HRF themselves admit that these some of these deaths include a death at a detainee’s home, a death during an alleged escape attempt, and death at the point of capture but after a person’s surrender. Also included in these deaths are 38 detainees who died when their detention facilities were struck by mortar attacks, and five deaths of detainees killed in U.S. custody by other detainees.

I mean, seriously.. Come'on... It's war.. And in war, sometimes people die. Even POWs, detainees, enemy combatants and what have you..

I am not saying that US forces are perfect, that they have always acted exemplary and are god's gift to warfare...

But honestly. Don't American forces deserve, at the VERY least, the benefit of the doubt??

Michale.....

Don't have time for a full answer, but as to your first comment, I can look up the links if you need them later, but the facts are as follows. Over 100 (forget the exact number, 106? something like that) prisoners of ours in Iraq and Afghanistan died in our custody. Around three dozen of them, on their death certificates (from the US military, no less), cause of death was listed as "homicide." These are prisoners who arrived at the prison in good health, not someone who died from battlefield wounds.

It was in the media, briefly, and occasionally someone brings it up, but it's the elephant in the room that nobody in DC really wants to talk about. The argument swirls around "is waterboarding torture" but nobody addresses "walling" or literally beating people to death, since both are quite obviously well within even Bush's definition of "torture."

Some of the photos Obama's not releasing show the dead bodies of these prisoners, and their wounds. They are evidence of crimes, in other words. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been held responsible for these crimes. Some of the Abu Graib photos (the ones already released) show one such corpse as well.

Anyway, I can dig up the links later, but that should give you enough to find the evidence if you google a little bit.

-CW

Or the fact that we literally beat to death dozens of prisoners.

Are there any reports that this was done? I am seriously curious. If ANY prisoner had died, I would have thought it would have made the {sic} "news"..

{Democrats} just didn't have the stomach for a court fight.

They were more concerned about their political careers than they were about doing what is (they think) right for their country.

And some people STILL think that Democrats are any better than Republicans. It's mind-boggling...

When, exactly, did Pelosi try to "hold Bush/Cheney accountable"?

Of late, Pelosi et al have be pushing for a "truth commission" which is a Democrat euphemism for holding Bush and Cheney accountable..

I have to admit, I wouldn't bet many quatloos right now on whether Obama will fulfill his pledge to close Gitmo in a year….

I don't see how he can..

But an early test will come in the next few weeks/months. An HVT is being moved from Gitmo to NYC for trial. If this goes smoothly, then a case could be made that moving terrorists into the US might not be all the gloom and doom people say. Under these conditions, Obama might make his Gitmo Closing deadline.

On the other hand, if something happens or, worse, an actual terrorist attack with the intent to free the scumbag, you can bet that ALL Americans will be clamoring for more Bush/Cheney...

But what is really interesting is the White House itself is saying that the decision to close Gitmo was hasty and not well thought out.

Michale.....

Thanks for the kind words!

I still don't have a problem with a commission along the lines of the 9/11 commission. They ALL (Dems and Repubs) signed off on their report at the end of it, and politics didn't really enter much into it (except on the subject of what they agreed NOT to look at -- the political side of things). I still think some respected blue-ribbon types on both sides of the aisle could be put together -- OUT of the glare of the media spotlight, conduct a sober and non-partisan investigation, and make a report to America on the subject. Call me naive if you will, but I think we're cabaple of that.

And you're right. When I wrote last Friday's FTP column, I had not seen clips of the Pelosi presser. If I had, I doubtlessly would have given her a MDDOTW as well, because it was a painful performance to watch.

dt -

I'm behind on my comments, but it does make it easy to say "see what I had to say about Pelosi on Tuesday." Especially take note of the Frank Dwyer column which he wrote in response to this column (and which caused me to write the Tuesday column).

Osborne Ink -

Thank you for including "walling." The American media is fascinated by waterboarding, but nobody wants to talk about "slamming prisoners 20 or 30 times into a wall by a towel wrapped around their neck." Or the fact that we literally beat to death dozens of prisoners.

As for your second point, I have to disagree. They could have fought a grand court battle over "executive privelege" which, in my opinion, truly should have been fought. Nixon lost the only real court battle on the subject, and Bush pushed the envelope on this so far that it needed to be challenged. Dems did not, including even such lefty heroes as Pat Leahy. They just didn't have the stomach for a court fight. They should have. Because now Bush's executive privelege claims have been allowed to stand, and THEY WILL be cited by future presidents to cover up all sorts of things.

To put it another way, "L'Etat, ce n'est pas Bush." Apologies to King Loouie....

Michale -

When, exactly, did Pelosi try to "hold Bush/Cheney accountable"? I must have missed that, which surprises me because lefties have been crying for just that for a long time. Seems like it would have been in the news. I'm just saying....

Stan -

I seriously wonder when "Obama Disillusionment" is going to set in with the public at large. So far, he's been doing pretty well in the polling, but I keep waiting for his numbers to tick down when different people, for different reasons, begin to see him in a different light. This happens to every new president, it's not just Obama, but I still haven't seen it yet. It is inevitable, though. You can't please all the people all of the time.

akadjian -

You put your finger on something I've been wondering for a while now -- whether Obama is playing the "you've convinced me, now force me to do it" game or not. I gotta think about this... I feel a column coming out of it...

And, hey, watch your language! Some of my best friends are named "Nancy." Heh.

Michale -

I have to admit, I wouldn't bet many quatloos right now on whether Obama will fulfill his pledge to close Gitmo in a year....

-CW

Not at all..

Answer me this.

Are you against Capital Punishment? Animal Testing?

Because the same logical and rational reasons for Capital Punishment and Animal Testing are the same logical and rational reasons for torturing terrorists.

The all save innocent human lives and only animals are hurt, injured and/or killed..

but one of my big issues w/ the Democratic party was that they never offered much resistance to many of the things they completely disagreed with.

And couldn't the reason for that is because it's necessary? That's my entire point.

Look at all of Obama's reversals.. He takes a position on one thing or another and then, when he finds out the REALITY of the issue, he reverses himself. Just like he did with FISA, just like he did with the torture pics, just like he did with the Commissions and just like he will do with Gitmo.

If someone you know and respect takes a position that you disagree with, isn't it even CONCEIVABLE that you might be wrong??

This is why I don't like to think she was completely helpless.

She wasn't.. She could have done many MANY things to distance herself from the issue or shine the light of day on it.

The fact that she CHOSE not to is indicative of one thing and one thing only.

She felt that what was being done was necessary. Nay, there are reports that she felt that they (the CIA) weren't doing ENOUGH...

Of course, I also think that in the scheme of things, this Pelosi thing is a big distraction.

Ahh, but would you think it was all a big distraction if it were President Bush instead of President Obama and Speaker Hastert instead of Speaker Pelosi?

Of course not.. :D

May you live long and prosper

Back atcha... :D And remember, in the shadowy world of counter-terrorism, then ends OFTEN justify the means..

Michale....

Of course what you mean is that anyone who disagrees with you is emotional and that you are completely rational. Brilliant!

Just for the record, I like Nancy Pelosi, but one of my big issues w/ the Democratic party was that they never offered much resistance to many of the things they completely disagreed with. True, this resistance may not have had any actual effect at the time, but you start to forge a different identity from the ruling party. One that offers different ideas.

You may have to work for a while because as Obama has stated, you often need the political will in able to be able to accomplish things. And this may have to be generated on the ground. To paraphrase FDR, "I agree with you, now make me do it."

This is why I don't like to think she was completely helpless. No one is completely helpless. Especially not a U.S. Congresswoman. That's why Nancy comes off looking kind of like a "Nancy" on this one.

Of course, I also think that in the scheme of things, this Pelosi thing is a big distraction. It's little more than a political effort to pin something on one of the top Democratic leaders.

May you live long and prosper Mr. Uber-rationalist,
David

If practically everyone who is in a position to know the facts of an issue, nearly universally say that a certain course of action is the CORRECT course of action, how can anyone claim different??

Based on nothing more than subjective emotionalism??

Michale....

...Stan

You see, the real issue isn't that she stood silently by while torture was being done on scumbag terrorists.

The issue is that she lied and tried to hold Bush/Cheney accountable when she KNEW that they followed the letter of the law and briefed Congress..

Pelosi tried to ignore her own culpability in the issue and THAT is why she is in hot water right now..

As I mentioned before, Pelosi made the RIGHT decision then by backing the Bush Administration.

However, she has made the WRONG decision now by lying about it.

Michale.....

NAILED IT. LINKING NOW.

Two points:

(1) Let's remember that in 2006, the torture had stopped. The Abu Ghraib fiasco scared the torture-mongers so badly that they stopped waterboarding and walling. As Obama observed in an interview published this weekend, Dick Cheney had already lost the internal debate over this issue. Whether we want to say it or not, there was less impetus for immediate action.

Which brings me to (2), the fact that any investigation of these abuses would have to rely on documents the Bushies were unwilling to declassify. Even if Pelosi had set aside the Democratic agenda for the sake of hearings and commissions, we can have no doubt the Bushies would have fought against disclosure tooth and nail. And because of the president is legally and Constitutionally in charge of the national security apparatus, no one could force Bush to declassify a damn thing. Only a regime change could bring that about.

I'm not saying it was right; I'm not even saying that I agree with it. But Pelosi made a realist's decision in 2006. What else was she supposed to do?

Of course, noone , except Cheney, wants to know if it worked or not. That would be undermine the idea that maybe, just maybe, Bush/Cheney got it right.
How about she could make an effort to find the Truth, not just politically expedient factiods.

I couldn't help but think - somebody, please, shoot her and put her out of her misery. THAT'S A JOKE!!!

But, seriously...if we get through this torture debate in one piece with some real accountability at the other end - in whatever form that may take - and the assurance that the US will never again be put in this position again where it has to fight to restore its credibility in the world and reclaim its global leadership role, then it will have occurred DESPITE speaker Pelosi and not because of anything she did to help make it happen.

And, if I never see her in front of a microphone again, it will be too soon. NOT A JOKE!!!

There is no one - absolutely no one - who can get to the crux of the matter of a complicated and sensitive issue like this one surely is, with precision and clarity, like you do on a regular basis.

I have always thought that as much as Obama/Biden would like to travel down the path toward the truth and accountability for the actions of Bush administration officials - especially the condoning and justification of the use of torture - they have been extremely reluctant to lead the way because of the high probability that a rabid variety of partisanship may rise up and derail their vast and critical agenda.

I agree that all of this may very well get us closer to a grande 'truth commission' that can at least avoid the kind of destructive partisanship that may have characterized such a commission before everyone and their brother - of all political stripes - was publically calling for one!

All's well that ends well? I hope so.