ACLU FOIA Request Reveals Even More Bush Administration Involvement in Torture

In a press release issued today, the ACLU announced that it has obtained an index of important new CIA documents through a FOIA request. This documents in this index mostly relate to the CIA's 2005 destruction of videotapes that showed vicious torture at CIA black sites. The reason we only have an index rather than the actual documents themselves is, you guessed it, national security. One more example of so-called "state secrets" used as an excuse to cover the administration's butt.

To quote the ACLU's press release:

The chronology outlined in this new index supplies further evidence that the CIA destroyed the videotapes in order to prevent the public from learning the full scope of the CIA’s torture program, and further evidence that the Bush White House was on notice that the CIA intended to destroy the tapes" said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "We continue to believe that the CIA’s destruction of the tapes constituted contempt of court, and we intend to press that case over the next few weeks

Listed in the index released last week are a November 8, 2005 cable from a CIA field office to CIA headquarters requesting permission to destroy the 92 tapes and a November 9, 2005 cable confirming their destruction. The precise date of destruction confirms that the tapes were destroyed immediately after the Washington Post reported the existence of the CIA black sites and the New York Times reported that the CIA Inspector General had questioned the legality of the agency’s torture program.

The index also lists the earliest known record of White House participation in discussions about destroying the tapes – an e-mail dated February 22, 2003 revealing that CIA officials met with Bush administration officials to discuss how the agency should respond to a letter from Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) advising the agency not to destroy the tapes. While it was known previously that the White House participated in discussions about the disposition of the tapes, this is the earliest record to date of any such discussions.

I suppose at this point that new knowledge about the complicity and guilt of the Bush administration in the CIA's torture program is not surprising. As much as George Tenet and the Bush Administration attempted to pass the buck to one another, they are both guilty for the human rights atrocities committed at CIA black sites.

Indeed the transparency of the "state secrets" lie is even more apparent now. As Ben Wizner pointed out in his Oxy Q+A session, Secrecy and abuse are cyclical: State secrecy sets the stage for torture. Torture creates the need for state secrecy, etc. etc. Here the political nature of the "state secrets" claim is more transparent than ever: the tapes were destroyed in response to the Washington Post's discovery of them and the CIA Inspector General's questioning of the program's legality. Rather than serve a national security interest, the "state secrets" defense being used now to withhold the documents regarding the videotapes is blatantly political. The political fallout of documents proving that the Bush Administration's explicitly authorized the destruction of the tapes in response to the very real possibility that they could be held accountable for them would be immense. The CIA knows it, Obama knows it, and congress knows it.

With evidence as damning as this, it's not hard to see why Republican congressmen have tried so hard to block torture accountability. The extremely limited evidence is damning enough without the no-doubt gruesome details of the documents themselves.

Lawrence O'Donnell and the Denial of Impact

Last night, MSNBC contributor and political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell came and spoke to our torture class. here at Oxy Most of the material he covered was basic media studies knowledge: the media has a significant liberal bias, the 24-hour news cycle, investigative journalism is in decline and traditional news media sources are dying off. There were a couple interesting points. First, that Dick Cheney was trying to receive some kind of national support for torture by making it a partisan issue. In part he succeeded, as evidenced by the many Republican torture apologists in congress. Second, he did acknowledge that giving a platform to Cheney and other torture apologists for the sake of back-and-forth talk show confrontation does legitimize their position. This knee-jerk impulse to find two sides to every issue does create a serious moral quandary for the media by lending legitimacy to defenders of the most heinous crimes against humanity.

Though Mr. O'Donnell did a fantastic job of avoiding saying anything substantive or newsworthy, I did take umbrage at his assertion that media contributors like him don't make a significant impact in public perception of issues. While it is true that viewership for news shows has declined dramatically, televised media as a whole still plays an important role in establishing the national rhetoric surrounding political issues. Mr. O'Donnell complained both about the decline of investigative journalism and the rise of sensationalist media outlets, I wish he'd discussed the effect of their intersection. As has been widely studied in the discipline of media analysis, the decrease in editorial filtering and independent investigative journalism has created a media echo chamber of sorts. In this echo chamber, news stories and particularly soundbite-worthy statements ricochet around the various mass media outlets with little restraint. Mr. O'Donnell argues that his presence on a cable news outlet like MSNBC is fundamentally inconsequential because the viewers watching shows on cable networks "already have their minds made up". Be that as it may, outlets like MSNBC and FOX allow for the introduction of stories and frames into the newscycle that would not otherwise appear in mainstream media.

As exciting as it was to have Mr. O'Donnell join us here at Oxy, I was disappointed that he believed so strongly in the futility of his occupation. I sincerely hope that Mr. O'Donnell uses his powerful position to speak truth to power and establish progressive media narratives. Only in doing so can we counter the pervasive conservative torture apologism narrative that rears its ugly head in nearly every discussion of torture in the media.

Ben Wizner pt. 3: Q+A Session (Oct. 23)

In the Oct. 23rd conversation our class on torture had with ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, we discussed in greater detail and specificity the legal issues regarding torture. We covered a large range of topics, but with an emphasis on state secrets and the classification of the so-called "enemy combatant". Here are some of the gems of knowledge Wizner shared with us:

On State Secrets:

• In relation to torture: "secrecy is the source of rot".
  

• Secrecy and abuse are cyclical: State secrecy sets the stage for torture. Torture creates the need for state secrecy. Etc. etc.

• Though there are legitimate state secrets (e.g. military technology in wartime), secrecy must be balanced with the need for an open government of and for the people. State secrets have been abused since their very inception, as evidenced by the pentagon papers. The pentagon papers were held secret on the grounds of national security when ultimately it was revealed that they were kept secret because they were a political liability. Governments have an irresestible temptation to use state secrets for political ends, and this is where the courts must intervene.

On FOIA:

• Between 2000-2006, FOIA was the only oversight of the Presidency. The Republican controlled congress did not perform it's constitutional duty.
  

On the Gitmo Military Tribunals:

• "Secret people, secret laws, secret proceedings". Enemy combatants, being tried under "state secrets protected" secret laws, and the few human rights representatives present could only watch through a soundproof screen. Indeed, they had a censor at the ready to bleep out anything a detainee could say regarding his treatment in Gitmo.

• The tribunals, according to Wizner, were "not about keeping information from terrorists, but about keeping information from the American people.

• The purpose of the courtroom was to prevent testimony about torture from leaving it. The detainees were allowed to talk about martyrdom and other purported evils of the US, and indeed even call for direct assaults on the nation. But when they talked about their treatment in Gitmo, they were censored. In other words, they were allowed to call for assaults on the US, but it was far more important that evidence of US torture be kept secret.

On the So-Called "War on Terror":

• Bush: the "War on Terror" is not a normal war. Enemy combatants are not normal enemies. There are no rules for enemy combatants beyond what we make up. Even individuals acquitted by the Bush-created tribunals remained enemy combatants.
  

• Where Bush argues no laws apply to enemy combatants, as they are a new class of enemy, Wizner argues that they have additional protections. They are both private citizens and enemy fighters. Both criminal laws and rules of combat (e.g. Geneva Conventions) apply.

Question and Answer:

• Wizner opposes a truth commission. Such a commission assumes we all agree that torture occurred. As congressional Republicans exemplify, we do not.

• The rule of law is diminished by the 24-hour news cycle. He-said she-said partisan standoffs always assume two sides to any issue. In other words, the mass media legitimizes fringe believers in the usefulness of torture.

• Wizner hopes that congress will pass legislation defining, and hopefully limiting, the breadth of executive "state secrets".

This is the final installment in the Wizner Talks! Here are the earlier installments: Part 1 and Part 2 .

Floods and Homophobia

I'd like to start by bringing your attention to the terrible floods currently threatening Fargo, ND and parts of Minnesota. Picture the Iowa floods except the rivers have ice floes the size of cars on them.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now how does this relate to the gays you might ask. It would take someone of extraordinarily poor ethics and particularly lax journalistic standards to be able to relate the two wouldn't it? Enter Rush Limbaugh. Only Limbaugh could use the tragic Red River flooding in North Dakota to make some "dike" jokes. I kid you not. What's really frustrating is that Rush is taking such obvious advantage of a national tragedy to be a partisan hack. This is the epitome of heartless unpatriotic behavior. Shame on you Mr. Limbaugh.

The New Media and the Decline of the Newspapers

Rachel Maddow has an amazing segment on the collapse of the newspaper industry. It addresses the threat of new media and the failure of the old media's online business model. The future of investigative journalism is at stake! Check it out!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Two Paths for Recovery

Totally unrelated to LGBT rights, but nevertheless interesting: a fantastic article on the US's two options for economic stimulus from Associated Press business writer Yuri Kageyama from Tokyo and AP writer Karl Ritter from Stockholm. The two options are the Swedish historical model and the Japanese one. The beginning of the article begins by saying:

"Sweden moved quickly, nationalizing two banks and setting up an asset management company to take over bad debt. In contrast, Japan waited seven years before getting serious about bailing out its banks. The result: a "lost decade" of economic stagnation _ a fate the U.S. president says America must avoid."

Certainly a must read, especially among the growing calls to nationalize the United States' own "zombie" banks.

Check the article out at CBS News!

Proof that gay relationships normal an argument against them?

The AP article is titled "Julie, Hillary Goodridge To Divorce, Couple Led Gay Marriage Fight In Massachusetts". The article says that:

"BOSTON — A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts has filed for divorce. Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal."

Though the reporting is fairly straightforward, its incredibly odd to see this as national news. The biggest forum it had achieved before the AP today was local LGBT newspaper. What then is the impetus for making a story out of these womens' relationship? It feels to me that the implication and tone of this article implies that the divorce of these two women is somehow indicative of the unsustainability of gay marriages. Shouldn't it show that gay marriages are normal and have the same problems that straight ones do? This certainly qualifies at the most as passive conservative bias, both in story tone and the fact that the AP decided to make it a national news story in the first place, but the AP has been known to have a noticeable conservative bias before.

Talk me down here folks!

O'Reilly: "We don't report rumours"

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bill O'Reilly Doesn't Report Rumors

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Colbert Report Tickets

Paul McCartney Appearance
More Funny Videos

Hilarious video of Stephen Colbert mocking Bill O'Reilly's coverage of the NY senate seat. Amazingly unprofessional.

McCain in Flames

I was struck when sifting through the news by how many signs of a
failing candidate that McCain is showing.

His party is rebelling.

He can't make conservative pundits stay in line.

And his campaign is having massive infighting. They are calling Palin a
rogue, and get this, a /diva/. One adviser said: ""She is a diva. She
takes no advice from anyone," the McCain source said. "She does not have
any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else."

Partisanship aside, McCain has lost control of his image. His party, the
media and his campaign team are all beyond his control. By political science
standards, McCain is a failing candidate.

Fascinating Articles

Nate Silver has a fascinating New York Post article up on McCain's long shot chance for electoral success. It's incredibly unlikely, but probably McCain's only path to victory at this point.

In other news, Oliver North (yes that Ollie North) manages to compare Obama to Hitler, Kim Jong Il, Napoleon, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and Robert Mugabe in the course of 2 pages. It's absurd, offensive and really, really typical of Oliie "Iran-Contra" North. This man can't seem to stay out of politics, even after his failed senate bid. Ironically, this article is called Messiah Defecit Disorder

Also, Dick Morris is still a dick

Quotes du Jour

Rove, WSJ: “This task, while not impossible, will be difficult,” Rove wrote. “If Mr. McCain succeeds, he will have engineered the most impressive and improbable political comeback since Harry Truman in 1948. But having to reach back more than a half-century for inspiration is not the place campaign managers want to be now.”

Republican analyst Torie Clarke, who once worked as McCain’s Senate press secretary and who appeared with Donaldson, had this advice for her former boss: “He has to ask himself some very tough questions, because one way or the other, this is the final chapter in his political career. And how does he want to write that final chapter? … Does he want to do anything in an effort to win, or does he want to go out the way he likes to think of himself — as a public servant?”

(Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14660_Page2.html)

The Freak Show is Nervous...

Our lovely buddies in the "news" media, aka the Freak Show are nervous about election night. And not in a way that anyone else in America. The Freak Show is nervous about their dramatic election night extravaganza will be cut short by an Obama landslide! With the polls shifting dramatically in Obama's favor and McCain's prospects looking worse and worse, there's a good chance that the election will be over before voting results from the West start coming in.



As is usual, the colls will close on the east coast several hours before their west coast counterparts. In 2004, the media had a feeding frenzy with 2 extremely close races, each coming down to one Swing State. The electoral map this time though, barring a national crisis, is looking a little different:



If Obama starts the night with North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania, McCain is screwed. McCain has no reasnoable electoral strategy w/o Virginia, let alone North Carolina. McCain is playing major league defense right now. His electoral strategy appears to be a replication of Bush's 2004 map. He's been campaigning and spending heavily in Virgiia, North Carolina, Indiana and West Virginia, states he can't afford to worry about on the electoral map. In order to win McCain needs to be able to focus all his energy on traditional Swing States like Florida, Nevada, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and especially Ohio. To reitirate, McCain is done without winning Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Ohio:

<p><strong>><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/">Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

In this example, McCain loses Virginia, which has less electoral votes than Ohio and Virginia which I here hypothetically give to McCain. What can he move from this map into the GOP column? Maybe the 2004 Bush states? He's thrown Iowa under the Straight Talk Express with his continued slamming of ethanol subsidies (which I kind of agree with him on), putting it all but out of reach. New Mexico similarly doesn't look like much of a contest this year. He would need to flip both or Pennsylvania to offset his Virginia loss. And if he loses Florida or Ohio right off the bat? Forget it.

So why does this have the media running scared? Simple. Its a huge conundrum for them. If the race ends early, do they call it for Obama? There are two significant downsides to doing so. 1. It hurts ratings. Doing so would force them to talk about something else substantive like the congressional elections. Wouldn't that be awful. 2. Their declaration could affect voter turnout. If the media declares it in the bag for Obama while its still daytime in the West, voter turnout could go down. Why vote if the election is already "over". States like Missouri, Nevada and Colorado could potentially be won by McCain because Obama voters are already celebrating. This would be a real shame, and deter from a truly representative electoral result.

So what are the media bigwigs going to do? Senior Vice President of CBS news Paul Friedman said: "We could say something like, ‘Given the number of electoral votes Obama already has, and given what we know about the voting so far in various states where the polls have not closed, it is going to be very hard for John McCain to win.’ I would sincerely hope that kind of language would not discourage people out West from voting.” Sam Feist, CNN's Political Director said "A night of early surprises would be a gift for John King's "Magic Wall" of computerized maps. Feist said: "If we know early in the evening that Barack Obama wins a critical state such as Virginia or Florida, we'll have a conversation about what John McCain would have to pull out of his hat now," such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada". This is why we love CNN. John Kind just goes crazy with that newfangled thing. I miss the whiteboard.

On MSNBC, the diagnosis is not good for McCain. Joe Scarborough said on “Morning Joe”: “When it becomes obvious that one candidate’s going to lose, usually members of that party start jumping, like rats from a ship. You’re starting to hear from Republicans that are really afraid McCain’s going to lose, Democrats may [reach] 60 in the Senate, and this is going to be a historic rout.” That's not exactly a glowing prediction for McCain's Nov. 3 chances. I can't wait to see the media freak-out then.

(Thanks to Mark Halperin at The Page for directing me to the Politico article)

What the debates could have been

Why couldn't the debates have been like this:



Seriously! EVERYONE would watch! Alright Democrats, time to nominate Batman in 2016! The Republicans have the Penguin down.

The Daily Show Hits Fox Where It Hurts

Remember America: we report, you decide. Or, to put it in the words of a certain Minnesota senate candidate: "They Distort, We Deride".

Biden quitting? BS alert!

According to "Daily Mail", internet buzz now counts as "news":

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1061791/Could-Clinton-come-Internet-buzzes-rumours-Biden-replaced-Hillary-Obamas-running-mate.html

I cannot believe that a month and half before the election that the media could still report on an Obama-Clinton ticket. How desperate are they?! I know that the primaries were more exciting than the general, but drop it! Clinton will NOT be the veep! Get over yourselves. This is really a low point for the media. These Obama-Clinton beating-a-dead-horse stories didn't deserve the sunlight a month ago. They certainly don't now.

Apology and Explanation

I accidentally deleted a post that I believe had comments. I was in the midst of deleting old drafts. I believe the post contained an ad done by a 527 about arctic hunting and Sarah Palin. My apologies to anyone who may have posted.

Honestly, I'd rather not repost the video because in retrospect it was a little bit over the top and tasteless. I'll even admit that it dipped into "unfair" at points. Now that I think about it, I think I'd probably retract the support I gave it in my previous post as well. I would like to talk about the greater themes a little bit though.

In reality though, the main reason that I liked it is because it reminded people that environmental preservation is one of the main causes of our time. Without significant action, we will lose lots of endangered species, including tigers, sea otters, polar bears, my home state's California Condor and countless others. It saddens me on many levels to see environmental preservation so far off the table in our national dialog.

And sure, the issue has come up briefly before. But honestly, at this point, any mention of the environment is outside of the media echo chamber. The media has demonstrated no desire to talk about the environment. When was the last time the media paid serious attention to our planet's rapidly collapsing ecosystem? I'm not just talking about global warming. I'm sorry if said previous post offended, but I was simply relieved to see a public appeal made once again on environmental grounds. When all is said and done, human beings are likely to be the species least affected by this presidential election. Regardless of the ad's effectiveness, I'm glad that there will be some reminder in the mainstream of what another 4 years of Republicans in the White House would do to the environment. The world simply can't afford it.

EDIT: Since Jacquie, Prince and Ally are the only people actively following the blog, I assume the apologies should go to you. Sorry!

Wow this is stupid

And this folks is why I don't watch/read CNN:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/biden-in-hot-water-with-some-ohioans/

Really? Really? How desperate are you guys?