BULLY BOY
PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID
TABLE
PRINCESS BARRY HAS FOUND ANOTHER WAR HAWK TO PIMP FOR HIS ADMINISTRATION. THIS ONE IS CHUCK HAGEL.
CHUCK HAGEL IS A REPUBLICAN WHO OWNS VOTING MACHINES THAT ALLOWED HIM TO BE SWEPT INTO THE SENATE IN A 'SURPRISE' VICTORY. ONCE IN THE SENATE, CHUCK PROMPTLY BEGAN SCREAMING FOR THE IRAQ WAR.
TO PRINCESS BARRY AND RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN GLENN GREENWALD, CHUCK HAGEL SPELLS "DEFENSE DEPARTMENT NOMINEE!"
BUT FOR THOSE OF US WHO, UNLIKE GLENN, DON'T GO TO BED AT NIGHT DREAMING OF SUCK CHUCK'S COCK, WE'RE NOT PERSUADED.
PROPONENTS OF CHUCK HAGEL ARGUE THAT A JEWISH CABAL IS ATTEMPTING TO SINK HIS NOMINATION BUT OTHERS NOTE THAT THE NOMINATION BEING PIMPED AND PROMOTED BY A CABL OF RIGHT-WING GAY MEN. AND THOMAS FRIEDMAN.
SOME WOULD DECLARE THEM "SELF-LOATHING GAY MEN" SINCE CHUCK HAGEL IS PUBLICLY ANTI-GAY OR WAS UNTIL HE HAD A SHOT AT BEING NOMINATED FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AT WHICH POINT HE SUDDENLY ISSUED AN APOLOGY FOR ANTI-GAY REMARKS HE'D LET STAND IN THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR OVER A DECADE.
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Tom Spender (Voice of Russia -- link is text and audio) reports England's
"Ministry of Defence has paid out a total of 14 million pounds to
Iraqis who say they were tortured by British troops during the UK's
five-year occupation of southern Iraq. The Mod says the vast majority
of British troops in Iraq behaved with integrity and professionalism."
The most infamous Iraqi torture victim of British troops was Baha
Mousa. From the July 13, 2009 snapshot:
Moving over to England, Matthew Weaver (Guardian) notes that Iraqi Baha Mousa's death at the age of 26 while in British custody in September 2003 is the subject of a public inquiry in England which began today and that, "A central issue of the inquiry is why five 'conditioning techniques' -- hooding prisoners, putting them in stress positions, depriving them of sleep, depriving them of food and water, and playing white noise -- were used on Iraq detainees. The techniques, inflicted on IRA suspects, were banned in 1972 by then prime minister, Edward Heath." The Telegraph of London offers that Baha "was beaten to death" while in British custody, "sustaining 93 separate injuires, including fractured ribs and a broken nose." The Telegraph also notes that the inquiry was shown video of Corporal Donald Payne yelling and screaming, "shouting and swearing at the Iraqis as they are force to main painful 'stress position'."
Moving over to England, Matthew Weaver (Guardian) notes that Iraqi Baha Mousa's death at the age of 26 while in British custody in September 2003 is the subject of a public inquiry in England which began today and that, "A central issue of the inquiry is why five 'conditioning techniques' -- hooding prisoners, putting them in stress positions, depriving them of sleep, depriving them of food and water, and playing white noise -- were used on Iraq detainees. The techniques, inflicted on IRA suspects, were banned in 1972 by then prime minister, Edward Heath." The Telegraph of London offers that Baha "was beaten to death" while in British custody, "sustaining 93 separate injuires, including fractured ribs and a broken nose." The Telegraph also notes that the inquiry was shown video of Corporal Donald Payne yelling and screaming, "shouting and swearing at the Iraqis as they are force to main painful 'stress position'."
The inquiry, like so many others, didn't offer much. However, in June of this year, ITV reported
that the doctor on dusty, the one who examined Baha, Dr. Derek Keilloh,
was facing charges that he had "failed to conduct an adequate
examination of Mr Mousa's body after death and failed to notify a
superior office of the circumstances of his death. He faces similar
claims relating to two other detainees he examiend after Mr Mousa's
death." From last Monday's snapshot:
Today, Andrew Johnson (Belfast Telegraph) reports
the latest, "A former British Army doctor has been found guilty of
attempting to cover up the death of an Iraqi civilian who was fatally
beaten by British troops in 2003, and of failing to protect other
detainees." Peter Magill (Lancashire Telegraph) notes
of the Baha Mousa inquiry, "Another detainee, Ahmed Al Matari, who had
also been seen by Dr Keilloh at the detention centre after being kicked
in the kidneys and legs, accused him of behaving like a 'criminal'
during." Press TV adds, "Britain's Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service will now decide what penalty the British doctor will face." The editorial board of Scotland's Herald weighs in,
"Army medics cannot afford to be squeamish but ignoring such brutality
amounts to a betrayal of all the servicemen and women who behave
decently and within the rules. It also acts as a recruiting sergeant for
extremism and destroys at a stroke any goodwill built up with the local
population. It is shameful that it has taken so long to uncover the
truth. Though maltreatment of detainees may not have been routine, the
fact that a number of other such inquiries are still crawling through
the system suggests this was more than the work of a 'few bad apples'."
Yesterday, Ashleigh Barbour (Press and Journal) reported Dr. Derek Keilloh had been "struck off the medical register." The Yorkshire Post adds,
"The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service announced its decision to
ban Dr Keilloh from working as a doctor yesterday after finding him
guilty of misconduct." The Herald Scotland explained,
"The MPTS recognised Dr Keilloh, now a GP at Mayford House Surgery in
Northallerton, North Yorkshire, never harmed Mr Mousa and did everything
possible to save his life, in a setting that was 'highly charged,
chaotic, tense and stressful'. But they ruled he must have seen the
injuries and, especially as a doctor, had a duty to act." Mary Gearin (Australia's ABC) quotes
MPTS Chair Brian Alderman telling Keilloh, "The panel determined that
erasure is the only appropriate sanction in this case. Given the
gravity and nature of the extent and context of your dishonesty, it
considers that your misconduct is fundamentally incompatible with
continued registration."
On the payouts by the UK government to Iraqi victims of torture, Melissa Stusinski (Inquisitr) notes, "The Ministry of Defense has promised it will launch an investigation for every abuse allegation that is brought forward." Lutz Oette (Guardian) feels the only way to deal with torture is a public inquiry:
This
compensation leaves a sour taste: although it is an important measure
of redress for victims, it is certainly not justice done. The full truth
of what happened is yet to emerge, and those responsible have not been
held to account. There is still no sign that the government is prepared
to do the right thing and establish a full independent public inquiry
into torture and ill-treatment by members of the British armed forces in
Iraq from 2003 to 2008.
This failure is
part of a clear pattern. When allegations of abuse are made they are
first downplayed -- any wrongdoing, we are told, is down to a "few
rotten apples" -- then, if any investigations do follow, they are
carried out within existing military structures. This "trust us, we will
deal with it" approach has long since lost credibility; as for rotten
apples, the numbers of victims are too large and the patterns of abuse
too similar to speak of exceptions.
On the topic of torture, director Kathryn Bigelow is in the crosshairs of many for her film Zero Dark Thirty.
What's that? You haven't seen it? Oh, don't let that stop you from
weighing in, it hasn't stopped any of the pigs from weighing in. Ava and I covered it in "Media: The allure of Bash The Bitch" at Third and Third also wrote "Can't do their jobs, so they blame a film."
Before
we get to that second piece, Glenn Greenwald felt so 'validated' this
weekend when he appeared on Chris Hayes' MSNBC program and the two of
them got to bash the Bigelow. I like Chris. If Chris gives you his
word, he keeps it. I have negatively criticized Chris for only one
thing since Winter Soldier but it's not a minor thing.
Back in 2010, Ava and I called out Chris for the fact that he was covering the White House for The Nation magazine. That was an ethical no-no. Not a minor one, a major one. Chris is married. His wife is an assistant attorney in the Office of Special Council. Due
to that, he shouldn't be covering the White House. Whether or not he
can be objective and fair, it creates the impression of a conflict of
interests and journalists are supposed to avoid not just a conflict but
the appearance of one. His wife was not working in that department
under Bully Boy Bush but that is where many of the torture memos
orignated. She works there now. There has been no effort to punish
any former officials, especially not those working for that legal office
out of the White House (one that Bruce Ackerman argued at Slate should be abolished).
Chris
Hayes is a nice person. But maybe part of being a nice person is
running interference for his wife? Maybe if his wife's department isn't
doing their job -- and clearly, they are not -- it's a lot easier to
glom on and attack a film. Maybe not. But if someone didn't realize
that they were ethically compromised by reporting on the White House
when their wife worked for it? That's not anyone I need to listen to
for a film review filled with righteous indignation.
In Third's "Can't do their jobs, so they blame a film,"
we took on Senators Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin and John McCain for
their idiotic letter to the head of Sony trying to alter Bigelow's
film. As we noted:
First, the complaints they lodge are that the film distorts things that happened.
If
that's true, that's the fault of the Senators who have allowed programs
to take place in secrecy. If they fear the American people do not know
what happened and might be 'swayed' by a film, that goes to the secrecy
level that they Congress has allowed the CIA to operate in.
So in other words, Dianne, Carl and John are complaining about the fact that they didn't do their own jobs. That's on them.
Second, they insist, "The use of torture should be banished from serious public discourse for these reasons alone, but more importantly, because it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because it is an affront to America's national honor, and because it is wrong." If, indeed, they feel that way, they need to (a) hold hearings into the torture that took place (public hearings) and (b) demand the Justice Department prosecute cases of torture carried out by people working for the US government.
In other words, Dianne, Carl and John's real problems stem from the fact that they haven't done their jobs.
So in other words, Dianne, Carl and John are complaining about the fact that they didn't do their own jobs. That's on them.
Second, they insist, "The use of torture should be banished from serious public discourse for these reasons alone, but more importantly, because it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because it is an affront to America's national honor, and because it is wrong." If, indeed, they feel that way, they need to (a) hold hearings into the torture that took place (public hearings) and (b) demand the Justice Department prosecute cases of torture carried out by people working for the US government.
In other words, Dianne, Carl and John's real problems stem from the fact that they haven't done their jobs.
And
let's move beyond that. Dianne was Chair in 2007 (after the 2006
mid-terms). She has an obligation and responsibility in that role: If
she knows of torture or any other law breaking, she is tasked with
reporting it. It appears Dianne did the exact opposite. John McCain
claims that watching Kathryn's film made him sick. Good. Because he
was in the Senate looking the other way while the actual torture took
place. I'm glad it made him sick. And while he and Dianne may find it
easier to hiss and scratch at Kathryn and her film, the fact remains
that they're just trying to distract from the reality that the US
government tortured people -- as they admit in their full letter -- and
they did nothing to punish the law breakers. They did nothing.
And
now they want to show up and hiss about some film? They need to take
accountability for their own actions. What's becoming very clear about
Kathryn's film is that it's a Rorschach test. And people bring to it
what they've done. So if you didn't do your job as a senator, for
example, the movie's going to upset you and make you issue a lot of
stupid statements that people may pick up on and notice go to the fact
that you didn't and haven't done your job. In England, there's a call
for a public inquiry into torture. In the US, where's that call?
Dianne? John? Barack?
And for those who
think the US government only tortured under Bully Boy Bush or that
Barack stopped extraordinary renditions, they might want to look into
the story of Mahdi Hashi.
Then again, life is so much easier when you can just hiss and spit at a
movie and let the government and all the officials off. Peter Van Buren notes at Al Jazeera:
The president, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, has made it clear
that no further investigations or inquiries will be made into America's
decade of torture. His Justice Department failed to prosecute a single torturer or any of those who helped cover up evidence of the torture practices. But it did deliver a jail sentence to one ex-CIA officer who refused to be trained to torture and was among the first at the CIA to publicly admit that the torture programme was real.
At what passes for trials at our prison camp in Guantanamo, Cuba, disclosure of the details of torture is forbidden,
effectively preventing anyone from learning anything about what the CIA
did with its victims. We are encouraged to do what's best for America
and, as Barack Obama put it, "look forward, not backward", with the same zeal as, after 9/11, we were encouraged to save America by going shopping.
In
the essay, Peter does a walk through on a point that's so obvious it's
easy to forget that not everyone realizes it. Torture isn't about the
broken finger or bleeding cut or about gaining information. Torture is
about the memory. Those who, for example, survived the concentration
camps, still carried the scar of torture. John McCain was sickend by
Kathryn's film because he carries what was done to him (but apparently
was fine with it being done to others until forced to actually witness
it in Kathryn's film). We're not using terms like 'spouse abuse' or
'domestic abuse' here or at Third. If you've missed it, we call it what
it is: Torture. It's meant to scare and scar. It's not about the
moment of violence, it's about what will follow. Jennifer K. Karbury
wrote a very detailed examination entitled Truth, Torture and the American Way: The History and Consequences of U.S. Involvement in Torture.
In
Iraq, the US government ordered torture and the reasons weren't for
'information.' What happened at Abu Ghraib wasn't for information. It
was to break people, to humilitate them, to destroy them with the intent
of sending them back into the community filled with shame and knowing
that photos of their torture could surface at any time. It's
terrorism. Terrorism was practiced in Iraqi prisons before the start of
the 2003 Iraq War, but the US government ensured that their Iraqi
proxies would be trained on how to use torture. It's effects are still
felt (and practiced) in Iraq today. The BRussells Tribunal's Dirk Adriaensens (Global Research) reports:
Kitabat reports on 18 December.
The chairman of the Iraqi List, Hamid al-Mutlaq, said in a press
conference in Baghdad on 18 December: " Iraqi prosecutors have submitted
today a report to the Chairman of the Iraqi judiciary Medhat al-Mahmoud
that confirms the occurrence of torture and violations and rape of
women detained in Iraqi prisons. The report
is based on confidential testimonies of female prisoners in Iraqi jails."
Mutlaq
said that "the report confirms what has been recently stated by some
parliamentary committees and human rights organizations, that there is a
systematic violation, torture and rape of female prisoners in Iraqi
prisons,"
The Chairperson of the Committee
on Women presented a report on the situation of women prisoners. This
report confirms that prisoners are routinely subjected to torture and
rape. The presentation led to a heated argument between the deputies of
the Iraqi List and the Coalition of State of Law, evolving into a
serious affray.
Mutlaq demanded that the
Iraqi government and the judiciary system would "do their legal duties
by issuing a death sentence against those who commit such crimes against
Iraqi women and take the necessary measures to prevent these abuses. He
also asked to protect the confidential informant and to implement
Article IV of the Anti-terrorism Act.
The
announcement of the Public Prosecutor to the Iraqi Judicial Council
coincides with the statement of the Governor of Nineveh Ethel Nujaifi,
on Tuesday, about an officer in the Second Division of the Iraqi army
who raped a 17 year old minor after forcing her into the Headquarter of
his Regiment in the Nimrod's District.
RECOMMENDED:
- Danny Schechter and Media Channel want you back
- Iraq snapshot
- Nouri's Iraq: 4 females raped in a Baghdad prison...
- Iraq's perspective about the US?
- Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Barry O's Favo...
- Hejira
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Nouri's Crazy Runs Free
- Media: The allure of Bash The Bitch
- Roundtable
- Super sale on The Bionic Woman at Amazon
- Can't do their jobs, so they blame a film
- Nouri uses the military to bully journalists
- Song of 2012
- Judd The Sexist (Marcia, Ann, Ava and C.I.)
- Murray fights for Veterans Dignified Burials
- Bradley Manning Person of the Year (WW)
- Highlights
"Trashy Glenn"
"'Fiscal cliff' and other nonsense"
"It's Christmas Eve"
"i support john kerry for sec of state"
"Cold and tired"
"Oh, no, they killed Quincy!"
"F**k Glenn Greenwald and Chucky Cheese Hagel"
"Spike makes a call"
"Isaiah, Third, Feminist Wire Daily"
"Christmas and other things"
"Call him 'He Who Talks About Self'"
"THIS JUST IN! IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT HIM!"