The war on international law

BBC News:

Anti-terror measures worldwide have seriously undermined international human rights law, a report by legal experts says.

After a three-year global study, the International Commission of Jurists said many states used the public's fear of terrorism to introduce measures.

These included detention without trial, illegal disappearance and torture.

It also said that the UK and the US have "actively undermined" international law by their actions.

It concluded that many measures introduced to fight terrorism were illegal and counter-productive.
...
The panel of eminent lawyers and judges concluded that the framework of international law that existed before the 9/11 attacks on the US was robust and effective.

It's dangerous for countries to put reactionary anti-terror measures in place without considering their legal and ethical implications; the belief that their national security measures are outside the realm of international law is ignorant. The America's rash actions on this front in the past seven or so years have finally come to a close thanks to the arrival of the Obama administration, leaving us all to breathe a collective sigh of relief. However damage has been done and the United States and the countries that cooperated with such programs as 'extraordinary rendition' must do their best to reverse their actions. Sadly, however, justice will almost certainly evade the victims of the illegal post-9/11 anti-terror programs.

Bush's continued assault on human rights

Another nasty veto...
BBC News:

US President George Bush says he has vetoed legislation that would stop the CIA using interrogation methods such as simulated drowning or "water-boarding".

He said he rejected the intelligence bill, passed by Senate and Congress, as it took "away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror".

The president said the CIA needed "specialised interrogation procedures" that the military did not.

Make no mistake: waterboarding is torture. All human rights organizations agree, as well as other nations and even the American FBI! Waterboarding simulates drowning and leaves the victim psychologically — and sometimes physically — damaged.

There is no reason for torture. This is not a fight between human rights and national security. Torturous interrogation techniques do not get reliable information, countless studies have confirmed this common sense notion. In addition, the declining perception of the US because of the use of torture leaves it more open for attack and helps terrorist recruiters.

The issue of the CIA lies in the fact that by not leaving it objective, the White House opened the door for flawed, politically-motivated intelligence reports such as the ones justifying the Iraq war. The CIA has had continual use as a dirty political tool in the 'war on terror', where it has tortured and detained innocent people without respect to US or international law, whether in Guantanamo, 'black sites', or cases of extraordinary rendition.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe." Bush says. Mr. President, if I may counter. You have failed to produce any reliable evidence that torture has helped the United States. Yes, I know you don't use the exact term "torture". It's politically sticky. You stick to the euphemism "enhanced interrogation". Let's see how you would feel about having to stand up, shackled, for 40 hours or so, while being threatened by a CIA thug. Maybe that would change your mind about the true meaning of torture. You use the same justification for torture as you do for (previously) illegal domestic wiretapping: It has saved lives, it will save lives! We must counter the most dangerous terrorists! We must prevent another attack! While it is compelling for me to follow along with most Americans and politicians on your national security programs, you see, I have a respect for the law. I also recognize the fact that torturing terror suspects will get us nowhere in our fight against those who have wronged us.

The president's actions are inexcusable; this is one of the times I am seriously angry at George W. Bush and his ludicrous national security policies. Why can't he use at least one of his vetoes to cut spending like he has promised instead of fighting popular stem call initiatives or legalizing torture?

Parallels between fictional barbarians and today's Islamic terrorists

Parallels between fictional barbarians and today's Islamic terrorists

In Booker- and Nobel Prize-winning author J. M. Coetzee's Waiting for the Barbarians, the 'barbarians' are very different compared to the terrorists the United States and its allies are fighting today. The barbarians are a set group, compared to the more ambiguous terrorist enemy. Also, they seem to attack when directly provoked (actually, during the course of the story there isn't concrete, objective proof of a barbarian attack on the Empire). They are a fairly peaceful, simple, nomadic people who live in fear of the Empire and suffer because of its expansion. However, there are some parallels between the barbarians and Islamist extremists. Many modern Islamic terrorists are waging jihad against the US because of its occupation of lands they see as sacred, belonging to Muslims, as well as its diehard support of occupiers of Mideast land like Israel. America is tainting these lands for its own profit (oil), or so their line of thought goes.

The stronger parallel between the Empire's wrath for the barbarians and America's 'war on terror' is the chilling aspect of torture used gratuitously by the Empire in the book and — to a lesser, more secretive extent, directly or indirectly — by the United States today. My personal view is not that the US is an empire in the way the one in the book is; whether it is at all is a point of contention among experts. Of course the US looks out for its own economic interests in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, as do all nations who rely on energy supplies from that region. It is the reality of men and nations that we take care of ourselves first and make sure our well being is well provided for.

The thing that has brought the world's sole superpower into such a great mess is security. Although oil has played an indirect role, those drawing such a strong line between Iraq and Exxon should reevaluate their logic. America supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1979 Soviet invasion and ensuing war to fend off its Cold War arch-rival. Today it faces the same people it supported in Afghanistan in a globalized 'war.' However, unlike the war in Waiting for the Barbarians, one side is ambiguous in the 'war on terror': the terrorists. This ambiguity allows the US more leeway in its 'war,' but also leads to more trouble: anyone could be a terrorist. These terrorists either operate relatively alone with influences from groups or in cells, often under the authority of others. What unites them for the most part is ideology, but there are devisions even within that radical anti-American foundation. The Bush administration has clumped its 'barbarians' together into one massive group of pure evil. It's 'us against them'.

Torture is made into entertainment in the book. The public is put at ease at the sight of a few innocent barbarians being abused and sometimes killed. The army turns fear into hate and allows the public an outlet for that hatred. In Waiting for the Barbarians the man plagued by this lack of human decency, the town judge, is displaced by all this mess as he attempts to take on the torture machine. He is arrested at the circumvention of the law — emergency powers are in the hands of the military because of the barbarians are apparently ready to pounce. The people in the remote frontier town in Waiting for the Barbarians are in constantly terrorized by the threat of a supposedly imminent barbarian invasion, yet another similarity between their society and America's (among others).

The us vs. them seen especially during wartime is seen in the book: "The soldiery tyrannizes the town. They have held a ... meeting to denounce "cowards and traitors" and to affirm collective alliance to the Empire" (Coetzee 130). There are elements of absurdity in the story of torture in Barbarians, but that same absurdity is seen in real life in the political rhetoric condoning torture. Innocent people — people who share fear if any ties with the enemy — are tortured needlessly for no real point. Whereas the fictional barbarian situation came to an end and just rule was reinstated, the terror subsided, there is no assurance that the same will happen in America's 'war on terror.'

US intelligence chief contradicts White House on water-boarding's status as torture

BBC News:

US national intelligence chief Mike McConnell has said the interrogation technique of water-boarding "would be torture" if he was subjected to it.
...
He told the New Yorker there would be a "huge penalty" for anyone using it if it was ever determined to be torture.
The US attorney-general has declined to rule on whether the method is torture.
...
In December, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as water-boarding.
President George W Bush has threatened to veto the bill, which would require the agency to follow the rules adopted by the US Army and abide by the Geneva Conventions, if the Senate passes it.

The administration seems to believe that torture works as a means of getting information. On the contrary, the assertion that harsh interrogation works is proved false by many studies. In addition public knowledge of torture — which is inevitable in such a high-profile 'war' — hurts the world's perception of the US and breeds more terrorists. But what right does the US have to police the world and detain foreigners as it pleases, especially not in anything close to a war zone?

Terror suspect sues torture mastermind

Jose Padilla, who was held in a South Carolina military brig for years under suspicion of terrorism, only to be convicted on lesser charges unrelated to the original accusations, is suing former Bush administration legal mastermind John Yoo.

Chicago Tribune:

In the latest legal contest over the treatment of detained terrorist suspects, attorneys for Jose Padilla filed a suit in a California federal district court this morning against John Yoo, the former deputy assistant Attorney General whose legal opinions formed the basis for Padilla's detention and the interrogation techniques used against him that the attorneys call torture.
...
Padilla was eventually tried, and convicted in a federal district court in Miami last year, but on lesser charges that he was part of an overseas terrorist conspiracy-no mention of a planned dirty bomb attack inside the U.S..

The suit filed this morning in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco, turns the spotlight of blame on Yoo, the author of a series of legal memoranda known collectively as the "Torture Memos." Drafted in 2002, when Yoo was a deputy assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department, they provided the legal justification for the interrogation techniques used on suspected Al Qaeda operatives that many, from former generals to presidential candidates, have since decried as torture.

"John Yoo is the first person in American history to provide the legal authorization for the instiution of torture in the U.S.," said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney representing Padilla in the suit. "He [Yoo] was an absolutely essential part of what will be viewed by history as a group of rogue officials acting under cover of law to undermine fundamental rights.it never would have happened without the legal green light. That made it possible."

There are few people I'd like to be brought down in a lawsuit over torture than John Yoo. His actions — which not only circumvented the Constitution and established laws over checks-and-balences but broke a handful of international agreements the US was a party too — brought shame to the reputation of America and showed just how much the administration is willing to break the law and disregard human rights in its 'war on terror'. Yoo also had a hand in the administration's domestic wiretapping program.

A different kind of interrogation...

The CIA head will have to answer some tough questions about the destruction of tapes showing torturous interrogation.

The CIA director will face two days of questioning by the House and Senate intelligence committees in a probe into the agency's destruction of videotapes showing interrogation techniques used on terror suspects, panel leaders said.

CIA Director Michael Hayden is set to appear in closed-door hearings Tuesday before the Senate panel and Wednesday before the House committee.
...
U.S. officials said the recordings were made as "an internal check" on the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques, thought to include waterboarding -- which involves restraining a suspect and pouring water on him to produce the sensation of drowning. The practice has been considered torture since the days of the Spanish Inquisition and was prosecuted as a war crime after World War II.

Here's what I would ask Hayden if I were in a position to do so:

Did you know about these tapes?

If so, did you learn of their destruction?

Did you give the order for their destruction?

Has your agency committed acts of torture?

Do you consider waterboarding to be a form of torture?

Will your independent investigation look into evidence of torture?

Why do you think the destruction of these tapes is not a serious matter?

What warranted — or could warrant — this destruction?

To your knowledge, did the tapes portray anything illegal — that includes torture?

Who gave the order to destroy the tapes? Was it really a low-level official?

How could you — or whoever destroyed the tapes — be blind enough to believe that they might not be used in future legal cases?

Do you know the extent of the Justice Department's knowledge of the tapes?

In your mind, is torture ever warranted? This is especially pertinent to the actions and atmosphere of your agency as an ex-CIA agent recently stated that the US had used torture, and, in his view, it worked. The agent's statement on torture directly contradicts your assertion that the CIA does not torture.

There are of course more questions; but many of the above will doubtless not be asked, or at least go unanswered, over the next couple of days.

The argument for speed over law in the fight against terrorism

Should speed trump legality in America's 'war on terror'?
Just as Elaine Scarry stated that the assertion that speed is necessary for security — e.g. 'not having time' to go through the courts or get a formal declaration war, which has not been done in the US since WWII — has taken power away from the people and given it to an increasingly centralized government (see "Citizenship in Emergency"), which doesn't always do the best thing with its power, it is easy to make the case that Vice President Dick Cheney and allies, such as close advisor David Addington, used speed and the daunting enemy of terrorism as an excuse for the creation of the unitary executive, among other things. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the White House went as far as ignoring Congress, the courts, and even its own departments (e.g. Justice) to get the national security policy it wanted. The need to counter terrorism in a speedy manner has been used by the Bush administration to justify programs like unauthorized NSA domestic wiretapping (ignoring the FISA court), or interrogation tactics that ignore the ruling of Congress and international law.

Defending the homeland has become a battle against existing expectations of legal due process, governmental checks and balances, and personal freedom. As former Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith told Frontline,

[The Bush administration] decided in the fall of 2001 that speed was more important than these other values. I can't say in the fall of 2001 that they were wrong. I don't know exactly what they thought they were going to do in military commissions, but early on the imperatives to get things done trumped the normal processes of deliberation and consultation. In emergencies that often happens. I think as time went on, the circumvention of the normal processes of deliberation and consultation, maybe the balance tipped; that speed and quick decision making may have been able to go slower on that in exchange for more deliberation and consultation.

Detention and torture of terrorism suspects and warrant-less wiretapping, two infamous tools of the 'war on terror', both of which have been direct results of an argument for speed in the fight against an often-invisible, unorthodox enemy. The courts were too slow and Congress' restrictions too inconvenient for 'aggressive interrogation' not to be used on terrorism suspects — the information needed to be gotten, and fast, from the terrorists, supporters say. FISA was bypassed in the case of the wiretapping; the program's defenders said that the FISA court was too slow, and thus, the White House had to act without the consent of neither the legislature nor the judiciary. Communications are moving too fast for judicial oversight; terrorist attacks need to be prevented, beats the drum of former Bush administration legal architect John Yoo. Thanks to Democratic timidity, the NSA wiretapping program was made legal over the summer.

If America is to continue as a (semi-)functioning democracy, her citizens should not let their rights be subdued for the sake of speed or supposed security. Scarry wrote in her article that,

The most frequent argument used to excuse the setting aside of the Constitution is that the pace of modern life simply does not allow time for obtaining the authorization of Congress, let alone the full citizenry.

Over six years after the 11 September attacks, speed has become the excuse for countless questionable actions taken by the president and his staff. No longer should anyone fall for it.

A look at 'Islamofascism'

In a recent Slate article, Christopher Hitchens tried his hardest to defend what has so far only served as a term for political — not objective or scholarly — use: 'Islamofascism', a mix of Islam, which some people fear, and fascism, which virtually everyone dislikes (I'd like to think so, at least). The word is a neologism, a pejorative term has taken the political right by storm.

Let's just look at definitions for a minute; maybe the dictionary can help sort this out. The OED defines "Islam" as:

noun 1 the monotheistic religion of the Muslims, regarded by them to have been revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah. 2 the Muslim world.

and "fascism" as:

noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Adolph Hitler was a fascist; he advocated a specific system of government; Osama Bin Laden leans towards a theocracy following a twisted version of Islam (his terrorist orginization, Al Qaeda, and its followers are but fractured cells of fear- and hate-fueled Muslims who use terrorism to accomplish political and (pseudo-)religious means). But both figures inspire fear and hatred, making 'Islamofascism'. It is more than a stretch to call Al Qaeda fascist. Even the semi-theocracy of Iran probably couldn't be considered fascist.

Fascism is a centralized, authoritarian system of government; fascists are those who advocate such a government. So how are Osama and his crazed followers fascist? 'Islamofacism' is clearly not the right term to describe these terrorists. As despicable as they are, as a whole, the terrorists we are talking about are neither advocating what could be considered fascist governance nor are part of such a government.

The person who claims to have first used the word, Stephen Schwartz, wrote in the Weekly Standard, a conservative American publication, professing to the word's lack of objectivity while explaining it in his terms. Schwartz put the meaning of 'Islamofascism' in clear terms:

In my analysis, as originally put in print directly after the horror of September 11, 2001, Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology.

Why not just use Islamic extremism, or a more descriptive and accurate term than 'Islamofascism'? Because 'Islamofascism' (yes I will continue to put it in inverted quotes) is yet another political buzzword in the 'war on terror's lingual campaign towards spin supremacy.

There always has to be a 'war on' something. War is an emotionally-evocative and politically-charged word, as is terrorism (see definitions). 'Islamofascism' is yet another way to tie Islamic extremism to the so-called war on terror; it's just another lingual technique with political motives that advocates use to slant the debate (see surge), or as Jack Shafer, also writing in Slate, calls it, 'unspeak'.

US President Bush has used the word to describe Muslim terrorists, which inflamed religious sentiment in areas of the world that often need no more inflammation — i.e. the word was perceived as advocating a 'war on Islam', another reason against its use. In addition, calling the extremists a "fundamentalist empire" as Bush did is entirely misleading. There is no one enemy, despite what the White House would want us to believe. The conservative historian Niall Ferguson has denounced the term as "misleading" because it is meant to connect the "Great War" of WWII with the non-war of the 'war on terrorism'; it is an emotional, feel-good idiom that also serves for political use.

US Africom: pros and cons

America is trying to increase its presence in Africa, expanding plans recently for an African command (no African nation has yet offered to serve as the base country for this command). In one sense, this is a further extension of American economic interests; in another, it builds on some of the good work the US is doing in Africa, apart from supplying aid. The bad side is a sort of neo-imperialism and self-interested policing, the good side of this Africom has its strengths too.

The Pentagon says Africom will allow the US to have a more integrated and effective approach to the continent.

This is a significant re-ordering of the US military, and an increased interest that can be explained in three words - oil, terrorism and instability.

As the article also states, the United States gets around one-tenth of its oil from the African continent. We have seen China increasingly make friends in the region, utilizing soft power and economic ties in a diplomatic feat that will surely prove worth the energy investment.

Where stability cannot be kept with existing forces, the already-overextended American military will step in to protect its own interests? I can see how that might not ring well with African leaders.

In Djibouti, Kenya, and other nations, the US military is working on programs to help the civilians there, which kills two birds with one stone (Africa Command), if all goes well. Programs like that help the American image and fend of support for terror as well as helping people in a humanitarian sense. There is plenty of controversy over American military bases in African nations, and perhaps it verges on imperial hegemony. But even though it can hurt the US's image and make it seem more like a militaristic, imperial power the operations seem to quell some terrorism while aiding the local population, thus lowering the chance of public support for groups like Al Qaeda. As long as the local government agrees and the US helps the people there, the pros seem to outweigh the cons.

The effort to, say, build schools and irrigation systems in East Africa (and elsewhere) is one positive military effort that deserves much more coverage in the press. Not as propaganda or pro-American patriotic support pieces, but as an expose of how the United States really is working in some places to make the world a better and more secure place. That darn civil war in Iraq is such a news hog. Humanitarian work, gaining the hearts and minds of civilians, should be a higher priority in the fight against terrorism than brute, imperial-like military force.

Somalia has been a disaster. Supporting terrorists to fight other terrorists isn't a good idea; nor is funding a government that is exacting genocide (although America has now severed ties with Sudan); or breaking international restrictions to fund a failed fight against terrorists and Islamic radicals. But building schools for the poor and uneducated, especially those who may fall susceptible to Islamic extremists? Win for the humanitarians, win for national security and wider stability. But will Africom meet the same fate due to lack of public support as other American operations? Good PR is of the essence, as are positive actions.

Happy first of October.

It's time for post-9/11 leadership

Thomas Friedman writes in today's New York Times that it is time for American politics to step out of the scary mindset of 9/11 and move onto "9/12".

Rudy Giuliani presents himself as the 9/11 candidate, after all, he presided over the 11 Sept 2001 attacks upon the World Trade Center when he was mayor of New York. He's still using that tragic event for political fuel for his Republican campaign for the Oval Office. (What's even worse is his political style, but that's a matter for a future post.) As Friedman, with whom I agree almost as often as I disagree, says:

Before 9/11, the world thought America’s slogan was: “Where anything is possible for anybody.” But that is not our global brand anymore. Our government has been exporting fear, not hope: “Give me your tired, your poor and your fingerprints.”

You may think Guantánamo Bay is a prison camp in Cuba for Al Qaeda terrorists. A lot of the world thinks it’s a place we send visitors who don’t give the right answers at immigration. I will not vote for any candidate who is not committed to dismantling Guantánamo Bay and replacing it with a free field hospital for poor Cubans. Guantánamo Bay is the anti-Statue of Liberty.

Too bad Friedman wasn't talking like this when it came time to decide whether or not to invade Iraq (he strongly supported the war), as well as other major ventures in the 'war on terror'. Where was his reasoning then? And why does he now proclaim that "9/11 is over"? What took him so long?

Despite my love-hate relationship with the influential NYT columnist, the points he makes are valid and important for any American to remember as he or she goes to the polls a bit over a year from now.

Debate over US domestic spying 'costs lives'

Apparently legislative investigations into the executive's more questionable programs cost lives and allow the terrorists to win.

More fear-mongering by the Bush administration. Haven't we had enough executive expansion? Too many American civil liberties have been quashed in the name of fighting terror.

Yesterday, in his usual 'do this or the terrorists win' attitude, President Bush urged Congress to expand and continue to allow the domestic surveillance his administration has fought so hard to keep secret, free of oversight, and far-reaching. Today, his intelligence director laid out more defense for the program.

Reuters:

A debate in Congress over eavesdropping on terrorism suspects will cost American lives by exposing intelligence techniques, the Bush administration's spy chief said on Thursday.
...
"What this dialogue and debate has allowed those who wish us harm to do, is to understand significantly more about how we were targeting their communications," McConnell told the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee.

Asked if debates had cost U.S lives, he said, "They will."

Normally I'd look past this extreme rhetoric. I've gotten used to this stuff spewing out of the White House — it is politics, after all. However slanting the issue by saying that just the debate over the wiretapping program puts lives at risk is going too far. This emphasizes the need for Congress to act with scrutiny and not turn a blind eye.

McConnell said a couple days ago that the need for more domestic surveillance was elevated not only because of terrorists, but because China and Russia are allegedly spying at the United States at Cold War levels.

So yeah, let's get rid of democracy and the tiny bit of oversight over the White House, or else the terrorists win! This is an agreement for security over freedom; it's amazing that President Bush can still stand and say that he is defending freedom. If important, democratic political debate gives information to the terrorists, that is probably information they already know. Plus, that's one of the downsides of democracy: transparency and freedom can cut away at security. But a democracy is founded on the principles of holding the principles of freedom over the often-misused power-gaining excuse of security.

For now the White House should be happy. Congress rubber-stamped their controversial NSA warrantless domestic wiretapping plan back in August. While the debate continues, the administration will continue to say lives are being lost. It appears it wants no transparency, and no power checks. This is a disturbing thing coming from a branch of a democratic government. This isn't the way to go about securing the nation. It's a way for the administration to once again spin the debate over terrorism for its own gain.

If terror suspects really need to be monitored — which, I agree, they do — then why not get judicial oversight? I mean, that's what the courts are for. At least true congressional oversight is needed. But the administration has time and time again stopped even Republican lawmakers from doing their jobs and knowing what's going on in their own government. One example: after agreeing to several one-sided deals on a variety of issues, former Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is growing increasingly frustrated with the Bush administration's lack of transparency. When there are probes and investigations, they are overly politicized by both sides, and congresspeople end up with only rhetoric and biased assertions, not statement's telling them how laws like the NSA surveillance program are being carried out. They hear that their investigation costs lives; they are not told the hows or whys.

It's time for policymakers to stand up to this unitary executive, not in stubbornness or for shallow political reasons, but because it's their job.

The unconstitutional, unPATRIOTic Act

It's only appropriate on the sixth anniversary of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks (see my 9/11 post) to publish a blog post about the exploitation of such a tragedy for potential political gain.

Last week, a judge ruled portions of the controversial Patriot Act unlawful and conflicting the United States Constitution.

A federal judge...struck down the parts of the recently revised USA Patriot Act that authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use informal secret demands called national security letters to compel companies to provide customer records.

The law allowed the F.B.I. not only to force communications companies, including telephone and Internet providers, to turn over the records without court authorization, but also to forbid the companies to tell the customers or anyone else what they had done. Under the law, enacted last year, the ability of the courts to review challenges to the ban on disclosures was quite limited.

The judge, Victor Marrero of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the measure violated the First Amendment and the separation of powers guarantee.

Judge Marrero said he feared that the law could be the first step in a series of intrusions into the judiciary’s role that would be “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”

According to a report from the Justice Department’s inspector general in March, the F.B.I. issued about 143,000 requests through national security letters from 2003 to 2005. The report found that the bureau had often used the letters improperly and sometimes illegally.

(Read about the FBI's illegal use of the national security letters here.)

Yesterday’s decision was a sequel to rulings by Judge Marrero in 2004 and a federal judge in Connecticut in 2005, both of which enjoined an earlier version of the law. Congress responded last year by amending the law in reauthorizing it.
...
Judge Marrero used his strongest language and evocative historical analogies in criticizing the aspect of the new law that imposed restrictions on the courts’ ability to review the F.B.I.’s determinations.

(Read the decision in full.)

Tying the emotional word 'patriot' to an act that conflicts with many areas of fundamental American democratic law was a brilliant political move by the Bush administration and its Republican allies. It allowed them to label anyone who opposed the act unpatriotic, and even if they didn't label so, who's going to oppose something with the word 'patriot' in its name? That is like opposing the "Kittens are Cute Act" or the "America the Great and Victorious Act".

Its name is yet another one of those slanted catch-phrases — "war on terror", "with us or against us", "cut and run", the "surge" — under the mother of political spin-words: the "war on terror", which has entered most into the mainstream media and the consciousness of a nation, even though it's not a real war and you can't really fight 'terror', or even the intangible ideology of terrorism.

Pakistan's state of emergency postponed

As it turns out, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf did not impose emergency rule (see this post for background) — which would have quelled more civil liberties and pushed the elections back to who-knows-when — possibly due in part to pressure by Condi Rice.

"My focus in terms of the domestic scene there is that he have a free and fair election and that's what we have been talking to him about and hopefully they will," Mr Bush said at a White House news conference.

A Pakistani government spokesman said there was pressure on Gen Musharraf to declare an emergency but that he had decided not to because he was "committed to democracy".

Since we're already on the topic of Pakistan's president/military dictator, it's relevant to note that...

Mr Bush said he expected Gen Musharraf to act against al-Qaeda leaders who the US says are sheltering in the areas. Pakistan has called the US warnings "irresponsible and dangerous".

and

Gen Musharraf pulled out of the three-day Afghan council, or peace jirga, on combating the Taleban, citing commitments in Islamabad.

One of the reasons the US is probably still sticking with Pakistan as a GWOT ally is that its one of the only allies it has at its disposal. If Pakistan and America weren't tied that could mean more extremism because of lack of external support for Musharraf; on the other hand we have seen more extremism develop because of the US-Pakistan relationship. Sort of like with the controversial topic of troop pullout from Iraq: the US leaves there are almost no security forces and Iraq could become even more of a black hole of turmoil with Iran and the Saudis squaring off unchecked; on the other hand foreign occupation provides radicals with a rallying cry for insurgency and fuels Islamic terrorism.

Democratic elections in Pakistan are due later this year. Whoever wants to bet that Bush's wish that they'll be 'free and fair' will come true has the odds against them.

Musharraf: another political victim of the 'war on terror'

Will one of America's major allies in the 'war on terror' fall into the sea of turmoil devouring parts of his nation?

Dictator Musharraf is growing unpopular, and neither the US nor the Taliban is helping. Someone who both works with terrorists — namely by condoning the hotbed of extremism on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border — and an unpopular nation seen as a hegemonic power, while also ruling undemocratically, is bound to run out of luck sometime. Musharraf has faced a series of debacles, including the taking of the Red Mosque in Islamabad by fundamentalists and backlash to his sacking of Pakistan's chief justice and critic of the regime (although he was reinstated).

It has just been reported that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf may declare a state of emergency, although that is denied by the government.

A member of the inner circle of the Pakistani leadership told Reuters, however, that U.S. ally Musharraf was considering the option, which could allow him to extend the tenure of the national and provincial assemblies by 12 months and delay elections due by the turn of the year.

The government could explain such a step by citing growing insecurity because of the threat posed by Islamist militants allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda after a series of attacks, many of them by suicide bombers, in the past month.

Political analysts and opposition leaders, however, have feared that Musharraf, who is going through his weakest period since coming to power in a 1999 coup, might resort to an emergency because of difficulties he faces in getting re-elected by the sitting assemblies, while still army chief.

Many have lost political support by cooperating with America. To make up for that, in certain cases the US gives massive amount of aid, like in the case of Saudi Arabia, but most still keep their distance.

Portrayed by extremists as an imperial occupier bent on the destruction of Islam and working with its Zionist pal Israel to achieve that goal. Obviously that is a misconstrued perception meant to radicalize the population, but it makes it all the more easier to see why it is not good to be seen as a puppet of the United States, not least in the Middle East [and the Muslim world in general].

Pakistan has proven itself to be not only a hotspot for extremism because of the extremists there, but also because of Musharraf and gang are seen as friends of the Great Satan (i.e. America). In addition it, along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other undemocratic nations, is a perfect example of American neocon hypocrisy on outsourcing democratic principles while also working closely with and giving massive amounts of help and aid to — with few positive results — horrible regimes. How is it OK justify the invasion of Iraq as removing a tyrant (Saddam Hussein) if you are giving billions in military aid to governments almost as condemnable?, has become a common question.

I believe that, under President Bush, America has taken the wrong path to ridding the world of Islamic extremism. It has been made all the more powerful by actions by Washington and its allies that have just fueled the fire paradox.

While his pall Mubarak looks to be doing fine turning Egypt into a full-fledged police state, Musharraf faces a darker future. The religious extremists don't like him, believers in liberal democracy hate him too. US presidential candidate Barak Obama has even jumped on the Musharraf-hate bandwagon, it seems, naive move of course and one he will regret.

Pakistan, a nuclear power, runs the risk of being taken over by extremists. America has once again chosen security over freedom in supporting dictatorship over democracy, although, in its defense, both seem like pretty bad options (think: the democratic election of Hamas). It as failed in principle and seems to be failing in practice. What is needed is stability, a hard thing to come by in the turbulent [extended] Mideast region.

Delaying the democratic process is bad enough. It is all the more worse, for Musharraf and democratic principles, if America assists him in maintaining his dictatorship, as it has in other so-called allies in the GWOT. It's probably going to end up being a lose for Musharraf, a lose for the US and its 'war', and a lose for democracy. Meanwhile, the Pakistani government appears to be falling apart... perhaps declaring a state of emergency is redundant at this point.

Congress legalizes Bush's NSA wiretapping program

An inept Congress hands Bush his NSA wiretapping program legalized on a silver platter...
Quiz time! What is the one of the last things Congress did before taking a four-week August recess? Hand more power to the Bush administration and slash away at the US Constitution, of course! Another sting to civil liberties courtesy of the 'war on terrorism' and the American government. Enter the Protect America Act of 2007 (Senate vote info; House votes). All links in this post are, in my opinion, quite important to understanding this complex issue.

Secrecy, spying, and a false 'war'
Why did the United States Congress cave in to (NYT) President George Bush on the expanded wiretapping bill? If this were the Clinton years I might think secret deal or tradeoff (i.e. you pass my stuff and I don't veto yours). However, that system hasn't been as prolific in the relationship between Bush's White House and the majority-Democratic Congress.

One would think this new bill would finally resolve the legality of the Bush administration's controversial domestic surveillance program. How could any self-respecting legislator approve it — let alone a Democrat? The answer appears to be fear, on both sides, especially Democratic, of appearing soft on terrorism.

The Dems have already spent — for better or for worse — so much political energy on symbolic jabs at the Bush administration on the subject of Iraq. But when it comes to something real, impacting, non-symbolic, and relevant, but by no means routine, they give George W. Bush the kind of victory he hoped for. The NSA wiretapping program — revealed in 2005 by The New York Times — has been ruled illegal again and again. It sidesteps an already troubling statute: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA, whose secret judges grant secret warrants for secret searches or wiretaps, secretly. The Bush administration was forced to but the NSA program under the domain of FISA in January, resulting in a still-secret ruling that the program was illegal and placed restrictions, or something of the sort.

But the word 'illegal' is not in Bush's dictionary...
This bill, signed into law by Bush this weekend, validates the illegal wiretapping program that he has even admitted exists (in his own special way, plus it gave him a chance to attack the so-called liberal news media). It has a decent reach too. One of the administration's excuses for its until-recently-illegal eavesdropping program was that the current FISA court only deals with old means of communication, not modern ones like email and calls over fiber optic cable. Naturally, instead of requesting the then Republican-controlled Congress update the legislation (especially for the post-9/11 world, for which which the administration claims the illegal secret programs are essential), the White House decided to launch its own secret programs — legal or otherwise.

Extension of power
So what's wrong with this law just updating FISA to keep up with the times? Well, keeping up with technology is not the only changes this law puts into place...

Just as before, the FISA court only issues the search warrant after the search/wiretap is carried out — troubling, I know. But this legislation goes a bit further by removing more power from the courts, albeit secret ones that almost never take issue with clandestine spying on a domestic level. Now the searches can be carried out at the discretion of the attorney general or intelligence director.

That is all the more troubling considering the political yes-men Bush keeps in his cabinet and staff, and the fact that Alberto Gonzales is known for politically-motivated (in)justice. The horror! And as if the fact that Gonzales can now order secret searches, legally this time, isn't enough to make you a bit queasy for the disregard of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, keep in mind that under this new law the AG and head of intelligence have plenty of discretionary leeway when it comes to ordering secret surveillance. Plus, it's all secret; I'd expect nothing less transparent from this administration.

The sorta good news
A positive is that the AG will indeed have his power checked to a certain extent by internal audits, which have proved their worth in the past. That aspect of oversight is one the White House doesn't like.

One sliver of good news is that because of lawsuit threats that only increase under this legislation, telecommunications companies and ISPs are less likely to be bullied into invading their customers' privacy under pressure by the Bush administration. In fact, as I understand it this law removes the shield the White House has desperately tried to use to protect the telcos, which is bad news for the industry. Still, Gonzales has less leeway to invade our phone and internet records, though more to wiretap if the conversation might (emphasis on might) be with someone outside of the United States. Nonetheless, the telcos are as scared as ever of being sued for disclosing private details of their customers, as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, as did the NYT (linked above):

The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.
...
In fact, pressure from the telecommunications companies on the Bush administration has apparently played a major hidden role in the political battle over the surveillance issue over the past few months.

Worse than FISA
FISA was scary enough — but maybe understandable and, to an extent, justifiable — but putting the secret search rights into Bush's political cronies (yes, that's what Gonzales, among others, is) is going more than a tad overboard. Justifying it with national security is puzzling. The least Congress could do is get rid of Alberto Gonzales, which would take a bipartisan effort; many, many Republicans are on board with the idea and the Democrats have been jabbing at it for months. This new law will last six months or so, ending in early February 2008.

Just to make this more confusing, this all ties back to the legality of the 'war on terror':

With minor exceptions, FISA authorizes electronic surveillance only upon certain specified showings, and only if approved by a court. The statute specifically allows for warrantless wartime domestic electronic surveillance—but only for the first fifteen days of a war. 50 U.S.C. § 1811. It makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by statute, id. § 1809; and it expressly establishes FISA and specified provisions of the federal criminal code (which govern wiretaps for criminal investigation) as the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance...may be conducted," 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added).[2]

The Department of Justice concedes that the NSA program was not authorized by any of the above provisions. It maintains, however, that the program did not violate existing law because Congress implicitly authorized the NSA program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). But the AUMF cannot reasonably be construed to implicitly authorize warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States during wartime, where Congress has expressly and specifically addressed that precise question in FISA and limited any such warrantless surveillance to the first fifteen days of war.

So even under FISA the NSA program is questionable. No wait, the White House says it doesn't follow FISA rules because of the 'war on terror' powers given to the president by Congress. No worries: this new law legalizes all that existing wiretapping junk and then some.


There's balance, it's just all tilted towards the White House, (and the only checks are top secret)
In the war against terrorism there's no need to bother with those pesky courts of Constitutional practice anymore, says the White House. Congress seems to have fallen in line with that logic. And this isn't the first time. Remember the horrendous Military Commissions Act of 2006?

Isn't Congress supposed to oversee the operations of the executive? Has everyone forgotten the fundamental idea of checks and balances? With this law Congress has only given more power to the bloated, unpopular, unitary executive Bush administration that a majority of it claims to hate. It also cuts away further at the notion that Americans have rights guaranteed to them by their constitutional, and that civil liberties come with those rights. Freedom trumps security — or at least it should. But in a police state as well as in a certain way modern America (though nothing near a police state), fear rules all.

Soft on civil liberties
If the Democrats are so afraid of being painted as weak on national security, than actually being weak on civil liberties is not a very good fix. Are they more worried of what their opponents think of them and will paint them as than what they are actually doing? That's just sad.

When it comes to the reaction to national security — GWOT and its consequences — the Democrats have been disappointing. Does what your opponents think of you matter more than doing the right thing? Enjoy your recess, Congress. Hopefully you'll come back to Capitol Hill with more brains and balls.

Balkinization offers brilliant legal analysis and opinion on the 'proposed FISA "fix"', as they call it.

This post is over 1,500 words. Eventually I will probably cut it into shorter, more specific posts then expanding them. So don't be alarmed if you see a post with parts of this essay in the future.

The differences between Brown and Bush

Brown might be pro-US, but he is no Blair.

The world media still seems to be buzzing about the meeting between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and US President George Bush. While they seemed to agree on many points, their disagreements — no matter how subtle; often on big issues — are coming to light. Bush views Iraq as the central front in the United States-led 'war on terror', whereas Brown sees Afghanistan as where the real battle against terror is and should be.

Iraq is no doubt full of terrorism, but only because of sectarian violence and foreign occupation. There are many factions, and so many battles. Terror networks via militia exist in both Afghanistan and Iraq and reach even to the national level (e.g. allegations of Saudi Arabia and Iran fueling some groups). But Afghanistan is the original site of the GWOT and the occupation there has the backing of the UN and NATO. Iraq, on the other hand, is much less straightforward and, contrasting with the reality of the occupation in Afghanistan, one can make the case that foreign soldiers being there does little in the fight against international terrorism.

Iraq is becoming a hotbed because of the war (blowback) — both the civil one and the one started in 2003 by the US and its allies; Afghanistan would be a terrorist haven regardless. Some view this blunt difference in priorities as Brown's way of appeasing Britain and wider Europe, vehemently opposed to the Iraq war.

Also on Iraq, Brown said that the United Kingdom will stick to plan and withdrawal troops regardless of whether the United States stays. However it does plan to stay there until the job is done. While the leaders are stressing unity, the fact that Britain intends to go its separate way from the US in Iraq is major. The British PM also opposes the language of a 'war' on terror and thinks a military fight against terrorism is not enough. I agree.

Another good move (away from Bush) Brown made was on terrorism. He rightly described terrorism as a "crime", compared to Bush's view that it is an act of pure evil and we must stop it even if we destroy the constitutional foundation of America in the progress and kill many. Brown is not the politicizer of terrorism his Atlantic counterpart is famous for being; I believed he handled the attempted attacks in Britain earlier this summer well, from both a political and a policy viewpoint. He also is right to be worried and want to take action on climate change; Bush couldn't care less.

In politics message, and thus language, is everything. Bush and Blair managed to illustrate their contrasting views pretty well without looking like they oppose each other absolutely.

[Bush and Brown's] words subtly illustrated, not policy differences, but their own policy priorities and approaches.

President Bush's language was, as always, full of phrases like "the war against extremists and radicals" in Iraq and around the world.

Prime Minister Brown deliberately described terrorism as a "crime", in an effort perhaps to demystify it and make it easier for everyone around the world, Muslims included, to oppose it.

And he tried to paint a more complex picture of Iraq by differentiating the factions - the Sunni/Shia split, the "involvement of Iran", the "large number of al-Qaeda terrorists".

However, as Mr Bush said, both agreed that this was "akin to the Cold War".
...
He called Afghanistan the "front line against terrorism," an honour normally assigned by Mr Bush to Iraq.

The British prime minister also referred a couple of times to the issue of "climate change". Mr Bush did not.

The point about Iraq and Afghanistan is that these are policies that Mr Brown inherited. This relationship has not yet been tested in the development of new ones.

The most difficult one could be Iran. Further sanctions are expected to be discussed at the UN in September but if there is no progress in getting Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, there could be pressure within the Bush administration for military action to be taken before the president leaves office in January 2009.

That would indeed be a test to see if the US and UK stayed together.

Brown also seems to be much more serious on humanitarian issues like Darfur than Bush, who limits his action on such issues to mere rhetoric (unless such issues might relate to his fight against terror, like in Somalia, then he'll even agree to indirectly work with/help the dreaded North Korea). Brown takes a special interest in world poverty and the plight of many in Africa; Bush cares only if terrorists may be involved, and even then the focus is not on the possible source of terrorism support: poverty, plight, and insecurity. Africa has plenty of that, and the Islamist extremists are taking advantage of that.

With all this talk of unity and strong ties, the leaders of America and the UK seem to have plenty of issues on which they disagree.

Course of action: some GWOT recommendations

This is the conclusion, for now, of "The War on Terror and the Fire Paradox" blog post series.

So how should America go about its 'war' against terrorism? The root cause of terrorism needs ample understanding, thus helping in the fight, or what could be described as a fight, more against the source of terrorism than its effects. An issue with counterterrorism efforts abroad is that cooperation — if not total coordination — with the local government at the site of the operation is needed, as well as with others who may be affected.

The 9/11 Commission, set up over a year after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States, gave a handful of major recommendations for an American course of action in the global battle against radical Islamic terrorism. "But the enemy is not just "terrorism," some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism — especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology." (p.362)

The 9/11 Commission Report also states education as a major preventative effort in states susceptible to breeding or attracting terrorism, as is economic development aid (pp.377-379). In addition, the report stresses a positive image of the United States in the Muslim world in order to allow the US to be seen as a legitimate and positive force, and not hinder its operations with governments wishing to help in battling extremism (pp.376-377).

Not only does the transnational flow of terrorists and their radical movements need to be halted, but a helpful combination of good PR (but not propaganda), economic agreements (but not unreasonable concessions), and open-channel diplomacy (but not a free-for-all) should be kept with states suspected of harboring — or even directly or indirectly supporting — terrorism. Countries like Syria, which is a major hub for insurgents entering Iraq, could help in the fight against terrorism if they were not shunned by the US. In Syria's case*, good relations with America could even bring the state further from more devious states like Iran. Lest we forget, terrorism is a problem for other governments too, even 'evil' ones. Most every state in the Middle East and North Africa fears terrorism of the radical Islamic persuasion.

The US cannot fight its war alone either. It needs to be willing to reach out to friends and foes alike, observing the greater good while still keeping on the ethical side of things. Guantanamo Bay does little in helping the war on terrorism, except in political ways for the Bush administration — e.g. when a suspect 'confesses' to some sort of scary-sounding terrorist plot, it raises political support for the White House. Gitmo is a negative symbol in the war on terror and looks bad from close allies like the United Kingdom as well as disgruntled Middle Easterners who already mad enough at America — things like Gitmo may well push them over the edge and radicalize the population, thus playing into the extremists' hands. Not to mention the fact it's a legal and human rights disgrace, an example of how freedom suffers at the hands of those who fight in the name of security (freedom v. security). These extremists resort to big measures to get public opinion on their side; the US is only helping them by providing perfect rallying cries: 'the imperial occupiers, who kill your brothers and bombed your village wish to harm us further', etc.

As Joseph Nye points out in a Foreign Affairs article from May/June 2004, you cannot just use military power in the 'war on terror' — perception matters*, whether in the eyes of allies or enemies. Allies must see the United States' foreign policy as legitimate, other must see it as non-threatening. Anti-Americanism is more serious than some in Washington think, and it’s high time to take actions to limit the resent against America.

References

Ferguson, Niall. Colossus: the Rise and Fall of the American Empire. New York: Penguin, 2004.

Ikenberry, G. John. “America’s Imperial Ambition”. Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct 2002.

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. “The Decline of America's Soft Power: Why Washington Should Worry”. Foreign Affairs May/June 2004.
---. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs, 2005.

United States. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report. By Thomas H. Kean, et al. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004.
* = a post from this blog

Bush is bad at excuses...

Deja vu, anyone?

President Bush is still in denial about the reality, in scientific as well as political realms. In this case, the denial is of the validity of his decision to stay in Iraq, and the conditions there. Al Qaeda as always proves a perfect scapegoat for when things go wrong (although they are no doubt inflaming the insurgency, alarmism and exploitation of people's fears of terrorism is not the way to go to rebut anti-Iraq war critics).

President Bush sought Tuesday to rebut critics who argue against a link between al-Qaida in Iraq and the larger terror network led by Osama bin Laden, issuing fresh warnings of possible attacks at home.

By emphasizing al-Qaida's growing presence and influence in Iraq, Bush again tried to reframe the war in the public's mind as a matter of protecting the United States.

Essentially he's saying what he has been saying all along: 'If you don't follow me and stick by my administration, the boogyman will come and get you and your children. Who, why, and how this terrorist will do that is secret, so I cannot tell you the specifics. Trust me, even when all rational thought and evidence is piled up against me... or else you're helping the terrorists win.'

See this post for more on Bush's flawed excuse for occupying Iraq. In my mind the only valid excuse left is 'to repair the mess we've created by invading and instituting poor policies' — not 'to finish what we started and take out the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 by combating them'. Wrong country; wrong mentality. The terrorists are there because of the insurgency, the insurgency exists because of a mixture of the inevitability of occupation and bad policies, as well as good ol' sectarian tensions.

Another high-ranking United States government official, Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, is in a different kind of denial. He denies that he pressured previous AG John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized at the time, to engage in illegal wiretapping of American civilians in 2004. Isn't it amazing how Gonzales is still in office, months after he was supposed to be gone?

The White House's 'state of denial' is alive and well — which is not a good thing.

'Special relationship' breakup imminent?

Britain's "special relationship" with the US looks like it's heading into another rough patch.

BBC News:

British concerns did not appear to "materially" affect US actions in its "war on terror", the UK's intelligence and security committee has said.

The committee, which reports to the prime minister, was probing possible UK involvement in rendition flights.

It said America's "lack of regard" for UK concerns had "serious implications" for future intelligence relations.

In response, the UK government said the countries' intelligence relationship was "close" and "must continue".

The committee said it had found no evidence that the UK was directly involved in rendition flights - the transportation of terror suspects to foreign prisons where they could face torture.

But Britain's security services had "inadvertently" helped in one case after the US ignored caveats placed on supplied information.

It looks like bad boy America is further corrupting its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic with its 'war on terror'. These 'extraordinary renditions' — in certain cases confirmed by the Bush administration — are legal black holes: the CIA places terror suspects in secret prisons. To do so it must transport them. It has been revealed that the UK is one of many European nations helping America in this controversial program, breaching international and national law even inadvertently so. As if the US's involvement wasn't enough in the many programs of the 'war on terror' that have tarnished its image; third parties are assisting in this mass disregard of human rights.

Under Tony Blair, the UK and US were quite close, especially in going to war in Iraq and engaging in a 'war' against terror. Steadily many Britons got fed up with the relationship their nation shared with America, leading some to call Blair Bush's 'poodle'. However with the arrival of Gordon Brown as the new prime minister relations have cooled, no matter how much Brown's administration denies it. There have been conflicting statements by high-ranking cabinet members about a change, or lack thereof, of the UK's foreign ties to the United States.

The Brown government's ultimate reaction to this new report might serve as an indicator of how much 'war on terror' cooperation with the US — or as some see it, exploitation by the US — Britain will tolerate. Will Gordon Brown and his foreign minister, David Miliband, move beyond the rhetoric and institute a fair but open relationship with America, or will they continue to insist things haven't changed. Things have changed and Brown must decide whether to try to continue the foreign policies of his predecessor or adapt to the new reality.

Another cop-out condemnation of torture

President Bush has signed "an executive order banning cruel treatment of terrorism suspects during interrogation", says the BBC.

Considering torture is already against the law — several laws in fact — this new order does little if any for helping America's tarnished image caused by its "war on terror". The administration will likely continue to turn a blind eye against operations deemed questionable in the area of human rights and will use this latest order as something to fall back on: 'the president has said he does not condone torture, he even made an executive order against it, so this case of "torture" is surely the case of a few bad apples'. Is this executive order, or EO, in fact a sort of admission that the White House has allowed torture to go on unabated? Probably not. But it has been known to use techniques and talk about them openly that it does not consider torture, but everyone else does, like waterboarding.

The damage is already done, and this latest cop-out by the Bush administration (see below) won't really alter the fact that the United States not only looks bad to the world, but will continue to act poorly, even when supposedly championing human rights, in the name of fighting terrorism. Innocents and terrorists alike will continue to be taken, detained, and treated unacceptably. The executive order still gives much authority for discretion to the relevant authorities to define which interrogation tactics are deemed "safe".

Here's what Marty Lederman over at Balkinization had to say about Bush's executive order on CIA torture:

The President has finally signed the Executive Order purportedly construing Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, as required by the Military Commissions Act (MCA). It is, in a word, worthless. Last month I surmised that the E.O. would be "very cryptic and uninformative, and that the public will not learn of what techniques our government is using and deeming not to be 'cruel treatment and torture.'"
...
Just as the details of the Army Field Manual are published and open to public debate, so, too, should be the legal limitations that our government has identified regarding the CIA's analogous activities. As it is, this hide-the-ball lawmaking is supremely cynical, and, after all these years of public debate, an insult to the public and to the Congress. It's not surprising, however.

Later in the post, he points out the flaws as well as the legal questions this order puts into play. If you want to learn more on the matter from someone who knows this topic well, see the above link.

Isn't it time for some public oversight of what is happening at Gitmo and elsewhere? Shouldn't the vagueness end and the 'government of the people' be honest with its people? Not all of that information is or should be 'top secret' and essential to be kept secret for national security purposes. Everyone can see through the hubris, and yet Congress limits itself to symbolic maneuvers when dealing with executive oversight.

By trivializing not only national security but human rights and civil liberties — like the right to privacy and a fair trial — and politicizing what's left, the Bush administration has made a mockery of American political values still weak from the dark ages of the Cold War and the liberty-restricting times preceding it. The Military Commissions Act was a terrible law. What's worse is that only its negative aspects have seen the light of day so far, and nothing seems to be stopping them.