Archive for Torture

Jeb Bush Declares His Brother’s Failures Irrelevant! But, Hell No, George W Bush And Dick Cheney Wrecked The Country And The World!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2015 by sheriffali

Two months ago, Jeb Bush was asked about some of his brother’s foreign policy decisions. “I won’t talk about the past,” the Republican said, adding his unannounced presidential campaign is “not about re-litigating anything in the past.”

 

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the former governor’s position hasn’t improved much since.

 

…Bush dodged reporter’s questions about how he might govern differently than his father or brother or whether his views on foreign policy differ from them…. Bush has previously said that the intelligence used to justify the start of the Iraq war was flawed, but he pushed back against a question Friday about whether his brother had made any other mistakes with his foreign policy.

 

“I’m not going to get into that,” he said. “That’s not particularly relevant in a world of deep insecurity, focusing on the past is not really relevant. What’s relevant is what’s the role of America going forward?”

 

The comments were, of course, caught on tape.

 

The obvious problem with Bush’s position is that it’s factually wrong. If there’s “deep insecurity” in the world, much of it is the direct result of some of his brother’s decisions – most notably a disastrous and unnecessary war in the Middle East that destabilized the region.

 

If the Florida Republican genuinely believes his brother’s wars aren’t “relevant” to today’s national security challenges, Bush is badly confused about the basics of current events. Indeed, Americans deserve to know whether the former governor has learned any lessons from his brother’s devastating failure; “I’m not going to get into that” isn’t a satisfactory reply.

 

The less obvious problem is that Bush has already surrounded himself with the Bush family’s team of foreign-policy advisers. In the context of his 2016 candidacy, few things are as relevant as this basic truth.

 

Jeb Bush believes his foreign policy beliefs should be guided by his brother’s staff, but at the same time, Jeb Bush believes his brother’s foreign policy decisions aren’t relevant to his presidential ambitions. If he sees this as a coherent argument, he’s mistaken.

 

Finally, let’s not brush past the contradiction at the heart of Bush’s talking points: he insists that “focusing on the past is not really relevant,” while at the same time, he’s eager to condemn President Obama’s handling of international affairs. Last week, the GOP candidate told an audience that Obama “believes that America’s power is not appropriate and America’s presence is not a force for good,” which is both demonstrably ridiculous and an obvious attempt to focus on the past.

 

There’s still plenty of time for Bush to come up with a more lucid response to these questions, though I’ll confess to being hard pressed to imagine what those answers might look like. The results of his brother’s foreign policies – and to a very real degree, Jeb Bush’s advisers’ foreign policies – were catastrophic. He doesn’t want to endorse failure; he doesn’t want to condemn his brother; and he can’t simply take a pass on the legitimate questions. It’s not a recipe for long-term success.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/jeb-bush-declares-his-brothers-failures-irrelevant?cid=sm_fb_maddow

JEB BUSH FRAUD ELECTION 2016 -1

Warmongers; McCain Told Netanyahu “Show Contempt For Obama And Bomb Iran;” John Bolton In The NYT Said; “Only Option, US Must Bomb Iran”

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2015 by sheriffali

According to a 2013 study by the Costs of War Project at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost the United States more than $4 trillion. Over the coming decades, that number will likely rise by trillions more. If you include America’s military operations in Pakistan, these wars have taken the lives of roughly 300,000 people. And almost 15 years later, both Iraq and Afghanistan are virtually failed states.

 

This does not mean The New York Times should never publish op-eds proposing new wars. Although always tragic, war can sometimes be less horrible than the alternative. And it does not mean The New York Times should never publish op-eds by people who have supported disastrous wars. Even commentators who have made huge errors in the past may still contribute useful arguments in the present. At least I hope so, given that I supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq myself.

 

But what The New York Times should not do is let people who have supported disastrous wars in the past propose new wars casually. If you want to advocate for a new war in the most prestigious newspaper in the United States, you should have to grapple, at least briefly, with the potential dangers. Given the costs, both financial and human, of America’s post-9/11 conflicts, that’s not too much to ask.

 

Which brings me to John Bolton’s Thursday New York Times op-ed, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Bolton was both a booster, and a minor architect, of the war in Iraq. As George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state in late 2002, he told the BBC that, “We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq.” He added that, “the Iraqi people would be unique in history if they didn’t welcome the overthrow of this dictatorial regime,” and that although building a democracy would prove a “difficult task,” the people of Iraq “are fully competent to do it.” So competent, in fact, that “the American role [in post-war Iraq] actually will be fairly minimal.”

 

That’s what Bolton said publicly. Privately, according to a 2005 report by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee, he distributed classified information about Joe Wilson in an attempt to smear the former ambassador, who was then questioning President Bush’s claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. Bolton also played a key role in forcing out Jose Bustani, director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, because he feared Bustani’s inspectors in Iraq would undermine the case for war. It was behavior like this that led Washington Post columnist David Ignatius to observe that Bolton “epitomizes the politicization of intelligence that helped produce the fiasco over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.”

 

Should this disqualify Bolton from penning a New York Times op-ed urging America to bomb Iran? No. But it should have disqualified him from penning the op-ed he published on Thursday.

 

In the section of his op-ed in which he calls for war, Bolton writes:

 

The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

 

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

 

That’s it. Robert Gates, who led the CIA under George H.W. Bush before becoming George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s defense secretary, has said bombing Iran could prove a “catastrophe,” and that Iran’s “capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere is hard to overestimate.” Meir Dagan, who led Israel’s external spy service, the Mossad, from 2002 to 2011, has warned that an attack on Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” In the aftermath of a military strike, he added, “The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 JOHN McCAIN - 10 JOHN BOLTON LARGE IDIOT 3

http://m.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/john-bolton-times-iran-bomb-war/388850/

 

 

America must prosecute War Criminals George W Bush and Dick Cheney for Torture, Lies, Deception and Murder

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 15, 2014 by sheriffali

 BUSH CHENEY WAR CRMINALS DEC 15 14

 

 

President Ronald Reagan May 20, 1988: By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , on December 11, 2014 by sheriffali

To the Senate of the United States:

 

With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. I also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.

 

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

 

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called “universal jurisdiction.” Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

 

In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification. The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.

 

 Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to assess the Committee’s work. It would be possible for the United States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider this step desirable.

 

By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.

 

RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
May 20, 1988.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 RONALD REAGAN SIGNED THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE