The Biggest Story That's Not on TV

In the midst of typical foolishness in American politics - the selling and/or nepotizing of senate seats and fears of economic meltdown - there is a monumental story that has barely seen the light of day. Consider this post my flashlight. On December 11, a bi-partisan congressional committee released this report regarding the use of torture and the complicity of the President and other seinor staffers. In order for this to sink in, we must return to 2004, and the graphic and disturbing images from Abu Ghraib: If you don't remember, this is Lynndie England, an American soldier who has borne the brunt - not to mention a huge prison sentence - of being one of a "few bad apples". However, the new report - written by 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans without a single dessent - says: The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at [Guantanamo]. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely. Also, Remember comments made by the President? Bush, on May 24, 2004, described what happened at Abu Ghraib as "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values." On June 1, 2004, he told a reporter: "Obviously, it was a shameful moment when we saw on our TV screens that soldiers took it upon themselves to humiliate Iraqi prisoners -- because it doesn't reflect the nature of the American people, or the nature of the men and women in our uniform. And what the world will see is that we will handle this matter in a very transparent way, that there will be rule of law -- which is an important part of any democracy. And there will be transparency, which is a second important part of a democracy. And people who have done wrong will be held to account for the world to see. "That will stand -- this process will stand in stark contrast to what would happen under a tyrant. You would never know about the abuses in the first place. And if you did know about the abuses, you certainly wouldn't see any process to correct them." LIAR! Just look at the self-righteous indignation of the Republican shills. First, Glenn Reynolds: Of course, it's not the same as Saddam's torture -- which was a matter of top-down policy, not the result of a**holes who deserve jail or execution, and will probably get one or both. As with other reported misbehavior, it should be dealt with very, very harshly. But those who would -- as Senator Kerry did after Vietnam -- make such behavior emblematic of our effort, instead of recognizing it as an abandonment of our principles -- are mere opportunists. "Jail or execution"? I have yet to hear Reynolds call for either of this for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. A whole bunch of his buddies recite a similar sermon. Specifically, NRO's Jonah Goldberg, Republican hack extrordinaire, is in piety mode as well: Even if all of these pictures were staged this would be an outrage. The fact that they are real makes this staggeringly awful. The awfulness is twofold. First, there's the illegal, morally corrupt -- and corrupting -- evil of torturing people for the pleasure of it (and taking pictures of it!). Second, there's the counter-productive stupidity of it. Even if these guys were the worst henchmen of Saddam's torture chambers, the damage this does to the image of America is huge. How do we look when we denounce Saddam's torture chambers now? How many more American soldiers will be shot because of the ill will and outrage this generates? How do we claim to be champions of the rule of law? Well, there is one way. This needs to be investigated and prosecuted. If there's more to the story -- whatever that could conceivably be -- let's find out. But if the story is as it appears, there has to be accountability, punishment and disclosure. Indeed, even if this turned out to be a prank, too much damage has already been done and someone needs to be punished. Under Saddam torturers were rewarded and promoted. In America they must be held to account. I see. Now that is beyond doubt that the President and his pals were involved, let's look for a demand for "accountability, punishment and disclosure". Wait for it..... Wait for it..... Still waiting... Well, you get the idea. What we get instead is a veritable cacaphony of excuses for the White House Gang: What would Mr. Obama do? After all, if we’d gotten our hands on a senior member of Al Qaeda before 9/11, and knew that an attack likely to kill thousands of Americans was imminent, wouldn’t waterboarding, or taking advantage of the skills of our Jordanian friends, have been the sensible, moral thing to do with a holy warrior who didn’t fear death but might have feared pain? Hmmm... Maybe Glenn Reynolds can explain his thoughts? The people in government who made mistakes or who acted in ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate have been held publicly accountable by severe criticism, suffering enormous reputational and, in some instances, financial losses. Little will be achieved by further retribution. Well then - does ANYONE care about this stuff? The zealotous moral compasses of the Republican party haven't done much: WARREN - Well, and you know what - some of the stuff I saw looking at Guantanamo looks like clearly it was torture. To me, if you torture someone, you put yourself no better than the enemy. We must maintain the moral highground. You have no right to condemn the immoral actions of others if we're doing the same thing. And we should expect that others will torture our people if we're torturing them. BELIEFNET- Did you ever talk to President Bush to try to convince him to change his policy? WARREN - No. No. BELIEFNET- Why not? WARREN -- Never got the chance. I just didn't. In fact, in the first place, I'm a pastor, and people might misunderstand - I don't deal with policy issues with Barack Obama or President Clinton or John McCain. I just don't. that's not my role. My role is to pastor these guys. As a leader I understand stress. He says torture is deeply immoral and that the Bush administration did appear to torture - but declines to describe the Bush policy as a moral failing. He says he didn't mention his views on torture because (implausibly) he didn't have the opportunity. Then he said it was inappropriate for him to raise it with Bush because he only offers spiritual support. ...But if he weighs in on behalf of some caues -- opposing gay marriage and abortion, for instance -- then he can't well say it would have been inappropriate to campaign harder against torture. The Democrats dont seem to care either: UPDATE: Here -- from July of this year -- is one of the more remarkable quotes of the Bush era; it's from Nancy Pelosi, who was explicitly briefed on the CIA's torture program in 2002: Q: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed? PELOSI: I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country. . . . If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story. It's not like there's any evidence that Bush committed any crimes or anything, said Pelosi. Sigh... Greenwald goes on: Just ponder the uproar if, in any other country, the political parties joined together and issued a report documenting that the country's President and highest aides were directly responsible for war crimes and widespread detainee abuse and death. Compare the inevitable reaction to such an event if it happened in another country to what happens in the U.S. when such an event occurs -- a virtual media blackout, ongoing fixations by political journalists with petty scandals, and an undisturbed consensus that, no matter what else is true, high-level American political figures (as opposed to powerless low-level functionaries) must never be held accountable for their crimes. Never. Cheney still isn't even worried about it: KARL: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it. KARL: In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far? CHENEY: I don't. KARL: And on KSM, one of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate? CHENEY: I do. And why should he worry? It's not as though anyone cares.