(Cross posted at
Xforums because there's actually a few wingnuts there, and I'm curious to see if they are even capable of handling something that damning.)
I know all these points have been made separately around here, figured I'd bring them and the links together. This is all you need to make The Point to wingnut friends. Child sodomy reports have not been fully confirmed yet, and so I've left them out. I wanted this to be damning arguments that there can be no sane opposition to.
Like Fitzgerald, I don't start an argument that I don't plan to win, and I don't do it without making sure beforehand that I've got the hard facts.
Five Points to make on Abu Ghraib
More stuff is surfacing, as so many of us said it would, more then a year after the initial outing. Back then, I think Limbaugh best exemplified the "Right-wing" opinion of the Abu Ghraib pictures and scandal, saying
"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?"
The willful ignorance of this is made clear when you consider what Rumsfeld told Congress last year around roughly the same time,
"U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and `a lot more pictures' exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison.
"'If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,' Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. `I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.'
...
"Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.'"
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said of the pictures,
"'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' ... 'We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.'
Now, fast forwarding a year, we have the following developments.
#1. The Bush Administration has been vigorously fighting attempts, by Republican Senators to reform and establish government control of detention centers like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. They are going so far as to threaten a veto of a $442 billion Senate spending bill for next year based solely on if the Senate moves to regulate Pentagon treatment of detainees, or sets up a commission to investigate Gitmo and any other location. This is not a partisan movement in the Senate, it is being sponsored by McCain, Warner, and Graham, all of who are Republicans who served in the military and who supported the war in Iraq. The White House is willing to veto 442 billion dollars of defense spending if Republican Senators try to investigate what they've been up to. They are willing to jeopardize national security, and in the name of national security. To their credit, even in the face of such obvious bullying, the Republicans are going forward with their planned amendments.
#2. The Pentagon is refusing to comply with a court order from a federal judge to release photos and videos of prisoner abuse, the photos and videos I referenced above. There are documented cases of abuse, rape, and murder, and in light of that it is clear that greater control over our facilities and what goes on in them needs to be established.
#3. Assuming that Scott McClellan is not pulling shit out of his ass in the White House press briefings, the reason that the White House and the Pentagon have been resisting bipartisan efforts by the Senate to peer into the murky depths of prisoner and detainee handling is because they want the President to have unrestricted authority. Even if Scott McClellan is talking out his ass, a newly issued Statement of Administration Policy makes it clear.
#4. Two thousand veterans, include a couple hundred officers, urged Congress and the President to create an independent commission to investigate and report on detention practices. This is because any intelligent veteran knows that when you lower the standards for detainee treatment, you endanger every single person in the military, not to mention the damage you are doing to the morals and soul of the country. Should we go to war with a foreign country any time soon, they can justify raping and murdering our prisoners, on the grounds that they are only following our examples. Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Graham, and these thousands of veterans understand that.
#5. Before you try to say (should you be so inclined) that people don't wind up in our detention centers unless they are guilty of something, that these people are enemies of America and hardened terrorists, consider how many have been released from Gitmo and how many more from Abu Ghraib.
Details:
#1 See http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/063005/senate.html and http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050721/pl_nm/arms_congress_dc ;
From the second article:
The White House on Thursday threatened to veto a massive Senate bill for $442 billion in next year's defense programs if it moves to regulate the Pentagon's treatment of detainees or sets up a commission to investigate operations at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere.
...
In a statement, the White House said such amendments would "interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war."
...
Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), who endured torture as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said after meeting at the Capitol with Vice President Dick Cheney that he still intended to offer amendments next week "on the standard of treatment of prisoners."
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), who was working on legislation defining the legal status of enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo, also said he would offer an amendment.
They were working with Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia on amendments intended to prevent further abuses in the wake of the scandal over sexual abuse and mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison and harsh, degrading interrogations at Guantanamo.
Yes, the White House is prepared to veto a bill that would authorize 442 billion dollars for the war, in order to prevent the diverting of resources from the war. They are willing to divert $442,000,000,000 from the war to prevent the diverting of "resources" from the war. Think about that for a moment...
#2. See http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/report.asp?ObjID=imOUU2rj8m&Content=608
On July 22, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) denounced the latest efforts of the Bush Administration to block the release of the Darby photos and videos depicting torture at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison facility. On June 2, 2004, CCR, along with the ACLU, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace filed papers with the U.S. District Court, charging the Department of Defense and other government agencies with illegally withholding records concerning the abuse of detainees in American military custody. Since then, the organizations have been repeatedly rebuffed in their efforts to investigate what happened at the prison.
Also see: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050725/en_bpiep/pentagonblocksreleaseofabughraibim
ageshereswhy
Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday. The photos were among thousands turned over by the key "whistleblower" in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking.
The Pentagon lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material. They had been ordered to do so by a federal judge in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see the images of the prisoner abuse scandal.
#3:
Q Last Thursday the White House threatened to veto the defense bill if it includes standards for the humane treatment of prisoners, drafted by Republican Senator John McCain. And also on Thursday the Pentagon refused to comply with a court order to release photos and videos of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Don't these documented cases of abuse suggest that the U.S. military should adopt higher standards for the humane treatment of prisoners?
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple things, and I appreciate the question. We did put out a position paper that is available for you to look at, talking about some of our concerns when it comes to the defense authorization bill that the Senate is moving forward on. We certainly would have concerns if there are amendments that some people seek that would interfere with the President's ability to effectively conduct the global war on terrorism. And there are some amendments that people have suggested that we believe might be unnecessary or duplicative. We want to make sure that there is nothing that restricts the President's authority to be able to do what he needs to do to protect the American people and prevent attacks from happening in the first place, and bring to justice those who seek to murder innocent civilians.
Now, in terms of issues relating to allegations of abuse of detainees, this administration has taken those allegations very seriously. That's why we have moved forward to hold people accountable, and we have made sure that justice is served to those who were involved in any wrongdoing. But there are laws and treaty obligations that are in place and that we follow. And the Department of Defense has made it very clear that when it comes to detainees, that they treat them in a humane fashion. And that's consistent --
Q But they're not being treated humanely.
Note that McClellan does not actually answer the question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
See also: http://balkin.blogspot.com/SAP.S.1042.pdf
"The Administration understands that amendments may be offered to establish a national commission on the detainee operations or to regulate the detention, treatment or trial of terrorists captured in the war on terror. The Administration strongly opposes such amendments, which would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism by diverting resources from the war to answer unnecessary or duplicative inquiry or by restricting the President's ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law. The Constitution and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution (Public Law 107-40, September 18, 201) provide the authority the President needs to conduct the war effectively and protect the American people. If legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."
Even before any amendments are offered by leading conservative Senators of the President's own party, and therefore before the White House has even seen what the statutory language might be, the President categorically concludes that the legislation necessarily "would interfere with the protection of Americans from terrorism... by restricting the President's ability to conduct the war effectively under existing law." What is the purpose of having a legislative and a judicial branch of the government if the executive branch will simply thumb its nose at the checks and balances, and demand that there be no public scrutiny of its deeds? Talk about power corrupting.
#4: See: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050725/pl_usnw/pentagon_defies_order_to_release_
photos__2_000_veterans_call_for_independent_investigation126_xml
In an open letter, signed by more than 2,000 veterans and supporters (including 5 flag-rank officers and more than 200 commissioned officers), the veterans urged Congress and the President to "commit -- immediately and publicly -- to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate and report on the detention and interrogation practices of U.S. military and intelligence agencies deployed in the war on terror."
Charles Sheehan-Miles, a 1991 Gulf War veteran and the group's executive director, said, "Once again the administration is fighting to prevent any possible public accountability for its policies, instead choosing to blame it all on the troops. To court-martial privates while high ranking officials get promoted is damaging to the very principle of command responsibility and undermines the U.S. military."
Veterans for Common Sense is co-plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of human rights and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of documents in the last year documenting torture, abuse and in some cases murder in U.S. detention centers.
If the people in charge are unaware of the activities of their subordinates, they are negligent in their duties and have lost the ability to command.
#5: The camp has held 700 prisoners since it opened, there are 540 prisoners there now. The government reported in March that, of the 700 prisoners who've been there 146 (21%) of them were released. Maybe a few of those we accidentally released, but it can be assumed that most of those people they were innocent, and were caught up in a mass sweep or were a case of mistaken identity. In other words, for having dirty fingernails at the Mosque. So while a great many of the people detained there probably are the slime of the earth, there are some in there who are innocent, and I would not like to have the torture of an innocent man on my conscience, especially not since one in five of the people who've gone through Gitmo have been innocent enough to be released back into the wild. This doesn't even consider the people we use "extraordinary rendition" on, where the CIA nabs them and sends them to a country where torture is legal, so they can really get the screws put to them. Look that up, it has happened, it does happen, and it has caught innocent people also. Now, this is Gitmo, the place where we supposedly send our biggest threats. How many innocents may have been picked up and sent to Abu Ghraib, and tortured, to find out what they know?
So, you read all this, and you say "Well, I've already said I'm not happy about this. I'm outraged-out, I've been desensitized, what difference could I really make?" I'll tell you. Write your Senators. Write your representatives. Write to Sen McCain, Sen Warner, and Sen Graham. Show your support. You don't even have to leave the keyboard. If you like, donate to the ACLU, or send an email to the ACLU or some of the other organizations involved like Veterans for Common Sense to let them know how you feel. Tell your friends, tell your family, tell your coworkers, get them informed on the details.
That's all for now.
Update [2005-7-25 21:12:10 by jabbausaf]:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_on_go_co/congress_detainees
McCain and others still refuse to roll over... at least on this issue. I guess he has some integrity left- my God, I'm happy because he's a Republican standing up to torture. You'd think that would be the norm, that it would be what I'd expect. What a sad sorry state of affairs. Anyway, check the story out.