The allegation by doctors with expertise in prison experimentation and torture that the Bush administration conducted “illegal and unethical human experimentation and research” on detainees while in CIA custody after 9/11 is certainly newsworthy. See this and this.
Specifically, Physicians for Human Rights – an international doctors’ organization – alleges that:
High-value detainees captured during the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” who were subjected to brutal torture techniques, were used as “guinea pigs” to gauge the effectiveness of various torture techniques, a practice that has raised troubling comparisons to Nazi-era human experimentation.
***
“Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the interrogations of detainees, collected and analyzed the results of [the] interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied to subsequent interrogations,” said the 27-page report, entitled “Experiments in Torture: Human Subject Research and Evidence of Experimentation in the ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation Program.” “Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and experimentation by health professionals on prisoners, which could violate accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law. These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
***
For example, CIA medical personnel obtained experimental research data by subjecting more than 25 detainees to individual and combined torture techniques, including sleep deprivation and stress positioning, as a way of understanding “whether one type of application over another would increase the subjects’ susceptibility to severe pain,” the report said, adding that the information derived from that research informed “subsequent [torture] practices.”
If the allegations are true, such experimentation would certainly violate the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva conventions, and the War Crimes Act of 1996.
Nuremberg Code
Among other things, the Nuremberg Code prohibits experimentation conducted without the voluntary consent of the subject. Voluntary consent means:
The person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
Moreover, the Code requires that the subject be allowed to stop the experiment at any time “if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.”
The Code also requires that “the experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.”
Here, the experimentation did not seek consent at any point. And – rather than limiting pain – the experimentation was specifically conducted as a way to determine how to maximize the pain the subject would experience.
Geneva Convention and War Crimes Act
The Geneva Conventions prohibit torture, mutilation or humiliating and degrading treatment. For example, the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; [or]
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
And the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty. Indeed, even the lawyers and other people who aided in the effort may be war criminals; see also this article, this one, and this press release.
The detainees were obviously subjected to mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, and humiliating and degrading treatment, and so both the Convention and the War Crimes Act were violated.
The Bigger Picture
But it is important to keep the medical experimentation story in context.
The bigger picture is that torture doesn’t work, it reduces our national security, and it is mainly used to extract false confessions and as a form of intimidation to squash dissent.
Don’t believe me?
Okay, then don’t read this (and whatever you do, don’t click through to look at the links!)
51 comments
Comments are closed.
Please let this lead to criminal prosecutions. For the sake of our collective grip on sanity..
And only weeks ago, the APA (American Psychiatric Association) re-iterated its inherent support of torture by asserting the good accomplished by their professionals who participate: http://rinf.com/alt-news/surveillance-big-brother/american-psychological-association-supports-torture/3621/
“Since 2005, the American Psychological Association (APA) has steadfastly asserted that psychologists participating in detainee interrogations protects detainees by helping to keep these interrogations “safe, legal, ethical, and effective.” Last week, the APA’s Ethics Director Stephen Behnke seized upon newly released portions of an official investigation of US detainee abuse, called the Church Report, as an opportunity to reinvigorate support for the APA policy of psychologist participation in interrogations.
In a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), The APA’s Dr. Behnke stated:
“In carefully reviewing the documents, we note that according to the information obtained by the ACLU, psychologists supporting interrogations ‘emphasized their separation from detainee medical care’, and that a psychologist who suspected abuse ‘recommended the interrogation not proceed and brought in medical personnel to evaluate the detainee.’ According to these documents, APA’s policy of engagement served the intended purpose: to stop interrogations that cross the bounds of ethical propriety.”
To give Dr. Behnke credit, he did acknowledge the abuses described in the newly released material as “abhorrent.” However, any unbiased “careful review” of the documents falls far short of supporting Dr. Behnke’s conclusion. Quite the contrary, the report raises new concerns about the roles of psychologists in US interrogations.”
How bizarre. It reminds me of the time in Texas where a deathrow inmate, who’d suffered a massive coronary before his the execution, was kept alive just so they could kill him legally at the officially appointed hour.
I would hope these individuals be barred from ever practicing medicine again. They are as dirty as the interrogators.
“In carefully reviewing the documents, we note that according to the information obtained by the ACLU, psychologists supporting interrogations ‘emphasized their separation from detainee medical care’, and that a psychologist who suspected abuse ‘recommended the interrogation not proceed and brought in medical personnel to evaluate the detainee.’ According to these documents, APA’s policy of engagement served the intended purpose: to stop interrogations that cross the bounds of ethical propriety.”
To give Dr. Behnke credit, he did acknowledge the abuses described in the newly released material as “abhorrent.”
Yeah, that doesn’t work once a professional cadre formally collaborates with fascism.
It’s meaningless to say a participating professional may have accidentally “stopped an interrogation” here or there. What’s important is the systematic imprimatur which gives normalizing cover to extreme behavior in the first place.
If a “psychologist” has to parse on a daily basis whether or not crimes against humanity are or are not technically being committed (and according to memos written by the likes of Yoo and Bybee!), that’s already a situation far beyond the bounds of human decency and what any decent person would call “professional ethics”.
And of course we know damn well that in practice the cadres would be under tremendous pressure to say “anything goes”, and would indeed be selected for that in the first place.
I’d say given how the APA has systematically supported the torture regime, we should in perpetuity view them as outlaws. Their “ethics” exist on the same level as those of MSM “journalists”.
A number of major players in the APA resigned from membership over this kind of policy statement, . Both the Psychiatric (American Psychiatric Association) and Social Work organizations (NASW) expressly reject this position.
I was unable to get many psychologists to be very interested in the policy, at least to the point of withdrawing support.
Why this crap is posted on this website is beyond me.
I feel like I’m watching Mel Gibson’s family in ‘Signs’. Here they sit with their tin foil helmets on…
Supreme law of the land, Article 7. GHW Bush submitted it. Jesse Helms voted it out of committee. But you don’t have the balls that real right wingers have. So civilized countries enforce it for you if you’re too much of a coward to take your medicine and go to jail. Good thing you don’t have even have whatever wussy courage it takes to torture helpless tied-up guys.
Okay, it’s no big secret. How about these organizations start publishing the names and faces of the actual people involved in administering and collaberating with the torture? Bet THAT will genertate media attention. Until that happens, all of these reports will simply be written off as more internet noise.
Names. Faces. Let’s see em. If it is real, then it is more important to expose then to be vague in the face of the risk of a lawsuit. Let ’em sue. Then the conversation will be public, and we all look forward to discovery.
I agree. Or at least hand it over to WikiLeaks.
And they criticize the black community for not snitching…
I sit on an IRB. I work with the regs surrounding institutional ethics on a regular basis. Torture is already bad enough as it is, but using torture to collect data is downright sociopathic. At least a soldier/interrogator could say to me, when torturing someone, that “I’m doing this for national security”, and I’d believe that they kind of believe what they are saying.
This is different. The data they are collecting isn’t “used for national security purposes”, it can only be used to make torture more effective. More painful, less bruising, so that detainees will talk easier. The “doctors” doing this, should it ever be investigated (it won’t), will go down saying that they were following orders. But I seem to remember that excuse surfacing elsewhere… Those justifying torture now will hopefully realize that they are hurting someone else as a means to an end, and make their life better later. I doubt it.
Anyone interested in this kind of thing should read 45 CFR 46 and the Belmont Report, published in reaction to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.
I’m assuming that DEATH (via drones) is more preferable than some
level of supposed torture. Also, it amazes me how much Bush-Cheney
stuff is coming out of the woodwork now that Obama’s record is blowing up.
I would think that after 8 years of every conceivable accusation against Bush and every liberal media person on the planet looking for things, that
something like this would have been brought up long before this. But, its all in the timing, isn’t it.
This is NOT a partisan issue. If you click through the last link and read everything linked there, you will see that CONSERVATIVE and liberal military and intelligence experts agree that torture doesn’t work and that it actually REDUCES national security.
And I don’t consider Obama off the hook just because he’s a Democrat.
Indeed, torture might still be continuing under his watch: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/can-nobel-prize-winner-obama-at-least.html
Cindy, if you follow this blog at all you’ll find equal opportunity critiques—very harsh, well deserved critiques of Obama. You won’t find many “tribe” members here. I think most recognize that the rule of law has broken down completely on a bipartisan basis, but there’s something your mom should have told you about two wrongs…
George, drop dead. I don’t believe you.
Yves, drop this idiot. This demeans you.
What is it that you don’t believe?
We can hope that those (someone, anyone) in a position to enforce legal sanctions will choose to do the right thing and try to stop this evil (torture and its normalization) that we Americans pay and have paid for with our tax dollars.
I agree with MP – GerogeW who is mysteriously absent from his primary hood, zero hedge (after his wild and unfounded BP oil spill posts), appears to have lost it.
could the American from this interview actually be GW (or a close relative)?
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/20106710195865856.html
Great retort Marco.
What was your security clearance level when you were in, how much did you see or was it on TV.
Skippy..so much bovine bias these day
Some sleeve named after what kids yell in swimming pools, no SCI, no accesses, just his ruff tuff opinion about choices he never ever had to make and international norms he never even had to learn about, in his safe little coward’s life.
Yes, some people can’t handle the reality. If they run into it, they blow a fuse.
Dr. Mengele I presume?
Recall reading several years ago that Bush bought a 25,000 acre in the tri border area of Brazil-Paraguay-Argentina
Now maybe we know why
Paging American Exceptionalism….
Paging American Exceptionalism….
I’m sorry sir. American Exceptionalism left the building with Privatize Gains, Socialize Losses and the Draft Dodger War Criminals.
Torture does work. But the point of torture is not to ‘gain information’. It is to intimidate local populations into submission as the word gets out on the street.
In the case of last president, there may have been personal fetishes involved , as well. We can’t know for sure.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s not for nothing that old-time torture-executions (I recall how the Marquis de Sade describes the execution of a would-be assassin of Louis XV in Peter Brooks’s “Marat Sade”.) were public affairs. The shakier your hold on things, the more the populace must be terrorized into submission.
It’s ironic that we’ve introduced state terror to combat private terror (nationalization?). I’d rather have the rag-tag latter than the efficiency of the former.
Didn’t we execute Germans at Nuremburg for less than this? Doesn’t Israel still pursue aged former camp guards and the like who did no more than this?
I can think of some immediate reasons why this allegation deserves a fair hearing and for why such allegations are posted on /this/ blog.
1. These are human rights violations and morally reprehensible.
2. As there is a moral hazard wrt. the handling of the current financial crisis, there is a moral hazard wrt. achieving political goals through torture.
3. These types of actions, punishable when the perpetrator is an individual/citizen are all the more sinister when they achieve acceptance because they are committed by national agencies.
4. National agencies function for our benefit, in our name. Ignorance is no excuse– our elected officials need to be held responsible.
5. As in the financial crisis torture is carefully hidden, obscured by justifications both moral and operational, but these actions have real effects. These effects need to be highlighted and discussed in public.
I think if Bush ever actually moves to South America, he’d be dispatched by a few dozen homebuilt cruise missiles. He’s safer in Dallas. Actually, he’d probably be more likely to be arrested and prosecuted in any other country of the world that here.
LAWS!!!!!!
HAHAHAHA…
they are not relevant to Bush…
or Obama.
George Washington thinks that YOU (and definitely I) are brain-dead, mouth-breathing morons.
Otherwise, why not mention what the alleged experiments actually were? Why leave such a crucial bit of info out of the post?
By leaving out the details, GW can sensationalize the matter and the let the useful idiot commenters take care of the rest.
Here are the alleged experiments:
1. Using salt water in the water-boarding.
2. Sleep deprivation.
No doubt: These are serious issues which need to be addressed. As a country, we clearly need agreement on what constitutes torture.
But GW is sensationalizing the important matter and in doing so, marginalizing it.
“BUSH SANCTIONED EXPERIMENTS!” [It’s as if the President of the United States led a conspiracy to perform “experiments” on human beings…as if there was some diabolical plan to determine whether or not a person can sleep after getting his eyelids ripped off.]
If this keeps up, then all people who are concerned about whether or not there was torture will be labeled as dim witted conspiracy types, “who think Bush was injecting people with lighter fluid and setting them on fire.”
Now now DD these things grow in darkness and shadows and fog
Sunlight is the answer
Why any torture AT ALL?
“Who authorized putting him on pain medication?”
duncan’s just another torture coward acting ruff and tuff and lying too
Further reading for the just who abhor all torture:
http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz06072010.html
Too often it is the case that ‘right-wing” business people support “right-wing” policies by reflex.
This is a brain attribute. Right wing “business people” will naturally worship an authority structure that rewards “the hard workin’ people that made this country great, unlike ‘those people’ who live off of welfare”.
It’s the same as socialists (progressives, liberals, whatever) worshiping at the alter of big-government.
The dumbasses on each “side” worships their own smart amoral scumbags and loath the other side’s smart amoral scumbags. What else is new?
I think your dualism, like your characterization of American political thought, too simplistic.
It also seems that you think that the physical state of the brain in some way maps or corresponds to the character of a person’s political thinking.
By what mechanism?
What evidence do you have to make any such sweeping statements, that people’s politics, have something to do with the state of their brain’s chemistry?
That brain activity in some way correpond to thought says nothing at all about politics.
Dissidents = mentally ill?
Where have we heard that line of reasoning before?
People who are debating whether or not there was torture ARE dim-witted.
By which I meant that we did torture, in case that wasn’t clear.
The argument is whether torturing people that aren’t Americans is really torture or just tormenting “those people”. There’s a huge difference to a person that can easily see other humans in an us-vs-them contexts.
Above in the daily links I stuck down a comment to the effect that.. we have NOT YET taken a long hard look at the two world wars, and the questions that they open up about the place we are at in our CIVILIZATION, right now.
The place we have been at since the beginning of the industrial revolution, notably, at least.
One of my friends, who is a knowledgeable history teacher makes a nice parallel between the invention of Chicago cattle lots/feeding pens/slaughter houses and the Nazi operation.
We are still laboring under some serious misconceptions about the Nazi industrialization of death, and what it means to us RIGHT NOW.
And we are still laboring under some serious misconceptions about the PERVERSION of a certain scientific method in the creation of a human… OBJECT.
We can stick all the laws, regulations, all the prosecution, the trials we want into place in our incredibly… NAIVE attempt to consider that the overwhelming responsibility for what’s going on is an INDIVIDUAL ONE.
Don’t get me wrong. You would be hard put to find somebody who believes as much in the VALUE of an IRREPLACEABLE INDIVIDUAL as I do.
But… IF/WHEN you TRULY believe in this value.. you work towards creating a SOCIAL BODY where the individual can flourish.
We are living as little atoms in a world where the individual is under tremendous pressure to disappear in the sea of the mass. ONE MORE incredible paradox.
And… the ideas of our ancestors are largely responsible for creating this world, which is playing our before our eyes.
We need to be putting our money and our mouths… elsewhere, and not in the criminal justice/legislation solution to these problems.
The above solutions are the result of… naive and very wishful thinking.
And a generalized RAGE to punish. All over the political spectrum.
One last thing.
I am continually amazed at the attention human rights violations on FOREIGNERS, in Guantanamo, or elsewhere, rightfully gleans. There is almost no outrage over the innumerable human rights violations perpetrated on American citizens within the continental United States, although many people are aware/should be aware that empire has been exporting its penitentiary INDUSTRY all over the planet… and that that industry… was perfected WITHIN the continental United States BEFORE exportation..
I clicked on the links as asked and they demonstrate that this is nonsense.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If one accepts the posit of the events as presented, that’s fine (I don’t but will remain open to presented evidence).
The analysis that follows the presentation of the facts is either deliberately misleading or stupid.
The Nuremburg code is a set of research principles that have no force of law or anything else.
The link for the Geneva conventions does not bring one to the Geneva conventions (commonly recogized around the world along with the Hague conventions as the treaties that govern behavior in war) but instead to a UN convention that the US has never ratified. By using the term “Geneva Conventions” you mislead and obfusticate – which appears to be your purpose.
The war crimes act does, in fact address violations of the Geneva conventions – those that are generally referred to when speaking to the laws of war – NOT the one referred to here.
I find great economic / finance info on these blogs. I find great info exchange and good fact checking.
Why do good authors accept and republish this drivel?
“The link for the Geneva conventions does not bring one to the Geneva conventions (commonly recogized around the world along with the Hague conventions as the treaties that govern behavior in war)”.
Fixed the link, thank you.
Thanks George. You fixed the link but the quotes are still from the other document. So the line of reasoning still doesn’t work. It’s still drivel.
You do a lot of interesting work. But it’s sloppy and comes out as drivel.
And it cheapens this and other blogs that quote it.
I quoted from Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
My mistake, you did.
That said, it’s still drivel. Without addressing what constitutes a protected person, as the Geneva conventions carefully do, you are dodging the crux of problem.
Ah, yes, some people are more equal than others; if you read it a certain way some “humans” may be safely classified as non-persons. Imperial citizens must not tortured, only barbarians.
Got to agree with the fascist authority worshipers on this one. If you don’t want the site to become a political flame-fest then it will be best to stick to articles that are politically-economic in nature.
People do no choose their political affiliation. Their brain chemistry chooses it for them. People are NOT socialist (liberal progressive, whatever) or fascists (conservative) or libertarian because they choose it. They are socialist because they are guilt-ridden authority-worshipers, fascists because they are mean authority-worshipers , and libertarian because they are semi-autistic skeptics. These are brain functions, NOT choices.
Americans have been advocating and ridiculing all three political positions for 50 years now. There is NO POINT in discussing these positions. A guilt-ridden liberal socialist authority worshiper will NEVER agree with a mean fascist authority worshiper and the semi-autistic libertarian can’t comprehend either.
If you want the site to be economics, then non-economic political topics need to be omitted.
First off, kudos for siding with the fascists!
I rarely get to question someone who knows the motivations behind all peoples’ political positions -certainly neuroscience has not come that far yet- so excuse me if I seem a little giddy and occasionally reach for your clothes for just a bit of the magic but…
You left some (marginal) political positions out. Who are anarchists, communists, and the part of the population that pays no attention to politics at all?
Also, isn’t there a pretty big difference between socialists and liberal progressives? One group wants to abolish capitalism completely and the other wants to make capitalism function more equitably.
I’m also curious whether Keynesians, Friedmanites, etc. chose their positions or if their brain chemistry did it for them?
I agree with you: libertarians are the worst, except of course if they’re libertarian socialists; I mean guilt-ridden skeptics or semi-autistic authority-worshippers.
All that said, just skip the posts that are non-economic and let Yves run this blog they way she wants to. I like it.
Jeeez, It was Yves that was complaining yesterday about the discourse (lately) in the blog (and it’s slow decent into a pissing contest – I would assume), I’m just offering my opinion as to a solution (I’m perfectly happy to argue with anybody; pointless arguing is a fantastic time-waster). The more non-economic politics there is the more pissing there has to be, as there’s never been a recorded case of anybody changing their mind based on a political “discussion”.
Regarding the rest of the “isms”, sorry they are pigments of their own imagination.
You’ve got the guilt-ridden/mean people on the X axis (left to right), and the authority worshippers/skeptical people on the Y axis (top to bottom). That means you get 4 political flavors, a Cartesian grid. You can superimpose this on Jesse’s political circle. You can also superimpose an upside-down pyramid on Jesse’s political circle representing the human political distribution and the rough number of authority-worshiping dumbasses. Together, all three explain 10000 years of humans killing each-other over nothing but brain-chemistry.
If you want to have a scoop of fascism and a scoop of socialism, that’s fine with me. Doesn’t mean it’s going to taste very good.
“The more non-economic politics there is the more pissing there has to be, as there’s never been a recorded case of anybody changing their mind based on a political ‘discussion’.”
I disagree. The first part of your sentence posits more politics = “more pissing” because of an imaginary record of political discussions. My opinion as to a solution to the poor blog discourse is to encourage better discourse when discussing political topics not to throw our hands up in the air and say no more political topics. I’ve had many political discussions that weren’t “pissing contests,” when everyone involved tried to find common ground with one another. I don’t know where the records are kept that show no one has ever changed their mind because of a political discussion but if they are found I should be written down as an instance of when it did happen.
“Together, all three explain [Cartesian grid, Jesse’s circle, upside down pyramid] 10000 years of humans killing each-other over nothing but brain-chemistry.”
I agree that sometimes people kill one another for political positions but I don’t think the science has reached a consensus definitively proving political positions are the outcome solely of brain chemistry. I could be completely wrong, do you have any links? If there is a solid connection then brain chemistry would also have a pre-determining effect on economists, as the economic is political, and there would be “NO POINT in discussing these [economic] positions” either.
“If you want to have a scoop of fascism and a scoop of socialism, that’s fine with me. Doesn’t mean it’s going to taste very good.”
I didn’t reveal my position but I agree that wouldn’t taste very good.
Turning to the post topic, I don’t find it very shocking. Bush committed war crimes; most heads of state do. This is one more example of those with power abusing it.
Good to read from you again. Seen from Europe: Since your new administration came around, I have only hear Mrs Clinton suggesting last year that maybe your country should sign the Rome Statute (treaty) in relation to the International Criminal Court, a signature your former president would not sign because he intended to cover up
on the crimes of his father this before the cover-up and blockage of the Gladstone report. Why is a former constitutionalist not keeping to his word ?
You are well aware of the number of trials the A.C.L.U has fought and is fighting just for the Gitmo detaineed. I left
it when they obtained partial disclosure of the Bagram detainees, Bagram where the same kind of torture is enforced
( the Red Cross is not even allowed to access the premises )
Somebody with your sense of ethics and talent for writing and putting the pieces of the puzzle together should maybe consider writing a book to make a nation aware ( I just learned that Daniel Estulin, the investigation journalist
on the Bilderberg trail has sold over a million copies worldwide of his two books, he was recently testifying in front of the European parliament on June 1 a few days before
their annual meeting ). Just sayin’..
dont you know that they have been doing this to prisoners in the federal BOP system for decades? the doctors are from the Navy and they start by taking dna samples and forcing an unwanted cheast xray on all prisioners, young or old, healthy or sick. the xray machines are old and its just a way to use up radiation on the prisoners. sleep deprivation is common; Puerto Rican activists in the BOP are awakened every 30 minutes and subjected to other forms of torture that you could not even imagine. Those prisoners that are low risk and who become sick are discharged before their sentances are finished so the government will not have to provide health care to them. The food given is mostly expired military rations of questionable health. probably the scariest thing I ever saw as a friend’s friend who was in one of these BOP federal prisons. he was a drug dealer extradited from south american to stand trial but apparantly he knew too much about the us military’s involvment in his cartel he was uncooperative with the fbi. one weekend when i went to visit my friend his friend was walking around like a zombie. i asked what happened to him and my friend said they took him away and when he came back his head was shaved and he had a sutures in his scalp. they had operated on his brain even though he had no medial issues. the hair gew back and eventually they ruled he was insane and he was put in an asylum. this was in 1989.
the whole concept of brain chemistry is a novel one. maybe i could inject some chemical into the nuts to “correct” their “chemistry.” lol. that is a rich area for comment, no doubt.
that Bush Obama et al are complicit is obvious. i do wish some details about who did what would hit the press. i doubt the Press would publish it though.
the Press is just another part of the Problem. lol. i always hear St. Ronnie’s comment, “Government is the Problem, not the Solution,” when i see lines similar to it. I don’t think we as Americans are anywhere near able to face the reality we need to. to think we American accused the Germans of being inhuman in their actions.
what goes around really does come around.
i would love to see some examples of what was done, but mostly i would love to torture Yoo and Bybee, for starters. so, maybe i am not the right one to throw stones.
i am just so appalled and aggrieved as an American to have my country stained by such “apes” calling themselves Americans.
I definitely adore Mel Gibson for acting so great in Mad Max!