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. 

How We Came to Accept Police Brutality as the Norm 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two part series we discussed the origins of the present problem between the black community and law enforcement. Reagan's get-tough on crime was based on a theory that came with some direct warnings about the potential for discrimination. The president chose to ignore them.

Reagan's anti-crime crusade led to giving law enforcement more freedom to do their job. At least that was how it was portrayed in conservative circles at the time. That policy was called "pro-active policing." 

Problems with Pro-Active Policing
An  ultra-conservative American libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute, paints a very different picture of the policy today. A site run by that organization, which attempts to highlight police misconduct, describes pro-active policing as..

the use of nearly autonomous elite police units that are trained to be more aggressive than regular officers as a response to gang and drug related violence by targeting people they suspect of being criminals before they commit crimes. These units are encouraged to use whatever tactics they can get away with in order to get results, those results being a high arrest rate.

Like the later preemptive strike doctrine of the Bush era, it is easy to see in retrospect how easily pro-active policing could be abused. The danger of this practice was that notion that police should be responsible for preventing crime before it happens. How is that even possible? 

Well, one description might remind you of the sci-fi film "Minority Report"

In proactive policing, law enforcement uses data and analyzes patterns to understand the nature of a problem. Officers devise strategies and tactics to prevent or mitigate future harm. They evaluate results and revise practices to improve policing. Departments may combine an array of data with street intelligence and crime analysis to produce better assessments about what might happen next if they take various actions.

This high tech description however tends to gloss over the more controversial aspect, a highly visible street presence which is intended to intimidate criminals before they commit crimes.  The more intimidating, the better.

Ironically, what developed over time was a gang mentality of thugs within the police force.

These teams tend to be close-knit and insular, trained to use highly aggressive tactics with very little oversight, and taught to think and act like the gang members and drug dealers they investigate while under cover.

In other words, the balance between the lawless and the lawful was so blurred that it was difficult to see which element was the greater threat to the community. The police force- especially when made up of white officers- took all of the appearances (as well as the mentality) of an occupying military.  

How We Came to Accept Police Brutality as the Norm 1/2

by Nomad

With all the protests around the country against abusive law enforcement, it is a good time to ask how we as a country got into this situation. Is it simply a matter of racism permeating police departments or does it go deeper?

With all of the safeguards hard-wired into the Constitution, how could we have allowed it to happen?

A Simple Question of Trust

Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is in an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob, and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.    Frederick Douglas

There's been a lot of superficial analysis about the reasons for the nationwide protests in the wake of the Brown and Garner cases. The fact that US law enforcement can literally get away with murdering unarmed citizens in front of witnesses has shocked the nation. 

(In fact this phenomenon has been going on for decades and if anything, the patience of the black community is the truly surprising aspect.) 

Racism in the country's police departments has been blamed. A broken-down justice system has also been pointed to. In fact, it's all of those things but there's a deeper problem as well:  A lack of trust in the law enforcement agencies by the black and minority communities. 

This lack of trust has been further reinforced by a lack of credibility of the oversight process after possible violations have occurred.

It's not something that should be under-estimated. Trust is the glue that holds the entire justice system together. Without trust, the entire structure of law and order collapses pretty quickly. Now America has begun to question whether we might not have bestowed too much trust in law enforcement.  

Every time a case of police brutality goes unpunished, it becomes a double failure for the entire justice system. Firstly, from the offense itself and secondly, by the damage it does to public trust.

Teddy Roosevelt and the Death Knell of the Republic

by Nomad

It often surprises me how clear-sighted so many of our leaders of the past seemed compared to the muddled-headed ideas of the present day. The fight against oligarchy and corporate-rigging of our political system did not begin with this generation. We have walked this way about a century ago. However, because of the general ignorance of our own history, we have been deprived of the wisdom and support of our elders. 

Cable News in Decline: Here's Why Time is Running Out for Fox News

by Nomad

If the capitalist model is based on supply and demand, what will happen when there is nobody left to buy your product? That the situation facing Fox News.

Fox News, as one writer noted,  has built its success by "selling a conservative political product to an older audience."

The average age of the audience is over 68 years old. That's average, mind you. Not only are the Fox News viewers the oldest, they are also  the most misinformed. They are also likely to remain that way the longer they continue to watch. 

In many ways, tuning into Fox News is a lifestyle choice. The average viewer of the channel tends not to have an active agenda and can devote much more time watching television news. On the other hand, a younger audience would more likely spend more time on the Internet or engaging with people socially.

Frank Rich, writing for New York Magazine, called Fox News a politically conservative 'retirement community.' When looking at the long-term viability of the network, that's something to consider.

The Slow Sinking of the Viewership

Last spring it was reported that the ratings for the cable news channel for the ideal consumer (25-54 age group) is at its lowest point in 12 years. As one blogger pointed out:

The average age of Bill O'Reilly's audience is a shocking 72.1 years old. Well, Megyn Kelly (perhaps because of that hip "y" in her first name) has brought that figure all the way down to 71.7 years old. That's a decrease of 0.4 years—almost 5 months younger! At this rate, they should make it to that prime 25-54 demographic some time in the year 2525. (If man is still alive!)

Programming executives at the network must be scrambling for solutions. There was a recent shake-up in which Megyn Kelly replaced Sean Hannity in the prime time slot. 

But if they thought the Megyn Kelly would be the way to attract a younger audience, then the problem of who needs to be replaced goes much deeper than just anchors. 

All that programming sleight of hand did was make the old men salivate from the heady combination of sensational looks, perkiness, and mean-girl aggression.

As the blogger noted: young people are not going to tune in given that they are just going to be fed the same stream of lies, distortions, and evasions no matter who the talking head might be. 

So, the real question is: 

What happens when there aren’t enough young people tuning in to replace the elderly audience?