Torture Must Be Punished

This article by Susan Goering appearing in today's Baltimore Sun is a must read. This excerpt very succinctly counters those who decry "looking back" as political:

The effect of these remedial steps [investigations and prosecutions] would not be, as some have suggested, to criminalize politics. On the contrary, to attempt to "move on" while standing on a foundation of unacknowledged criminality would be to politicize criminal conduct.

The Daily Show Defense

I was completely flabbergasted to hear that the Obama Justice Department (once again following in the bloody footsteps of the Bush Administration) actually argued to block the release of transcripts of Cheney’s testimony before U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in the Valerie Plame treasonous-outing-for-political-gain case. Their argument? That it would inhibit future vice presidents from cooperating in investigations out of fear that their testimony will end up as fodder for The Daily Show. You can’t make shit like this up, you know.

Never mind that all politicians have figured out by now that they will never be prosecuted for anything they do in office, up to and including torture and murder.* That would be “looking backward, not forward;” being “partisan” and “vindictive”! Now they’re actually suggesting that politicians should be exempt from ridicule. . . by comedians?!?!?!

Pooow widduw Wichud Cheney! He might git his widduw feewings huwt!

Perhaps he should have thought of the remote possibility that he would be subject to public scrutiny—possibly even ridicule—before he went into politics. Or before he agreed to be a presidential running mate. Or before he became an international war criminal. Or before he WENT ON NETWORK TELEVISION time after time after time admitting his war crimes for the world to see and hear.

Thank goodness and reason that U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan called bullshit on that defense! (At least sort of. At least for now.)

Stay tuned for the next episode of As the World Turns. . . Totally Bonkers.

*obviously, blow jobs and gay sex are not protected by this unwritten Beltway rule

Why I Hate Kay Bailey Hutchison

Well, because she's a lying, disingenuous, partisan hack—and always has been.

While I must admit that Senator Hutchison’s office is one of the best I’ve ever dealt with as far as consistently responding to my communications, the response is usually something akin to: “Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding ‘Issue X.’ I think your position is utterly asinine, and you are obviously a stupid democrat asshole, but I appreciate hearing from you. You can be assured that I will do exactly the opposite of everything you suggest. Suck on that. Sincerely, KBH.”

I just received this response from Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's office:

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding interrogation methods employed to obtain vital, time-sensitive information from terrorist suspects. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

President Barack Obama and other Congressional and Administration officials have left open the possibility of prosecuting past Bush Administration officials in the Office of Legal Counsel and other offices that were involved in so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” While I continue to support the use of these techniques in certain circumstances, and consider them an essential tool in the protection of our country, I deem their use secondary to the larger issue.

I believe that the potential prosecution of officials of any previous Administration because of policy differences is wrong, vindictive, and counter to historical precedent. The prosecution of attorneys for giving legitimate legal counsel to the President runs against our long-standing legal tradition.

I appreciate hearing from you, and I hope that you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

First of all, we all know by now—pretty much beyond any doubt—that “interrogation methods” (read: “torture”) were never “employed to obtain vital, time-sensitive information.” Torture was used to elicit false confessions to give Bush/Cheney, their Neocon base, and Congressional enablers political cover for their imperialistic war of aggression in Iraq. It never had anything to do with national security. KBH knows that and knows everyone else knows it.

Next, she goes on to say, “I continue to support the use of these techniques in certain circumstances, and consider them an essential tool in the protection of our country. . . .” This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what I have always maintained: KBH is evil, sadistic, hateful, and ignorant. Besides the fact that it is widely accepted by true experts in interrogation methods and in national security that “these techniques” neither yield reliable information nor serve to protect our country, this is an odd view for a someone who claims that her religious faith is very important to her role as a U.S. Senator (see this 2002 interview by Toby Druin in the Baptist Standard). As I wrote here, “Show me a Christian who supports torture, and I’ll show you a liar, an imposter, and a hypocrite!”

Third, her assertion that “I believe that the potential prosecution of officials of any previous Administration because of policy differences is wrong, vindictive, and counter to historical precedent” is utterly absurd and patently false. Obviously, anyone who truly believes that criminal wrongdoing, violation of federal and international laws, and evisceration of the Constitution are “policy differences” has absolutely no business in the U.S. Senate. And anyone who’s under the impression that “prosecution of officials of any previous Administration” is “counter to historical precedent” must have failed history, civics, and political science courses and needs to give back those degrees from the University of Texas (maybe she was too busy practicing her cheers).

Finally, she certainly didn’t learn that “the prosecution of attorneys for giving legitimate legal counsel to the President runs against our long-standing legal tradition” in her law classes—even if she could whitewash the contorted opinions of Yoo, Bybee, Addington, et. al. as “legitimate legal counsel.”

I’m sorry, Kay. You’re obviously much more stupid than you think your constituents are. Your time pretending to represent me is up. Get the hell out of Washington!