Downing Answers: Rep. John Conyers along with nearly ninety other representatives has signed on to a letter to the President asking for some answers respecting the infamous "Downing Memo" that states that in 2002 the administration was ready to go to war with Iraq, the WMDs evidence was sketchy, but they would stretch it to fit their policy. The propaganda spokesman (as suggested by the comments below, the official lies and propaganda put forth by this administration warrants the right terms be used) said that the administration does not feel it necessary to answer.
Thus, Conyers et. al. has decided to obtain one hundred thousand signatures from regular Americans, and hand this "petition [to] the government for a redress of grievances" to the administration once more. I signed it, and it might be an adequate part of honoring the fallen this Memorial Day: demand some answers for the lies and mistruths said in their name by their alleged leaders.
Some are also calling for a vote for the startings of an impeachment inquiry ... to force the House to put a "no" vote on record. Since lying about war is not on par with lying about sex ... and anyway that was so two years ago (unlike say the sex, which also occurred years before) ... I guess this is silly.
It is not true, as many in the Arab world believe, that the United States has embarked on a reckless campaign of torture and abuse of its Arab prisoners of war. But what has happened -- a slow slide from coherent, consistent standards for interrogation and treatment of prisoners to a sometimes ad-hoc, occasionally brutal search for information at all costs -- should warrant public outcry. That it has not suggests either that this shift doesn't interest us because it affects outsiders, or that we no longer consider torture or near-torture to be beyond the bounds of civil conduct.
So says the conclusion of a useful Slate interactive feature on the United States treatment of its detainees, including the question of torture. The feature does something rarely done in many cases, namely provide the reader the ability to get an overall picture of a particular dispute.
For instance, how often does a particular paper or newsmagazine (full disclosure: I no longer am a big reader of newsmagazines ... before being online, I was more likely to partake, especially at a certain library I used to live near) provide a map that lets one know just how are troops are doing in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? The same applies generally to any complex subject. For instance, my local paper served its readers well by including a side panel that dealt with the pros and cons of parental notification laws.
The online interactive feature provides especially useful opportunities. For instance, the Slate feature provides links to and summaries of various governmental investigations as well as the infamous torture memoranda. Likewise, it goes down the list of interrogation tactics, pointing out along the way the ones that clearly or might have broke the law. This includes religious desecration:
The employee recalled, "I told him of a story of an interrogator using a Pride and Ego Down approach. The interrogator took a copy of a Koran and threw it on the ground and stepped on the Koran, which resulted in a detainee riot."
Ah, yes, the Koran. The NYT account of the official reports of the "mishandling"* of the Koran included a bald statement that the "article, which the magazine subsequently retracted, prompted violence in the Muslim world that claimed at least 17 lives." No, it did not. At least, so says the leader of Afghanistan, top officials in the Bush Administration, and any number of others. The article itself is not what "prompted violence," but at best, just used to antagonize the public some more.
A public that had a long list of grievances without having to read one more in this particular American weekly. In fact, even if the mishandling was the cause, there were multiple sources that addressed the matter before Newsweek. Is Newsweek somehow uniquely important to the Afghan public? So, basically, the Bush Administration's suggestions to the contrary was full of shit. But, misinformation goes with the territory ... such as the truth behind the death of Pat Tillman and the injury of the gal from West Virginia.
But, the administration has done well to frame things nicely. People, for instance, wondered how a Koran was "flushed," when in fact the allegation is more on par with a few pages (or by the Slate account, waste being thrown into cells that in part included Korans). Or, since "flushed" is particularly emotional, "mishandled" (including stamping on them) is deemed trivial. Likewise, even the fact the actual flushed allegation that was taken back was done so in somewhat questionable circumstances. Why the change after a few months? Why was not flushing matter not directly addressed in the interrogation? Why should we trust these people?
Anyway, back to the opening quotation. The path taken was "reckless" and it was in various cases clearly a "campaign" that involved the official use of what was plainly (as defined by precedent and common sense understanding) "torture." As noted by the summary, the Congress did not step in to provide its constitutional role of setting rules of war and law of nations, secrecy dominated, and the result was one-sided lockstep policy recommendations.
Furthermore, not only was this bunch authoritarian zealots, but incompetent ones to boot. This is the ultimate shame -- people expect more out of these people; they expect them to be heartless, but still competent. Not so, especially given the rush and use of underskilled men and women in the field, who have been thrown to the wolves unlike their more corrupt superiors.
So, yes, we are not dealing with a bunch of inhuman Nazis here. But, something downright criminal has occurreded all the same, even if it is cloudy enough (and involving people some deep down are comfortable with comparing to animals ... ignoring just how many did absolutely nothing wrong) that our leaders have let it go on without crying from the rooftops: this must not pass!
A final word. This is why fighting the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez (and the appellate judge nominations involved in the torture memoranda, one of whom is on the bench ... though he might have lied to Congress) is important. Yeah, it's not the Supreme Court, but that is not the only time to make a stand. And, it annoys me that people keep raising the point as if nothing else is not compelling as well. Ditto John Bolton -- the principled opponent of the administration deeply believes it is totally corrupting our image to the world. So, shouldn't the ambassador to the world, so to speak, matter to us?
[Anyway, the replacement of Rehnquist will simply not be deemed too much of a big deal, even if I think it should sorta be. Thus, we are talking about at most two nominees, one of which is sure to be truly key. So, we should only filibuster or whatever that one time? That is just dumb.]
---
* One freed detainee expressed what is at stake thusly: "In our religion, firstly, the Qu'ran is believed to be the word of God, who we refer to as Allah in our religion. Basically the Qu'ran is supposed to be treated with respect and most people believe that the Qu'ran should be placed in a high place in a house or only taken with respect in a certain condition of purification or ablution. It's never to be placed on a floor, on a dirty floor or to be treated or to be mishandled in any way."
Not that respect for religious faith, including those who seem too extreme, is something this administration honors, right?