Naive NIE's, Causes Celebres and Deplorable Detainee Bills
Oh my but it's been one hell of a week.
Sunday the NY Times reported about a National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the intelligence community that concluded that the war in Iraq was making terrorism worse. This leak didn't sit well with the Bush administration (probably because it put lie to their standard talking point of how the war was making America safer). Immediately BushCo began saying that the NIE said no such thing. Bush said it was 'naive' to think otherwise and to prove his point, he said he would declassify part of the report. A summary (pdf) of the key judgments was released on Tuesday. But there was one slight problem: the NYT was correct.
While the summary does say that Al-Qaeda has been "seriously damaged [..] and disrupted" it also said that the war in Iraq has become a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, a phrase which the media picked up on in their reporting of the summary.
On Monday, the "compromised" detainee bill got worse. Not only does it still seek to strip detainees of the right of habeas corpus (so this kerfluffle about banning torture doesn't mean squat since the courts wouldn't be able to intercede even if abuse takes place), new ambiguous language leaves open the possibility of US citizens being detained indefinitely. I guess Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi were just appetizers for the Prison-industrial complex.
Don't expect any opposition from the Democrats, though. They've already signaled they don't intend to block the bill (which has already passed in the House). It is a decision that may well come to haunt them later and just shows the idiocy of their approach. They seized on the NIE as proof that Bush's strategy for the war on terror isn't working but then refuse to stand up to his demands for even more powers! Powers that could have far reaching implications.
For instance, buried in the NIE report is talk of other radical ideologies turning terrorist against the US and it specifically mentions 'leftists'. As we all know, defenders of the administration love to label those oppose to Bush's policies as "traitors" and "sympathizers". Since leftists are being singled out as potential "future enemies", it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see were it could all eventually lead. Soon you or I may find ourselves subject to indefinite detention based solely on the simple crime of not agreeing with the President.
The NIE also notes that the Internet is playing a significant role. How soon to you think it will be before Bush sycophants start claiming that "the enemy" is "utilizing the blogosphere" against us? (Hint: not long)
So who will be the first to be "disappeared" under this un-American bill?
I suppose a better question would be: Do you trust this President with the answer?
More from Digby, Shakes, JB, AJ, , Hunter, Georgia10, WaPo, NYT, Cenk Uygur and Sidney Blumenthal.
Sunday the NY Times reported about a National Intelligence Estimate compiled by the intelligence community that concluded that the war in Iraq was making terrorism worse. This leak didn't sit well with the Bush administration (probably because it put lie to their standard talking point of how the war was making America safer). Immediately BushCo began saying that the NIE said no such thing. Bush said it was 'naive' to think otherwise and to prove his point, he said he would declassify part of the report. A summary (pdf) of the key judgments was released on Tuesday. But there was one slight problem: the NYT was correct.
While the summary does say that Al-Qaeda has been "seriously damaged [..] and disrupted" it also said that the war in Iraq has become a 'cause celebre' for jihadists, a phrase which the media picked up on in their reporting of the summary.
On Monday, the "compromised" detainee bill got worse. Not only does it still seek to strip detainees of the right of habeas corpus (so this kerfluffle about banning torture doesn't mean squat since the courts wouldn't be able to intercede even if abuse takes place), new ambiguous language leaves open the possibility of US citizens being detained indefinitely. I guess Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi were just appetizers for the Prison-industrial complex.
Don't expect any opposition from the Democrats, though. They've already signaled they don't intend to block the bill (which has already passed in the House). It is a decision that may well come to haunt them later and just shows the idiocy of their approach. They seized on the NIE as proof that Bush's strategy for the war on terror isn't working but then refuse to stand up to his demands for even more powers! Powers that could have far reaching implications.
For instance, buried in the NIE report is talk of other radical ideologies turning terrorist against the US and it specifically mentions 'leftists'. As we all know, defenders of the administration love to label those oppose to Bush's policies as "traitors" and "sympathizers". Since leftists are being singled out as potential "future enemies", it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see were it could all eventually lead. Soon you or I may find ourselves subject to indefinite detention based solely on the simple crime of not agreeing with the President.
The NIE also notes that the Internet is playing a significant role. How soon to you think it will be before Bush sycophants start claiming that "the enemy" is "utilizing the blogosphere" against us? (Hint: not long)
So who will be the first to be "disappeared" under this un-American bill?
I suppose a better question would be: Do you trust this President with the answer?
More from Digby, Shakes, JB, AJ, , Hunter, Georgia10, WaPo, NYT, Cenk Uygur and Sidney Blumenthal.
Post a Comment