shoulda, woulda, coulda

s'funny how what sounded impossible a coupl'a years ago sounds like a slam-dunk today ...

nader:	what about the more serious violations of habeas corpus. you know after 9-11 bush rounded up thousands of them, americans, many of them muslim americans or arabic americans and they were thrown in jail without charges, they didn't have lawyers, some of them were pretty mistreated in new york city. you know they were all released eventually.
napolitano:	correct.
nader:	is that what you mean also about throwing people in jail without charges violating habeas corpus?
napolitano:	well that is so obviously a violation of the natural law, the natural right to be brought before a neutral arbiter within moments of the government taking your freedom away from you. and the constitution itself, as the supreme court in the boumediene case pretty much said, wherever the government goes, the constitution goes with it and wherever the constitution goes are the rights of the constitution as a guarantee and habeas corpus cannot be suspended by the president ever. it can only be suspended by the congress in times of rebellion which in read milligan says meaning rebellion of such magnitude that judges can't get into their court houses. that has not happened in american history. so what president bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of guantanamo bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the constitution was blatantly unconstitutional and is some cases criminal.
nader:	what's the sanction for president bush and vice president cheney?
napolitano:	there's been no sanction except what history will say about them.
nader:	what should be the sanctions?
napolitano:	they should have been indicted. they absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. i'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime. at least not an indictable crime. it's a moral crime.
nader:	so you think george w. bush and dick cheney should even though they've left office, they haven't escaped the criminal laws, they should be indicted and prosecuted?
napolitano:	the evidence in this book and in others, our colleague the great vincent bugliosi has amassed an incredible amount of evidence. the purpose of this book was not to amass that evidence but i do discuss it, is overwhelming when you compare it to the level of evidence required for a normal indictment that george w. bush as president and dick cheney as vice president participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings.

(hat tip to crooks and liars)

scenes from an interrogation

where: not a dark, cold, clammy fetid hold deep in the bowels of a former soviet gulag. nor, for that matter, the bright, panelled, spacious chambers of the hague's international criminal court:

tom:	this story was made public by abc a few weeks ago. it claims that you, rice, tenet and others met in the white house to discuss different methods of "enhanced interrogation," is that correct?
ashcroft:	[angrily] correct? is what correct? is it correct that this story ran on abc? i don't know that. i don't know anything about it! is it a real story? when was this story, huh? huh?
tom:	um, early april, april 9th, i think ...
ashcroft:	[interrupting] you think? you think? you don't even know! next question!
tom:	the article says that you discussed "whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning"...
ashcroft:	i said, next question!

ashcroft:	no. no, [my position on torture] doesn't violate the geneva conventions. as for other laws, well, the u.s. is a party to the united nations convention against torture. and that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the senate to be ratified, and when the senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow. now, i don't have a copy of the convention in front of me ...
me:	[holding up my copy] i do! [boisterous applause and whistling from the audience] would you like to borrow it?
ashcroft:	[after a pause] uh, you keep a hold of it. now, as i was saying, i don't have it with me but i'm pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage ...
student:	liar! you liar! [the student is shushed by the audience]
ashcroft:	so no, waterboarding does not violate international law.

me:	first off, mr. ashcroft, i'd like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students. it was uncalled for — we can disagree civilly, we don't need that. [round of applause from the audience, and ashcroft smiles] i have here in my hand two documents. one of them, you know, is the text of the united nations convention against torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about "lasting physical damage" ...
ashcroft:	[interrupting] do you have the senate reservations to it?
me:	no, i don't. do you happen to know what they are?
ashcroft:	[angrily] i don't have them memorized, no. i don't have time to go around memorizing random legal facts. i just don't want these people in the audience to go away saying, "he was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!" because that's not true. it's a lie. if you don't have the reservations, you don't have anything. now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but ...
me:	actually, mr. ashcroft, my question was about this other document. [laughter and applause] this other document is a section from the judgment of the tokyo war tribunal. after wwii, the tokyo tribunal was basically the nuremberg trials for japan. many japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture. and among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...
ashcroft:	[interrupting] this is a speech, not a question. i don't mind, but it's not a question.
me:	it will be, sir, just give me a moment. the judgment describes this water treatment, and i quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach." one man, yukio asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding american troops to obtain information. since yukio asano was trying to get information to help defend his country — exactly what you, mr. ashcroft, say is acceptible for americans to do — do you believe that his sentence was unjust? [boisterous applause and shouts of "good question!"]
ashcroft:	[angrily] now, listen here. you're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges. we don't do anything like what you described.
me:	i'm sorry, i was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat ...
ashcroft:	[interrupting, red-faced, shouting] pouring! pouring! did you hear what she said? "putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them." that's not what you said before! read that again, what you said before!
me:	sir, other reports of the time say ...
ashcroft:	[shouting] read what you said before! [cries of "answer her fucking question!" from the audience] read it!
me:	[firmly] mr. ashcroft, please answer the question.
ashcroft:	[shouting] read it back!
me:	"the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."
ashcroft:	[shouting] you hear that? you hear it? "forced!" if you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring ... does this college have an anatomy class? if you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring ...
me:	[firmly and loudly] mr. ashcroft, do you believe that yukio asano's sentence was unjust? answer the question. [pause]
ashcroft:	[more restrained] it's not a fair question; there's no comparison. next question! [loud chorus of boos from the audience]

torture logic

if anyone is still a little puzzled why president bush has invested so much of his waning political capital into an end run around the geneva convention, it's not just to save himself the cost of a trip to the hague, although that alone would certainly be reason enough.

juan cole relates a most enlightening lecture delivered by former uk ambassador to uzbekistan craig murray at a recent academic symposium on central eurasia:

the bush administration has been about "the greater middle east" (including central asia). it has been about basing rights in those areas. it says it is fighting a "war on terror" that is unlike past wars and may go on for decades. it has been about rounding up and torturing large numbers of iraqis, afghans and others. this region has most of the world's proven oil and gas reserves. why is the bush administration so attached to torturing people that it would pressure a supine congress into raping the us constitution by explicitly permitting some torture techniques and abolishing habeas corpus for certain categories of prisoners? ... boys and girls, it is because torture is what provides evidence for large important networks of terrorists where there aren't really any, or aren't very many, or aren't enough to justify 800 military bases and a $500 billion military budget.

boys and girls, is there any doubt that when this chapter of american history has been committed to ink that it will catalogue the war on terror with the spanish inquistion and the salem witch trials?

wwjd?*

josh marshall:

if you were to pick the single greatest hypocrisy of the bush presidency, wouldn't it have to be this: that the man who ostentatiously claims jesus as his favorite philosopher (he of "do unto others as ye would have them do unto you" fame) would say, in all seriousness, "common article iii says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. it's very vague. what does that mean, 'outrages upon human dignity'?"

---

^* what would jesus do?

for the president's clarification

george w. bush, addressing the press in the white house rose garden:

this debate is occurring because of the supreme court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the common article iii of the geneva convention. and that common article iii says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity. it's very vague. what does that mean, "outrages upon human dignity"? that's a statement that is wide open to interpretation. and what i'm proposing is that there be clarity in the law so that our professionals will have no doubt that that which they are doing is legal. you know, it's — and so the piece of legislation i sent up there provides our professionals that which is needed to go forward.

the geneva convention, article 3, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, in force since october 21, 1950:

in the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. to this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. an impartial humanitarian body, such as the international committee of the red cross, may offer its services to the parties to the conflict. the parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present convention. the application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict.

now tell us again, george — just what part is it that's "vague" and "wide open to interpretation"?

no, george, this "debate" is not occurring because of any wrist-slap from the supreme court. the geneva convention did not pass unmolested for more than a half century because no one noticed how pretty the plain and bespeckled old bird was. so too with the constitution and your craven efforts to play peeping tom on its citizens.

no, george, after spending your two terms shamelessly defiling both the convention and the constitution, your flabby virgin backside juts exposed to charges of war crimes and impeachment and you need your rubberstamping posse running congress (but running it for not too much longer) to cover your unsightly naked emperorship.