18 Comments

1. Jacob Hornberger explains: Ever since the inception of the United States, by and large the quest of people who have been attracted to federal power has been to break free of constitutional constraints, oftentimes with the best of intentions and the greatest zeal. What has prevented them from doing so has been a citizenry that has treasured its freedom and has been knowledgeable about the history and nature of the Constitution as well as a federal judiciary determined to enforce the Bill of Rights.

   The terrorist attacks on 9/11, however, provided the opportunity that the lovers of power had long been waiting for – the opportunity to arrest and punish people, including Americans, without the constraints of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

   How did they accomplish that monumental feat without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment? By simply announcing that a criminal offense – namely, terrorism – would henceforth be treated as an act of war. Since this was war, the argument went, federal officials would no longer be required to comply with procedural requirements outlined in the Bill of Rights when arresting and punishing people, including Americans.

   How clever and devious is that? It will undoubtedly go down in U.S. history as the most brilliant – and perhaps the most evil – end-around of the Constitution ever. While there have been, of course, innumerable violations of constitutional provisions in U.S. history, what was revolutionary about the post–9/11 power was that it was intended to a become permanent feature of American life, given the perpetual nature of the war on terrorism.

   And, again, what is amazing is how this power grab was accomplished: through the simple act of declaring that a certain federal criminal offense – terrorism – was now being considered by federal officials as an act of war.

   Yet, it’s not as though they converted terrorism from a crime into an act of war. As previously noted, terrorism is a federal criminal offense. It was before 9/11 and it continued to be after 9/11. Again, that’s why both Americans and foreigners (e.g., Padilla and Moussaoui) have been prosecuted for terrorism in U.S. district court.

   Therefore, after 9/11 U.S. officials did not cancel terrorism as a federal crime. Instead, they simply declared that it could also be considered as an act of war, at their option. Of course, the power associated with that option gave them almost complete control over the American people, an omnipotence that the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent.

2. I agree with the above comments. This ‘torture story’ is mostly made-up hogwash intended to distract Americans from real news, which goes unreported. (Besides, I don’t really give a fig if the CIA did torture any terrorists). When, oh when is this story going to die? Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here …

3. Sorry Bert, I have to disagree. I don’t think there is any question that these nasty pictures exist, and that they are more shocking than the pictures that preceded them.

   I do agree with you, however, that fear is being actively manufactured by corrupt business and political entities to keep the American people from thinking for themselves, and to feed the evil Military Industrial Complex in the USA.

   Bottom line: torture was used to manufacture consent in order to start an illegal war against Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and thousand of others are guilty of war crimes and genocide. They must be tried for these war crimes, found guilty, and then executed on live television for all the world to see.

   I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty, except in cases like these. Psychopathic world leaders cannot be contained, or deterred in the future, in any other manner.

4. I tried to email Catherine to request her emails to use normal darker and larger fonts, also none of her links can be clicked on in Outlook 2003 and probably other email clients. Makes it more work to copy and paste every link we are interested in. Hope my comment goes to the right person/department, sorry to post an off topic comment in this section!

5. Bert, I agree with your meaning.

   I don’t believe torture is used to get information. It is state terrorism intended to terrify those who would otherwise be willing to sacrifice their lives in opposition of the state. It is one thing to be willing to die in a gun fight, be hanged, or rot in prison. It is another to be willing to risk that you or people you care about will be tortured indefinitely.

   It also is part of a broader set of actions designed to reduce people’s belief in themselves, their community and humanity at large. If one learns of a wrongful act being carried out against another and fails to act in their defense, it reduces that belief. There is a big matrix of such set-ups that both involve cutting off avenues of meaningful direct action to help victims, and bribing people to participate in the abuses such as saving money at a Big Box store or sharing profits via stock appreciation/dividends.

   I think if a system has effects it was designed and implemented to have them. I don’t indulge in the dysfunctional system explanation. The, “if only they’d do this or that”. Nah. Systems are easy to understand. They work the way they are designed to work. It is the stated motives that don’t match.

6. I’d like to present an alternative view just for the sake of thought and discussion.

   I’m not convinced that more torture photos exist. And if that is the case, then this is a manufactured story.

   Let’s just say that the torture may have been manufactured as a story in the first place. Why, because the American public is supposed to be afraid of its government and convinced that we are only a legal maneuver away from being tortured ourselves.

   To believe that widespread torture occurred would mean believing in the entire concept that Muslim terrorist actually conspired against the USA and were able to successfully execute the 911 attacks. This is quite a stretch of the imagination if one asks themselves the most simplistic questions. So, if the Muslim terrorism frame is an illusion, then why would wouldn’t wide spread torture also be an illusion?

   So, what better way to perpetrate the belief of fear in the public then to create a story that more photos exist but that the government will not release them. How are we to know what really happened?

   I certainly can’t proved my speculation. It’s merely provided as a thought exercise, just to make sure none of us are getting too caught-up government-media manufactured frames of thinking.

   I hope Catherine lets this one through 🙂

7. When I saw this portrait http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb234/vurdlak8/illusions/obama_by_gerada_02.jpg I imagined Obama with one hand closing a door and through the doorway, seeing someone being waterboarded.

Comments are closed.