I believe that the Constitution of the United States has cancer.
My understanding of cancer is that it usually takes decades of exposure to toxins before cells become cancerous.

Today we are faced with a cancer of the Constitution.
It may have started with two cancer cells, Cheney and Rumsfeld
Did they get their start in the Nixon administration? I think so. I think they believed, and still believe, that Nixon was right and that he was above the law while he was president and that a unitary executive branch is best for this country.

They first appear in public, and with power under Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon. The cancer Nixon started was not thoroughly killed by irradiation of the bright light of public scrutiny. Cheney and Rumsfeld and crew were allowed to continue to silently grow and infect others around them. The tumor was regrowing.

The cancer grows, quietly and becomes more powerful
Through Reagan and Bush, 41. Through Iran-Contra where the United States hired people like Eugene Hassenfus to run cocaine into black neighborhoods and to sell weapons to Iran to raise money to fund an extra-constitutional war.
A temporary seeming remission during Clinton. But the military continued to privatize their support services. Now, instead of having Army cooks, we subcontract the jobs out to Halliburton and pay Blackwater (I mean Xi) to guard the civilians. If we had that arrangement during the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans would have won their Argonne offensive because then e had an army that could fight in depth. We had cooks who were soldiers first.

Then the full symptomatic eruption happened during Bush 43. Just the right mix of carcinogens and precancerous cells got mixed together. The body of this nation was subjected to a terrible shock. We all (most of us) bought the big lie. We could not see that giving George Bush – and, by extension, the people who had their hand up his butt like a sock puppet – Giving George Bush war powers was no different from giving any other redneck an ax handle, a six pack and a pick-up truck.

Our Constitution has been exposed to eight years of rapid and unimpeded growth of Constitutional Cancer. The tumor has not yet killed the Constitution.

Smoking causes cancer, right? Stopping smoking is a preventative method of avoiding the disease.
But once cancer is present, it continues to grow even if the victim stops smoking.

Now, by pardoning torturers and justifiers of torture, and orderers of torture and promising to just not ever do it again, the country is trying to cure cancer by just stopping smoking. We pretend that the the concept of the Unitary Executive is behind us. We say that we will no longer torture. We do not repudiate unwarranted invasions into the private lives of our citizens. We seek to protect some of the people, the CIA civilians, who tortured in the name of The United States of America. Yet we do not pardon the military people who, acting under the very same legal determinations, followed their orders in military prisons and were scapegoated and themselves sent to military prisons.

Once the disease starts, appeasment and promising to change do not rid the body of the Constitution of the cancer. If those things worked then Gerald Ford’s pardon would have worked – and it didn’t.

The patient may get a few more years of life if surgeons cut out the big, easy to get pieces But the patient will still die of the cancer because it is still there and will grow back.

It may even metastasize and spread to other parts of the body.

Sometimes a person with lung cancer dies because the cancer spreads to the liver or the brain and those tumors kill the person first.

Is this what we want of our Constitution? Is this what we want for our country?
I for one do not.

Therefore – I am sending this to my president, my senators, my representative and several various public media outlets.

I am imploring those with the power, I’m begging, I’m asking nice, I’m saying Please

“Please, If we are truly a nation of law (and we are a nation of law because we legitimize our government through the set of law we refer to as the Constitution) independently and publicly investigate every abuse of power, real or imagined, that makes up the legacy of the Bush Cheney Administration.

This will not be so hard to do. PBS has already a half dozen programs outlining abuse. Even the Comedy channel has researched and developed numerous “news” stories.

Surely Congress, and the Justice Department can do as well, if not better.

My pledge. Just as Gerald Ford’s putting the past behind us by pardoning Richard Nixon cost him my vote in 1976, not investigating torture and other abuses of power and office between the years of 2000 and 2008 will cost President Obama my vote in 2012.

In regard to credit card company abuse, how can a credit card company usurp a citizen’s right to jury trial by requiring mandatory arbitration (with no Opt-Out) to settle disputes?

Pelosi approved of “torture”: you can start with her.

I hope that when you discuss torture, that you will mention the offer by Sean Hannity to undergo waterboarding and Keith Olbermann’s offer to take him up on it and donate $1000 per second to charity.

Here’s the video of first Olbermann, with the Hannity insert:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/23/olbermann-calls-hannitys_n_190869.html

Shouldn’t the onus be on the credit card company to ASK the cardholders to Opt-IN to mandatory arbitration rather than on the cardholder to Opt-Out (if the Opt-Out option were available)?

Rachel – Why start with Pelosi? She was in the minority at the relevant times. Same as blaming Frank for the financial meltdown. The guy was in the minority for 12 years, but no matter. What is with these Republicans? The buck definitely does not stop with the guys in charge. I guess the whole famous “personal responsibility” concept ceases to work when it comes to their beloved leaders.

Not to split moral hairs because all torture is wrong and illegal (and thus prosecution is mandatory, like it or not) but it may well develop that some of the “harsh interrogation” tactics were NOT to extract the truth, but to force captives to say whatever is necessary (i.e., progaganda à la the Soviets and Maoist China, et al) in order to provide justification for the war in Iraq. These offenses, if proven, must be part of the discussion. If ever anyone should be prosecuted, the perpetrators of such a policy, should be. Otherwise, we’re sunk, PERIOD, permanently, as anything more than another atrocity-committing imperial power, going over the limit because it can, in the long history of such regimes.

Thank you Peter Bradley. The cancer metaphor is perfect. It is absolutely wrong to let this go.
Bipartisanship is overrated. Everyone I know wants an investigation and accountability. Can you imagine, accountability?
Every military person that I know believes 100% that torture is WRONG. Un-American.
If I am to continue calling myself an American,then this country and this gov’t better show me that they are willing to put their jobs on the line. All of my family puts their LIVES on the line in our military, so risk your gov’t position and Do The Right Thing!

Why not release the documents Cheney wants released? Even if they prove that the torturing of these folks was “useful” in fending off an attack, that doesn’t make it legal.

Gergen needs to speak to this.

Good point, Andrea…I am surprised that we have been suicide bombing free this long…watch Obama jump if we have one.

#1 – Torture is outlawed by the 8th Amendment. The only argument to made is whether you believe these are inalienable human rights or rights reserved only for Americans.

#2 – Even if we received some valid intelligence from a tortured prisoner, there is no way to prove that we could not have received that information via a legal interrogation method.

The US territory has been “suicide bombing free” for over two hundred years, with the exception of one or two occurances. What are you surprised about?

Andrea Seabrook is channeling Peggy Noonan.

YES! we really want to have criminal prosecutions! What a stupid question. Poor people in this country don’t get to say, do we really want to have all these trials and people in prison? really? let’s not go there, it will get ugly. Torture is ugly, the VP and President believing they are above the law is ugly, the people that supported the mad men are ugly.

I think something that needs to be discussed on the show is the number of our troops, our mothers and fathers and sons and daughters that were killed because of retribution directly related to our use of torture. I find it appalling that the right wing does not want to pursue this when they and Ken Star wasted billions in tax payer money to destroy Bill Clinton for lying about the definition of “is”(where is their integrity?). We had an administration that truly broke the law with the use of torture and I believe it is should be likened to Treason. And should be dealt with appropriately.

It is hard to find the right words to respond to someone who talks about being “contemplative” about the use of torture. It is profoundly dismaying to me that we are having this “both sides of the issues” debates about torture. I lived through a period of political violence in Peru to the time when a law outlawing torture was passed. At no time did I hear any Peruvian commentator, politician or member of the military ever defend torture. At least they had enough of a sense of shame not to say they supported torture out loud. Here in the U.S., “no problem” – people openly support torture. It is sad, repulsive and frightening.

I’d like to comment on the torture issue:

It is simple; torture is wrong, the people who allowed the USA to use torture whether Democrat or Republican should be called out and punished. As to whether we should pursue the truth on whether we were misled into war against Saddam’s Iraq- of course we were, anyone who was paying attention during the lead up to war knows that the Bush administration was determined to go to war come hell or high water. Remember the Yellow Cake lie, remember the British official who “Committed suicide” shortly before the war was started. Saddam had no stock pile of weapons of mass destruction.

As for how do American’s “get their reputation back” – it isn’t going to be easy. After all the lying (and apathy!) why should we expect anyone, of any nationality to have any faith in our honesty going forward? Obama alone cannot restore our reputation, only We The People can by earning it- by restoring the health of our democracy through civic engagement- and insisting on upholding the truth at all costs.

The assumptions underlying this so-called effectiveness debate on torture are as rotten as its practice.

Let’s propose a two pronged test on the efficacy of torture:
1. First, if it is so efficient in producing the desired effects, why was it not used on Timothy McVeigh and his associates after the Oklahoma City bombing? Were we not equally afraid of additional attacks? Or perhaps it was because he was a white US citizen, not a brown Yemeni or Saudi citizen?
2.Second, assuming again, the use value of torture, why draw the line at isolation, beating, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliating and water torture? Why did we not authorize the kidnapping and abuse of detainees’ families in order to extract even more information? That is equally a “proven” technique.

This conversation beggars belief, not least how it’s being conducted. Two milquetoast proponents of torture in Gergen and Seabrook, and of course the admirable Jack Beatty. Apart from the absurd and gruesome justifications being proposed — never contested in any way by Jane Clayson — there is the disturbing editorial fact that Jack Beatty, with his principled disagreement contra torture, has been almost completely shut out of the conversation so far, 47 minutes in. Bravo, On Point. For shame.

Jane Harman is lying, lying, lying.

She is guilty.

This was the text-book example of pay-for-play scam.

Peter- Perfect analogy. It’s a Constitutional fire sale and no one is accountable.

I personally had an encounter with the law about 7 years ago. The officer violated what I had always been told (in school, by my parents..) were my Constitutionally protected rights. This encounter left me scarred for life, in the legal sense, and this could hardly be called torture. My point is that the experience of being violated by state power will change your beliefs.

David Gergen frets that pursuing Bush admin officials for torture policies would represent a divisive partisan gambit. Will every new admin use prosecutorial powers to go after previous admins, if of a different party, he asks.

I don’t remember what Gergen thought about the Bush admin’s use of stooge US attorneys to pursue partisan advantage — anybody know?

I would like to add that I am extremely disappointed with Andrea Seabrook. Andrea- if you’re listening- I would remind you to speak only when you have fully considered the effect of your words. You essentially came off as condoning torture. This being the case you’ve lost my trust and respect. And one last comment; as with Capital Punishment those singled out for torture are sometimes entirely innocent…

How is Pelosi getting a free pass? She approved the harsh methods of questioning….

Memo to Andrea Seabrook: Learn some history before you start talking nonsense about the “luxury of war with armies”. Compared to what much of the rest of the world has suffered, war and terrorism have hardly touched the US since the Civil War, and much of what we have suffered (Vietnam, Iraq) has been of our own making. I’ve enjoyed Andrea’s reporting in the past, but I’ll listen more critically now.

I listened to David Gergen’s comments with astonishment, then sorrow. Of course those responsible for torture must be charged. A law that’s not enforced is no law. As to “looking forward,” isn’t it obvious that a failure to impose appropriate punishment now can only offer impunity to “leaders” in the future who are inclined to do the same thing? And when David noted that prosecution would lead to Republican obstructionism on health reform and other needed measures, he might just as well have used the term “blackmail.” We have yet to see any bipartisanship from the Republicans in any case. I can almost sympathize with his reluctance to see his friends and cronies who once occupied high office embarrassed, or even placed behind bars. But what they have done to this country goes far beyond embarrassment. And on the bright side, it’s unlikely they’ll be tortured. Finally, why didn’t anyone make the point that despite Andrea’s musings about what a “different world” it is these days, these atrocities committed by the American government have only increased hatred for our nation?

While I would dearly love to see Bush and Cheney in the docket–in prison, for that matter, I think that the Obama administration should be cautious in prosecuting the torturers.

If it’s true that there will be an upsurge in right-wing militia activity in the next few years, including, presumably, terrorist actions, we may have to extract information, by whatever means necessary, from their leaders. People like Rush Limbaugh.

Should this occur, I’d feel it was my patriotic duty to apply pliers to fingernails, and I hereby volunteer.

This whole torture issue doesn’t come as a surprise to me. The tea leaves in the cup spoke of this way back in Jan 2007 when the Democrats regained control of the Congress after the 2006 mid-term elections, and Pelosi+Reid explicitly stated that any investigation regarding impeachment was off the table, and Dennis Kucinich’s bill regarding the same wasn’t supported by Pelosi or Dennis’s colleagues in the House and it didn’t pass.

Why the surprise now that the Democrats are not doing anything regarding torture? Did Obama say last year that he would punish those who were guilty of torture if he won the election, or did he make some vague statement that satisfied everyone because they heard what they wanted to hear in his words? Did any reporter ask him that question (about holding people accountable for torture), or were they too busy enchanted by, and chanting “Yes, we can!”?

“Menschliches, Allzumenschliches”.

I think in obama’s heart he thinks he can talk to terrorists and talk them out of our using WMD’s on us again, but he is like Jimmy Carter..foolish…not ready for prime time. This is a war where “Big Boy Rules” apply….that means some terrorists are going to get their hair wet..slapped around a bit…and sleep with bugs….but in the long run..they will be better people because of this type of treatment…

Torture is un-ethical and criminal. All those who have contributed to putting it into use should be prosecuted. No exceptions should be made regarding seniority or political affiliation and that includes Bush, Cheney and Pelosi.

david,

what does big boy rules mean please explain?

does it mean breaking the law no matter what?

does it mean committing human rights abuses no matter what?

does that mean to lower our morals, ethics no mater what?

how does torture make someone a better person please tell us?

why not just kidnap there families and do the same to them? u could probably get them to talk.

As for Jane H. if u have not heard but 2 days ago on fresh air i think she had a interview, where she tried to defend herself, yet u can here some of the mistakes she made talking to him. like she didn’t recall talking to them, yet than she said when she talk to them there were American and should not have been phone tapped.

as for jane c. i been disappointed that tom A. has not been on and it seems she really does not do the job, least seen today about asking questions about torture.

I understand, but I’m disappointed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-genocide25-2009apr25,0,2595139.story

(Tongue firmly in cheek…) Can we just split the difference in this debate and strictly limit waterboarding to those who deserve it most?

The credit card companies…

this is something to check out a timeline for 2000-08 on torture policy,

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103469796

Come to think of it, dealing with credit card companies is a lot like being waterboarded, except you don’t have to keep changing into dry clothes every time…

Jack Beatty’s speech on Churchill and torture was awesome. I look forward to Fridays so I can hear Jack!

Hey, it’s almost six o’clock; where’s the podcast?

Read my mind, Sam…

Impatience is a vice, but where’s the podcast?

Perhaps something’s wrong with the website?

Wait a minute, Christopher. Didn’t Barry Goldwater say that “Impatience in the name of liberty is no vice!” Or was it “extremism?” I get confused…

Andrea Seabrook was an embarrassment on the program. Her constant acceptance of torture because, “things are different now” is equivocation of the first order. We cannot change our principles because our enemies have changed. Under this kind of duress America must cling tighter than ever to its principles. If we do not, then our laws and principles are meaningless and we will truly become our own victims.

The discussion of the criminal liability of torturers should not be limited to the US: Argentina has been way ahead of us in recognizing that no granting of impunity
is valid, even if it takes 30 years. Ex-president Fujimori, police in Uruguay and Argentina, Pinochet in Chile were or are being held responsible for their criminal decisions. Why not invite panelists from the diplomatic missions of those countries to share their experience?

Let’s have Ramsey Clark as the Special Prosecutor.

Let’s contact Holder for Ramsey Clark.

Can anybody think of a better person than Ramsey Clark?

YARGHHH!! Where is the freaking “Listen Now” button. You people are such teases…

I always forget the question mark, so here it is…

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

This was one of the most one-sided programs I have heard in a long time! WHat did you do, sdecide to fill the room with everyone who agreed?

Did you not have anyone there to counter the view of others?

You didn’t even take many calls, and those you did air,w ere people from the Lefty sif\de of the political landscape.

I expect more from WBUR.

Congress knew and approved of harsh methods. Why would they want to investigate themselves? That won’t go anywhere.

Talk of prosecution is a waste of time because no crime was committed. You people will have to get your revenge jollies some other way.

Has Jack ever made a contribution to any discussion? I think he’s losing it.

people should check out the joint chiefs memo, from the army, marine, and airforce about waterboarding and torture. Nov 2002. they agreed it looked and is torture.

“sen armed service comm.report”

marines

“several of the category 2 and 3 techniques arguably violate federal law and would expose our our service members to possible prosecution”.

may subject service members to punitive articles of the ucmj along with CITF personnel who are aware of the use or abuse of certain techniques may be exposed to liability under the UCMJ for failing to interced or report incidents. nov 4 2002 major sam mcmahon memo to CITF commander.

fyi for non-belivers that torture is a crime, the army, marines, airforce and CITF says otherwise

sorry meant to say fyi for non-belivers “that torture is not a crime”the army, marines, airforce and CITF says otherwise

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1240568050-Ld+YCW17fI5ZNjXIx645Ow

paul krugman had the above post today worth checking out.

I just discovered this area

Did some research on contgess and corruption – Jane Harman.

She is a Democrat, but she supports everything that Republicans support. Namely: wire tapping, against civil liberties, favoring torture, tough on terror, hawkish foreign policy, supporting war, etc. These are values that go against Democratic values.

This Jane woman also gave dozens of speeches at AIPAC headquarters. There is a strong relationship there.

For those of you the members of NPR, wonder if you heard Jane’s interview on NPR. Her words were carefully chosen. She was trying not to conflict with the charge and perhaps with actual events.

I think it is time for her to switch sides; or resign.

Check it out!

“The audio for this program is currently unavailable due to technical reasons. We apologize for the inconvenience.”

Yet, you can listen to this Friday’s show at Odeo.

http://odeo.com/episodes/24500518-Week-in-the-News

Thanks, Expanded.

You’re welcome, Christopher. The withdrawal symptoms from being deprived On Point’s Week In Review are horrible. Odeo is a great resource.

I think Jack Beatty’s commentary was powerful, clear and on point. Torture is a crime. It is not just immoral, but also illegal and violates U.S. and international law.

tom ashbrook, come back! come back!!

or – jane clayson, grow a spine!

as others have noted, jane’s management of the program leaves much to be desired. the few callers that are allowed in never get feedback (no! “thank you for your call” doesn’t count!!) – or the opportunity to interact w/ the guest. but the worst is a) the softballs she lobs at the guests, and b) the uninterrupted monologue platform she provides them, no matter how absurd and illogical their thesis.

i just can’t listen anymore when she’s hosting.

It’s more her tone of voice and over-annunciating. She seems angry-from-Hello. But she has improved over time.

i can’t say i’m a big fan of jane’s vocal style, but it doesn’t bother me. i DO object that she acts like an uninvolved bystander on her own show. several months ago, after she let one pompous blowhard (on to flog his book) bloviate virtually uninterrupted for the entire hour, i decided i would give her no more than 10 minutes to take charge of the program. as a result, i’ve been listening to a lot of classical music between 9:10 and noon …

I wrote a tough comment above about this show, but would like to distinguish my remarks from others that take issue with Jane Clayson per se, her “vocal style,” her diction, etc. She’s good at what she does when she does what she’s presumably supposed to do: think critically, moderate fairly, bring some moral purpose to bear– especially given the topic — beyond the absurd notion of journalistic objectivity. Torture is a crime of the worst sort. That the assertion has to be made itself a cause for despair. If she didn’t want to sully her weirdly impartial stance on the matter, she might at least have given Jack Beatty equal time. You wouldn’t guess it from most of the comments on this page, but there were certainly people who came away from the conversation thinking, “Well if David Gergen says it’s ok…” And that’s no good thing.

A lot of guests react negatively to Jane’s tone of voice. You can hear it especially upon the hellos and goodbyes.

livia, i’m with you on the need for a host to “think critically, moderate fairly” but “moral purpose”? i’m not so sure. i do think a point of view is a good thing, if it’s not completely cast in concrete. even more important is challenging the guests with questions someone with opposing views would pose, especially if those views are not represented by another guest on the program – even if those views are not the host’s own (ie devil’s advocacy). of course, research is required to know both (or more) sides of a topic, and mental agility to present them. tom does this well. jane often sounds as if she only received the assignment as she walked into the studio, and is remaining mum to avoid disclosing that fact. i also don’t think she is just being “weirdly impartial” or using “journalistic objectivity”, since she usually comes across the same way on topics of no particular moral import as well.

What more can I add than what I’ve already read in the posted comments…

Andrea and David, you’ve sold your souls. I wish these two could listen to themselves in this episode. Callers say “torture is immoral”, “torture is illegal”, “we should prosecute torturers” and all we hear from Andrea and David are “yes, but…”.

This blows my mind. To have illegal criminal acts (and we’re not talking about something “trivial” like lying under oath, quid pro quo, blackmail… we’re talking freakin’ TORTURE) be defended and dismissed with a “not in this case” or a “do you really want all those convictions”… boggles my mind.

And speaking of quid pro quo, David came out as a hack big time when he said he’s long time friends with Jane Harman and they couldn’t POSSIBLY do anything wrong. Way to go, they scratch your back, you scratch theirs. Makes me sick.

Andrea and David: A pair of but heads.

And Tom, please come back! Jane is fine for fluff pieces (when I want to hear more of what the guest is saying), but when a guest says something controversial, and needs to be confronted, she doesn’t follow up and has the tendency to just ask what’s written on her cue cards and no processing of guest’s answers.