Can't say it much better than this

[Slider]

Today's NYTimes. Obama needs to step up.

Slider
---------
The Torturers’ Manifesto

To read the four newly released memos on prisoner interrogation written by George W. Bush’s Justice Department is to take a journey into depravity.

Their language is the precise bureaucratese favored by dungeon masters throughout history. They detail how to fashion a collar for slamming a prisoner against a wall, exactly how many days he can be kept without sleep (11), and what, specifically, he should be told before being locked in a box with an insect — all to stop just short of having a jury decide that these acts violate the laws against torture and abusive treatment of prisoners.

In one of the more nauseating passages, Jay Bybee, then an assistant attorney general and now a federal judge, wrote admiringly about a contraption for waterboarding that would lurch a prisoner upright if he stopped breathing while water was poured over his face. He praised the Central Intelligence Agency for having doctors ready to perform an emergency tracheotomy if necessary.

These memos are not an honest attempt to set the legal limits on interrogations, which was the authors’ statutory obligation. They were written to provide legal immunity for acts that are clearly illegal, immoral and a violation of this country’s most basic values.

It sounds like the plot of a mob film, except the lawyers asking how much their clients can get away with are from the C.I.A. and the lawyers coaching them on how to commit the abuses are from the Justice Department. And it all played out with the blessing of the defense secretary, the attorney general, the intelligence director and, most likely, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Americans Civil Liberties Union deserves credit for suing for the memos’ release. And President Obama deserves credit for overruling his own C.I.A. director and ordering that the memos be made public. It is hard to think of another case in which documents stamped “Top Secret” were released with hardly any deletions.

But this cannot be the end of the scrutiny for these and other decisions by the Bush administration.

Until Americans and their leaders fully understand the rules the Bush administration concocted to justify such abuses — and who set the rules and who approved them — there is no hope of fixing a profoundly broken system of justice and ensuring that that these acts are never repeated.

The abuses and the dangers do not end with the torture memos. Americans still know far too little about President Bush’s decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans — a program that has since been given legal cover by the Congress.

Last week, The Times reported that the nation’s intelligence agencies have been collecting private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans on a scale that went beyond the broad limits established in legislation last year. The article quoted the Justice Department as saying there had been problems in the surveillance program that had been resolved. But Justice did not say what those problems were or what the resolution was.

That is the heart of the matter: nobody really knows what any of the rules were. Mr. Bush never offered the slightest explanation of what he found lacking in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act when he decided to ignore the law after 9/11 and ordered the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ overseas calls and e-mail. He said he was president and could do what he wanted.

The Bush administration also never explained how it interpreted laws that were later passed to expand the government’s powers to eavesdrop. And the Obama administration argued in a recent court filing that everything associated with electronic eavesdropping, including what is allowed and what is not, is a state secret.

We do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans’ rights as Mr. Bush did. But if Americans do not know the rules, they cannot judge whether this government or any one that follows is abiding by the rules.

In the case of detainee abuse, Mr. Obama assured C.I.A. operatives that they would not be prosecuted for actions that their superiors told them were legal. We have never been comfortable with the “only following orders” excuse, especially because Americans still do not know what was actually done or who was giving the orders.

After all, as far as Mr. Bush’s lawyers were concerned, it was not really torture unless it involved breaking bones, burning flesh or pulling teeth. That, Mr. Bybee kept noting, was what the Libyan secret police did to one prisoner. The standard for American behavior should be a lot higher than that of the Libyan secret police.

At least Mr. Obama is not following Mr. Bush’s example of showy trials for the small fry — like Lynndie England of Abu Ghraib notoriety. But he has an obligation to pursue what is clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners — in violation of international law and the Constitution.

That investigation should start with the lawyers who wrote these sickening memos, including John Yoo, who now teaches law in California; Steven Bradbury, who was job-hunting when we last heard; and Mr. Bybee, who holds the lifetime seat on the federal appeals court that Mr. Bush rewarded him with.

These memos make it clear that Mr. Bybee is unfit for a job that requires legal judgment and a respect for the Constitution. Congress should impeach him. And if the administration will not conduct a thorough investigation of these issues, then Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the executive branch accountable. If that means putting Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales on the stand, even Dick Cheney, we are sure Americans can handle it.

After eight years without transparency or accountability, Mr. Obama promised the American people both. His decision to release these memos was another sign of his commitment to transparency. We are waiting to see an equal commitment to accountability.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Somebody ought to lock the Times editor in a box with a couple hundred fire ants, or maybe a few giant, bulbous and hairy web spinners.

[Slider]

That would be illegal, unconstitutional, and subject to serious criminal prosecution. Oh, wait a minute...

Slider

[kernel crash]

I wonder how many American lives Bush saved that we will never truly know. Meanwhile Obama comes home from his worldwide apology tour. I guarantee you our enemies see this as a sign of weakness. Lets see how this all plays out. Obama is digging a hole that the rest of us will have to climb out of.

[Slider]

Lives saved? Zero, nada, zilch. Pure sadism for no reason. But it matters not at all. The destruction of the Rule of Law will have far more impact than whatever fantasy Bushies like you choose to cling to.

Sign of weakness? The ONLY thing that differentiates us is the law. Bush's sanctioning of torture meant they win, no matter what happens going forward. Bush handed them the one thing they wanted, refutation of core American ideals. Game over.

Slider

[agabriel]

Like it or not it looks like the CIA has saved lives:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

Like it or not, this isn't a joke and the people we are fighting do not have the same ideals we do. I think another attack would be a travesty and should be avoided at almost any cost; sometimes you have to do what needs to be done. If that involves waterboarding a known terrorist I'm okay with it and to take it one step further I do not expect transparency...

If your family was in grave danger what would you do? I know what I would want to do, and I am happy I don't have to think about it - I'm happy the CIA takes care of it for all of us.

Anthony

[Slider]

Yeah, the CIA has never been known to lie before. Can't see any reason for doubt there. Especially when they have NOTHING invested in the perception on this.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Oh, but it's not politically correct to be a proponent of torture. We're supposed to treat prisoners of war and such with licking kittens and lollipops.

[Slider]

Torture Apologist Sequence

Never happened.

Well, it was just some rogue low level non-military contractors.

Oh, they had some help from a few non-officers. But that was all.

Well, there were a FEW officers in the loop, but their orders were misunderstood.

It was OK, because the Attorney General did the research, and it saved lives. But the Administration was unaware.

Yeah, Cheney made sure no laws were broken, and it saved lives.

It saved a lot of lives. Right here. Your very own children. And if we don't do more, all will be lost.

COMING SOON:

The country would have fallen without the torture, but it wasn't really torture anyway, and Bush was the greatest patriot ever.

[Mr_Cheeze]

And yet, there have been no terrorist attacks on our soil since that fateful day in 2001. An unfortunate fact, Slider, I know.

[Slider]

A fact that has nothing to do with torture. The ILLEGAL torture turned up tons of info. Even if some of it had validity, that was lost in all the noise that accompanied it. Any efficiency it brought was far outweighed by the pointless investigations of all the BS.

We've had few terrorist attacks over our 235 or so years of histroy. 95% of that time, as we honored our very own body of law, our defense from attack was based on espionage, diplomacy, and military might. It is no different now, except that the rule of law has been undermined by a vile administration.

This argument - anticipating here - that the current threat is somehow different is complete garbage. The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Japan, and any almost any other foe we've faced had worlwide spy networks, more organized and dangerous than anything Al Qaeda can possibly cobble together. We didn't need torture to defend ourselves then and we don't now.

If we ever, as a nation, decide that we do want to spin our wheels torturing people, then we need first to change the many laws that prohibit it. Since those laws have been blatantly ignored by the very people elected to "protect and preserve" the Constitution, we need to abide by them and prosecute those responsible.

Slider

[kernel crash]

The Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Japan, and any almost any other foe we've faced had worlwide spy networks, more organized and dangerous than anything Al Qaeda can possibly cobble together. We didn't need torture to defend outselves then and we don't know.
Slider

"We didn't need torture to defend outselves then and we don't know"

And you know that HOW? How naive. The fact is you don't know a thing about went on behind closed doors for the last 50 years. You live in a strange fantasy land that doesn't measure up to what's happening in the REAL world. Let the government get the information they need to stay one step ahead of the real threat of having a nuclear device go off in one of our major cities. I don't need to know how they got it.

[Slider]

For one thing, this round clearly isn't behind closed doors, so we gotta deal. Failure to do so makes us no different than Al Qaeda.

For another, it was a fishing expedition, with torture practiced on anyone caught in the net. It was nothing like selective looking-the-other-way that we may have used in, say, the cold war where it applied to known spies. This round gathered pretty much anyone we took as prisoners, and others. There is nothing, according to the recent practice, that would prevent you or me from being in that net.

Slider

I should add that one big problem is that it simply doesn't work. Torture produces compliant liars, nothing more. Our own service men in North Korean prisons made many, many false 'confessions.' That's what you get from torture.

[kernel crash]

I should add that one big problem is that it simply doesn't work. Torture produces compliant liars, nothing more. Our own service men in North Korean prisons made many, many false 'confessions.' That's what you get from torture.

Then I guess we shouldn't even bother asking.

[Slider]

Exactly, it is a waste of time better spent on the proven methods of national defense, not ones cooked up in the twisted mind of Dick Cheney.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Exactly, it is a waste of time better spent on the proven methods of national defense, not ones cooked up in the twisted mind of Dick Cheney.

Slider

And how did the proven methods of National defense stop the bus bombings in London a few years ago. It didn't. The bombing of the train station in Spain. Wrong again. Two attacks on the twin towers? Obama is waffling and flip flopping all over the place right now on this issue. As a candidate he said torture does not produce usable intelligence. As a president he is looking at the CIA files that show sometimes it does. Now he's talking out of both sides of his mouth depending on his audience. Someone should ask Obama how far would he go to save one American life. How bout a dozen? How bout hundreds? I would really like to hear him answer those questions. Because when the CIA has to sit down in front of the bad guys to get information, and those same bad guys already know that Obama wants to make them feel real comfortable and cozy. What do you suppose the outcome will be?

[Slider]

The Brits had a key role in the US ship-em-around-the-world program. Does that mean, using your logic, that we now have proof that torture DOESN'T work?

Nope, both assumptions are logical fallacies, the kind that suggested to some sickos that torture might work in the first place.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Look your really dancing around the subject. Maybe we can get you a staring role in America's got talent. The fact is sometimes torture does work. Pretty simple. We have the evidence to prove it.

[Slider]

You mean the CIA saying it worked? Their job is largely disinformation. If you buy it, I got a bridge for you.

Slider

[kernel crash]

It must be so tough to be you. I mean your always right. All other opinions are wrong. The deck is clearly stacked in your favor. If the CIA states that they have received valuable information using harsh techniques then you now say, Oh the CIA you can't believe anything they say. Just like that. From now on I'll use that same argument against you. I'll discredit all your sources because, well because I can...

[Slider]

And I differ from you how? Other than that I focus on the topic at hand, I mean, and defend what I post.

Now, for the CIA. You have followed the history of the torture issue, I assume.

Here's Porter Goss in 2005:

“This agency does not do torture. Torture does not work. We use lawful capabilities to collect vital information, and we do it in a variety of unique and innovative ways, all of which are legal and none of which are torture.”

Then there is this, before the revelation that they destroyed tapes of torture use in interrogations:

"C.I.A. lawyers told federal prosecutors in 2003 and 2005, who relayed the information to a federal court in the Moussaoui case, that the C.I.A. did not possess recordings of interrogations sought by the judge in the case."

And this, from Feb 6, 2008:

CIA Director Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden said “waterboarding has been used on only three detainees” in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday.

Well, no, not on just three. Like most CIA statements, it was a fabrication. And that is my point.

Just to get it straight, I don't post anything I can't back up. You, on the other hand, never go any deeper than some absurd claim, and change of topic. Try me any time.

Slider

[agabriel]

You do realize at the time polticians weren't considering it torture... Also, do you think we as a people are entiled to know everything that goes on with CIA? I'm happy they do there best to keep me safe and I would prefer polticians stay out of the way.

[Mr_Cheeze]

You do realize at the time polticians weren't considering it torture... Also, do you think we as a people are entiled to know everything that goes on with CIA? I'm happy they do there best to keep me safe and I would prefer polticians stay out of the way.

HEAR HEAR

[Slider]

First, only the Bush morons were saying it wasn't torture, and they did fabricate lots of legal mumbo jumbo to justify it. But in both the military and the CIA there were many who said it was clearly illegal and non-productive. If at least two heads of the CIA outright lied about what they were doing, where do you suppose their own interpretation fell? There was no reason to lie if it was truly legal.

As for the CIA, I am with you. I want them working for us, too. I don't want them making the rules up as they go along, and I want plenty of oversight to rein them in when they do. That's what we are talking about now.

Slider

[Slappy]

Personally, I'm SHOCKED that a spy agency would be secretive.

WTF is the world coming too?

[Slider]

Kernel claims there's no reason to suspect that they'd lie. Takes all kinds.

But 'secretive' and being in blatant violation of the Constitution, then lying to those who are tasked with oversight are very different things.

Slider

[kernel crash]

And I differ from you how?

Slider

See I don't completely dismiss the complete organization of the CIA based upon the very few examples you cited. You do. I mean look around. We have Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Gore to name a few that we can cite outright lies, distortions, and misdirections that they are credited with. Do you view them with the same jaundice eye as you do the CIA? I bet you don't. You have a chip on your shoulder from the last administration, CIA included, and that justifies you to dig in and completely discount ANY possibility that maybe, just maybe these guys might have actually saved American lives. See I think its quite a stretch to believe otherwise. Meanwhile the rest of us gets partial releases, partial disclosures of sensitive information that depending on who's releasing the information, slants public perception in one direction or the other. You think you know the whole story but you don't. Few do.

[agabriel]

First, only the Bush morons were saying it wasn't torture, and they did fabricate lots of legal mumbo jumbo to justify it. But in both the military and the CIA there were many who said it was clearly illegal and non-productive. If at least two heads of the CIA outright lied about what they were doing, where do you suppose their own interpretation fell? There was no reason to lie if it was truly legal.


Slider,
We apply the same techniques to our own soldiers in training... I would also add that parents of young children have to deal with extremely loud noises and sleep deprivation. I don't think we were sunshine and puppy dogs nice to terror suspects, but I think its a gross exaggeration to call it torture. If we were using electricity, pulling out finger nails, not feeding them, etc... I would agree with you - but we didn't do that.

Anthony

[Slider]

We apply SOME of the techniques to our own servicemen, so they know what to expect from the sleazier countries of the world if they happen to be captured. We don't do it because it works, and we don't take any of the techniques to the depths that we did in Abu Gharib or any of the other hell holes we supported. Make no mistake that it was torture, and now we too are one of the sleazier countries of the world. We no longer have the high ground on that one.

To put it in perspective, do you think we waterboarded ANY of our own 266 times, as we did to one of the detainees? No reasonable person could possibly claim that it wasn't torture.

Slider

[agabriel]

What at Abu Gharib was torture again? I saw a break down in command, but nothing that was much worse than a walk through the fells (Sheepfold area) for the terrorist...

We waterboarded 1 or 2 high value terrorists that much, whats the problem? The information saved lives and they were surprised we had back bone. No damage was even done to the terrorist.

You know those "sleazy" countries don't do waterboarding, they do far worse. Take a look what happens in North Korea if you disagree - this thread would have you and your family in a concentration camp.

[Slider]

Breakdown in command? You aren't following the news. Torture authorization has been traced all the way to Rice, and will soon be past her, too. It was clear chain-of-command all the way.

The "problem" is that it is and was illegal, and there was a conspiracy to hide it. The other "problems" are that it is ineffective and immoral, as well as a complete waste of time.

What is done elsewhere has nothing to do with this discussion, unless you see North Korea as some sort of ideal that you want to compare us to.

A CIA unencumbered by oversight and law is a far greater threat to our personal freedom than Al Qaeda can ever be.

Slider

[agabriel]

Breakdown in command?

The "problem" is that it is and was illegal, and there was a conspiracy to hide it. The other "problems" are that it is ineffective and immoral, as well as a complete waste of time.


Nope, your flat out wrong it is illegal now - it was not illegal when it happened. It also was effective - did you read the link I posted earlier?

I stick with breakdown in command for Abu, I still haven't heard anything that I would define as torture. What happened there that you would define as torture. After, you have that info compare it to a night at sheepfold in the fells - how does it differ?

[Slider]

The law hasn't changed and the Constitution hasn't changed, so I don't know what you are talking about.

As for the link, did you follow any of the discussion here afterward? The CIA has blatantly lied since its first public statement on the torture and there is no reason to think anything has changed there. I don't know what you're talking about regarding the Fells, either.

You are clearly trying to have it both ways, per your last paragraph. There was some sort of breadown, but it wasn't torture. Make up your mind.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Even Clinton knew enough to keep a hands off approach to the CIA. They're there for a reason. Sure, mistakes are often made. But we have the advantage of hindsight. At the times, Communism was the only thing our government was worried about, and the CIA was it's best tool. Mistakes or not, I want them to keep doing exactly what they've been doing. Oversight? Of a spy department. SURE. That's a GREAT idea. We'll retrain them to use very, very persuasive words instead of actions. Hell, Obama was able to persuade so many people to vote for him. Perhaps his talents do not end there.

Give the CIA Frank Santos. (Performing Hypnotist to those of you outside of MA)

Come on people. Ideas. Brainstorm. If not waterboarding, then...

Kindness. Kill them with kindness! It's what Jesus would have done. So what if LA gets dirty bombed. It's such a dirty city filled with crime, grime and decadence. What's important is they'll like us!

[Mr_Cheeze]

The CIA has blatantly lied since its first public statement on the torture and there is no reason to think anything has changed there.

Slider

Now you're getting it.

[agabriel]

The law hasn't changed and the Constitution hasn't changed, so I don't know what you are talking about.

As for the link, did you follow any of the discussion here afterward? The CIA has blatantly lied since its first public statement on the torture and there is no reason to think anything has changed there. I don't know what you're talking about regarding the Fells, either.

You are clearly trying to have it both ways, per your last paragraph. There was some sort of breadown, but it wasn't torture. Make up your mind.

Slider

The Constitution doesn't talk about torture, the geneva convention talks about torture. If you read the geneva convention it is rather specific about whom it covers, as is the Constitution, and terrorists are not covered.

I followed you trashing anything the CIA says, personally I thought there was alot of truth in that article. My point regarding the fells is there are more than a few naked folks running around and there are also alot of dogs that have less restraint the military K9s that were at Abu. The only thing I have heard going on at Abu that was alleged as torture was terrosists being forced to strip in a room where there is a dog. Do you know of actual torture that occured? Please share if you do.

I personally don't think waterboarding/sleep deprivation is torture. Legally my opinion was backed up by the last administration, the current administration has a different view. Which doesn't make what happened under the last administration necessarly illegal...

[Slider]

The Constitution sets the frame for for all our laws, including the laws against torture. The CIA doesn't get a pass. The laws don't change with an administration change.

You are welcome to your opinion of the previous adminstration's interpretation of the law, but it seems really obvious to me, and many in the CIA and military, from the recent news, that it was mere rationalization, not an analysis. They decided what they wanted to do, then drafted complete BS to justify it.

You clearly haven't followed the Abu Ghraib story at all. There were court martial convictions and jail sentences for crimes incuding sodomy and murder. I think this shows that you'll believe what you want to believe, not what the facts indicate. If you really followed along, you'd think differently.

Slider

[agabriel]

Slider,
I have followed along, I have just come to a different conclusion - and thats okay. I don't think we have tortured, you do. Thats probably the synopsis for this entire 4 page thread.

Anthony

[Mr_Cheeze]

I've followed along as well. Funny, the media must have buried the reports about murder and sodomy. Seems to me all we heard about was what amounted to nothing more than fraternity like hazing. And at the time that was happening, you were here trying to convince us that it was, indeed, torture, which, if nothing else, certainly proves that the definition of the term is subject to interpretation. And not once have you offered up any viable alternative to how we are to treat prisoners who might hold information that can save lives. You seem to be much more concerned with opining on what we can't do, which is fine, but it solves no problems.

[BG]

I think even detaining them should be considered a form of torture...they should be allowed to return to the battlefield where they can be duly eliminated.

[Slider]

I've followed along as well. Funny, the media must have buried the reports about murder and sodomy.

Short attention span problem or something here. You can't tell me you missed the trials of Charles Graner and Lynndie England. They each got 10 years. As we now know, they were only following policy, at least in spirit. Seems no one really cared enough to look more closely until after the fact. Now's the time to look REALLY closely, at least I hope so.

Wikipedia can refresh your memories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Slider

[agabriel]

Slider,

You talk about the CIA lying but you don't allow the possibility of terrorist’s lying... What was proven? Those accounts were never proven, the only thing proven was college level hazing. The terrorists have said they will lie to take advantage of us where ever we are weak - that includes empathy they do not have for us. I will say again, what was proven?

Anthony

[Slider]

Um, proven. You mean other than the convictions?

Slider

[agabriel]

They weren't convicted of sodomy and everything else that happened is college hazing... Where is the torture in that?

[Slider]

Via Wikipedia, here's a story from someone who was there:

"Rather interviewed Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick, a participant in the abuse, whose civilian job was as a corrections officer at a Virginia prison. Frederick stated, "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things ... like rules and regulations," says Frederick. "And it just wasn't happening." Frederick's video diary, sent home from Iraq, provided some of the images used in the story.

In the diary are listed detailed, dated entries that chronicle abuse and names, for example,

"They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. The next day the medics came in and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake I.V. in his arm [to suggest he died under medical care] and took him away. This OGA (other governmental agency) [prisoner] was never processed and therefore never had a number."

He also said that Military Intelligence was present much of the time.

Another story from someone who was there: "Sergeant Samuel Provance from Alpha Company 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion, in interviews with several news agencies, reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators.

The sodomy report came from a victim of the torture, but it's clear that you'll prefer the whitwashed version that comes via the Army investigation, so we'll have to stick with the fact that Graner's actual convictions were for "abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery."

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Like I said, no solutions. Just criticism. What IS the point?

[Slider]

If we don't identify the problem, we can't begin to work on the solution. Seems obvious to me.

Slider

[BG]

The problem is that our solutions are so ambiguous that they create more problems than they solve. I don't see a reasonable definition of "torture". I still say detaining in itself can be considered torture under the current popular definition.

[Slider]

That's what hearings and trials are for, defining the intent and letter of the law and deciding where the acts themselves fit in.

Slider

[BG]

Been there done that for the last 50+ years. And it's not just "US" the whole world is at fault here.

[Slider]

Well, we are pretty much stuck with our system of government. I say let's not abandon it, since it works better than any other I know of.

Slider

[BG]

So what the ***** your problem???????????????????

[Slider]

I don't have a problem. I want us to pursue the investigation of torture that Bush sanctioned, per our laws and Constitution. If we fail to do that, I have a problem, but the momentum is in the right direction at this point.

Slider

[BG]

Why are you set on only "Bush"?????

[Slider]

Well, he led the team, right? But you can't have missed my complete disgust for Cheney, Gonzales, Rove or any of the other arrogant aholes that Bush brought on board, who thought they could ignore any laws they chose.

Slider

[BG]

I want to put the whole ******** world on trial...not just Bush...lets be fair here

[errollthin]

I want to put the whole ******** world on trial...not just Bush...lets be fair here



Whoa there big fella save some of that angst for the bike! Let the anger be your riding fuel.

[Slider]

I want to put the whole ******** world on trial...not just Bush...lets be fair here

Well, that isn't exactly practical, and you gotta start somewhere. The Constitution is more important than anything else I can think of.

Slider

[BG]

It is practical and called for...the whole world has put us on trial, let's reciprocate.

[Slappy]

Well, that isn't exactly practical, and you gotta start somewhere. The Constitution is more important than anything else I can think of.

Slider

No, your team is more important to you than anything else you can think of. Otherwise, I'd imagine you'd be finding some things that are currently going on that should also be bothering you. Easier to live in the past I guess; play the same tired blame game for a few more years. Can't anybody think of anything more pressing for these peope to do than Monday morning QBing from here to eternity?

[antonio]

Most people don't seek the truth. They merely cling to those arguments that best support their current views, and ridicule those arguments that do not.

Slider, everything you've written is completely on point. I'm just not sure why you bother.

[Slappy]

Longstanding blatant and entrenched bias may not negate "the truth", but it sure as hell taints and filters it to the point that a source can be considered worthless.

[Slider]

Exactly, Slappy. That is exactly the reason that we have created institutions like the Constitution, the Justice Department, the court system, and hearings held by the legislative bodies. The process IS the antidote to bias.

Slider

[BG]

Now all we have to do is remove the human element........Sweet, GLOBAL WARMING will take care of that for us. Damn we are clever

[Slider]

Slider, everything you've written is completely on point. I'm just not sure why you bother.

For me, it makes me define what I think more clearly, and research the things that I'm not clear on.

But I really do it because I find it fun. I like to take on people who think they have a clue who don't get the fact that there's nothing under the bluster that they mistake for sense.

Slider

[Slider]

Now all we have to do is remove the human element........Sweet, GLOBAL WARMING will take care of that for us. Damn we are clever

The process is the way that we remove the human element. It requires transparency.

Secrecy is the enemy of reason, since it lets the process get corrupted by anyone on the inside with a personal interest. Put enough eyeballs on the process, and the self-interest is negated. Hearings, lots of them, are the friends of us all.

Slider

[BG]

Beauty...a one size fits all, ambiguous process that everyone has equal chance in corrupting, inside and out. Now that's the American way....or is it?

[Slider]

What would you propose as an alternative?

Slider

[BG]

Global Warming...Alien Invasion/Takeover...Kill all the crybabies...Public vote on everything, no more reps...Stop whinning about how horrible we are

[Slider]

I am not the one whining about how horrible we are. I say we have the best process in the world, so let's respect it. You seem to think otherwise, and just let out one enormous whine along those lines.

Slider

[BG]

Couldn't have said it better myself, and prob wouldn't have

[hogboy]

....

[Slider]

Here you go, Hogboy and Agabriel. This outlines, in detail, the many twists and turns of the Bush administration's internal debate on torture. At some level, they ALL knew it was illegal. The Attorney General worked hard on a fantasy to get them out of their predicament, but was far too much of a moron to craft a good cover story. Cheney to this day is too wrapped up in his old-man frustrations to know when to abandon the program. It is a story of warped policy, made by warped people, who managed to do immense damage to this country, especially to our role as world leaders.

Slider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYTimes
May 4, 2009
Interrogation Debate Sharply Divided Bush White House
By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON — The proclamation that President George W. Bush issued on June 26, 2003, to mark the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture seemed innocuous, one of dozens of high-minded statements published and duly ignored each year.

The United States is “committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example,” Mr. Bush declared, vowing to prosecute torture and to prevent “other cruel and unusual punishment.”

But inside the Central Intelligence Agency, the statement set off alarms. The agency’s top lawyer, Scott W. Muller, called the White House to complain: The statement by the president could unnerve C.I.A. interrogators he had authorized to use brutal tactics on Al Qaeda prisoners, Mr. Muller said, raising fears that political winds could change and make them scapegoats.

White House officials reaffirmed their support for the C.I.A. methods. But the exchange was a harbinger of the conflict between the coercive interrogations and the United States’ historical stance against torture that would deeply divide the Bush administration and ultimately undo the program.

The aftershocks of the interrogation policy continue today. President Obama’s recent decision to release Bush administration legal memorandums on interrogation and to fend off calls for a broad investigation has only fueled debate over the efficacy, legality and morality of what was done. Just last week, bloggers seized upon a new video clip of Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, sharply defending the program to a Stanford undergraduate and saying nothing about the bitter internal arguments that accompanied the demise of the program.

Most news accounts of the C.I.A. program have focused on how it was approved and operated. This is the story of its unraveling, based on interviews with more than a dozen former Bush administration officials. They insisted on anonymity because they feared being enmeshed in future investigations or public controversy, but they shed new light on the battle about the C.I.A. methods that grew passionate in the second Bush term.

The consensus of top administration officials about the C.I.A. interrogation program, which they had approved without debate or dissent in 2002, began to fall apart the next year. Acutely aware that the agency would be blamed if the policies lost political support, nervous C.I.A. officials began to curb its practices much earlier than most Americans know: no one was waterboarded after March 2003, and coercive interrogation methods were shelved altogether in 2005.

Yet even as interrogation methods were scaled back, former officials now say, the battle inside the Bush administration over which ones should be permitted only grew hotter. There would be a tense phone call over the program’s future during the 2005 Christmas holidays from Steven J. Hadley, the national security advisor, to Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director; a White House showdown the next year between Ms. Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney; and Ms. Rice’s refusal in 2007 to endorse the executive order with which Mr. Bush sought to revive the C.I.A. program.

The real trouble began on May 7, 2004, the day the C.I.A. inspector general, John L. Helgerson, completed a devastating report. In thousands of pages, it challenged the legality of some interrogation methods, found that interrogators were exceeding the rules imposed by the Justice Department and questioned the effectiveness of the entire program.

C.I.A. officials had sold the interrogation program to the White House. Now, the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, knew that the inspector general’s report could be a noose for White House officials to hang the C.I.A. Mr. Tenet ordered a temporary halt to the harshest interrogation methods.

The report landed on the desks of some White House officials who were already having their doubts about the wisdom of the C.I.A.’s harsh methods. John B. Bellinger III, who, as the National Security Council’s top lawyer, played a role in discussions when the program was approved in 2002, by the next year had begun to research past, ill-fated British and Israeli discursions into torture and grew doubtful about the wisdom of the techniques.

Mr. Bellinger shared his doubts with his boss, Ms. Rice, then the national security adviser, who began to reconsider her strong support for the program.

If the inspector general’s report was a body blow to the C.I.A. program, the bill passed by Congress the next year was a knockout punch. Provoked by the abuse scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and pushed by Senator John McCain of Arizona, who had been tortured by the North Vietnamese, the 2005 bill banned cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Top C.I.A. officials then feared that the agency’s methods could actually be illegal. Mr. Goss, who had succeeded Mr. Tenet at the C.I.A., wrote a memorandum to the White House saying the agency would carry out no harsh interrogations without new Justice Department approval.

The national security advisor, Mr. Hadley, was angered by the C.I.A.’s response. He called Mr. Goss at home over the Christmas holidays to complain; Mr. Goss, backed by his lawyers, would not budge. Mr. Hadley decided he could not push the C.I.A. to do what it thought might be illegal.

Nobody knew it then, but the C.I.A.’s fateful experiment in harsh interrogation was over. The “enhanced” interrogation, already scaled back, would not be used again.

But Bush administration officials could not agree about what to do with the agency’s prisoners. Already, disclosures of secret prisons in Eastern Europe had prompted the C.I.A. to fly many in a hurry to Afghanistan.

Vice President Cheney led those who argued that publicly acknowledging the detainees would reveal secrets and expose the program to exaggerated allegations of torture.

Ms. Rice, on the other hand, advocated moving the 14 remaining detainees in C.I.A. custody to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Only by publicly admitting that the United States had held the prisoners could Mr. Bush end what critics called the “disappearing” of terrorism suspects, she told colleagues.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed a middle ground: move the detainees to Guantánamo, but never acknowledge having held them in secret prisons. This proposal, lampooned by some officials as the “immaculate conception” option, was dismissed as unrealistic.

After a tense meeting in the White House’s grand Roosevelt Room in the summer of 2006, Mr. Cheney lost the argument to Ms. Rice. Within days the C.I.A. prisoners were loaded onto a C-17 cargo plane and taken to Cuba.

Still, Mr. Cheney and top Justice Department officials fought to revive the program. Steven G. Bradbury, the head of the department’s Office of Legal Counsel and author of the recently declassified 2005 memorandums authorizing harsh C.I.A interrogations, began drafting another memorandum in late 2006 to restore legal approval for harsh interrogation. Mr. Bradbury noted that Congress, despite the public controversy, had left it to the White House to set the limits.

Early drafts of the memorandum, circulated through the White House, the C.I.A. and the State Department, stunned some officials. Just months after the Supreme Court had declared that the Geneva Convention applied to Al Qaeda, the new Bradbury memorandum gave its blessing to almost every technique, except waterboarding, that the C.I.A. had used since 2002.

Forced as secretary of state to defend the C.I.A. program before angry European allies, Ms. Rice and her aides argued that it had outlived its usefulness.

In February 2007, Mr. Bellinger wrote to the Justice Department challenging Mr. Bradbury’s position. He called Mr. Bradbury’s memorandum a “work of advocacy” that gave a twisted interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and told colleagues he might resign.

When Mr. Bush finally reauthorized C.I.A. interrogations with an executive order in July 2007, it reflected the yearlong lobbying of Mr. Bellinger and Ms. Rice: Forced nudity was banned and guidelines for sleep deprivation were tighter.

But Mr. Cheney and his allies secured other victories. The executive order preserved the secret jails and authorized a laundry list of coercive methods. Ms. Rice, several officials say, declined to endorse the order but chose not to block it.

When President Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, the C.I.A. still maintained a network of empty jails overseas, where interrogators were still authorized to use physical pressure. Within 48 hours, Mr. Obama banned the methods.

Finally, last month, the program that had been the source of so many vigorous fights in Washington’s power corridors met a prosaic end.

Leon E. Panetta, the new C.I.A. chief, terminated the agency’s contracts providing the security and maintenance for the prisons, emphasizing the economic benefits. Shuttering the C.I.A. prisons, Mr. Panetta said, would save taxpayers $4 million.

[agabriel]

Slider,
I don't believe all of the content in your article, the publisher is the NY Times...

Anthony

[Slider]

Like I said, you believe what you want to believe.

Slider

[agabriel]

I will, you tried to discredit my source with a similiar argument.

[Mr_Cheeze]

I know several people who work in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections. To a person they all say the same thing about how difficult things have gotten since they added cameras to everywhere to monitor, not just prisoner behavior, but officer behavior towards prisoners. The result, prisoners wise to the fact that lifers can get away with a LOT more bad behavior around officers. Increased violence and danger posed to the officers. Yet, stricter guidelines and codes of conduct prevent officers from taking aggressive action to stem problems.

My point? This is what develops from transparency. Those being punished benefit and take the mile from the inch they are given. Take away torture by a liberal's definition and what we have left are suspects that have no incentive to say anything. This leads to increased cell activity and a growing and more emboldened enemy. But hey, we're saving $4 million!

I wonder how many Democrat congressmen own 4 million dollar yachts.

[Slider]

Re: credibility. The Times story says the info came from a dozen or so insiders. We are about to embark on hearings that will air it out. We'll soon see how accurate the story is. If you are a betting man, I'd advise against putting money that says the piece isn't accurate.

Re: anecdotal prison issues. We aren't talking about installing anything that isn't already installed. The law is the law. But saying "anything" one of the many problems with torture. "Anything" hurts, not helps. "Martians will land tomorrow. Here's the landing site location" sends lots of people scurrying, but won't stop the non-existant martians from helping themselves to a quick burger and fries.

Slider

BTW, Agabriel - I read back to see where I said you cited a non-credit worthy source. If you mean the report that the CIA said something useful had come from torture, it's very different. I didn't argue with your citation, just the credibility of the CIA information it was based on. That was for specific reasons, including a long track record of lying by the CIA. In the Times story, there are over a dozen sources cited. That is pretty much the hallmark of real journalism compared to BS - multiple sources, fat checking, and other techniques. Now, Jason Blair managed to evade those, admittedly, but you'd need to cite specifics if you want to impeach the quality of the info in the recent story, like I did with the CIA's history of fabrication. Like I said then, it is part of their job description.

[hogboy]

Slider,

you live in a protective bubble. You are not surrounded by people who would readily kill you just because of who you are and where you live. But, wake up. That is the real world. The real world is much bigger than the protective bubble you live in, called U.S of America.

You should travel the globe a little bit and understand just how good you have it, and how badly others want to wrest what we have away from us. I don't mean go to France, or Japan. Go to Sri Lanka, go to Pakistan.

The government deals with the bad stuff, so you don't have to lose sleep over it. Wake up, it is not all Ozzie and Harriet out there. It takes some type of gristle on a daily basis to protect what we have, and it will never be pretty and sweet. It is rougher than you can imagine. You have no idea. I do have some idea...I worked intel in the USAF and [I dealt with -some- stuff], but I was trained in a boatload of other stuff, and know that nothing, absolutely nothing, regarding enemies, is simple. And I also know you have to carry a much bigger stick than they do.

[Slider]

If we don't abide by OUR OWN LAWS, we will soon be exactly like Pakistan, or any other third world hell hole you can site. The law is all we have to prevent the CIA from doing whatever it wants. If the Bush administration ignored OUR LAWS, we need to make amends so that it doesn't happen again.

Slider

[agabriel]

Slider,
It really comes down to your interpretation of what happened. You think waterboarding is torture, I do not. You do not think it gathered any useful intel, I do. You think the terrorists may attack us less, or care for that matter, if we do not employ these techniques - I'm under no such disillusion.

We disagree...

Anthony

[Slider]

Exactly why we as a nation need to explore what really happened. That's all we are talking about here.

Slider

[agabriel]

I must disagree with you again, we would be re-interpreting what happened with different glasses. We fundamentally disagree on waterboarding - you think its torture, and I don't. We also fundamentally disagree on transparency, I think it would cripple the CIA and other groups; you don't believe what they tell the public any way.

What we are really talking about is politics. I think the dems, at least a few key members, knew everything that was going on; there are dems on intel committees that have access to that information. I also think dems want to do as much damage as they can to republican party, and while I didn't care for Bush I think this kind of politics is poor form IMHO.

Anthony

[hogboy]

There is what we call civilized society, which we try to live in...

and then there are Warlords. these men do not play games.

ask a Warlord if he will follow anyone elses laws. good luck with that.

[Slider]

I must disagree with you again, we would be re-interpreting what happened with different glasses. We fundamentally disagree on waterboarding - you think its torture, and I don't. We also fundamentally disagree on transparency, I think it would cripple the CIA and other groups; you don't believe what they tell the public any way.

What we are really talking about is politics. I think the dems, at least a few key members, knew everything that was going on; there are dems on intel committees that have access to that information. I also think dems want to do as much damage as they can to republican party, and while I didn't care for Bush I think this kind of politics is poor form IMHO.

Anthony

There have been no changes to the laws that govern oversight of the CIA for decades. Ignoring them would be against the rule of law, far poorer form than selective enforcement, which seems to be what Bush was advocating. THAT is as wrong as it gets, since there's then no step between democracy and fascism. The President doesn't get to select which laws to obey and which to ignore. Letting ANYONE - democrat or republican - do so is a threat to our ability to create law.

The only politics here is the attempt to wash it all under the rug. The law says otherwise. Protection of the Consitution says otherwise. It doesn't matter what party played what role. We need to air it all out. Saying otherwise is pure politics.

Slider

[Slider]

There is what we call civilized society, which we try to live in...

and then there are Warlords. these men do not play games.

ask a Warlord if he will follow anyone elses laws. good luck with that.

I don't expect anyone to follow anyone else's laws. I just expect us to follow our own laws. That's what makes us a civilized society.

Slider

[Slappy]

If we don't abide by OUR OWN LAWS, we will soon be exactly like Pakistan, or any other third world hell hole you can site. The law is all we have to prevent the CIA from doing whatever it wants. If the Bush administration ignored OUR LAWS, we need to make amends so that it doesn't happen again.

Slider

How's the Bush administration gonna ignore our laws again exactly?

Right.

Obama could pull the exact same **** that Bush did and the BDS crew wouldn't say boo. Hypocrites.

[agabriel]

There have been no changes to the laws that govern oversight of the CIA for decades. Ignoring them would be against the rule of law, far poorer form than selective enforcement, which seems to be what Bush was advocating. THAT is as wrong as it gets, since there's then no step between democracy and fascism. The President doesn't get to select which laws to obey and which to ignore. Letting ANYONE - democrat or republican - do so is a threat to our ability to create law.

The only politics here is the attempt to wash it all under the rug. The law says otherwise. Protection of the Consitution says otherwise. It doesn't matter what party played what role. We need to air it all out. Saying otherwise is pure politics.

Slider

Slider,
Which law, specifically, says waterboarding is illegal? There isn't one that I'm familiar with, there are guidelines which based on your interpretation will lead you to a conclusion. My conclusion is that based on those laws it is not illegal, you happen to disagree with me. Therefore it is matter of interpretation and my point is valid; unless you can show a valid US law that explicitly states waterboarding is illegal in the circumstances it was used.

Anthony

[Slider]

First, waterboarding was far from the only torture used. Second, it has been considered torture ever since the Spanish Inquisititors, those fun frat boys, invented it. Third, if the law is vague, as it seems to be from the disagreement over whether it qualifies as torture, we need to define it more clearly. That's what the legal process is for.

Slider

[Slider]

How's the Bush administration gonna ignore our laws again exactly?

Right.

Obama could pull the exact same **** that Bush did and the BDS crew wouldn't say boo. Hypocrites.

The way we stop Obama or anyone else from doing it again is by defining what happened and the process that led to it, and clarifying any ambiguities that made such a disaster possible in the first place.

Slider

[hogboy]

I say lets give in, teleflora petunias to all our enemies... and wait for armageddon to arrive, which it surely will once we lay out the red carpet.

[agabriel]

I can't speak for you, but I have grown rather attached to my head... I don't think I would jive well with terrorists.

[Slider]

Then let's not let our nation become like a terrorist nation. We agree!

Slider

[agabriel]

Slider - yes I can agree with that!

[BG]

Aawwwwwwww, that's SWEET....Well, guess it's off to Afghanistan/Pakistan to kill more innocents. Way more fun than torture...gotta love that collateral damage.

[Slider]

Hmmm...I think that means pro torture, anti war. Unless it isn't sarcasm, then it would be pro torture, pro war. Wait - maybe it is anti torture investigation, but anti torture, and pro war, unless it is anti-war. Might be pro war, anti collateral damage too, but still ambiguous on the torture thingy.

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

Slider

[BG]

Exactly....Discussion????....Thanks

[Mr_Cheeze]

It's easier just to be pro-anti

[BG]

That's why i always vote Yes on No

[Slappy]

Then let's not let our nation become like a terrorist nation. We agree!

Slider


But where or where is the interminable clamoring to impeach the new War Criminal In Chief?

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/asia_pacific/view.bg?&articleid=1170434&format=&page=1&listingType=intasia#articleFull

Cindy Sheehan and her ilk have remarkably STFU.
Why is that, do ya think?
Could it be...oh, I dunno...hypocrisy maybe?

[Slider]

Seems like you'd need some evidence to go on, first. Something akin to insiders describing sanctioned torture. Like, say, that the non-combatants were intentionally targeted. Get that, and I am with you on war crime prosecution, but you don't really think the Predident gets into the day-to-day, do you?

As for Pakistan, I am all for doing what's needed to take down al Qaeda. Aren't you?

The Taliban can go to hell with them.

Slider

[Slappy]

Okay, maybe not every BDS sufferer is a hypocrite...

http://www.worldcantwait.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5563:obamas-first-100-days-rebranding-continuing-bush-regimes-war-occupation-torture&catid=117:homepage&Itemid=289

[Slider]

C'mon, Slappy, you can't say you are against the war against al Qaeda, or chasing them into Pakistan. And I really doubt you are for prosecution of Bush.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the Dems are a lot more centrist than you give them credit for. That far left thing isn't reflected in policy anywhere, just in what spews from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

I'll take the Bush prosecution thing, but not most of the rest. I'd bet there are Republicans who wouldn't mind an airing out, too.

Slider

[Slappy]

C'mon, Slappy, you can't say you are against the war against al Qaeda, or chasing them into Pakistan. And I really doubt you are for prosecution of Bush.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the Dems are a lot more centrist than you give them credit for. That far left thing isn't reflected in policy anywhere, just in what spews from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

I'll take the Bush prosecution thing, but not most of the rest. I'd bet there are Republicans who wouldn't mind an airing out, too.

Slider


I wasn't against what's going on in Afg/Pak when Bush was doing it and I'm not now and I won't be when we have to go into Pakistan to a much greater extent in the near future. What I am against is divisive childish partisan hypocrites, such as the the vast majority who couldn't STFU for a second over the past few years about many of these same issues when Bush was in charge, but now don't make a peep. As for spewing ****, you couldn't move an inch for years without having to put up with some frothing tool blaming GWB for everything from the weather to the cost of Bic pens. I don't listen to Rush, but I sure as hell heard from a million clones of yourself. The 'left' created this perception on their own.

What I want to know is where are the anti-war protests now? ****'s still going on, ramping up, nobody's coming home, where's the outrage? Where's that moron Cindy Sheehan? Why aren't we hearing anything from these clowns? You know why? Cuz the vast majority of the BDS bandwagon jumpers-on (which would coincidentally include the vast majority of Democratic Obama supporters) were (and still are) nothing but sheep parroting an opinion that seemed popular at the time. You didn't hear **** from them pre-911/Iraq, cuz a large percentage had never opened a newspaper before that time and knew jack **** about how Iraq went out of it's way to look guilty while shooting it's proverbial mouth off, not to mention taking shots at our planes on a weekly basis. They know **** about history and have no perspective; it's just a popularity contest for them and now that 'their team' is in charge, all the stuff that outraged them a few months ago doesn't mean ****. Personally, I think far better of Obama himself than I do of about most of his supporters; most strike me as nothing more than easily led sheep, trying to go along with the crowd, and having no developed personal concept of patriotism or what America stands for (even if that concept disagrees with mine, I can still respect it if it's based on something more than the tabloids).

****...gotta go ride...

:D

[Slider]

The anti war protests still exist, mostly focused on Iraq, but some target Pakistan, too. But those are fringe objectors, and they do have a point in that we need to get out. But, as Colin Powell said, you break it you own it. We can't simply bail, which is unrelated to the fact that we never should have been there in the first place. So I really think you are mashing several concepts into one slurry, and they need more parsing than that.

We have a time table from someone who has yet to be proven a liar, so it seems most of the country expects him to follow through.

Slider

[hogboy]

yet to be a liar

hardy har har

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[Slider]

You can't do everything at once. Especially when you are cleaning up for an ***hole like Bush. "Liar" would mean something like "Weapons of mass destruction are in Iraq" when, in fact, senior policy advisors were saying otherwise.

'Promise Broken' for something like 5 days Web advance notice and comment might just have to wait, since the economy imploded in the meanwhile. The same applies to the rest of the relatively few 'promise broken' ratings. Expediency and praticality sometimes are more important in a crisis than obsessive adherence to campaign promises.

Go back and read the specific items that are categorized as Promise Broken. Tell me any of them come CLOSE to fabrications about torture not being in use, Iraqi alignment with al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction, policy for selecting Appelate judges, handouts to Halliburton or anything else.

Halliburton is a great example, since Cheney OWNED PART OF THE COMPANY as we handed them no-bid contracts. Actually READ the part about the Raytheon guy, and tell me that comes anywhere close. If we hand them a no-bid gift, that's a different story. Ain't happened, and it won't.

Welcome to the real world. You need some perspective.

Hardy har Har. What's that, some cartoon quote? Seems apt.

Slider

[agabriel]

Slider,
Do you want to think about Pakistan in a truly terrifing light? We may need to actually nuke them, or at least there nukes, in the not to distant future to maintain containment. Think about how scary it would be for Pakistan's nukes to fall into Taliban hands. Depending on how slow Obama is to react, we may actually be forced into nuking them to destroy there nukes - that is such a terrifing thought to me; although better than the alternative.

Talk about spine chilling...

Anthony

[Slider]

That's why Obama has a timeline for wirhdrawal from Iraq - a waste of lives, money, and international influence, for a focus on Pakistan and Afghanistan. I am with you, the region is a problem. We've wasted too much time, and we need to refocus. No argument there.

Slider

[agabriel]

Slider,
Although I agree that Iraq wasn't the right war a premature end could really be bad - I get the distinct feeling that Iran is just waiting to walk in.

Anthony

[catbbq]

If we don't abide by OUR OWN LAWS, we will soon be exactly like Pakistan, or any other third world hell hole you can site. The law is all we have to prevent the CIA from doing whatever it wants. If the Bush administration ignored OUR LAWS, we need to make amends so that it doesn't happen again.

Slider

With more laws? Wouldn't that just make it easier to not abide by them?

[Slider]

No new laws needed, just adherence to the ones in place.

Slider

[MTBME]

yet to be a liar

hardy har har

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Now that's a web site I can bookmark!

[Slider]

In my mind, this Times story does shift the torture discussion some. But I do think it reinforces the need to air it all out via lots of public discussion. I don't think that you can tie a bunch of 'approved' techniques into a single 'interrogation' and say that you aren't committing torture. In the end, I think this says those making the decisions were committed to the torture route, regardless of the efficacy or legality of what they were doing. Nothing like pressure from the VP and his boss to color your interpretation of a law.

Slider
------------
June 7, 2009
U.S. Lawyers Agreed on the Legality of Brutal Tactic
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON — When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.

Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.

That opinion, giving the green light for the C.I.A. to use all 13 methods in interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, “was ready to go out and I concurred,” Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times.

While signing off on the techniques, Mr. Comey in his e-mail provided a firsthand account of how he tried unsuccessfully to discourage use of the practices. He made a last-ditch effort to derail the interrogation program, urging Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to argue at a White House meeting in May 2005 that it was “wrong.”

“In stark terms I explained to him what this would look like some day and what it would mean for the president and the government,” Mr. Comey wrote in a May 31, 2005, e-mail message to his chief of staff, Chuck Rosenberg. He feared that a case could be made “that some of this stuff was simply awful.”

The e-mail messages are now in the hands of investigators at the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which is preparing a report expected to be released this summer on the Bush administration lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh methods. The inquiry, under way for nearly five years, will be the Justice Department’s fullest public account of its role in the interrogation program, which President Obama has ended.

In years of bitter public debate, the department has sometimes seemed like a black-and-white moral battleground over torture. The main authors of memorandums authorizing the methods — John C. Yoo, Jay S. Bybee and Steven G. Bradbury — have been widely pilloried as facilitators of torture.

Others, including Mr. Comey, Jack Goldsmith and Daniel Levin, have largely escaped criticism because they raised questions about interrogation and the law.

But a closer examination shows a more subtle picture. None of the Justice Department lawyers who reviewed the interrogation question argued that the methods were clearly illegal.

For example:

¶Mr. Goldsmith, now a Harvard law professor, unnerved the C.I.A. in June 2004 by withdrawing a 2002 memorandum written by Mr. Yoo that said only pain equal to that produced by organ failure or death qualified as torture.

In addition, in a previously undisclosed letter to the agency, Mr. Goldsmith put a temporary halt to waterboarding. But he left intact a secret companion memorandum from 2002 that actually authorized the harsh methods, leaving the C.I.A. free to use all its methods except waterboarding, including wall-slamming, face-slapping, stress positions and more.

¶Mr. Levin, now in private practice, won public praise with a 2004 memorandum that opened by declaring “torture is abhorrent.” But he also wrote a letter to the C.I.A that specifically approved waterboarding in August 2004, and he drafted much of Mr. Bradbury’s lengthy May 2005 opinion authorizing the 13 methods.

¶Mr. Comey, who had forced a 2004 showdown with White House officials over the National Security Agency’s surveillance program, concurred in that Bradbury opinion. His objections focused on a second legal opinion that authorized combinations of the methods. He expressed “grave reservations” and asked for a week to revise the memorandum, warning Mr. Gonzales that “it would come back to haunt him and the department,” Mr. Comey said in a 2005 e-mail message to Mr. Rosenberg.

Justice Department lawyers involved in the opinions felt torn between what was legal and what was advisable, Mr. Levin said. “Obviously you can only do that which is legal,” he said in a recent interview. “But that does not mean you should automatically do something simply because it is legal.”

The e-mail messages and documents provide new details about a critical year in the interrogation saga, beginning in mid-2004. The C.I.A. inspector general had questioned the legality and effectiveness of the harsh methods, prompting a review of the program. Under intense White House pressure, the Justice Department lawyers in May 2005 approved a series of opinions that reauthorized the harshest practices.

The lawyers had to interpret a 1994 antitorture law written largely with despotic foreign regimes in mind, but used starting in 2002, in effect, as a set of guidelines for American interrogators. The law defined torture as treatment “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” By that standard, a succession of Justice Department lawyers concluded that the C.I.A.’s methods did not constitute torture.

The only issues that provoked debate were waterboarding, which Mr. Goldsmith questioned, and some combinations of multiple techniques, which Mr. Comey resisted.

Some outside experts agree that the language of the 1994 law is strikingly narrow. “There’s no doubt whatsoever that a great deal of coercive treatment that most people would call torture is not prohibited by the federal antitorture statute,” said Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings Institution scholar who has studied interrogation policy.

But many believe that even under that law, the Justice Department should have recognized that waterboarding, at least, was torture. To argue otherwise, said Brian Z. Tamanaha, a St. John’s University law professor who has studied the interrogation memorandums, required “extraordinary contortions in language and legal analysis.”

Waterboarding, the near-drowning method that Mr. Obama has described as torture, was used on three operatives for Al Qaeda in 2002 and 2003. The C.I.A. never used the technique after it was reauthorized in 2005.

C.I.A. officials had been nervous about the legality of their proposed methods from the start in 2002. They had asked Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, to grant interrogators immunity in advance from prosecution for torture. Mr. Chertoff refused, but neither did he warn the agency against the methods it was proposing.

The agency’s worst fears about the potential liability of its officers returned with a vengeance in 2004, after the sharp criticism from the agency’s inspector general and Mr. Goldsmith’s withdrawal of the first torture memorandum. C.I.A. officials demanded a comprehensive legal review.

But Mr. Goldsmith resigned in July 2004, and his successor as acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Levin, quickly set to work on the review, assisted by his top deputy, Mr. Bradbury.

On July 22, 2004, the Justice Department offered the C.I.A. interim assurance that it could use all methods except waterboarding, which Mr. Goldsmith had questioned. On Aug. 6, Mr. Levin issued another interim letter reauthorizing waterboarding, as long as rules were followed.

But in February 2005, when Mr. Levin moved to a job as legal adviser to the National Security Council, the new interrogation opinions had not been approved by all necessary officials. The day before his departure, Mr. Levin stopped by and apologized to Mr. Bradbury for leaving it to him to sign the volatile documents.

By April 2005, the opinions were in final form, and Mr. Comey, who had set his own resignation for August, concurred in the 46-page opinion affirming the legality of the 13 techniques. But he told Mr. Gonzales that he strongly objected to Mr. Bradbury’s second opinion, allowing multiple techniques to be used in a single interrogation session.

Mr. Gonzales told him that he was “under great pressure” from Vice President Dick Cheney to complete both memorandums and that President George W. Bush had asked about them, Mr. Comey recounted in one of the 2005 e-mail messages.

Later, after reading a revised draft of the second opinion, Mr. Comey added that “my concerns were not allayed, only heightened.” He said he wanted more time to fix the memorandum, but Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, Theodore Ullyot, told him the White House would not wait.

Mr. Comey wanted an analysis centered on actual interrogations in an effort to limit the type and combination of techniques that would be permissible, according to someone familiar with his thinking.

“I told him the people who were applying pressure now would not be there when the [expletive] hit the fan,” Mr. Comey wrote in another e-mail message. “It would be Alberto Gonzales in the bull’s-eye. I told him it was my job to protect the department and the A.G. and that I could not agree to this because it was wrong. I told him it could be made right in a week, which was a blink of an eye, and that nobody would understand at a hearing three years from now why we didn’t take that week.”

[Mr_Cheeze]

Invoking Colon Powell

[Slider]

It must be so tough to be you. I mean your always right. All other opinions are wrong. The deck is clearly stacked in your favor. If the CIA states that they have received valuable information using harsh techniques then you now say, Oh the CIA you can't believe anything they say. Just like that. From now on I'll use that same argument against you. I'll discredit all your sources because, well because I can...

Thing is, I am right a lot more than you are.

Slider

Today's NYTimes:

Democrats Say C.I.A. Deceived Congress for Years
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 8, 2009

WASHINGTON — The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed “significant actions” from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said.

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.

In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.’s alleged deceptions,. But he said, “We wouldn’t be doing this over a trivial matter.”

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, referred to Mr. Panetta’s disclosure in a letter to the committee’s ranking Republican, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, Congressional Quarterly reported on Wednesday. Mr. Reyes wrote that the committee “has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to.”

In a related development, President Obama threatened to veto the pending Intelligence Authorization Bill if it included a provision that would allow information about covert actions to be given to the entire House and Senate Intelligence Committees, rather than the so-called Gang of Eight — the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress and the two Intelligence Committees.

A White House statement released on Wednesday said the proposed expansion of briefings would undermine “a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters.” Democrats have complained that under President George W. Bush, entire programs were hidden from most committee members for years.

The question of the C.I.A.’s candor with the Congressional oversight committees has been hotly disputed since Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to disclose in a 2002 briefing that it had used waterboarding against a terrorism suspect. Ms. Pelosi said the agency routinely misled Congress, though she later said she intended to fault the Bush administration rather than career intelligence officials.

Since then, Republicans have called Ms. Pelosi’s complaint an unwarranted attack on the integrity of counterterrorism officers and have demanded an investigation. Democrats have rebuffed the demand.

In a statement Wednesday night, a C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, noted that the agency “took the initiative to notify the oversight committees” about the past failures. He said the agency and Mr. Panetta “believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed.”

[agabriel]

Gee - with the NY Times behind you you'll never be wrong. Its a pretty liberal rag wouldn't you say? I mean they don't even really pretend to be impartial, which fits well if your liberal...

[Slider]

You did read the part that says seven committee members provided the info, right? How are you suggesting that the Times spun this?

If you want to call someone a liar, like I accurately did with the CIA, you need to back it up. This wasn't an editorial, where opinion is encouraged, but a news story from a source that fact checks and confirms sources. That smear the right uses against the Times is always trotted out when the content of a story makes them look bad.

Slider

[agabriel]

Relative to the story published I think its more of a liberal thing. If there was a real story there it would have come out when Pelosi was expressing her displeasure with the CIA a month or two ago. I think this is a political move, not a real story... They may be looking for a way to create a story to create a job. I would be curious to see what questions "misled" them...

[Slider]

Maybe you'll prefer the Fox version:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/08/house-democrat-joins-pelosi-accusing-cia-misleading-lying-congress/

But lets talk spin. Pelosi says the CIA lied to Congress and Republicans call for her to resign. Panetta states that the Agency DID lie to Congress, and now the GOP claims there is political posturing going on. Can't have it both ways.

Panetta started this, not the Times or the Dems.

Slider

[agabriel]

So Leon Panetta, a Democrat insider who was nominated for the CIA just last January, is accusing his predessor of misleading congress. This is the same man that many inside and outside of the CIA think is actually unqualified to run the agency - Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, who also thought he was unqualified: “the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge.”

Really? No I mean really - I'm supposed to think this isn't political BS? This isn't a real news story, its partisan politics...

[Slider]

The first yen years of his career were spent working for Republicans, including Nixon. But the real point is that determining whether someone lied to Congress isn't partisan gray-area spin, it's a matter of fact. It happened or it didn't.

Slider

[agabriel]

He wasn't in the room I don't think he really knows what was said on both sides. Aside from the point that as a dem, he will do better if he stays tight with the dems. He has no actual experience running/being a spy. I don't think congress was lied to - I think dems are creating a partisan spin zone...

If you want to convince me, I want to see a republican member of the gang of 8 say the CIA misled them. Then it will at least feel like it is non-partisan...

Anthony

[agabriel]

So over the last few days the details came out - about time.

Cheney was in the planning stages for a mission to assassinate high level terrorist leaders and he is being accused of not disclosing the plan to congress. Here is the political spin, he does not need to get congressional opinion from the gang of 8 until the program is ready to go live. The program never went live, it was in the training phases when it was scrapped; therefore it was a legal program whether or not you agree with the objective.

Anthony

[Slider]

Well, that's certainly how the GOP has spun this, but it isn't accurate. First, you got Cheney telling the CIA not to report to Congress. You can't miss the balance of powers implications in that. But the whole thing about 'ready to go live' is ludicrous. Oversight is about the CIA operations, not just what spits out the end of the pipe. Here's the Wikipedia recap of the oversight process under the Hughes Ryan act:

"This amendment addressed the question of CIA and Defense Department covert actions, and prohibited the use of appropriated funds for their conduct unless and until the President issues an official "Finding" that each such operation is important to the national security and submits these Findings to the appropriate Congressional committees"

If there was funding needed, as would obviously be the case even in the planning stage, the CIA is bound to report it to Congress. It is cut and dried.

Slider

[agabriel]

Actually the CIA has spun it that way as well. The high level CIA folks that were interviewed for the CNN article said the same thing. This is just political spin on the part of the Dems, no more no less. Bella Pelosi was really just full of it and shooting for political spin when she made her comment....

[Slider]

Now we are back to the point of departure regarding the truthfulness of the CIA. You think the rank and file would present it any other way?

But officially, the agency didn't, really. Panetta himself brought it up.

Slider

[agabriel]

So Panetta, a democrat, brought up a political point to back up Bella Pelosi. How can you see this as anything other political spin? That just seems so obvious... In fact it feels so obvious I want to say its absolutely political spin removing any room for debate...

I would think the rank and file at the CIA understand there job, and they also have no reason to lie - there is no stick or carrot, they have nothing to gain.

[Slider]

The rules for reporting to congress are the decider here, not spin on either side, if we agree that the project was in planning. The law says funding requires reporting. Planning requires funding.

Slider

[agabriel]

The CIA disagrees with you; I will believe them over you - they know there job.

[jamishead]

The CIA disagrees with you; I will believe them over you - they know there job.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha- the coffee just came out of my nose!

[dbkaczor]

I wonder how many American lives Bush saved that we will never truly know. Meanwhile Obama comes home from his worldwide apology tour. I guarantee you our enemies see this as a sign of weakness. Lets see how this all plays out. Obama is digging a hole that the rest of us will have to climb out of.


with each passing minute bush is looking not so bad after all.

[kernel crash]

with each passing minute bush is looking not so bad after all.

My problem with Bush was he was a one trick pony. Terrorism. Terrorism. Terrorism. OK that sounds like 3 tricks but you get my drift. Yes terrorism is important but you can't get so obsessed with it that you allow the economy to unravel around you.

[agabriel]

with each passing minute bush is looking not so bad after all.


I don't think anyone is going to accuse me of being liberal, but I still think Bush was an idiot. With that said I don't think there was a good conserative option for this election as McCain is about as liberal as they come. I do think I would happier with Hillary as president than I am with Obama, I feel like I have some clue as to her thought process and I think Obama is still a bit idealistic.