Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   6 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Crawling Out from Under the Rocks

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 2 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 4/29/09

Become a Fan
  (33 fans)
- Advertisement -
The FISA law apparently did not represent an obstacle to monitoring communications LEGALLY.  The court almost NEVER refused to issue the warrants, and the law allowed the government to act first and get permission second.  So WHY DID THE REGIME CHOOSE TO BREAK THE LAW AND DO ITS SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT ANY JUDICIAL SUPERVISION?

Explanation # 1, which is somewhat plausible, is that people like Dick Cheney have such a contempt for the law, and for anything that would compel them to show respect for anything other than their own will, that even though the surveillance was entirely justifiable and WOULD have been permitted by the court, the regime preferred the arrogant freedom of just doing what they wanted.  ("Badge?  Badge?  I don't gotta show you no stinkin' badge!")

But if the crimes do not have this kind of psychological, almost adolescent level of explanation, then the other most likely explanation is this:  THE REGIME WANTED TO DO WIRETAPPING THAT HAD NO JUSTIFICATION, AND THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED IF SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.

I would bet 80-20 that if we knew fully what they were doing and why, we would find that --as with the firings of the U.S. Attorneys-- we would find that the crimes were an integral part of the overall attempt of the regime to extend and perpetuate its own power, at the expense of our democracy;  I would bet that they were using wiretapping --as did Nixon before them-- as part of their war against their political opposition.

The American people would not take kindly to that.

TORTURE

 But it is the possible explanation of the torture --which has recently emerged-- that seems to have more potential to be a powerful transformer of the political climate.  That's because (aside from torture being at present the more active line of revelation) in this case it would be the American people themselves, not the political opposition, who would have been the ultimate objects and victims of the Bushite malfeasance.

Here's the torture mystery:  all the experts told the Bushites that these "enhanced interrogation techniques" do not work, do not yield reliable information, but the Bushites were determined to torture these prominent detainees anyway.  Why? 
- Advertisement -


A potential answer that represents a potential bombshell has begun to emerge in the aftermath of the recently released torture memos.

As to this question of why they would pursue a practice that, aside from being a crime, the experts said doesn't work, again, two possible answers seem to present themselves.

The less malignant answer is once again simple Bushite arrogance:  these people (and once more, the lead figure here might well be Dick Cheney) assume that they know better.

What makes this answer plausible is that they showed the same arrogance on various other questions-- e.g. ignoring what the experts tried to tell them prior to the invasion of Iraq about what is required to prepare for the occupation of another country.

Repeatedly, the Bushites showed themselves deaf to other people's knowledge --generally with disastrous results-- so perhaps they just dismissed the views of anyone who did not share their gut feeling that torture is a good way to get people to tell you all they know.
- Advertisement -


But now there comes another possible answer:  perhaps the Bushites liked torture as a method not because they believed it would yield the truth, but because they knew it was good for producing falsehoods, and there was one falsehood they were eager to get.

An examination of the history of the practice of waterboarding --an account heard on Olbermann and Maddow on that week of April 20-- shows that the U.S. military adopted these methods as a training device, to prepare U.S. soldiers for the kinds of interrogation techniques employed in the Korean War by the Chinese Communists.  And the Chinese used them specifically as a means of producing FALSE CONFESSIONS.

The unreliability of what people will say when being waterboarded is not a problem-- not if your purpose is to get them to declare falsely.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. He is the author of various books including The Parable of the Tribes: The (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why Do Conservatives Like Colbert? Article Plus Critique

Mel Gibson's Rant as Profound Clue

To Anti-Obamite Lefties: It Doesn't Matter If You're Right

How Important is the Loss of Friendship?

The Mystery of Obama's Relationship with Power

Power and Corruption: Just What Is Their Relationship?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

...at this point means little or nothing.  Mo... by waldopaper on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:25:35 PM
I can't tell: are you suggesting that the analysi... by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:36:40 PM
"Authoritarianism," as I understand Altemeyer, run... by waldopaper on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:37:35 PM
Whether or not "faith in the American people&... by Andrew Bard Schmookler on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 5:41:14 PM
One must always be careful applying a general rule... by waldopaper on Thursday, Apr 30, 2009 at 8:01:23 PM
Excellent analysis. Very well written and construc... by William Whitten on Friday, May 1, 2009 at 8:59:33 AM