Here’s an interview with an author of a book about the torture under this administration. She discusses the CIA being put in charge of interrogation and the FBI refusing to participate in torture. She points out that there were people who were appropriately horrified all along.

I think those people should be highly encouraged to come forward now. It’s not fair to demand heroism from people, and they were in the belly of a very ugly beast.

Roughly 28% of the U.S. population would still crucify them for coming out. It’s a sad fact that a much larger percentage of the U.S. would have crucified them before. Surely they were painfully aware that they had few allies in the press. In the interview, the author explains that the only reason she was able to get so many interviews was because the New Yorker gave journalists a lot of time to investigate.

I just can’t agree with this idea as it would be an example of torture that the US should not be doing.

Bushie Says:
Hypocrisy is alive and thriving in the current and incoming Administration

bushie wants dems to be as bad as the republicans. Sorry, the republicans own this nightmare, including the economy. Hang it around your neck like a chicken. Wear it, own it.

America would not be where it is today without he criminal gop, that is your legacy.

The above summation is a typical example of the mindlessness so entrenched in our media. War crimes are formal charges brought and determined by public courts of Law and in accordance with internationally recognized procedures and rights, such as habeas corpus, disclosure and so on.
Gitmo and its military tribunals were and still are utterly illegal under US and international law.

The status of the “inmates”, actually prisoners, as determined by the administrators of Gitmo and its policies have NO STANDING.

The tragic and venal ironies are that by any normal standard the cases against these prisoners are by definition invalid because the manner in which they have been imprisoned and charged was and is illegal and that much if not all of the evidence used against them is and would be inadmissible in any normal court.
Whilst some prisoners could still be legitimately imprisoned, many others that were simply swept up in the Gitmo ‘process’ may now indeed be deemed’dangerous;–but as a result of their treatment by the US and NOT their original condition or ‘crime’.
How then would a normal court proceed? Wouldn’t the continued incarceration of such unfortunate ‘innocents’ actually validate these illegal actions by the US? Which greater good would be served by keeping prisoner dangerous individuals that may have been MADE dangerous by the Gitmo process–the public safety or the rule of law?

IMHO all the prisoners should be provided due process in public US courts, and if the cases against them can;t be made by due process, then tough titties for the Pentagon and the Bush administration. If anyone released then comes back for revenge then we will simply have to deal with the consequences of our government’s illegal and immoral actions—we always do anyway.
And let me add, upholding in even the slightest degree the ‘Gitmo Process’ will be and already is sufficient cause and motivation for others still abroad to justify continued attacks against the US at home or overseas, against its citizens, its ‘interests’ and its property.

Eliminating Gitmo and more importantly, publicly condemning the policies that created it AND prosecuting those involved to whatever extent is possible wouldn’t end terrorism against the US and its allies, of course, but it would mitigate at least one motivation and that would be a step in the right direction.

Dissent, alternate views, nuanced thinking were all tamped down during the Bush regime. I suspect that Cheney was the main instigator of this “group-think” and wielded a heavy hand in stifling effective policy debate.

This is what I expect will be only one example of the differences we will see between the disastrous Bush years and the Obama administration. Policy will be vigorously debated. Bright and experienced people will have their opinions heard and tested against reality and other critical aspects of the core issues. Decisions will be made by the President based upon broad input and will be articulated and explained effectively. There will be buy-in and competent execution by members of his team. There will be deeper public understanding and appreciation for the chosen direction.

In other words, the difference between the Bush and Obama administrations will be like the difference between night and day.

December 3rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
_______

It’s a good question. I’m hoping none of these retired generals are the same people the Pentagon used as “Message Force Multipliers” to lie us into Iraq.

Military folks despise these practices as much as we do.

They know that our soldiers will be treated the same. They know that our soldiers will spend the rest of their lives living with the memories of what was done these past years. They know that torture isn’t an American value, nor does it belong in any democracy.

The only thing America has won in Iraq is shame & dishonor…

Every government employee signs an oath to uphold the Constitution, they could have used that to have stood up to Bush.

Well, at least it’s going to get better now that we have a commander-in-chief with a functioning brain, and a sense of morality.