In an amendment to the $91 billion spending bill to fund the war in Afghanistan, the Senate voted to block the release of all post 9/11 detainee abuse photos for five years. The language is aimed at preventing a court from ordering their release in response to a freedom of information lawsuit.
read more | digg story
The Republican propaganda has been effective. And the truth is - many people just don't want to know what was done by the CIA and the other torturers. Advocating for disclosure of this information is not a vote-winning strategy.
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Survey results
I make no pretense that my surveys are scientific. I make them just for my amusement, really.
So, the latest - unscientific - results are 100 percent of the respondents do not feel that disregarding the Geneva Conventions to enable the use of torture on detainees has made the United States safer.
But - what should be done about it? Nearly 43 percent feel that there should be prosecution of top decision makers. An equal number feel there should be prosecution of everyone involved. The remainder feel that there should be a thorough investigation, but amnesty for everyone involved.
And the swine flu? I think its currency is already passing, only a week or so since it came to the attention of the public. Roughly 43 percent of respondents said they were worried.
If you want to take the opinion survey, click here.
So, the latest - unscientific - results are 100 percent of the respondents do not feel that disregarding the Geneva Conventions to enable the use of torture on detainees has made the United States safer.
But - what should be done about it? Nearly 43 percent feel that there should be prosecution of top decision makers. An equal number feel there should be prosecution of everyone involved. The remainder feel that there should be a thorough investigation, but amnesty for everyone involved.
And the swine flu? I think its currency is already passing, only a week or so since it came to the attention of the public. Roughly 43 percent of respondents said they were worried.
If you want to take the opinion survey, click here.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
What do you think?
Someone asked me last night about the surveys I used to post here. I haven't made one in a month or so, because the participation was low. Perhaps it was too long or complicated. So, this one is short and simple. I'd be interested in your opinion if you have three minutes. Click Here to take survey
I'll share the results in about a week - when I get a respectable amount of responses.
I'll share the results in about a week - when I get a respectable amount of responses.
Friday, April 24, 2009
What's the difference between Abu Ghraib and torture memos?
As I listened to this NPR radio interview with a former intelligence officer in Iraq yesterday, I was struck by the difference between the current reaction to the revelations about torture policy of the Bush White House and the reaction to the issue of torture that was raised after the photographic evidence of torture that leaked from the prison at Abu Ghraib.
Yes, there were newspaper articles and chest-thumping, but the level of outrage four years ago seemed considerably lower than it is now. Abu Ghraib was barely an election issue in 2004. OK - four years ago, we had grainy photos of tortured prisoners, not memos written in legalese. The Bush Administration at the time made the case that the people torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib were just “bad apples,” but why did so many people believe him?
What are the differences in the situation? Which differences are most significant in affecting how the mass media and the political elite are responding to the issue?
When Abu Ghraib became a scandal, the war in Iraq was still being hotly fought by US troops. At the end of 2004, about 138,000 troops were on the ground. Now, there are roughly 140,000 troops, but President Obama has pledged to withdraw most of them by August 2010. So, with the conflict less “hot,” perhaps there is room for more scruples and reflection by the public?
Does the fact that the public now perceives that the Bush Administration engaged in foolish policies leading to the economic crisis mean that the public is more willing to doubt Bush & Co. about other matters?
Of course, the change in political leadership at the top makes a difference. For all his talk about “looking forward,” President Obama has no political incentive to cover-up the sins of his predecessor. Yes, this could cause the Republicans in Congress to be obstructionist, but it’s hard to see how they could be any more contrary than they are already.
And in the changed environment, there are countless of other political actors who have greater freedom of action to demand more accountability from the members of the Bush administration. The ability of these actors to affect policy four years ago was quite limited; now, their demands carry more weight.
But I wonder also about the overall political and social climate of the time. I visualize the individuals in a society, suspended like pebbles in some sort of conglomerate rock. While certain individuals may move out of the norm, the individuals in general are constrained by the mass surrounding them. How else to explain this recent outburst of a commentator on the Fox News network, of all places?
I don’t think that this somewhat Gramscian understanding of society contradicts the other explanation - that the difference in the reaction to the issue in torture is being led by the political elite. These explanations can coexist. I’m just hoping that the mass of public opinion in the United States will shift - perhaps glacially - to a position that grants greater value to human rights.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By the way, Krugman steps out of his regular area of expertise to write an excellent column on the issue in today's New York Times. While I completely back a thorough investigation of the issue, I also think Elizabeth de la Vega raises some good points about the need to completely think through a strategy for future prosecution of those who formulated the policy.
Also, here's a good side-by-side comparison between the legal memos and what actually happened.
Yes, there were newspaper articles and chest-thumping, but the level of outrage four years ago seemed considerably lower than it is now. Abu Ghraib was barely an election issue in 2004. OK - four years ago, we had grainy photos of tortured prisoners, not memos written in legalese. The Bush Administration at the time made the case that the people torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib were just “bad apples,” but why did so many people believe him?
What are the differences in the situation? Which differences are most significant in affecting how the mass media and the political elite are responding to the issue?
When Abu Ghraib became a scandal, the war in Iraq was still being hotly fought by US troops. At the end of 2004, about 138,000 troops were on the ground. Now, there are roughly 140,000 troops, but President Obama has pledged to withdraw most of them by August 2010. So, with the conflict less “hot,” perhaps there is room for more scruples and reflection by the public?
Does the fact that the public now perceives that the Bush Administration engaged in foolish policies leading to the economic crisis mean that the public is more willing to doubt Bush & Co. about other matters?
Of course, the change in political leadership at the top makes a difference. For all his talk about “looking forward,” President Obama has no political incentive to cover-up the sins of his predecessor. Yes, this could cause the Republicans in Congress to be obstructionist, but it’s hard to see how they could be any more contrary than they are already.
And in the changed environment, there are countless of other political actors who have greater freedom of action to demand more accountability from the members of the Bush administration. The ability of these actors to affect policy four years ago was quite limited; now, their demands carry more weight.
But I wonder also about the overall political and social climate of the time. I visualize the individuals in a society, suspended like pebbles in some sort of conglomerate rock. While certain individuals may move out of the norm, the individuals in general are constrained by the mass surrounding them. How else to explain this recent outburst of a commentator on the Fox News network, of all places?
I don’t think that this somewhat Gramscian understanding of society contradicts the other explanation - that the difference in the reaction to the issue in torture is being led by the political elite. These explanations can coexist. I’m just hoping that the mass of public opinion in the United States will shift - perhaps glacially - to a position that grants greater value to human rights.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
By the way, Krugman steps out of his regular area of expertise to write an excellent column on the issue in today's New York Times. While I completely back a thorough investigation of the issue, I also think Elizabeth de la Vega raises some good points about the need to completely think through a strategy for future prosecution of those who formulated the policy.
Also, here's a good side-by-side comparison between the legal memos and what actually happened.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Hannity volunteers to be waterboarded
This really should be pursued. He's made the offer - so it should be accepted. Fox News could even televise the event. It could be a fund raiser for injured vets. Perhaps Bill O'Reilly and Dick Cheney would also like to volunteer. After all, everyone but liberals knows that waterboarding isn't torture. Hannity has graciously offered himself as evidence to prove those liberals wrong.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Required reading
The recent article by Mark Danner in the New York Review of Books should be required reading for all civics classes in the United States. Of course, the students should also read the ICRC report that details the torture policies followed by the United States government. This is available for downloading at the NYRoB site.
Read this, and tell me again how the United States government is superior to that of the Soviet Union or Communist China. Yes, there are differences in how the mass of citizens are treated, but the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo does not differ appreciably from the prisoners at Lyubyanka.
As Danner notes, a series of memos from the White House of George W. Bush detail the formulation of the torture policies. At this point, however, it's unclear if we will ever be able to read these memos. According to Scott Horten's piece in The Daily Beast, Senate Republicans are threatening to obstruct key Obama appointments if the contents of these memos is made public.
Massive public pressure will be needed to force disclosure of the contents of these memos. If the administration sees that it is more politically disadvantageous to continue the cover-up, the information will be released. But I don't think anything will happen without real pressure from the public on this issue.
I'm not terribly optimistic this will happen. I remember teaching a political science class several years ago. We were discussing the torture policies of the Bush Administration. After all, people knew what was happening, even if they didn't want to talk about it. Not one of my students would criticize policies that condoned the use of torture. Not one of these bright young students, the future of our country. It was a profoundly depressing day.
Read this, and tell me again how the United States government is superior to that of the Soviet Union or Communist China. Yes, there are differences in how the mass of citizens are treated, but the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo does not differ appreciably from the prisoners at Lyubyanka.
As Danner notes, a series of memos from the White House of George W. Bush detail the formulation of the torture policies. At this point, however, it's unclear if we will ever be able to read these memos. According to Scott Horten's piece in The Daily Beast, Senate Republicans are threatening to obstruct key Obama appointments if the contents of these memos is made public.
Massive public pressure will be needed to force disclosure of the contents of these memos. If the administration sees that it is more politically disadvantageous to continue the cover-up, the information will be released. But I don't think anything will happen without real pressure from the public on this issue.
I'm not terribly optimistic this will happen. I remember teaching a political science class several years ago. We were discussing the torture policies of the Bush Administration. After all, people knew what was happening, even if they didn't want to talk about it. Not one of my students would criticize policies that condoned the use of torture. Not one of these bright young students, the future of our country. It was a profoundly depressing day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
