Key question: "Why didn't you tell them you were cops?"

The "whoop ass" quote:

Purists would point out: The word is pronounced whup, not whoooop. This is from Judge Gainer's recent opinion, in which he ignored the blatantly illegal conduct of three Chicago police officers, setting them free:

QUOTE:

[The Prosecutor]: Judge, he [Officer Paul Powers] wants to open a can of whoop ass on our victims and their friends.

:UNQUOTE.

So that's what it's come to, eh?

In a court of law, a public prosecutor uses language like that and the judge says...nothing? Actually, a lot of people who should have said a lot more, didn't. Members of the press, that is.

The only reason I'm writing about this case is because no one else has...but should have.

Themes:

A local judge supports local law enforcement by means of a highly-suspect acquittal. I've lived in Chicago most of my life, so I am not surprised at this. I reserve my greater criticism for local media for failing miserably in their coverage of certain aspects of this trial. As far as the victims are concerned, all I can say is: I'm happy to learn they'd initiated a federal lawsuit against these officers.

One of the saddest truisms concerning our legal system: "It's far easier to get justice at the federal rather than at the local level."

The Acquittal

QUOTE:

A Chicago police sergeant and two officers were acquitted today in connection with the off-duty beating of several patrons at a West Loop bar in December 2006.

Following a bench trial several weeks ago, Circuit Judge Thomas V. Gainer Jr. found Sgt. Jeffery Planey and Officers Gregory Barnes and Paul Powers not guilty of aggravated battery charges in the attack at the Jefferson Tap and Grille.

:UNQUOTE [ article by April 28, 2009, Matthew Walberg, Chicago Tribune ]

Background:

On Dec. 15, 2006, after 3:30 a.m., there was the beginning of a physical confrontation between two groups in a bar. The first group: four young businessmen playing pool. The second group: six off-duty police officers, not in uniform, in another area of this bar. There were 10 video cameras on premises (inside and outside the bar), tapes from which were brought into evidence during this trial.

[NOTE: These cameras did not record any audio.]

The cops say they were verbally taunted, claiming one of the pool players called officer Powers a "pussy." Powers had been crying over the death of his father three months earlier.  This name-calling did not, however, immediately lead to an exchange of blows. Pushing and shoving ensued when another officer (who, by the way, had a gun in his hand) took it upon himself to interfere with the on-going pool game. He took balls from the table and deposited them into the table's pockets.

[As any pool player will tell you, that alone can cause a brawl.]

The pushing and shoving escalated to the point where the officers were taking some of the pool players down to the floor. Interestingly enough, none of this rough stuff led to any charges. The escalated physical activity (assault, leading to a pool player's broken nose) occurred in the vestibule, where there were no cameras, and on the front sidewalk.

[Side note: Did the cops, who were regular patrons of this bar, know where the cameras were and where they could get away with an unmonitored assault?]

The four businessmen claimed they were assaulted by these officers without any provocation or hint of an impending eruption. Prosecutor claimed these officers were looking for trouble and, without warning and not based on any prior interaction with the victims, decided to [as quoted above] "open a can of whoop ass."

Glaring omission in Judge's 30-page opinion

I read all 30 pages of Judge Gainer's opinion in this case, and was struck by one glaring oversight:

At no time during this gradually escalating encounter did any of the assailants identify himself as a cop.

If, as one of these plain clothes officers claimed, he was trying to defuse the rising tension between the two groups, he could have immediately chilled the situation by declaring himself (and his colleagues) to be cops while openly displaying his badge.

I'm especially amazed that the judge didn't ask: "Why didn't you simply tell the pool players you were cops?" This was a bench trial, not a jury trial, and the judge had latitude to bring this up himself. In fact, not declaring themselves as officers strongly supports the victims' claims that the cops were looking for trouble.

NOTE: Most of the officers looked big and burly, compared to the rather slightly built pool players. As a general rule, little guys don't go around taunting big guys - especially in a bar and especially not calling one of them a pussy.

The prosecution didn't jump on this issue - for instance, "Why were you trying to hide the fact that you were cops?" Perhaps prosecution did so during the trial, but I don't have those transcripts. Since this was a high profile case with news media in attendance, I'm confused by their silence on two counts:

• If this issue had been raised by prosecution or by anyone else during the trial, why was this fact not published?

• If this issue hadn't been raised at all, why was that oversight not included in any of the news stories?

In either event, this oversight is just another example of media not thinking. I'm sure H.L. Mencken would be spinning in his grave at the general incompetence displayed by members of the Fourth Estate these days.
 

More from the judge's decision

Some quotes and my responses:

QUOTE: The actions of the off-duty officers were in response to the fighting words, defined above, uttered by, more probably than not, [pool player] Adam Mastrucci.

RESPONSE: Couple of problems here:

• Even if the officers' claim were true [that the pool players called one of them a "pussy," with a gradually-increasing tirade of taunts and foul language following], it was clear from the testimony and videotaped evidence that these "fighting words" only gradually led to a brawl. Maybe there are "fighting words" that have a delayed-reaction aspect to them; just wondering. [Hmm...new legal concept here: delayed-reaction fighting words.]

• I thought police officers (especially veteran cops like these) had received extensive training on how to control themselves in the face of verbal abuse. If these cops engaged in what the Judge called "mutual combat" as a result of verbal abuse, then I highly question their professionalism (and, come to think of it, that of the Judge himself).

• "...more probably than not"??? The Judge needed something to justify cops acting badly, so he read something into the videotaped evidence (remember: no audio) to conclude that Mastrucci had uttered fighting words. However, none of the witnesses in the bar heard any such language from the pool players.

• The Fighting Words Doctrine: The Judge invoked this doctrine to protect the defendants, though he should have known that cops are expected to have a higher tolerance of verbal abuse. Also consider: "Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the [US] Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky [v. New Hampshire (1942)." http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

QUOTE: [Sgt.] Planey was trying to calm the situation.

RESPONSE: Judge Gainer made much of Sgt. Planey's numerous efforts at being a peacemaker. However - a little reemphasis here - neither Planey nor any of the other cops had identified themselves as police officers at any time during this encounter. Also, the Judge totally ignored this bar's outside camera clearly showing Planey exiting the bar and storming up to one of the pool players (about 20 feet away), grabbing him, and then pushing him up against a wall. Maybe Planey didn't know about the street cam, therefore encouraging this extra bit of violence. I'm sure this particular footage will be played prominently at the upcoming federal trial.

QUOTE: He [Aaron Gilfand, having suffered a broken nose] is heard making a call about a lawyer the night of the incident. He contacted lawyers and refused to cooperate with OPS [Office of Professional Standards of the Chicago Police Department]. When he did cooperate, he only did so with his lawyers present. He has profited from one lawsuit and stands to profit from another.

RESPONSE: Gilfand had sued this bar and settled out of court. That apparently bothered Judge Gainer. Tell me, how is it that a judge allows himself to be influenced by the outcome of another lawsuit? Gainer is virtually accusatory in these remarks (for example): "He contacted lawyers" [How dare he!] "He refused to cooperate" [No crime in that, Judge.] "He only [cooperated] with his lawyers present." [Oh, that awful man!] "He has profited from one lawsuit and stands to profit from another." [If Gilfand wins his federal lawsuit, I hope that presiding judge will appropriately blast Judge Gainer for issuing such a flawed verdict.]

Aftermath of the trial

Judge Gainer should have found all three officers guilty of aggravated battery - and, in Sgt. Planey's case, of obstructing justice. However, conviction of this felony would have meant these three men would be ineligible to remain on the police force. Gainer, having been a prosecutor in the Cook County State's Attorneys office for 10 years, was undeniably sympathetic.

The Chicago Police Department wasted no time in reinstating these three officers. However, Top Cop Jody Weis had other options. He could have kept these men at a desk job for (say) a year, pending completion of anger management and sensitivity training. And as a form of cooling-off punishment. Weis should also have dressed them down for:

• carrying a gun (at least one officer in that bar had a gun in hand, as caught on tape) while drinking;

• failing to identify themselves as police officers, when the escalating situation clearly warranted such revelation;

• conduct unbecoming law enforcement officers

One consequence of this brawl will undoubtedly be an out-of-court settlement of the lawsuit pending in federal court. Chicago taxpayers will once again bear the cost of police brutality. [What? You don't think this case will actually go to trial, do you? Mayor Daley wants to avoid the additional publicity of a prolonged airing of these events before a far more neutral tribunal.]

This entire episode can and should become the subject of a made-for-TV dramatic reenactment. I'm especially interested in what the ten video cameras caught on tape. Sadly, only a few minutes of this footage is on line, though I'm sure more would help flesh out the scenario. This is about all I could find, though you should scroll down and watch both video clips: http://chicagocopwatch.org/tag/police-brutality/

Judge Gainer's 30-page written decision is at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-090428-tap-decision-pdf,0,3828680.htmlpage

Steven Searle was a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"If you truly believe in the rule of law, then cops who break the law should be convicted as easily as any other criminal" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

QUESTION:  Are we not our brother's keeper?

ANSWER: If your name is Avigdor Lieberman, then you will answer "no" to this question - especially if the "brother" in question is an Arab Israeli citizen.

BACKGROUND (going way back):

The question - "Am I my brother's keeper?" - goes way back to the time of Cain and Abel. Maybe Lieberman would consider answering that question in the affirmative - but only after duly noting that Arabs and Jews are not brothers, but are instead half-brothers. Same father (Abraham) but two different mothers. Hagar (a slave) was the mother of the first-born Ishmael, who became the founding patriarch of the Arab people. Sarah (Abraham's wife) was the mother of the second-born Isaac, who became the founding patriarch of the Jewish people.

By the way, it was Sarah's idea that Abraham (er) beget via Hagar.

Lieberman contemplates enacting sinful legislation

Right-wing Israeli Jews, loyal to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's "Israel is our Home" party, are contemplating a means of humiliating Israel's Arab citizens. The "means" is a proposed loyalty oath for all Israeli citizens to be taken upon reaching age 18. "Those who refuse to take this oath will become ‘residents' of Israel and lose their status as citizens," according to Abraham Foxman, National Director of the (U.S.) Anti-Defamation League.

QUOTE [referring to Lieberman]:

His loyalty oath would require all Israelis to vow allegiance to Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, to accept its symbols, flag and anthem, and to commit to military service or some alternative service. Those who declined to sign such a pledge would be permitted to live here as residents but not as voting citizens...

:UNQUOTE [The New York Times' article by Ethan Bronner, published 2/8/09: "A Hard-Liner Gains Ground in Israel"].

Why a Jew might not want to take such an oath

Lieberman is attempting to force the will of a majority on a minority. That should send shudders down the spines of Jews who remember what it was like to be in the minority while living in other countries. American Jews (and other Americans) who lived in the US during the McCarthy Era know full well that loyalty oaths are meant to be repressive.

At one extreme, mandating the swearing of such an oath is simply a matter of one group (the majority who passes such knee-jerk laws) telling another group (a minority) what it must swear or affirm. Basically, nobody likes to be told what to do or say, nor should they be as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

At the other extreme, we have badly-conceived loyalty oaths, which contain language like this:

"I am not now nor have I ever been a member of an organization which advocates the violent overthrow of the US government."

Although, on the surface, this seems reasonable, there is a powerful retort:

"But sir, my organization does advocate the violent overthrow of the US government in the event that government violently and unconstitutionally attempts to suppress the basic human rights of the American people. The Founding Fathers themselves could not honor the loyalty oath you're proposing."

Another consideration: Suppose I am an Israeli Jew who converts to Buddhism. Am I supposed to swear an oath which, at its core, insists that Israel forever remain a Jewish state? As a Jew, I wouldn't dare try to force such an oath on a fellow Jew. Actually, this ties in to one of my earlier themes: Peace will not be realized in the Middle East until its peoples - Muslims and Jews alike - convert to Buddhism. For it's painfully obvious that people of the Abrahamic faiths - even though they be brothers (alright, half-brothers, if you prefer) - can't get along and will always hate each other, especially if they happen to be neighbors.

What about the Constitution: Any Israeli citizen should be concerned about enacting any law that would strip any Israeli of his citizenship. Not sure such a law would even be constitutional.

Why an Arab Israeli citizen would not want to take such an oath

Let's look at the Israeli national anthem, which this oath would make incumbent on all Israeli citizens:

QUOTE [English translation of The Hope]:

As long as in the heart, within,

A Jewish soul still yearns,

And onward, towards the ends of the east,

An eye still gazes toward Zion;

Our hope is not yet lost,

The hope of two thousand years,

To be a free people in our land,

The land of Zion and Jerusalem.

:UNQUOTE.

This "national" anthem presupposes that Arab Israeli citizens have Jewish souls? No, not really: More likely, it's a crude attempt to rub their half-brother's noses in it. And of course there's that last line: "the land of Zion and [here it comes] Jerusalem." Last time I checked, Muslims didn't seem too keen on ceding all of Jerusalem to Israel.

Become a Light Unto all Nations

I've lived my entire life in the United States, hearing these claims oft repeated:

The Jews are a Chosen People, and Israel is supposed to be a light unto all nations.

Quotes and my Responses

QUOTE [see Footnote 1]:

The Torah teaches us that the opposite is true:

"Learn and observe [the Torah] for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations, who will hear of all these laws and proclaim that this is truly a great, wise and understanding nation." (Deut. 4:6)

It is clear that the Torah attaches importance to the respect given us by the nations of the world.

RESPONSE:

The "eyes of the nations" of the world do not see Israel as having "wisdom and understanding." Many of the "nations of the world" (or at least their governments) respect Israel - at least begrudgingly. Most of the peoples of the world, however, do not respect Israeli "wisdom and understanding." A casual observer might reflect: "Just as a son abused by his father can grow up to be a father abusive of his own son, so it is that people who are oppressed can become oppressors."

My question is: When do the formerly abused rise above their memories of the past?

QUOTE [see Footnote 1 - again]:

We, the Nation of Priests, represent God to the world by our exemplary lifestyle, and imbue the world with knowledge of His existence:

"We are a light unto the nations." (Isaiah 42:6)

RESPONSE:

Where is your "exemplary lifestyle?" You have so much, yet your fellow citizen (not to mention your other half-brothers who are Palestinian) have so little. And you want even more? You are not a Nation of Priests but of fearful, greedy little men who (really) worship your nuclear weapons. God does not dwell among you - He could not stand the lack of brotherly love.

In all fairness, though, there are Muslims who have been and continue to be abusive to Jews. I won't quantify and compare here, though, since I think it's unbecoming for anyone to say: "My neighbor's bad conduct toward me justifies my bad conduct toward him." Personally, I try my damnedest to avoid allowing anything my neighbor does to poison my view of the world or to make me lash out. Doing so would simply give any such malevolent way too much power.

QUOTE [see footnote 2]:

In a novel interpretation of the name [Ishmael] - which literally means ‘God will [in the future] hear' - he explains that "God will hear the cries of the people arising from the oppression which the children of [Ishmael] will bring about in the land [of Israel] in the end of days."

RESPONSE:

Could my eyes be deceiving me? Is this quote asserting that Muslims will be oppressing Jews in Israel just before the end of the world? Will this be yet another case of an oppressed group becoming oppressors? I certainly hope this vicious cycle will end - way before the End of Days (which, by the way, I don't happen to believe in).

Far more interesting to me, though, is the name Ishmael and its meaning: "God will [in the future] hear." Pray tell, just what is it that God will be hearing?

Final Thought on Abraham Himself

I hate to say it, but somebody must, simply because it's too obvious:

Abraham seems to have been a real dick who didn't love his first born and didn't have balls enough to stand up to his wife and say: "I won't banish my son Ishmael and his mother, Hagar. You're going to have to simply learn to get along." [Personal feeling? I think that's what God was hoping Abraham would say.]

But because he didn't say that, we're all paying a heavy price to this very day - for a continuing failure to get along.

Steven Searle was a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"It's a good thing Avigdor Lieberman isn't the Defense Minister. Then he might have to deal with certain Arab Israeli citizens who would be more than willing to take his oath for the sole purpose of insisting that they be allowed to "serve" in Israel's army. Avigdor, have you thought this thing out very carefully?" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Footnote 1: http://www.aish.com/torahportion/outlooksandinsights/Light_Unto_the_Nations.asp ]

Footnote 2: God Regrets Four Things by Mois Navon, pg. 183

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

INTRO

"US President Obama's negotiation skills surprised many leaders" - a caption appearing under Blacque Obammer's* photo, which appeared in an April 3, 2009 article from MercoPress: South Atlantic News Agency.

The "set up"

I wasn't surprised when hearing of Obammer's* previously unsuspected "negotiation skills." How could anybody be surprised, after taking a moment to think about the circumstances? The G-20 conference was about to end and Obammer* makes a dramatic overture which leads to an agreement between Hu of China and Sarkozy of France.

QUOTE:

Heading into the summit's final hours, however, it appeared that the group would fail to reach a consensus, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed to have the G-20 spotlight offending tax havens based on a list published Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and China objected, largely because it doesn't belong to the OECD.

That was when Obama, long a champion of ending or curbing tax havens, decided to float a compromise and pulled Sarkozy aside ....

Obama proposed that the G-20 merely "take note" of the OECD list, thus opening the door to implicit but not direct endorsement of that list...

Obama then met with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Sarkozy in a corner of the summit meeting room, as the other world leaders waited.

Upon the trio's reaching agreement, the G-20 summit then agreed to note the list of tax havens.

Sarkozy, who'd threatened days earlier to walk out of the summit if he didn't get his way, said the final agreement represented "great progress."

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 1]

My contention

I contend Sarkozy never had any intention of walking out of the summit. He merely postured so as to provide Obammer* with a chance to look good. Even though we Americans are stuck with an inexperienced and naïve president, the summit realized:

"For better or worse, we're also stuck with this guy, so we'd better make him look as good as possible."

And why not? The richest economies in the world wanted to project an aura of unity with a suave, masterful, unifying force at the helm. The name of the game is con: As in building up the confidence of the major financial players and markets of the world.  But I mean con in another way: As in conning the common citizens of the G-20 into thinking, "These guys know what they're doing - you'll see, everything will be coming up roses. They look so confident!"

No doubt about it: The whole game plan was to make Obammer* look good and to fool the masses of simpletons who earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow.

The need for transparency - now more than ever

QUOTE:

The list on the OECD site is obviously the result of a lot of political horsetrading - would you believe for example, after all the recent hype, that the OECD does not list Luxembourg and Switzerland as tax havens? And how on earth did Chile get on the list - did you ever hear anything about offshore banking in Chile? While Hong Kong, a major offshore financial hub, escaped listing altogether, for fears of upsetting the Chinese.

:UNQUOTE [see Footnote 2]

Ah, that last sentence: "...for fears of upsetting the Chinese." I wonder if Chinese President Hu Jintao has any of his personal fortune socked away in Hong Kong. Perhaps that's why he objected as he did during the summit.

The nations of the OECD and the G-20 don't care about the financial well being of the planet. Like all monopolistic trusts, they care only about strengthening their market position. Especially if their posturings and policies provide max benefit for their political elites. This agenda does not bode well for anyone who isn't a member of the club - which is most of us.

Insist on transparency

I envision a world in which there are no secret bank accounts (sorry Switzerland) - where all financial information is mandated to be open, transparent, and accessible to any member of the public, foreign or domestic. This even extends to making all personal and business tax returns public.

Some will claim, "How much I make, how I spend my money, and where I put it is none of your business."

As things stand right now, that's true - but only as far as the general public is concerned. You can't tell a bank "none of your business" if you want a loan and your creditworthiness must be verified. We should put all the cards on the table - face up. That is, I advocate total economic disclosure starting with anyone who aspires for (or currently holds) political office. But - I do mean "total" and that would eventually include everybody.

The easy way to defend this: Consider such disclosure to be the cost of doing business. That is, in order to benefit from the economic web, disclosure and transparency should be considered the price that must be paid. But this is a price which, if paid, benefits everybody. For only with all the cards on the table can we get a handle on the overall health of the economy so as to better regulate and stimulate it. [How many times have professional economists been surprised when their projections are undermined by the unknown and hidden?]

I'm a very private person. But by that I mean, "in regard to my thoughts and feelings." I don't care who knows the extent of my "vast" holdings. The government, for sure, knows and I don't even like them. So why should I care if my neighbor (who I do like) knows? To those who would object to this kind of openness, I can only suggest that they weigh the alternative: We're running out of time and don't have the luxury of waiting and hoping for miracles that will make the debt bomb(s) go away and keep hidden all of our (sometimes dirty) little secrets.

I know my proposal won't win me many friends. Quite frankly, though, I don't see any other way.

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Not always, but quite often, it's been my experience: When someone asserts, "None of your business," he's hiding something; even if only insecurity and mistrust"   - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Footnote 1: "G-20 reaches accord after Obama steps in to broker a deal"  = title of article by Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspaper, dated 4/2/09: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65353.html

Footnote 2: "The Complete OECD Tax Haven Blacklist," by Peter Macfarlane, Offshore Banking expert for The Q Wealth Report.

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.

Who is Kathleen Parker and why should we care?

I only know Ms. Parker by having on occasion read her widely-syndicated newspaper columns. Apparently she's quite famous and well-regarded - especially in more conservative circles - having won the H.L. Mencken Writing Award back in 1993.

Opinion-shapers like her, with an audience of millions of fans, are especially dangerous when they express ideas which ought to be (and can easily be) decisively refuted, but aren't. Hence my effort today: To repudiate one of her recent columns.

Introductory Comment

All quotes appearing below, minus those specifically attributed to someone else, are from Parker's column which appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 18, 2009:

Quotes and Comments

Quote:

Yet, there we were, an attorney and I, poring over memos about waterboarding as if they were weekend real estate ads.

Comment:

I'm going out on a limb here, since nowhere in her pitiful little essay does she identify this "attorney:" I believe this "attorney" is her husband. I also believe she kept this fact to herself for two good reasons:

• To lend gravitas to her words: It sounds better to say "an attorney," than to say "I ran this by my husband, who happens to be an attorney." Sounds to me like she was too lazy to be bothered with trying to obtain more than one opinion (kind of like Dubya himself).

• If I were this unnamed attorney, there's no way I'd want my good name and reputation attached to this column if, for no other reason, its brevity. Way too short, at less than 800 words, to allow for any in-depth analysis.

QUOTE:

It is easy now to declare that waterboarding is torture.

COMMENT:

And it was just as easy then, when Bybee et al [rubber-stampingly] approved waterboarding as a legal option.

Of course, Parker is trying to say that the emotional climate now makes it easier "to declare that waterboarding is torture," compared to the time when Bybee & Co. wrote their memo. Back then, of course, we "had" to give the CIA any and every imaginable tool to coerce their prisoners into revealing when and where the next hijacked airliner was going to crash into a famous American landmark.

But...there's a problem with this emotional climate argument. Bybee et al had been asked to render a legal opinion, not an emotional one. They were asked "to interpret whether 10 interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, would violate the 1994 statute prohibiting torture." All Team Bybee had to do was interpret the law; I don't recall that they had been subjected to torture or had been so emotionally traumatized as to pervert their judgment.

If so, whatever happened to the cool, aloof, "just-the-facts ma'am" legal professional?

QUOTE:

Keep in mind: Terrorist chatter at the time was comparable to pre-Sept. 11 levels. And the CIA had determined that Zubaida had crucial information about another attack.

COMMENT:

So, there it is - the underpinning of her entire essay: Ms. Parker is telling us to "Keep [certain factors] in mind." That's what makes the difference in certain actions being legal, when ordinarily not so. Again, what has the situation on the ground have to do with whether or not that 1994 statute was meant to forbid (among other techniques) waterboarding? The last time I checked, statutes don't include language like this:

"Certain practical matters must be kept in mind when determining whether or not an interrogation technique qualifies as torture."

That smacks too much of the moral relativism which conservatives are supposed to oppose. [Kathleen, is any of this getting through to you?]

QUOTE:

It [the 1994 statute prohibiting torture] defines torture as inflicting pain that is "difficult to endure" and that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

COMMENT:

Torture may be defined as inflicting pain that is "difficult to endure" [I'd say it's difficult to endure the sensation of drowning; the sensation you're about to lose your life] and that is "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury..."

Ah, "serious physical injury," you say? Does that mean it's okay for our agents to shove bamboo splinters under a prisoner's fingernails? That surely must be okay, since there's no "serious physical injury," certainly not even remotely approaching actual organ failure or impairment of bodily function.

As for "impairment of bodily function": Wouldn't you agree that it's an "impairment of bodily function" to interfere with breathing? How about not allowing a prisoner to take a crap? No one's talked about that, but you may be very sure that our guards weren't always very quick to allow a shackled prisoner to defecate when needed. Of course such a guard could always claim: "Hey, I never touched him." [Yeah, right!]

I have to ask a crucial question here: Why should any agent of the US be permitted to inflict any kind or degree of pain on any prisoner under his control? Don't forget: A prisoner is a helpless human being totally at the mercy of his guards.

As soon as we allow for even the possibility of inflicting pain on the helpless, then we open ugly doors: How much pain and under what circumstances?

Why don't we extend this permission to inflict pain to those who are guarding felons in county jails all over the country? As long as it's not severe enough to be called torture, why not allow for the systematic infliction of pain? That would certainly deter any criminal from ever wanting to return to prison. Of course, such a criminal might kill someone to avoid returning to prison, knowing that a daily dose of [what, in someone else's opinion, is] reasonably tolerable pain awaits him.

Such a killing would be seen simply as one prisoner's over-reaction, now wouldn't it? But then, it's not unusual to overreact, is it? When are we going to start being better people by not overreacting and not condoning overreaction?

QUOTE:

The Japanese forced water into the prisoner's nose and mouth. In our own version, the prisoner's mouth and nose are covered with a cloth that is saturated with water for no more than 20-40 seconds in a controlled manner. No water enters the lungs.

COMMENT:

It seems Parker is now talking about degrees of abusing prisoners, which (in her view) fall short of torture.

"20-40 seconds," you say? But who's counting and how? Stopwatch, anyone? Naw, let's just count it out: one (pause), two (pause), three (yawn and yawn again), four (time to take a drag out of my cigarette), fiiiiivvvvveeeee...(well, you get the idea).

"In a controlled manner," you say? Are we talking about the rate of water flow? Or the angle at which the waterboard is tilted? Is it okay to punch the guy in the stomach first? Ooph..out goes all the air. Okay, start pouring the water.

How thick is the cloth being used? Or could that be so thin there might as well not even be a cloth?

"No water enters the lungs." Says who? Or maybe Parker meant to say, "No appreciable amount of water enters the lungs." [The Buddha warned about people who cheat others with measures and scales. Could those be the scales of perverted justice?]

QUOTE:

Moreover, the same technique [waterboarding] is used to train our own military personnel, who do not suffer severe physical pain or prolonged mental harm.

COMMENT:

And how, Kathleen Parker, do you know this? Of course, when you say "the same technique," you don't say anything about frequency. Ah, yes. Nothing in your sorry essay says anything about frequency, and I doubt Bybee addressed that in his memo either. How could he, for then he might have to conclude that "too often" constitutes torture? And he didn't want to go there.

I wonder how Bybee might answer this question: Would you consider Chinese Water Torture to be barred under the 1994 statute? [In that case, "too often" (drip, drip, drip) is exactly the point.]

As events have revealed, frequency was indeed an important consideration - at least in the field:

QUOTE [from: Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects]:

The CIA officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum.

The 2005 memo also says that the CIA used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo released Thursday said waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted.

:UNQUOTE [The New York Times, 4/19/09, Scott Shane]

The hell, you say: "...used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted"...??? So much for the "controlled manner" praised by Ms. Parker. And since CIA rules were violated, I'm sure Kathleen Parker would be the first in line to insist that these violators be punished. [Yeah, right!]

QUOTE:

Even if Bybee and Yoo were wrong, their error doesn't rise to the level of an ethical offense, much less a war crime. Under the Justice Department's own standards, an ethical issue would arise only if their opinion was so obviously wrong that no reasonable lawyer could possibly reach the same conclusion.

COMMENT:

So that's the standard, eh? All Kathleen Parker has to do is find one single solitary "reasonable" lawyer to go along with Bybee's nonsense in order to exonerate his abuse of the public's trust? Maybe she's found one: her husband, attorney-at-law. I wonder how he stands versus the opinion of the following gentleman:

"Yale law school Dean...Harold Koh called [Bybee's memo] ‘perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read'"...[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo#Criticism ]

Bybee and Yoo were wrong and they surely knew this when setting pen to paper. They both worked for a White House which was quite intolerant of dissent, so they knew exactly what kind of opinion they were expected to render.

In Bybee's case, he was richly rewarded by President Bush with a lifetime appointment to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I call that "corruption" at best, fruits of a "war crime" at worst. [Yes, I'll call it a war crime.] The cynical, though, would wink and nod and say, "Not a bad day's pay indeed."

Yes, I think Bybee should be impeached and imprisoned, for he enabled torture. Guys out in the field could use his legal opinion as a shield against criminal prosecution, which was the whole idea in the first place. An idea which Blaque Obammer* is sustaining by disallowing prosecutions of those who thought they were "just following [lawful] orders." [Ignorance of the law is now a permissible excuse, especially when the torturer can say he had a lawyer's permission to proceed.]

QUOTE:

In testimony before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, law professor Michael Paulsen predicted that "presidents and administrations of both parties will not obtain candid, vigorous legal advice reflecting the full range of views, on sensitive matters of war, foreign affairs and national security."

COMMENT:

The only kind of legal advice that's important is accurate legal advice. Advice cannot be "candid," when it is requested by a President who expects certain answers. As for advice being "vigorous," what the hell could that possibly mean? I will accept accurate over vigorous any time.

QUOTE:

America's enemies could hope for no more.

COMMENT:

No, Kathleen Parker, I'll tell you what America's enemies could hope for more of:

• Presidents who intimidate their legal counselors into rendering indefensible, inaccurate, and politically expedient opinions.

• Syndicated columnists who don't rise up and say, "America must stop torturing."

Steven Searle (was) a candidate for U.S. President in 2008:

"Frankly, it was a tortuous experience for me to ponder the import of Kathleen Parker's hideous, small-minded essay. Worst of all? Realizing there are untold thousands of yahoos out in Numb-Numb land who are applauding her, not realizing what it's doing to the country they pretend to love" - Steve.

Founder of The Best Party Available

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* The following essay explains why I refer to him as "Blacque Obammer": http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2008/12/why_blacque_obammer

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.