Jonathan Mann is writing a song a day often based on current events. In this case he uses the actual words from the waterboarding memo. It's actually has a beat and you could dance to it.
Bush Torture Memos Recut In Song (VIDEO)
Jonathan Mann, the guy who brought you the "Paul Krugman" song is back putting the Bush torture memos to music. This is the 109th video in Mann's "one song a day" project. He uses hot-button topics in the news to inspire him on his surely wearying journey, and this time he took disturbing language detailing the waterboarding technique used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times to create a song.
Last week the Department of Justice released the memos from the Office of Legal Counsel that discussed the CIA's use of torture under Bush. This decision by President Obama has been lauded by some, but several members of the last administration and their supporters have been less enthusiastic about the choice.
Click here to read the memos. Scroll down for the transcript of Mann's song.
WATCH:
The detainee is lying on a gurney
That's inclined at an angle: 10 to 15 degrees
A cloth is placed over the detainee's face
Cold water is poured on the cloth
The wet cloth creates
A barrier through which
It is difficult or in some cases not possible
For the detainee to breathe
If the detainee
Makes an effort to defeat the technique
By twisting his head to the side and breathing
Out the corner of his mouth
The interrogator may cup his hands around
The detainees nose and mouth
In which case it would not be possible for him to breathe!
As we explained
In the Section 2340A Memorandum,
"Pain and suffering"
(As used in Section 2340)
Is best understood as a single concept,
Not distinct concepts
Of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering"...
The waterboard,
Which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever,
Does not, in our view inflict "severe pain or suffering".
Even if one were to parse the statute more finely
To treat "suffering" as a distinct concept,
The waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering.
The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode,
Lacking the connotation of a protracted
Period of time generally given to suffering.
Showing posts with label waterboarding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waterboarding. Show all posts
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Powell: I Don’t Know Whether Torture ‘Would Be Considered Criminal’
Powell: I Don’t Know Whether Torture ‘Would Be Considered Criminal’
Last night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow interviewed former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Unlike many journalists, Maddow asked him about — and pressed him repeatedly on — his role in approving torture against detainees. Specifically, she asked him about reports that he was among nine White House “principals” who approved torture techniques so specifically that “interrogation sessions were almost choreographed.”
Powell refused to acknowledge his role in these meetings, and claimed ignorance about long-released legal memos that specifically authorized torture. Choosing his words carefully, he would say only that, “at least from the State Department standpoint,” it was important to stand by the Geneva Conventions. Powell also questioned whether tactics like sleep deprivation, stress positions, or waterboarding were “criminal” — despite specific U.S. statutes and international law forbidding torture:
MADDOW: If there was a meeting though at which senior officials were saying, were discussing and giving the approval for sleep deprivation, stress positions, waterboarding. Were those officials committing crimes when they were giving their authorization?
POWELL: You’re asking me a legal question. I mean, I don’t know that any of these items would be considered criminal. And I will wait for whatever investigations that the government or the Congress intends to pursue with this.
Throughout the interview, Powell shirked any responsibility to account for his actions by deferring to hypothetical “investigations” or pointing to the unreleased — and possibly non-existent — “written record” of these meetings as providing the ultimate final word. As Maddow pointed, it’s unclear whether any such investigations will ever take place. Watch it:
Powell has gotten credit in the past for supposedly “breaking” with the Bush administration on the issue of torture. However, his refusal to even acknowledge centuries-long definitions of torture is a discouraging indication that he is more concerned with protecting himself legally than getting to the truth of America’s national disgrace.
Transcript:
RACHEL: On the issue of intelligence, tainted evidence, and those things, were you ever present at meetings at which the interrogation of prisoners, like Abu Zubaydah, other prisoners in those early days, where the interrogation was directed, where specific interrogations were approved? It has been reported on a couple of different sources that there were principals meetings to which you would have typically been there, where interrogations were almost play by play discussed.
POWELL: They were not play-by-play discussed, but there were conversations at senior level as to what could be done with respect to interrogation. I cannot go further because I don’t have knowledge of all the meetings that took place or what was discussed at each of those meetings and I think it’s going to have to be the written record of those meetings that will determine whether anything improper took place.
But it was always the case that, at least from the State Department standpoint, we should be consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Convention and that’s why this was such a controversial, controversial issue. But you’ll have to go — and in due course I think we all will go — to the written record of what memos were signed. I’m not sure what memos were signed or not signed. I didn’t have access to all of that information.
MADDOW: If there was a meeting though at which senior officials were saying, were discussing and giving the approval for sleep deprivation, stress positions, waterboarding. Were those officials committing crimes when they were giving their authorization?
POWELL: You’re asking me a legal question. I mean, I don’t know that any of these items would be considered criminal. And I will wait for whatever investigations that the government or the Congress intends to pursue with this.
MADDOW: There have been two Bush administration officials now who have said explicitly that what we did at Guantanamo was torture. One of them was the State Department general counsel for Guantanamo litigation, a man named, um, Vijay - excuse me – Padmanabhan.
POWELL: I don’t know him.
MADDOW: Also Susan Crawford, who heads up the military tribunals at Guantanamo. Both have said it was torture. Do you think that they are wrong? Do you feel like you have enough information to know if people were waterboarded, is that torture?
POWELL: I will let those who are making the legal determination of that make that judgment. Susan Crawford has made a statement and she is in a position of authority to make such a statement, has access to all the information. The lawyer you mentioned who is working in I guess in the legal advisor’s office in the State Department, but I don’t believe I know him, has made statements recently. What’s the basis for his statements and what meetings he was in and whether he was in Guantanamo I just don’t know.
MADDOW: I guess have to ask that — just a broader question about whether or not you have regrets, not about what the Bush administration did broadly in the years that you were secretary of state but the decisions that you participated in about interrogation, about torture, about the other things that are now so controversial —
POWELL: We had no meeting on torture. It is constantly said that the meetings - I had an issue with this - we had meetings on what torture to administer. What I recall, the meetings I was in, and I was not in all the meetings and I was not a author of many of the memos that have been written and some have come out and some have not come out. The only meetings I recall were where we talked about what is it we can do with respect to trying to get information from individuals who were in our custody. And I will just have to wait until the full written record is available and has been examined.
MADDOW: I don’t mean to press you on this to the point of discomfort, but there is an extent to which there is a legal discussion around this where everybody feels a little constrained by the legal terms and whether or not they are a legal professional. There is also the policy implications that you’ve been so eloquent about, in terms of what the implications are of these policies for the U.S. abroad in a continuing way. And you’ve been very optimistic in thinking that America still has a reservoir of good will around the world that we can call on regardless of these difficulties that we’ve had around these issues.
If specific interrogation techniques were being approved by people at the political level in the Cabinet, it doesn’t — the legal niceties of it almost become less important.
POWELL: I don’t know where these things were being approved at a political level.
MADDOW: If there a principals meeting at the White House to discuss interrogation techniques?
POWELL: It does not mean it was approved, anything was approved at a meeting.
MADDOW: OK.
POWELL: It depends on, did the meeting end up in a conclusion or was it just a briefing that then went to others to make a final decision on and to document. And so it is a legal issue and I think we have to be very careful and I have to be very careful because I don’t want to be seen as implicating anybody or accusing anybody because I don’t have the complete record on this. And that complete record I think in due course
Last night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow interviewed former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Unlike many journalists, Maddow asked him about — and pressed him repeatedly on — his role in approving torture against detainees. Specifically, she asked him about reports that he was among nine White House “principals” who approved torture techniques so specifically that “interrogation sessions were almost choreographed.”
Powell refused to acknowledge his role in these meetings, and claimed ignorance about long-released legal memos that specifically authorized torture. Choosing his words carefully, he would say only that, “at least from the State Department standpoint,” it was important to stand by the Geneva Conventions. Powell also questioned whether tactics like sleep deprivation, stress positions, or waterboarding were “criminal” — despite specific U.S. statutes and international law forbidding torture:
MADDOW: If there was a meeting though at which senior officials were saying, were discussing and giving the approval for sleep deprivation, stress positions, waterboarding. Were those officials committing crimes when they were giving their authorization?
POWELL: You’re asking me a legal question. I mean, I don’t know that any of these items would be considered criminal. And I will wait for whatever investigations that the government or the Congress intends to pursue with this.
Throughout the interview, Powell shirked any responsibility to account for his actions by deferring to hypothetical “investigations” or pointing to the unreleased — and possibly non-existent — “written record” of these meetings as providing the ultimate final word. As Maddow pointed, it’s unclear whether any such investigations will ever take place. Watch it:
Powell has gotten credit in the past for supposedly “breaking” with the Bush administration on the issue of torture. However, his refusal to even acknowledge centuries-long definitions of torture is a discouraging indication that he is more concerned with protecting himself legally than getting to the truth of America’s national disgrace.
Transcript:
RACHEL: On the issue of intelligence, tainted evidence, and those things, were you ever present at meetings at which the interrogation of prisoners, like Abu Zubaydah, other prisoners in those early days, where the interrogation was directed, where specific interrogations were approved? It has been reported on a couple of different sources that there were principals meetings to which you would have typically been there, where interrogations were almost play by play discussed.
POWELL: They were not play-by-play discussed, but there were conversations at senior level as to what could be done with respect to interrogation. I cannot go further because I don’t have knowledge of all the meetings that took place or what was discussed at each of those meetings and I think it’s going to have to be the written record of those meetings that will determine whether anything improper took place.
But it was always the case that, at least from the State Department standpoint, we should be consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Convention and that’s why this was such a controversial, controversial issue. But you’ll have to go — and in due course I think we all will go — to the written record of what memos were signed. I’m not sure what memos were signed or not signed. I didn’t have access to all of that information.
MADDOW: If there was a meeting though at which senior officials were saying, were discussing and giving the approval for sleep deprivation, stress positions, waterboarding. Were those officials committing crimes when they were giving their authorization?
POWELL: You’re asking me a legal question. I mean, I don’t know that any of these items would be considered criminal. And I will wait for whatever investigations that the government or the Congress intends to pursue with this.
MADDOW: There have been two Bush administration officials now who have said explicitly that what we did at Guantanamo was torture. One of them was the State Department general counsel for Guantanamo litigation, a man named, um, Vijay - excuse me – Padmanabhan.
POWELL: I don’t know him.
MADDOW: Also Susan Crawford, who heads up the military tribunals at Guantanamo. Both have said it was torture. Do you think that they are wrong? Do you feel like you have enough information to know if people were waterboarded, is that torture?
POWELL: I will let those who are making the legal determination of that make that judgment. Susan Crawford has made a statement and she is in a position of authority to make such a statement, has access to all the information. The lawyer you mentioned who is working in I guess in the legal advisor’s office in the State Department, but I don’t believe I know him, has made statements recently. What’s the basis for his statements and what meetings he was in and whether he was in Guantanamo I just don’t know.
MADDOW: I guess have to ask that — just a broader question about whether or not you have regrets, not about what the Bush administration did broadly in the years that you were secretary of state but the decisions that you participated in about interrogation, about torture, about the other things that are now so controversial —
POWELL: We had no meeting on torture. It is constantly said that the meetings - I had an issue with this - we had meetings on what torture to administer. What I recall, the meetings I was in, and I was not in all the meetings and I was not a author of many of the memos that have been written and some have come out and some have not come out. The only meetings I recall were where we talked about what is it we can do with respect to trying to get information from individuals who were in our custody. And I will just have to wait until the full written record is available and has been examined.
MADDOW: I don’t mean to press you on this to the point of discomfort, but there is an extent to which there is a legal discussion around this where everybody feels a little constrained by the legal terms and whether or not they are a legal professional. There is also the policy implications that you’ve been so eloquent about, in terms of what the implications are of these policies for the U.S. abroad in a continuing way. And you’ve been very optimistic in thinking that America still has a reservoir of good will around the world that we can call on regardless of these difficulties that we’ve had around these issues.
If specific interrogation techniques were being approved by people at the political level in the Cabinet, it doesn’t — the legal niceties of it almost become less important.
POWELL: I don’t know where these things were being approved at a political level.
MADDOW: If there a principals meeting at the White House to discuss interrogation techniques?
POWELL: It does not mean it was approved, anything was approved at a meeting.
MADDOW: OK.
POWELL: It depends on, did the meeting end up in a conclusion or was it just a briefing that then went to others to make a final decision on and to document. And so it is a legal issue and I think we have to be very careful and I have to be very careful because I don’t want to be seen as implicating anybody or accusing anybody because I don’t have the complete record on this. And that complete record I think in due course
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
al Qaeda planning to attck the White House ?
How can we believe the administration?
The US intelligence community which has been disgraced by their lack of intelligence and manipulation of false intelligence is now claiming that al Qaeda leaders have diverted operatives from Iraq and across the globe and are increasing preparations to strike the United States, specifically the White House.
(So it's maybe it not the the US `surge' that is working, rather it is al Qaeda that is refocusing?)
"Al Qaeda is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S. — the identification, training and positioning of operatives for an attack in the homeland," said Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, which oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
Is McConnell to be believed?
Consider this statement: Intelligence officials also said they used a controversial interrogation tactic known as "waterboarding," which some people regard as torture, only on three senior al Qaeda members early in the war on terror and that it has not been used in five years.
This statement is highly suspect considering the controversy that `waterboarding' has raised, and considering that ABC News reported there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the techniques, including water boarding.
Keeping the fear level up
By keeping the fear level up, the Bush administration feels justified in keeping military spending up. And that would be good for Michael McConnell and his old friends.
Mr. McConnell only earns $186,600 annually as director of national intelligence. President Bush hired him away from Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., a large defense and intelligence consulting company for whom he had worked for over a decade, leaving behind his yearly salary of $1,999,840.
Of course McConnell received an unspecified lump-sum retirement payment, an unspecified bonus and an unspecified payment to his retirement account from Booz Allen Hamilton, according to his financial records. The company also continues to pay for his medical and dental insurance.
Separately, McConnell downs smaller amounts of stock in other companies that also work extensively with the U.S. government, including Halliburton Co., Boeing Co., L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle Corp., Microsoft Corp. and others. He also earns $16,000 as a board member for CompuDyne Corp., which sells security systems to the federal government, and $30,000 as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, a trade group that lobbies the government on intelligence matters. (source)
This Administration continues it's inbred relationships with companies that need the US military dollars to keep flowing in. Trusting anything coming from this administration has become impossible.
The US intelligence community which has been disgraced by their lack of intelligence and manipulation of false intelligence is now claiming that al Qaeda leaders have diverted operatives from Iraq and across the globe and are increasing preparations to strike the United States, specifically the White House.
(So it's maybe it not the the US `surge' that is working, rather it is al Qaeda that is refocusing?)
"Al Qaeda is improving the last key aspect of its ability to attack the U.S. — the identification, training and positioning of operatives for an attack in the homeland," said Michael McConnell, director of national intelligence, which oversees all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.
Is McConnell to be believed?
Consider this statement: Intelligence officials also said they used a controversial interrogation tactic known as "waterboarding," which some people regard as torture, only on three senior al Qaeda members early in the war on terror and that it has not been used in five years.
This statement is highly suspect considering the controversy that `waterboarding' has raised, and considering that ABC News reported there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the techniques, including water boarding.
Keeping the fear level up
By keeping the fear level up, the Bush administration feels justified in keeping military spending up. And that would be good for Michael McConnell and his old friends.
Mr. McConnell only earns $186,600 annually as director of national intelligence. President Bush hired him away from Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., a large defense and intelligence consulting company for whom he had worked for over a decade, leaving behind his yearly salary of $1,999,840.
Of course McConnell received an unspecified lump-sum retirement payment, an unspecified bonus and an unspecified payment to his retirement account from Booz Allen Hamilton, according to his financial records. The company also continues to pay for his medical and dental insurance.
Separately, McConnell downs smaller amounts of stock in other companies that also work extensively with the U.S. government, including Halliburton Co., Boeing Co., L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Oracle Corp., Microsoft Corp. and others. He also earns $16,000 as a board member for CompuDyne Corp., which sells security systems to the federal government, and $30,000 as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, a trade group that lobbies the government on intelligence matters. (source)
This Administration continues it's inbred relationships with companies that need the US military dollars to keep flowing in. Trusting anything coming from this administration has become impossible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
