More and more information is coming out about the Bush Administration’s foray into torture by almost any means necessary in order to get acquire any information possible after 9/11.

Sadly, this is not confined to the US at this point as information previously came about about the use of foreign airports in Europe with likely permission of the respective governments and as of yet no inquiries or legal cases into finding out what was agreed upon, who knew what and why.


Even more disturbing is the likely possibility of leading Democratic lawmakers showing no morality and no ability to recognize what the US is about–humanity, morality, and a beacon for the rest of the world. The Washington Post provides a picture of no formal objections about torture by this government:

 With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

The sad part about this is the amazing “concern” that these Democratic lawmakers had over their ‘oath’ to classified information, but not their ‘oath’ to the Constitution (including that <sarcasm>pesky</sarcasm> Eighth Amendment) and oversight (that would mean whistle blowing people who break the law) beyond sending a classified concern over what was done.

Glenn Greenwald gives more insightful analyses about this area noting that:

 Why would they even bother to go to the briefings if they tell themselves ahead of time: “even if intelligence officials confess to serial, deliberate lawbreaking and vow to continue breaking the law, there is absoultely nothing I can do about it, because I’m sworn to secrecy”? That’s absurd. Their obligation to maintain the secrecy of classified information applies to proper and legal intelligence activities. They’re not only able, but duty-bound, to act to impede patent lawbreaking (such as torture). That’s the whole purpose of “oversight.”

All of this has recently pushed behind the scenes about the CIA destroying tapes that effectively showed the torture of terrorist suspects (remember, they are not terrorists until proven guilty). Andrew Sullivan puts this in perspective:

 These tapes could have brought all this home to the American public and the world, revealing the president to be an active proponent of torture, even of a mentally ill man who provided nothing of any worth. They were and are critical to proving - in  way that could not be denied or buried - that we have a war c[r]iminal in the Oval Office. That is surely the simplest and most obvious reason they were destroyed. And it’s the most plausible reason that on a matter in which he was very personally involved, a matter where he risked being exposed as a war criminal, the president “has no recollection” of being informed about the tapes’ destruction.

Remember, that some of these people were considered mentally ill, were under 18, and even given to American soldiers after we posted that we would give money to high-level Taliban people. Truthfully, the people involved in torturing these people are in a lot of trouble in the long-term if they leave any traces of information to the wrong (ie: ones with a sense of morality) people. Heck, we’ve executed people for a lot less than what they have done, even on the words of one witness.

Then again, the American people let Rumsfeld stay in his job for a long time, the media avoids the use of the word “American torture” (or even the word torture), Republican presidential contenders (exception of McCain and Paul) advocate the use of or stay silent on torture, and nothing seems to piss people off enough to really throw each and every one of these reactionaries (heck, even pre-Magna Carta philosophies) out of office.