The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    A difference.

    George W. Bush, former president. War criminal it has even been asserted at times. While individual tellings may differ in detail and specific focus, the point of these assertions usually revolve around a global network of secret prisons set up by Bush's national security apparatus - and the unfortunate actions that took place in them.

    As we all remember, in a post-9/11 frenzy, American security forces were grabbing detainees in droves on the vaguest of suspicions from all over the globe and moving them through Bush's hidden prisoner processing plants. By all accounts now exposed to the public, it is clear that many actions taken by US interrogators while sorting an onslaught of the newly incarcerated appear identical to those that have been called both war crimes and torture when used against American personnel in past conflicts. In the absence of any rational negation of apparent facts, at best the question becomes a case of splitting hairs - certainly not a place our nation which prides itself on being a beacon of democracy and honor should feel particularly comfortable.

    Take the case of Omar Khadr for example. Removed from the battlefield at 15 years old and placed in Bush's labyrinth of black prisons. No matter if one takes the view that young Omar was tortured ... or the view he was not ... the simple fact is he was 15 years old. I can only imagine what would go through the mind of a 15 year old in the middle of a battle - watching as everyone he knows fell dead one by one. Of all the reactions and decisions to make upon the capture of such a young person, I can not fathom the mindset that selected the course we took.

    Recently Omar Khadr left the military prison complex at Guantánamo Bay. He is now in the Canadian justice system and an environment with potential to provide resources that may steer him in a positive direction. Beyond this, it is now known he will be released in a finite period of time.

    Likewise in the case of David Hicks. Despite the flimsiest of evidence, he finally accepted a "conviction" in exchange for release - seemingly to allow the US government to save face (or perhaps more cynically, to avoid lawsuits). He is now free in Australia. It is difficult to imagine he doesn't still live with what happened in our prisons every day, but he is free, alive ... and moving forward. As are many other individuals who were graced with a visit to one or many of Bush's blacksite hotels.

    Throughout Obama's administration, the president has paid a price in the form of media histrionics at almost every turn in the (at times grudging) process these cases have followed in the post-Bush era. Regardless how one feels about Obama's focus on making results happen quickly, or perhaps even fairly, the wheels of what passes for justice in this modern world have been grinding and slowly tossing out bits of humanity held in a limbo of the Bush administration's purported crimes. And Obama has indeed absorbed media criticism for every transfer - apparently a terrible burden for the modern politician to bear.

    Therein lies the seed of a major difference between Bush and Obama. Bush never faced the political fallout associated with having sold a group of (at times randomly selected) detainees to the nation as admitted terrorists based on coerced confessions. He never had to ponder bringing them to trials that would, based on simple justice, see some prisoners acquitted. He left Obama with the question of how an individual can be set free after better than half the nation holds a gospel belief they are confirmed as terrorists ... at least without taking on an amazing downside political risk? Even worse, in today's environment this risk may hold true for any individual pulled from the global "battlefield" on which we play out our War on Terror, were they to go through American court proceedings.

    So, the system adapts. In the new era America doesn't typically arrest terrorists in the War On Terror; certainly not under any publicly disclosed American law. The risk is too great. The political cost too high. There is now a cleaner approach.

    And so it is today we are able to watch as many targets of Bush-era policies begin to collect the broken pieces of their lives and move forward, clearly damaged but alive. As with the Bush era, our current one too will eventually fade and America will move on to whatever comes next. Then perhaps the difference between Bush and Obama in this regard will become even more stark. While the policy is perhaps less prone to cause near-term political damage, the nature of mistakes now being made ensure an opportunity to move forward - as is slowly appearing for many caught in Bush-era blunders - will never exist for the victims of Obama's drone war excess. Humanity rendered to blood, dust and bone can never heal.

    Happy voting day.

    Comments

    Just to be clear, Khadr's "battlefield" was a house that NATO troops had surrounded and attacked. Here you can see Khadr's body lying under rubble before he was shot. His war crime is supposedly throwing a single hand grenade after all his colleagues were killed - seemingly unlikely from the position in the photo and available evidence:

     

    "Omar suffered blinding shrapnel wounds and severe injuries to the legs during the course of a U.S. bombardment that crippled him before the attack."

    The documents note that a soldier stood on top of Khadr's body before realizing someone was buried.

     

    But a bit of torture and fear can make for a good confession tape - here showing Khadr crying after being threatened with gang rape -  especially in a tribunal without regular defense protections:

    On October 22, 2008 it was revealed that the Prosecution had given the Defense team an incomplete version of Khadr's medical records five months earlier, and Parrish granted a delay citing the "consequences" of the decision for the prosecution.[179] In December, the Prosecution announced it was withdrawing its intended witness who was to testify that Khadr had confessed to the crimes in December 2004 during interrogation; ostensibly to "cover up" the abusive methods used to make the youth confess.[180]

    One aspect seems to have gotten overlooked in throwing out Hamdan: only war crimes can be prosecuted in a tribunal, and killing a soldier in battle, even if Khadr did it, is not a war crime. (2006 Military Commissions Act). In fact, it's kinda what combatants are expected to do to other combatants. What this means for all the rest of Gitmo inmates, well, no one's rushing to find out. Maybe by 2016 after we've left Afghanistan (inch'allah)


    And in tribute to Michael Moore, who I'm sorry got sidelined as too radical in our party's suicidal rush to be balanced and grownup - whenever Michael speaks, I learn something or think about something a new and better way. Here's a guy who volunteered to pay more taxes because he truly believes in government and our progressive way of life. Without Fahrenheit 911 and Sicko, I think we'd be in a much much worse situation in terms of trying to get humane progressive policy and government accountability as standards.

    Unlike 4 years ago, the country's no longer facing meltdown, with a Wall Street gun to our heads. Maybe this was as good as it could get, to sit here with a limited set of achievements. But Romney's still a reminder it can get a lot worse - oddly enough I'd become fairly complacent about Mitt until starting around July, he just showed himself to be worse and worse.

    And the side of Mitt that the media and unexplicably the Democrats failed to hone in on and repeat - 

    his actual Bain record

    his windfall holding from Delphi by holding the auto bailout hostage

    Yes, Newsweek & Huffpost did some reports, but think about how many times we heard about Seamus the dog, vs. actual details of relevant campaign & US policy issues?

    PS - Cenk Uygur weighs in on the #cynical-and-unimpressed-but-still-voting now trending on Facebook. Waiting for McKayla, my favorite existentialist.


    The facts are Omar was treated by the US for the wounds he received in the Khost battle in 2002 and is alive and well, Maher has his multi-million torture settlement to spend, and US Army medic Speer is dead, and has been for a decade.

    If you guys feel so bad about that, go to the tribal region of Pakistan and give your personal apologies to the Taliban Omar was hanging with in 2002.  The ones who signed him at 15, who use children as suicide bombers, shoot young girls in the head, and make bombs to blow people up by the job lot. Good luck with making it back alive.


    Sounds like you're working on our movie script, "Afghanistan: the Heroic Years". 

    Nevertheless, nice of you to callously dismiss our ridiculous torture and detainment with a "he deserved it" for a 15-year-old tortured and incarcerated by 30-year-olds/50-year-olds. It's one thing to shoot Khadr in a firefight - another to incarcerate him for 20 years for a killing he likely couldn't have done*. Can see how we're going to keep winning hearts and minds for the long-haul. Guess those Afghanis killed by the drunk soldier deserved it too - no use starting to play Sorry at this point in time.

    *"Alive and well" meaning he's eligible for parole in Canada next year after serving a decade at Gitmo, so hey, only 11 years in detention for being in a hot house, lucky him. Tell me how many other soldiers are sentenced to 20 years for throwing a single hand grenade in a firefight, presuming it's true?

    Do you believe all the Jessican Lynch and Pat Tillman press releases from the Pentagon?


    The 15 year old has not be incarcerated for 20 years. He made a bad decision in working for the Taliban. Fighting the US military is not adjudicated like football. The Pentagon may certainly mislead to their advantage, but the fact is the US Army medic did die, it's not a lie, and like it or not the kid was there, and was tagged for his death. He could have been left to die at the scene, but he wasn't.

    I do not believe the press releases on Lynch or Tillman, or the 900+ reasons Bush gave for going to war.

    I also noted in one of the links a complaint that the US Army medic was treated first after the Khost battle. Yeah, so what. In combat casualty care you always treat the guy who needs help the most first. Turns out he died anyway, and the 15 year old was treated and survived. There are a lot of bad events, where cruel or unfair things happen, when you start a war, it is inevitable.  That's why I support Obama in ending the wars.


    Excuse me, he was sentenced to 8 more years after being held 8, so total 16, and well be eligible in 2013, meaning total time served 13 years.

    His "working for the Taliban" was basically acting as a translator. Sure, he chose to go into a war zone, dumb 15-year-old. But it's almost certain from the photos (did you look?) he was unlikely to have thrown a hand grenade from lying face down underneath rubble, and even if he did - it was a NATO raid on a house in a war zone, not a raid on a crack house - soldiers typically don't go to jail for 11 years for responding within a firefight, do they?

    Hey, why not incarcerate the neighbors for 5 years for giving aid & refuge to the enemy?

    We had 8 years to figure out a better way to handle this - I don't mean apologizing to anyone - simply send him back to Canada and be done with it. But no, we have to show how absurd and arbitrary our military justice system can be.

    Anyone going to jail for a drone attack that wipes out 20 civilians? How about our gunship in Iraq that targeted civilians? Thought not. It's okay for trained US soldiers to make "bad decisions" from an armed helicopter, not 15-year-old lying on the floor of a hut during an attack. Guess it was a "bad decision" too for those Reuters reporters to be sitting in a jeep next to someone holding a gun in a warzone.

    You've earned your tough-on-terror wings.


    And your point is?

    I don't understand your posture here, when measured against the actions you so openly condone with vigor against Israeli civilians.  I distinctly remember how vehement your reaction was to my posting of a piece about a freed Palestinian female accomplice to a suicide attack on Israeli civilians, who was publicly extolling little Palestinian boys and girls to become martyrs.  I know you know exactly what I'm talking about here.  I just don't understand how your position can be reconciled, unless civilian Israeli life is cheaper than the lives of American military personnel in your view.  I hate it all.  What say you?  

     


    Don't know what you are talking about Bruce. I do recall mentioning the successful missile strike by Israel on the blind geriatric Hamas 'spiritual leader' in a wheel chair some years ago, as an unusual instance of the use of aerial ordnance. Remarking at the uniqueness of that incident doesn't mean I support Hamas. I fully believe Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens, it would help in that regard if Israel had a defined international border.


    It would not have been too difficult to treat that kid with decency, even if the Canadian government had no motivation to try to get him out of there. I've always disagreed with his treatment.

    (And really, the fact that he was found in a very aggressive part of Afghanistan makes little difference. He wasn't even from there.)


    As Willard so dramatically proclaimed in his (no doubt ghostwritten) book, it is unAmerican (capricious capitalization is the last refuge of the teabagger) to apologize. (or as The Stache would have it "suck on this!")

    About the former captives moving forward ... The McClatchy News Service published interviews with 66 former captives in 2008. The interviews were an important addition to the public record. Unfortunately McClatchy's excellent and insightful Carol Rosenberg wasn't involved, and Tom Lasseter, the senior reporter who wrote most of the articles seemed to lack the insight or empathy to understand what the men were telling him. A depressing fraction of those 66 men seemed to be deeply, clinically depressed. Understandable. General Geoffrey Miller made clear his intentions -- the captives were to be treated in a way that would crush their will. Sadly, many captives will never recover from this. Former captives in Afghanistan fear both Afghan security officials and the Taliban. There were two former captives Lasseter interviewed, whose Guantanamo transcripts I had read, who had run away from madrassas when they were teenagers. How did they end up in Afghanistan? It seemed clear to me, from their accounts, that they had been naive kids, seduced away from the madrassas by older men who promised them they could find them a role in Bollywood movies, but who instead became their pimps, and sold them to brothels in Afghanistan that catered to pederasts. PBS has broadcast a documentary "Dancing boys of Afghanistan", documenting how the sex trade in Afghanistan revolves around boys, not girls or women, and that most of these boys were essentially slaves, chattel. This went clear over Lasseter's head. One of the dirty secrets you can see when you read the transcripts from Guantanamo captives' annual reviews is that the officers who conducted those reviews were authorized to continue to detain men, even if it was determined they had really been innocent civilian bystanders, when they were captured, if they thought years of unjust detention, humiliation, brutality, and coercive interrogation, had radicalized these innocent men, and made them hate the USA. No, I am not making this up. I remember the first transcript where I noticed this. It was a transcript from 2005, and I thought the captive had fully and completely addressed the allegations that had been offered to justify his detention. When the Presiding Officer of his review board started to berate him, I thought he must be drunk -- or on drugs. This officer denounced this man, who had been detained in Guantanamo for four years at this point, because there were notations in his file where guards wrote that he had made "anti-American comments". But this was only the first transcript where an innocent man was having the fact that he had been detained NEXT TO dangerous men was being advanced as a valid justification for his continued detention.

    You need to just get over it. I could recommend a good therapist if you will post where you live. Maybe you should focus on the fact that Obama has kept 95% of my policies in force. ANY President must adopt a healthy dose of utilitarianism. That sometimes means harm to individuals. Let's say that fully half of the guys we swept off the battlefield, out of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. were innocent. Getting the half that were committed terrorists out of circulation and finding out what their plans were potentially saved thousands (or possibly millions if they had been trying to get some biological device or dirty bomb to use against us) of American lives. The biological/nuclear thing turned out to be nothing, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

    I talked with a lot of folks about this, including Democrats, and most felt that even George McGovern would have done basically the same thing.

    Now, if you want to talk about mistakes, yes, I made a bunch of real whoppers. But you have to find a way to move on.