A reminder of who we had in the White House

During the Bush administration:



Glenn Greenwald:

Jonathan Schwarz notes that in 2005, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Lithuania and visited a museum in Vilnius which once housed a KGB prison, where the Soviets tortured prisoners. That museum exhibits "solitary confinement rooms which were used to break down the prisoners and make them confess." Shockingly, "the walls are padded and soundproofed, made to absorb the cries and shouts for help," as it was the site of barbaric acts like this:

Prisoners either had to stand in ice-cold water or to balance on a small platform. Every time they got tired they fell down into the water.

After his visit, Rumsfeld released an "Open Letter to the People of Vilnius," in which he solemnly observed that "the museum was a stark reminder of the importance of preserving our liberty at all costs." Schwarz asks: "Did Rumsfeld Tour KGB Torture Museum to Pick Up Useful Tips?"

I wouldn't doubt it. Remember, they went down to Guantanamo to watch. And Rumsfeld complained that standing wasn't torture:

Forced Standing: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day," Donald Rumsfeld wrote in a 2002 interrogation memo. "Why is standing limited to four hours?" Rumsfeld would probably feel a little differently about this if he had to stand in place for 8-10 hours, which can cause ankle swelling, bruising, and excruciating pain.

When you decide to torture your enemy

You've already lost the war.

Going through some of my posts, I came across this excellent article by Vladimir Bukovsky for the Washington Post. It bears repeating:

Apart from sheer frustration and other adrenaline-related emotions, investigators and detectives in hot pursuit have enormous temptation to use force to break the will of their prey because they believe that, metaphorically speaking, they have a "ticking bomb" case on their hands. But, much as a good hunter trains his hounds to bring the game to him rather than eating it, a good ruler has to restrain his henchmen from devouring the prey lest he be left empty-handed. Investigation is a subtle process, requiring patience and fine analytical ability, as well as a skill in cultivating one's sources. When torture is condoned, these rare talented people leave the service, having been outstripped by less gifted colleagues with their quick-fix methods, and the service itself degenerates into a playground for sadists. Thus, in its heyday, Joseph Stalin's notorious NKVD (the Soviet secret police) became nothing more than an army of butchers terrorizing the whole country but incapable of solving the simplest of crimes. And once the NKVD went into high gear, not even Stalin could stop it at will. He finally succeeded only by turning the fury of the NKVD against itself; he ordered his chief NKVD henchman, Nikolai Yezhov (Beria's predecessor), to be arrested together with his closest aides.

So, why would democratically elected leaders of the United States ever want to legalize what a succession of Russian monarchs strove to abolish? Why run the risk of unleashing a fury that even Stalin had problems controlling? Why would anyone try to "improve intelligence-gathering capability" by destroying what was left of it? Frustration? Ineptitude? Ignorance? Or, has their friendship with a certain former KGB lieutenant colonel, V. Putin, rubbed off on the American leaders? I have no answer to these questions, but I do know that if Vice President Cheney is right and that some "cruel, inhumane or degrading" (CID) treatment of captives is a necessary tool for winning the war on terrorism, then the war is lost already.

Vladimir Bukovsky knows what he is talking about:

Vladimir Bukovsky, who spent nearly 12 years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals for nonviolent human rights activities, is the author of several books, including "To Build a Castle" and "Judgment in Moscow." Now 63, he has lived primarily in Cambridge, England, since 1976.

But everything is okay, because we've changed the meaning of the word torture from brutalizing someone by waterboarding them to giving them a mild bath with soap suds....

(Cross-posted at SteveAudio)

Burying the opposition in facts and logical reasoning

It's no wonder why some people hate science. Ed Darrell takes on Vox Day's claim:

Vox Day wishes to make the claim that Darwin is responsible for the evils of the Soviet Union. Apart from the prima facie absurdity of the claim, Vox has a dozen highly tenuous links he wishes to torture into supporting his claim, despite their refusal to do so.

If you want to see the way to utterly destroy a badly structured argument, read the entire beautifully laid out treatise.

Sadly, we know from past experience, facts and the truth will not impress those who have made up their tiny minds. For the longest time I assumed we just needed to be more clear, that finding a more succinct way of presenting the truth would change the minds of the fundamentalists/ Loyal Bushies/ Neocons/ rabid Republicans.

No.

There has been no need for argument nor discussion. The truth is what they have decided it must be.

No wonder they are so threatened by the scientific mind.

Weaponized Polonium

TRex at Firedoglake has the details and this interesting slant:

"There are very powerful interests at work here, and it would not surprise me to find that this plot has layers on layers of intrigue. You may need a state apparatus to make polonium-210, particularly what appears to be a "weaponized" form, but all you need to buy it is money. At every stage of the process, there are people who could potentially be bought out or threatened. And one thing the power players in the former Soviet Union have in abundance is money.

So, I would not be so eager to lay the blame for this and other seemingly politically motivated murders at the feet of the Putin administration. Not because I believe that they are particularly good or just, but because I think it would be hasty to assume that they are the only malevolent actors in this particular drama."

Tracking the route the spy traveled.

Does anyone remember the weaponized anthrax?