Powell Criticizes Bush Plan To Authorize Torture

Politics International Politics
1

thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/powell-letter/

According to Powell

[quote]Bush’s proposal would “liberalize the definition of what is torture” by amending the War Crimes Act to “permit use of hypothermia, threats of violence to the detainee and his family, stress positions, ‘long-time standing,’ prolonged sleep deprivation, and possibly waterboarding.”

In his letter, Powell writes, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”[/quote]

This is almost as good as when he admitted the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile!

2

Bush responds: Powell criticism “unacceptable”

[quote]BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. It’s just — I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
[/quote]

Oh for God’s sake! Yet AGAIN we hear the words, “The United States of America” spoken with that southern lilt, as if some Southern Baptist minister were preaching a mandate from Heaven, written in the Bible with golden ink. It makes me want to puke. It aint frickin’ Zion, for God’s sake – it’s just the name of one country among one hundred and forty-some other countries. A country run by extremely fallable leaders who are particularly culpable because they wield SO much power – FAR more power, in fact, than the “Islamic extremists” Bush describes when it comes to spreading misery and mayhem.

3

I get tired of the idea that we should respond to the acts of evil people by sinking to their level. Arguments like “We only threatened prisoners with dogs; they sawed people’s heads off” don;t cut it because torture is wrong no matter what the degree.

One of the things that is supposed to make “us” better than “them” is that “we” do not mistreat prisoners. Enemy armies realily drop their weapons and surrender because they know we don’t abuse POWs. Bush unfortunately broke that vital barrier and shattered the trust that the world has in the US in this respect. A predicatable result: there is now more anti-Americanism in the world.

4

[quote=“Vay”]http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/powell-letter/

According to Powell

[quote]Bush’s proposal would “liberalize the definition of what is torture” by amending the War Crimes Act to “permit use of hypothermia, threats of violence to the detainee and his family, stress positions, ‘long-time standing,’ prolonged sleep deprivation, and possibly waterboarding.”

In his letter, Powell writes, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”[/quote]

This is almost as good as when he admitted the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile![/quote]

Vay,

I’m confused about the text of the original letter. There’s a crappy copy of some letter (faxed and recopied?) on that Thinkprogress website. Neither that letter, nor the typed transcript of it on the same site, contain some of the content in your quote above, e.g., “liberalize …” and “permit use of hypothermia…” etc. Is there a better, more legible link to the full letter or just confusion about the source of those quotations?

Thanks,

Seeker4

5

[quote=“Vay”]http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/powell-letter/

According to Powell

[quote]Bush’s proposal would “liberalize the definition of what is torture” by amending the War Crimes Act to “permit use of hypothermia, threats of violence to the detainee and his family, stress positions, ‘long-time standing,’ prolonged sleep deprivation, and possibly waterboarding.”

In his letter, Powell writes, “The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk.”[/quote]

This is almost as good as when he admitted the US helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile![/quote]

Why is this good? I would be ashamed if I were an American, not pleased that yes, it’s true, Bush is evil.

To make the case that torture is Bush admin policy one does not need quotes from Colin Powell. It needs reference to the OLC torture memos, Vice Admiral Mora’s report on the two track system established by Rumdfeld to provide legal cover for torture, the TIMES report on the log describing the torture of Mohammed al-Qhatani, the admission of top officials that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, the admin’s fight against the McCain ammendment to ban torture, Bush’s signing of the bill with a special presidential interpretation that allows him to ignore the law for the sake of military necessity, the admin’s reaction to Hamdan v Rumsfeld (which showed that the GC do protect Gitmo prisoners from abuse and torture), Bush’s startling admission that the CIA are using enhanced interrogation techniques, our knowledge that those techniques are torture under the Geneva Conventions which has of course led to attempts now with the War Crimes bill to provide legal cover for violations of the Geneva Convention in the wake of the aforementioned Hamdan v Rumseld, which has in turn led to the fight of Republican Senators such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain against the changes, and the Bush admin’s fight back which includes more startling statements such as “As long as the War Crimes Act hangs over their heads, they [interrogators] will not take the steps necessary to protect [Americans].”

Confused? Shouldn’t be if you’ve been following the issue seriously.

For an complicated overview of what the admin’s War Crime bill would do to the GC protections read here from a former Office of Legal Council lawyer. Don’t skim. It will take a few readings to understand what is going on. Not too much to ask about an issue you obviously feel strongly about, no?

balkin.blogspot.com/2006/09/cia- … would.html

Here’s an interview Matt Lauer had with the president recently on the subject of torture.
youtube.com/watch?v=Mp4vLBvU1bA&eurl=

6

Seeker4: Yeah, I got the quotes wrong, sorry. The first paragraph is from the actual article; only the second part is from Powell – so my quote heading “According to Powell” was inaccurate.

And Mucha Man, I didn’t mean it’s good the my president is so despicable, I just meant it’s good that a man with such an honorable reputation (or who used to have one, at least) as Powell would tear into administration policies and GOP historical revision the way he has been.

7

I can’t stand the way he so often adopts a teacherly attitude and then spouts some inane dribble like that bit he said about not all poor people being killers. So many things wrong with that I wouldn’t know where to start but for Christ’s sake didn’t it occur to him at least that some of the people listening to him might actually “be” poor people.

Next time he gets flustered trying to articulate one of his weak ideas and says something like “I really believe blah blah blah” I hope someone stands up and says, “Excuse me but honestly nobody has been looking to you for proclaimed wisdom for quite some time. You really believe this, you really believe that just isn’t going to cut it anymore.”

8

MSNBC’s Keith Olberman does a scathing editorial entitled “The President of the US owes this country an apology”:

crooksandliars.com/2006/09/1 … an-apology

[quote]BUSH: If there’s any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it’s flawed logic. It’s just — I simply can’t accept that. It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Of course** it’s acceptable to think that there’s “any kind of comparison.” And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary. Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists. Some will think that there is no similarity, or, if there is one, it is to the slightest and most unavoidable of degrees.

What all of us will agree on, is that we have the right — we have the duty — to think about the comparison. And, most importantly, that the other guy, whose opinion about this we cannot fathom, has exactly the same right as we do: to think — and say — what his mind and his heart and his conscience tell him, is right.

All of us agree about that.

Except, it seems, this President.

With increasing rage, he and his administration have begun to tell us, we are not permitted to disagree with them, that we cannot be right. That Colin Powell cannot be right.And then there was that one, most awful phrase.

In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years - the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then, a second later, all again is dark.

“It’s unacceptable to think…” he said. It is never unacceptable… to think.[/quote]

9

Colbert lampoons Bush’s torture agenda:

truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20 … re_agenda/

10

Vay: Thanks for the clarification.

Olbermann and Colbert were both on a roll, and dead on.

On a related note, a few days ago, NPR interviewed President Clinton on this general subject – U.S. policy on torture. At the beginning of the interview, Clinton said something unbelievable along the lines that he was having this conversation for the first time, which I took to mean that he hadn’t discussed this topic with anyone else in detail. After that, the rest of the 5-minute interview was actually very good. President Clinton summed up the issue in a no-nonsense way with simple terms, making his points clear and easy to follow. Whether or not one agrees with Clinton’s history, his perspective and message on this topic seem like they would be acceptable to anyone except the most partisan. It was refreshing to hear a top-level politician actually address an issue directly, intelligently, and comprehensibly. The interview is below:

podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr … 121956.mp3