Torture vs Medical Ethics: Should Doctors that Assisted in CIA interrogations be Held Accountable?

by Nomad

Dick Cheney recently claimed that controversial procedures applied to detainees were a medically necessity. Experts dispute this and call for a full investigation of possible ethics violation and crimes committed by contracted physicians. 

Cheney's Attempt at Damage Control

Recently, ex-vice president Dick Cheney appeared on MSNBC's "Meet the Press." Following the release of the Senate report on CIA detention and interrogation program. Cheney was in full damage control mode.
In spite of his attempt, it was pretty clear that the master manipulator's tricks had worn tissue thin. 

During the interview, Cheney repeatedly tried in vain to use 911 as an excuse for what went on behind prison walls. Nobody has ever argued that the detainees were nice people but without a trial, they were still innocent. Nobody has ever argued that the things done on September 11 2001 should be forgotten or that we must do everything- within the law- to stop attacks.
Nevertheless, Cheney's argument was that the ends justified the means, even when those means included torture (as defined by various international treaties that the US is a party to.)

All in all, even Cheney's supporters were embarrassed by what amounted to what can charitably called "misrepresentations." When asked about one of the more inexcusable techniques used by the CIA, namely "rectal feeding  and "rectal hydration"

Cheney claimed these procedures were done only as a medical necessity.  Michael Hayden, former CIA director recently used the same rebuttal to torture allegations.

The Experts Respond

Of course, the defense was ridiculous but it also opened the door for yet another problem for the CIA and its contracted physicians. 

Why Immunity for Bush and Cheney May Not Be the Final Word

by Nomad

Claims of immunity might have so far protected former Bush officials (including the ex-president and former vice president Dick Cheney) but as this post explains, treaty obligations demand that action be taken. 

In light of the revelations of CIA torture, some people have rightfully begun asking why the people involved- who have admitted that they authorized the interrogation techniques- should not be held accountable. Isn't it clear that the things done were illegal? 

How is it possible that a US government official, like Dick Cheney, can escape accountability even though he/she had all but admitted human rights crimes, as defined by international standards

The exact legal means for escaping accountability wasn't recently devised especially for the Bush administration. It was, in fact,  established back in 1988.

Free and Downloadable: Senate Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

by Nomad

As any techno-activist will tell you "information wants to be free." To honor that idea, I have made available the Senate's controversial report that has been creating some fearsome aftershocks since last Tuesday. 

One week ago, the Senate released its so-called CIA torture report. It strongly criticized the policy of "enhanced interrogations" for captured detainees and suspected terrorists. After a lengthy investigation, the summary alone came to over 500 pages. 

Showdown: Why the Truth on CIA Torture May Become Obama's Greatest Challenge

by Nomad

No nation is perfect. But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better. -- President Obama on the release of Senate Intelligence Committee's CIA use of enhanced interrogation techniques

This week, in the hallowed halls of Congress, a moan and a shudder could be heard when the Senate released its findings on the truly horrifying excesses of CIA interrogations used upon suspected terrorists following the 911 attacks. 

The Narrative Dissolves

A quick review of the 600-page executive summary of the report explained why Republicans had been doing all they could to block its release. From torture techniques that involved threats to suspect's children and forced enemas, ice water baths and threats to use drills as torture devices, to CIA lies about the successes, the report could hardly be more damaging to the Republican narrative. 

The New York Times has helpfully made a list of the most important findings:

• The C.I.A.’s interrogation techniques were more brutal and employed more extensively than the agency portrayed.
• The C.I.A. interrogation program was mismanaged and was not subject to adequate oversight.
• The C.I.A. misled members of Congress and the White House about the effectiveness and extent of its brutal interrogation techniques.
• Interrogators in the field who tried to stop the brutal techniques were repeatedly overruled by senior C.I.A. officials.
• The C.I.A. repeatedly under-reported the number of people it detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques under the program.
• At least 26 detainees were wrongfully held and did not meet the government’s standard for detention.
• The C.I.A. leaked classified information to journalists, exaggerating the success of interrogation methods in an effort to gain public support.

The Washington Post has also compiled a list of the most egregious acts found in report. Here are some of the items:

• Of the 119 CIA detainees, 26 should not have been apprehended.
• Abu Zubaida, the CIA's first detainee, spent 266 hours in a coffin-size confinement box.
• Of the at least 26 detainees who were wrongfully held, one was "intellectually challenged."
• CIA officers would "strip a detainee naked, shackle him in the standing position for up to 72 hours, and douse [him] repeatedly with cold water."

For the more cynical, the fact that the report was released at all is a bit of a shock. Certainly it is long overdue and could easily have been classified so utterly that the American public- at least this generation- would never have seen it. 

Its release also turns the tables on a lot of the Republican talking points about exposing the imaginary scandal of Benghazi. 

Obama vs. The Cheneys: A Question of American Values

by Nomad

When President Obama admitted that the CIA had, in the years after 9/11, committed torture, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former vice-president blasted the president, calling him an "utter disgrace." The interrogators, she said, were "patriots" and "heroes."

She failed to understand that the torture debate wasn't a matter of patriotism. It was a question of American values and what America stands for.

The Unseen Trap

In itself it was a fairly obvious thing to say. Last Friday, President Obama admitted that the CIA had committed torture. But what was surprising was his use of the pronoun "we." 

After handing over a report to Congress about an investigation into “enhanced interrogation techniques," President Obama said the CIA had “tortured some folks” after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.”

What gives? I wondered. Presumably he was referring to the CIA during the Bush administration. If he were attempting to show solidarity with the CIA then it seemed a politically dangerous and needless thing to say. Indeed, many headlines from the so-called liberally-biased media simply read "We tortured folks, says Obama."

Now it is clear what he was doing: It was a bait for conservatives.

In short order, Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Vice President Dick Cheney, erupted with indignation about Obama's remarks. The venue was, predictably enough, Sean Hannity's show on Fox News.  

Hyperbole, like you never saw.

"..This president is an utter disgrace. He’s got a situation where... you’ve got crises erupting around the world."

A classic non-sequitur and a distraction. Obama wasn't there to talk about the problems of the world and she knew it.  Cheney, (Liz , that is) went on to say:

“And he is expending more time, more energy, more passion, more aggressive activity in targeting and going after patriots, heroes. CIA officers and others who kept is safe after 9/11."

Of course, Cheney's explosive rhetoric is aimed at dividing Americans, a lame attempt to stoke fears one more time. The Cheney apples do not fall far from the tree.

Additionally, there is a very real question about the accuracy of her allegation. Did torture actually keep anybody safe, either in the short or long term?

That's a statement that requires Cheney to prove and she is clearly not willing to attempt it. However, the unreleased U.S. Senate report, according to one source, is purported to conclude that the CIA’s use of harsh interrogation techniques following 9/11 attacks was ineffective and yielded no critical intelligence. 

That's bad news for the Cheney family.

Actually, President Obama never said that enhanced interrogation didn't save lives. He said only that these techniques were contrary to our values. Perhaps the moral question -which is what the president was referring to- is simply not something a daughter of Mr. Dick Cheney could possibly grasp.

Not in a million years.

And that is the trap that Obama set and the one into which Liz Cheney - clearly speaking in defense of her father's policies- unwittingly tumbled. It is a question of values, a question whether the ends justify the means. 

Just because we can find a rationale for doing it and a legal means to escape second-guessing, does it make it right? 

The Sad Reality Behind Putin's Claim that the Internet is a CIA Project

by Nomad

Yesterday Russian President Vladimir Putin declared the Internet was an ongoing CIA plot. 

Once again, he demonstrated how he is not interested in providing an alternative to US-dominated hegemony. What Putin wants is something a bit more predictable and a bit more obvious.  

The Alternative that Wasn't

Sometimes I think there's a tendency in the West to give too much credit to Vladimir Putin. Oddly, the West has always seen the Russian leader as some kind of chess master when Putin's approach has been anything but subtle or even very clever. 

Lately and in many ways, the Russian president seems to have exposed himself as a somewhat backward leader without much in the way of a constructive vision. He is found playing the same word games that once discredited the Soviet Union. 

The great modern Russian tragedy is that it began with such promise. Over and over. Russia's greatest strength -even during Soviet times- has been that it offered an alternative view of the world. We didn't have to live in a world dominated by special interests. Through struggle, we could make the world better. True, it was always reactionary but at least, that vision provided a kind of independent analysis of the West. 

So went the theory at least. 

Today, only Edward Snowden might agree with that. Some American-born reporters on Russia Today might still think that's true but, from the outside, that idea looks a little naive.  While rushing to condemn the West for all its many faults and unscrupulous behavior, defenders of Putin require some skillful mental gymnastics to ignore something that is growing clearer every time Putin opens his mouth. 

Under Vladimir Putin, Russia's view is neither different and definitely not indifferent. The Kremlin's objectives are shaped by an agenda not unlike any corrupted capitalist empire in the West.