Uppity Wisconsin

It's become more or less common knowledge that US forces have been using music as an operational tool for some time now, and I've begun seeing lists of the songs that are being used either to inflict pain, to demoralize, or to just generally disorient various people in various sorts of situations.

There are others, wiser than I, who will opine as to the questions of efficacy and the moral issues surrounding these kinds of operations; I will opine, instead, as to the quality of the songs used.

Frankly, had anyone asked, I could have put the torturers onto much better musical choices, just by selecting from my own "My Music" folder--which left me thinking: "hey, it's the weekend...why not do exactly that?"

Got any psychological warfare missions planned for the weekend? Expecting to have to direct amplified sound at an angry mob in a defensive maneuver Saturday night? Planning a Halloween haunted house that goes a bit...fuurther?

Come along with me then, soldier, and I'll provide you a playlist that should do the trick in almost any foreseeable emergency.

When last we met, Gentle Reader, it was to work through a series of legal precedents and statute law; the goal of the exercise being to determine if we could or could not define waterboarding as torture.

We have the kind assistance of Professor Jeffrey Addicott, who has provided us with his written testimony from his recent appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a personal interview, where he walked me through some of his thinking on the matter.

Today we’re going to take a look at the precedent that he has used to reach the conclusion that waterboarding is not torture.

It’s also possible that the analysis may result in the discovery of a bit of common ground...but as I noted in Part One, it’s common ground that neither one of us might have seen coming.

To begin, a quick review from yesterday:

Dr. Addicott wants you to know that waterboarding is not torture.

I can’t tell you the number of times I began a story with a plan for where it would go, only to discover that the plan isn’t going to work.

The stories sometimes seem to write themselves...but other times, the research seems to do the writing instead; this being one of those times.

When the production of this story began it was with the intention of trying to explain what should be the “controlling authority” in terms of defining torture, a precedent set by the European Court of Human Rights, or Title 18 of the United States Code.

Having reviewed both statute law and numerous judgments in law courts worldwide as well as the recent Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Professor Jeffrey Addicott, and having conducted an interview with Dr. Addicott personally, I’ve come to two rather surprising conclusions:

It may not really matter whether waterboarding is torture...and although neither I nor Dr. Addicott might have seen it coming, it’s starting to appear that he and I might agree on one thing:

Waterboarding, whether it’s torture or not, is a war crime.

There’s a big backstory here, so off we go:

Interview on Rachel Maddow on recent developments in Washington.

In Sunday's New York Times, Nicholas Kristof calls for the establishment of a Truth Commission to document and investigate the human rights violations of the United States government under the Bush administration.

Kristof writes:

The first step of accountability isn’t prosecutions. Rather, we need a national Truth Commission to lead a process of soul searching and national cleansing. ... Both Barack Obama and John McCain should commit to impaneling a Truth Commission early in the next administration. This commission would issue a report to help us absorb the lessons of our failings, the better to avoid them during the next crisis.

Good idea on not prosecuting the perpetrators, as any rational accounting could sensibly hold most of us reading these words accountable. And that's not so realistic.

A memo that was released yesterday demonstrates that John Yoo had another of his "opinions" after 9/11 that various unpleasant things done to prisoners by the military are just hunky-dory. You know, "assault, maiming, and other crimes." This in itself isn't a huge surprise since we've heard that before, but a note in the memo (and where else but Washington is an 81 page document a "memo"?) alludes to another memo in the following disturbing way

... our Office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations. See Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, and William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, from John C. Yoo, Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Robert J. Delahunty, Special Counsel, Re: Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States at 25 (Oct 23, 2001). (emphasis added)

I feel the need to point out that the ACLU is asking us all to wear orange on Friday in support of closing Guantanamo Bay. This isn't because they were kind enough to help support Uppity Wisconsin by buying an ad, though of course that's always appreciated.

The US support of a system of torture, indefinite detention, and everything else that Gitmo stands for is a continuing embarrassment to all of us who want to be proud of our country. Please find out more by clicking on the ad on your left, and remember to wear orange on Friday Jan 11. We're also providing a copy of the ACLU toolkit below.

"I think, to the average person, this is not all that complicated: Waterboarding. Torture. Illegal. Unconstitutional. Most people, I believe, would associate those four words together..."

--Sen. Herb Kohl on attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey's refusal to say whether waterboarding is illegal.

... as JFK used to say. 

Here's W's version: 

Bush said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques about which he has not been briefed. "He doesn't know whether we use that technique or not," the president said during the session.

Further, Bush said, "It doesn't make any sense to tell an enemy what we're doing."

... Without saying whether interrogators use waterboarding, Bush said, "The American people must know that whatever techniques we use are within the law."

Asked whether he considers waterboarding legal, Bush replied, "I'm not going to talk about techniques. There's an enemy out there."