Free Speech Has Been Destroyed

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment for 1.21.10

Full text:

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on the Supreme Court's ruling today in the case titled "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission."

On the cold morning of Friday, March 6th, 1857, a very old man who was born just eight months and thirteen days after the Declaration of Independence was adopted; a man who was married to the sister of the man who wrote "The Star Spangled Banner;" a man who was enlightened enough to have freed his own slaves and given pensions to the ones who had become too old to work read aloud, in a reed-thin voice, a very long document.

In it, he ruled on a legal case involving a slave, brought by his owner to live in a free state; yet to remain a slave.

The slave sought his freedom, and sued. And looking back over legal precedent, and the Constitution, and the America in which it was created, this judge ruled that no black man could ever be considered an actual citizen of the United States.

"They had for more than a century before been, regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

The case, of course, was Dred Scott. The old man was the fifth Chief Justice of the United States of America, Roger Brooke Tawney. And the outcome, he believed, would be to remove the burning question of the abolition of slavery from the political arena for once and for all.

The outcome, in fact, was the Civil War. No American ever made a single bigger misjudgment. No American ever carried the responsibility for the deaths and suffering of more Americans. No American ever was more quickly vilified. Within four years Chief Justice Tawney's rulings were being ignored in the South and the North.

Within five, President Lincoln at minimum contemplated arresting him. Within seven, he died, in poverty, while still Chief Justice. Within eight, Congress had voted to not place a bust of him alongside those of the other former Chief Justices.

But good news tonight, Roger B. Tawney is off the hook.

Today, the Supreme Court, of Chief Justice John Roberts, in a decision that might actually have more dire implications than "Dred Scott v Sandford," declared that because of the alchemy of its 19th Century predecessors in deciding that corporations had all the rights of people, any restrictions on how these corporate-beings spend their money on political advertising, are unconstitutional.

In short, the first amendment — free speech for persons — which went into affect in 1791, applies to corporations, which were not recognized as the equivalents of persons until 1886. In short, there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power to decide our elections.

None. They can spend all the money they want. And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office from President to head of the Visiting Nurse Service.

And if senators and congressmen and governors and mayors and councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and re-election to office soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide the laws.

It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up, no matter whether you are conservative or liberal, it is now legal. Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold, no actual citizens required in the campaign-fund-raising process.

And the entirely bought and sold politicians, can change any laws. And any legal defense you can structure now, can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now.

And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November, or two years from now, can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014, or 2016, or 2018.

Mentioning Lincoln's supposed ruminations about arresting Roger B. Tawney, he didn't say the original of this, but what the hell:

Right now, you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts this will change. Unless this mortal blow is somehow undone, within ten years, every politician in this country will be a prostitute.

And now let's contemplate what that perfectly symmetrical, money-driven world might look like. Be prepared, first, for laws criminalizing or at least neutering unions. In today's Court Decision, they are the weaker of the non-human sisters unfettered by the Court. So, like in ancient Rome or medieval England, they will necessarily be strangled by the stronger sibling, the corporations, so they pose no further threat to the Corporations' total control of our political system.

Be prepared, then, for the reduction of taxes for the wealth, and for the corporations, and the elimination of the social safety nets for everybody else, because money spent on the poor means less money left for the corporations.

Be prepared, then, for wars sold as the "new products" which Andy Card once described them as, year-after-year, as if they were new Fox Reality Shows, because Military Industrial Complex Corporations are still corporations. Be prepared, then, for the ban on same-sex marriage, on abortion, on evolution, on separation of church and state. The most politically agitated group of citizens left are the evangelicals, throw them some red meat to feed their holier-than-thou rationalizations, and they won't care what else you do to this corporate nation.

Be prepared, then, for racial and religious profiling, because you've got to blame somebody for all the reductions in domestic spending and civil liberties, just to make sure the agitators against the United Corporate States of America are kept unheard.

Be prepared for those poor dumb manipulated bastards, the Tea Partiers, to have a glorious few years as the front men as the corporations that bankroll them slowly unroll their total control of our political system. And then be prepared to watch them be banished, maybe outlawed, when a few of the brighter ones suddenly realize that the corporations have made them the Judas Goats of American Freedom.

And be prepared, then, for the bank reforms that President Obama has just this day vowed to enable, to be rolled back by his successor purchased by the banks, with the money President Bush gave them his successor, presumably President Palin, because if you need a friendly face of fascism, you might as well get one that can wink, and if you need a tool of whichever large industries buy her first, you might as well get somebody who lives up to that word "tool."

Be prepared for the little changes, too. If there are any small towns left to take-over, Wal-Mart can now soften them up with carpet advertising for their Wal-Mart town council candidates, brought to you by Wal-Mart.

Be prepared for the Richard Mellon Scaifes to drop such inefficiencies as vanity newspapers and simply buy and install their own city governments in the Pittsburghs. Be prepared for the personally wealthy men like John Kerry to become the paupers of the Senate, or the ones like Mike Bloomberg not even surviving the primary against Halliburton's choice for Mayor of New York City.

Be prepared for the end of what you're watching now. I don't just mean me, or this program, or this network. I mean all the independent news organizations, and the propagandists like Fox for that matter, because Fox inflames people against the state, and after today's ruling, the corporations will only need a few more years of inflaming people, before the message suddenly shifts to "everything's great."

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh don't even realize it: today, John Roberts just cut their throats too. So, with critics silenced or bought off, and even the town assessor who lives next door to you elected to office with campaign funds 99.9 percent drawn from corporate coffers — what are you going to do about it? The Internet!

The Internet? Ask them about the Internet in China. Kiss net neutrality goodbye. Kiss whatever right to privacy you think you currently have, goodbye. And anyway, what are you going to complain about, if you don't even know it happened? In the new world unveiled this morning by John Roberts, who stops Rupert Murdoch from buying the Associated Press?

This decision, which in mythology would rank somewhere between "The Bottomless Pit" and "The Opening Of Pandora's Box," got next to no coverage in the right-wing media today, almost nothing in the middle, and a lot less than necessary on the left.

The right wing won't even tell their constituents that they are being sold into bondage alongside the rest of us. And why should they? For them, the start of this will be wonderful.

The Republicans, Conservatives, Joe Liebermans, and Tea Partiers are in the front aisle at the political prostitution store. They are specially discounted old favorites for their Corporate Masters. Like the first years of irreversible climate change, for the conservatives the previously cold winter will grow delightfully warm. Only later will it be hot. Then unbearable. Then flames.

And the conservatives will burn with the rest of us. And they'll never know it happened. So, what are you going to do about it? Turn to free speech advocates? These were the free speech advocates! The lawyer for that Humunculous who filed this suit, Dave Bossie, is Floyd Abrams.

Floyd Abrams, who has spent his life defending American freedoms, especially freedom of speech. Apparently this life was spent this way in order to guarantee that when it really counted, he could help the corporations destroy free speech.

His argument, translated from self-satisfied legal jargon, is that as a function of the First Amendment, you must allow for the raping and pillaging of the First Amendment, by people who can buy the First Amendment.

He will go down in the history books as the Quisling of freedom of speech in this country. That is if the corporations who now buy the school boards which decide which history books get printed, approve. If there are still history books. So, what are you going to do about it?

Russ Feingold told me today there might yet be ways to work around this, to restrict corporate governance, and how corporations make and spend their money. I pointed out that any such legislation, even if it somehow sneaked past the last U.S. Senate not funded by a generous gift from the Chubb Group would eventually wind up in front of a Supreme Court, and whether or not John Roberts is still at its head would be irrelevant.

The next nine men and women on the Supreme Court will get there not because of their judgement nor even their politics. They will get there because they were appointed by purchased presidents and confirmed by purchased Senators.

This is what John Roberts did today. This is a Supreme Court-sanctioned murder of what little actual Democracy is left in this Democracy. It is government of the people by the corporations for the corporations. It is the Dark Ages. It is our Dred Scott. I would suggest a revolution but a revolution against the corporations? The corporations that make all the guns and the bullets?

Maybe it won't be this bad. Maybe the corporations legally defined as human beings, but without the pesky occasional human attributes of conscience and compassion maybe when handed the only keys to the electoral machine, they will simply not re-design America in their own corporate image.

But let me leave you with this final question: After today who's going to stop them?

The Chickpea to my Atticus

"Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patience nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? Nihilne te nocturnum praesidium Palati, nihil urbis vigiliae, nihil timor populi, nihil concursus bonorum omnium, nihil hic munitissimus habendi senatus locus, nihil horum ora voltusque moverunt?"
-Cicero





Though dramatic, I think the comparison bears scrutiny. When I was a student-lad, I had chills the first time I translated Cicero's attacks on Catiline. Similar chills to what I feel everytime Olbermann delivers a Special Comment. This one more than most. Who can doubt mere words, when heard them spoke thus?

Keith's Back

Vacation's over, and Olbermann has brought us a stunner. Tonight, his Special Comment on Health Care Reform and "Blue Dog Democrats."

Just watch.

Habease whatnow?

My facebook friends made me so happy a few years ago when they were sending me invitations to join all sorts of groups about bringing back Habeas Corpus from the slavering jaws of the Bush administration. Then we elected Obama and everyone I know decided they didn't give a damn about torture, as long as the people were probably radical Islamists (nevermind that we tortured *children* at Gitmo), and as long as we had a smoothtalking guy trying to steer us out of an economic downturn (we can call it a depression, and I do, but make no mistake: any president, great or small, would have done most of what Obama is now doing in regards to the financial crisis. Herbert Hoover was a one-off, and we have too big and too advanced of a country to let our financial system just collapse without doing anything. I repeat, by hook or by crook, any new president would have eventually got us out of this crisis, so put away the pink sunglasses).

Do you guys still care about Habeas Corpus?

Because Obama does not. In a speech couched in all the trappings of glorifying the Rule Of Law, Obama announced his intentions to go Bush one more with regard to the, perhaps permanent, illegal detention of prisoners without trial.

Is it hip to hate our rights now? Is will.i.am going to come out with a sweeping youtube hit about how little we need to have rights when our president is so cool and suave?

I tread a fine line here. I was as much for Obama as anyone, and perhaps the loudest advocate in my circle of friends. With a motto like 'no better friend, no worse enemy,' perhaps I should have been a marine, but there's no shame in waking up now. Obama isn't who we thought he was. We gave him a mandate which he is now using to beat us.

In a political system based so much on opinion polls, we still have some power long after the final vote has been cast. Obama certainly seems as impeachable as Bush, perhaps more so because he has added new crimes to the ones he is now retroactively pardoning his previous administration for, but that's not even what I'm calling for. If some Republicans get their hackles up enough to attempt such a thing, I'd be the first one to switch my political allegiance. But that is still not what I am saying.

I'm saying: don't like the guy. Show it if you take an opinion poll. Talk to other people about what you think he is doing. Mobilize the grand army of opinion against his actions and prove that we don't deserve exactly what is happening to us. Yes we can. Show Obama that, naive we may be, but we aren't equal parts forgiving. Yes we can. Assure him that if he wants his second term, he's got to make a change. Yes we can. For all his moral and ethical faults, Obama cares about what you think of him. Make him afraid that you've turned against him. Yes we can.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been
anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible
odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't
try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a
simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can.

He made us believe it once. Let us prove him right beyond his wildest expectations and deepest, darkest nightmares. Yes we can. Remember that on November 4th we were all patriots with a goal in mind, and that we are still a long way from realizing it. Yes we can.

Let's make him regret ever showing us the power of those three simple words: Yes we can.

Leaked ICRC Report

The International Committee of the Red Cross report that was leaked this week is not really all that lengthy. It comes in at 41 pages, is fairly readable, and even seems to use size 14 type. However, few people I know will ever read it. It would probably be sent as an attached file if emailed, and it would receive a "tl:dr" tag on most message boards. Neither can it be twittered or text-messaged. In short: you can be told it exists, but you'll have to go looking for it.

Until now!

Over the next several days I am going to be posting the full text of it here. A couple of notes, however, before reading: I am going to embolden the text wherever I consider it relevant. Don't feel guilty for skipping the plain text bits (you'll already be in the top 99.9th percentile for just reading the juicy sections). All other emphasis will likely be mine, except where otherwise noted. And finally, while I will do my best to limit unpacking a lot of this for you, I may from time to time provide some running commentary, clearly labeled as such. It is my sincere hope, though, that the report will speak for itself.

Begin.

INTRODUCTION

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has consistently expressed its grave concern over the humanitarian consequences and legal implications of the practice by the United States (US) authorities of holding persons in undisclosed detention in the context of the fight against terrorism1. In particular, the ICRC has under-scored the risk of ill-treatment, the lack of contact with the outside world as a result of being held incommunicado, the lack of a legal framework, and the direct effects of such treatment and conditions on the persons held in undisclosed detention and on their families.

The ICRC made its first written interventions to the US authorities in 2002, requesting information on the whereabouts of persons allegedly held under US authority in the context of the fight against terrorism. Since then, it has made regular written and oral interventions to the US authorities on the issue of undisclosed detention (see Annex 2). In particular, the ICRC transmitted two reports on undisclosed detention on 18 November 2004 and 18 April 2006 respectively which consolidated the information previously transmitted2 and included more recent allegations of undisclosed locations, hidden detainees and third country detention. Both reports annexed a non-exhaustive nominal list of persons allegedly held in undisclosed detention by the US authorities3. Despite repeated requests at various levels of the US Government (USG), the ICRC has not received a response to most of these written interventions. The main written response by the US authorities is the Note Verbale of 8 June 2005 which responds to three earlier written interventions4. The US authorities have never responded to the two ICRC consolidated reports.

On 6 September 2006, President Bush publicly announced that fourteen “high value” detainees had been transferred from the High Value Detainee Program run by the Central Intelligence Agency (hereafter CIA detention program) to the custody of the Department of Defense in Guantanamo Bay Internment Facility (hereafter Guantanamo). The fourteen detainees (hereafter the fourteen) were reportedly held in the CIA detention program from the time of their arrest, or shortly thereafter, until their arrival in Guantanamo5. Throughout their time in CIA custody—which ranges from 16 months to almost four and a half years—these persons were held in undisclosed detention. Prior to this public announcement, the ICRC had never been informed by the US authorities of the existence of the CIA detention program, nor of the presence in US custody of the fourteen. This is despite the fact that thirteen of the fourteen had been included in the above mentioned ICRC written requests to the US authorities concerning undisclosed detention, the first of which were made in January 20036. The remaining detainee was not known to the ICRC.

The ICRC was granted access to the fourteen in Guantanamo, and met with each of them in private for the first time from 6 to 11 October 2006.

The ICRC regards the confirmation of the present whereabouts of the fourteen by the US authorities, and the subsequent access granted to the ICRC, as positive steps. However, it deplores the fact that these persons were held in undisclosed detention during a prolonged period by the US authorities and the conditions of detention and treatment to which they were subjected during that time. It is also gravely concerned by the lack of information provided to the ICRC regarding their fate despite regular and repeated requests.

The ICRC recognizes the right of the US authorities to take measures to address legitimate security concerns, including the detention and interrogation of individuals suspected of posing a threat to national security. However, the ICRC believes that the US can achieve these objectives while respecting its obligations and historical commitment to respect international law.

The aim of the present report is to provide a description of the treatment and material conditions of detention of the fourteen during the period they were held in the CIA detention program, as reported to the ICRC during its private interviews with these persons. Section One reports in detail the main elements of the CIA detention program, including arrest and transfers, incommunicado detention and other conditions and treatment, in particular during the initial stages of interrogation; Section Two outlines the conditions of detention and treatment in the later stages; Section Three considers the provision of health care and the role of medical staff during the entire period of undisclosed detention; Section Four details the legal aspects related to undisclosed detention; Section Five discusses the issue of the persons other than the fourteen who passed through the CIA detention program; and, finally, Section Six addresses the issue of future use of the CIA detention program.

A separate ICRC report has been transmitted to the Department of Defense regarding the material conditions and treatment of the fourteen since their arrival in Guantanamo7.

1.

MAIN ELEMENTS OF THE CIA DETENTION PROGRAM

Following the transfer of the fourteen from CIA custody to the custody of the Department of Defense in Guantanamo in September 2006, the ICRC met with each of these persons in private from 6 to 11 October, and from 4 to 14 December, 2006. The information provided in this report is based on the information gathered during those interviews, to the extent that each detainee agreed for it to be transmitted to the authorities. The fourteen, who are identified individually below, described being subjected, in particular during the early stages of their detention, lasting from some days up to several months, to a harsh regime employing a combination of physical and psychological ill·treatment with the aim of obtaining compliance and extracting information. This regime began soon after arrest, and included transfers of detainees to multiple locations, maintenance of the detainees in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention, and the infliction of further ill-treatment through the use of various methods either individually or in combination, in addition to the deprivation of other basic material requirements.

It is essential to a proper understanding of this report that all of the elements of treatment and material conditions of detention individually outlined below be considered as forming a whole, as each constitutes an integral part of the situation of the detainees in the CIA detention program. In addition to the information contained in the following section, it is also necessary to consider the prolonged duration of the detention, the conditions of detention, treatment in the later stages of detention, and the role of health personnel and, in particular, the lack of legal framework governing the undisclosed detention of the fourteen. When understood in their totality, the undisclosed detention regime to which these persons were subjected becomes all the more disturbing.

The ICRC wishes to underscore that the consistency of the detailed allegations provided separately by each of the fourteen adds particular weight to the information provided below.

The general term “ill-treatment” has been used throughout the following section, however, it should in no way be understood as minimising the severity of the conditions and treatment to which the detainees were subjected. Indeed, as outlined in Section 4 below, and as concluded by this report, the ICRC clearly considers that the allegations of the fourteen include descriptions of treatment and interrogation techniques—singly or in combination—that amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

2.

ARREST AND TRANSFER

The following fourteen persons are referred to in this report, in chronological order according to date of arrest: (Name, Nationality, Place of arrest, Date of arrest)
1)Abu Zubaydah Palestinian Faisalabad, Pakistan 28 March 2002
2)Ramzi Mohammed Binalshib Yemeni Karachi, Pakistan 11 September 2002
3)Abdelrahim Hussein Abdul Nashiri Saudi Dubai October 2002
4)Mustafha Ahmad AI Hawsawi Saudi Rawalpindi, Pakistan 01 March 2003
5)Khaled Shaik Mohammed Pakistani Rawalpindi, Pakistan 01 March 2003
6)Majid Khan Pakistani Karachi, Pakistan 05 March 2003
7)Ali Abdul Aziz Mohammed Pakistani Karachi, Pakistan 29 April 2003
8)Walid Bin Attash Yemeni Karachi, Pakistan 29 April 2003
9)Mohammed Farik Bin Amin Malaysian Bangkok, Thailand 08 June 2003
10)Mohammed Nazir Bin Lep Malaysian Bangkok, Thailand 11 August 2003
11)Encep Nuraman (aka Hambali) Indonesian Ayutthaya, Thailand 11 August 2003
12)Haned Hassan Ahmad Guleed Somali Djibouti 04 March 2004
13)Ahmed Khalafan Ghailani Tanzanian Gujarat, Pakistan 25 July 2004
14)Mustafah Faraj Al-Azibi Libyan Mardan, Pakistan 02 May 2005

The fourteen were arrested in four different countries. In each case, they were reportedly arrested by the national police or security forces of the country in which they were arrested. In some cases US agents were present at the time of arrest. All fourteen were detained in the country of arrest for periods ranging from a few days up to one month before their first transfer to a third country (reportedly Afghanistan, see below) and from there on to other countries. Interrogation in the country of arrest was conducted by US agents in nearly all cases. In two cases, however, detainees reported having been interrogated by the national authorities, either alone or jointly with US agents: Mr Abdelrahim Hussein Abdul Nashiri was allegedly interrogated for the first month after arrest by Dubai agents, and one detainee who did not wish his name to be transmitted to the authorities was allegedly interrogated by both Pakistani and US agents. During their subsequent detention, outlined below, detainees sometimes reported the presence of non-US personnel (believed to be personnel of the country in which they were held), even though the overall control of the facility appeared to remain under the control of the US authorities.

Throughout their detention, the fourteen were moved from one place to another and were allegedly kept in several different places of detention, probably in several different countries. The number of locations reported by the detainees varied, however ranged from three to ten locations prior to their arrival in Guantanamo in September 2006.

The transfer procedure was fairly standardised in most cases. The detainee would be photographed, both clothed and naked prior to and again after transfer. A body cavity check (rectal examination) would be carried out and some detainees alleged that a suppository (the type and the effect of such suppositories was unknown by the detainees), was also administered at that moment.

The detainee would be made to wear a diaper and dressed in a tracksuit. Earphones would be placed over his ears, through which music would sometimes be played. He would be blindfolded with at least a cloth tied around the head and black goggles. In addition, some detainees alleged that cotton wool was also taped over their eyes prior to the blindfold and goggles being applied. Mr Abu Zubaydah alleged that during one transfer operation the blindfold was tied very tightly resulting in wounds to his nose and ears. He does not know how long the transfer took but, prior to the transfer, he reported being told by his detaining authorities that he would be going on a journey that would last twenty-four to thirty hours.

The detainee would be shackled by hands and feet and transported to the airport by road and loaded onto a plane. He would usually be transported in a reclined sitting position with his hands shackled in front. The journey times obviously varied considerably and ranged from one hour to over twenty-four to thirty hours. The detainee was not allowed to go to the toilet and if necessary was obliged to urinate or defecate into the diaper.

On some occasions the detainees were transported lying flat on the floor of the plane and/or with their hands cuffed behind their backs. When transported in this position the detainees complained of severe pain and discomfort.

In addition to causing severe physical pain, these transfers to unknown locations and unpredictable conditions of detention and treatment placed mental strain on the fourteen, increasing their sense of disorientation and isolation. The ability of the detaining authority to transfer persons over apparently significant distances to secret locations in foreign countries acutely increased the detainees’ feeling of futility and helplessness, making them more vulnerable to the methods of ill-treatment described below.

The ICRC was informed by the US authorities that the practice of transfers was linked specifically to issues that included national security and logistics, as opposed to being an integral part of the program, for example to maintain compliance. However, in practice, these transfers increased the vulnerability of the fourteen to their interrogation, and was performed in a manner (goggles, earmuffs, use of diapers, strapped to stretchers, sometimes rough handling) that was intrusive and humiliating and that challenged the dignity of the persons concerned.

As their detention was specifically designed to cut off contact with the outside world and emphasise a feeling of disorientation and isolation, some of the time periods referred to in the report are approximate estimates made by the detainees concerned. For the same reasons, the detainees were usually unaware of their exact location beyond the first place of detention in the country of arrest and the second country of detention, which was identified by all fourteen as being Afghanistan. This report will not enter into conjecture by referring to possible countries or locations of places of detention beyond the first and second countries of detention, which are named, and will refer, where necessary, to subsequent places of detention by their position in the sequence for the detainee concerned (eg. third place of detention, fourth place of detention). The ICRC is confident that the concerned authorities will be able to identify from their records which place of detention is being referred to and the relevant period of detention.

Moreover, the ICRC notes that four detainees believed that they had previously been held in Guantanamo, for periods ranging from one week to one year during 2003/4. They reported recognising this location upon return therein September 2006, as each had been allowed outdoors on a daily basis during their earlier time there. The ICRC has been assured by DoD that it was given full notification of and access to all persons held in Guantanamo during its regular detention visits. The ICRC is concerned, if the allegations are confirmed, it had in fact been denied access to these persons during the period in which they were detained there.

1.2.

CONTINUOUS SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND INCOMMUNICADO DETENTION

Throughout the entire period during which they were held in the CIA detention program—which ranged from sixteen months up to almost four and a half years and which, for eleven of the fourteen was over three years—the detainees were kept in continuous solitary confinement8 and incommunicado detention. They had no knowledge of where they were being held, no contact with persons other than their interrogators or guards. Even their guards were usually masked and, other than the absolute minimum, did not communicate in any way with the detainees. None had any real—let alone regular—contact with other persons detained, other than occasionally for the purposes of inquiry when they were confronted with another detainee. None had any contact with legal representation. The fourteen had no access to news from the outside world, apart from in the later stages of their detention when some of them occasionally received printouts of sports news from the internet and one reported receiving newspapers. None of the fourteen had any contact with their families, either in written form or through family visits or telephone calls. They were therefore unable to inform their families of their fate. As such, the fourteen had become missing persons. In any context, such a situation, given its prolonged duration, is clearly a cause of extreme distress for both the detainees and families concerned and itself constitutes a form of ill-treatment.

In addition, the detainees were denied access to an independent third party. In order to ensure accountability, there is a need for a procedure of notification to families, and of notification and access to detained persons, under defined modalities, for a third party, such as the ICRC. That this was not practiced, to the knowledge of the ICRC, neither for the fourteen nor for any other detainee who passed through the CIA detention program, is a matter of serious concern.

1.3.

OTHER METHODS OF ILL-TREATMENT

As noted above, the fourteen were subjected to an extremely harsh detention regime, characterised by ill-treatment. The initial period of interrogation, lasting from a few days up to several months was the harshest, where compliance was secured by the infliction of various forms of physical and psychological ill-treatment. This appeared to be followed by a reward based interrogation approach with gradually improving conditions of detention, albeit reinforced by the threat of returning to former methods.

The methods of ill-treatment alleged to have been used include the following:
• Suffocation by water poured over a cloth placed over the nose and mouth, alleged by three of the fourteen.
• Prolonged stress standing position, naked, held with the arms extended and chained above the head, as alleged by ten of the fourteen, for periods from two or three days continuously, and for up to two or three months intermittently, during which period toilet access was sometimes denied resulting in allegations from four detainees that they had to defecate and urinate over themselves.
• Beatings by use of a collar held around the detainees neck and used to forcefully bang the head and body against the wall, alleged by six of the fourteen.
• Beating and kicking,including slapping, punching, kicking to the body and face, alleged by nine of the fourteen.
• Confinement in a box to severely restrict movement alleged in the case of one detainee.
• Prolonged nudity alleged by eleven of the fourteen during detention, interrogation and ill-treatment; this enforced nudity lasted for periods ranging from several weeks to several months.
• Sleep deprivation was alleged by eleven of the fourteen through days of interrogation, through use of forced stress positions (standing or sitting), cold water and use of repetitive loud noise or music. One detainee was kept sitting on a chair for prolonged periods of time.
• Exposure to cold temperature was alleged by most of the fourteen, especially via cold cells and interrogation rooms, and for seven of them, by the use of cold water poured over the body or, as alleged by three of the detainees, held around the body by means of a plastic sheet to create an immersion bath with just the head out of the water.
• Prolonged shackling of hands and/or feet was alleged by many of the fourteen.
• Threats of ill-treatment to the detainee and/or his family, alleged by nine of the fourteen.
• Forced shaving of the head and beard, alleged by two of the fourteen.
• Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food from 3 days to 1 month after arrest, alleged by eight of the fourteen.

In addition, the fourteen were subjected for longer periods to a deprivation of access to open air, exercise, appropriate hygiene facilities and basic items in relation to interrogation, and restricted access to the Koran linked with interrogation.


NOTES
1. The ICRC has defined “undisclosed detention” broadly, to include: the detention of individuals by US authorities in undisclosed locations; the non-disclosureor hiding of detainees from the ICRC by US authorities and/or the denial of ICRC access to detainees known to the ICRC; and detention by third country authorities working in cooperation with US authorities, including the practice of rendition, when carried out in violation of the rules and principles of international law.
2. A list of the nine main written interventions was attached in annex to the 2004 report. In the 2006 report, a list of the 17 main written interventions was attached in annex.
3. This list contained 42 names in 2004, and 59 names in 2006. In both cases, the list included two children.
4. The content of this Note Verbale is acknowledged by the ICRC in its consolidated report of 18 April 2006.
5. The terms “detainee” and “detention” are also intended to cover “internees” and “internment”.
6. For four of these detainees, the first written request was made in January 2003; for nine detainees the first request was in 2004 (two in March, six in July 2004 and one in November 2004); and for one detainee the first request was made in November 2005. A complete list of the interventions made for each of these detainees has been attached in Annex 2. In the ICRC consolidated report on undisclosed detention of April 2006, these persons are identified in annex as identities number 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 38.
7. Report of ICRC Washington on the ICRC Visit to Fourteen Newly Arrived “High Value” Internees in Guantanamo Bay Internment Facility 06 October to 11 October 2006, WAS 06/210, 31 October 2006.
8. ‘Solitary confinement’ is the confinement of a detainee and the partial (where the restriction is nevertheless severe) or complete denial of contact with other detainees and/or the outside world. While solitary confinement often implies other forms of restrictions it does not necessarily require them.

Tomorrow we get to specifics. What is outlined above is just that, an outline. The rest of the ICRC report is filled with gruesome, specific detail of the above practices.

I keep asking myself what it is I want in posting all of this. Did I care that much about this when it was happening? I can't imagine that I did. I opposed it, of course, what little I knew of it. But I was, like a lot of people, a parochial soul during the previous 8 years. I had seen my first attempt at participatory democracy slide into the abyss, watched a rather shocking attack on our soil and two subsequent wars begin to take shape, and was more concerned with little change could occur in my state or town, feeling powerless to consider anything else. Last year, I got pretty fired up, also like a lot of people. Now we have a president who promised he'd clean up our government, but who we're finding out thinks that all he needs to do is find a rug big enough to sweep all of this under. A rug, as big, say, as the failing economy. If we let him do that, we'll become no better than the people who let FDR intern hundreds of thousands of people. We'll have sacrificed principles for prosperity. We proved to ourselves last November that we are better than that, and that someone who is unmoved by the outrages in this document is not someone whom we can trust.

Believe me, as much as Europe might like us now, they'll like us even more if we do what's right and prosecute these crimes.

Turley, truly.

"Our President, I think, is more interested in programs than principles, and he never intended to fight on issues like torture and electronic surveillance."


Watch the clip. It'll make more sense that way, as I have something cooked up for tomorrow.

Sarkozy le Dernier

French and Chinese Leaders Meet to End Tibet Friction (nytimes)

An unusual joint statement issued Wednesday by the foreign ministries of both countries said that “France fully recognizes the importance and sensitivity of the Tibet issue” and reaffirmed “the position that Tibet is an integral part of the Chinese territory.” It said that France refused to support any claim of Tibetan independence and that both countries adhered “to the principle of noninterference in each other’s affairs.”

I don't normally get all fussed about issues pertaining to Tibet, but China usually manages to make me pretty upset. In this instance, it isn't Red Fascist China that is so surprising, but France. Sarkozy has pledged not to recognize any independence efforts of the Tibetan people against China.

Remember when it was all exciting that Sarkozy and Obama were in power? Where's our 9th Thermidor when we need one?

Maybe the Inevitable Democratic Indian Hyperpower of the late 21st century will be able to sort this out.

No one expects...The Spanish Inquisition!

Olbermann had Jonathan Turley on tonight, and while not a lot has happened in TortureGate, the "condemnation of the ages" is stacking up against Barack Obama. I don't have the will to go on at length about my take on this, but Mr. Turley can have my proxy if ever he wants it. Listen to him.

AGRESSIF!

Human Rights Watch claims Israel committed war crimes in its use of air-burst white phosphorous artillery shells (guardian.co.uk)


Fun fact: As this was going on, I was getting escorted out of a pro-Israel rally in Paris by an armed group of Mossad agents. AGRESSIF!

*Fun fact mentioned not just to show how rad I am (I was terrified my keffiyeh would get me killed and they'd only much later find my kippah tucked into my coat pocket), but to present the irony of an American (read small-d democratic) citizen being terrorized while on vacation in an arch-democratic state by representatives of an allied nation (... Read Moreread the only small-d democratic nation in the Mideast) to both my country and my host country.

Fear, fear of terror, fear of dissent, or fear of getting caught, can make small-d democrats do strange and terrible things if they let it.

The price of inalienable rights is conscience. If citizens can't rely on their governments to have on, we have to step up and become that conscience ourselves.

Band of 31

If you care about torture, and let's be perfectly, brutally honest here, not many of you do, you are in a select minority. And though the President may not be on your side, there is reason to hope. (Remember hope?)

There is a band of 31 people in our government who can help.

They are led by Senators Patrick Leahy, Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and my knight in shining armor forevs (srsly I luvs him) Russ Feingold.

Harry Reid has promised to fund senate committee inquiries.

John Conyers has subpoenaed Karl Rove, Harriet "Nina" Miers, and Josh Bolten.

24 cosponsors in the House have pledged their time for an independent panel investigating torture.

What we may end up with is a so-called Truth Commission. This wouldn't be ideal, as it would pave the way for a sort of pay-for-play testimony-for-immunity type situation; but when you have the President dragging his heels the whole way, it might be our best shot.

There may be more to it than that, there may not, but even if that is all that happens, we can all hope that it sends a message. Whether it be to the international community (that we as Americans don't condone torture and will root it out even, and for god's sake especially when it's inconvenient), our President (to whom most of us probably doubted we'd ever have to send a reproving message, lately become the type of political scumbag he tricked us into thinking he wasn't), and ourselves (that the Yes We Can spirit wasn't wrong in any way whatsoever, but that it needs to apply to more than just a reason every four years to delete politically contrary facebook friends, but to everyday life).

It's not going to be convenient. It probably won't be everything it should. But it's going to be right, and these 31 people deserve to be remembered for their efforts.

Burgeoning cybernetic intelligence

Google tried to warn you.

Skynet is stirring, feeling the multitude of cyberspace stinging like so many mosquitoes. How long until it swats?

The course is set, the path is clear

If Obama wishes to uphold the rule of law, he can't just hold his wristwatch and say "...Starting now!" He has a job to do, and a mandate to honor.

...Starting now?

I've got an idea!

Mandate

Just once I wish I could be satisfied with anything.

But satisfaction is not what I feel today. At last Israel pulls out of Gaza, but Hamas assholes are screaming that it is a victory for them. Guantanamo is given a firm date for its closure, but the torture that happened there is still legal. Millions of Americans got fired up for an election, but less than 24 hours later they are back to their armchairs and couches watching reality TV and belching "Yes We Did!" in their complacence. At the last possible minute, Obama got a gay Episcopal priest to speak the day before Dick Warren was given a national, nay global, platform to spew his homophobic, tribal shit-vomit, but HBO cut the former from its coverage of the concert on Sunday- with apologies to all for its inadvertent slight.

I'm not saying I want to change my vote, just that I was genuinely fooled when I was told this wasn't merely a return to Clinton-era mediocrity (still an improvement, I ashamedly admit).

When I was busy being an Obama-nut for the previous year or so, I warned myself privately, and others aloud, that if Obama turned out to be a compromiser rather than an agent for "change we [could] believe in" that I would become his harshest critic. I was warned in return that I was being silly and idealistic. They were right, and they were smart. They are also complacent.

And I say complacent with every kind of venom and rancor that I can squeeze into 10 letters. They ignore the fact that it was a lack of complacence that put this man into office, and it this selfasme lack of complacence on the part of the other side that can take him out again. If I, if anyone, gets complacent, gets jaded because we were handed something we were not expecting, when we were promised even more, and if that happens towards November, and god forbid it happens in a year that is a multiple of four, we'll get another George Bush. And it'll be what we deserve, just as we deserved it last time.

My complacent friends will get better jobs and fatter paychecks- in at least a year, suckers- but they will also bear a responsibility for living in a country where torture is legal, and is ripe to be taken advantage of again in the next election cycle.

The tragedy is not really that, though it's pretty bad. The tragedy is that we are allowing our mandate to be squandered. We were ready to hitch our pants up and get our hands dirty, and through that work become clean. Now we may not get that chance. In 50 years some insufferable ass like myself will argue that all the economic and infrastructural gains we will (I pray to god) have gained were not worth the price. Someone willl point to Obama's equivalent to the New Deal, and he'll point to Obama's equivalent to Executive Order 9066.

And he'll have no more of a solution than I have. All I know is that now is not the time to rest on our laurels, and these screams of "Yes We Did!" were never meant to stand for an election alone, but for a greater act that remains as unfinished and incomplete as ever, and that "Yes We Can!" is a promise we made to ourselves that we really don't want to break.

On the Eve of Inauguration

A week ago I asked you to spend some time reflecting on the previous administration, and now I am going to ask of you the herculean task of not just reflection, but imagination: imagine what the Obama administration will be like if it fails to act.

A week ago some of us were up in arms about the choice of RIck Warren to lead the inaugural invocation, though, to be fair, enough of us were content to believe that Obama would be a new Uniter, not a Divider.

A week ago some of us held signs loudly proclaiming "Arrest Bush!" But who is going to do so, if not the next administration?

The justice you seek lies in the hot little hands of the Forty-fourth President of the United States of America: Barack Hussein Obama. If he fails to act, there will be no excuse. He will have chosen not to.

To everyone who ever held a sign loudly proclaiming to "Impeach Bush!" take note. If you ever wanted to see Bush 43 brought to justice, take note. Obama is the only one who can make it happen. Let us all hope that he does.

BUSH LIBRE

In a week, we can all do what we do every four to eight years and begin to forget the previous political administration. In a week, we can all begin "hoping" for a "change." In a week, we can, potentially, be proud again.

It will take more than a week to even start cleaning up the mess of the previous administration. It will take much longer to put the pieces of shattered lives back together again.

In a week, some of us will put recrimination behind us and move on as we can.

But for a week, let's reflect. If you voted for President Bush, if you know someone who did, or even if you just happened to have been affected by his presidency: take a week. Learn, relearn, or at least consider the cost of his tenure.

Keith Olbermann has a little something to remind you.

The Book of Love

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

Yes we can.






And thank you Ashley.

One less than ten, two more than nine

LINK


Thus tonight -- as promised -- a Special Comment about our sad anniversary tomorrow.

Or, more correctly, what our sad anniversary tomorrow has been turned into by the presidential administration, and the current Republican candidates for President and Vice President.

This is supposed to be a day of remembrance. Remembrance of the attack, remembrance of the national unity which followed it.

Most important of all, remembrance of the dead.

But 9/11 has become…... a brand name.

A Republican campaign slogan.

Propaganda of the lowest form.

9/11 has become… 9/11 with a trademark logo.

9/11 (TM) has sustained a president who long ago should have been dismissed, or impeached. It has kept him and his gang of financial and constitutional crooks in office without - literally - any visible means of support.

9/11 (TM) has made possible the greatest sleight-of-hand in our nation's history.

The political party in office at the time of the attacks, at the local, state and national levels, the party which uniformly ignored the warnings -- and the presidential administration already through twenty percent of its first term and no longer wet behind the ears -- have not only thus far escaped any blame for the malfeasance and criminal neglect that allowed the attacks to occur, but that presidency and that party, have managed to make it seem as if the other political party would be solely and irredeemably responsible for any similar catastrophe in the future.

Thus, Senator McCain, were you able to accomplish a further inversion of reality at your party's nominating convention last week.

There was the former Mayor of the City of New York -- the one who took no counter-terrorism measure in his seven years in office between the first attack on the World Trade Center, and the second attack.

Nothing, except to insist -- despite all advice and warning - that his Emergency Command Center be moved directly into the World Trade Center.

Yet there was this man, Sir - Rudolph Giuliani -- quite succinctly dismissed as "A Noun, a Verb, and 9/11," and repudiated even by Republican voters -- transformed into the keynote speaker, Senator McCain -- at your convention.

And his childish, squealing, braying, Tourette's-like repetition of 9/11 (TM), was greeted not as conclusive evidence that he is consumed by massive guilt - hard-earned guilt, in fact - but rather as some kind of political tour-de-force, an endorsement of your Vice Presidential nominee, a rookie governor -- a facile and slick con artist.

The blind endorsing the bland, to a chorus of 9/11 (TM), 9/11 (TM), 9/11 (TM.)

Your ringing mindless cheer of "We've Kept You Safe Since Then"...

While nobody asks "doesn't then count?"

All of this, sadistically disrespecting the dead of New York, and Washington, and Shanksville…

Endorsed, Senator McCain…

Exploited, Senator McCain…

Trademarked, Senator McCain… by you.

And yet of course the exact moment in which Senator McCain's Republicans showed the nation exactly how far they have fallen from the Better Angels of Mr. Lincoln's Nature, came the next night.

The television networks were told that the Convention would pause, early in the evening, when children could still be watching, for a 9/11 Tribute, and they were encouraged to broadcast it.

What we got was not a tribute to the dead of 9/11, nor even a tribute to the responders, or the singularity of purpose we all felt.

The Republicans gave us sociological pornography… a virtual snuff film.

Years ago, responsible television networks, to the applause of the nation, and the relief of its mental health authorities, voluntarily stopped showing the most graphic of the images of the World Trade Center, except with the strongest of warnings.

And yet, the Republicans, at their convention, having virtually seized control of the cable news operations, showed... the worst of it.

This is all anyone with a conscience can show you of what the Republicans showed you.

The actual collapse of the smoking towers.

A fleeting image of what might have been a victim leaping to his death from a thousand feet up.

And something new.

From this angle, ground-level, perfectly framed, images -- of the fireball created when the second plane hit the second tower.

It was terrifying.

After all its object was… to terrify.

Not to commemorate, not to call for unity, not to remember the dead.

But to terrify.

To open again the horrible wounds, to brand the skin of this nation with the message -- as hateful as the terrorists' own -- that you must vote Republican or this will happen again and you will die…

And just in case that was not enough, to also dishonestly and profanely conflate 9/11 with the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis -- to stoke the flames of paranoia about another Middle Eastern Nation.

This was a 9/11 Tribute.

Not to the dead, nor to the unity.

But a tribute to how valuable 9/11 has been as a political tool for the Republican Party.

9/11... (TM.)

Senator McCain, you had promised us a clean campaign.

You could be Snow-White the rest of the way, Sir, yet that manipulative videotape from your convention should tar you always in the minds of decent Americans.

And still, as this seventh 9/11…(TM)… approaches -- that, Sir, is not the worst of your contributions to the utter politicizing of a day that should be sacrosanct to all of us.

Hard to believe, but the Senator has done worse with 9/11 and the evil behind it.

We heard it last week in Minnesota… we've heard it off and on since January…

But Senator McCain said it most concisely in June.

"Look," he said. "I know the area, I've been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden -- or put it this way, bring him to justice. We will do it. I know how to do it."

Senator McCain seems to be quite serious -- that he and he alone -- not the CIA, nor the U-S Military, nor the current President -- can capture Bin Laden.

Thus we must take him at his word, that this is no mere ludicrous campaign boast.

We must assume Senator McCain truly believes he is capable of doing this, and has been capable of doing this, since last January.

"We will capture Osama bin Laden… we will do it. I know how to do it."

Well then, Senator... you'd better go and do it... hadn't you?

Because, Sir, if a man or woman in this nation, Democrat or Republican, had a clear and effective means of capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden…

If that person had been advertising his claim, Senator… for eight months…

But if that person not only refused to go to responsible authorities in government and advise them of this plan to catch Bin Laden, but further announced he would not even begin to enact this secret plan to corral the world's most hated man… until the end of next January…

What would be your description of such an individual, Senator?

Charlatan?

Do-nothing?

Opportunist?

Senator McCain, if you have -- if you have had -- a means of capturing Osama Bin Laden, and you do not immediately inform some responsible authority of the full scope of that plan, you are to some degree great or small…aiding and abetting Osama Bin Laden.

If you could assist in capturing him now, Senator McCain, but you have chosen not to… you, Sir, have helped... Osama Bin Laden... stay free.

Free to inspire and supervise the terrorists.

Free to plan or execute attacks here.

You, Sir, are blackmailing some portion of the American electorate into voting for your party, by promising to help in the capture of Bin Laden…only if you are made president!

I'd rather win an election than catch Bin Laden!

No more cynical calculation has ever been made in this nation's history, Sir.

If you lose the election, Senator, are you not going to tell the President-Elect?

Are you intending to keep this a secret until the next election and your party's next nominee?

Senator, as you and your Republicans shed your phony, crocodile, opportunistic tears tomorrow on 9/11 TM, in front of the utterly disingenuous banner "Country First"….

The fact is, you have shown that it is John McCain first, and the country last.

The fact is, Sir, by holding out on your secret plan to catch Bin Laden...

By searing those images into our collective wounded American psyche at your nomination last week...

Terrorists are not what you, John McCain, fight.

Terrorists... are what you, John McCain, use.

Good night, and good luck.