The 7 CIA KIAs in Afghanistan: When revenge really means reprisal

Occupied Afghanistan--Remember all those WWII movies where the Nazis are being attacked by partisans and members of the resistance? This is what's happening in Afghanistan.
This doesn't mean the Afghans are "good guys," they're just reacting naturally, and they have their own issues. We're worse in our behavior at this historical moment.

The CIA are calling for "revenge" in an illegal war and remembering that this is an illegal occupation is the key (wars of aggression are illegal under international law): they're already kidnapping, torturing, and even slaughtering Afghan nationals, and now, someone they thought was going to be their "snitch" (informant) got into a military facility knowing seven of them were going to be there and blew himself and them up with a bomb strapped to his torso. That's desperation under a bloody occupation, not some arbitrary act for the hell of it, and it's not even necessarily extreme. It's what happens under bloody occupations.

What the CIA should have used was the term "reprisal," the one that the Nazis and their victims frequently used when they retaliated for deaths within their own ranks. The problem in their logic at Langley--and our own if we accept such arguments--is obvious. We're the wrong side, and we're the aggressors, not the Afghans. This kind of wrong-headed thinking is only going to keep us digging our own hole, and eventually, we're probably going to get our own Stalingrad in some form or another. This "revenge" is really reprisal, don't kid yourself. We're the bad guys. We're the wrong side. The Afghan that did this killed people who might have been there to torture in his mind, and certainly came as bringers of death.

Portions of suppressed detainee photos may have been online since February 15, 2006

Sydney, Australia--A section of the detainee abuse photos that President Obama is fighting the release of in federal court might have been posted as early as February 15th, 2006 on the Sydney Morning Herald's site by-way of an anonymous whistle-blower of unknown nationality. Some of these photos are as bad if not worse than the ones previously released in 2004 to a horrified world.

The president has stated that keeping the photographs from disclosure is to protect American troops and to limit any more damage to the reputation of the United States throughout the world, especially in Muslim nations. The security situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan have also been invoked.

All the president is pointing-out is that torture doesn't work and that he would prefer we don't know about...just like the last president. They honeymoon's over, believe it. It's even money that Rahm Emanuel weighed-in on this one in a very big way, but that's Dutch Schultz for ya'.

Below are a few photos I captured from the Australian site, just in case they're "yanked" (pun intended).

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/photos-us-doesnt-want-seen/2006/02/14/1139890737099.html

On the "torture flap" and all the waffling in DC: Bust Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Rice, Miers, and the OLC attorneys

WWW--This is getting good. To say that I'm enjoying the shit storm created over the release of these torture memos, the narratives coming from former participants, and the formation of a coherent time line, would be an understatement. This could have a good effect on reining-in our intelligence community, and more. Reactionaries of every stripe are going to complain that this is "going to hamper the CIA, et. al.," which misses the point: actions defined as internationally illegal and barbaric behavior by them isn't necessarily going to make us any safer, quite the opposite.

But the the public has to be engaged in this, and so far, they are in a major way that's not showing any signs of cresting.

We could be seeing the radical reformulation of our foreign policy dialog inside and outside of the State Department and the executive branch. Why? Because the Bush II administration was so incompetent, so blustery in their criminality, that they didn't think that they had to cover their tracks much--not that they cared to most of the time, they thought the fix was on permanently. Who and what made them think that? Who gave them that blank check? Few buy the justifications these days. However, there still seems to be an increasingly isolated segment of the public that thinks George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and the rest of the Bush II administration were somehow protecting us through methods that were proven useless in obtaining information centuries ago.

Torture doesn't work.

My advice to concerned members of the public who find the use of torture by our government unacceptable: sign any petition (once!), call your elected representatives, and make one hell of a lot of noise about your concern over this until we see some real action, some real justice. Until then, all bets are off, so keep hammering!

Why is the Obama administration waffling back-and-forth on this? Some of the torture memos came out because they knew a whistle-blower was going to leak them to the press and watchdog groups. Nonetheless, it was a brave move to release them in unredacted form, and I applaud it. But the Obama administration doesn't yet know what to do about it, and the reasons are simple and complicated: yes, they have qualms about how the Bush II administration implemented torture against individuals captured in the field (oftentimes just taken off of the streets of another nation), but I think they want to keep this gun in their pockets for a rainy day.

Does it matter? It might not. This whole scandal is broader than just one incident: it's an internationally sprawling and seemingly endless string of incidents that constituted official policy under Bush II, a secret one. Interestingly, the former president isn't taking any potshots at President Obama on torture...only the factions of Karl Rove and Richard Cheney are. This speaks volumes as to who was the genesis of the policy, it could be isolated primarily to the last vice president.

However, none of this matters. George W. Bush was our standing president, regardless of whether he abdicated his responsibilities to Vice President Cheney. For this reason, there must be accountability because we are a nation of laws and precedents. If the Bush II precedents stand on torture and numerous other matters, we're no longer a democracy. Motivation enough for you now?

One thing's certain: There's a war for the minds of Americans on this issue being fought by Rovian operatives within the mainstream media, and they and the Obama administration are losing control of the debate to the public. This can only be a good thing. The groundswell is here, now.

More change today: The Obama administration releases more Bush II torture memos

ACLU.org--Once again, I have to say that I'm impressed by this release of the internal record and that it's a hard day for cynics and the terminally jaded (if they can even fathom the meaning of it intellectually). This couldn't be kept in the dark any longer, and the new administration's actions today--while not going nearly as far as most of us would like--is a good step forward towards accountability for the architects of post-9/11 terror policy.

Looking at some of these memos, it's clear that the Bush II administration was in panic mode after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Torture? That's for the desperate.

But this release is not enough, and significantly more declassification is going to have to occur in the near future. The ACLU requested these documents over a year ago, and they only came to the rest of us through court filings:

In response to litigation filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Justice Department today released four secret memos used by the Bush administration to justify torture. The memos, produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), provided the legal framework for the CIA's use of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation methods that violate domestic and international law.

The ACLU has called for the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate torture under the Bush administration.

"We have to look back before we can move forward as a nation. When crimes have been committed, the American legal system demands accountability. President Obama's assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable. Enforcing the nation's laws should not be a political decision. These memos provide yet more incontrovertible evidence that Bush administration officials at the highest level of government authorized and gave legal blessings to acts of torture that violate domestic and international law," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. ("Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009)

The stakes in maintaining our liberties couldn't be higher regarding state secrets. Today, the Obama administration made a much bigger step forward than most administrations ever would --even under the current circumstances--but many more will have to come. However, there is now more than enough material to justify substantial investigations into crimes committed under the color of authority under the Bush II administration.

The ACLU's site has the most complete PDF collection of the four key torture memos, authored by the Justice Department's OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) under the direction of the White House to give illegal acts of torture a sheen of legality:

A 18-page memo, dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 46-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 20-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 40-page memo, dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF] ("Abuse of Power: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009)

The New York Times is also offering an incomplete selection of the memos on its site. Accountability is coming.

"Abuse of Power: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

Obama Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel releases more Bush II administration war on terror documents

Washington D.C.--You wanted change? You're getting it, today. This is a switch--even for the incoming administration: the release of more key Justice Department legal documents from the immediate aftermath of the events of September 11th, 2001, and they're eye-openers.

The Obama Justice Department has made available a series of key legal memos crafted byt eh Bush II administration that cover the power of the office of president to declare war, "Congressional Authority over Captured Enemy Combatants," the legality of torture, "Interpreting FISA and its Applicability to Presidential Authority," "Presidential Authority to Suspend Treaties" (curiously, ABM ones in one case), " 'National Self-Defense' as a Justification for Warrantless Searches," and so on.

The Obama Justice Department has made their stance on these questionable legal opinions of the Bush II Justice Department crystal clear:

For all the foregoing reasons, the propositions highlighted in the nine opinions identified above do not reflect the current views of the Office of Legal Counsel and should not be treated as authoritative for any purpose. A number of the opinions that contained these propositions have been withdrawn or superseded and do not constitute precedents of this Office; caution should be exercised before relying in other respects on the remaining opinions.

We have advised the Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and appropriate offices in the Department of Justice of these conclusions. ("Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda," DOJ.gov, 0303.2009)

Here's what this writer finds most interesting: the opinions by the OLC were made just five days before the Obama administration came into office on January 20, 2009! In short, these decisions were likely being withheld from release by the outgoing Bush II administration and this week's release indicates the decisions were all but predetermined by the incoming administration for potential release. In other words, the Bush II administration was doing some back-peddling in their legal assertions at the tail-end.

That it took a little over a month for the Obama administration's Attorney General to releases them is a very tangible change considering these memos were suppressed by the Bush II administration for years. Say what you want--that it's "not enough," that it's "belated" (for whom?), and that we "won't be seeing much more of this," but it doesn't matter. It's real, and it happened, and more is coming. So far, it doesn't appear that the Obama administration have ruled on the findings of the OLC, but it's likely that they will concur with them in their own decisions.

Maybe it's just a start, but it's one of the best starts we've seen in at least three decades (if not more), and it's happening almost overnight. Patience has its own rewards, but keep demanding more of this, don't ask, and do tell.

"Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda," DOJ.gov, 0303.2009:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/olc-memos.htm

George W. Bush's lame duck rendition of "We Are the Champions"

I've paid my dues - [REDACTED]

Time after time -

I've tried forming a correct sentence

But committed no grammatical crime [REDACTED]

And bad mistakes ["The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."]

I've made untold thousands ["I'm sorry about the economic crisis."]

I've had my share of Iraqi sand kicked in my face, but not nearly enough since Americans have no self-respect or balls. Why wouldn't you stop me? Please? Someone? Please?

But I've come through, with the help of a complicit Congress, press and business community
(And we mean to go on and on and on and on)

We are the [REDACTED]--my friends-

At least until the collapse and general strikes bring us to the end -

We are the champions -

You aren't the champions

No time for losers, not even the GOP

'Cause we are the champions - of the world - even if we aren't anymore.

I've taken my bows, and I'll drag you all straight to hell

And my curtain calls - they never rang my bell, or dingled my tingle.

You--my rich donors [NAMES REDACTED]--brought me fame and fortune and everything that goes with it, I thank you all - and now, so long suckers...

But it's been no bed of roses, 'cause roses gotts them thorns, I hear tell.

And it don't give me the same kicks as that "demon booze" -

I considered this administration a challenge against all the human race -

And I ain't gonna [REDACTED FOR NATIONAL SECURITY PURPOSES] -
(And we mean to go on and on and on and on, a boot in a human face for a thousand years...)

Neocons are the champions - my friends - until the real crash

And we'll keep on lying - till the end - even under oath

We are the champions -

You aren't the champions

No time for losers

'Cause we are the champions until someone with balls comes for us with the tar and the feathers we were born to be swathed in.

Please don't hurt me.

[Keep waiting for justice, we want you to.]

Bush Admits CIA Prisons Exist, Farts, Then Kills Journalist with Dirtbike

Our CIA prisons: It's true, they exist, but only when the mainstream media reports George W. Bush saying it. Never mind that the blogs and the rest of the internet were reporting this story for months, and forget about the fact that the "host" countries were discovering and reporting them, there are no CIA prisons unless we tell you.

The whole affair is a violation of several treaties signed by the United States, including the UN Charter on Human Rights, but will anyone be prosecuted? We'll see, we're still waiting for some action on the roving wiretaps at the NSA. Since Arlen Specter promised hearings and an investigation in February, we should see a serious investigation on the scale of the Warren Commission in 2025. As we know, it could only have been Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, who shot President Kennedy from the School Book Depository. [Ed., 09.21.2008--Something authors Dan Moldea and Bill Keisling believe, amazing.]

Pay no attention to the Grassy Knoll. I guess the wheels of government turn-slowly, especially when one's own party is losing-power and influence because the major-players are too incompetent to take a bribe discretely (like Spiro Agnew). When-in-doubt, it's best to classify everything!

It appears that today, action is coming for the wiretaps: GOP-drafted pap that basically accomplishes roughly the same terms as FISA! Fearing they won't be re-elected, a few members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are breaking-ranks with other Republicans. They want to tighten controls and increase oversight on the NSA program. This is going even further than Arlen Specter wanted, and we can assume, much to his chagrin. There are at least four competing intelligence oversight bills now! This is funny:

In July, Specter announced what he called "a major breakthrough" when he presented legislation backed by the White House that would allow the administration to submit the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program to a secret intelligence court for review of its legality. Under the bill, the secret court that now administers surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act would be permitted to review the legality of the program as a whole and not individual wiretaps, which could continue without warrants. (Washington Post, 9/06/06)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501136.html

The ACLU and even high-level Democrats say this is rewarding the President for violating FISA. Well duh. Meanwhile...meanwhile, nothing. The American anti-war movement seems content at little-or-no-movement. Maybe a bowel-movement, but nobody's getting very creative of doing things that are effective and actionable.

Come on, the Quakers can't save the world alone, Jesus. Where are the arrests? Where is the civil disobedience? Apparently, things are so tight economically, that those risks are scarier. Will we do something once we've lost everything? I doubt it, but surely there is a point where people are going to truly get it, and begin disobeying.

We should have rampant general strikes over the revelations of Bush administration criminality--as it would have happened under Nixon--but nada, feh. Bleah. It seems that Dick Cheney's head would have to split-open with hundreds of demons streaming-out for people to understand he's an evil president. Speaking of that, I've heard Bush is a breath-away from the Presidency.

To be fair, there have been massive demonstrations against the war, and the media has done her usual job of purposefully under-counting it, flat-out lying about the numbers, enacting selective-coverage, and many times, no coverage at all. Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star mothers have been doing some real actions, and I applaud them. I always appreciate people honking in-approval when our group is out with our signs, but why not pull-over and join-up?

It has happened, but it should happen more. But the rest of you: WTF? Are you cowards? Are you lazy? Stupid? What's the problem? Get off your asses like you all should have done in 2000, and take your country back. Show people what Americans are really made-of, besides talk.