Accountability for Torture (in Britain).

November 18, 2010 at 11:29 A.M. A call was received at my home number from 502-000-9912. Attempts to obstruct my Internet access were experienced. Several blockages of texts to be posted were accompanied by a notice that said: "Error 502." Ms. Mary Anne Kricko? ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!" and "Jennifer Velez is a 'Dyke Magnet!'")

November 18, 2010 at 9:21 A.M. I am afraid that many more sabotage attempts and "error" insertions must be expected from Union City, New Jersey Cubanazos and Cuabanazas loyal to the failed regime of Boss Bob ("Fulgencio") Menendez. We must begin a revolution. ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")

Janet Maslin, "Explaining the Modern World and Keeping It Short," in The New York Times, November 17, 2010, at p. C3. (Much of this article could not have been written by Ms. Maslin.)
John F. Burns & Alan Cowell, "Britain to Compensate Guantanamo Detainees: Settlement Said to Avoid Years of Litigation," in The New York Times, November 17, 2010, at p. A14. (UK does the right thing. Shame on you, New Jersey.)
"Accountability for Torture," (Editorial) in The New York Times, November 17, 2010, at p. A32. David Rose, Guantanamo: The War on Human Rights (New York & London: The New Press, 2004), entirety.
William Zinsser, On Writing Well: An Informal Guide to Writing Nonfiction (New York: Harper & Row, 1980), entirety. ("Clutter.")

"The British government has decided to pay former detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, tens of millions of dollars in compensation and conduct an independent investigation into its role in the mistreatment of prisoners."

The U.S. has been put to shame by governments, such as Canada's Parliamentary system and the current British government, which have attempted to address and resolve the pressing human rights catastrophe resulting from American interrogation policies in the aftermath of 9/11. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture.")

"The United States still operates the Guantanamo camp, with no end in sight. None of the truly dangerous terrorists there have been brought to justice, while many prisoners are still held who never should have been. [I believe the Times editorialist means that "many prisoners who never should have been held at that facility" continue to be confined.] The government not only refuses to come clean on this ignoble history, but it is covering up the Bush administration's abuses by denying victims a day in court."

"In July, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that there would be an independent investigation into Britain's role in the mistreatment of detainees. On Tuesday, the government announced that it was compensating British citizens who were held in Guantanamo, six of whom filed a lawsuit accusing government agencies of complicity in their detention, torture and incarceration."

"Three years ago Canada apologized and paid compensation to Maher Arar, a Canadian torture victim, following an investigation into how the Royal Canadian Mounted Police mistakenly identified him as a terrorist. American authorities acted on that false information to arrest Mr. Arar and 'render' him overseas. Even after the mistake was revealed, they [the Americans] continued to hold him."

By comparison with these nations the American government has failed either to acknowledge violations of international law or to act to remedy the wrongs committed and compensate victims injured or the family members of murdered detainees. This inaction by the U.S. government is reprehensible in the aftermath of America's "crimes against humanity." ("Crimes Against Humanity in New Jersey.")

"The United States has neither compensated victims of illegal detention and abuse nor taken steps to hold the architects of the human rights abuses accountable. Indeed, some of the Obama administration's biggest legal victories have come in shielding Bush-era officials by getting lawsuits brought by victims with credible claims of kidnapping and torture thrown out of court on specious secrecy grounds, without any testimony being heard."

New Jersey continues to stonewall and cover-up atroctities concerning the tortures and thefts to which I have been subjected in the hopes that my eventual demise will make it unnecessary to disclose the truth in these matters. I hope that they are mistaken in this assumption. (Again: "No More Cover-Ups and Lies, Chief Justice Rabner!")

"It will do no good for this nation's tarnished human rights reputation that at the same time Britain took responsibility for its comparatively minor role in the ill treatment [sic.] of terrorism suspects, former President George W. Bush was bragging in a new book that he had personally authorized the repeated use of a form of simulated drowning called waterboarding on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused mastermind of 9/11." (emphasis added!)

The rights to trial, notice and confrontation -- recently dispensed with in the matter concerning Congressman Charles Rangel -- happen to be fundamental features of American jurisprudence. It is dangerous to our Constitutional system to ignore these hard-won legal rights which the U.S. government was created to protect. Equally dangerous is altering (or blurring) the relationship between a free as well as independent press and government.

"So Obama is the same as Bush regarding the use of preventive detention. He's the same regarding his refusal to accept that a federal judge has the authority to release a detainee who is innocent. Now think about that. If a federal judge doesn't have the right to release someone from custody, what kind of a state are we talking about? Is that a democratic state with protections for the individual? Or is it essentially a police state where the executive overrides a court decision and says: 'I'm going to keep you in prison.' ..." (ISR, Nov.-Dec., 2010, at p. 8.)

Mr. Rangel was not sanctioned as severely as some hoped. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Rangel will not be damaged by the long drawn out nightmare to which he was subjected. I do not regret voting for Mr. Rangel. I suspect that, if he runs again, I will vote to return Mr. Rangel to Congress. Mr. Obama's failures result not from malice or ignorance, as is attributed to Bush/Cheney, but from weakness and (I believe) attempted intimidation by Right-wing forces in America.

The conviction of a terrorist in a civilian courtroom of a charge that may (and probably will) result in a life sentence proves that it can be done. We can convict these people for their crimes, legally and fairly. The fact that the individual was acquitted of some charges makes the process self-evidently fair and worthy of respect to the global community. This sound legal process legitimates the penalty that will be imposed eventually.

The right to a day in court is not some liberal panacea or bleeding heart provision of federal statutes but the essence of a government of laws: state action must be based on the provisions of laws. Accused persons have inviolable rights to notice, confrontation, hearings or trials, and they must be found guilty only on the basis of evidence of wrongdoing that is in demonstrable violation of public laws. ("What is it like to be tortured?" and "What is it like to be censored in America?")

The press must not be altered or interfered with by government officials and politicians. It is not appropriate for government officials or intelligence agents to insert text into newspapers and magazines that will be perceived by readers as coming from journalists unaffiliated with the mechanisms of the state. The watchdog function of the media is crucial. Behind-the-back character assassination is not merely "normal" politics in America -- I hope. It is just as wrong for politicians to do this tampering with the press through their agents, so they can disclaim responsibility. ("Corrupt Law Firms, Senator Bob, and New Jersey's Ethical Legal System.")

Mr. Rangel's troubles seem to have been orchestrated by Right-wing fascists acting secretly in Washington's corridors of power. Mr. Rubio's friends may "know something" about this matter. ("Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!")

People need to believe that the press is free and independent. We want someone or some entity commenting on events entirely apart from government spokespeople with an agenda to defend. You must respect the copyright-protected words of another person in America. "Error" insertions in this essay are the best examples of the totalitarianism that I deplore and that is so popular among the "Ricky Ricardo-types" (of both or all genders) supporting Mr. Rubio's plot to stage a palace coup in Washington, D.C. -- Cohiba? ("Cubanazos Pose a Threat to National Security" and "Miami's Cubanoids Protest Against Peace!")

The following paragraphs appeared in a review attributed to "Janet Maslin." I believe that these words were written, probably, by the same person (or persons) producing what purports to be English prose under the name "Manohla Dargis, Patricia Cohen, Ginger Thompson and/or Jean Paul Rathbone, and/or other similar names." Senator Bob? Ilianita? Mr. Rubio? All three Cuban-American politicians may be involved in the use of these tactics. ("Fidel Castro's 'History Will Absolve Me.'")

The errors in this jargon-studded prose and backward-running sentence construction characterizing the writing or literary voice of this unfortunate person suggests (to me) Cuban-American origins for the author of this text and, sadly, a middling or non-existent level of education which was, nevertheless, no doubt quite expensive for his or her parents. I suspect that what follows passes for Harvard or Yale prose these days:

"Mr. Taleb's self-image permeates each dictum in 'The Bed of Procrustes' just as surely as the personalities of Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand or the young Paul Simon (circa 'I Am a Rock') permeated theirs."

What was permeated? For whom was this "something, I don't know what" permeated? How does one "permeate" a self-image? Or a dictum? This "permeation" sounds painful. I do not want my "dictum" permeated by anyone. I am afraid that this "convoluted gibberish" gets much worse:

" ... 'My only measure of success is how much time you have to kill,' says this former trader and stunning financial clairvoyant, underscoring the fact that he has a luxurious amount of time on his hands."

Maybe "he" also has the time for luxury and clairvoyance, but not necessarily to write a book that will be reviewed intelligently in The New York Times. I cannot imagine "clairvoyance" that is anything less than "stunning." The person writing these sentences forgets the meaning of the words that she (or he) is using. How does this jargon-studden and confused prose make its way into the Times? Payola?

"Will this condescension keep 'The Bed of Procrustes' from being widely read, oft-quoted and closely followed? [This may be my favorite very short sentence in the review:] Absolutely not: Mr. Taleb might well have have written an aphorism about how well the ordinary Joe tries to heed the hedge-fund guy."

"Absolutely not," indeed. This "ordinary Joe" (Ilianita's favorite phrase!) began to reach for his barf bag and, as it were, and to shed a tear (crying-wise) for Janet Maslin, whose good name has been so utterly, utterly destroyed (Janet Maslin's name, that is) in this "excretion" in a language only dimly resembling good-old American English. This review is what we humble persons call "shit." Right, "ordinary Joe"? (Again: "Manohla Dargis Strikes Again!")

Run and do not walk to an international news stand and get yourself a copy of The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, or The London Times. We must not allow the further desecration or violation of The New York Times to go unpunished. I love the Times. I have been reading this newspaper for decades. Please do not destroy this great publication by playing political games with the newscopy. ("Nihilists in Disneyworld.")