accusers in an open court. Many of them have been arrested under rather flimsy circumstances. A number which have been found to be innocent have been released.

This week a number of protests were organized around the world to highlight China's human rights' abuses, timed to coincide with the running of the Olympic torch prior to the Beijing Olympics this summer. Some of those protests were planned for San Francisco and the Golden Gate bridge ... something I am sure the Chinese government found quite hypocritical. Why should they be asked to adhere to standards we clearly refuse to hold ourselves to?

Eight years ago we were a beacon for the world, not perfect, but at least striving to be better, and encouraging other nations to join us in that search. Today, we are a bully who threatens and bullies smaller nations and takes away their lunch money if they don't mold their foreign policy to fit our self-interest.

I am not a pacifist ... there are just wars, and our presence in Afghanistan is, in my mind, fully justified. The leaders of that nation knowingly provided safe haven to a coterie of people who viciously attacked and killed our citizens. By doing so, it provided a legitimate cassus belli.

However, there are unjust wars as well, and Iraq unquestionably falls in that category (as will our future war with Iran, should McCain win election this fall ... but that's another issue). Our presence there, our continuing unjust occupation, and our continuing violation of basic privacy and civil liberties, both abroad and at home, have destroyed our nation's credibility for a generation, at least ... if we can ever regain it at all.

When trust is violated, it's rare to ever get it all back, no matter how contrite and sincere the subsequent remorse ... and this administration hasn't just violated trust, it's thrown it on the ground, ground it's heels on it, spat and shat upon it ...

Ultimately, it's not just the prisoners of Guantanamo, or those individuals who have suffered rendition, who have been wrongfully abused by this administration, it's all of us, the nation in it's entirety. When this leadership team came into the White House there was a great deal of talk and blather about the new "CEO" administration. I wish they had stuck with that ... at least then they might have limited their torture to our economy.

One step closer to another war

Various news outlets have reported today on administration plans to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the main core of the Iranian army, to be a terrorist organization. Combined with the reports last week of "Cheney and the Warmongers" pushing for military strikes in Iran, this is a huge concern.

The stories mention the idea of declaring a large part of the Iranian army to be terrorists is supported by Condoleezza Rice as a means of putting additional pressure on the Iranian government vis-a-vis negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. The primary goal seems to be increased sanctions against Iran from the UN security council.

I actually support that goal, and I am more supportive of Rice's approach towards Iran then the Chene-gang's bomb 'em now approach. I am afraid, however, this declaration will open some potential doors to the latter group as well.

First, such a declaration ties in nicely with the recent propaganda wave declaring all the evidence of Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents. I mentioned yesterday some of the logical inconsistencies these claims bring up. Outside of that, however, the primary "evidence" cited for Iranian ties to the insurgents has been the increased use of explosively formed penetrators (EPFs) against US troops.

These devices are particularly dangerous as they are specially designed to penetrate armor, up to and including tank armor. Administration and military officials have been claiming the sophistication of these devices indicates they must have been built elsewhere (i.e. Iran) ... despite the fact a factory for making them was discovered in Iraq six months ago, thus proving insurgents have the capability of making them internally.

In addition to simply adding another line to the bomb-Iran chorus, however, there is a more insidious concern. If the Iranian army is declared to be terrorists, then under the terms of the Authorization for Use of Military Force the administration can launch attacks those forces without seeking further Congressional approval first.

So we have on one hand an increasing chorus of voices, including the Vice President's, actively advocating launching attacks against Iran, and on the other hand a political step which would make it easier for the administration to launch such attacks. We're on the verge of starting a war with yet another country allegedly in support of our troops who are in the midst of a civil somewhere they shouldn't be in the first place.

Apparently the "surge" has been so successful we're looking to bring it to other nations too, by unpopular demand!