Commenter in "New Yorker" seeks info on tortured, murdered uncle/detainee's body

By GottaLaff

The Salt Pit

Jane Mayer has a piece out in the New Yorker that is a must-read. It concerns the death of a detainee, and includes a revelation about the unintended identification of the detention C.I.A. officer who was allegedly responsible:

In an apparent oversight, however, the identity of the manager of the Salt Pit at the time of Rahman’s death appeared recently in a public document. The officer, who continues to work for the C.I.A., is mentioned by name in a footnote in the October, 2009, legal response to allegations of unprofessional conduct filed by lawyers for Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel. The Bybee document was released last February by the Justice Department. Apparently unnoticed at the time, it revealed both the surname of the Salt Pit manager and the identity of the victim, Rahman.

[UPDATE, April 1, 6:40 P.M.: In an interesting disappearing act, unspecified government officials have now mysteriously redacted the name of the C.I.A. officer in charge of the Salt Pit from the public record described above. The document is easily accessible on the House Judiciary Committee’s Web site (pdf). But where footnote No. 28 previously identified the surname of the Salt Pit manager, as of April 1st, the name has been blacked out. The victim’s name, however, is still visible. It was evidently too late to keep that out of the public eye after the A.P. story.]

The story is horrendous, the deeds unspeakable. But something on that page caught my eye in Comments:

can you please tell us about the death body of rehman from where we can get it i am his nephew

Posted 3/31/2010, 11:32:10pm by sulimankhail

Think about that for a moment.

A news story about the death of a detainee at a black site causes a person who identifies himself as family, as the nephew of the victim, to try to locate the body after eight years... in a comment under the post.

He is asking for help in getting the body of a family member back. In Comments.

Assuming "sulimankhail" is who he says he is, what does this tell you? How does it make you feel that torture and murder has been done in our name... and now a prisoner's relative has to leave a comment under a story in the New Yorker in order to find the remains of his uncle?

I'm ashamed, and I am sickened.

A related story drives the point home:

Michael Sulick, head of the CIA’s National Clandestine Service, told a student audience last week that the spy agency has seen no fall-off in intelligence since waterboarding was banned by the Obama administration.

Be proud, BushCo.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Rahmblings

By GottaLaff

Rahmblings:

Ryan Lizza's profile in the New Yorker is today's must read piece:

"Unlike recent chiefs of staff from the Bush and Clinton eras, who tended to be relatively quiet inside players, Emanuel is a former congressional leader, a Democratic Party power, and one of the more colorful Beltway celebrities. He is a political John McEnroe, known for both his mercurial temperament and his tactical brilliance. In the same conversation, he can be wonkish and thoughtful, blunt and profane... And, like McEnroe, Emanuel seems to employ his volcanic moments for effect, intimidating opponents and referees alike but never quite losing himself in the midst of battle."

Here's Ana Marie Cox's Tweet take:

anamariecox OK dived into Ryan's Rahm profile (delaying) it is indeed seriously hot slash fic. “Rahm likes to clean up after cleanup time is over.” about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

I'm starting to like Twitter.

New Yorker cover: Paws-ibilities

By GottaLaff

Via Mediabistro:

Barry Blitt, the cartoonist responsible for the New Yorker's controversial terrorist fist-jabbing cover, among others, returns this week to "vet" Barack Obama. Of course this time around "Vetting" refers to the all important decision of picking a "first" puppy...

A New Yorker cover is worth 1,000 words

By GottaLaff

H/t: Kerry

Palin: I Didn't Really Fire Monegan; He Quit!

By GottaLaff

TPM:

In an extensive interview with The New Yorker from before she was tapped for the VP slot, Sarah Palin admitted she spoke to the state police commissioner about her problems with her trooper ex-brother-in-law -- but then maintains the commissioner wasn't actually fired by her, but instead quit in lieu of taking an unrelated demotion.

The New Yorker:

She said that one of her goals had been to combat alcohol abuse in rural Alaska, and she blamed Commissioner Monegan for failing to address the problem. That, she said, was a big reason that she’d let him go—only, by her account, she didn’t fire him, exactly. Rather, she asked him to drop everything else and single-mindedly take on the state’s drinking problem, as the director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. “It was a job that was open, commensurate in salary pretty much—ten thousand dollars less”—but, she added, Monegan hadn’t wanted the job, so he left state service; he quit. [...]

Trooper Wooten has admitted to Tasering the boy and shooting the moose, and he was disciplined for these things within the department, but, under the union contract, he could not be fired at the Governor’s whim. (He had been cleared of the threat to Palin’s father, but disciplined for drinking and driving, which he still denies.) It was obvious that this continued to frustrate Palin. She also seemed to forget that you should not talk about your affairs when they’re under investigation. Troopergate was the one subject about which she seemed keen to explicate the details. She wanted to persuade me that firing Walt Monegan had nothing to do with Trooper Wooten; that it was in no way a conflict of interest or an abuse of power. But, as she spoke, she seemed to be saying something else—that her vendetta against Wooten was wholly justified. [...]

As governor, Palin has done nothing to impose her religious or social views. [...] So it was startling to see Palin emerge in the last days of August as an icon of the evangelical base of the Republican Party, and as a fierce—often vituperative—partisan scourge, mocking Barack Obama’s character and positions. It was startling, too, to hear her, in her début speech to the Republican National Convention, reading a script that consistently distorted her own record. [...]

The control of Palin by the McCain campaign was one of many ways in which it transformed her into someone largely unrecognizable to people who knew her in Alaska, where she hadn’t shown a great interest in national economic issues other than energy policy, or in international affairs, and where she was viewed as more often seeking the attention of the press than avoiding it. [...]

As a public speaker, Palin was known for expressing goals and voicing good intentions with gusto, if with few specifics. As she talked about her hopes for Alaska, she often seemed to skip from slogan to slogan without ever touching solid ground.

It's a long piece, but those are some of the highlights. Bush III.

New Yorker cover spotlights McCain's houses

By GottaLaff

This New Yorker cover also highlights the foreclosure crisis. It's about time.

McCain wants Obama press coverage? He got it.

By GottaLaff

Be careful what you wish for:

John McCain’s campaign complained Tuesday morning that the press wasn’t treating the presumptive Republican nominee like they had covered Democrat Barack Obama. Tuesday afternoon, they got an unexpected jolt of equal treatment: their own parody magazine cover, modeled on the controversial illustration that graced last week’s New Yorker.

That should make them very happy. Now they're media twinsies!

In the picture, which debuted on Vanity Fair’s Web site Tuesday afternoon, John McCain and wife Cindy are shown in the Oval Office giving each other daps, the fist-jab greeting that Barack and Michelle Obama traded on the cover of the New Yorker.

Other elements have been tweaked so the illustration – like the New Yorker cover – reflect stories and stereotypes the candidate and his wife would most like to leave behind. Cindy McCain isn’t clutching a machine gun – she’s cradling vials of pills. There’s no Muslim garb in sight, but the Arizona senator is leaning on a walker. The American flag isn’t burning in the fireplace; instead, the Constitution smolders.

In place of the portrait of Osama bin Laden in the original art, the liberal magazine has opted for a likeness of President Bush. [...]

But don’t go looking for the cover on a newsstand near you: it will remain a virtual production, posted on the Web site alone.

Yes, this is mildly (if that) amusing, but here's the difference: Context. Everyone knows this is satire. In fact, it's a parody of a "satire" that was set up by the New Yorker commotion (which had no set-up of its own).

Plus, it won't be seen at your local newsstand or supermarket by casual passers-by. It will take effort to track the Vanity Fair cover down.

Finally, there is no built-in fear factor (read: Muslim). Who could be afraid of a pathetic, out-of-touch couple like this one? Let me retract that, because, if by some fluke J Sid is elected, we'll have plenty to fear.

Competing chyrons: Obama = success, Obama = Muslim

GottaLaff

I had the TeeVee on without sound this morning, after watching part of Barack Obama's Q & A with the press. One chyron described his visit to Iraq in a relatively positive way. In addition, I did have the sound on long enough to hear a unanimously favorable response to Obama's trip, including the press conference. "No mistakes" so far, the talking heads said.

Then I walked away, came back a few minutes later, and saw a chyron that said that Iraqis are referring to Obama as "Muslim".

That chyron came and went several times. If I hadn't seen the previous reporting, I'd have been left with the impression that Iraq views Obama as Muslim, and that, generally, they are not too interested in either candidate. But Obama = Muslim. Obama = Muslim. Obama = Muslim was the cycled and recycled visual.

Couple that with this, and once again, the reinforcement that Obama "is not one of us" rears its ugly head. Once again, the New Yorker cover was not a good move, and the satire will be lost on many, despite the intentions. Every time there is another reference that couples Obama with the word (or image) "Muslim", there will be a deeper misunderstanding of who he is.

I'm sure the McCain/Bushies were jumping up and down with glee as they took screenshots of the chyron in question, one that will undoubtedly be highlited in future ads.

South Carolina Senator Bryant: Bigoted photo of Obama no worse than New Yorker cover

By GottaLaff

There have been ongoing arguments about whether the New Yorker cover was satire or tasteless and bigoted. My reaction was negative, and despite sincere and repeated effort, I had trouble understanding the other side. Today Commenter Adrienne suggested that I take a look at this. It's a piece about a wretched photo posted by South Carolina's State Senator Kevin Bryant on his website:

Here's what Bryant said, among other things (the point of my post isn't the same as HuffPost's, so please go read theirs):

"You know, blogs are for satire and whatnot and, um, that's why it's up. It's similar to the New Yorker picture. Maybe that's why this has gotten so much attention, because of that thing that came out a couple days ago."

In case you missed it, here's the New Yorker cover:

So this ignoramus, Senator Bryant, equates the two images, which is exactly why the New Yorker cover shouldn't have been casually explained away as mere satire. Where was the set-up to the New Yorker's punchline? There was none, no context was given. Now it has served as a springboard for more "satire".

Some letters from the L.A. Times:

Let me explain the difference between funny and not funny.

Funny exaggerates a reality that no one takes literally, like George Bush acting as a housemaid for Dick Cheney. Not funny exploits stereotypes that some do take literally -- which can reinforce those stereotypes.

Barack Obama as a Muslim knuckle-punching Michelle Obama as a gun-toting terrorist, with the American flag burning in the fireplace and Osama bin Laden on the wall, belongs to the latter category.

This is not satire. This is slander.

Next:

The Obama cartoon may win an "excellent" for satire, but we have to realize we are not playing tiddlywinks here.

This is a watershed election for the country. The Democrats cannot afford to lose one vote. Can the New Yorker tell me that not one voter will flee because of this?

Next:

While considering which voters are and aren't smart enough to know that the cover of the latest edition of the New Yorker is satire, please also consider: Not long ago, a group decided who was white enough and male enough to vote at all.

Suggesting that these "clueless people," as you call them, who "weren't going to vote for Obama anyway" are the only ones affected by the portrayal of Sen. Barack Obama as a Muslim extremist and his wife, Michelle, as a gun-toting militant is highly irresponsible. There is a thin line. A turban and an Afro today may be a watermelon and a piece of fried chicken tomorrow.

I tell my theatre kids that perception is everything. If they're on stage and believe that they're emoting "happy", but the audience doesn't perceive "happy", then they're not "happy". Even Jerry Seinfeld said that if he tells a joke, but the audience doesn't laugh, it's not funny. If you have to explain it, it's not funny.

Neither of these images is funny.

Barack Obama on Larry King Live: liveblog

By GottaLaff

Kuala Lumpur, HELLO! Poughkeepsie, HELLO! Barack Obama, for the hou-ah! Okay, 20 minutes, but who's counting?

King: The New Yorker cover.

Obama: I don't think they were entirely successful at it, but it's a cartoon. That's why we have the first amendment. People are more worried about the housing market, Iraq... When you run for president, you get a pretty thick skin. I've seen and heard worse. In attempting to satirize something, they fueled some misconceptions about me instead. It's their judgment, and it's a cartoon.

King: 12% of America thinks your Muslim, 26% think you were raised in Muslim home. How do you deal with that?

Obama: I come on Larry King... telling everyone I'm Christian, that I wasn't raised in a Muslim home, that I pledge allegiance to the flag.. All you can do is tell the truth, trust in the American people, that they know what the truth is. ... This is actually an insult against Muslim Americans. There are wonderful Muslim Americans across the country, and for this to be used to raise suspicions about me, it's an insult to them and not what America is about.

King: You gave a speech today. What's your agenda?

Obama: My agenda is to keep America safe. Meet longterm national security interests. Show the difference between myself and John McCain. He said we'd be greeted as liberators, he's focused on tactical issues in Iraq. The surge reduced violence, but what Bush and McCain missed is the broader strategy. Was it wise to go in there? The costs of staying indefinitely.... are $10 billion a month. Meanwhile the central front of terrorism is in Afghanistan, Perpetuating the present strategy is costing us elsewhere, in Afghanistan and in investments here at home. Imagine the money we could invest in clean energy technology. We're spending 200 billion in a surge in Iraq. Not a wise policy. I do want to consult with commanders on the ground...

King: McCain says you're wrong about the surge and your Iraq proposals. [Shows clip of McCain: "Obama's going to Iraq, speaking today about his plans before he's even left, or talked to Petraeus... or set foot in Afghanistan for the first time..."]

Obama: McCain is involved in a political campaign, I understand that. He suggested that we've changed our mind about our plan.. he's confused. There's a difference between tactics and strategy. Strategically it's time to bring the war to an end. We'll be out 2 years from now, which is not precipitous withdrawal. We'll leave a residual force there. But this gives us ample time to wind this thing down while supporting what's happening in Afghanistan and relieve the stress on military families. It's not sustainable. Not to mention the $10 billion a month, when we have enormous needs at home. We have 7000 a day going through foreclosure. Gas prices are hitting people. We need to have another round of stimulus, energy rebates. My job as president will be to look at the total picture, not just narrow slices as McCain is doing.

King: What would you do to get Bin laden?

Obama: I said last August, this administration failed, let him get away. If we had actionable intelligence on high-value targets, we should go after them. To be effective at a resurgence of Al Qaeda we have to have a stronger relationship with the New Pakistani government. Musharraf lost credibility. Form an alliance with the Pakistani people, increase aid... support democratic efforts. In exchange, there should be firmness about going after Al Qaeda And the Taliban.

King: Would you go in, militarily?

Obama: If there were actionable intelligence.

King: Would you bring him back? Capture him? Or kill him?

Obama: If he were to be captured, we'd put him on trial. He'd deserve the death penalty.

King: How would you deal with our generals, chiefs of staff, etc.? Would they be important, would they be deciding?

Obama: It's critically important to have a relationship with them. I'm so impressed with their work, even with a misguided mission. They have skill, precision. Petraeus has done well with what's been dealt to him. I have differences with Bush and McCain: As commander in chief, I set the mission to determine the strategy...then I would ask the military to carry it out. How I would set strategy is to be informed, but the buck stops with me. Bush has said, Petraeus told me what to do. The American government doesn't work that way. The commander in chief takes all national security interests into account... develops a strategy: Lock down loose nukes, make sure we have an energy policy that frees us from foreign oil, etc.

King: VP search?

Obama: I won't talk about the process until I introduce my vice presidential nominee. The process is going well, we have extraordinary talent. I'll choose someone who will have a similar vision, who sees the need to fundamentally change how Washington works.

King: How will you utilize Bill Clinton?

Obama: Bill Clinton is one of the smartest people out here. He's got great relationships across the globe. I want him as an advisor, to be involved in implementing strategies on a range of issues. All former presidents are valuable... Bush Sr., his team, like Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell are extraordinary thinkers. Bring bipartisanship back to Washington.

King: Your look at ongoing economics, the bailout problem...

Obama: It's a huge disaster! So much could be prevented: Simple reforms around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, curb predatory lending. Now, I'm glad to hear Bush has embraced the housing bill from Congress. ... Stabilize homeowners now who can pay a mortgage but are in over their heads. We want to make sure we don't bail out CEOs and shareholders, but maintain liquidity in the housing market... Lenders can start to adjust, write down bad debt. Get back to where people are confident, identify sound borrowers, get credit flowing again.

Obama on Larry King Live tonight

By GottaLaff

ObamAlert!

BARACK OBAMA TONIGHT!

One-on-one with Barack Obama! The presumptive Democratic nominee on the issues facing every American! Get his thoughts on Iraq, the economy and more as he sits down with Larry tonight!

Tonight, 9 pmET!

Email Your questions.
Send us an I-Ask video email!

More:

The presumptive Democratic nominee downplays the controversial magazine cover drawing a lot of attention this week in an interview to air Tuesday evening on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

In his first extended reaction to the cover, Obama dismisses the artwork, saying “that’s why we’ve got the First Amendment,” but does note it could keep rumors swirling.

“I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment.”

Obama also discusses governement assistance to Fannie and Freddie, Iraq policy in interview to air at 9 pm ET.

The New "New Yorker": Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

By GottaLaff

First this article, and now this cover?? And both from the same issue:

The illustration, by Barry Blitt,is called "The Politics of Fear" and, according to the NYer press release, "satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama's campaign." Uh-huh. What's that they say about repeating a rumor?

I have no other way of expressing myself right now... WTF??

UPDATE: Sorry, I got so upset I forgot to add this:

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called it "tasteless and offensive" and, according to Jake Tapper at ABC, another high-profile Obama supporter called it "as offensive a caricature as any magazine could publish."

UPDATE #2: Here's more:

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

UPDATE to the UPDATE -- McCain spokesman Tucker "Outward" Bounds quickly e-mailed: "We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.” [...]

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

Obamination: Look for this nasty one to make the rounds

By GottaLaff

Of course, the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza will be quoted everywhere. Cliff Schecter's story (in his book The Real McCain) about John Sidney McCain actually coming to blows with Senator Rick Renzi was virtually ignored.

Obama’s relations with some of his black colleagues from Chicago were dreadful from the beginning. On March 13, 1997, Obama introduced one of his first pieces of legislation, a modest bill to make a directory of community-college graduates available to local employers. There was a response from Rickey Hendon, a state senator from the West Side of Chicago who had been close to Alice Palmer. After Obama explained his bill, Hendon, who has dabbled in film and television work, earning him the nickname Hollywood, rose to ask a question, and the following exchange occurred:

HENDON: Senator, could you correctly pronounce your name for me? I’m having a little trouble with it.
OBAMA: Obama.
HENDON: Is that Irish?
OBAMA: It will be when I run countywide.
HENDON: That was a good joke, but this bill’s still going to die. This directory, would that have those 1-800 sex line numbers in this directory?
OBAMA: I apologize. I wasn’t paying Senator Hendon any attention.
HENDON: Well, clearly, as poorly as this legislation is drafted, you didn’t pay it much attention either. My question was: Are the 1-800 sex line numbers going to be in this directory?
OBAMA: Not—not—basically this idea comes out of the South Side community colleges. I don’t know what you’re doing on the West Side community colleges. But we probably won’t be including that in our directory for the students.
HENDON: . . . Let me just say this, and to the bill: I seem to remember a very lovely Senator by the name of Palmer—much easier to pronounce than Obama—and she always had cookies and nice things to say, and you don’t have anything to give us around your desk. How do you expect to get votes? And—and you don’t even wear nice perfume like Senator Palmer did. . . . I’m missing Senator Palmer because of these weak replacements with these tired bills that makes absolutely no sense. I . . . I definitely urge a No vote. Whatever your name is.

Although the exchange was part of a longstanding tradition of hazing new legislators, the tensions between Hendon and Obama were real. On another occasion, Obama voted—a parliamentary error, Obama says—to block funding for a child-welfare facility in Hendon’s district. Hendon rose and criticized Obama for the vote. The two men became embroiled in a yelling match on the Senate floor that looked as if it might become physical; they were separated by Courtney Nottage, then the chief of staff for Emil Jones. Nottage led Obama off the floor to a room that legislators used to make telephone calls. “It looked like two men that were having a serious disagreement and they had walked up to one another really close,” Nottage told me. “I didn’t think anything good could come of that.”

Hendon told me, “He’s the one that got mad, because he said I embarrassed him on the Senate floor. That’s when he came over to my desk.” Before Nottage broke them up, Obama, who had learned to box from his Indonesian stepfather, supposedly told Hendon, “I’m going to kick your ass!” Hendon said, “He said something like that.” He added that more details will appear in a book that he’s written, entitled “Black Enough, White Enough: The Obama Dilemma.”

I'm still not finished reading the whole, very lengthy article, but that's the segment that's being pushed. And reread the last sentence. The guy is writing a book, and in that book will be a quote that is inaccurate by the author's own admission.

By week's end, his version will be gospel.