I'm eagerly anticipating the loud, resounding condemnations (and the accompanying hand-wringing, self-flagellating, 36-point news headlines) by Illinois Democrats, especially Senator Dick Durbin, of the torture that was committed by police officers, under a Democrat administration running the City of Chicago and Cook County.
Of course, none will be forthcoming, as the original condemnations were all political in the first place.
And it's a shame that the torture that occurred under the Chicago Democrats was concealed for so long that prosecutions aren't possible.
Gordy, do you support torture of foreign nationals by the United States? And do you think a U.S. Senator (oh, say, John McCain) should speak out against such torture?
"Gordy, do you support torture of foreign nationals by the United States?"
Nope.
"And do you think a U.S. Senator (oh, say, John McCain) should speak out against such torture?"
Yep.
I will just note, with increasing cynicism, the deafening silence of Dick Durbin (and most Illinois Republicans, too). After all, Mayor Daley was the Cook County State's Attorney when some of this stuff was happening, and they wouldn't dare criticize someone like Mayor Daley, would they?
Of coures, the military has prosecuted many of the torturers at Abu Ghraib. Mayor Daley, when he was SA, didn't prosecute, and in fact, didn't even investigate.
Durbin, of course, wouldn't be a US Senator without the assistance of Mayor Daley. So the silence, while deafening, is also unsurprising. I can't believe anyone takes Durbin seriously anymoer.
If what is described in this article is defined as torture, these investigators need to review what our US Military prison guards under CIA guidance and administration review are doing----as that is not being called 'torture', just stong interigation techniques.
Political rhetoric is common to both sides.
There are things that Republican leaders do (and have done) that fellow Republicans wouldn't dare publicly criticize them for, simply because of partisanship. Likewise with Democrats. To be outraged that it occurs on both sides of the political aisle is understandable. To be outraged that exists at all is not, and leads one to suspect you may be engaging in your own form of partisan hackery.
As for the Chicago Police Department torture, two things:
1) It's absolutely abominable, and I've never been a fan of the types of Democrats who run Chicago (a sweeping statement, to be sure, and I'm not saying that they're all bad, of course, but there's a definite, historical pattern there).
2) These events, if I understand the report correctly, are thirty years old. Time is a great distancer. That's not an excuse, just an observation. Also, the CPD torture is no longer able to be prosecuted. Abu Ghraib, on the other hand (and all the other current torture incidents) are recent and fresh, so of course folks are going to be up in arms about it. In that regard, conflating the CPD torture with the Abu Ghraib torture may not be proper.
"If what is described in this article is defined as torture, these investigators need to review what our US Military prison guards under CIA guidance and administration review are doing”â€Â-as that is not being called ”Ëœtorture', just stong interigation techniques."
And yet soldiers have been are are still being prosecuted for it.
"To be outraged that exists at all is not, and leads one to suspect you may be engaging in your own form of partisan hackery."
I've been called worse things than a partisan hack. But my problem with this is that Dick Durbin will publicly stand up and compare the actions of American troops the actions of Nazis (and later sorta-apologize for it), but won't utter a peep when one of his constituencies (Daley and Chicago Dem machine types) is revealed as torturing yet another constituency (urban blacks).
He ought to be ashamed, and the Democrats of Illinois ought to be ashamed they continue to support him - especially with so many more honorable Democrat choices (including Obama, Hynes, Fritchey, etc.) right here in Illinois.
Dick Durbin is a disgrace.
Cops not following the rules? No way!
And yet soldiers have been are are still being prosecuted for it.
Ah yes, but would anyone have been prosecuted at all if Seymour Hersh (the journalist you despise) hadn't broken the story in the first place? Would the military have broken this story itself?
And if the answer is "no" then one has to wonder: is it because the military didn't know (incompetent) or because they didn't care (criminal)?
Gordy--Those being prosecuted are either accused of murder or went beyond the Rumsfeld definition of strong interigation techniques.
I like Dick and I vote mostly Republican and have for years. Of course I also like a certain Wisconsin Senator.
Dick is doing his job in DC. Illinois politics is so polluted it, it makes the Saq Canal look like a trout stream. I am talking both the Illinois Democratic and Republican parties. To make matters worse they have infiltrated this polictical party disease in to local governmental matters where a non-partisen apporach to local issues always produces a better, cheaper and faster solution for the local residences.
Gordy:
A 36-point headline isn't all that big. The wroN-G probably uses them all the time on its pro-business PR stories disguised as news.
Who the hell is Seymour Hersch, and what makes you think I despise him?
CNN has a clip today of some cops beating the crap out of some guy:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2006/07/20/officers.attack.in.elevator.wdiv
Why'd they uncuff him?
To beat the crap out of him without subjecting him to undue discomfort.
I love the (emerging) omnipresence of video cameras. Maybe law enforcement organizations think they can hide their actions now (apparent FOIA immunity, no complaint process transparency, no third-party regulatory agency, no right of private action), but that won't be the case for too much longer. They may just have to start conducting themselves in a lawful manner. Either that, or build some camera-free rooms where they can abuse people.
Gordy Hulten said, "Who the hell is Seymour Hersch, and what makes you think I despise him?"
That speaks volumes about Gordy Hulten's politcal awareness.
Why? What's he done that's so earth shattering that I should despise him?
Not much...
Seymour Myron (Sy) Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and author based in New York City. He is a regular contributor to The New Yorker on military and security matters.
His work first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting.
I don't know if he has a blog in a small town in Central Illinois
Bill Buckley and I were out to dinner with Kissinger the other night, and when Henry asked Bill, "Do you know that Gordy Hulten guy?" Bill said, "No", but I spoke up, and said, "Hulten? Sure, he runs that IlliniPundit blog! Evetyone's talking about it!"
I just read Hersh's article in the 7/10 & 17 New Yorker on the showdown with Iran. Great article, as usual.
CLEVELAND, July 20 (UPI) -- (Republican) U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine's campaign has acknowledged using faked footage of the attack on the World Trade Center in a campaign commercial.
classy.
Since the statute of limitations on the Chicago 'torture' has long since passed (by decades) exactly what would Durbin accomplish by putting on sackcloth and ashes? Other than make a certain partican downstate blogger happy, that is.
Yeah, the torture's bad. Any torture's bad. The soldiers are being prosecuted because it is possible (and altogether proper) to prosecure them. It is not possible to prosecute the Chicago police. There is a difference. Nor is is possible for Durbin to do much about it. This really isn't a federal matter, now is it?
Cool. So he's a journalist in a publication that I don't read.
And the fact that I don't read the New Yorker makes me politically unaware because...?
Why should I despise him again?
Who the hell is Seymour Hersch, and what makes you think I despise him?
I guess that's a no?
I like Dick Durbin. Regardless of the mud thrown on him by the Republican slime machine in D.C., he is the second-most powerful democrat in Washington (minority whip) and stands to bring quite a lot of pork to Illinois if/when the Dems retake the Senate.
With Obama and Hastert in the mix, it makes Illinois a real player in DC.
And makes you wonder exactly what Tim Johnson's problem is. ;)
"This really isn't a federal matter, now is it?"
Actually, I think it might be. When local law enforcement itself is under investigation, it frequently becomes necessary for the feds to step in to prevent a cover-up. And I'm guessing that torture probably counts as a civil rights violation, which can be a federal offense.
I haven't followed the details of this as closely as others, so somebody help me out here: when they say the statute of limitations has run out, does that include any federal civil rights violations?
Hersh won the Puliter Prize for My Lai. You remember My Lai, don't you Gordy?
I guess not. Well, did you hear about it in school? Probably not.
You don't read the New Yorker? Why bother, no one else does, either.
If you don't know something or someone exists, it he/she either doesn't exist, or has no relevance, eh Gordy?
Being oblivious is not a good thing, Gordy. Being erudite might open up one to new ideas, and those new ideas can be dangerous, eh?
"Hersh won the Puliter Prize for My Lai. You remember My Lai, don't you Gordy?
I guess not. Well, did you hear about it in school? Probably not"
Sure I learned about it. But that didn't include learning about the heroic exploits of a journalist. He is, after all, a journalist.
"If you don't know something or someone exists, it he/she either doesn't exist, or has no relevance, eh Gordy?"
Not at all, I'm always looking for new things to read.
"Being oblivious is not a good thing, Gordy. Being erudite might open up one to new ideas, and those new ideas can be dangerous, eh? "
If you think I'm afraid of new ideas, you don't know me very well.
And no one has filled me in on why I'm supposed to despise this guy.
"Actually, I think it might be. When local law enforcement itself is under investigation, it frequently becomes necessary for the feds to step in to prevent a cover-up. And I'm guessing that torture probably counts as a civil rights violation, which can be a federal offense.
I haven't followed the details of this as closely as others, so somebody help me out here: when they say the statute of limitations has run out, does that include any federal civil rights violations? "
Touche. Doesn't Dick Durbin care about the Civil Rights of Ilinois citizens?
Looks like the New Yorker has a website, and some of Hersh's articles are online. I'll look through a few, see if he hooks me.
Why, again, is it presumed that I despise Seymour Hersh?
I think I have mistook you for someone named veritas von liberte, or something who has written things like, "I guess book sales would be better with controversial tell all a la Kitty Kelly or Seymour Hersh." and "How about we wait and see what is really turned up in the investigations before people start acting like Seymour Hersh and ”Ëœexposing' something that wasn't being hidden." etc. etc. etc.
Hersh broke the Abu Ghraib story in the New Yorker. You can read the story here. Lots of Republicans called him a traitor at the time, most denied the story was true. When the Pentagon came out and confirmed the facts, suddenly your party changed the subject.
My question still stands: without Hersh, would we even know about Abu Ghraib? If not, which is it: incompetence or criminality?
I never said you should despisehim maybe someone else said it.
I just took you to task for your backwards ways. "Who the hell is Seymour Hersh?
Believe it or not Gordy, much of what HAS happened influences what IS happening.
I won't bother with the famous Santayana quote, I am sure you know it by heart.
To you, My Lai is history taught in school, to many of us, it is part of our life experience.
Here's a question, especially for today: where were you when Neil Armstring stepped on the moon? I was at my girlfriend's house, but I had to get home to get ready for work in downtown Chicago.
Where were you when Kennedy was shot? When Maris hit number 60? Do you remember your neighbor proudly showing off his brand new Edsel? How about the world tensions when Gamal Abdul Nassar closed the Suez?
Feh. Smart-assed kids, think they know it all. "Who the hell is Seymour Hersh" indeed.
"Feh. Smart-assed kids, think they know it all. “Who the hell is Seymour Hersh” indeed."
That's me, I guess. I've always been a smart-ass, but it's been a while since anyone called me a kid.
Oh, and I was born in 1975, for the record. I guess that's a strike against me, too.
Like I said, I'll check out Hersh. But the fact remains, that he's a journalist. My history teachers and professors didn't teach me about journalists who covered historical events. Instead, they taught me about the historical events themselves. Along the same lines, I don't read bylines on AP stories either.
Oh, and maybe this is me being smart-ass again, but I don't really care about Pulitzers. I just don't hold journalism to the same exalted standard as you, I guess.
As for "breaking" the Abu Ghraib story, according to the New Yorker link above, Hersh first reported it either April 30 or May 10, 2004. But this official military report states that the military began investigating Abu Ghraib on March 31,
20052004.So did Hersh really spur the military investgation? It doesn't appear that he did.
Did he cause the subsequent publicity storm? Perhaps.
Did the subsequent publicity affect the investigation in a positive way? Again, perhaps.
Clearly, Hersh has done some excellent reporting through the years. But how much credit he deserves for "breaking" the Abu Ghraib story appears to depend on how well you can read a calendar.
But, of course, I was only born in 1975. So while I don't read the New Yorker, I do know how to use google.
I'm ready for more insults now.
No insults, but breaking a story means you are the one who prints the story first. It's a really big deal in journalism, and Hersh has broken at least two history-making stories in his career. Sure, the military was investigating, but Hersh was the journalist who brought that investigation to the public. Would the military have done that? Would they have informed the American citizens of the behavior of some of our soldiers?
For a cute example of how important breaking a story is, check out this link.
Hubba hubba. :)
Someone earlier stated that Hersh's story prompted the military investigation. That's false.
The fact that the investigation was already occurring is more important, in my opinion, than whether the story is in the public domain. I'm glad the public found out about it, but the public's knowing didn't spur the investigation.
Like I said, Hersh seems to be a good journalist, and highly regarded by his (overwhelmingly liberal) peers. Good for him. But he's not nearly the hero that he's been made out to be by others in this thread.
GH wrote,
"As for “breaking” the Abu Ghraib story, according to the New Yorker link above, Hersh first reported it either April 30 or May 10, 2004. But this official military report states that the military began investigating Abu Ghraib on March 31, 2005."
I thought 2004 preceded 2005, but I guess not.
I don't exalt Hersh, I just think that "pundits" should be aware.
Or maybe not call themselves "pundits", or at least take down the definition on their masthead. "Masthead". the printed matter in a newspaper or periodical that gives the title and details of ownership
"Journalist". One who journals. "Blog". Web log.
Hersh - Pulitzer Prize. National recognition.
IlliniPundit- "IlliniPundit is one hell of a blog!" - Peoria Pundit
Hmmmmmm.
If the Feds are coming in that is good Then this 'torture' thing will either be exposed or covered up. Either way it will be over and we can move on to real political issues, the design of this blog.
Gordy, I'm glad you're against torture; so many Republicans aren't.
"I thought 2004 preceded 2005, but I guess not."
Sorry about that typo, it should have ready March 31, 2004 rather than 2005. I've fixed it above.
Of course, that typo is just further evidence of Seymour Hersh's inherent superiority over idiots like me.
I'm ready for more insults now.
The bottomline here is if people had thier civil rights violated by having the snot beat out of them while in police custody then it becomes a federal matter if the local police do not investigate the matter or if the local agencies do not address it properly. Seeing as how it has taken this long for it to come to light the feds may want to see what can come of it. The bigger question is when exactly did this behavior stop. A previous poster said this was all thirty years ago, but when did it stop? That may be one angle the feds may want to look at. Durbin should be asked what his take on it is since he went so over the top comparing US forces with Nazis and the KGB. I think a comment from him on this would be interesting and proper since he is the powerful member in Congress and Chicago being as prominent city as it is in his state. I should add I am quite flattered that someone would cut and paste my statement from many months ago about this topic. Scary, but flattering.
"The bottomline here is if people had thier civil rights violated by having the snot beat out of them while in police custody then it becomes a federal matter if the local police do not investigate the matter or if the local agencies do not address it properly"
That is an incorrect statement of the law.
FJ,
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 first para. I suggest you look it up.
Federal jurisdiction does not depend on the state or local officials not investigating the matter. It's called "separate sovereigns".
I suggest you get an education.
Wow. Did you know that you can personally file a complaint of civil rights violations? Wow. The FBI will investigate those too. Wow. I'll bet you didn't know that. Wow. And I thought Friday was going to be a fun day.
Sarcasm is on high today.
There must be a federal question, a federal violation. It does NOT depend on the state or local authorities investigation or lack thereof, as you stated.
You mis-stated the law.
You don't seem to understand. The FBI doesn't investigate all civil rights violations, but will investigate violations if the locals won't. You know what, call them yourself.
No, you don't understand. When you make a statement that the feds will investigate when the locals won't, that's an inaccurate statement of the law. That's all I said.
There MUST BE a federal question, a federal violation. THAT is an accurate statement of the law.
The feds will NOT investigate if there is no federal question, if there is no federal violation, if there is NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION.
Learn the law before you spout off, or at least learn to be more accurate.
Again, when a person's civil rights are alleged to have been violated the FBI can and will step in because investigationg civil rights is part of its mandate and it has jurisdiction nationwide. Civil rights IS the federal question. Sheesh. You are making this far more difficult than it need be, but don't take it from me. I urge you to call the FBI yourself.
Ok, Mr know it all, then why didn't the FBI investigate OJ Simpson for violating Nichole Simpson's and Ron Goldman's civil rights?
Isn't murder violating someone's civil rights?
I guess because Goldman's father didn't bother asking the FBI to look into it?