This Is Absolutely Unacceptable
One of the.most.disgusting.articles regarding our involvement in the war in Iraq was just posted to Salon, by Glenn Greenwald.
As always, Glenn has once again focused the light of national attention on a very hush-hush political issue.
What is the issue? The British High Court just announced that it had reversed its earlier decision to not release information contained in seven particular paragraphs in the case evidence of one Binyam Mohamad, a British citizen that was "extraordinarily rendered" to bases in Pakistan and elsewhere under the direct supervision of the CIA.
These seven paragraphs contain stark descriptions of the torture techniques (and these ones ARE torture) that were used on Binyam by the CIA and reported to British intelligence. These seven paragraphs are not heresy. They are not lies. They are documented recordings of governmental action. How do we know this? Because both the American and British governments have fought tooth and nail to keep them secret as a matter concerning "national security".
So what is a little waterbording among friends, you ask? Waterboarding, according to those who had the opportunity to read those seven paragraphs, is WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY down the list.
Here's a quote from the Greenwald's article:
The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed's genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, "is very far down the list of things they did."
Even with the knowledge of these despicable acts, the British High Court, until now, had prevented the release of this information. Why? Because the American government threatened to sanction the Brits in matters of intelligence sharing should the information be released.
Wait, that was Bush, right? This happened while Bush was in office, right? Yeah, that's when it happened. But when the Brits revisited the case once Obama took office, the answer they received was the same--keep your mouth shut or suffer the consequences. And hell, I am sure that the brits, having read those seven paragraphs, wanted no part of whatever those consequences might be!
Wait, Obama said that? Not just Obama. Have a look-see at this:
(4) according to the British Foreign Secretary in July, Hillary Clinton "personally intervened to suppress evidence of CIA collusion in the torture" by re-iterating the threats first made by the Bush administration that intelligence-sharing might be in jeopardy if those paragraphs were made public (see British High Court ruling, paragraph 42 and 83-84).
Ms. Secretary of State herself. The standard bearer of "democracy" in the free world. And what was her rationale for such a threat (because face it, no matter how you parse this shit, that was a threat)?
US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said: "We are not pleased", adding that Washington kept such information confidential "to protect our own citizens".
Who in the hell do these people think they are that they can claim to "protect" us from the truth? For what purpose? There can be only one purpose--to protect an operating procedure that has become all too 'standard'. We won't ever admit we torture because then we would have to quit torturing. That is the ONLY reason for such statements. Face it, if the current administration really wanted to do away with torture, they would be exposing (rather than hiding) such evidence whenever possible. That is how crime prevention works. You investigate and prosecute.
"...to protect our citizens."--yeah right, to protect your ass from those very citizens is more like it!
They claim it has "national security implications".
How is this a national security issue? Oh wait, you mean that if the world finds out that our government is nothing more than a larger, richer version of the third-world despots we claim to oppose we might not retain so much of our "superpower" powers?
If we are maintaining our national security by breaking not only international law but also American law, then our national security needs to be COMPLETELY overhauled. And I mean now.
Rush Limbaugh claims he wants Obama to fail... Hell, Rush should be kissing this guy's ass and buying his popcorn. Obama is doing everything in his power to maintain the civil rights abuses, constitutional attacks and general military lawlessness that Bush spent the last eight years implementing. What has Rush got to complain about? It's the people who ELECTED Obama who should be complaining, and I mean LOUD!
In our democracy we have three branches of government: the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judiciary. Congress (legislative branch) makes the laws. The president (executive branch) enforces the laws. The Judiciary interprets the laws. Period.
Obama's job is to enforce the law. He is, basically, the "sheriff" of our nation. He is not the judge or the legislator, he is the enforcer. As any good police officer knows, it is a big no-no to tamper with, hide or destroy evidence of a crime. The very act of doing so is a crime in and of itself, punishable by lengthy prison terms. And yet, here we have not only President Obama, but also Secretary of State Hilary Clinton openly advocating that evidence be suppressed, and even threatening adverse action should the evidence be brought to light.
Am I missing something here? Is there some reason why our government (regardless of the party in power) continues to stonewall the nation and the world in matters of justice? Obviously, there is a reason, probably many of them, but one thing I can assure you is that not one of them is reasonable, honorable or justifiable.
Until our government takes responsibility for its illegal (and heinous) actions, it is not really our government. It is instead a dictatorship that protects its own interests above those of the citizenry and the nation. Obama is a part of this. Hilary is a part of this. They have the power to stop this and they have chosen instead to participate.
Now, I realize that there are many that will claim that 'this is how the world works' or 'Obama and Clinton don't have as much power as I give them credit for' or 'they can't make these big changes on their own'.
I could accept that, except for the fact that in this particular situation, all they had to do was to keep their damn mouths shut. They didn't need legislative approval. They didn't need buy-in from the cabinet members. All they had to do was DO NOTHING! They DID have the power to do that. They chose not to.
There are no more words to describe what I feel for them.
Read More Here >>>Article
[Send Me a Comment] Share
