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

Wait — when did the Justice Dept. pull out? I think they still support it…

I call bullshit, since the WaPo’s own reporting has said that the DOJ luuuuvvvvs extraordinary rendition. Not only that, but, uh, the Bush administration has already been practicing it.

fly him to them, that is.

I would really like to believe in the sincerity of this statement, as this is an incredibly frightening issue. And yet my radar started buzzing when I saw the name signed on the letter. Alberto Gonzales is the Counsel to the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html), and if I recall correctly he has been the buzz for the next opening on the Supreme Court. This buzz has in recent months been buzzing less as I think his name is all over the legal justification for torture documents that have been coming out re: Abu Ghraib. I’ll have to check on this to be sure, but I think NPR was talking about Judge Gonzales just this morning.

Yes. It was excellent, and I used to help convince one person on the fence that this bill was not a good idea. If I regain the ability to write coherently about this I will link to it. (I only learned recently that you had a weblog at all; it’s great. Please come convince Moe that Pakistan is a bigger threat than Iraq.)

or even ends-say.

I hope that katherine’s pressure helped bring about this result, and that the result is enduring. It is a victory, but the kind of victory that puts us back to no further than we were before.

So much to worry about, I’m glad I don’t currently have to put this issue on my list of long-term worries.

<(I’m really not interested in nailing the White House for a flip-flop. If it’s true that they caved because of political pressure, good for them. Maybe they caved because of principle. Maybe it was a miscommunication. Either way, it’s a blessing, and they deserve praise for it.)/i>

-I’m so shrill only the cynics can hear me.

bob mcmanus’ posts?

“I’ll repeat: Use this to score political points and should Bush win, and this policy or it’s like become enacted in his second term than the that blood”

Bull. This is Katherine’s fight and I admire her for it, but I do view it as quixotic. These guys gonna torture, and the law has not stopped them before, and Markey isn’t gonna stop them either. They are simply caught, embarrassed and vulnerable in an election season. All the publicity about Abu Gharaib achieved was to quickly outsource the torture of Iraqis to other Iraqis.

To quote Mark Kleiman: “Torture is a partisan issue.”

many of us, I meant…

Slothrop: I think the Post may have been mistaken about the Justice Dept’s position. The WSJ reported the exact opposite on that first day.

I would happily celebrate a victory. The thing is: I honestly think these provisions are only somewhat less likely to become law because of this statement.

Bush has decided not to publicly support this bill, and I’m glad of it. But we don’t know whether the administration has decided not to privately support it, or to actively oppose it. And their history of practicing extraordinary rendition is an important piece of evidence in figuring that out.

Hastert and DeLay are fighting for this provision agressively, and may not allow a vote on Markey’s amendment. They have a long history of controlling the conference committees. I don’t think this provision is a dealbreaker such that the Senate will vote against the bill, or the President will veto it.

In the short run, we have to convince the Bush administration that it is in their best interest to prevent the torture outsourcing legalization language from being signed into law. We haven’t done this yet, and won’t do it by dropping all criticism of the administration. You have to talk about the Arar case and the other examples of rendition to show people why this is dangerous and important.

And the fight to keep this bill from passing is part of a larger fight to stop extraordinary rendition. It is necessary and important but not sufficient. Again, you cannot do that without talking about what extraordinary rendition is.

Criticizing Bush for “flip flopping” doesn’t help at all. But saying, “okay, prove it” does.

Criticizing Bush for “flip flopping” doesn’t help at all. But saying, “okay, prove it” does.

Exactly.

It is very hard for me to believe that this provision will get very far if the WH sincerely opposes it.

It’s good that Bush has been pressured to make this statement, I suppose, but it may be little more than an effort to establish deniability.

Let’s see what happens from here.

The Gonzlaes statement is full of invisible asterisks. This administration doesn’t support toprture, it says, but it has a curiously narrow view iof what amounts to “torture”–things like “waterboarding” are evidently still okay. And of course, this administrtion is every bit as prepared to be shocked and surprised at torture being practiced by Syria or Egypt as Capt. Renault was shocked and surprised to find gambling going on in Rick’s Cafe . . .

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.