Physicians for Human Right recently released a study involving real human beings who have been the recipients of torture committed by the United States. The report can be found through this link: Broken Laws, Broken Lives.
Just a quick sample below the fold:
Beatings During Arrest, Transport, and Initial Custody
Many of the most severe injuries from beatings that the former detainees reported were sustained shortly after they were arrested. All seven of the men who were detained in Iraq (hereafter referred to as “the Iraqi former detainees”) recounted experiencing violent treatment during their arrests, some of which involved severe physical assault on their family members as well as destruction or looting of their homes.
The beatings inflicted on detainees at US facilities at Bagram and Kandahar in Afghanistan were particularly intense, and included beatings with sticks and fists, kicks to the stomach and genitals and blows to the head. As a result, Haydar, who was held at Kandahar before being transferred to Guantánamo, lost three of his teeth and Rasheed, who was held at both Bagram and Kandahar facilities, lost consciousness and was hospitalized. Similarly, all former detainees held at Guantánamo reported that the most intense and widespread physical beatings they experienced at the facility took place during transfer and shortly after arrival there.
The Iraqi former detainees also reported severe beatings during the first days and weeks of detention at facilities including one at Baghdad International Airport. Hafez, who was held at a US facility at Baghdad International Airport and Abu Ghraib for over seven months, was forced to the ground and beaten severely on his legs and back, causing his lips, forehead, and nose to bleed; he also reported being stripped and having his chest and pubic hair ripped out by hand and being simultaneously beaten, hit, and choked while being doused with cold water.
While physical evidence of beatings often may not be detectable in later medical evaluations, findings from bone scans of six of the former detainees as well as scars and lesions visible during physical examination are consistent with the history of beatings described by the victims.
Get word out regards stopping US torture now. Top 3 actions:
Through the efforts of many high profile bloggers and ActBlue, the netroots are not prepared to "forgive and forget" on something as fundamental to who we are and what we believe as the craven, unprincipled FISA capitulation that expands the powers of the Government to spy on you, and gives communications companies get out of jail free cards on illegal activities both now and retroactively (nullifying many pending lawsuits), so long as they are being asked nicely by the Bush Administration in its pursuit of brown people terrorists.
On the right is one of the ads – this one set to run in the Washington Post and targeting Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, one of the chief architects of this "compromise" (and praised here by Senator Leahy for his efforts on this very issue… the same Senator Leahy who has announced his opposition to the bill when it comes over to the Senate, but in the same statement describes his stance on retroactive telco immunity this way:
My interest is not in harming telecommunications carriers. I would have supported indemnification by the government or substitution of the government for them in these lawsuits.
…and sounds unlikely to fight to stop this travesty of our civil liberties from becoming law).
And now – to add insult to injury – Barack Obama has jumped on the wiretapping bandwagon, tossing out a so-halfhearted-its-patronizing throwaway comment about how he’ll try to have the retroactive immunity removed, before going on to pronounce his pleasure with the bill and his intent to vote for it in the Senate.
To support the effort to hold these politicians accountable, click here. To tell Senator Obama what you think of this betrayal of our basic, fundamental principles, and his turning back the clock to the ugly days of freewheeling government wiretapping of the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., click here.
The Brattleboro Police Department has been working with law enforcement agencies in the Windham County area, including the Windham County Sheriff’s Department, the Vernon Police Department, and the Vermont State Police in response to persons in the area representing themselves as a hate-motivated anti-black group. Law enforcement agencies have been active in responding to the needs of the community and proactively investigating all leads.
On 18 June, 2008, police investigated a hate-motivated act of disorderly conduct on Elliot Street in Brattleboro which was reported to police in a timeley fashion.
“Timely fashion” must mean it was still going on when it was reported. For those not so familiar with Brattleboro, Elliot Street is in Brattleboro’s downtown – close to the “Harmony Lot” parking area (where there have been reports of problems with [unrelated] illegal activities in the past). Elliot Street is also home to at least four bars or pubs, including McNeill’s.
Within hours, the suspect was identified, located, and issued a citation to appear in Windham District Court to answer the charges at a later date.
Officers of the Brattleboro Police Department received further information that revealed that the person cited into Windham District Court for the Hate Motivated Disorderly Conduct had, in fact, committed other crimes.
Officers from the Brattleboro Police Department and the Windham County Sheriff’s Department obtained two court-ordered search warrants, which were served in Guilford on 19 June, 2008, around midnight. As a result of the ongoing investigation, the male was arrested and lodged at the Brattleboro Police Department and held on $5,000 bail.
The Brattleboro Police Department reminds all citizens that we will vigorously investigate all reported acts of racism or crimes of hate. Vermont statutes indicates that: any crime motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestery, age, service in the armed forces of teh United States, handicap, sexual orientation, or gender identity shall be subject to enhanced penalties for the underlying crime.
I guess the lesson for anyone who thinks it doesn’t happen here is that it is happening here.
A note: I am biased. Mike is a friend, and a really great guy and a lot of fun to jam with. But that’s not why I’m posting this. I’m posting this because he did an incredible job in today’s Brattleboro reformer of exactly just what is wrong with the current administration.
Time to stop giving Governor Douglas credit he doesn’t deserve
Friday, June 20
Editor of the Reformer:
With Gov. Douglas’ recent campaign stop in Windham County, it’s a reminder to take note of the Douglas spin machine.
Most recently, the governor announced last week, he would “release an additional $1 million into the traditional weatherization program.” The reality check on this is the governor trying to take credit for something he was originally against. This is a pattern those of us in the Legislature have gotten to know all too well, and we hope others are also catching on to this.
The governor didn’t mention this is the same $1 million increase in weatherization, appropriated by the Legislature as part of its fiscal year 2009 budget bill. He also didn’t mention that his original budget proposal had no increase for weatherization.
It was the Legislature who had the foresight to look ahead and see an energy crunch coming. We passed an energy bill in 2007 he vetoed, but in an election year, with energy costs soaring, he signed on this year.
In this instance, since the governor is trying to take credit, it was the Legislature who saw the need and provided for a $500,000 expansion of weatherization services in the fiscal year ’09 budget. We then added another $500,000 to the weatherization program as part of the economic recovery package put together in April.
Another example of the governor’s “bait and switch” tactic of taking credit for things he opposed, involves Prevent Child Abuse Vermont.
Once again, the governor’s budget zeroed out of his budget, funding for this effective group of mostly volunteers. They get a relatively small, but vital budget allocation to help administer programs around the state that work to help prevent abuse. As someone who has worked for this group, I can attest to its efficacy and need.
After the governor zeroed them out of his budget, they turned to the Legislature — and yes, we restored their funding. Yet, when they had their showcase event at the Statehouse to celebrate their good work, who steps in front of the cameras? That’s right, the same person who zeroed them out of his budget.
In the Legislature, we’ve seen up close, too many instances of this kind of behavior and it’s time we call the governor on it. From the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to the Bright Futures Child Development specialists — and much more, the Legislature has had to provide the leadership that should be forthcoming from our state’s chief executive.
If Gov. Douglas wants to tout his record, let’s put the whole record on the table. And, let’s stop letting this governor take credit he doesn’t deserve.
Like many of you, I'm still steaming over the Dem rollover on FISA. Now, none of our delegation is supporting it (nor, might I add, doing anything bold to throw a wrench in the works), but there's something in Sen. Leahy's statement that's really infuriating (emphasis mine):
“With respect to the surveillance authorities, I believe the bill represents an improvement over the flawed legislation passed the Senate earlier this year. I applaud Representative Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller for their diligent work in negotiating this package. They added protections to the surveillance authorities that bring it closer to the bill the Senate Judiciary Committee reported last year. If the bill passes, I will work with the next administration to make additional improvements.
“I will continue to work to protect all Americans from the Bush-Cheney administration’s roll back of civil liberties of Americans and disregard for the rule of law. As the Supreme Court noted last week, ‘security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles.’ We can protect our security while honoring American values and respecting our freedoms.”
Two things: the only “diligent work” Hoyer and Rockefeller have done is to”diligently work” to do the bidding of the telcoms, especially Rockefeller. Second, if Leahy is serious about “protecting our civil liberties”, why isn't he doing more anything to stop this?
This bill simply did not need to happen. FISA is fine without the telcom immunity, and they owe this president,who is less liked than a thawing dog turd on a warm Vermont March morning – nothing. Nada. And for those still inexplicably afraid of being labeled “soft on terror”… grow a spine. The public doesn't want telcom immunity, and you have nothing to lose opposing it, except, perhaps that yummy telcom money.
Very disappointing, Senator. Would it be that hard to go the extra mile and take a bold stance? What ever happened to “terrifying” Bush?
So this afternoon I got an email about how the House D's, led by Steny Hoyer, are planning on rolling over for Bush and the telcos on the FISA bill, so the first thing I did was to call Peter Welch's office. Now that I'm home I was all set to post that people should call Peter's office and demand that he oppose it (J.D. beat me to it) and here's the press release I just got:
Washington, D.C. – Rep. Peter Welch (VT-AL) issued the following statement on his opposition to H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act:
“I simply do not believe any president, especially this president, should have unilateral or unchecked authority to conduct surveillance without judicial oversight. Congress has an obligation to protect our national security without sacrificing basic rights provided in our Constitution.
“While this compromise reflects improvements over previous flawed proposals, it is a compromise I will not support. I have consistently opposed any legislation that grants retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping. Regrettably, this latest proposal fails to hold the administration and the companies accountable for their actions. The American people deserve to know exactly what happened and they deserve to know who is accountable. This bill fails that test.”
Background:
On November 15, 2007, Welch supported and the U.S. House passed The Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective (RESTORE) Act,H.R. 3773, despite opposition by the Bush administration and House Republicans. This legislation refused to give retroactive immunity.
In August, 2007, Welch voted against both a temporary FISA extension offered by the House leadership (H.R. 3356) as well as a compromise version supported by the White House (S.1927), which passed the U.S. House.
I think this is great news. I still think people should call Peter Welch and thank him for taking a principled stand on this bill. He's been favored by House leadership, but that hasn't stopped him from standing up for civil liberties and the views of his constituents.
Cue sound of smacking forehead. This is getting old. From Kos:
That means, of course, de facto amnesty for the telcos. The federal district court would not be deciding on the legality of the program, they would be limited to determining if the White House showed the telcos a piece of paper saying that the warrantless program was legal enough–which we already know. They're going to try to justify it with that “substantial evidence” business, as if defining that piece of paper as “substantial” somehow makes the fact that they are directing the court to make its decision, regardless of the law, not a travesty.
“A formal statement goes out making it clear that everyone — Democrats, Republicans, House, Senate — agrees that telecoms should have retroactive immunity.”
“I've now just read a copy of the final “compromise” bill. It's even worse than expected. When you read it, it's actually hard to believe that the Congress is about to make this into our law. Then again, this is the same Congress that abolished habeas corpus with the Military Commissions Act, and legalized George Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program with the “Protect America Act,” so it shouldn't be hard to believe at all. Seeing the words in print, though, adds a new dimension to appreciating just how corrupt and repugnant this is”
You know what to do, folks. If you have a blog, please spread the word, or at the very least, get some friends to make some phone calls.
Contact Nancy Pelosi: District Office – 450 Golden Gate Ave. – 14th Floor – San Francisco, CA 94102 – (415) 556-4862 – Washington, D.C. Office – 235 Cannon HOB – Washington, DC 20515 – (202) 225-4965 FAX: 202-225-4188
Contact Steny Hoyer (who is to blame for a good deal of this happening): 1705 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone – (202) 225-4131 Fax – (202) 225-4300
As expected, as the general election is now upon us Obama is showing signs of moving rightward (or, if you prefer, to the "center"). His recently revealed National Security Working Group is hardly a bastion of forward thinking progressives – there's a lot of Clinton leftovers in that group. (more from Chris Hayes here on that and what it means).
But more troubling to me is the "business as usual" crap that gets my goat, all the more frustrating when juxtaposed with the "change" mantra. It's more of the same "party above principle" b.s. that makes all that "doing it for the American people" stuff just another line. Obama's recently chosen to go this route in regards to a Georgia election.
Those of you who follow primary battles in other parts of the nation probably are familiar with the Maryland Dem primary for a House seat where Donna Edwards, an extraordinarily progressive candidate, defeated corrupt-as-hell corporatist incumbent Al Wynn. Nancy Pelosi chucked her so-called "San Franciso values" to the wind and endorsed Wynn. Party over principle.
And now Obama is unfortunately doing something similar. As Glenn Greenwald is reporting, Obama has just taped a radio endorsement for Congressman John Barrow, from Georgia's 12th district. This stinks to high heaven, for several reasons, as Greenwald points out:
And now Obama turns around and intervenes in a Democratic primary on behalf of one of the worst Bush enablers in Congress — not in order to help Barrow defeat an even-worse Republican, but to defeat a far better and plainly credible Democratic challenger.
[snip]
Making matters much worse here, Obama — who has removed himself almost completely from the pending eavesdropping and telecom amnesty debate — recorded this ad for Barrow on the eve of that bill's passage, all in order to keep in power a key Democratic supporter of this FISA/amnesty bill. Yet telecom amnesty is not merely a side issue but is one of the purest expressions of what Obama claims so vigorously to oppose in Washington.
Go below the jump for more.
Here's Barrow's latest campaign commercial:
But what really says it all about this guy…
And yet, here's Obama's take on it (quoted from the Greenwald piece, emphasis mine):
"Senator Obama believes that Congressman Barrow has worked hard to bring change that families in his district deserve, and we'll work hard to help John Barrow win in November," Obama spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.
In the ad, Obama asks voters to join him in supporting Barrow. "We're going to need John Barrow back in Congress to help change Washington and get our country back on track," Obama says in the 60-second ad.
Barrow has been outspoken in his approval of warrantless surveillance, his hard-on for the telcoms and contempt for civil liberties has no limits on its tumescence.
And who is Barrow's primary challenger? Regina Thomas, a progressive African-American state senator who is staunchly opposed to telcom immunity and the general raping of our civil liberties that gets the GOP salivating. A glance at her record seems to be much more in line with the things Obama supposedly stands for, and she is on the same page as Obama when it comes to FISA. So what gives?
The larger arc of Greenwald's article is about holding Obama accountable on FISA, all the more important as once again, the Dems seem ready to roll over for Mr 25% on, instead of simply waiting for the next president and a much larger majority. What Greenwald says we need to do:
None of that is enjoyable to write or accept, but those are just facts. There is a disturbing tendency on all sides to view Obama through a reductive Manichean lens — either he's the embodiment of pure transformative Good who is going magically to cleanse our polity the minute he takes office, or he's nothing other than a mindless, passive tool of the establishment whose pretty rhetoric masks a barren ambition for power and who is no better than McCain. Neither of those caricatures is remotely accurate, and a John McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster on every level.
But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine. Uncritical devotion to political leaders, including him, is destructive. Obama needs pressure, criticism, checks, and real scrutiny just like anyone else in power in order to keep him accountable, responsive, and faithful to the principles he claims are the ones driving him.
Pressure of that sort should include demanding that he take meaningful action against this Draconian and lawlessness-enabling bill. This is, after all, a bill which his own party is seeking to pass and justifying their behavior, in part, by claiming that they're doing it to protect Obama politically from being attacked as Weak on Terrorism. If this bill passes and Obama does nothing to stop it, he'll bear significant responsibility for its enactment. Here's his campaign's phone number: (866) 675-2008 [Dial 6, then 0, on the menu].
I called the Obama campaign, and the nice fellow I spoke with informed me that he has been getting a lot of calls over the past few days with people none too happy about the Barrow endorsement, so do your part and call. I asked him if the senator has made or will make a statement addressing this specific issue, as of yet the answer is no, but if enough people call, that could change.
With all of the media spotlight on Obama right now, as well as McCain rapidly going down the crapper as the media gets over its gooey crush on him and is slowly realizing he's not a "maverick" but a "bullshit artist", Obama has an extraordinary opportunity right now that would effectively end this FISA nonsense once and for all, should he take a real stand and show us some of that leadership he seems to promise all of the time. It was one of my biggest criticisms early on in the primary, as some of you may remember. It's easy to talk about leadership… with an issue like this that has massive public support and is at its essence, upholding the principles of the Constitution, it should be even easier to do something about it.
It's time to hold his feet to the fire, now. We don't need a candidate talking about change out of one side of his mouth and helping Bush Dogs out of the other.
Big kudos… looking forward to all those GMD updates I’m sure you’re planning to provide us with back home in Vermont… and have fun in Austin. It’s a great city.
This morning’s headline says it all: “Bipartisan Accord on War Funding Bill.” Did you get that? Yeah, the “bipartisan accord” thing. For those who haven’t had enough coffee yet today, that means that – once again – BOTH the Dems and the Republicans in Congress are agreeing to give the Bush-led military another $165 billion to continue to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq well into next year. Yes, next year, past the much-anticipated and hyped date of 1.20.09 when all the good Dems were “hoping” everything would be magically “Obamafied.” Good luck with that.
But there’s really nothing new here. The Dems have been going along with Bush and the Republicans on these wars from the beginning. They overwhelmingly voted to authorize the original force and they’ve fully funded them every single time the big, bad Bush has asked them to. Oh sure, they’ve whined, and squirmed, and begged, and stomped their feet from time to time but, in the end, they’ve always blinked in this little game of funding chicken with Bush.
What’s truly amazing is that even though the Dems keep funding these wars, they keep spewing the anti-war rhetoric. Worse, no matter how high these contradictions continue to pile up, the Dem cheerleaders keep drinking the almighty Kool-Aid and dreamily shaking their “change” and “hope” signs. Go team, go! Right. Over. The. Cliff. Well, when you act like fools, you’ll often be taken as one.
This new war funding bill will keep both wars financially greased until at least May of next year, thus handing Bush one hell of a stick to turn around and poke the Dems, the nation and the world right square in the eye. Impeach him? No, say the Dems, let’s just keeping feeding the beast and his beastly ideas even while he’ll be lounging in Crawford planning his silly little library (sorry, Mr. President, but My Pet Goat is already checked-out).
The Obama campaign was clearly a major player in ironing out this compromise, knowing that it would certainly be a campaign issue. Thus, it should give the antiwar/Obama crowd a reason to stop and reflect what they’re cheering for. Why, for example, would Obama and the Dems punt on the war issue? Worse, why would they agree to fund these wars through what they hope to be the first four months of an Obama administration? Looks like that “change” will be coming later than we thought – if at all.
But I’ll answer my own questions. There shouldn’t be any surprise about the Dems punting on the war issue (again) because that’s all they’ve been doing from the beginning. It’s apparently all they know how to do: huff and puff and then roll over for a belly scratch.
As for agreeing to fund the wars well into what they hope will be an Obama administration, it’s just the first of what will be many, many cave-ins and cop-outs. Wait, it’s not even the first, because this morning Obama announced that he was opting out of public financing for his presidential campaign. But, he noted, he really likes the idea of public financing. Hmm, I’m beginning to see a pattern: Hate the war but fund it, like public financing but reject its funding. And yes means no, right? Got it. Go team, go.
By agreeing to fund the wars for another year, the Obama camp will be able to continue to dodge any specifics on the war issue throughout the campaign. And even if he wins, he’ll have four months to claim that his hands are tied by the yearlong war-funding bill that this Dem-led Congress is about to pass. What a shame, because it also effectively kills any real grassroots potential that could have been harnessed by the stadiums full of screaming Obamacons that will certainly surface in the fall. But they can’t let the issues get in the way of the campaign. It might interrupt the cheering, the check signing and the hope. Oh, the hope!
Vermonters will be interested to know that Welch, Sanders and Leahy will most likely be voting against the war-funding compromise. They’ve clearly got visions of the riff-raff dancing in their offices again if they do anything but vote against it. Yes, indeed, direct action has an impact from time to time. But, before too many Vermonters pat themselves on the back for being oh-so-different, consider that none of the three will take any political risks to kill the bill. You know, things like filibusters, lobbying the leadership to stop the games, and/or the introduction of an alternative bill that would stop the funding now. It’s their party – and they’re staying for the dance.
Make no mistake, the Dems own the war. And forget 1.20.09. The best we can hope for now is 5.20.09.
