"We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated.
We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured.
And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured.
You know, and I know, that has happened a number of times, in the past five years, by this country. It is a black mark on us. It has brought about the condemnation of some of our closest and best allies.
And it is easy for us to sit here comfortably in this room knowing that we're not going to be sent off to another country to be tortured, to treat it as though, well, Attorney-General Ashcroft says we've got assurances.
Assurances from a country that we also say, now, we can't talk to them because we can't take their word for anything?"
Leahy told Gonzales that he was a little upset over this issue, to which Gonzales condescendingly said:
"Yes, sir, I can tell. But before you get more upset, perhaps you should wait to receive the briefing ..."
If you watch the link at Crooks and Liars, you can see that Leahy cut off Gonzales abruptly with a curt: "How long?"
GONZALES: I'm hoping that we can get you the information next week.
LEAHY: Well, Attorney-General, I'll tell you what I'll do: I'll meet you halfway on this.
I'll wait next week for that briefing. If we don't get it, I guarantee you there will be another hearing on this issue.
This took place on January 17th, 2007. On January 31st, Leahy and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee got their meeting with Gonzales, who provided some top-secret "evidence" that supposedly justified their arresting of a Canadian citizen, shipping him to Syria (which, as Leahy pointed out, the bush II regime claimed paradoxically that it accepted Syria's assurances that Arar would not be tortured whereas in most other areas the Syrians are considered to be terrorist supporting monsters) where he was tortured, and then refusing to admit his innocence and keeping him on a "no-fly" list.
Shit-for-brains monster tried to portray the results of the meeting thusly:
"Now that they've been briefed by the Justice Department, Leahy and fellow senator, Arlen Specter, suddenly don't have much to say...
C'mon boys... it's vindication day!WASHINGTON — Two U.S. senators who have been briefed on the
Maher Arar case say they have a lot more questions.But Democrat
Patrick Leahy and Republican Arlen Specter clammed up about what they were told by Justice Department officials on Thursday during a meeting that lasted an hour and 40 minutes.
Or is it?"
The link connects to a Globe & Mail report that curiously doesn't really say what that this self-described "Conservative, middle-aged, a tad opinionated" individual says it does.
Most of the story is now behind a subscription wall, but let me assure you, the report by Paul Koring and Jeff Shallot does not use the expression "clammed up" anywhere. For the most part, it confirms the introduction that is publicly available:
"A top-secret briefing yesterday failed to convince two senior U.S. senators that the Bush administration was right to send Maher Arar to Syria. Both Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy and Republican Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate judiciary committee, said the briefing resulted in more questions than answers."
If you go to the link, you'll see that the imbecile indented his original interpretation of the story, and then, as if to emphasize an important part of the story, put the text in bold font and italicized it. He even put it under in the dateline "Washington" as if he was really quoting the story and pointing out the important features of the story.
Yes, Leahy said that he couldn't comment on the information that he'd heard, but, as opposed to laughing-boy's interpretation of things, this is more likely due to the fact that the probably fake evidence has been legally marked "top secret" and not because Leahy has seen anything of bone-chilling importance to the continued existence of the United States of America.
It appears that our "conservative" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) blogger is, like so many others on the right-wing, merely a base, transparent liar. In this case, this sorry excuse for a human being is trying to defend the torture of an innocent man (although I'm loathe to countenance even the torture of the guilty fwiw) and the lies and deceits of the crypto-fascist regime that is guilty of this torture.
So what? Like me, this person is just another anonymous loser on the internet. But once again: Crooked politicians like Stephen Harper have to get their hardcore supporters from somewhere, and it's lying, torture-loving, Canadian-values-trashing vermin like this latest example that provide this support.
They take their cues from the almost thoroughly debased political culture of the United States, which, while it produces astonishing sources of original dissent and analysis, on the margins is dominated by a powerful media system that is corrupted by the self-congratulatory mindlessness of triumphant capitalism. Since the Reagan years, the "conservative" wing of the media has become more unhinged from reality while it has simultaneously become more powerful. It supports our submerged thirty percent and oozes over our borders, successfully infecting our own political climate. (How can a climate become infected? Who cares, you get the idea. :) )
Don't forget, that when the Liberal Party of Canada (which on a good day likes to imagine that it stands for social justice) was prodded by the NDP to get answers on the Arar file, our present PM Stephen Harper was bitching about all this effort going to ensuring the well-being of a terrorist. Harper's present expressions of concerns for Arar are almost certainly politically motivated. Given that Harper's entire career has been one of deception and lies there is no reason to trust that he has discovered sincerity on this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment