Friday, July 15, 2005

The Schmidt Report on Guantanamo

From the Washington Post:
A military investigation into allegations of abuse at Guantanamo Bay reported this week that a number of specific interrogation tactics -- such as forced nudity and the use of military working dogs -- were employed at Guantanamo Bay to extract information from a high-value detainee. They were considered 'authorized' by the Army field manual and Defense Department guidance and were therefore not considered abusive. Identical tactics were later used at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison by military police officers who were not authorized to employ them.
Let us be clear about what this means. Last year, when the photographs at Abu Ghraib were published, everyone -- everyone -- expressed shock and horror at the treatment depicted in the photographs. This administration, and the entire military, made clear that nothing shown in the Abu Ghraib photographs was authorized treatment of detainees. This was just a few crazy kids on the night shift, people! Nothing to worry about.

One year later, we are told that not only were the things we saw authorized, they're authorized not by some special authority of the commander-in-chief (which would be disturbing enough), but implicitly authorized by the Army Field Manual itself. That is: something that was shocking and unauthorized one year ago today is not shocking, not extraordinary, and has always been authorized. The only problem with Abu Ghraib was that Lynndie England wasn't in Military Intelligence but in Military Police.

Here is how it happens:
1) We never authorized that!
2) Okay, we authorized that in a few specific circumstances for really bad guys, and it was maybe a little bit outside the law, but the President has the authority to do that.
3) That's always been authorized, for everyone and anyone.

So don't tell me we're investigating everything and cleaning it all up. We're investigating, yes. To clean it up, no. We're investigating in order to normalize.

UPDATE: My original post stated that it has been two years since Abu Ghraib was revealed. RJ Keefe helpfully pointed out that it has not actually been two years, but only one year. So I have modified my posting. It only took a year for Abu Ghraib to become always already legal. Yay for us!

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

No, no, Rep. King, we only shoot journalists ACCIDENTALLY!

Rep. King Says Russert and Others in Media Should 'Be Shot,' Not Karl Rove
And Joe Wilson has no right to complain. And I think people like Tim Russert and the others, who gave this guy such a free ride and all the media, they're the ones to be shot, not Karl Rove.

Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts.

And I really—I tell you, Republicans are running for cover. They should be out attacking Joe Wilson. We should throw this back at them with all the nonsense that has been said about George Bush and all the lies that have come out.

SCARBOROUGH: Well...

KING: Let's at least stand by the guy. He was trying to set the record straight for historical purposes and to save American lives. And if Joe Wilson's wife was that upset, she should have come out and said that her husband was a liar, when he was.

Monday, July 11, 2005

TSA watch list update...

AlterNet: Readers Write: Who's Watching the Watch List?
Our readers had a lot of thoughts on Graham's story, ranging from rage to paranoia to commiseration. A few folks commented on having traveled down the same "No fly"-sparked road -- such as Jessie BC, who writes, "I'm on the list too. Right now, I'm only Orange, so I can still fly. But in the years since September 11, I've watched my security status increase. Last time I flew, TSA informed me I'm now Orange, but of course wouldn't tell me why and I have no clue. I have to go through all kinds of crap to get on a plane now, including (because my front-clasp bra hooks set off the wand) having a TSA agent reach up under my shirt."

Reader Erinachara also reports embarrassing experiences with the TSA: "I've waited the 45 days, and here's what TSA had to say in a non-personalized form letter: 'We are pleased to report that upon further review of the information you have presented, we have determined that the delays you have encountered do not result from being mistaken for an individul on a TSA watch list.'

HUH? Does that then indicate that I experienced delays because I am actually on the list?"