In the docket was the former chief legal counsel for the DoD, one William "Jim" Haynes, who had an unbelievably blank memory for one of the most senior lawyers in the United States government. This man was in charge of 10,000 other lawyers at the DoD. Yes, that is correct, by his own testimony. 10,000. I heard him say it. But it was clear from his own muddled testimony -- and by the printed record of his own memos submitted as evidence -- that Haynes chose to ignore the advice of most of those 10,000 lawyers, and he approved the torturing of prisoners. Then he blamed it on low-level officers at Gitmo. A true gutless wonder of the Universe.
What most amazed me was this: when he was answering questions put to him by Sen. Levin, he just couldn't recall a darn thing about anything. As soon as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina -- who one might think would be more friendly, but who sounded just as skeptical as Levin did -- started to cajole Haynes' memory banks with a little Southern charm, well, Mr. Haynes chirped up little details that only a moment earlier had eluded him.
This man contradicted himself in testimony numerous times in just the brief 30 minutes I watched this hearing on C-Span. I can't imagine what the rest of the hearing was like.
A few moments after Sen. Graham finished, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri whapped Haynes sideways with several angry verbal two-by-fours , and you could hear all the air escaping the room as if sucked out into the vacuum of space by a hole the size of a pea made by a micrometeorite bulleting through a steel fuselage.
It was fascinating.
If you don't know what this latest Bush Administration scandal is about -- so maddening that retelling it nearly caused Keith Olbermann to blow a blood vessel in his temple tonight, let me make it simple:
It's about Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, extreme rendition, civil liberties, waterboarding, Habeas Corpus, three Supreme Court rulings, the Military Commissions Act, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and illegal military tribunals.
It's about using torture on completely innocent people around the world who were turned over to the CIA for money by their neighbors who didn't like them, and then these hapless prisoners were kept in isolation, without charges, abused, sometimes raped, sometimes even killed, by our government, all in the name of "protecting Americans," using our taxpayer money, and with our tacit consent, since U.S. citizens had (presumably) elected these same dangerous clowns. An in turn these Bozo's have bloodied our Constitution for political gain in front of God and the whole freakin' planet.
And remember, most of the hundreds of prisoners held at Guantanamo have been released without charge, and without recourse for the abuses inflicted on them and their families. By our government. And to this day, not one person held at Guantanamo Bay has ever been convicted of an act of terrorism.
So, it's also about getting this story out before the election, so the public will have a little more guilt on their conscience, and think twice before electing yet another Bush-ite Republican to the White House -- yet another clown who thinks that perpetual war and terror threats and oil company war profiteers makes for sound foreign policy.
And perhaps of equal importance for some member of Congress, it's about cleaning up our house now, before the Europeans start indicting our past and present elected and appointed officials for War Crimes. Don't think it can't happen. I'm believing more and more that it will. And not just for this mess.
IT WAS TOP DOWN, STUPID
The Bush Administration's "Bad Apples" Theory Goes Sour
By Phillipe Sands
Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2008, at 1:19 PM ET
Slate.com
When the Abu Ghraib scandal hit in the summer of 2004, two of the administration's most senior lawyers—White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and the Defense Department's General Counsel Jim Haynes—stood before the world's media and laid out the official explanation for newly aggressive interrogation within the U.S. military: It was the result of a bottom-up request from an aggressive combatant commander at Guantanamo; it was implemented within the law and on the basis of careful legal advice; and it produced useful and important results. These new techniques had been essential in getting vital security information from men they labeled "the worst of the worst."
A memo Gonzales and Haynes made public that day sketched out this move to military cruelty. Written by Haynes and signed by Donald Rumsfeld on Dec. 2, 2002, the document discarded a military prohibition on cruelty promulgated by President Lincoln as long ago as 1863. Haynes' memo recommended 15 new techniques, including nudity and forced grooming, humiliation and deception, dogs, sleep deprivation, and stress positions like standing for up to four hours. Three other techniques—including water-boarding—were not given blanket approval, although their future use in individual cases was not rejected, either. Rumsfeld approved the memo, scribbling next to his signature authorizing these techniques the observation, "However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"
Four years after that memo became public, Congress has moved to examine the accuracy of the administration's account of the circumstances under which it was prepared. The author of the Rumsfeld memo became the subject of extensive questioning Tuesday before the Senate armed services committee. Many will say it is too little and too late. I disagree. Congress has a vital role to play in establishing accountability for the American torture policy, although yesterday's faltering efforts to jog Jim Haynes' memory hardly inspire confidence that it can do so.
Read the whole story here.
No comments:
Post a Comment