Comments on: I’m George Bush, and I do not approve of this message

By: jet

jet — Sat, 09 Oct 2004 05:14:05 +0000

Barry, I fear we will never agree on this subject. I found your website an attempt at twisting what little we do know. Near the beginning he gives a quote from a security officer describing policy for those protected by the Geneva convetion and those not. I guess he was trying to paint it as a violation, but none of the listed procedures appeared to violate the Geneva conventions. The only one even remotely questionable was the exploitation of the fear of dogs (and no I don’t mean letting the dogs maul them). Now granted you probably disagree with those policies, but that isn’t the question. The question is whether they violated law, and besides the dog, the quote absolutely doesn’t. But it is always interesting to read things from a different perspective, thanks for the link.

By: Barry Freed

Barry Freed — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:51:21 +0000

Sorry, the army impugned it’s own name by it’s actions at Abu Ghraib and many other places and by it’s subsequent failure to seriously prosecute those responsible up the chain of command. My opinion in this matter though is small beans. The fact is that the rest of the world, and not just the Arab and Muslim world, believes this to be the case, and rightfully so I might add. I would recommend that you read Mark Danner’s excellent series of essays on the topic that have been published in the NY Review of Books. I think you have to pay for the on-line edition but they are also archived on his website: http://www.markdanner.com/writing.htm Abu Ghraib: The Hidden Story The Logic of Torture Torture and Truth

By: Barry Freed

Barry Freed — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:49:20 +0000

By: jet

jet — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:13:00 +0000

And call me jingo-istic or whatever, but the impugning of the Army’s name over Abu Ghraib ticks me off. The unsupported slander that the Army had full knowledge of the goings on and allowed them to occur flies in the face of the Army’s honorable history. Don’t ever forget that while the crazed and frustrated men of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division were massacring villagers in Mai Lai, Hugh Thompson, pilot of a helicopter gun ship, trained his weapons on the Americans, and over loud speakers said he would kill them all if they didn’t stop, at which point the killing stopped and he reported the incident to his commander.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:03:23 +0000

And Barry, I think this is very dangerous thinking “naive as to think that the mere existence of an investigation is synonymous with serious condemnation of torture”. Yet you have no proof otherwise. So from what little facts we have about the case, you are drawing a conclusion contrary to what we know for sure. Looks like you are the one making naive assumptions, unless you are privy to information the rest of us aren’t. By your same line of reasoning we should be able to convict a wife beater for the murder of his wife even if the only evidence we have is his propensity for violence.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:58:49 +0000

Barry, the New Yorker has a good history of the events. The army started the criminal investigation after photos were leaked to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. And a widely ignored, but highly persuasive reason for the Army keeping it quiet is, like in a grand jury investigation, the Army’s equavalent keeps everything sealed until it is showtime. And how did Taguba’s report protect anyone? It was published before the photo leaks occured. It just didn’t go public until after the leaks. Was Taguba trying to keep secret from the brass what they were already “endorsing”? Is that what you are argueing? And the closest you can come to actual, cold hard evidence, that anyone higher up was invovled, is the words of the uncredible, sexually depraved nuts who have a high motivation to lie and reduce their sentences. I think there is more evidence that Johnson had Kennedy killed than Bush and CO endorsed Abu Ghraib.

By: Barry Freed

Barry Freed — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 17:21:38 +0000

I’m not aware of any grand jury investigation the torture scandal. And I’m not aware of any kind of investigation whatsoever into the CIA’s use of torture. Perhaps you can provide some informative links to some reputable news organizations reporting same? True, there have been several investigations of one sort or another (but as I wrote, none seem to include grand juries or the CIA) but don’t be so naive as to think that the mere existence of an investigation is synonymous with serious condemnation of torture. The investigations to date have all been whitewashs to one or another extent, whether to protect MI, like Taguba’s report, or to protect the civilian political appointees at DOD who bear ultimate responsibility (along with the President, of course) such as the report of the ex-SecDefs. The Pentagon’s own criminal investigation has only indicted low-ranking enlisted soldiers. I’ll take it a little more serious if I see some brass, preferably with stars, get indicted. That would be to take the notion of personal responsibility seriously. But I doubt that’s going to happen. Not with this Bush administration.

By: jet

jet — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:42:22 +0000

Always interesting to see lefties fall over themselves ignoring meaningful points to paint Bush in the worst possible light. Does it not seem incredibly pertinent to any accusation of Bush endorsing torture that the Pentagon was doing a CRIMINAL investigation into the proceedings at Abu Ghraib and was expediting prisoner releases at the same time, all of this BEFORE the pictures leaked to the press? Would it not seem highly implausible that Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA was both endorsing torture and forwarding a grand jury investigation into those perpetuating the torture? One of those points can’t be true, yet we know that the pictures were released by subjects of the investigation, so we know the investigation existed. And by looking at validated prisoner release dates, we know that long before the pictures were released, prisoner releases were being increased by orders of magnitude. George Orwell had lots to say on this type of blindness to facts, and he wasn’t kind.

By: Barry Freed

Barry Freed — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:14:41 +0000

bob mcmanus: Torture is a moral issue It just happens to also be a partisan issue, as Mark Kleiman is quoted, because of the way the votes on it have broken down according to party affiliation and because of what has become of the Republican party of late (for details see Dave Neiwert’s fine blog). It appears I have been misunderstood, I think a great stink should be raised about this. We need much more political agitation on this issue both partisan and non-partisan. What I was criticizing, and what I take was Ted’s point in his parenthetical comment, was using this to score partisan points against the Bush administration after they have definitively backed off this provision and instead come out against it. Though there seems to still be lingering doubt about this. After that fact to criticize them for “flip-flopping” is the worst sort of partisan opportunism. It does put the one who says that in the same moral league with those who are it’s supporters. How would you feel making that point only have the administration reverse course once again due to the political pressure? Capisce? If not I hope you like your pasta al dente

By: DaveC

DaveC — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 05:47:56 +0000

Just checking. I tried to sent another comment.

By: DaveC

DaveC — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:51:20 +0000

Here is my understanding of what you are saying: No person who makes it to the US should be deported or extradited to a country that uses torture. (or in the case of European countries they cannot be sent to a country that has capital punishment). This person can then automatically claim to be an asylum seeker, if he comes from most Arab and third world countries. In particular, this applies to persons who have been convicted in absentia for crimes and have been sentenced to death. I disagree with this point of view because this provides protection to the worst kind of criminals and terrorists. This is an example of what extreme right-wing warmongers and fascists refer to as a September 10th mindset. Here is a short list of asylum seekers in the US: * Ramzi Yousef: one of the attackers from the first assault on the World Trade Center * Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman: devised plot to destroy New York City tunnels and landmarks. * Hesham Mohamed Hadayet: the July 4th El AL assassin at LAX * Abdel Hakim Tizegha: 1999 Millennium Plot to blow up LAX and/or Seattle’s landmark Space Needle * Mir Aimal Kansi: murdered two CIA employees in 1993. * Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer: tried to bomb the Brooklyn borough subway in 1997 http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/Paper21/terrorism.html ======= Canada also has problems with the asylum process (No names for some reason, but these people are still in country): * since 1986, a convicted terrorist and murderer from the PFLP. * since mid 90’s a fundraiser for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam * since 1991, Iranian assassin employed by the Iranian Security Service * since 1990’s, 6 asylum seekersknown to be either convicted or alleged terrorists with al Qaeda connections, from Algeria, Egypt, and Syria These Canadian asylum seekers were arrested in the US: * Abdel Hakim Tizegha, noted above, after losing asylum in the US moved to Canada before participating in the Millennium Plot * Ahmed Ressam, from Algeria in December 1999 attempted to enter the US with a trunk load of explosives in his car as part of the Millennium Plot Ressam was a member of a Montreal cell of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group that has strong ties to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back402.html http://www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-terrorism.html ============ I understand the importance of asylum because I work with people who came the the US seeking asylum (long ago) from Cuba, Poland and Hungary. My problem is that there are actual terrorists and criminals that would be able to stay in this country in order to avoid the threat of torture.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:11:22 +0000

I’m not sure what examples about British asylum laws prove. Terrorist activities are a reason for denial of asylum here.

By: DaveC

DaveC — Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:39:03 +0000

I posted this over at ObWi, but I think it might be useful to think about here as well. When thinking about the problem with asylum in the United States, it is useful to keep in mind the problems with the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, and asylum seekers associated with terrorist groups. Check out this article that presciently mentions bin Ladin’s 1998 fatwa: PUT BRITAIN ON THE LIST OF STATES SPONSORING TERRORISM From EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW January 21, 2000. http://www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-terrorism.html I have excerpted some of the points below, sorry for the length of the post. (By the way I love ObWi and Katherine, thanks for the open forum) ================= Islamic Group / Islamic Jihad leaders Adel Abdul Majid and Adel Tawfiq al Sirri : Abdel Majid was implicated in the October 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and he subsequently masterminded the escape of two prisoners jailed for the assassination. In 1991, he fled to Britain and immediately was granted political asylum. He has coordinated the Islamic Group’s overseas operations ever since. In fact, he was sentenced to death in absentia for the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan in November 1995, in which 15 diplomats were killed. Abdel Tawfiq al Sirri, the co-director of the movement, has also been granted political asylum in Britain, despite the fact that he was also sentenced to death in absentia for his part in the 1993 attempted assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Atif Sidqi. *** Supporters of Sharia, headed by Abu Hamza Al-Misri, an Egyptian who was convicted of a capital offense in Egypt, but who enjoys political asylum in London, issued one of the most virulent “endorsements” of the Aug. 7, 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. Abu Hamza al-Masri presides over the Finsbury Mosque. Abu Hamza al-Masri, asylum-seeker and British citizen, was also protected by British law from extradition to Yemen. *** Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) leader, Abou Farres was granted asylum in Britain in 1992, after he was condemned to death in Algeria for acknowledging responsibility for a bombing at Algiers airport, which killed nine people and wounded 125. Farres was believed responsible, from his base in London, for the July-September 1995 string of blind terrorist acts in France, including bombings of three Paris train and subway stations and an open-air market. *** 7 of 14 men, linked to the Luxor massacre and other earlier incidents of terrorism resided in London: Yasser al Sirri: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on the life of former Prime Minister Dr. Atef Sidqi; founded the Media Observatory in London as mouthpiece for the New Vanguards of Conquest.” Adel Abdel Bari: “At present, heads Egyptian Human Rights Defense Office, affiliated to Media Observatory in London, the mouthpiece for the outlawed Jihad Organization.” Mustafa Hamzah: “Commander of the military branch of the outlawed `Islamic Group.’ ” Tharwat Shehata: “Sentenced to death in the assassination attempt on Dr. Atef Sidqi, former Prime Minister; associated with, and in charge of financing extremist elements abroad; involved in reactivating the outlawed `Jihad Organization’ abroad.” Osama Khalifa: “Accused no. 1 in the case involving domestic and foreign activities of the outlawed Islamic Group.” Refa Mousa. Mohamed el Islambouli: “One of the principal leaders of the Islamic Group; sentenced to death in the case of the outlawed organization of `Returnees from Afghanistan.’ ” *** Sheikh Abu Bakri Mohammad, the Syrian asylum-seeker who founded al Muhajiroun, a radical Islamic youth movement that recruits for terrorist groups.

By: Kimmitt

Kimmitt — Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:20:59 +0000

We aren’t criticizing Bush for being a “flip-flopper;” we’re using this as an example of the absurdity of the meme in the first place. Besides which, this really was a symbolic victory. Since it is better for the US to be covertly torturing people than overtly, we’ve won that battle, but there is no reason whatsoever to think that we will significantly decrease the number of people tortured because of it. Bush likes hurting people, and he’ll find a way to do so as long as he’s in office.

By: mona

mona — Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:06:45 +0000

What bob macmanus said. We’ve heard this “disapprove of torture” before. After the White House itself had been getting legal advice for months on how to circumvent the laws against it. White house man speaks with forked tongue. Besides, what if the law is approved anyway? Then they’ll have got what they wanted, and found a way to not be held accountable for it, yet again. Iraqi WMD screwup – blame the intelligence. Abu Ghraib – blame a few rotten apples. Etc etc. And the crime is to be partisan about it?