Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crmes

[billc]

Americans who suffered under real war crimes:

http://olotliny.wordpress.com/2009/...-of-honor-recipient-prisoner-of-war-survivor/

http://www.looktruenorth.com/securi...orsness-torture-thoughts-on-memorial-day.html

 

[Makalakumu]

Americans probably won't need a coup to give up our right to a military dictatorship. If another attack happens, people will beg for it.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

You know, this country has been through a few "problems," in its time and I have to say that fear of the military assuming power is not something we have to worry about.

 

[Empty Hands]

Mpc1257, I agree with you. Too many people are stretching the definition of war crimes to the point where it does a disservice to the victims of real "War Crimes."

If you (and MPC1257) don't think torture counts as a war crime, then you are an immoral and degenerate human being.

 

[billc]

Memorandum to senior supervisor:

As concerns the project of monitoring civillian entertainment/hobby sites on the internet, apparently it is beginning to pay off. Several members of my target site, Martialtalk.com, which I have been monitoring under the ficitonal name "Bill CIhak" have begun to probe too closely to our current activities. It seems the threat of assuming control of governmental operations if the new president failed to dismiss any attempt to pursue war crimes against our operatives has leaked. I am forewarding the identities and backgrounds of all the sources of this information from the site "Martialtalk.com." This memo is to be labeled "ABOVE TOP SECRET" when it is passed on to the higher command structure.

Agent 123
Hugs and kisses

 

[billc]

Waterboarding is fine by me, real, actual torture is not.

 

[billc]

I'll be in the same camp as Leo Thorseness and Bud Day on waterboarding any day of the week. those two guys know what they are talking about when it comes to the difference between real torture and waterboarding.

 

[billc]

And for the record, http://theacru.org/pdfs/TheInterrogationMemos.pdf

The Interrogation Memos:
Shall We Be Clueless on Terrorism?
By
Peter Ferrara, John Armor, Ken Klukowski, and Carlos Ramirez

The American Civil Rights Union
Introduction
Raging members of Congress, agitated TV commentators, andhyperventilating bloggers are calling for prosecution of Bush Administrationofficials they allege broke the law and committed war crimes in participating
in what they allege was illegal “torture” of captured high level terrorists.
President Obama himself has denounced Bush interrogation policies as
torture, and ordered an end to all such interrogations in his administration.
But he has declined to prosecute or even investigate any of the CIA operatives
who carried out such interrogations under the Bush Administration, on the
grounds that they were just acting under orders and with the legal approval of
more senior Bush officials.

We have reviewed the four challenged legal memos. As we will
discuss below, they add up to 124 single spaced pages of careful legal
reasoning reviewing all applicable statutes, treaties, cases, and word
definitions, and applying that law to a thorough discussion of the CIA’s
enhanced interrogation techniques utilized under President Bush. We find not
only that these memos involve a thorough, well-reasoned, praiseworthy legal
effort and analysis. We find that their conclusions are correct under
applicable law.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I went and read the original article carefully. This was not easy to do, because quite honestly, it's not well-written. And it's simply being quoted over and over again from one blog to another; a true echo chamber. It gets worse each time it's repeated. Now it is mostly "Obama Feared Coup," with absolutely was not said by anyone but the blog writers themselves.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Team-Feared-Coup-If-by-Andrew-Kreig-110907-156.html

Edley responded to my request for additional information by providing a description of the transition team's fears. Edley said that transition officials, not Obama, agreed that he faced the possibility of a "revolt."

Note the use of the word 'revolt' and not 'coup'. They are very different words, and mean very different things. A coup is a revolt, of course, but it means that the government it toppled by illegal means. A 'revolt' is:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revolt

re·volt (r-vlt)
v. re·volt·ed, re·volt·ing, re·volts
v.intr.
1. To attempt to overthrow the authority of the state; rebel.
2. To oppose or refuse to accept something: revolting against high taxes.
3.
a. To feel disgust or repugnance: to revolt at a public display of cruelty.
b. To turn away in revulsion or abhorrence: They revolted from the sight.
v.tr.
To fill with disgust or abhorrence; repel. See Synonyms at disgust.
n.
1. An uprising, especially against state authority; a rebellion.
2. An act of protest or rejection.
3. The state of a person or persons in rebellion: students in revolt over administrative policies.

Note that definition #1 above is the same as an attempt at a coup. But none of the other definitions are anything like that. One meaning I find most likely in Edley's response to the author is #2 above, "To oppose or refuse to accept something."

Note also that it was the transition team that feared this revolt; not Obama. Yet many of the echo-chamber blogs now headline that Obama himself feared a 'coup'.

Not often quoted in the various blogs is this bit:

http://www.justice-integrity.org/in...h-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes&catid=44:myblog

Edley responded that Obama’s team feared that leadership in the U.S. armed forces, the CIA and NSA might “revolt” if the new Obama administration prosecuted war crimes by U.S. authorities and lower-ranking personnel. Also, Edley told Harman that his fellow decision-makers on Obama's team feared that a prosecution inquiry could lead to Republican efforts to thwart the Obama agenda in Congress.

OK, so what I'm reading here is that Edley (and the transition team, NOT OBAMA) feared that the military leadership (not the troops), the CIA, and the NSA might 'revolt' AND he adds that there was a fear that a prosecution might thwart the Obama agenda in Congress.

Now, tell me this. If you fear a COUP, meaning your government has been utterly overthrown and the president is no longer president, in what way do you ALSO fear that your president's AGENDA is going to be thwarted in Congress? If you are ousted in a COUP, you haven't GOT an AGENDA anymore, do you?

So I am satisfied that what Edley was saying was that the transition team feared that if they instigated war crimes investigations, they'd have huge problems with angry military leaders and the heads of the CIA and NSA (and not surprising, since it would be their asses on the chopping block). And the backlash of an investigation in Congress would harm the Obama agenda right off the bat. Revolt? Yes, in the sense that some senior generals and admirals and the head of the CIA and NSA would say "Shove it up your butt, Mister President," forcing them to be fired and causing all kinds of bad will with Congress right off the bat.

At no point did Edley say or imply that the transition team feared a coup - and definitely not that Obama feared one.

I wish people had better reading skills. It is pretty clear to me that the first person to blog this read 'revolt' as 'coup' and it was off to the races.

It's really kind of sad.

And both sides do this; this is not a slam on the left or the right. Idiots with agendas abound. Nobody gives a crap about facts, it's all about attacks.

 

[Empty Hands]

Waterboarding is fine by me, real, actual torture is not.

You know perfectly well what it is. If I believed in God like you do, I might be afraid that he was actually watching me and wanted me to take his commands seriously.

 

[billc]

Yes, I do know what waterboarding is. I know how the Japanese used it, how the Kmer Rouge used it and how the inquisition used it. I also know the actual technique that was used on the three terrorists leaders. It was nothing like what the Japanes, or the others did. As Leo thorseness and Bud day say, it is rough treatment but it is not torture. Anything that allows you to towel off, prey to Mecca and then go have a nice religously regulated dinner afterward, is not torture.

The actual procedure used to interrogate the prisoners, and what was allowed is in that memo I posted.

 

[billc]

From the linked memo on the interrogations:

We also discuss below the enhanced interrogation techniques utilized and their results. The most
controversial of these techniques, waterboarding, was used on just three of the most high level
detainees who were all senior terrorist leaders involved in high level attacks on Americans and
U.S. targets, and who had information regarding planned future attacks. Contrary to some
uninformed media commentary, this waterboarding technique has a history of being highly
effective in the most difficult interrogations. It was so in these cases, as we will also show
below, resulting in information that stopped at least two planned terrorist attacks on American
soil that would have killed thousands of Americans. It also produced extensive operational
information regarding Al Qaeda that enabled American officials in cooperation with our allies to
disrupt and shut down international Al Qaeda networks, and consequently stop untold additional
terrorist attacks.
This waterboarding was used on these three senior terrorists involved in attacks on
America only after lesser techniques were tried and failed. Moreover, it was used only after
evaluations by medical and psychiatric experts, and conducted only with the presence and
supervision of such experts, to ensure that the practice did not remotely involve infliction of
“severe physical or mental pain or suffering,” which is what is prohibited as torture under U.S.
law.

 

[billc]

I am definitely against the practices in the following video:

the activity starting at 53 seconds is tough to watch.

 

[Makalakumu]

Revolt or coup? Consider that some of the highest ranking people in the military believe that a coup is possible.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.


In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.


Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.


If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”


Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.


“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Is that a coup or a revolt or did we simply let our freedoms go? Perhaps this could be called a propaganda coup?

The original article reminds me of the Bill Hicks bit where the newly elected president is shown the secret angle from the JFK assassination and it become clear who exactly blew his head off. THAT was a coup, btw.

 

[Empty Hands]

And, of course, the authorized torture extends far beyond waterboarding, which is what senior officials were willing to admit to. Read the Taguba Report by Major General Antonio Taguba. Read about the extraordinary rendition of suspects to Syria or other friendly dictatorships for torture, or the black sites outside the country where we did the torture ourselves.

For the sensibilities of the forum, I won't post pictures or details. I will leave you this exchange with John Yoo, who provided legal cover for the Administration's torture policies:

"Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

Vile, inhuman, and illegal. Unfortunately President Obama by his inaction has legitimated their actions. Torture still remains on the table for future Presidents, and it wouldn't surprise me if the current one was using it too. Anyone who claims for themselves a shred of morality or decency should desire to see these lawbreakers punished, and for the United States to forswear all uses of torture in the future.

Sadly, the defenders and the public at large have revealed their character.

 

[billc]

Everyone knows that the fashion industry is behind all of the major political assasinations throughout history.

 

[billc]

A quick search on the Taguba Report:

http://www.caci.com/iraq/truth_error.shtml

[TABLE="class: verdana twelve, width: 100%"]


[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Error[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]The Taguba report is based on an in-depth and
detailed investigation into the intelligence gathering and interrogation
practices at Abu Ghraib. FALSE[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Truth[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]The Taguba report was not based on an
investigation of interrogators, interrogation practices, or intelligence
gathering at Abu Ghraib. The Taguba report was based on an investigation of
Military Police (MP) activity at Abu Ghraib.[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]

[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Error[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]The Taguba report was the final investigative report
on abuse allegations at Abu Ghraib in 2003 and early 2004. FALSE[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Truth[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]The Taguba report was one of several
investigations into abuse allegations at Abu Ghraib and it was directed
specifically at investigating Military Police (MPs). Other investigations
followed that specifically examined other aspects of the prison, including
intelligence gathering, interrogations, and interrogators.
In several cases these later reports came to different conclusions than Maj.
Gen. Taguba, including his conclusions about interrogators. At the time the
Taguba report was illegally leaked to the press and being quoted widely,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated in his testimony to the Senate Armed
Services Committee (June 7, 2004): "In addition to the Taguba report, there are
other investigations under way… And because all the facts are not in hand, there
will be corrections and clarifications to the record as more information is
learned."
[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]

[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Error[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]All of Maj. Gen. Taguba's recommendations were
implemented by the military and the government at the conclusion of his report.
FALSE[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Truth[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]According to Lt. Gen. Lance L. Smith, in his
testimony to the House Armed Services Committee on May 7, 2004, "I would say 75%
of the recommendations have already been implemented. And the ones that have not
are either in the process of being implemented or being evaluated as to whether
that's the best course or another course might be better."[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]

[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Error[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]CACI and its employees were "involved in,"
"participated in," or have been "charged" with abusing detainees or "directing
the abuse" of detainees at Abu Ghraib. FALSE[/TD]
[/TR]

[TR]

[TD="width: 6%, bgcolor: #eeeeee"]Truth[/TD]

[TD="width: 89%"]Neither CACI nor any of its employees have been found
or proven to be "involved in" or "participated in" or "charged" with abuse, nor
have they been indicted for "directing abuse." Several investigations resulted
from the abuse allegations at Abu Ghraib. The first, the Ryder report, made no
mention of CACI.
The second, the Taguba report, which was based on an investigation of
Military Police (not military intelligence, including interrogators)
stated a suspicion about one CACI employee (and misidentified
another suspected individual as a CACI employee). Several other official
investigations followed (including specific investigations of interrogators and
intelligence gathering at Abu Ghraib) which did not result in anyone from CACI
being indicted or charged with any abuses at Abu Ghraib.

In his report, Maj. Gen. Taguba urged that CACI employee Steven Stefanowicz
be removed from his job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearance for
allegedly lying to the investigating team and allegedly allowing or ordering
MPs, who were not trained in interrogation techniques, to facilitate
interrogations by setting conditions that Maj. Gen. Taguba said were neither
authorized nor in accordance with Army regulations. All of Maj. Gen. Taguba's
allegations regarding this employee remain unsupported based on all of the
evidence made available to date.
[/TD]
[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[WC_lun]

There is no justification for torture. Just because the other side does it, does not mean we should. We say we are the god guys. There are things we would never do because we are the good guys. However, we then proceed to do the things that we said we would never do. Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. There is no in between.

As far as water boarding, we as a nation have agreed that it is torture. We signed treaties to that effect and have prosecuted both foreign nationals and our own citizens in the past for it. Now we say it is legal if the president says it is? BS. People are afraid and justifying behaviour we woud never condone otherwise.

"Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

This is disgusting on so many levels. Thereare some things you just do not do, being amoral human being. Otherwise you become the darkness you pretend to fight.

 

[billc]

From congressional medal of honor winner Leo Thorsness on being tortured, and how he would use waterboarding to save lives:

Having been there, it is fact to me. While in torture I had the sickening feeling deep within my soul that maybe I would tell the truth as that horrendous pain increased. It is unpleasant, but I can still dredge up the memory of that window of truth feeling as the pain level intensified.

Our world is not completely good or evil. To proclaim we will never use any form of enhanced interrogations causes our friends to think we are naïve and eases our enemies' recruitment of radical terrorists to plot attacks on innocent kids, men and women - or any infidel. If I were to catch a "mad bomber" running away from an explosive I would not hesitate a second to use "enhanced interrogation," including waterboarding, if it would save lives of innocent people.
Our naïveté does not impress radical terrorists like those who slit the throat of Daniel Pearl in 2002 simply because he was Jewish, and broadcast the sight and sound of his dying gurgling. Publicizing our enhanced interrogation techniques only emboldens those who will hurt us.

 

[Makalakumu]

Your tax dollars at work...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/busted-pentagon-why-the-p_b_209046.html

Obama is refusing to release of detainee abuse depict, among other sexual tortures, an American soldier raping a female detainee and a male translator raping a male prisoner. The paper claims the photos also show anal rape of prisoners with foreign objects such as wires and lightsticks.

As I wrote last year in my piece on sex crime against detainees, 'Sex Crimes in the White House," highly perverse, systematic sexual torture and sexual humiliation was, original documents reveal, directed from the top; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice were present in meetings where sexual humiliation was discussed as policy;

And scores of detainees who have told their stories to rights organizations have told independently confirming accounts of a highly consistent practice of sexual torture at US-held prisons, including having their genitals slashed with razors; electrodes placed on genitals; and being told US military would find and rape their mothers.

But what is far scarier about these images Obama refuses to release and that the Pentagon is likely to be lying about now is that it is not the evidence of lower-level soldiers being corrupted by power - it is proof of the fact that the most senior leadership - Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, with Rice's collusion - were running a global sex crime trafficking ring with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Baghram as the holding sites.

Probably dozens of prisoners were sodomized with lightsticks. In the highly credible and very fully documented Physicians for Human Rights report, Broken Bodies, Broken Lives, doctors investigated the wounds and scars of former prisoners, did analysis of the injuries, assessed the independent verification of their stories, and reported that indeed many detainees had in fact been savagely raped with lightsticks and by other objects inserted into their rectums, many sustaining internal injuries.

This same report confirms that female military or other unidentified US-affiliated personnel were used to sexually abuse detainees by smearing menstrual blood on their faces, seizing their genitals violently, or rubbing them against their will in a sexual manner.

These are documented war crimes and official policy. So, lets please STOP talking about waterboarding. THAT is just a political diversion from the stuff that everyone would recognize as torture.

Here's what the top lawyers in the White House say they can legally do...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2006/01/12/alito_bush

"If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"