Sapere Aude!

‘Some Will Call Me a Torturer’: CIA Man Reveals Secret Jail | Danger Room | Wired.com

Admitting that “some will call me a torturer” is a surefire way to cut yourself off from anyone’s sympathy. But Glenn Carle, a former CIA operative, isn’t sure whether he’s the hero or the villain of his own story.

Distilled, that story, told in Carle’s new memoir The Interrogator, is this: In the months after 9/11, the CIA kidnaps a suspected senior member of al-Qaida and takes him to a Mideast country for interrogation. It assigns Carle — like nearly all his colleagues then, an inexperienced interrogator — to pry information out of him. Uneasy with the CIA’s new, relaxed rules for questioning, which allow him to torture, Carle instead tries to build a rapport with the man he calls CAPTUS.

But CAPTUS doesn’t divulge the al-Qaida plans the CIA suspects him of knowing. So the agency sends him to “Hotel California” — an unacknowledged prison, beyond the reach of the Red Cross or international law.

via www.wired.com

From the bio-political perspective, black prisons are the concentration camps of the 2st century.

Gitmo Files: A Few Bad Apples?

I recall a lot of people, er, my friends in the GOP, claiming that the problems at Gitmo were just the result of a few bad apples and claiming liberals were making a big deal out of nothing.

Conservatives Against Empire

Every time one of my "conservative" friends dismisses me as a liberal for being against the Iraq war or against the Bush Administration I'm going to send them this link.

Conservatives Against Empire

Every time one of my "conservative" friends dismisses me as a liberal for being against the Iraq war or against the Bush Administration I'm going to send them this link.

McCain, Obama, and Iraq

Obviously, Iraq is a big issue this election and McCain and Obama have been going back and forth about it.  Here's McCain on Iraq from a few weeks ago.

And, here is some news on Iraq from today.

McCain, Obama, and Iraq

Obviously, Iraq is a big issue this election and McCain and Obama have been going back and forth about it.  Here's McCain on Iraq from a few weeks ago.

And, here is some news on Iraq from today.

The Bush Administration's View of Human Dignity: 'It's All Relative'

The Bush Administration and their water-carrying lawyers have an incredibly twisted view of basic morality given this President's staunch belief in respect for human life.  Their continued attempts to find loopholes and other ways around the Geneva convention so that they can do whatever they want to terror suspects is itself morally troubling.

While the United States is legally bound by the conventions' Common Article 3 and its requirement to treat detainees humanely, the definition of humane treatment can vary, depending on the detainee's identity and the importance of the information he possesses, a Justice Department official wrote last September and this March to a Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.

"Some prohibitions . . . such as the prohibition on 'outrages against personal dignity,' do invite the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the action," Brian A. Benczkowski, the principal deputy assistant attorney general, asserted in one of the letters.

[. . .]

The Justice letters allow that certain acts by interrogators -- sexual mutilation, for example -- would be unlawful under any circumstance. But when judging whether a specific interrogation practice would violate the conventions' ban on degrading treatment, the government can weigh "the identity and information possessed by a detainee," Benczkowski wrote.

He suggested that a suspect with information about a future attack could be subjected to harsher treatment, noting that a violation would occur only if the interrogator's conduct "shocks the conscience" because it is out of proportion to "the government interest involved."

So, in other words, obligations to respect for human life and personal dignity and prohibitions against violations against them are relative. If you're deemed an terrorist suspect or an enemy combatant then they can basically treat you however they see fit.  Prohibitions against torture are relative to who the torturers believe the person is an what information they believe he might possess.   I wonder if W would torture a fetus if he thought it had information about an impending terrorist attack?

The Bush Administration's View of Human Dignity: 'It's All Relative'

The Bush Administration and their water-carrying lawyers have an incredibly twisted view of basic morality given this President's staunch belief in respect for human life.  Their continued attempts to find loopholes and other ways around the Geneva convention so that they can do whatever they want to terror suspects is itself morally troubling.

While the United States is legally bound by the conventions' Common Article 3 and its requirement to treat detainees humanely, the definition of humane treatment can vary, depending on the detainee's identity and the importance of the information he possesses, a Justice Department official wrote last September and this March to a Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee.

"Some prohibitions . . . such as the prohibition on 'outrages against personal dignity,' do invite the consideration of the circumstances surrounding the action," Brian A. Benczkowski, the principal deputy assistant attorney general, asserted in one of the letters.

[. . .]

The Justice letters allow that certain acts by interrogators -- sexual mutilation, for example -- would be unlawful under any circumstance. But when judging whether a specific interrogation practice would violate the conventions' ban on degrading treatment, the government can weigh "the identity and information possessed by a detainee," Benczkowski wrote.

He suggested that a suspect with information about a future attack could be subjected to harsher treatment, noting that a violation would occur only if the interrogator's conduct "shocks the conscience" because it is out of proportion to "the government interest involved."

So, in other words, obligations to respect for human life and personal dignity and prohibitions against violations against them are relative. If you're deemed an terrorist suspect or an enemy combatant then they can basically treat you however they see fit.  Prohibitions against torture are relative to who the torturers believe the person is an what information they believe he might possess.   I wonder if W would torture a fetus if he thought it had information about an impending terrorist attack?

Jon Stewart on the 5th Anniversary of the Iraq War

Jon Stewart on the 5th Anniversary of the Iraq War