I’m speechless…almost.
–Seymour M. Hersh, “Torture at Abu Ghraib,” The New Yorker
–Rumsfeld, Defense Department Operational Update Briefing, May 4, 2004
There is only one question to be asked: what are they hiding?
You can read more about the proposed cuts in defense spending here. I’m sure there’s much to be discussed. However, the addition of the use of veto power to derail investigations of torture at the hands of US soldiers is unconscionable.
The Bush administration has already set up protections for itself by refusing to participate in the International Criminal Court. The military justice system has handed out lax sentence after lax sentence to the soldiers involved. And, frankly, the timing of this threat is suspect since a judge just ruled yesterday that more photos from the Abu Ghraib torture cases can now be released – most likely a decision that will be appealed – coupled with the rumours surrounding the possible, upcoming nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the US Supreme Court.
How the president can threaten such an extreme measure, the power of the veto, to suppress the rights of all of the victims and their families is beyond the pale.
The fact that Bush is attempting to veto a Republican defense budget bill will bring a chorus of dissenters not only from the left and center but from his very allies on the right. He’s playing with fire – to a degree. It’s quite likely the Republicans will cave or compromise on the spending details but those Republicans will have a hard time defending a president who does not want to investigate one of the biggest outrages of the Iraq war at a time when Bush’s numbers are so low and the majority of Americans oppose the war. What possible justification could those Republicans have for stonewalling such an investigation? Even Pat Roberts made this assertion in May, 2004 when speaking about the Abu Ghraib torture:
“We don’t know where this is going to lead.”
I think Karl Rove has made a huge political gamble here that he and Bush will ultimately lose.
Get the word out now.
Outrageous, and yet not at all surprising.
Its sad, isn’t it? The most surprising thing about these atrocious political decisions isn’t that they’re happening, but that they’re so brazen, so unashamed, about doing them.
Its almost as if they’re so cocky they’re mocking everyone — “what’re you gonna do about it?”
Not just mocking our guys anymore, but their own party too. Their lack of concern for 49% of the counted voters was bad enough, but now they don’t seem to give a damn about 75%+. Its like the re-election ‘victory’ was carte blanche to play tinpot dictators of the world.
If these aren’t the most vile and dangerous psychopaths to run a White House in modern times…
Just when you think you can’t be surprised by one more thing they’ll try to pull off… My jaw dropped in 2001 and it’s practically stayed the same way since.
They have good cause to be cocky. The press has let them walk on so many occasions that I don’t even bother keeping count any longer.
I personally think people are still a little chicken to turn on him because most Bush supporters pinned SO much hope onto him. Both big business and the social conservative elements have so much invested in him that we cannot be shocked that they’re tryign everythign in their power to buttress his presidency.
When he falls.. and he WILL fall .. it’s going to be catastrophic, and even the most soimple minded repub yutz is beginning to grok that now.
.
WH has used this measure before in the past year.
Sound the drums, only by spreading the story will one or two senators be ashamed to accept WH threat – persons like John McCaine and John Warner. Next step will be an agreement, no more interviews at Congressional hearings.
▼ ▼ ▼
…no more congressional hearings, period.
Nah. They’ll still hold hearings.
Diebold WILL be counting the Senators’ votes, however.
Actually it is an ongoing gambit. The last time this bill was up Bush made the original veto threat. When Frist was unable to get the bill removed he simply tabled the bill to avoid an embarrassing showdown. Actually, the push for the “no-torture” rider is coming from Republicans including John McCain and Lindsay Graham and a few others. Bush is now between a rock and a hard place because he needs the spending bill and he risks more bad press and a mini-mutiny from within his own party if he vetoes it on account of the no-torture rider.
From Ray McGovern at antiwar.com:
More recently, Warner joined two other Republican senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, in attempts to introduce amendments against torture to the defense authorization bill. The amendments would require that U.S. forces revert to the standards set forth in Army Field Manual (FM 34-52) for interrogating detainees held by the Defense Department. The manual prohibits the use of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Another amendment discussed would require that all foreign nationals “be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross.” This would prohibit sequestering unregistered “ghost detainees” at prisons like Abu Ghraib and secret CIA interrogation centers.
Inured as I thought I had become to outrageous behavior at the top of the Bush administration, I found its reaction shocking. On the evening of July 21, Vice President Dick Cheney went to Capitol Hill to dissuade the three senators from proceeding with the amendments. But the senators have not been cowed”not yet, at least. Four days later on the floor of the Senate, John McCain – who knows something of torture – made a poignant appeal to his colleagues to hold our country to humane standards in treating captives, “no matter how evil or terrible” they may be. “This is not about who they are. This is about who we are,” said McCain.
The following day, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pulled the Pentagon spending bill off the floor, sparing Bush the political risk of vetoing the much-needed defense authorization bill simply because it included amendments requiring the protections for detainees required by U.S. criminal statute and international law.
It will be interesting to see if, in the end, the senators cave in to White House pressure. For if they do, they will be providing yet another congressional nihil obstat for the general approach so succinctly voiced by the president to then-terrorism czar Richard Clarke and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the White House on the evening of 9/11. According to Clarke, the president yelled, “I don”t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.”
‘Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again’
— George W. Bush
You know, I was over posting a comment about momma deer and bunny rabbits, minding my own business. Now I’m here, madder than hell. It’s your fault, too. Great diary, by the way. 😉
Maybe the Bush administration is so angry because the latest ruling in the ACLU case went against them. Don’t forget, that involved torture documents/memos, not only photos/videos. Their front man in the senate (Frist) is under investigation. In their imperial arrogance, they are in no mood for internal disobedience.
I’m sorry I ruined your communion with nature. We could sure all use a bit more of that!
I wonder if Bushco will be able to stall the appeals process in that case until he’s finally out of office. Show us those documents!
“…stall the appeals process in that case until he’s finally out of office.”
Nah, just until he can stack the SCOTUS. There are some things they will do anything to keep hidden. Besides, once he’s out of office, he can be prosecuted. No, the really bad stuff they’ll want buried forever.
.
Please link! Sounds like paradise – I need to retreat.
Especially after confrontation with mkt’s diary.
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
It’s Susanhu’s open thread about her racoon named Valerie Plame. Oh Oui, it’s a hoot… check it out.
I declined to link to the atrocities. I got enough of BushCo nightmares floating around in my noggin for the time being.
This total insanity which has resulted from BushCo seems to be increasing exponentially with time. So far, I see no end to it, even though some hope still prevails with the recent resurgence of an anti-war movement.
Oh, the power of law, not! Do you wonder why you are a laughingstock around the world these days? Total impotence emanating from one of your three “co-equal branches of government”!
Let’s see… Congress once upon a time legislated a law. A law used to be something regulating the conduct of each and everyone. George W Bush even boasted – at the time of his rush around the middle east trying to do some damage control – after Abu Ghraib sprung: “These atrocities will be dealt with. We have laws on the book in America. That ought to comfort you!”
Now your squeemy little House of Degenerates are trying to legislate another law admonishing itself to follow its earlier legislated law.
And don’t tell me this is because your dear leader happened to refer to your prisoners as “enemy combatants” – a term non-existent before that and thus not covered by the law. If you do that – and accept it as a fact – you have no need for a Congress anymore.
In fact you have already – whatever you say – accepted Bush usurping legislative power.
Bush is a dictator, no less.
One is only left reeling at thoughts of what hasn’t yet been revealed, like an iceberg.
Bush has not vetoed a bill in five years. Ever. That would require a degree of courage, to stand up for something actng as an individual, not as the figurehead icon of the ruling party.
My observations have been that Bush will use every trick in the book — blackmail, intimidation, accusing the opposition of treason and being un-American, bribery, and threats — to get other people to do what he wants. He is spiteful and vindictive in seeking vengeance against vulnerable individuals from the safety of his authority, hoping those examples deter others from risking the same fate.
But he relies almost entirely on other people capitulating to his methods of “persuasion.” He avoids actual confrontations in which the outcome is uncertain. He relies on the authority of his office, and the reverence most Americans (including the Senate and Congress) have for it, to get his way.
Now, granted, it could be one reason Bush has never vetoed a bill is that he frankly hasn’t seen any reason to. Excessive spending doesn’t bother him, so long as it’s for the “right” things, such as military spending or pork projects for his side of the aisle. And the Republican-dominated Congress hasn’t come up with anything that he’d disagree with in principle.
This is different. It interferes with his right to run things as he sees fit. It imposes rules on him as supreme dictator…er, I mean Commander in Chief that he considers undermining his authority. Bush has never liked being told there are rules that thwart his whims, or that he might be held accountable for something he did. And a serious investigation is a threat to an authority he sees as sancrosanct. In his worldview, if you question ONE thing the President does, it throws EVERYTHING the President does into question, and he cannot abide that.
But to actually veto the bill… well, that means stepping out on a limb. It means risking his authority by actually exercising it when there’s a doubt as to the results. Because IF he vetoes the bill, and Congress turns around and overturns the veto — which they could, especially if the original vote is bipartisan and a strong majority — then what does that do to his self-held myth about the President’s ultimate authority? Can he really take the risk of appearing so weak, when he has three years yet to go in his final term?
I don’t know if there are enough Republicans of principle (or Dems either) to pass the spending bill with the objectionable sections included. But IF they do… and it’s any kind of decent majority that could conceivably oveturn a veto… MY prediction is that the President will neither veto it (because that would entail taking a huge risk with his personal image of his authority) nor sign it (because he’s a vindictive little prick who has never given in gracefully).
So (IIRC) it will then pass into law without a presidential signature, and Bush will then go to other tactics, ignoring its existence as best he can, stalling any investigations, suppressing any information leaks on torture practices or policies, considering the bill and its provisions illegitimate because he didn’t approve them.
This is gonna be interesting… I’d love to see what happens if the Senate calls his bluff.
I’m attempting to make a family weekend of it so I am not going to allow myself to lose it yet about this. I’m going to save it for Monday.
Enjoy your weekend! Give everybody a hug for all of us. 🙂
only the meanspirited win these days.
There’s nothing surprising about this. The Bush regime has shown it’s utter contempt and disdain for Democracy and for the democratic process since the beginning.
The extremists who’ve hijacked the government are authoritarian in practise and in ideology. Democratic principles and processes are either obstacles to be circumvented or freedoms to be repressed in the name of national security.
These maniacs have utter contempt for the rule of law because they themselves imagine themselves beyond it’s reach.
if he signed it with the anti-torture amendment. We know he can’t admit a mistake, and this was a ghastly one. Just last week a judge ordered more photos and video released (for the second time).
BTW, where are the Dems who should be making this important amendment bipartisan? I’ve already written my senators urging them to strongly support the McCain-Warner-Graham amendment. I told them they’d be condoning torture if they didn’t, and I’d remind people at election time. I will, too, even though they’re both Dems — if in name only (Lincoln, Pryor). I’m against torture. Period.
I love the diary but I do have one problem with it.
Everyone concentrates on the photos.
The photos of abuse/torture are a sideshow distraction to the memos that the Judge ordered the CIA to produce.
That will likely be the tie-in to the DoD, Rummy, Gonzo, and the rest of the bush regime signing off on this policy.
More photos just mean more low ranking soldiers get blamed… I would rather the people that requested/ordered this to happen get nailed.
Nag reminded me in the comments about the doucments involved.