There is an ongoing debate over the closing of America's most notorious detainment/torture center at Guantanamo and the legality and efficacy of using torture to extract “information” from detainees in that and other facilities.

In a piece in this morning's Washington Post titled Torture? Prosecute Us, Too Richard Cohen leads with this:

“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” So goes an aphorism that needs to be applied to the current debate over whether those who authorized and used torture should be prosecuted. In the very different country called Sept. 11, 2001, the answer would be a resounding no.

Contrary to what has become the accepted noise, “the world” did not “change” on 9/11. Our laws, our treaties and international agreements as well as our values remained. We did not become a “very different country” on September 12, 2001 despite Mr. Cohen's (and others) claim.

In many ways it is our body of law that binds the past, present and future. The rule of law gives constancy to our “values.” Laws may change but the process of change is, and should be reasoned and deliberate, not an impassioned reaction to the events of the day. That kind of reaction to the passions of the moment is the path of the lynch mob.

If, as is said in legal circles, “big cases make for bad law,” the events of 9/11 and the rapid changes in our laws and public policy that resulted from the reaction to those events gives us the mother of all examples of the aphorism.  An extremely big case led to a series of terrible revisions of our laws.

Among the legion of egregious errors committed by the last Republican administration was the naming of the war that it proposed to fight following the criminal destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon and the downing of a fourth commercial airliner in a Pennsylvania pasture.

As has been pointed out numerous times “War on Terror” is an unfortunate term which calls for a war on a tactic: terror. You can no more fight a war against “terror” than you can fight a war against “covering fire,” “encirclement” “camouflage” or “surprise.”

Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the Goebbelian PR squad in the White House basement used the term “terror” more for its perceived effectiveness in arousing the public than for any accuracy in describing their strategy, or as Bush put it, “strategery.” It was in the Bush White House that the ad boys gave the word a capital “T” and used it as their “brand” for instilling public fear and acquiescence in nearly any act that they chose to carry out over the ensuing seven years.

The attacks on September 11, 2001 involved specific criminal acts, all of which are spelled out in federal and state law and punishable by lengthy prison terms up to and including life in prison. Under federal law, death penalty statutes would apply for the murder of the thousands of victims of the crimes.

When the World trade center was bombed the first time in 1993 the crime was investigated by the NYPD, the ATF and the FBI with the help, no doubt, of other agencies both here and abroad. A thorough investigation by law enforcement professionals resulted in the arrest, conviction and life sentences for the criminals involved.

The Marines were not sent in, nor were the Army and Navy deployed in force and the country did not go to war. Rather than launching a full scale campaign of “shock and awe,” the Clinton administration, in its wisdom, effectively, sent in “Columbo.”

Following the crimes of 9/11 the mindset of our “leadership” was very different; actually, it now seems that the minds were made up before the event, made up in fact even before the 2000 election.

An investigation quickly confirmed the involvement of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and it was quickly decided to take on the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was never intended to be the main thrust, nor was bin Laden to be the main target.

The public was, quite rightly, afraid after the attacks; I was. (I watched it on TV too) It was a time of fear and uncertainty that called for calm leadership and thoughtful action.

That is not what we got. We got a strutting cowboy alternately threatening the world, boasting of American might, and daring potential adversaries to “bring it on.” He sounded like a drunken Saturday night drugstore cowpoke, cranked up on Jack Daniels, inviting any and all to a session of parking lot gravel dancing. “Mano a mano?”

Afghanistan and the Taliban were bottled up quickly, bin Laden isolated and rendered ineffective (at least temporarily) and the public roared its approval. (Cohen cites Bush's 92% approval ratings)

But our leadership kept feeding the collective fear and fanning the flames of public passion with manufactured intelligence, imagined alliances, an “axis of evil” cut from whole cloth and mythical “weapons of mass destruction.”

Afghanistan and bin Laden was not enough, it would not serve as the entree to the Middle East that our “leadership” required, and in fact, his capture or death would retard the main goal of this posse. Saddam Hussein was to be the quarry, Iraqi oil the tool, American hegemony in the Middle East the ultimate prize.

Proof, (at least the appearance of proof) was needed to bind Iraq and Hussein with al Qaeda and bin Laden. Proof was needed to tie bin Laden's ability to acquire WMD to Hussein, to Iran, to anywhere they wanted to make a move.

They spread cash all over Afghanistan, all over Pakistan and all over the Middle East. Wads of hundred dollar bills, five grand here, ten there, were offered for information about al Qaeda members in some of the world's most impoverished countries, places where the annual per capita income is less than I spend on rum, and they got results.

People turned in cab drivers, personal rivals, enemies, tourists, their wife's divorce lawyer, you get the picture. Lots of suspects, never mind that they were often told by locals, by advisers, by interpreters that they were collaring the wrong guys, that many of these people were just hapless bystanders who had wandered into the net. It didn't matter.

It didn't matter because they weren't looking for facts; they were looking for “information.” “Information” was necessary to tie Saddam to the “war on terror,” so electrodes were attached, thumbs were screwed, genitals mistreated, people were “extraordinarily hydrated,” and they got lots of “information.”

Hook me up to the Toquemada machine and I'll confess to anything, any crime, any degradation to make the pain stop, and so will you. In a few days any of us will confess to being responsible for original sin, to make the pain stop.

Did they get facts, sure, cast a net that wide and you're bound to catch something edible, but I expect that the ratio of facts to “information” is, as they say, “highly classified.”

At what cost did they gather these facts? We'll probably never know how many average Joes were destroyed, how many families ruined, how many people were murdered as a result of these “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or how many minds were destroyed in the process.

And that is why we cannot “look forward,” we cannot ignore these terrible, willful crimes, these war crimes, these crimes against humanity.

We must answer as a society for the criminality of our leadership by prosecuting them for what they purported to do in our name.

Cohen adds this:

At the same time, we have to be respectful of those who were in that Sept. 11 frame of mind, who thought they were saving lives — and maybe were — and who, in any case, were doing what the nation and its leaders wanted. It is imperative that our intelligence agents not have to fear that a sincere effort will result in their being hauled before some congressional committee or a grand jury. We want the finest people in these jobs — not time-stampers who take no chances.

Is the cop on the street who beats a false confession out of a teenage suspect making a “sincere effort” to enforce the law? Is he saving lives?

Are the “finest people” those who can be persuaded to violate all norms of human decency?

Are those who resist power and insist on following the rule of law, now to be called “time stampers,” “who take no chances?”

Cohen writes:

The best suggestion for how to proceed comes from David Cole of Georgetown Law School. Writing in the Jan. 15 New York Review of Books, he proposed that either the president or Congress appoint a blue-ribbon commission, arm it with subpoena power, and turn it loose to find out what went wrong, what (if anything) went right and to report not only to Congress but to us. We were the ones, remember, who just wanted to be kept safe. So, it is important, as well as fair, not to punish those who did what we wanted done — back when we lived, scared to death, in a place called the Past.

I suggest that blue ribbon commissions are usually hired when whitewashing is felt to be the solution. I think that this is a job for the Justice department and perhaps a special prosecutor.

We don't need to find out what went wrong, there is a world full of opprobrium focused on our country as a result of these crimes, there is a sea of blood and body parts to attest to what went wrong. There is a universe filled with screams of torment to testify to what went wrong; it is time to find out whom, to what degree and to punish accordingly.

Yes we were scared, I too wanted to be secure but I have never been willing to give up my rights or the human rights of others for my personal safety; so don't, Mr. Cohen, try to blame this on me or the American people. We didn't sign on for crimes against humanity.

I'll leave you with this; I am a Marine veteran of Vietnam; twice a year (as I remember) we were instructed in the Military “Code of Conduct.”

Here is a relevant excerpt:

“It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress, torture or any other form of coercion in an effort to secure information.”
US Military Code of Conduct

Fact: Torture is illegal under US and international law.

Fact: We hung German officers and civilians for ordering others to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Fact: We executed Japanese soldiers in WW2 for water boarding allied prisoners.

Fact: We punished our troops in Vietnam for the same offenses.

Leadership must be prosecuted for issuing unlawful orders to their troops which require them to violate our laws, treaties and conventions and the troops they lead are required to differentiate between lawful and unlawful orders whether from superior officers, from a frightened populace or… from a lynch mob.

Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust

Reading the news this morning, I was pleased to see that Bernie was one of the senators who opposed the Geithner nomination, but I couldn't find anything more. So, after a quick phone call to DC, I got this:

Sen. Sanders statement on now-Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: “Massive deregulation of the financial services industry has led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. We need a treasury secretary who will support strong and robust regulation of the financial services sector. Mr. Geithner was at the Fed and the Treasury Department when the deregulatory fervor that got us into this mess ran rampant. He was part of the problem. I hope he becomes part of the solution, but I could not support his nomination at this time.”

Telling it like it is. There's also an interview with Bernie from MSNBC here.

I’m just gonna put it out there, and I’m not the only one thinking it:

In 2010, Vermont will elect a Democratic governor. And it will most likely be one of these people:

There. You heard it here first. It’s a different world out there now. Dems are energized by new leadership in Washington and Montpelier, clear ideological battle lines are drawn with Douglas going on a full-bore attack against education and the environment, and high profile Democratic pols are falling all over themselves to step up to the plate (there are so many names being floated, I hope they are all kicking themselves for not stepping up so early last year when they could’ve cleared the field). Despite what has been repeated of late, Douglas showed weakness in the polls last year, as his positives (still in the 60’s) deviated from his re-elect numbers (in the low 40s), suggesting that – while Vermonters still by and large like him – beyond the GOP faithful, they question whether he is the right man for the job.

So – I’ve now heard seven names being bandied about. Some may simply talking about a run, some may still only be being talked about. One has announced (Racine), one has all but announced (Markowitz), another has an active Facebook group promoting their not-yet-campaign (Spaulding). But the game’s afoot already, regardless, and the dynamic will only help draw more clear lines of policy distinction between the Governor and the Governor-wannabes – something we’d all like to see.

One could spend a lot of bandwidth breaking out the dynamics, here, and no doubt we will. Looking at the crowd which includes Sen. Doug Racine, former Sen. Matt Dunne, SoS Deb Markowitz, Sen. Peter Shumlin, Treas. Jeb Spaulding, Sen. Susan Bartlett, and Leahy State Director Chuck Ross, it’s clear the first tier of advantage in any primary is going to those who have appeared on statewide ballots in the last decade, putting Bartlett and Ross at an immediate disadvantage. It’s also clear that an earlier start equals early momentum, as nobody is rolling their eyes at the early announcement by Racine or the early gathering of support by Markowitz anymore. And if nobody’s rolling their eyes, that means the new bar is set and the clock is ticking.

A crowded primary field will likely help Racine most of all. His base in Chittenden County has only grown and solidified since his return to the Senate, and having the lion’s share of the County that holds a quarter of the state population is a huge leg up. Markowitz, also, has significant appeal among women statewide, but that advantage is compromised dramatically if Bartlett is in the race – especially given her far more extensive policy resume. Dunne maintains a significant grassroots network across the state from his recent Lt. Governor run giving him a more scalable potential campaign that could take advantage of a crowded field or a spartan one.

There are those who stand to lose from a crowded field as well. Ross may be well known within the Party infrastructure, but the party infrastructure itself won’t be enough – especially when even that insider group is fractured. Bartlett, as a first time statewide balloteer, will have an uphill climb grabbing the spotlight. At first glance, Shumlin would be at a disadvantage too among so many pols with built-in followings, but Shumlin is so good on the stump before Democratic faithful, he remains an X-factor in any contest.

Possibly the one with the most to lose in a primary is Spaulding. The argument could be made that Spaulding would be among the strongest in a general election against Douglas, or some other Republican should Douglas choose not to run as many seem to think (probably wishful thinking on their part). A lot of Spaulding’s potential A-list support would go to the likes of Racine and fellow Montpelierite Markowitz, but more significant are potential challenges within the primary voting crowd. Spaulding riles the Democratic education establishment with some abandon, and he continues to lend his name (and therefore his credibility) to efforts like the annual symposium sponsored by the conservative flagship website Vermont Tiger, which only boosts their cred in the state to Democrats’ disadvantage. Things like that stick in primary voters’ craws. Still, he has oodles of time to turn around that dynamic if he makes a conscious decision to get on top of it.

So who is serious? We’ll know sooner rather than later, as at least one Democratic committee has an invitation to all would-be Democratic Governors to show up and make their cases as early as next month. With the race already underway, those’ll be invitations that serious candidates won’t be able to ignore.

All of this early positioning makes one particular policy change all the more critical, however. The legislature must roll the primary date back earlier in the year (June?) to make primaries and primary candidates viable in November elections. More on that soon.

(I’ll leave the sidebar poll up ’til sometime Sunday.)

It’s “Obama,” not “Obamer.”  Thank you.

If you're sick of hearing Douglas and the members of the legislature say there is no capacity to raise taxes to help meet our budget shortfall, raise your hand.

 That's what I thought: just about everyone. 

Next question: what do we do about it?

There's a new web page that starts to answer the question, to give Douglas the message that we read from Northfield Democratic chair Chris Curtis in the Free Press yesterday: “Somebody needs to explain to the governor that the word tax is not a four-letter word.”

The page is called Count me in, Vermont, and it's been started by Liz Schlegel, the chair of the Waterbury Democratic Committee. It starts out by asking a couple of very simple questions: how much would middle class Vermonters be willing to pay in increased taxes, and how much money could a small tax increase generate?

The answer may surprise you. Using data provided by frequent GMD contributor Doug Hoffer, the answer is millions, and not just a couple.

I agree with Liz. I like to pay taxes, and I think there are a lot of people who, even if they don't affirmatively like it, accept that paying taxes is the duty we gladly take on as the price of living in a civilized society.

Now what we need to do is let our elected representatives know. Get the petition, print it out, and get your friends to sign it.