by Ugh
It seems it's been released. Washington Post copy here. WaPo story on the report here. From the WaPo story:
After being transferred to a site in Thailand, Zubaida was placed in isolation for 47 days, a period during which the presumably important source on al-Qaeda faced no questions. Then, at 11:50 a.m. on Aug. 4, 2002, the CIA launched a round-the-clock interrogation assault — slamming Zubaida against walls, stuffing him into a coffin-sized box and waterboarding him until he coughed, vomited and had “involuntary spasms of the torso and extremities.”
More to say later. Keep in mind the report's limitations.
Update – also, too:
There are also references to other procedures, including the use of tubes to administer “rectal rehydration” and feeding. CIA documents describe a case in which a prisoner’s lunch tray “consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raising was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused.” At least five CIA detainees were subjected to “rectal rehydration” or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity.
Update the Second – Glenn Greenwald "live coverage" here. (Note: it's Glenn Greenwald, you do not have to click the link.) I will post a link to the CIA's "rebuttal" when I see it (or feel free to post it in comments). But will be offline for a bit.
Update in Round: Andrew Sullivan "live blogging." His (accurate) paraphrase of part of the report, "Even after a torture victim is so broken that the interrogator only has to snap his fingers to get this shell of a human being to get back on the waterboard, they continued to torture him."
Update 4: The CIA rebuttal.
we must do this because the enemy is a foul, inhuman cult that has no respect for life and will stop at nothing to achieve its goal of dominating the world.
AMIRITE!?!?!?!?
we must do this because the enemy is a foul, inhuman cult that has no respect for life and will stop at nothing to achieve its goal of dominating the world.
AMIRITE!?!?!?!?
we must do this because the enemy is a foul, inhuman cult that has no respect for life and will stop at nothing to achieve its goal of dominating the world.
AMIRITE!?!?!?!?
Well, it is abundantly clear (from just the little I have had time to read so far) why the CIA fought so hard to keep this from being made public. And it had absolutely nothing to do with risks to our regular intelligence operations or concerns about damage to our relations with other countries. It had everything to do with just how bad this makes them look. “Ineffective”, “incompetentlt managed”, and “dishonest with their lawful oversight bodies” (including the National Security Council, the Congressional Oversight committees, and the CIA’s own Inspector General) are the first three phrases that leap to mind.
If you have nime for nothing else, just read thru the first 17 pages and 20 findings.
Well, it is abundantly clear (from just the little I have had time to read so far) why the CIA fought so hard to keep this from being made public. And it had absolutely nothing to do with risks to our regular intelligence operations or concerns about damage to our relations with other countries. It had everything to do with just how bad this makes them look. “Ineffective”, “incompetentlt managed”, and “dishonest with their lawful oversight bodies” (including the National Security Council, the Congressional Oversight committees, and the CIA’s own Inspector General) are the first three phrases that leap to mind.
If you have nime for nothing else, just read thru the first 17 pages and 20 findings.
Well, it is abundantly clear (from just the little I have had time to read so far) why the CIA fought so hard to keep this from being made public. And it had absolutely nothing to do with risks to our regular intelligence operations or concerns about damage to our relations with other countries. It had everything to do with just how bad this makes them look. “Ineffective”, “incompetentlt managed”, and “dishonest with their lawful oversight bodies” (including the National Security Council, the Congressional Oversight committees, and the CIA’s own Inspector General) are the first three phrases that leap to mind.
If you have nime for nothing else, just read thru the first 17 pages and 20 findings.
So, we know that people working for foreign governments helped out with this program, and that doing so was certainly a violation of their governments’ official laws. Now that this is out, some of those people may get prosecuted by their governments. If those people fled to the US and asked for asylum, claiming they were being politically persecuted, what would the US do?
I mean, the US government’s claim is that no one did anything wrong, and that’s why there have been no and there will be no prosecutions.
Of course, they’d probably just ignore those guys and deport them back to their country, but it is fun to think through unlikely cases in which the US government is forced to confront, in some small way, their own barbarity.
So, we know that people working for foreign governments helped out with this program, and that doing so was certainly a violation of their governments’ official laws. Now that this is out, some of those people may get prosecuted by their governments. If those people fled to the US and asked for asylum, claiming they were being politically persecuted, what would the US do?
I mean, the US government’s claim is that no one did anything wrong, and that’s why there have been no and there will be no prosecutions.
Of course, they’d probably just ignore those guys and deport them back to their country, but it is fun to think through unlikely cases in which the US government is forced to confront, in some small way, their own barbarity.
So, we know that people working for foreign governments helped out with this program, and that doing so was certainly a violation of their governments’ official laws. Now that this is out, some of those people may get prosecuted by their governments. If those people fled to the US and asked for asylum, claiming they were being politically persecuted, what would the US do?
I mean, the US government’s claim is that no one did anything wrong, and that’s why there have been no and there will be no prosecutions.
Of course, they’d probably just ignore those guys and deport them back to their country, but it is fun to think through unlikely cases in which the US government is forced to confront, in some small way, their own barbarity.
There would seem to be serious questions about what should be done as a result of this report.
Not having seen the full report (and not being a lawyer), I don’t know what prosecutions may be possible. But a few things are clear:
— those (in the CIA or elsewhere) who managed the Detention and Interrogation Program should be fired. Not “asked to resign”, fired.
— any CIA personnel who were involved in actually running the program should likewise be fired. (see next bullet on the outsourcing of the program)
— the two outside psychologists who invented the torture program, and the company they founded (to which the program was subsequently outsourced), should be sued by the government for fraud. As individuals and the company both. Complete with massive punitive damages.
More may come to mind as we have time to absorb what it here. But those three stand out as no-brainers.
There would seem to be serious questions about what should be done as a result of this report.
Not having seen the full report (and not being a lawyer), I don’t know what prosecutions may be possible. But a few things are clear:
— those (in the CIA or elsewhere) who managed the Detention and Interrogation Program should be fired. Not “asked to resign”, fired.
— any CIA personnel who were involved in actually running the program should likewise be fired. (see next bullet on the outsourcing of the program)
— the two outside psychologists who invented the torture program, and the company they founded (to which the program was subsequently outsourced), should be sued by the government for fraud. As individuals and the company both. Complete with massive punitive damages.
More may come to mind as we have time to absorb what it here. But those three stand out as no-brainers.
There would seem to be serious questions about what should be done as a result of this report.
Not having seen the full report (and not being a lawyer), I don’t know what prosecutions may be possible. But a few things are clear:
— those (in the CIA or elsewhere) who managed the Detention and Interrogation Program should be fired. Not “asked to resign”, fired.
— any CIA personnel who were involved in actually running the program should likewise be fired. (see next bullet on the outsourcing of the program)
— the two outside psychologists who invented the torture program, and the company they founded (to which the program was subsequently outsourced), should be sued by the government for fraud. As individuals and the company both. Complete with massive punitive damages.
More may come to mind as we have time to absorb what it here. But those three stand out as no-brainers.
There are also references to other procedures, including the use of tubes to administer “rectal rehydration” and feeding. CIA documents describe a case in which a prisoner’s lunch tray “consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raising was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused.” At least five CIA detainees were subjected to “rectal rehydration” or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity
This is what happens when the CIA recruits from frat houses that practice butt-chugging.
There are also references to other procedures, including the use of tubes to administer “rectal rehydration” and feeding. CIA documents describe a case in which a prisoner’s lunch tray “consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raising was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused.” At least five CIA detainees were subjected to “rectal rehydration” or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity
This is what happens when the CIA recruits from frat houses that practice butt-chugging.
There are also references to other procedures, including the use of tubes to administer “rectal rehydration” and feeding. CIA documents describe a case in which a prisoner’s lunch tray “consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts, and raising was ‘pureed’ and rectally infused.” At least five CIA detainees were subjected to “rectal rehydration” or rectal feeding without documented medical necessity
This is what happens when the CIA recruits from frat houses that practice butt-chugging.
Follow former Obsidian Wings blogger, Katherine Hawkins, who has been covering US torture for more than a decade
https://twitter.com/Krhawkins5
“It turns out you can still be shocked even if you’re not surprised.”
Follow former Obsidian Wings blogger, Katherine Hawkins, who has been covering US torture for more than a decade
https://twitter.com/Krhawkins5
“It turns out you can still be shocked even if you’re not surprised.”
Follow former Obsidian Wings blogger, Katherine Hawkins, who has been covering US torture for more than a decade
https://twitter.com/Krhawkins5
“It turns out you can still be shocked even if you’re not surprised.”
Another reason for the CIA not to want the report to be released: it seems they lied to foreign governments/intelligence agencies about what they were doing.
Another reason for the CIA not to want the report to be released: it seems they lied to foreign governments/intelligence agencies about what they were doing.
Another reason for the CIA not to want the report to be released: it seems they lied to foreign governments/intelligence agencies about what they were doing.
This was interesting too, via Sully.
Therefore, the CIA admitted that—as late as June 2013—it was simply incapable of evaluating the effectiveness of its covert activity. This apparently made it impossible for CIA officials and those within the Counterterrorism Center (CTC), who were responsible for detaining and interrogating the 119 known detainees, to examine and assess if this detention and interrogation program was working at all. Given that the CIA has acknowledged this so recently, it should cast doubt upon all previous responses from Intelligence Community officials that defended and justified the program. If they had, by the CIA’s own admission, the wrong structure, expertise, and methodologies to evaluate the program, then what was the basis upon which they claimed it was needed and successful?
This was interesting too, via Sully.
Therefore, the CIA admitted that—as late as June 2013—it was simply incapable of evaluating the effectiveness of its covert activity. This apparently made it impossible for CIA officials and those within the Counterterrorism Center (CTC), who were responsible for detaining and interrogating the 119 known detainees, to examine and assess if this detention and interrogation program was working at all. Given that the CIA has acknowledged this so recently, it should cast doubt upon all previous responses from Intelligence Community officials that defended and justified the program. If they had, by the CIA’s own admission, the wrong structure, expertise, and methodologies to evaluate the program, then what was the basis upon which they claimed it was needed and successful?
This was interesting too, via Sully.
Therefore, the CIA admitted that—as late as June 2013—it was simply incapable of evaluating the effectiveness of its covert activity. This apparently made it impossible for CIA officials and those within the Counterterrorism Center (CTC), who were responsible for detaining and interrogating the 119 known detainees, to examine and assess if this detention and interrogation program was working at all. Given that the CIA has acknowledged this so recently, it should cast doubt upon all previous responses from Intelligence Community officials that defended and justified the program. If they had, by the CIA’s own admission, the wrong structure, expertise, and methodologies to evaluate the program, then what was the basis upon which they claimed it was needed and successful?
But Ugh, why ever not? After all, they were lying to their own government, including those legally charged with overseeing them. And even to their internal IG. What’s a few more lies to foreigners?
Of course, the foreign governments and politicians who were caught up in this, especially the ones who were lied to, are now “beyond furious.” And the chances of getting their cooperation on the next request we make, however innocuous, have nose-dived. Thank you, CIA et al.
But Ugh, why ever not? After all, they were lying to their own government, including those legally charged with overseeing them. And even to their internal IG. What’s a few more lies to foreigners?
Of course, the foreign governments and politicians who were caught up in this, especially the ones who were lied to, are now “beyond furious.” And the chances of getting their cooperation on the next request we make, however innocuous, have nose-dived. Thank you, CIA et al.
But Ugh, why ever not? After all, they were lying to their own government, including those legally charged with overseeing them. And even to their internal IG. What’s a few more lies to foreigners?
Of course, the foreign governments and politicians who were caught up in this, especially the ones who were lied to, are now “beyond furious.” And the chances of getting their cooperation on the next request we make, however innocuous, have nose-dived. Thank you, CIA et al.
Aren’t we all (the Americans, anyway) so extra-super-duper safe because of all this? I feel special, knowing people were willing to do these things just to keep me out of harm’s way. God Bless America!
(Is it okay to vomit now?)
Aren’t we all (the Americans, anyway) so extra-super-duper safe because of all this? I feel special, knowing people were willing to do these things just to keep me out of harm’s way. God Bless America!
(Is it okay to vomit now?)
Aren’t we all (the Americans, anyway) so extra-super-duper safe because of all this? I feel special, knowing people were willing to do these things just to keep me out of harm’s way. God Bless America!
(Is it okay to vomit now?)
Is it okay to vomit now?
as long as you’re not in CIA custody it’s probably safe.
Is it okay to vomit now?
as long as you’re not in CIA custody it’s probably safe.
Is it okay to vomit now?
as long as you’re not in CIA custody it’s probably safe.
Sullivan again:
Let me state this as plainly as I can: this is Nazi-level criminality and brutality. This is unimaginable sadism. If the people who did this and those who authorized this are allowed to get away with this, and even be praised by presidents for it, then we have left our civilization behind.
Sullivan again:
Let me state this as plainly as I can: this is Nazi-level criminality and brutality. This is unimaginable sadism. If the people who did this and those who authorized this are allowed to get away with this, and even be praised by presidents for it, then we have left our civilization behind.
Sullivan again:
Let me state this as plainly as I can: this is Nazi-level criminality and brutality. This is unimaginable sadism. If the people who did this and those who authorized this are allowed to get away with this, and even be praised by presidents for it, then we have left our civilization behind.
Of course, the foreign governments and politicians who were caught up in this, especially the ones who were lied to, are now “beyond furious.” And the chances of getting their cooperation on the next request we make, however innocuous, have nose-dived.
This. The CIA is not concerned that they lied, but that the foreign governments and intelligence services will no longer cooperate.
It’s very much like the child who killed his parents pleading for leniency because he’s an orphan.
Of course, the foreign governments and politicians who were caught up in this, especially the ones who were lied to, are now “beyond furious.” And the chances of getting their cooperation on the next request we make, however innocuous, have nose-dived.
This. The CIA is not concerned that they lied, but that the foreign governments and intelligence services will no longer cooperate.
It’s very much like the child who killed his parents pleading for leniency because he’s an orphan.
Of course, the foreign governments and politicians who were caught up in this, especially the ones who were lied to, are now “beyond furious.” And the chances of getting their cooperation on the next request we make, however innocuous, have nose-dived.
This. The CIA is not concerned that they lied, but that the foreign governments and intelligence services will no longer cooperate.
It’s very much like the child who killed his parents pleading for leniency because he’s an orphan.
As emptywheel points out, the report establishes beyond doubt that the US Govt knew it was deliberately in breach of the UN Convention on torture.
Here, from page 33 of the Report, is the language establishing the above:
…drafted a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking the Department of Justice for “a formal declination of prosecution, in advance, for any employees of the United States, as well as any other personnel acting on behalf of the United States, who may employ methods in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah that otherwise might subject those individuals to prosecution. The letter further indicated that “the interrogation team had concluded “that “the use of more aggressive methods is required to persuade Abu Zubaydah to provide the critical information we need to safeguard the lives of innumerable innocent men, women and children within the United States and abroad.” The letter added that these “aggressive methods” would otherwise be prohibited by the torture statute, “apart from potential reliance upon the doctrines of necessity or of self-defense.”
As emptywheel points out, the report establishes beyond doubt that the US Govt knew it was deliberately in breach of the UN Convention on torture.
Here, from page 33 of the Report, is the language establishing the above:
…drafted a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking the Department of Justice for “a formal declination of prosecution, in advance, for any employees of the United States, as well as any other personnel acting on behalf of the United States, who may employ methods in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah that otherwise might subject those individuals to prosecution. The letter further indicated that “the interrogation team had concluded “that “the use of more aggressive methods is required to persuade Abu Zubaydah to provide the critical information we need to safeguard the lives of innumerable innocent men, women and children within the United States and abroad.” The letter added that these “aggressive methods” would otherwise be prohibited by the torture statute, “apart from potential reliance upon the doctrines of necessity or of self-defense.”
As emptywheel points out, the report establishes beyond doubt that the US Govt knew it was deliberately in breach of the UN Convention on torture.
Here, from page 33 of the Report, is the language establishing the above:
…drafted a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft asking the Department of Justice for “a formal declination of prosecution, in advance, for any employees of the United States, as well as any other personnel acting on behalf of the United States, who may employ methods in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah that otherwise might subject those individuals to prosecution. The letter further indicated that “the interrogation team had concluded “that “the use of more aggressive methods is required to persuade Abu Zubaydah to provide the critical information we need to safeguard the lives of innumerable innocent men, women and children within the United States and abroad.” The letter added that these “aggressive methods” would otherwise be prohibited by the torture statute, “apart from potential reliance upon the doctrines of necessity or of self-defense.”
oddly, none of the wingnut sites i occasionally look at have a single thing to say about this. but, they are all very interested in the Rolling Stone rape thing.
and MSNBC.com still refuses to call what happened “torture” (they will quote other people saying it).
and the Senate GOP has concluded that “it’s all good and you’re a liar”. (be sure to read the comments!)
this goes nowhere. nothing happens. scot remains free.
oddly, none of the wingnut sites i occasionally look at have a single thing to say about this. but, they are all very interested in the Rolling Stone rape thing.
and MSNBC.com still refuses to call what happened “torture” (they will quote other people saying it).
and the Senate GOP has concluded that “it’s all good and you’re a liar”. (be sure to read the comments!)
this goes nowhere. nothing happens. scot remains free.
oddly, none of the wingnut sites i occasionally look at have a single thing to say about this. but, they are all very interested in the Rolling Stone rape thing.
and MSNBC.com still refuses to call what happened “torture” (they will quote other people saying it).
and the Senate GOP has concluded that “it’s all good and you’re a liar”. (be sure to read the comments!)
this goes nowhere. nothing happens. scot remains free.
When you have taken the mutually exclusive positions that “nothing we did was other than humane” and “if what we did is revealed, it will so infuriate the rest of the world as to put Americans at risk,” and then the former is revealed by the CIA’s own documents to be false, what is left? Either claim it is all lies (the CIA’s own documents are lies? Because the is what is being quoted) or ignore it an focus of unrelated stories.
When you have taken the mutually exclusive positions that “nothing we did was other than humane” and “if what we did is revealed, it will so infuriate the rest of the world as to put Americans at risk,” and then the former is revealed by the CIA’s own documents to be false, what is left? Either claim it is all lies (the CIA’s own documents are lies? Because the is what is being quoted) or ignore it an focus of unrelated stories.
When you have taken the mutually exclusive positions that “nothing we did was other than humane” and “if what we did is revealed, it will so infuriate the rest of the world as to put Americans at risk,” and then the former is revealed by the CIA’s own documents to be false, what is left? Either claim it is all lies (the CIA’s own documents are lies? Because the is what is being quoted) or ignore it an focus of unrelated stories.
Nigel – that’s interesting, and interesting that that letter was never sent. Probably because it would be the admission emptywheel states. Instead, they got the DOJ to “bless” what they were doing, and in that had the CYA to do what they wanted.
That they were lying to the DOJ about the facts and the DOJ was lying to them about the law, was win-win in their eyes – if everyone’s guilty – then no one is. And if one of the guilty parties is the DOJ, who then will bring charges?
From what I’ve heard the view inside CIA was that the DOJ can’t one day tell CIA that torturing is okay, and then the next day turn around and say torturing is not okay and commence prosecuting. Not an unreasonable position, in theory (and even in practice, depending on the facts). But even in these circumstances, more than enough protection from a political standpoint to preclude criminal prosecutions – even for the destruction of the torture tapes (although that still boggles the mind – not there is a lack of that sort of thing).
Nigel – that’s interesting, and interesting that that letter was never sent. Probably because it would be the admission emptywheel states. Instead, they got the DOJ to “bless” what they were doing, and in that had the CYA to do what they wanted.
That they were lying to the DOJ about the facts and the DOJ was lying to them about the law, was win-win in their eyes – if everyone’s guilty – then no one is. And if one of the guilty parties is the DOJ, who then will bring charges?
From what I’ve heard the view inside CIA was that the DOJ can’t one day tell CIA that torturing is okay, and then the next day turn around and say torturing is not okay and commence prosecuting. Not an unreasonable position, in theory (and even in practice, depending on the facts). But even in these circumstances, more than enough protection from a political standpoint to preclude criminal prosecutions – even for the destruction of the torture tapes (although that still boggles the mind – not there is a lack of that sort of thing).
Nigel – that’s interesting, and interesting that that letter was never sent. Probably because it would be the admission emptywheel states. Instead, they got the DOJ to “bless” what they were doing, and in that had the CYA to do what they wanted.
That they were lying to the DOJ about the facts and the DOJ was lying to them about the law, was win-win in their eyes – if everyone’s guilty – then no one is. And if one of the guilty parties is the DOJ, who then will bring charges?
From what I’ve heard the view inside CIA was that the DOJ can’t one day tell CIA that torturing is okay, and then the next day turn around and say torturing is not okay and commence prosecuting. Not an unreasonable position, in theory (and even in practice, depending on the facts). But even in these circumstances, more than enough protection from a political standpoint to preclude criminal prosecutions – even for the destruction of the torture tapes (although that still boggles the mind – not there is a lack of that sort of thing).
Never order the the “awesome hummus” at this conservative’s pig trough of a dinner table:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-cia-torture-america-awesome
Because you don’t know where it’s been.
Never order the the “awesome hummus” at this conservative’s pig trough of a dinner table:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-cia-torture-america-awesome
Because you don’t know where it’s been.
Never order the the “awesome hummus” at this conservative’s pig trough of a dinner table:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-host-cia-torture-america-awesome
Because you don’t know where it’s been.
I like the CIA defense: It worked! But we don’t do it anymore!
Well, if it worked (and saved “thousands” of lives), why don’t you do it anymore?
I like the CIA defense: It worked! But we don’t do it anymore!
Well, if it worked (and saved “thousands” of lives), why don’t you do it anymore?
I like the CIA defense: It worked! But we don’t do it anymore!
Well, if it worked (and saved “thousands” of lives), why don’t you do it anymore?
why don’t you do it anymore?
CIA: because mean old man Obama said we couldn’t, and that’s making us less safe!
GOP: CIA says Obama is making America less safe!
FOX: Obama loves teh terrrisssts!
CIA, GOP, FOX: IMPEACH!
why don’t you do it anymore?
CIA: because mean old man Obama said we couldn’t, and that’s making us less safe!
GOP: CIA says Obama is making America less safe!
FOX: Obama loves teh terrrisssts!
CIA, GOP, FOX: IMPEACH!
why don’t you do it anymore?
CIA: because mean old man Obama said we couldn’t, and that’s making us less safe!
GOP: CIA says Obama is making America less safe!
FOX: Obama loves teh terrrisssts!
CIA, GOP, FOX: IMPEACH!
Frank Church.
What happened to him?
He was put down like a dog by our old subhuman vermin friends — Cheney and Rumsfeld
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Torture_Report_And_What_Comes_Next
Frank Church.
What happened to him?
He was put down like a dog by our old subhuman vermin friends — Cheney and Rumsfeld
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Torture_Report_And_What_Comes_Next
Frank Church.
What happened to him?
He was put down like a dog by our old subhuman vermin friends — Cheney and Rumsfeld
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Torture_Report_And_What_Comes_Next
Isn’t the CIA’s defense more like: “Our own internal documents say that it didn’t work. But we told everybody outside that it did. And they said it was OK, because it worked. So we’re clear!”
Isn’t the CIA’s defense more like: “Our own internal documents say that it didn’t work. But we told everybody outside that it did. And they said it was OK, because it worked. So we’re clear!”
Isn’t the CIA’s defense more like: “Our own internal documents say that it didn’t work. But we told everybody outside that it did. And they said it was OK, because it worked. So we’re clear!”
Which do we think will happen first? Last? Anything?
Barack Obama calls for the arrest of the pig-filth sadistic vermin, who share their predilections with both Nazi and Stalinist torturers of the past in a hat-trick example of bipartisan who-do-we-think-is-worstism — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, the entire defense and security apparatus of the U.S. Government during that time, including some choice Democrats — and their rendition to the Hague to stand trial?
The sadistic Republican subhuman vermin in the House and the Senate now applauding the behavior described in the report (McCain can kiss my hummus-enemad ass, despite his too-late rhetoric) calling for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for refusing to cooperate with the release of this report and thereby covering-up the crimes and protecting the aforesaid Bush Administration and their crimes?
The impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for bringing some sensible health care coverage to some 11 million Americans and protecting 5 million illegal immigrants who have made a go of it in the United States, despite calls for their immediate deportation and the sundering of their traditional families by torture-loving Tea Party filth, who believe hummus enemas are the only medical care that should be covered by government for poor Americans?
A dozen or more dicey shooting of unarmed black men over the next year?
Rand Paul finds yet three more sides of his surly, ignorant mouth to talk out of for electoral gain, perhaps blaming the behavior described in the report on the taxation and regulation of hummus?
Which do we think will happen first? Last? Anything?
Barack Obama calls for the arrest of the pig-filth sadistic vermin, who share their predilections with both Nazi and Stalinist torturers of the past in a hat-trick example of bipartisan who-do-we-think-is-worstism — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, the entire defense and security apparatus of the U.S. Government during that time, including some choice Democrats — and their rendition to the Hague to stand trial?
The sadistic Republican subhuman vermin in the House and the Senate now applauding the behavior described in the report (McCain can kiss my hummus-enemad ass, despite his too-late rhetoric) calling for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for refusing to cooperate with the release of this report and thereby covering-up the crimes and protecting the aforesaid Bush Administration and their crimes?
The impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for bringing some sensible health care coverage to some 11 million Americans and protecting 5 million illegal immigrants who have made a go of it in the United States, despite calls for their immediate deportation and the sundering of their traditional families by torture-loving Tea Party filth, who believe hummus enemas are the only medical care that should be covered by government for poor Americans?
A dozen or more dicey shooting of unarmed black men over the next year?
Rand Paul finds yet three more sides of his surly, ignorant mouth to talk out of for electoral gain, perhaps blaming the behavior described in the report on the taxation and regulation of hummus?
Which do we think will happen first? Last? Anything?
Barack Obama calls for the arrest of the pig-filth sadistic vermin, who share their predilections with both Nazi and Stalinist torturers of the past in a hat-trick example of bipartisan who-do-we-think-is-worstism — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, the entire defense and security apparatus of the U.S. Government during that time, including some choice Democrats — and their rendition to the Hague to stand trial?
The sadistic Republican subhuman vermin in the House and the Senate now applauding the behavior described in the report (McCain can kiss my hummus-enemad ass, despite his too-late rhetoric) calling for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for refusing to cooperate with the release of this report and thereby covering-up the crimes and protecting the aforesaid Bush Administration and their crimes?
The impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for bringing some sensible health care coverage to some 11 million Americans and protecting 5 million illegal immigrants who have made a go of it in the United States, despite calls for their immediate deportation and the sundering of their traditional families by torture-loving Tea Party filth, who believe hummus enemas are the only medical care that should be covered by government for poor Americans?
A dozen or more dicey shooting of unarmed black men over the next year?
Rand Paul finds yet three more sides of his surly, ignorant mouth to talk out of for electoral gain, perhaps blaming the behavior described in the report on the taxation and regulation of hummus?
If any ObWi alumni would like to post on this, please feel free.If you don’t have (or can’t find) the keys for the place or don’t want to bother with dealing with the typepad interface, send me the text file and I will get it posted
If any ObWi alumni would like to post on this, please feel free.If you don’t have (or can’t find) the keys for the place or don’t want to bother with dealing with the typepad interface, send me the text file and I will get it posted
If any ObWi alumni would like to post on this, please feel free.If you don’t have (or can’t find) the keys for the place or don’t want to bother with dealing with the typepad interface, send me the text file and I will get it posted
You and I obviously are looking at different wingnut sites. Here’s one.
My own opinion on this is: we shouldn’t be doing it; we should not ever have done it, and saying something like: well, rendition started under Clinton, so we are not so bad because reasons just isn’t really a compelling story.
For me, the only reason to look forward to an Obama presidency was for things like this to finally have a light shined on them. I badly misjudged just how low a priority the exhumation of information about the Bush administration would get, and/or how long it would take to get any of it public.
I’d rather dine on cosmoline-soaked rags than listen to any of the defensiveness, frankly.
You and I obviously are looking at different wingnut sites. Here’s one.
My own opinion on this is: we shouldn’t be doing it; we should not ever have done it, and saying something like: well, rendition started under Clinton, so we are not so bad because reasons just isn’t really a compelling story.
For me, the only reason to look forward to an Obama presidency was for things like this to finally have a light shined on them. I badly misjudged just how low a priority the exhumation of information about the Bush administration would get, and/or how long it would take to get any of it public.
I’d rather dine on cosmoline-soaked rags than listen to any of the defensiveness, frankly.
You and I obviously are looking at different wingnut sites. Here’s one.
My own opinion on this is: we shouldn’t be doing it; we should not ever have done it, and saying something like: well, rendition started under Clinton, so we are not so bad because reasons just isn’t really a compelling story.
For me, the only reason to look forward to an Obama presidency was for things like this to finally have a light shined on them. I badly misjudged just how low a priority the exhumation of information about the Bush administration would get, and/or how long it would take to get any of it public.
I’d rather dine on cosmoline-soaked rags than listen to any of the defensiveness, frankly.
You and I obviously are looking at different wingnut sites.
well, i went to PJ, but not that guy. i saw that Instapundit could only muster a “heh, but Feinstein… [fapfapfap]”
You and I obviously are looking at different wingnut sites.
well, i went to PJ, but not that guy. i saw that Instapundit could only muster a “heh, but Feinstein… [fapfapfap]”
You and I obviously are looking at different wingnut sites.
well, i went to PJ, but not that guy. i saw that Instapundit could only muster a “heh, but Feinstein… [fapfapfap]”
I don’t have much to say about this, beyond what’s been said. It’s terrible that it happened, its terrible how long it took to get out, and its terrible that even now the CIA’s official response is along the lines of “yeah, but…”
For example:
In some instances the only technique used was sleep deprivation, and there were mllltiple occasions-ignored by the Study-in which the Agency applied no enhanced techniques because officers judged detainees
were cooperating as a result of standard interrogation and debriefing techniques, or opted to forego specific techniques because officers judged they would most likely only stiffen the resolve of the detainee.
If that’s a defense, nobody would ever be guilty.
The CIA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch in a much more limited role with more direct oversight. Or not rebuilt at all.
I don’t have much to say about this, beyond what’s been said. It’s terrible that it happened, its terrible how long it took to get out, and its terrible that even now the CIA’s official response is along the lines of “yeah, but…”
For example:
In some instances the only technique used was sleep deprivation, and there were mllltiple occasions-ignored by the Study-in which the Agency applied no enhanced techniques because officers judged detainees
were cooperating as a result of standard interrogation and debriefing techniques, or opted to forego specific techniques because officers judged they would most likely only stiffen the resolve of the detainee.
If that’s a defense, nobody would ever be guilty.
The CIA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch in a much more limited role with more direct oversight. Or not rebuilt at all.
I don’t have much to say about this, beyond what’s been said. It’s terrible that it happened, its terrible how long it took to get out, and its terrible that even now the CIA’s official response is along the lines of “yeah, but…”
For example:
In some instances the only technique used was sleep deprivation, and there were mllltiple occasions-ignored by the Study-in which the Agency applied no enhanced techniques because officers judged detainees
were cooperating as a result of standard interrogation and debriefing techniques, or opted to forego specific techniques because officers judged they would most likely only stiffen the resolve of the detainee.
If that’s a defense, nobody would ever be guilty.
The CIA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch in a much more limited role with more direct oversight. Or not rebuilt at all.
Interview with Katherine Hawkins on Senate Torture Report.
https://soundcloud.com/wbez-worldview/why-the-cia-torture-report-matters?utm_content=buffer94654&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Interview with Katherine Hawkins on Senate Torture Report.
https://soundcloud.com/wbez-worldview/why-the-cia-torture-report-matters?utm_content=buffer94654&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Interview with Katherine Hawkins on Senate Torture Report.
https://soundcloud.com/wbez-worldview/why-the-cia-torture-report-matters?utm_content=buffer94654&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
“The CIA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch in a much more limited role with more direct oversight. Or not rebuilt at all.”
I would agree with that proposal, particularly were it extended to the entire federal government.
“The CIA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch in a much more limited role with more direct oversight. Or not rebuilt at all.”
I would agree with that proposal, particularly were it extended to the entire federal government.
“The CIA needs to be gutted and rebuilt from scratch in a much more limited role with more direct oversight. Or not rebuilt at all.”
I would agree with that proposal, particularly were it extended to the entire federal government.
Well, we do need some entitity to gather intelligence information in the more traditional manner. And to analyze what is gathered. The CIA has never been particularly good at gathering intelligence. So rebuilding that part of the agency from scratch seems like it wouldn’t be a bad idea. We might even end up with something that works.
But it was supposed ot be, once upon a time, pretty good at analysis. To the extent that those folks are still around, they might form the core of a rebuilt analysis effort. (And since data analysis would not involve torturing people, they would probably not be directly implicated in the rest of the agency’s misdeeds.)
As a side note, I suspect that whatever we have going forward needs to be restarted with a new name and totally new management. The existing management is manifestly incompetent and untrustworthy. And the brand is trashed beyond repair.
Well, we do need some entitity to gather intelligence information in the more traditional manner. And to analyze what is gathered. The CIA has never been particularly good at gathering intelligence. So rebuilding that part of the agency from scratch seems like it wouldn’t be a bad idea. We might even end up with something that works.
But it was supposed ot be, once upon a time, pretty good at analysis. To the extent that those folks are still around, they might form the core of a rebuilt analysis effort. (And since data analysis would not involve torturing people, they would probably not be directly implicated in the rest of the agency’s misdeeds.)
As a side note, I suspect that whatever we have going forward needs to be restarted with a new name and totally new management. The existing management is manifestly incompetent and untrustworthy. And the brand is trashed beyond repair.
Well, we do need some entitity to gather intelligence information in the more traditional manner. And to analyze what is gathered. The CIA has never been particularly good at gathering intelligence. So rebuilding that part of the agency from scratch seems like it wouldn’t be a bad idea. We might even end up with something that works.
But it was supposed ot be, once upon a time, pretty good at analysis. To the extent that those folks are still around, they might form the core of a rebuilt analysis effort. (And since data analysis would not involve torturing people, they would probably not be directly implicated in the rest of the agency’s misdeeds.)
As a side note, I suspect that whatever we have going forward needs to be restarted with a new name and totally new management. The existing management is manifestly incompetent and untrustworthy. And the brand is trashed beyond repair.
Driving home from work today, I was tempted to torture a radio. Pull its knobs off. Shove a pen deep into its speakers. Smash its display with my fist. Drape it with a soft cloth and pour water on it until it said something I wanted to hear.
Unfortunately, that was my own car radio, which is more or less hard-wired to NPR. Sensible liberals know that NPR stands for (N)ice (P)olite (R)epublicans, but never mind.
Anyway, the NPR anchor who rejoices in the name “Audie” Cornish was interviewing “former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin about his objections to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s so-called torture report”. Listening to that smarmy little man, I lost any last vestige of a twinge I may ever have harbored at The Count’s use of terms like “pig-filth”.
I could not bring myself to vandalize my own car radio, mostly because I know it would not do any good. My local NPR station is currently running their end-of-year on-air fundraiser; calling in to declare a non-pledge because of Audie’s kid-glove non-interrogation of McLaughlin probably won’t do any good either. I’m not sure anything will do any good. I’m beginning to feel like a decent German circa 1933.
P.S. (after previewing): I see Brett is pounding the confederate drum again. THAT would solve the problem. You betcha.
–TP
Driving home from work today, I was tempted to torture a radio. Pull its knobs off. Shove a pen deep into its speakers. Smash its display with my fist. Drape it with a soft cloth and pour water on it until it said something I wanted to hear.
Unfortunately, that was my own car radio, which is more or less hard-wired to NPR. Sensible liberals know that NPR stands for (N)ice (P)olite (R)epublicans, but never mind.
Anyway, the NPR anchor who rejoices in the name “Audie” Cornish was interviewing “former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin about his objections to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s so-called torture report”. Listening to that smarmy little man, I lost any last vestige of a twinge I may ever have harbored at The Count’s use of terms like “pig-filth”.
I could not bring myself to vandalize my own car radio, mostly because I know it would not do any good. My local NPR station is currently running their end-of-year on-air fundraiser; calling in to declare a non-pledge because of Audie’s kid-glove non-interrogation of McLaughlin probably won’t do any good either. I’m not sure anything will do any good. I’m beginning to feel like a decent German circa 1933.
P.S. (after previewing): I see Brett is pounding the confederate drum again. THAT would solve the problem. You betcha.
–TP
Driving home from work today, I was tempted to torture a radio. Pull its knobs off. Shove a pen deep into its speakers. Smash its display with my fist. Drape it with a soft cloth and pour water on it until it said something I wanted to hear.
Unfortunately, that was my own car radio, which is more or less hard-wired to NPR. Sensible liberals know that NPR stands for (N)ice (P)olite (R)epublicans, but never mind.
Anyway, the NPR anchor who rejoices in the name “Audie” Cornish was interviewing “former Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin about his objections to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s so-called torture report”. Listening to that smarmy little man, I lost any last vestige of a twinge I may ever have harbored at The Count’s use of terms like “pig-filth”.
I could not bring myself to vandalize my own car radio, mostly because I know it would not do any good. My local NPR station is currently running their end-of-year on-air fundraiser; calling in to declare a non-pledge because of Audie’s kid-glove non-interrogation of McLaughlin probably won’t do any good either. I’m not sure anything will do any good. I’m beginning to feel like a decent German circa 1933.
P.S. (after previewing): I see Brett is pounding the confederate drum again. THAT would solve the problem. You betcha.
–TP
After all, they were lying to their own government, including those legally charged with overseeing them.
I don’t even begin to know what it means that they “lied”. Perhaps not every single gory detail was known, but by the time Bush was reelected, everyone in the country was on notice that horrible torture was going on. This was the Bush administration, elected by the American people, not just a rogue CIA.
After all, they were lying to their own government, including those legally charged with overseeing them.
I don’t even begin to know what it means that they “lied”. Perhaps not every single gory detail was known, but by the time Bush was reelected, everyone in the country was on notice that horrible torture was going on. This was the Bush administration, elected by the American people, not just a rogue CIA.
After all, they were lying to their own government, including those legally charged with overseeing them.
I don’t even begin to know what it means that they “lied”. Perhaps not every single gory detail was known, but by the time Bush was reelected, everyone in the country was on notice that horrible torture was going on. This was the Bush administration, elected by the American people, not just a rogue CIA.
wj:
Analysis is necessary for making informed decisions, and a valuable part of governance (imo). But I can’t recall any examples of the CIA being particularly good at analysis, nor do I really see a need for their analysis that couldn’t be better done at other departments (State, Defense, etc).
wj:
Analysis is necessary for making informed decisions, and a valuable part of governance (imo). But I can’t recall any examples of the CIA being particularly good at analysis, nor do I really see a need for their analysis that couldn’t be better done at other departments (State, Defense, etc).
wj:
Analysis is necessary for making informed decisions, and a valuable part of governance (imo). But I can’t recall any examples of the CIA being particularly good at analysis, nor do I really see a need for their analysis that couldn’t be better done at other departments (State, Defense, etc).
By “they lied” I mean that their own documents show that one thing was true. While their statements, to Congress, to the National Security Council and to the President, not to mention their statements to the press, said something entirely at odds with what those documents said.
Not to mention other documents which do things like advise against writing down certain information, because it might later be used to show that they lied. (Bad idea that, writing down the directive to not write things down lest they come back to haunt you.)
By “they lied” I mean that their own documents show that one thing was true. While their statements, to Congress, to the National Security Council and to the President, not to mention their statements to the press, said something entirely at odds with what those documents said.
Not to mention other documents which do things like advise against writing down certain information, because it might later be used to show that they lied. (Bad idea that, writing down the directive to not write things down lest they come back to haunt you.)
By “they lied” I mean that their own documents show that one thing was true. While their statements, to Congress, to the National Security Council and to the President, not to mention their statements to the press, said something entirely at odds with what those documents said.
Not to mention other documents which do things like advise against writing down certain information, because it might later be used to show that they lied. (Bad idea that, writing down the directive to not write things down lest they come back to haunt you.)
thompson, my impression that they were relatively good at analysis comes from stuff I saw decades ago. So clearly I can’t come upwith citations. And also, I don’t know at this point how trustworthy the sources were — save that they were being harsh about the CIA’s covert operations efforts, which suggests that they were not just generic CIA propaganda.
That said, certainly other groups could do analysis for us. The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows. In fact, that was the original justification for consolidating our various intelligence groups into one central agency.
thompson, my impression that they were relatively good at analysis comes from stuff I saw decades ago. So clearly I can’t come upwith citations. And also, I don’t know at this point how trustworthy the sources were — save that they were being harsh about the CIA’s covert operations efforts, which suggests that they were not just generic CIA propaganda.
That said, certainly other groups could do analysis for us. The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows. In fact, that was the original justification for consolidating our various intelligence groups into one central agency.
thompson, my impression that they were relatively good at analysis comes from stuff I saw decades ago. So clearly I can’t come upwith citations. And also, I don’t know at this point how trustworthy the sources were — save that they were being harsh about the CIA’s covert operations efforts, which suggests that they were not just generic CIA propaganda.
That said, certainly other groups could do analysis for us. The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows. In fact, that was the original justification for consolidating our various intelligence groups into one central agency.
While their statements, to Congress, to the National Security Council and to the President, not to mention their statements to the press, said something entirely at odds with what those documents said.
Well, there was a reason why Obama immediately dismantled the program of torture when he came into office. It wasn’t because someone finally told him the truth. It was because the truth was known. To the extent that the report blames the CIA for dishonesty, okay sure, whatever. But the buck doesn’t stop at the CIA.
While their statements, to Congress, to the National Security Council and to the President, not to mention their statements to the press, said something entirely at odds with what those documents said.
Well, there was a reason why Obama immediately dismantled the program of torture when he came into office. It wasn’t because someone finally told him the truth. It was because the truth was known. To the extent that the report blames the CIA for dishonesty, okay sure, whatever. But the buck doesn’t stop at the CIA.
While their statements, to Congress, to the National Security Council and to the President, not to mention their statements to the press, said something entirely at odds with what those documents said.
Well, there was a reason why Obama immediately dismantled the program of torture when he came into office. It wasn’t because someone finally told him the truth. It was because the truth was known. To the extent that the report blames the CIA for dishonesty, okay sure, whatever. But the buck doesn’t stop at the CIA.
I don’t even begin to know what it means that they “lied”.
“Nevertheless, we do agree with the Study that there were instances where representations about the program that were used or approved by Agency officers were inaccurate, imprecise, or fell short of Agency tradecraft standards.”
-John O. Brennan
(Also, what wj said.)
I don’t even begin to know what it means that they “lied”.
“Nevertheless, we do agree with the Study that there were instances where representations about the program that were used or approved by Agency officers were inaccurate, imprecise, or fell short of Agency tradecraft standards.”
-John O. Brennan
(Also, what wj said.)
I don’t even begin to know what it means that they “lied”.
“Nevertheless, we do agree with the Study that there were instances where representations about the program that were used or approved by Agency officers were inaccurate, imprecise, or fell short of Agency tradecraft standards.”
-John O. Brennan
(Also, what wj said.)
That said, certainly other groups could do analysis for us. The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows. In fact, that was the original justification for consolidating our various intelligence groups into one central agency.
Yeah, but that’s not the case now. E.g., the DoD recently organized its own Defense Clandestine Service (which admittedly was more a restructuring and re-organizing of existing assets than something made from whole cloth, but that really just underscores the point). And beyond that, one of the damning bits in the Study was that it was observed that the CIA program was impeding their ability to act in concert with other parts of the US intelligence community. If the one central service is doing things that prevent it from acting as a central hub for intelligence, then that’s no longer a meaningful justification for its existence.
That said, certainly other groups could do analysis for us. The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows. In fact, that was the original justification for consolidating our various intelligence groups into one central agency.
Yeah, but that’s not the case now. E.g., the DoD recently organized its own Defense Clandestine Service (which admittedly was more a restructuring and re-organizing of existing assets than something made from whole cloth, but that really just underscores the point). And beyond that, one of the damning bits in the Study was that it was observed that the CIA program was impeding their ability to act in concert with other parts of the US intelligence community. If the one central service is doing things that prevent it from acting as a central hub for intelligence, then that’s no longer a meaningful justification for its existence.
That said, certainly other groups could do analysis for us. The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows. In fact, that was the original justification for consolidating our various intelligence groups into one central agency.
Yeah, but that’s not the case now. E.g., the DoD recently organized its own Defense Clandestine Service (which admittedly was more a restructuring and re-organizing of existing assets than something made from whole cloth, but that really just underscores the point). And beyond that, one of the damning bits in the Study was that it was observed that the CIA program was impeding their ability to act in concert with other parts of the US intelligence community. If the one central service is doing things that prevent it from acting as a central hub for intelligence, then that’s no longer a meaningful justification for its existence.
So who cares that they left out the rectal feeding? Everyone knew they were doing things that were agonizing short of causing organ failure. This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.
So who cares that they left out the rectal feeding? Everyone knew they were doing things that were agonizing short of causing organ failure. This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.
So who cares that they left out the rectal feeding? Everyone knew they were doing things that were agonizing short of causing organ failure. This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.
wj:
The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows.
There is some truth to that. I don’t know if its worth keeping the CIA around for. Not trying to pick a fight with you over it, certainly, just that I’ve never really seen good data of what the CIA does or could do (beyond on what they do terribly wrong).
wj:
The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows.
There is some truth to that. I don’t know if its worth keeping the CIA around for. Not trying to pick a fight with you over it, certainly, just that I’ve never really seen good data of what the CIA does or could do (beyond on what they do terribly wrong).
wj:
The only advantage of having one central group do it is that you have less chance of one hand not knowing what the other hand knows.
There is some truth to that. I don’t know if its worth keeping the CIA around for. Not trying to pick a fight with you over it, certainly, just that I’ve never really seen good data of what the CIA does or could do (beyond on what they do terribly wrong).
Also, what NV said at 9:00PM.
Also, what NV said at 9:00PM.
Also, what NV said at 9:00PM.
or, 8:59PM. Whenever NV said what NV said, it was correct.
or, 8:59PM. Whenever NV said what NV said, it was correct.
or, 8:59PM. Whenever NV said what NV said, it was correct.
I’d say we need to get rid of the CIA. As noted, that brand is toast.
The question is, are there some people who have worked for the CIA who a) have useful skills, and b) were not involved in the torture operation? If so (and I confess I don’t have solid information one way or the other), they ought to be retained — in whatever intelligence operation(s) we have. Those that do not meet those criteria should find other careers.
I’d say we need to get rid of the CIA. As noted, that brand is toast.
The question is, are there some people who have worked for the CIA who a) have useful skills, and b) were not involved in the torture operation? If so (and I confess I don’t have solid information one way or the other), they ought to be retained — in whatever intelligence operation(s) we have. Those that do not meet those criteria should find other careers.
I’d say we need to get rid of the CIA. As noted, that brand is toast.
The question is, are there some people who have worked for the CIA who a) have useful skills, and b) were not involved in the torture operation? If so (and I confess I don’t have solid information one way or the other), they ought to be retained — in whatever intelligence operation(s) we have. Those that do not meet those criteria should find other careers.
This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.
(Emphasis added.)
The Republican administration in question is gone. The CIA that enacted sloppy, dangerous, unprofessional policies on its behalf is still there, and has shown itself to be unwilling to take disciplinary action against those responsible for conceiving, planning, and implementing those policies (or even directly admit that they were anything more than inefficient). Indeed, the Study shows signs that it instead took measures to retaliate against internal elements that questioned them.
What you tolerate, you condone. In fairness, though, this looks like well more than simple toleration, as there was active pushback to oversight, internal or external. And the CIA of today is essentially the same CIA as 10 years ago. As the Study pointed out, the only thing standing between the current status quo of these policies being verboten and their resumption is a unilaterally-rescindable Executive Order.
This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.
(Emphasis added.)
The Republican administration in question is gone. The CIA that enacted sloppy, dangerous, unprofessional policies on its behalf is still there, and has shown itself to be unwilling to take disciplinary action against those responsible for conceiving, planning, and implementing those policies (or even directly admit that they were anything more than inefficient). Indeed, the Study shows signs that it instead took measures to retaliate against internal elements that questioned them.
What you tolerate, you condone. In fairness, though, this looks like well more than simple toleration, as there was active pushback to oversight, internal or external. And the CIA of today is essentially the same CIA as 10 years ago. As the Study pointed out, the only thing standing between the current status quo of these policies being verboten and their resumption is a unilaterally-rescindable Executive Order.
This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.
(Emphasis added.)
The Republican administration in question is gone. The CIA that enacted sloppy, dangerous, unprofessional policies on its behalf is still there, and has shown itself to be unwilling to take disciplinary action against those responsible for conceiving, planning, and implementing those policies (or even directly admit that they were anything more than inefficient). Indeed, the Study shows signs that it instead took measures to retaliate against internal elements that questioned them.
What you tolerate, you condone. In fairness, though, this looks like well more than simple toleration, as there was active pushback to oversight, internal or external. And the CIA of today is essentially the same CIA as 10 years ago. As the Study pointed out, the only thing standing between the current status quo of these policies being verboten and their resumption is a unilaterally-rescindable Executive Order.
So who cares that they left out the rectal feeding?
So who cares if they left out dropping bound prisoners into the ocean from helicopters? I mean, to the best of our knowledge, they did no such thing, but they’ve demonstrated a willingness to lie and misrepresent their activities to the entities charged with oversight of their operations in order to conceal actions that were unsavory, but according to official executive policy, legal. If they’re willing to lie to their overseers in a confidential context IOT avoid embarrassment for engaging in ostensibly legal activities, they cannot reasonably be trusted not to lie if they’re engaging in uncontroversially illegal activity.
Basically, this is a paramilitary organization demonstrating that it chaffs at the notion of being beholden to civilian authority. Recall, it doesn’t just stand accused of lying to Congress; it also stands accused of lying to State, the DOJ, and other executive agencies. That’s… a pretty big deal.
So who cares that they left out the rectal feeding?
So who cares if they left out dropping bound prisoners into the ocean from helicopters? I mean, to the best of our knowledge, they did no such thing, but they’ve demonstrated a willingness to lie and misrepresent their activities to the entities charged with oversight of their operations in order to conceal actions that were unsavory, but according to official executive policy, legal. If they’re willing to lie to their overseers in a confidential context IOT avoid embarrassment for engaging in ostensibly legal activities, they cannot reasonably be trusted not to lie if they’re engaging in uncontroversially illegal activity.
Basically, this is a paramilitary organization demonstrating that it chaffs at the notion of being beholden to civilian authority. Recall, it doesn’t just stand accused of lying to Congress; it also stands accused of lying to State, the DOJ, and other executive agencies. That’s… a pretty big deal.
So who cares that they left out the rectal feeding?
So who cares if they left out dropping bound prisoners into the ocean from helicopters? I mean, to the best of our knowledge, they did no such thing, but they’ve demonstrated a willingness to lie and misrepresent their activities to the entities charged with oversight of their operations in order to conceal actions that were unsavory, but according to official executive policy, legal. If they’re willing to lie to their overseers in a confidential context IOT avoid embarrassment for engaging in ostensibly legal activities, they cannot reasonably be trusted not to lie if they’re engaging in uncontroversially illegal activity.
Basically, this is a paramilitary organization demonstrating that it chaffs at the notion of being beholden to civilian authority. Recall, it doesn’t just stand accused of lying to Congress; it also stands accused of lying to State, the DOJ, and other executive agencies. That’s… a pretty big deal.
The question is, are there some people who have worked for the CIA who a) have useful skills, and b) were not involved in the torture operation?
I’m sure there are tons. This was, one assumes, primarily or even exclusively the baby of the National Clandestine Service (i.e., the former Directorate of Operations). That leaves the other three directorates, and countless NCS agents who were assigned to other projects/regions. Admittedly, if one is concerned about cleaning out an institutional culture, it’s not nearly enough to merely have avoided direct participation in this program.
The question is, are there some people who have worked for the CIA who a) have useful skills, and b) were not involved in the torture operation?
I’m sure there are tons. This was, one assumes, primarily or even exclusively the baby of the National Clandestine Service (i.e., the former Directorate of Operations). That leaves the other three directorates, and countless NCS agents who were assigned to other projects/regions. Admittedly, if one is concerned about cleaning out an institutional culture, it’s not nearly enough to merely have avoided direct participation in this program.
The question is, are there some people who have worked for the CIA who a) have useful skills, and b) were not involved in the torture operation?
I’m sure there are tons. This was, one assumes, primarily or even exclusively the baby of the National Clandestine Service (i.e., the former Directorate of Operations). That leaves the other three directorates, and countless NCS agents who were assigned to other projects/regions. Admittedly, if one is concerned about cleaning out an institutional culture, it’s not nearly enough to merely have avoided direct participation in this program.
the only thing standing between the current status quo of these policies being verboten and their resumption is a unilaterally-rescindable Executive Order
No, this is actually the big deal. If the President’s executive order can stop the CIA from doing what it was doing, then clearly the responsibility is at the Executive level – in other words, the Bush administration.
Do you honestly think that the Bush administration didn’t know what the CIA was doing?
If the CIA was investigated, and found to be violating Obama’s executive order, then the “rogue CIA theory” might hold water. What we think we know is that the CIA felt perfectly comfortable doing horrific things under protection of the legal opinions of the Bush administration.
the only thing standing between the current status quo of these policies being verboten and their resumption is a unilaterally-rescindable Executive Order
No, this is actually the big deal. If the President’s executive order can stop the CIA from doing what it was doing, then clearly the responsibility is at the Executive level – in other words, the Bush administration.
Do you honestly think that the Bush administration didn’t know what the CIA was doing?
If the CIA was investigated, and found to be violating Obama’s executive order, then the “rogue CIA theory” might hold water. What we think we know is that the CIA felt perfectly comfortable doing horrific things under protection of the legal opinions of the Bush administration.
the only thing standing between the current status quo of these policies being verboten and their resumption is a unilaterally-rescindable Executive Order
No, this is actually the big deal. If the President’s executive order can stop the CIA from doing what it was doing, then clearly the responsibility is at the Executive level – in other words, the Bush administration.
Do you honestly think that the Bush administration didn’t know what the CIA was doing?
If the CIA was investigated, and found to be violating Obama’s executive order, then the “rogue CIA theory” might hold water. What we think we know is that the CIA felt perfectly comfortable doing horrific things under protection of the legal opinions of the Bush administration.
The argument I am currently seeing is that, while the Bush administration may have known about the torture, Bush himself did not. Really, I saw someone arguing exactly that — and therefore Bush was not responsible for the torture. As if ignorance kept anybody else from being responsible for the policy-based actions taken in an organizaiton that he is in charge of.
The argument I am currently seeing is that, while the Bush administration may have known about the torture, Bush himself did not. Really, I saw someone arguing exactly that — and therefore Bush was not responsible for the torture. As if ignorance kept anybody else from being responsible for the policy-based actions taken in an organizaiton that he is in charge of.
The argument I am currently seeing is that, while the Bush administration may have known about the torture, Bush himself did not. Really, I saw someone arguing exactly that — and therefore Bush was not responsible for the torture. As if ignorance kept anybody else from being responsible for the policy-based actions taken in an organizaiton that he is in charge of.
This is rather damning. Hell, even if his testimony was all true it’s damning.
This is rather damning. Hell, even if his testimony was all true it’s damning.
This is rather damning. Hell, even if his testimony was all true it’s damning.
Good God.
“Nazar Ali, an ‘intellectually challenged’ individual whose taped crying was used as leverage against a family member….” was one of those wrongly held.
But it’s all “move along, nothing to see here.”
Good God.
“Nazar Ali, an ‘intellectually challenged’ individual whose taped crying was used as leverage against a family member….” was one of those wrongly held.
But it’s all “move along, nothing to see here.”
Good God.
“Nazar Ali, an ‘intellectually challenged’ individual whose taped crying was used as leverage against a family member….” was one of those wrongly held.
But it’s all “move along, nothing to see here.”
wj, over here this is known as “Wenn das der Führer wüßte” (If just the Führer would know about that) and is a staple of palaeo and neo-Nazis to this day (cf. David Irving* claiming that Himmler did the Holocaust all by himself behind Hitler’s back).
But it says something that in connection with Bush the Lesser it sounds much more credible but not something good.
*before later switching to total denial
wj, over here this is known as “Wenn das der Führer wüßte” (If just the Führer would know about that) and is a staple of palaeo and neo-Nazis to this day (cf. David Irving* claiming that Himmler did the Holocaust all by himself behind Hitler’s back).
But it says something that in connection with Bush the Lesser it sounds much more credible but not something good.
*before later switching to total denial
wj, over here this is known as “Wenn das der Führer wüßte” (If just the Führer would know about that) and is a staple of palaeo and neo-Nazis to this day (cf. David Irving* claiming that Himmler did the Holocaust all by himself behind Hitler’s back).
But it says something that in connection with Bush the Lesser it sounds much more credible but not something good.
*before later switching to total denial
Well, the report has accomplished its only purpose. The Dems really needed to reinvoke that”anti Bush” sentiment to invigorate the base and take the focus off of the failing Obama presidency. I mean,how long has it been since sapient was this engaged here? We’ll just have to see if Hilary, Warren or maybe even Feinstein can make it last long enough to win the White House.
Because, really, Jeb is the only Republican they are worried about.
Well, the report has accomplished its only purpose. The Dems really needed to reinvoke that”anti Bush” sentiment to invigorate the base and take the focus off of the failing Obama presidency. I mean,how long has it been since sapient was this engaged here? We’ll just have to see if Hilary, Warren or maybe even Feinstein can make it last long enough to win the White House.
Because, really, Jeb is the only Republican they are worried about.
Well, the report has accomplished its only purpose. The Dems really needed to reinvoke that”anti Bush” sentiment to invigorate the base and take the focus off of the failing Obama presidency. I mean,how long has it been since sapient was this engaged here? We’ll just have to see if Hilary, Warren or maybe even Feinstein can make it last long enough to win the White House.
Because, really, Jeb is the only Republican they are worried about.
[sarcasm]And that’s the reason why they published the report directly after the midterm elections. They’re geniuses[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]And that’s the reason why they published the report directly after the midterm elections. They’re geniuses[/sarcasm]
[sarcasm]And that’s the reason why they published the report directly after the midterm elections. They’re geniuses[/sarcasm]
It wasn’t going to win them the midterms, they really didn’t want to release it at all. In the end it indicts the Congressional oversight as much as anything, either they knew and didn’t do anything( my opinion not contradicted here) or they were massively incompetent. Neither is a good platform builder for Senate or House races. Note, every hard core Democrat went straight to “it’s really all about Bush”. They need him to run against, again.
It wasn’t going to win them the midterms, they really didn’t want to release it at all. In the end it indicts the Congressional oversight as much as anything, either they knew and didn’t do anything( my opinion not contradicted here) or they were massively incompetent. Neither is a good platform builder for Senate or House races. Note, every hard core Democrat went straight to “it’s really all about Bush”. They need him to run against, again.
It wasn’t going to win them the midterms, they really didn’t want to release it at all. In the end it indicts the Congressional oversight as much as anything, either they knew and didn’t do anything( my opinion not contradicted here) or they were massively incompetent. Neither is a good platform builder for Senate or House races. Note, every hard core Democrat went straight to “it’s really all about Bush”. They need him to run against, again.
If the President’s executive order can stop the CIA from doing what it was doing, then clearly the responsibility is at the Executive level – in other words, the Bush administration.
This argument would hold more water if the EO had stopped the abusive behaviors. It did not. The negative consequences and/or blowback from the abusive behaviors stopped the abusive behaviors prior to Obama’s election, so we have no evidence whether the Agency is inclined to abide by the EO. So we can hope the Agency is constrained by EOs in regards to such behavior, but we don’t have evidence they are, so we probably shouldn’t make quite so bold a pronouncement as you have. However, that’s not the main point…
If the CIA was investigated, and found to be violating Obama’s executive order, then the “rogue CIA theory” might hold water.
I feel like I’m arguing with you, and you’re arguing with a strawman standing right behind me, but I’ll bite. The “rogue CIA” theory (by which I can only presume you mean something like “the CIA acted almost entirely on its own initiative in pursuing the torture program”… WTF?) is not what I refer to when I discuss CIA malfeasance here. It’s the contempt for oversight and lawful authority outside of the Oval Office (at least, I hope it was only for authority outside the Oval Office). It’s the willingness to lie to Congress and other Executive agencies despite their legitimate need-to-know IOT influence policy decisions and help ensure they can continue to engage in their then-current policies, or to save face. It’s about – as an organization, so at least in an officious capacity, though frankly it sounded moreso official – releasing (misleading or outright false) information to the domestic press IOT influence policy decisions and help ensure they can continue to engage in their then-current policies, or to save face. It’s about behaving in a manner where their leadership appears to have retaliated against their own IG when it sought to review the program in question and came up with results suggesting it was problematic or ineffective. It’s about obstructing investigation into their conduct not because intelligence sources needed protected, but because revealing the depths of their malice and incompetence would make it more difficult for them to work with the foreign agencies who assisted them in their questionable endeavors, but also by all appearances because it would result in lost face and/or external interference into their (apparently questionable) management policies.
Basically, the only “rogue CIA” theory that I’m peddling is not that the CIA bears full responsibility for the torture program – it’s that regardless of who bears ultimate responsibility for the program the CIA’s actions during and after the program are exceedingly problematic and consistent with a governmental organism that is seeking to minimize if not outright eliminate external control and oversight – or more succinctly, a “rogue” organization.
We’ve had variations of this argument before, and I’ve always gotten the impression that you feel we should only ever hold the people at the very highest level – specifically the political leaders – responsible for any abusive conduct by the Agency. And I fiercely disagree with that. Beyond taking issue with the notion that following orders is indemnifying, a lot of what I find objectionable in the CIA’s conduct, and that the Study identifies as problematic, are actions that the CIA took entirely on their own initiative, and many of them were not even towards the end of executing the orders handed down to them from higher – they were to try to ensure that external entities or public opinion did not pressure higher into changing the orders they had received. That is, to say the least, outside their purview. I’ll go further and say that that is anathema to elected control of our government. When a government agency starts trying to manipulate the parties responsible for giving it orders, that’s a problem. When an Executive agency starts trying to manipulate the function of the Legislature IOT promote policies favored by its leadership, that’s a problem. When the bureaucracy starts trying to exercise influence over the elected portions of government, that’s a problem. Even if you buy into an imperial executive theory of governance, these are problematic, especially when the agency is attempting to manipulate other portions of the Executive. All of these sorts of actions are consistent with an organization attempting to reduce the amount of external control exercised upon it. Given the CIA’s history, I can’t say that this inspires a warm, fuzzy sense of trust in me. The parties who were responsible for this should be held responsible for their actions, and those who engaged in mismanagement and gross inefficiency should be held responsible for their actions. And yes, I’d love to see outright the parties who engaged in torture held responsible for their actions, but I can’t even imagine a world where that would happen, so I’d grimly settle for imagining organizational reform and a tighter leash on the rogue agency.
If the President’s executive order can stop the CIA from doing what it was doing, then clearly the responsibility is at the Executive level – in other words, the Bush administration.
This argument would hold more water if the EO had stopped the abusive behaviors. It did not. The negative consequences and/or blowback from the abusive behaviors stopped the abusive behaviors prior to Obama’s election, so we have no evidence whether the Agency is inclined to abide by the EO. So we can hope the Agency is constrained by EOs in regards to such behavior, but we don’t have evidence they are, so we probably shouldn’t make quite so bold a pronouncement as you have. However, that’s not the main point…
If the CIA was investigated, and found to be violating Obama’s executive order, then the “rogue CIA theory” might hold water.
I feel like I’m arguing with you, and you’re arguing with a strawman standing right behind me, but I’ll bite. The “rogue CIA” theory (by which I can only presume you mean something like “the CIA acted almost entirely on its own initiative in pursuing the torture program”… WTF?) is not what I refer to when I discuss CIA malfeasance here. It’s the contempt for oversight and lawful authority outside of the Oval Office (at least, I hope it was only for authority outside the Oval Office). It’s the willingness to lie to Congress and other Executive agencies despite their legitimate need-to-know IOT influence policy decisions and help ensure they can continue to engage in their then-current policies, or to save face. It’s about – as an organization, so at least in an officious capacity, though frankly it sounded moreso official – releasing (misleading or outright false) information to the domestic press IOT influence policy decisions and help ensure they can continue to engage in their then-current policies, or to save face. It’s about behaving in a manner where their leadership appears to have retaliated against their own IG when it sought to review the program in question and came up with results suggesting it was problematic or ineffective. It’s about obstructing investigation into their conduct not because intelligence sources needed protected, but because revealing the depths of their malice and incompetence would make it more difficult for them to work with the foreign agencies who assisted them in their questionable endeavors, but also by all appearances because it would result in lost face and/or external interference into their (apparently questionable) management policies.
Basically, the only “rogue CIA” theory that I’m peddling is not that the CIA bears full responsibility for the torture program – it’s that regardless of who bears ultimate responsibility for the program the CIA’s actions during and after the program are exceedingly problematic and consistent with a governmental organism that is seeking to minimize if not outright eliminate external control and oversight – or more succinctly, a “rogue” organization.
We’ve had variations of this argument before, and I’ve always gotten the impression that you feel we should only ever hold the people at the very highest level – specifically the political leaders – responsible for any abusive conduct by the Agency. And I fiercely disagree with that. Beyond taking issue with the notion that following orders is indemnifying, a lot of what I find objectionable in the CIA’s conduct, and that the Study identifies as problematic, are actions that the CIA took entirely on their own initiative, and many of them were not even towards the end of executing the orders handed down to them from higher – they were to try to ensure that external entities or public opinion did not pressure higher into changing the orders they had received. That is, to say the least, outside their purview. I’ll go further and say that that is anathema to elected control of our government. When a government agency starts trying to manipulate the parties responsible for giving it orders, that’s a problem. When an Executive agency starts trying to manipulate the function of the Legislature IOT promote policies favored by its leadership, that’s a problem. When the bureaucracy starts trying to exercise influence over the elected portions of government, that’s a problem. Even if you buy into an imperial executive theory of governance, these are problematic, especially when the agency is attempting to manipulate other portions of the Executive. All of these sorts of actions are consistent with an organization attempting to reduce the amount of external control exercised upon it. Given the CIA’s history, I can’t say that this inspires a warm, fuzzy sense of trust in me. The parties who were responsible for this should be held responsible for their actions, and those who engaged in mismanagement and gross inefficiency should be held responsible for their actions. And yes, I’d love to see outright the parties who engaged in torture held responsible for their actions, but I can’t even imagine a world where that would happen, so I’d grimly settle for imagining organizational reform and a tighter leash on the rogue agency.
If the President’s executive order can stop the CIA from doing what it was doing, then clearly the responsibility is at the Executive level – in other words, the Bush administration.
This argument would hold more water if the EO had stopped the abusive behaviors. It did not. The negative consequences and/or blowback from the abusive behaviors stopped the abusive behaviors prior to Obama’s election, so we have no evidence whether the Agency is inclined to abide by the EO. So we can hope the Agency is constrained by EOs in regards to such behavior, but we don’t have evidence they are, so we probably shouldn’t make quite so bold a pronouncement as you have. However, that’s not the main point…
If the CIA was investigated, and found to be violating Obama’s executive order, then the “rogue CIA theory” might hold water.
I feel like I’m arguing with you, and you’re arguing with a strawman standing right behind me, but I’ll bite. The “rogue CIA” theory (by which I can only presume you mean something like “the CIA acted almost entirely on its own initiative in pursuing the torture program”… WTF?) is not what I refer to when I discuss CIA malfeasance here. It’s the contempt for oversight and lawful authority outside of the Oval Office (at least, I hope it was only for authority outside the Oval Office). It’s the willingness to lie to Congress and other Executive agencies despite their legitimate need-to-know IOT influence policy decisions and help ensure they can continue to engage in their then-current policies, or to save face. It’s about – as an organization, so at least in an officious capacity, though frankly it sounded moreso official – releasing (misleading or outright false) information to the domestic press IOT influence policy decisions and help ensure they can continue to engage in their then-current policies, or to save face. It’s about behaving in a manner where their leadership appears to have retaliated against their own IG when it sought to review the program in question and came up with results suggesting it was problematic or ineffective. It’s about obstructing investigation into their conduct not because intelligence sources needed protected, but because revealing the depths of their malice and incompetence would make it more difficult for them to work with the foreign agencies who assisted them in their questionable endeavors, but also by all appearances because it would result in lost face and/or external interference into their (apparently questionable) management policies.
Basically, the only “rogue CIA” theory that I’m peddling is not that the CIA bears full responsibility for the torture program – it’s that regardless of who bears ultimate responsibility for the program the CIA’s actions during and after the program are exceedingly problematic and consistent with a governmental organism that is seeking to minimize if not outright eliminate external control and oversight – or more succinctly, a “rogue” organization.
We’ve had variations of this argument before, and I’ve always gotten the impression that you feel we should only ever hold the people at the very highest level – specifically the political leaders – responsible for any abusive conduct by the Agency. And I fiercely disagree with that. Beyond taking issue with the notion that following orders is indemnifying, a lot of what I find objectionable in the CIA’s conduct, and that the Study identifies as problematic, are actions that the CIA took entirely on their own initiative, and many of them were not even towards the end of executing the orders handed down to them from higher – they were to try to ensure that external entities or public opinion did not pressure higher into changing the orders they had received. That is, to say the least, outside their purview. I’ll go further and say that that is anathema to elected control of our government. When a government agency starts trying to manipulate the parties responsible for giving it orders, that’s a problem. When an Executive agency starts trying to manipulate the function of the Legislature IOT promote policies favored by its leadership, that’s a problem. When the bureaucracy starts trying to exercise influence over the elected portions of government, that’s a problem. Even if you buy into an imperial executive theory of governance, these are problematic, especially when the agency is attempting to manipulate other portions of the Executive. All of these sorts of actions are consistent with an organization attempting to reduce the amount of external control exercised upon it. Given the CIA’s history, I can’t say that this inspires a warm, fuzzy sense of trust in me. The parties who were responsible for this should be held responsible for their actions, and those who engaged in mismanagement and gross inefficiency should be held responsible for their actions. And yes, I’d love to see outright the parties who engaged in torture held responsible for their actions, but I can’t even imagine a world where that would happen, so I’d grimly settle for imagining organizational reform and a tighter leash on the rogue agency.
Here you go Marty, clearly calculated for a release at just this moment in time.
Here you go Marty, clearly calculated for a release at just this moment in time.
Here you go Marty, clearly calculated for a release at just this moment in time.
In the end it indicts the Congressional oversight as much as anything, either they knew and didn’t do anything( my opinion not contradicted here) or they were massively incompetent.
Marty, I’m kinda having trouble seeing how a report who presents a recurrent theme of willful deceit to Congress on the part of the Agency that was supposed to be overseen translates to your false dichotomy. To the contrary, it’s an indictment of the willingness of the agency in question and to a lesser degree, the Executive in general, to engage with the Congress in good faith. But no, you’re right, this can only have been released to fire up the Democratic base for the Presidential election that’s about to happen in… um… 23 months.
Plainly, though, you’re right. The only possible purpose of the report was partisan maneuvering for an election two years away. That’s what got McCain to support the report’s release. That’s what got a cheerleader like Feinstein to call out an intelligence agency. It can’t be about misconduct. Hell, it can’t even be about Congress grabbing at power by trying to preserve its capacity to engage in Executive oversight and prevent the balance from shifting even further from co-equality. Nope, it can only be simple, petty, destructive malice, and BDS.
In the end it indicts the Congressional oversight as much as anything, either they knew and didn’t do anything( my opinion not contradicted here) or they were massively incompetent.
Marty, I’m kinda having trouble seeing how a report who presents a recurrent theme of willful deceit to Congress on the part of the Agency that was supposed to be overseen translates to your false dichotomy. To the contrary, it’s an indictment of the willingness of the agency in question and to a lesser degree, the Executive in general, to engage with the Congress in good faith. But no, you’re right, this can only have been released to fire up the Democratic base for the Presidential election that’s about to happen in… um… 23 months.
Plainly, though, you’re right. The only possible purpose of the report was partisan maneuvering for an election two years away. That’s what got McCain to support the report’s release. That’s what got a cheerleader like Feinstein to call out an intelligence agency. It can’t be about misconduct. Hell, it can’t even be about Congress grabbing at power by trying to preserve its capacity to engage in Executive oversight and prevent the balance from shifting even further from co-equality. Nope, it can only be simple, petty, destructive malice, and BDS.
In the end it indicts the Congressional oversight as much as anything, either they knew and didn’t do anything( my opinion not contradicted here) or they were massively incompetent.
Marty, I’m kinda having trouble seeing how a report who presents a recurrent theme of willful deceit to Congress on the part of the Agency that was supposed to be overseen translates to your false dichotomy. To the contrary, it’s an indictment of the willingness of the agency in question and to a lesser degree, the Executive in general, to engage with the Congress in good faith. But no, you’re right, this can only have been released to fire up the Democratic base for the Presidential election that’s about to happen in… um… 23 months.
Plainly, though, you’re right. The only possible purpose of the report was partisan maneuvering for an election two years away. That’s what got McCain to support the report’s release. That’s what got a cheerleader like Feinstein to call out an intelligence agency. It can’t be about misconduct. Hell, it can’t even be about Congress grabbing at power by trying to preserve its capacity to engage in Executive oversight and prevent the balance from shifting even further from co-equality. Nope, it can only be simple, petty, destructive malice, and BDS.
Not to mention the report gives lots of cover to Bush by saying he was essentially kept in the dark until 2006.
Not to mention the report gives lots of cover to Bush by saying he was essentially kept in the dark until 2006.
Not to mention the report gives lots of cover to Bush by saying he was essentially kept in the dark until 2006.
Ah, Paul Clement, you really are a political hack (even if a super smart and gifted one).
Ah, Paul Clement, you really are a political hack (even if a super smart and gifted one).
Ah, Paul Clement, you really are a political hack (even if a super smart and gifted one).
More detail on that last comment here.
More detail on that last comment here.
More detail on that last comment here.
“This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.”
So, you’re saying the Clinton administration was a Republican administration? Because extraordinary rendition was started under Clinton, not Bush. No matter how that interferes with the narrative.
“This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.”
So, you’re saying the Clinton administration was a Republican administration? Because extraordinary rendition was started under Clinton, not Bush. No matter how that interferes with the narrative.
“This is not simply a CIA problem. It’s a Republican administration, with the cooperation of cowardly Democrats in Congress, problem.”
So, you’re saying the Clinton administration was a Republican administration? Because extraordinary rendition was started under Clinton, not Bush. No matter how that interferes with the narrative.
Marty, could you update us on the Ebola virus raging through the American countryside at Obama’s behest and the imminent fall of western civilization at the hands of ISIS, because I can’t find anything on these pressing issues from the meep meep crickets since the polls closed in California on November 4.
Brett: Rectal feeding? Yet another reason to get rid of food stamps and school lunches.
George W. Bush’s knowledge of torture:
CIA: Mr. Vice President, would you let the President know about the rectal feeding?
Cheney: Why? I mean, I think we all know what his response will be.
Cheney launches into his spot-on perfect impression of Bush’s impression of Carla Faye Tucker begging for leniency in Texas: “Please,” Cheney whimpers, his lips pursed exactly like Bush’s impression of Tucker, in mock desperation, “don’t shove that hummus up my ass.”
CIA: Got it.
Then Tucker Carlson and his buddy beat the sh*t out of a gay desperado for inappropriate glancing at the urinals in the nearest men’s room, in solidarity with the American conservative Zeitgeist.
Should we impeach Bill Clinton for his rendition orders and even earlier, sending a guy in Arkansas to the gallows for short-term political advantage.
No, I think we should impeach him for the blow job.
Should we impeach Barack Obama for covering up the CIA’s torture activities and refusing to order the CIA to cooperate in the torture?
No, but he gave a guy in some cracker state an opportunity to purchase health insurance on a Federal exchange.
Let’s get him for that.
Comets in the farthest reaches of the universe are diverting themselves onto a path of collision with Earth, using the gigantic roiling mass of horsesh*t kicked up over America as a homing beacon.
Marty, could you update us on the Ebola virus raging through the American countryside at Obama’s behest and the imminent fall of western civilization at the hands of ISIS, because I can’t find anything on these pressing issues from the meep meep crickets since the polls closed in California on November 4.
Brett: Rectal feeding? Yet another reason to get rid of food stamps and school lunches.
George W. Bush’s knowledge of torture:
CIA: Mr. Vice President, would you let the President know about the rectal feeding?
Cheney: Why? I mean, I think we all know what his response will be.
Cheney launches into his spot-on perfect impression of Bush’s impression of Carla Faye Tucker begging for leniency in Texas: “Please,” Cheney whimpers, his lips pursed exactly like Bush’s impression of Tucker, in mock desperation, “don’t shove that hummus up my ass.”
CIA: Got it.
Then Tucker Carlson and his buddy beat the sh*t out of a gay desperado for inappropriate glancing at the urinals in the nearest men’s room, in solidarity with the American conservative Zeitgeist.
Should we impeach Bill Clinton for his rendition orders and even earlier, sending a guy in Arkansas to the gallows for short-term political advantage.
No, I think we should impeach him for the blow job.
Should we impeach Barack Obama for covering up the CIA’s torture activities and refusing to order the CIA to cooperate in the torture?
No, but he gave a guy in some cracker state an opportunity to purchase health insurance on a Federal exchange.
Let’s get him for that.
Comets in the farthest reaches of the universe are diverting themselves onto a path of collision with Earth, using the gigantic roiling mass of horsesh*t kicked up over America as a homing beacon.
Marty, could you update us on the Ebola virus raging through the American countryside at Obama’s behest and the imminent fall of western civilization at the hands of ISIS, because I can’t find anything on these pressing issues from the meep meep crickets since the polls closed in California on November 4.
Brett: Rectal feeding? Yet another reason to get rid of food stamps and school lunches.
George W. Bush’s knowledge of torture:
CIA: Mr. Vice President, would you let the President know about the rectal feeding?
Cheney: Why? I mean, I think we all know what his response will be.
Cheney launches into his spot-on perfect impression of Bush’s impression of Carla Faye Tucker begging for leniency in Texas: “Please,” Cheney whimpers, his lips pursed exactly like Bush’s impression of Tucker, in mock desperation, “don’t shove that hummus up my ass.”
CIA: Got it.
Then Tucker Carlson and his buddy beat the sh*t out of a gay desperado for inappropriate glancing at the urinals in the nearest men’s room, in solidarity with the American conservative Zeitgeist.
Should we impeach Bill Clinton for his rendition orders and even earlier, sending a guy in Arkansas to the gallows for short-term political advantage.
No, I think we should impeach him for the blow job.
Should we impeach Barack Obama for covering up the CIA’s torture activities and refusing to order the CIA to cooperate in the torture?
No, but he gave a guy in some cracker state an opportunity to purchase health insurance on a Federal exchange.
Let’s get him for that.
Comets in the farthest reaches of the universe are diverting themselves onto a path of collision with Earth, using the gigantic roiling mass of horsesh*t kicked up over America as a homing beacon.
Well, the report has accomplished its only purpose. The Dems really needed to reinvoke that”anti Bush” sentiment to invigorate the base and take the focus off of the failing Obama presidency.
yeah, let’s talk about changing the subject.
I could not bring myself to vandalize my own car radio, mostly because I know it would not do any good.
i punched the Off button so hard i was worried i might have broken it. NPR is less than worthless on tough topics. they always bow and scrape before the GOP when it comes to these things, always.
it is, in fact, why i don’t donate to them.
Well, the report has accomplished its only purpose. The Dems really needed to reinvoke that”anti Bush” sentiment to invigorate the base and take the focus off of the failing Obama presidency.
yeah, let’s talk about changing the subject.
I could not bring myself to vandalize my own car radio, mostly because I know it would not do any good.
i punched the Off button so hard i was worried i might have broken it. NPR is less than worthless on tough topics. they always bow and scrape before the GOP when it comes to these things, always.
it is, in fact, why i don’t donate to them.
Well, the report has accomplished its only purpose. The Dems really needed to reinvoke that”anti Bush” sentiment to invigorate the base and take the focus off of the failing Obama presidency.
yeah, let’s talk about changing the subject.
I could not bring myself to vandalize my own car radio, mostly because I know it would not do any good.
i punched the Off button so hard i was worried i might have broken it. NPR is less than worthless on tough topics. they always bow and scrape before the GOP when it comes to these things, always.
it is, in fact, why i don’t donate to them.
NV, there us difference in purpose in
1) collecting the data and writing the report, presenting it to appropriate oversight and giving a summary in public testimony to Congress.
2)releasing the report in full so every individual, particularly politician could extract their favorite point to spin.
I’m glad it was done, other than some specific omg’s, as expressed here, there isn’t s thing in it that wasn’t talked about 6 years ago. It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released. And it could significantly impact the primaries, and who might run, by being released now.
NV, there us difference in purpose in
1) collecting the data and writing the report, presenting it to appropriate oversight and giving a summary in public testimony to Congress.
2)releasing the report in full so every individual, particularly politician could extract their favorite point to spin.
I’m glad it was done, other than some specific omg’s, as expressed here, there isn’t s thing in it that wasn’t talked about 6 years ago. It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released. And it could significantly impact the primaries, and who might run, by being released now.
NV, there us difference in purpose in
1) collecting the data and writing the report, presenting it to appropriate oversight and giving a summary in public testimony to Congress.
2)releasing the report in full so every individual, particularly politician could extract their favorite point to spin.
I’m glad it was done, other than some specific omg’s, as expressed here, there isn’t s thing in it that wasn’t talked about 6 years ago. It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released. And it could significantly impact the primaries, and who might run, by being released now.
And it could significantly impact the primaries, and who might run, by being released now.
there are 23 months until the next election. it is almost impossible to be farther from an election.
so… when, by your standards, would be the right time to release something like this?
And it could significantly impact the primaries, and who might run, by being released now.
there are 23 months until the next election. it is almost impossible to be farther from an election.
so… when, by your standards, would be the right time to release something like this?
And it could significantly impact the primaries, and who might run, by being released now.
there are 23 months until the next election. it is almost impossible to be farther from an election.
so… when, by your standards, would be the right time to release something like this?
Ugh, thanks for the link. EXACTLY, the report was completed in April,summary released, appropriate people provided all the details. Release six months later becaauusssee ……politics, more to the point, Presidential politics.
Ugh, thanks for the link. EXACTLY, the report was completed in April,summary released, appropriate people provided all the details. Release six months later becaauusssee ……politics, more to the point, Presidential politics.
Ugh, thanks for the link. EXACTLY, the report was completed in April,summary released, appropriate people provided all the details. Release six months later becaauusssee ……politics, more to the point, Presidential politics.
We’ve had variations of this argument before, and I’ve always gotten the impression that you feel we should only ever hold the people at the very highest level – specifically the political leaders – responsible for any abusive conduct by the Agency. And I fiercely disagree with that.
If we could prosecute people like James E. Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, I’d be all for it. My guess is that the prosecution would not succeed even if it were initiated.
But the main thing is that I just don’t buy that the Bush administration wasn’t authorizing abuse of prisoners. The CIA was acting on behalf of elected officials. Maybe we should look at situations where organ failure occurred, and punish people whose prisoners died. Is that what you’re saying? I mean, give me some other examples where the behavior of the CIA wasn’t directly related to the license given by John Yoo’s memo.
If there is a prosecution of some of these horrible torturers, I will be all for it. I am much more interested in making sure the people who instigated this never have a chance to do it again. Unfortunately, they just took over Congress.
We’ve had variations of this argument before, and I’ve always gotten the impression that you feel we should only ever hold the people at the very highest level – specifically the political leaders – responsible for any abusive conduct by the Agency. And I fiercely disagree with that.
If we could prosecute people like James E. Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, I’d be all for it. My guess is that the prosecution would not succeed even if it were initiated.
But the main thing is that I just don’t buy that the Bush administration wasn’t authorizing abuse of prisoners. The CIA was acting on behalf of elected officials. Maybe we should look at situations where organ failure occurred, and punish people whose prisoners died. Is that what you’re saying? I mean, give me some other examples where the behavior of the CIA wasn’t directly related to the license given by John Yoo’s memo.
If there is a prosecution of some of these horrible torturers, I will be all for it. I am much more interested in making sure the people who instigated this never have a chance to do it again. Unfortunately, they just took over Congress.
We’ve had variations of this argument before, and I’ve always gotten the impression that you feel we should only ever hold the people at the very highest level – specifically the political leaders – responsible for any abusive conduct by the Agency. And I fiercely disagree with that.
If we could prosecute people like James E. Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, I’d be all for it. My guess is that the prosecution would not succeed even if it were initiated.
But the main thing is that I just don’t buy that the Bush administration wasn’t authorizing abuse of prisoners. The CIA was acting on behalf of elected officials. Maybe we should look at situations where organ failure occurred, and punish people whose prisoners died. Is that what you’re saying? I mean, give me some other examples where the behavior of the CIA wasn’t directly related to the license given by John Yoo’s memo.
If there is a prosecution of some of these horrible torturers, I will be all for it. I am much more interested in making sure the people who instigated this never have a chance to do it again. Unfortunately, they just took over Congress.
Well, sapient, I’m pretty sure that we can’t and shouldn’t prosecute, well, ALL Republicans, or even gin up enough blame to cover them all. That’s who just took over Congress. But your comment is certainly in line with my assessment.
Well, sapient, I’m pretty sure that we can’t and shouldn’t prosecute, well, ALL Republicans, or even gin up enough blame to cover them all. That’s who just took over Congress. But your comment is certainly in line with my assessment.
Well, sapient, I’m pretty sure that we can’t and shouldn’t prosecute, well, ALL Republicans, or even gin up enough blame to cover them all. That’s who just took over Congress. But your comment is certainly in line with my assessment.
Extreme hypothetical for Marty: Would there have been a torture program under President Gore?
Sapient: Please respond to Brett’s observation regarding Clinton and “extraordinary rendition”.
Extreme hypothetical for Marty: Would there have been a torture program under President Gore?
Sapient: Please respond to Brett’s observation regarding Clinton and “extraordinary rendition”.
Extreme hypothetical for Marty: Would there have been a torture program under President Gore?
Sapient: Please respond to Brett’s observation regarding Clinton and “extraordinary rendition”.
bobbyp, no actual clue, but probably. The oversight in Congress was led by essentially Gore contemporaries, none of whom objected to any of this, he was pretty hawkish. We would have spent more on inconvenient truths. So, IDK is really the answer.
bobbyp, no actual clue, but probably. The oversight in Congress was led by essentially Gore contemporaries, none of whom objected to any of this, he was pretty hawkish. We would have spent more on inconvenient truths. So, IDK is really the answer.
bobbyp, no actual clue, but probably. The oversight in Congress was led by essentially Gore contemporaries, none of whom objected to any of this, he was pretty hawkish. We would have spent more on inconvenient truths. So, IDK is really the answer.
…other than some specific omg’s, as expressed here, there isn’t s thing in it that wasn’t talked about 6 years ago.
What makes the omg’s omg’s, and why aren’t they significant? Certainly people knew about waterboarding and extended isolation and stress positions and such, but those things are now known to be on the milder side of what the CIA was doing.
What also wasn’t known was the extent of the cover-up effort – a sort of meta problem that allows not-so-meta problems to occur.
I have to say, Marty, this conspiracy theory of yours is, as much as I can disagree with you, well beyond what I would expect from you in terms of blinkered partisan bias.
…other than some specific omg’s, as expressed here, there isn’t s thing in it that wasn’t talked about 6 years ago.
What makes the omg’s omg’s, and why aren’t they significant? Certainly people knew about waterboarding and extended isolation and stress positions and such, but those things are now known to be on the milder side of what the CIA was doing.
What also wasn’t known was the extent of the cover-up effort – a sort of meta problem that allows not-so-meta problems to occur.
I have to say, Marty, this conspiracy theory of yours is, as much as I can disagree with you, well beyond what I would expect from you in terms of blinkered partisan bias.
…other than some specific omg’s, as expressed here, there isn’t s thing in it that wasn’t talked about 6 years ago.
What makes the omg’s omg’s, and why aren’t they significant? Certainly people knew about waterboarding and extended isolation and stress positions and such, but those things are now known to be on the milder side of what the CIA was doing.
What also wasn’t known was the extent of the cover-up effort – a sort of meta problem that allows not-so-meta problems to occur.
I have to say, Marty, this conspiracy theory of yours is, as much as I can disagree with you, well beyond what I would expect from you in terms of blinkered partisan bias.
Actually, Feinstein didn’t overlap with Gore at all, at least not in the Senate.
Actually, Feinstein didn’t overlap with Gore at all, at least not in the Senate.
Actually, Feinstein didn’t overlap with Gore at all, at least not in the Senate.
bobbyp, we have some very skeletal anecdotes regarding Clinton’s rendition of a handful of Egyptian terrorists to Egypt. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html
I’m not convinced that his actions were illegal, or immoral.
bobbyp, we have some very skeletal anecdotes regarding Clinton’s rendition of a handful of Egyptian terrorists to Egypt. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html
I’m not convinced that his actions were illegal, or immoral.
bobbyp, we have some very skeletal anecdotes regarding Clinton’s rendition of a handful of Egyptian terrorists to Egypt. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html
I’m not convinced that his actions were illegal, or immoral.
hsh, even in the “common” wisdom I’ve read the release was forced to prevent the Republicans from killing the full release entirely. As conspiracy theories go this is pretty simplistic. I don’t even think its a question.
Blinkered partisanship is exactly what releasing it is.
hsh, even in the “common” wisdom I’ve read the release was forced to prevent the Republicans from killing the full release entirely. As conspiracy theories go this is pretty simplistic. I don’t even think its a question.
Blinkered partisanship is exactly what releasing it is.
hsh, even in the “common” wisdom I’ve read the release was forced to prevent the Republicans from killing the full release entirely. As conspiracy theories go this is pretty simplistic. I don’t even think its a question.
Blinkered partisanship is exactly what releasing it is.
Marty: It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released.
The difference is that this is a) comprehensive, and b) official. That is, there is no longer room to argue that it comes from taking a few examples out of context. (Not that it isn’t being tried.) And the full report, specifically the CIA documents cited in it, can serve as a basis for legal prosecutions.
It’s one thing to have stuff part of “general knowledge” (albeit denied by some). It’s quite another to have that same stuff officially and publicly documented. Not to mention that, while as you say the general outlines were known, there were specifics in there that were not known. Rather damning specifics IMHO.
Marty: It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released.
The difference is that this is a) comprehensive, and b) official. That is, there is no longer room to argue that it comes from taking a few examples out of context. (Not that it isn’t being tried.) And the full report, specifically the CIA documents cited in it, can serve as a basis for legal prosecutions.
It’s one thing to have stuff part of “general knowledge” (albeit denied by some). It’s quite another to have that same stuff officially and publicly documented. Not to mention that, while as you say the general outlines were known, there were specifics in there that were not known. Rather damning specifics IMHO.
Marty: It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released.
The difference is that this is a) comprehensive, and b) official. That is, there is no longer room to argue that it comes from taking a few examples out of context. (Not that it isn’t being tried.) And the full report, specifically the CIA documents cited in it, can serve as a basis for legal prosecutions.
It’s one thing to have stuff part of “general knowledge” (albeit denied by some). It’s quite another to have that same stuff officially and publicly documented. Not to mention that, while as you say the general outlines were known, there were specifics in there that were not known. Rather damning specifics IMHO.
hsh, even in the “common” wisdom I’ve read the release was forced to prevent the Republicans from killing the full release entirely.
which wouldn’t be a political act, not at all. heavens no.
because the GOP is full of high-minded statesmen.
hsh, even in the “common” wisdom I’ve read the release was forced to prevent the Republicans from killing the full release entirely.
which wouldn’t be a political act, not at all. heavens no.
because the GOP is full of high-minded statesmen.
hsh, even in the “common” wisdom I’ve read the release was forced to prevent the Republicans from killing the full release entirely.
which wouldn’t be a political act, not at all. heavens no.
because the GOP is full of high-minded statesmen.
Blinkered partisanship is exactly what releasing it is.
If the Republicans are trying to prevent the rightful release of information, it doesn’t make releasing that information an act of partisanship.
Are you saying this shouldn’t have been released? Are you still saying this was somehow about directly influencing elections?
Why are you “glad it was done”? Why isn’t it the Republicans who are being partisan in trying to prevent the release of the report to save their brand?
And, again, when could this report have been released in order for you not to think it was just a partisan maneuver?
Blinkered partisanship is exactly what releasing it is.
If the Republicans are trying to prevent the rightful release of information, it doesn’t make releasing that information an act of partisanship.
Are you saying this shouldn’t have been released? Are you still saying this was somehow about directly influencing elections?
Why are you “glad it was done”? Why isn’t it the Republicans who are being partisan in trying to prevent the release of the report to save their brand?
And, again, when could this report have been released in order for you not to think it was just a partisan maneuver?
Blinkered partisanship is exactly what releasing it is.
If the Republicans are trying to prevent the rightful release of information, it doesn’t make releasing that information an act of partisanship.
Are you saying this shouldn’t have been released? Are you still saying this was somehow about directly influencing elections?
Why are you “glad it was done”? Why isn’t it the Republicans who are being partisan in trying to prevent the release of the report to save their brand?
And, again, when could this report have been released in order for you not to think it was just a partisan maneuver?
Rather than trying to muddy waters with my own spin…what NV said. Again.
Marty:
It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released.
I disagree. It always serves to have clarity about just what was done, how long it went on, how many people were involved, etc.
Well sure, we knew torture occurred, but the debate about its use took place without understanding a lot of the specifics. When all you know are halftruths and vague generalities, it can be easy to spin to support any narrative, including ‘it wasn’t that bad and it resulted in valuable intel.’ This report brings a level of depth and breadth to the issue.
While I am often skeptical about controlled/partial release of classified information to support a specific view, this doesn’t strike me as an example of that.
Regarding the timing of release, this report has been a long time coming, and the SIC has been trying to get it released for a long time. I’m also skeptical that right after a midterm is the opportune moment to game political advantage. Why not 6 months from now, when Jeb Bush is putting out primary feelers, or 1 year from now, when the candidates would be forced to take stances on the report.
Now? It seems like any cynical politician could wait 12 months to see where various voting blocs come down on this report and shape their campaign appropriately.
Rather than trying to muddy waters with my own spin…what NV said. Again.
Marty:
It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released.
I disagree. It always serves to have clarity about just what was done, how long it went on, how many people were involved, etc.
Well sure, we knew torture occurred, but the debate about its use took place without understanding a lot of the specifics. When all you know are halftruths and vague generalities, it can be easy to spin to support any narrative, including ‘it wasn’t that bad and it resulted in valuable intel.’ This report brings a level of depth and breadth to the issue.
While I am often skeptical about controlled/partial release of classified information to support a specific view, this doesn’t strike me as an example of that.
Regarding the timing of release, this report has been a long time coming, and the SIC has been trying to get it released for a long time. I’m also skeptical that right after a midterm is the opportune moment to game political advantage. Why not 6 months from now, when Jeb Bush is putting out primary feelers, or 1 year from now, when the candidates would be forced to take stances on the report.
Now? It seems like any cynical politician could wait 12 months to see where various voting blocs come down on this report and shape their campaign appropriately.
Rather than trying to muddy waters with my own spin…what NV said. Again.
Marty:
It accomplishes no purpose except as a distraction to be generally released.
I disagree. It always serves to have clarity about just what was done, how long it went on, how many people were involved, etc.
Well sure, we knew torture occurred, but the debate about its use took place without understanding a lot of the specifics. When all you know are halftruths and vague generalities, it can be easy to spin to support any narrative, including ‘it wasn’t that bad and it resulted in valuable intel.’ This report brings a level of depth and breadth to the issue.
While I am often skeptical about controlled/partial release of classified information to support a specific view, this doesn’t strike me as an example of that.
Regarding the timing of release, this report has been a long time coming, and the SIC has been trying to get it released for a long time. I’m also skeptical that right after a midterm is the opportune moment to game political advantage. Why not 6 months from now, when Jeb Bush is putting out primary feelers, or 1 year from now, when the candidates would be forced to take stances on the report.
Now? It seems like any cynical politician could wait 12 months to see where various voting blocs come down on this report and shape their campaign appropriately.
I don’t think it should have been released. I am glad the report was done, but it was done in April. The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment. The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians. Now its all about politics.
I don’t think it should have been released. I am glad the report was done, but it was done in April. The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment. The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians. Now its all about politics.
I don’t think it should have been released. I am glad the report was done, but it was done in April. The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment. The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians. Now its all about politics.
the Abu Ghraib stuff came out in 2003. we know Rumsfeld signed authorizations for “special interrogation plans” in 2002. and we know Bybee and Yoo were working on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
the Abu Ghraib stuff came out in 2003. we know Rumsfeld signed authorizations for “special interrogation plans” in 2002. and we know Bybee and Yoo were working on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
the Abu Ghraib stuff came out in 2003. we know Rumsfeld signed authorizations for “special interrogation plans” in 2002. and we know Bybee and Yoo were working on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
Now? It seems like any cynical politician could wait 12 months to see where various voting blocs come down on this report and shape their campaign appropriately.
Thompson, the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it. So they had to make the political calculation now. And to have an impact, perhaps whether Bush decides to run, this had to be public.
Now? It seems like any cynical politician could wait 12 months to see where various voting blocs come down on this report and shape their campaign appropriately.
Thompson, the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it. So they had to make the political calculation now. And to have an impact, perhaps whether Bush decides to run, this had to be public.
Now? It seems like any cynical politician could wait 12 months to see where various voting blocs come down on this report and shape their campaign appropriately.
Thompson, the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it. So they had to make the political calculation now. And to have an impact, perhaps whether Bush decides to run, this had to be public.
the Abu Ghraib stuff came out in 2003. we know Rumsfeld signed authorizations for “special interrogation plans” in 2002. and we know Bybee and Yoo were working on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002.
Yes, it’s preposterous Bush didn’t know all this way before 2006 – he clearly did.
My point was to counter Marty’s ridiculous suggestion that this was all about running against Bush in 2016 – if it’s about that, why would it say Bush was kept in the dark and that the CIA lied to him about various aspects of the program?
the Abu Ghraib stuff came out in 2003. we know Rumsfeld signed authorizations for “special interrogation plans” in 2002. and we know Bybee and Yoo were working on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002.
Yes, it’s preposterous Bush didn’t know all this way before 2006 – he clearly did.
My point was to counter Marty’s ridiculous suggestion that this was all about running against Bush in 2016 – if it’s about that, why would it say Bush was kept in the dark and that the CIA lied to him about various aspects of the program?
the Abu Ghraib stuff came out in 2003. we know Rumsfeld signed authorizations for “special interrogation plans” in 2002. and we know Bybee and Yoo were working on “enhanced interrogation techniques” in 2002.
Yes, it’s preposterous Bush didn’t know all this way before 2006 – he clearly did.
My point was to counter Marty’s ridiculous suggestion that this was all about running against Bush in 2016 – if it’s about that, why would it say Bush was kept in the dark and that the CIA lied to him about various aspects of the program?
Marty, if the CIA had been “properly chastised,” would they have kept fighting to keep the reality of what they did from coming out? More to the point, would they still be arguing that what they did was OK (which they seem to be)?
I would think that, if properly chastized, they would at least admit that they screwed up, and talk about what they were doing to avoid having it happen again. But I’m not seeing any such admissions. (If you have, please share.)
Marty, if the CIA had been “properly chastised,” would they have kept fighting to keep the reality of what they did from coming out? More to the point, would they still be arguing that what they did was OK (which they seem to be)?
I would think that, if properly chastized, they would at least admit that they screwed up, and talk about what they were doing to avoid having it happen again. But I’m not seeing any such admissions. (If you have, please share.)
Marty, if the CIA had been “properly chastised,” would they have kept fighting to keep the reality of what they did from coming out? More to the point, would they still be arguing that what they did was OK (which they seem to be)?
I would think that, if properly chastized, they would at least admit that they screwed up, and talk about what they were doing to avoid having it happen again. But I’m not seeing any such admissions. (If you have, please share.)
Thompson, the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it. So they had to make the political calculation now.
I seel It’s the congressional Democrats’ fault that the Republicans wouldn’t release it if Republicans were in charge. So, by being obstructionists, the Republicans can turn anything the Democrats might do into an act of partisanship. Neat!
I wish Democrats – the voters, I mean – could get behind their party the way you can get behind the Republicans. Then again, they’d probably have to be just like the Republicans for that to happen, so maybe not.
Thompson, the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it. So they had to make the political calculation now.
I seel It’s the congressional Democrats’ fault that the Republicans wouldn’t release it if Republicans were in charge. So, by being obstructionists, the Republicans can turn anything the Democrats might do into an act of partisanship. Neat!
I wish Democrats – the voters, I mean – could get behind their party the way you can get behind the Republicans. Then again, they’d probably have to be just like the Republicans for that to happen, so maybe not.
Thompson, the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it. So they had to make the political calculation now.
I seel It’s the congressional Democrats’ fault that the Republicans wouldn’t release it if Republicans were in charge. So, by being obstructionists, the Republicans can turn anything the Democrats might do into an act of partisanship. Neat!
I wish Democrats – the voters, I mean – could get behind their party the way you can get behind the Republicans. Then again, they’d probably have to be just like the Republicans for that to happen, so maybe not.
“seel” should be “see.”, um, period.
“seel” should be “see.”, um, period.
“seel” should be “see.”, um, period.
The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited
With all due respect, bollocks.
The present and former director of the CIA continue to lie about the matter – the last 30 pages of the report (which is not a full report as you suggest, but a 600 page summary of a 6000 page report) – are taken up in demonstrating how Hayden consistently lied to those who supposedly have oversight over intelligence.
“Properly chastised” would necessarily involve criminal prosecutions –
not only for torture, which are required under US treaty obligations):
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15397&LangID=E
– but also any or all of the following:
18 U.S.C. § 4 – Misprision of felony
18 U.S.C. §371 Conspiracy
18 U.S.C. §1001 False Statements
18 U.S.C. §1621 Perjury
18 U.S.C. §1505 Obstruction of Justice
That a nation which is apparently happy to imprison its citizens at a rate four times that of any other developed nation is unable or unwilling to hold public officials to legal account in this manner is pretty contemptible.
To dismiss this as ‘partisan’ utterly so.
The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited
With all due respect, bollocks.
The present and former director of the CIA continue to lie about the matter – the last 30 pages of the report (which is not a full report as you suggest, but a 600 page summary of a 6000 page report) – are taken up in demonstrating how Hayden consistently lied to those who supposedly have oversight over intelligence.
“Properly chastised” would necessarily involve criminal prosecutions –
not only for torture, which are required under US treaty obligations):
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15397&LangID=E
– but also any or all of the following:
18 U.S.C. § 4 – Misprision of felony
18 U.S.C. §371 Conspiracy
18 U.S.C. §1001 False Statements
18 U.S.C. §1621 Perjury
18 U.S.C. §1505 Obstruction of Justice
That a nation which is apparently happy to imprison its citizens at a rate four times that of any other developed nation is unable or unwilling to hold public officials to legal account in this manner is pretty contemptible.
To dismiss this as ‘partisan’ utterly so.
The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited
With all due respect, bollocks.
The present and former director of the CIA continue to lie about the matter – the last 30 pages of the report (which is not a full report as you suggest, but a 600 page summary of a 6000 page report) – are taken up in demonstrating how Hayden consistently lied to those who supposedly have oversight over intelligence.
“Properly chastised” would necessarily involve criminal prosecutions –
not only for torture, which are required under US treaty obligations):
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15397&LangID=E
– but also any or all of the following:
18 U.S.C. § 4 – Misprision of felony
18 U.S.C. §371 Conspiracy
18 U.S.C. §1001 False Statements
18 U.S.C. §1621 Perjury
18 U.S.C. §1505 Obstruction of Justice
That a nation which is apparently happy to imprison its citizens at a rate four times that of any other developed nation is unable or unwilling to hold public officials to legal account in this manner is pretty contemptible.
To dismiss this as ‘partisan’ utterly so.
The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians.
Oh, and this. It’s the congressional Democrats’ fault that the American people are too stupid to do anything but be subject to the titilations of the media and politicians. Of course, it’s also their fault that the media and politicians won’t better inform the stupid American people.
So, basically, the Democrats can’t really do anything but for politics, the world being what it is, and as they have so made it.
It’s amazing how they can set all this stuff up to their political advantage. Too bad they couldn’t get to you, Marty, to prevent you from seeing through it all.
The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians.
Oh, and this. It’s the congressional Democrats’ fault that the American people are too stupid to do anything but be subject to the titilations of the media and politicians. Of course, it’s also their fault that the media and politicians won’t better inform the stupid American people.
So, basically, the Democrats can’t really do anything but for politics, the world being what it is, and as they have so made it.
It’s amazing how they can set all this stuff up to their political advantage. Too bad they couldn’t get to you, Marty, to prevent you from seeing through it all.
The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians.
Oh, and this. It’s the congressional Democrats’ fault that the American people are too stupid to do anything but be subject to the titilations of the media and politicians. Of course, it’s also their fault that the media and politicians won’t better inform the stupid American people.
So, basically, the Democrats can’t really do anything but for politics, the world being what it is, and as they have so made it.
It’s amazing how they can set all this stuff up to their political advantage. Too bad they couldn’t get to you, Marty, to prevent you from seeing through it all.
Micheal Brown and Eric Garner should’ve taken jobs as CIA torturers. instead of pearl-clutching over their petty crimes and mocking their subsequent deaths as the just desserts of thugs and fatties, the GOP would now be celebrating their lawbreaking as the acts of noble American Heroes ™.
Micheal Brown and Eric Garner should’ve taken jobs as CIA torturers. instead of pearl-clutching over their petty crimes and mocking their subsequent deaths as the just desserts of thugs and fatties, the GOP would now be celebrating their lawbreaking as the acts of noble American Heroes ™.
Micheal Brown and Eric Garner should’ve taken jobs as CIA torturers. instead of pearl-clutching over their petty crimes and mocking their subsequent deaths as the just desserts of thugs and fatties, the GOP would now be celebrating their lawbreaking as the acts of noble American Heroes ™.
The other significance of the report is that it provides evidence – as opposed to the leaks we’ve had up until now – which would provide a basis for legal action overseas:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/10/cia-report-prosecutions-international-law-icc
“If I was one of those people, I would hesitate before making any travel arrangements,” said Michael Bochenek, director of law and policy at Amnesty International.
The Obama administration wound up an inquiry into criminal responsibility for the use of torture in 2012, without launching any prosecutions and it is unclear whether the Senate report will lead to that decision being reviewed. But because torture is considered a grave crime under international law, other governments could arrest and prosecute anyone implicated in the report who was on their territory under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
“Some of these people will never leave US borders again,” Bochenek said. “If say, one of them goes on holiday in Paris, then France would have the legal obligation to arrest and prosecute that individual. States have clear obligation in cases of torture…
The other significance of the report is that it provides evidence – as opposed to the leaks we’ve had up until now – which would provide a basis for legal action overseas:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/10/cia-report-prosecutions-international-law-icc
“If I was one of those people, I would hesitate before making any travel arrangements,” said Michael Bochenek, director of law and policy at Amnesty International.
The Obama administration wound up an inquiry into criminal responsibility for the use of torture in 2012, without launching any prosecutions and it is unclear whether the Senate report will lead to that decision being reviewed. But because torture is considered a grave crime under international law, other governments could arrest and prosecute anyone implicated in the report who was on their territory under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
“Some of these people will never leave US borders again,” Bochenek said. “If say, one of them goes on holiday in Paris, then France would have the legal obligation to arrest and prosecute that individual. States have clear obligation in cases of torture…
The other significance of the report is that it provides evidence – as opposed to the leaks we’ve had up until now – which would provide a basis for legal action overseas:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/10/cia-report-prosecutions-international-law-icc
“If I was one of those people, I would hesitate before making any travel arrangements,” said Michael Bochenek, director of law and policy at Amnesty International.
The Obama administration wound up an inquiry into criminal responsibility for the use of torture in 2012, without launching any prosecutions and it is unclear whether the Senate report will lead to that decision being reviewed. But because torture is considered a grave crime under international law, other governments could arrest and prosecute anyone implicated in the report who was on their territory under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
“Some of these people will never leave US borders again,” Bochenek said. “If say, one of them goes on holiday in Paris, then France would have the legal obligation to arrest and prosecute that individual. States have clear obligation in cases of torture…
Marty:
The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday.
But any american who WAS interested could find journalists they trust and even go to the source documents themselves. That’s an important aspect of oversight.
As an argument that details of government operations should be concealed, ‘most people won’t care’ isn’t a good one.
Why release data on what research the NSF or NIH fund? Most people won’t read it. I mean, why even have a public budget? Most people won’t bother to familiarize themselves with it. etc etc
the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it.
To the extent that that’s a possibility, it’s not an argument against release.
Marty:
The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday.
But any american who WAS interested could find journalists they trust and even go to the source documents themselves. That’s an important aspect of oversight.
As an argument that details of government operations should be concealed, ‘most people won’t care’ isn’t a good one.
Why release data on what research the NSF or NIH fund? Most people won’t read it. I mean, why even have a public budget? Most people won’t bother to familiarize themselves with it. etc etc
the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it.
To the extent that that’s a possibility, it’s not an argument against release.
Marty:
The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday.
But any american who WAS interested could find journalists they trust and even go to the source documents themselves. That’s an important aspect of oversight.
As an argument that details of government operations should be concealed, ‘most people won’t care’ isn’t a good one.
Why release data on what research the NSF or NIH fund? Most people won’t read it. I mean, why even have a public budget? Most people won’t bother to familiarize themselves with it. etc etc
the concern is that a year(month, six months) from now there would be a Republican controlled Congress that wouldn’t release it.
To the extent that that’s a possibility, it’s not an argument against release.
I have just deleted a really incensed rebuttal to hsh and Nigel. I am fine with holding us to a higher standard, just not in public flagellation in cases where we don’t feel we met it.
In a world where someone beheads an American a month all this self loathing and public recrimination seems misplaced.
I have just deleted a really incensed rebuttal to hsh and Nigel. I am fine with holding us to a higher standard, just not in public flagellation in cases where we don’t feel we met it.
In a world where someone beheads an American a month all this self loathing and public recrimination seems misplaced.
I have just deleted a really incensed rebuttal to hsh and Nigel. I am fine with holding us to a higher standard, just not in public flagellation in cases where we don’t feel we met it.
In a world where someone beheads an American a month all this self loathing and public recrimination seems misplaced.
There’s nothing that will sink someone’s chances in a Republican party like reminding the voters his brother was associated with a torture program.
There’s nothing that will sink someone’s chances in a Republican party like reminding the voters his brother was associated with a torture program.
There’s nothing that will sink someone’s chances in a Republican party like reminding the voters his brother was associated with a torture program.
In a world where someone beheads an American a month all this self loathing and public recrimination seems misplaced.
if someone else is bad, we can’t criticize crimes committed by our own government ?
In a world where someone beheads an American a month all this self loathing and public recrimination seems misplaced.
if someone else is bad, we can’t criticize crimes committed by our own government ?
In a world where someone beheads an American a month all this self loathing and public recrimination seems misplaced.
if someone else is bad, we can’t criticize crimes committed by our own government ?
I am fine with holding us to a higher standard
Which would be your own laws.
I take the point that there are worse things happening in the world – but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.
I am fine with holding us to a higher standard
Which would be your own laws.
I take the point that there are worse things happening in the world – but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.
I am fine with holding us to a higher standard
Which would be your own laws.
I take the point that there are worse things happening in the world – but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.
“but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.”
Jeez Nigel, really? isn’t this a little pompous and almost certainly naïve?
“but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.”
Jeez Nigel, really? isn’t this a little pompous and almost certainly naïve?
“but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.”
Jeez Nigel, really? isn’t this a little pompous and almost certainly naïve?
I guess the problem I am having with Marty’s standard is that it would seem to say (unless I am misreading him) that all it takes is for someone, somewhere in the world, to behave badly. That’s enough reason to not mention publicly and officially that we did something bad.
Is that really what you are saying, Marty? Because I just can’t see relative morality like that. If something is wrong, we should be willing to say so. No matter what someone elsewhere in the world is doing or saying. Their behavior cannot guide our moral standards.
I guess the problem I am having with Marty’s standard is that it would seem to say (unless I am misreading him) that all it takes is for someone, somewhere in the world, to behave badly. That’s enough reason to not mention publicly and officially that we did something bad.
Is that really what you are saying, Marty? Because I just can’t see relative morality like that. If something is wrong, we should be willing to say so. No matter what someone elsewhere in the world is doing or saying. Their behavior cannot guide our moral standards.
I guess the problem I am having with Marty’s standard is that it would seem to say (unless I am misreading him) that all it takes is for someone, somewhere in the world, to behave badly. That’s enough reason to not mention publicly and officially that we did something bad.
Is that really what you are saying, Marty? Because I just can’t see relative morality like that. If something is wrong, we should be willing to say so. No matter what someone elsewhere in the world is doing or saying. Their behavior cannot guide our moral standards.
“Is that really what you are saying, Marty? ”
Noooo, I am saying we have said publicly, all the way up to the President himself, that we did things that were wrong, we stopped and have instructed our military and CIA not to do them anymore.
The release of more details, especially since there was no investigation, it was simply a document review, was unnecessary, unwise and politically motivated.
“Is that really what you are saying, Marty? ”
Noooo, I am saying we have said publicly, all the way up to the President himself, that we did things that were wrong, we stopped and have instructed our military and CIA not to do them anymore.
The release of more details, especially since there was no investigation, it was simply a document review, was unnecessary, unwise and politically motivated.
“Is that really what you are saying, Marty? ”
Noooo, I am saying we have said publicly, all the way up to the President himself, that we did things that were wrong, we stopped and have instructed our military and CIA not to do them anymore.
The release of more details, especially since there was no investigation, it was simply a document review, was unnecessary, unwise and politically motivated.
no investigation?
how do you get 6000 pages of text without investigating anything?
no investigation?
how do you get 6000 pages of text without investigating anything?
no investigation?
how do you get 6000 pages of text without investigating anything?
The CIA’s torture regime doesn’t seem to have done much to stem the tide of beheadings.
What’s the point of having a head if we can’t use it to be outraged by illegal garbanzo bean butt stuffing committed by the U.S. Government?
I don’t loathe myself. What have I done? I mean, I do suffer from a sort of trivial, free-floating self-loathing but not because I’ve beheaded anyone.
Public recrimination? What do you want to do, keep it to yourself and suffer privately. That’s so …. Soviet and post-War II Germany.
By all means, let’s save the self-loathing and public recrimination for those high medical insurance deductibles.
Heads must roll there, buster!
Nigel:
“Which would be your own laws.”
Just the other day, Brett, with Marty’s help, wiped nearly every law off the books. Too many laws. I think you’ll find the laws against torture out back in the trash, if you hurry.
Not that anyone read the anti-torture law signed by Ronald Reagan, because it was longer than two pages with cover letter and appendices, and thus more outrageous than, say, beheadings.
The CIA’s torture regime doesn’t seem to have done much to stem the tide of beheadings.
What’s the point of having a head if we can’t use it to be outraged by illegal garbanzo bean butt stuffing committed by the U.S. Government?
I don’t loathe myself. What have I done? I mean, I do suffer from a sort of trivial, free-floating self-loathing but not because I’ve beheaded anyone.
Public recrimination? What do you want to do, keep it to yourself and suffer privately. That’s so …. Soviet and post-War II Germany.
By all means, let’s save the self-loathing and public recrimination for those high medical insurance deductibles.
Heads must roll there, buster!
Nigel:
“Which would be your own laws.”
Just the other day, Brett, with Marty’s help, wiped nearly every law off the books. Too many laws. I think you’ll find the laws against torture out back in the trash, if you hurry.
Not that anyone read the anti-torture law signed by Ronald Reagan, because it was longer than two pages with cover letter and appendices, and thus more outrageous than, say, beheadings.
The CIA’s torture regime doesn’t seem to have done much to stem the tide of beheadings.
What’s the point of having a head if we can’t use it to be outraged by illegal garbanzo bean butt stuffing committed by the U.S. Government?
I don’t loathe myself. What have I done? I mean, I do suffer from a sort of trivial, free-floating self-loathing but not because I’ve beheaded anyone.
Public recrimination? What do you want to do, keep it to yourself and suffer privately. That’s so …. Soviet and post-War II Germany.
By all means, let’s save the self-loathing and public recrimination for those high medical insurance deductibles.
Heads must roll there, buster!
Nigel:
“Which would be your own laws.”
Just the other day, Brett, with Marty’s help, wiped nearly every law off the books. Too many laws. I think you’ll find the laws against torture out back in the trash, if you hurry.
Not that anyone read the anti-torture law signed by Ronald Reagan, because it was longer than two pages with cover letter and appendices, and thus more outrageous than, say, beheadings.
Unnecessary? Because we have what evidence that the CIA understands that what it did was wrong and will not do it again?
Unwise? Because we are better off not knowing the details?
Politically motivated? Based on what? I personally can’t see either party gaining much advantage from this. Not that both won’t try, of course. But I just don’t see a net political benefit — certainly not one to warrant all the time and effort. There are lots more politically effective things that either one could do with their resources.
Unnecessary? Because we have what evidence that the CIA understands that what it did was wrong and will not do it again?
Unwise? Because we are better off not knowing the details?
Politically motivated? Based on what? I personally can’t see either party gaining much advantage from this. Not that both won’t try, of course. But I just don’t see a net political benefit — certainly not one to warrant all the time and effort. There are lots more politically effective things that either one could do with their resources.
Unnecessary? Because we have what evidence that the CIA understands that what it did was wrong and will not do it again?
Unwise? Because we are better off not knowing the details?
Politically motivated? Based on what? I personally can’t see either party gaining much advantage from this. Not that both won’t try, of course. But I just don’t see a net political benefit — certainly not one to warrant all the time and effort. There are lots more politically effective things that either one could do with their resources.
” But I just don’t see a net political benefit — certainly not one to warrant all the time and effort.”
The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.
” But I just don’t see a net political benefit — certainly not one to warrant all the time and effort.”
The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.
” But I just don’t see a net political benefit — certainly not one to warrant all the time and effort.”
The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.
But they haven’t released the report. The released a summary with the reports findings.
And to me, not releasing the report itself looks very like a political decision. Specifically, an attempt to avoid political fights over the details that would be contained therein.
But they haven’t released the report. The released a summary with the reports findings.
And to me, not releasing the report itself looks very like a political decision. Specifically, an attempt to avoid political fights over the details that would be contained therein.
But they haven’t released the report. The released a summary with the reports findings.
And to me, not releasing the report itself looks very like a political decision. Specifically, an attempt to avoid political fights over the details that would be contained therein.
[…]
On the subject of pompous naïveté…
No other country in the developed world can do rule of law better than the US, Marty? Really? Really? And you assert this in the context of denying that it would be appropriate to even consider charging and prosecuting in an impartial court acts which are by all appearances in violation of our laws? Hell, though we disagree on this point, you stated that there’s been no investigation, so you’re asserting that reasonable deference to rule of law comprises firmly refusing to investigate apparent lawbreaking? Really? You’re honestly going to scoff at an assertion that the US is less of an adherent to rule of law than other countries in one breath, and in the next state that a self-imposed verbal reprimand with no negative consequences attached is sufficient deference to rule of law – let alone sufficient deterrent to ensure no such acts will reoccur – and you have the chutzpah to call Nigel the naive one?
[…]
On the subject of pompous naïveté…
No other country in the developed world can do rule of law better than the US, Marty? Really? Really? And you assert this in the context of denying that it would be appropriate to even consider charging and prosecuting in an impartial court acts which are by all appearances in violation of our laws? Hell, though we disagree on this point, you stated that there’s been no investigation, so you’re asserting that reasonable deference to rule of law comprises firmly refusing to investigate apparent lawbreaking? Really? You’re honestly going to scoff at an assertion that the US is less of an adherent to rule of law than other countries in one breath, and in the next state that a self-imposed verbal reprimand with no negative consequences attached is sufficient deference to rule of law – let alone sufficient deterrent to ensure no such acts will reoccur – and you have the chutzpah to call Nigel the naive one?
[…]
On the subject of pompous naïveté…
No other country in the developed world can do rule of law better than the US, Marty? Really? Really? And you assert this in the context of denying that it would be appropriate to even consider charging and prosecuting in an impartial court acts which are by all appearances in violation of our laws? Hell, though we disagree on this point, you stated that there’s been no investigation, so you’re asserting that reasonable deference to rule of law comprises firmly refusing to investigate apparent lawbreaking? Really? You’re honestly going to scoff at an assertion that the US is less of an adherent to rule of law than other countries in one breath, and in the next state that a self-imposed verbal reprimand with no negative consequences attached is sufficient deference to rule of law – let alone sufficient deterrent to ensure no such acts will reoccur – and you have the chutzpah to call Nigel the naive one?
Marty, seek help. You seem to have gone blind in your right eye. You can’t see political motivations except from the left.
Before that, though: what do you figure was McCain’s (!) and Graham’s(!!) political motivation in supporting the politically-motivated Democrats’ political support of releasing the politically-motivated report?
–TP
Marty, seek help. You seem to have gone blind in your right eye. You can’t see political motivations except from the left.
Before that, though: what do you figure was McCain’s (!) and Graham’s(!!) political motivation in supporting the politically-motivated Democrats’ political support of releasing the politically-motivated report?
–TP
Marty, seek help. You seem to have gone blind in your right eye. You can’t see political motivations except from the left.
Before that, though: what do you figure was McCain’s (!) and Graham’s(!!) political motivation in supporting the politically-motivated Democrats’ political support of releasing the politically-motivated report?
–TP
TP,
McCain has always supported the release, personal and understandable reasons. Graham, who knows. I am sure there are a range of reasons among even Democrats, and not all of them supported release, including Kerry.
And, reread what I’ve said, I never said the Republicans didn’t have a political motive for not wanting it released, they certainly want people to forget about the “Bush torture regime”.
TP,
McCain has always supported the release, personal and understandable reasons. Graham, who knows. I am sure there are a range of reasons among even Democrats, and not all of them supported release, including Kerry.
And, reread what I’ve said, I never said the Republicans didn’t have a political motive for not wanting it released, they certainly want people to forget about the “Bush torture regime”.
TP,
McCain has always supported the release, personal and understandable reasons. Graham, who knows. I am sure there are a range of reasons among even Democrats, and not all of them supported release, including Kerry.
And, reread what I’ve said, I never said the Republicans didn’t have a political motive for not wanting it released, they certainly want people to forget about the “Bush torture regime”.
You’re honestly going to scoff at an assertion that the US is less of an adherent to rule of law than other countries in one breath, and in the next state that a self-imposed verbal reprimand with no negative consequences attached is sufficient deference to rule of law
yes and yes. Except the verbal reprimand was not self imposed.
You’re honestly going to scoff at an assertion that the US is less of an adherent to rule of law than other countries in one breath, and in the next state that a self-imposed verbal reprimand with no negative consequences attached is sufficient deference to rule of law
yes and yes. Except the verbal reprimand was not self imposed.
You’re honestly going to scoff at an assertion that the US is less of an adherent to rule of law than other countries in one breath, and in the next state that a self-imposed verbal reprimand with no negative consequences attached is sufficient deference to rule of law
yes and yes. Except the verbal reprimand was not self imposed.
“but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.”
Jeez Nigel, really? isn’t this a little pompous and almost certainly naïve?
No.
“but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.”
Jeez Nigel, really? isn’t this a little pompous and almost certainly naïve?
No.
“but not in nations where the rule of law still holds sway.”
Jeez Nigel, really? isn’t this a little pompous and almost certainly naïve?
No.
Keep in mind that only a heavily redacted report has been released, and that even the full report cannot include atrocities that the CIA and the military successfully concealed. There was a reason those tapes were destroyed.
Seymour Hersh did some of the best original reporting on this, and said in interviews that the reality was far worse than what he reported, because he couldn’t substantiate everything he was told.
http://www.salon.com/2004/07/15/hersh_7/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
Hersh was excoriated for that reporting, and mostly ignored — but we shouldn’t have needed this most recent report to tell us what was done in our names. The information has been available to anyone who wanted to know since 2004.
The nation, this nation I no longer recognize, shrugged its shoulders and sent Mr. Bush back to the White House.
Keep in mind that only a heavily redacted report has been released, and that even the full report cannot include atrocities that the CIA and the military successfully concealed. There was a reason those tapes were destroyed.
Seymour Hersh did some of the best original reporting on this, and said in interviews that the reality was far worse than what he reported, because he couldn’t substantiate everything he was told.
http://www.salon.com/2004/07/15/hersh_7/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
Hersh was excoriated for that reporting, and mostly ignored — but we shouldn’t have needed this most recent report to tell us what was done in our names. The information has been available to anyone who wanted to know since 2004.
The nation, this nation I no longer recognize, shrugged its shoulders and sent Mr. Bush back to the White House.
Keep in mind that only a heavily redacted report has been released, and that even the full report cannot include atrocities that the CIA and the military successfully concealed. There was a reason those tapes were destroyed.
Seymour Hersh did some of the best original reporting on this, and said in interviews that the reality was far worse than what he reported, because he couldn’t substantiate everything he was told.
http://www.salon.com/2004/07/15/hersh_7/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/10/torture-at-abu-ghraib
Hersh was excoriated for that reporting, and mostly ignored — but we shouldn’t have needed this most recent report to tell us what was done in our names. The information has been available to anyone who wanted to know since 2004.
The nation, this nation I no longer recognize, shrugged its shoulders and sent Mr. Bush back to the White House.
yes and yes. Except the verbal reprimand was not self imposed.
Two things. First, what the hell is Rule of Law if apparent violations of law aren’t even investigated? You’re advocating Rule of Man, a notion that I seem to recall this nation have fought a war to repudiate. Rule of Law cannot co-exist with leaders picking and choosing who is punished for lawbreaking, particularly when they pick and choose not to punish (or even investigate) their own lawbreaking… and it’s quite telling that you feel it can.
Second, seriously, if the Executive didn’t self-impose its simply scathing non-appology-appology verbal reprimand, who the hell imposed it?
yes and yes. Except the verbal reprimand was not self imposed.
Two things. First, what the hell is Rule of Law if apparent violations of law aren’t even investigated? You’re advocating Rule of Man, a notion that I seem to recall this nation have fought a war to repudiate. Rule of Law cannot co-exist with leaders picking and choosing who is punished for lawbreaking, particularly when they pick and choose not to punish (or even investigate) their own lawbreaking… and it’s quite telling that you feel it can.
Second, seriously, if the Executive didn’t self-impose its simply scathing non-appology-appology verbal reprimand, who the hell imposed it?
yes and yes. Except the verbal reprimand was not self imposed.
Two things. First, what the hell is Rule of Law if apparent violations of law aren’t even investigated? You’re advocating Rule of Man, a notion that I seem to recall this nation have fought a war to repudiate. Rule of Law cannot co-exist with leaders picking and choosing who is punished for lawbreaking, particularly when they pick and choose not to punish (or even investigate) their own lawbreaking… and it’s quite telling that you feel it can.
Second, seriously, if the Executive didn’t self-impose its simply scathing non-appology-appology verbal reprimand, who the hell imposed it?
Keep in mind that only a heavily redacted report has been released
This. Though I’d nitpick and underscore that it’s only the heavily redacted executive summary that was release, as you of course know. But yes, this. Sen. Rockefeller alleged from the Senate floor that the WH is withholding at least 9000 documents requested by the SIC.
Hersh was excoriated for that reporting, and mostly ignored — but we shouldn’t have needed this most recent report to tell us what was done in our names. The information has been available to anyone who wanted to know since 2004.
Also this. Although this release makes it harder for the entirely-knowable uncomfortable truths to be dismissed as unknowable supposition and hearsay by the teeming know-nothing apologists.
Keep in mind that only a heavily redacted report has been released
This. Though I’d nitpick and underscore that it’s only the heavily redacted executive summary that was release, as you of course know. But yes, this. Sen. Rockefeller alleged from the Senate floor that the WH is withholding at least 9000 documents requested by the SIC.
Hersh was excoriated for that reporting, and mostly ignored — but we shouldn’t have needed this most recent report to tell us what was done in our names. The information has been available to anyone who wanted to know since 2004.
Also this. Although this release makes it harder for the entirely-knowable uncomfortable truths to be dismissed as unknowable supposition and hearsay by the teeming know-nothing apologists.
Keep in mind that only a heavily redacted report has been released
This. Though I’d nitpick and underscore that it’s only the heavily redacted executive summary that was release, as you of course know. But yes, this. Sen. Rockefeller alleged from the Senate floor that the WH is withholding at least 9000 documents requested by the SIC.
Hersh was excoriated for that reporting, and mostly ignored — but we shouldn’t have needed this most recent report to tell us what was done in our names. The information has been available to anyone who wanted to know since 2004.
Also this. Although this release makes it harder for the entirely-knowable uncomfortable truths to be dismissed as unknowable supposition and hearsay by the teeming know-nothing apologists.
NV,
“The Executive” isn’t a person, nor can it be held accountable by law for anything, just ask Obama. The CIA was rebuked, and we aren’t going to do anything to “The Executive”.
There was no investigation by the Senate Committee that had the report prepared, they didn’t interview a single person. They just did a document review, which generates lots of pages of report. Then summarized it, then redacted it.
Leaders have always picked who takes the fall for government overreach. Again, ask Obama. I’ll give you a hint, it is never the leader of the free world or his subordinates. In this case it was a few folks at Abu Ghraib. Even Nixon, who managed to get most of his team convicted was pardoned, and he was just trying to win an election he already had won. Heck, the current President just pardoned 5 million people and you are going to talk to me about rule of law?
Get a grip.
NV,
“The Executive” isn’t a person, nor can it be held accountable by law for anything, just ask Obama. The CIA was rebuked, and we aren’t going to do anything to “The Executive”.
There was no investigation by the Senate Committee that had the report prepared, they didn’t interview a single person. They just did a document review, which generates lots of pages of report. Then summarized it, then redacted it.
Leaders have always picked who takes the fall for government overreach. Again, ask Obama. I’ll give you a hint, it is never the leader of the free world or his subordinates. In this case it was a few folks at Abu Ghraib. Even Nixon, who managed to get most of his team convicted was pardoned, and he was just trying to win an election he already had won. Heck, the current President just pardoned 5 million people and you are going to talk to me about rule of law?
Get a grip.
NV,
“The Executive” isn’t a person, nor can it be held accountable by law for anything, just ask Obama. The CIA was rebuked, and we aren’t going to do anything to “The Executive”.
There was no investigation by the Senate Committee that had the report prepared, they didn’t interview a single person. They just did a document review, which generates lots of pages of report. Then summarized it, then redacted it.
Leaders have always picked who takes the fall for government overreach. Again, ask Obama. I’ll give you a hint, it is never the leader of the free world or his subordinates. In this case it was a few folks at Abu Ghraib. Even Nixon, who managed to get most of his team convicted was pardoned, and he was just trying to win an election he already had won. Heck, the current President just pardoned 5 million people and you are going to talk to me about rule of law?
Get a grip.
do check out dimwitted torture advocate Andy McCarthy’s article, if only for the comments.
the “conservatives” there seem to be split between arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture and the notion we should do it (and more) because we need to torture “the terrorists”.
and i bet every one of these sociopaths has an American flag on his front porch.
do check out dimwitted torture advocate Andy McCarthy’s article, if only for the comments.
the “conservatives” there seem to be split between arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture and the notion we should do it (and more) because we need to torture “the terrorists”.
and i bet every one of these sociopaths has an American flag on his front porch.
do check out dimwitted torture advocate Andy McCarthy’s article, if only for the comments.
the “conservatives” there seem to be split between arguing that waterboarding isn’t torture and the notion we should do it (and more) because we need to torture “the terrorists”.
and i bet every one of these sociopaths has an American flag on his front porch.
makes it harder for the entirely-knowable uncomfortable truths to be dismissed
Colbert to the “journalists” at the White House Correspondents Dinner :
makes it harder for the entirely-knowable uncomfortable truths to be dismissed
Colbert to the “journalists” at the White House Correspondents Dinner :
makes it harder for the entirely-knowable uncomfortable truths to be dismissed
Colbert to the “journalists” at the White House Correspondents Dinner :
the current President just pardoned 5 million people
Marty, this is such a distortion of the actual event that it verges on dishonesyt. A procedural delay is not a pardon.
the current President just pardoned 5 million people
Marty, this is such a distortion of the actual event that it verges on dishonesyt. A procedural delay is not a pardon.
the current President just pardoned 5 million people
Marty, this is such a distortion of the actual event that it verges on dishonesyt. A procedural delay is not a pardon.
Marty, you claimed that what I referred to as a verbal reprimand went all the way up to the president. You said he admitted wrongdoing before he halted the program. So again, who imposed the verbal reprimand on him if he didn’t self-impose it?
Leaders have always picked who takes the fall for government overreach.
Ah, yes. Tu quoque. And wordgames – if it’s just “government overreach” and not potential violations of law, then how can it go against the Rule of Law? Setting your rhetorical feints aside, you did nothing to actually refute the point I made. Ignoring serious offenses when the government is the one doing them is a fairly blatant sign of disrespect for Rule of Law that makes your assertion that it’s pompous and naive to suggest that any other countries do better than the US frankly laughable.
Also, get a grip yourself, Marty. The document review collated other investigations, but since the Study was not an investigation of primary sources, no investigation has occurred… and per you, nor should one. You’re trying to have it both ways here. No investigation occurred, and no investigation should occur. Oh, but we can’t even consider assigning wrongdoing (even though it’s okay that it was admitted) because there was no investigation. Huh. The obvious solution if you actually thought the US adheres to the Rule of Law would be for an external investigation to occur. And yet, that’s not what you’re calling for. You’re calling for us to sit down, shut up, and stop questioning our betters.
I say again, your scornful assertion that the US is a shining city on a hill whose adherence to the Rule of Law necessarily must exceed all other developed nations is laughable, pompous, naive, and more than a little self-servingly hypocritical.
Marty, you claimed that what I referred to as a verbal reprimand went all the way up to the president. You said he admitted wrongdoing before he halted the program. So again, who imposed the verbal reprimand on him if he didn’t self-impose it?
Leaders have always picked who takes the fall for government overreach.
Ah, yes. Tu quoque. And wordgames – if it’s just “government overreach” and not potential violations of law, then how can it go against the Rule of Law? Setting your rhetorical feints aside, you did nothing to actually refute the point I made. Ignoring serious offenses when the government is the one doing them is a fairly blatant sign of disrespect for Rule of Law that makes your assertion that it’s pompous and naive to suggest that any other countries do better than the US frankly laughable.
Also, get a grip yourself, Marty. The document review collated other investigations, but since the Study was not an investigation of primary sources, no investigation has occurred… and per you, nor should one. You’re trying to have it both ways here. No investigation occurred, and no investigation should occur. Oh, but we can’t even consider assigning wrongdoing (even though it’s okay that it was admitted) because there was no investigation. Huh. The obvious solution if you actually thought the US adheres to the Rule of Law would be for an external investigation to occur. And yet, that’s not what you’re calling for. You’re calling for us to sit down, shut up, and stop questioning our betters.
I say again, your scornful assertion that the US is a shining city on a hill whose adherence to the Rule of Law necessarily must exceed all other developed nations is laughable, pompous, naive, and more than a little self-servingly hypocritical.
Marty, you claimed that what I referred to as a verbal reprimand went all the way up to the president. You said he admitted wrongdoing before he halted the program. So again, who imposed the verbal reprimand on him if he didn’t self-impose it?
Leaders have always picked who takes the fall for government overreach.
Ah, yes. Tu quoque. And wordgames – if it’s just “government overreach” and not potential violations of law, then how can it go against the Rule of Law? Setting your rhetorical feints aside, you did nothing to actually refute the point I made. Ignoring serious offenses when the government is the one doing them is a fairly blatant sign of disrespect for Rule of Law that makes your assertion that it’s pompous and naive to suggest that any other countries do better than the US frankly laughable.
Also, get a grip yourself, Marty. The document review collated other investigations, but since the Study was not an investigation of primary sources, no investigation has occurred… and per you, nor should one. You’re trying to have it both ways here. No investigation occurred, and no investigation should occur. Oh, but we can’t even consider assigning wrongdoing (even though it’s okay that it was admitted) because there was no investigation. Huh. The obvious solution if you actually thought the US adheres to the Rule of Law would be for an external investigation to occur. And yet, that’s not what you’re calling for. You’re calling for us to sit down, shut up, and stop questioning our betters.
I say again, your scornful assertion that the US is a shining city on a hill whose adherence to the Rule of Law necessarily must exceed all other developed nations is laughable, pompous, naive, and more than a little self-servingly hypocritical.
If US laws applied to US administrations then all living presidents would hang – together with a lot of their cabinet members and their direct underlings. Since we can’t have that we should simply ignore what they do (unless it’s lying about blowjobs, of course). Is that so difficult to grasp? Btw, when are we at last going to string up Mr.Gruber for lying about healthcare (something that comes up regularly in comments about the torture report)?
Damn, another acid hole in the keayboard.
For the record, if it was up to me and this was a fair world, the main culprits for torture etc. would be treated with their own medicine applied by the very best of the profession and would die the slowest and most agonizing death human ingenuity could engineer. In public and unfiltered! And the main apologists should get a non-lethal dose of the same, also in public.
We can talk about ISIS directly afterwards.
The tapes of the above should be mandatory to watch for anyone running for higher office. And anyone not flinching should be barred from taking office, there already too many socio- and psychopaths in position sof power.
If US laws applied to US administrations then all living presidents would hang – together with a lot of their cabinet members and their direct underlings. Since we can’t have that we should simply ignore what they do (unless it’s lying about blowjobs, of course). Is that so difficult to grasp? Btw, when are we at last going to string up Mr.Gruber for lying about healthcare (something that comes up regularly in comments about the torture report)?
Damn, another acid hole in the keayboard.
For the record, if it was up to me and this was a fair world, the main culprits for torture etc. would be treated with their own medicine applied by the very best of the profession and would die the slowest and most agonizing death human ingenuity could engineer. In public and unfiltered! And the main apologists should get a non-lethal dose of the same, also in public.
We can talk about ISIS directly afterwards.
The tapes of the above should be mandatory to watch for anyone running for higher office. And anyone not flinching should be barred from taking office, there already too many socio- and psychopaths in position sof power.
If US laws applied to US administrations then all living presidents would hang – together with a lot of their cabinet members and their direct underlings. Since we can’t have that we should simply ignore what they do (unless it’s lying about blowjobs, of course). Is that so difficult to grasp? Btw, when are we at last going to string up Mr.Gruber for lying about healthcare (something that comes up regularly in comments about the torture report)?
Damn, another acid hole in the keayboard.
For the record, if it was up to me and this was a fair world, the main culprits for torture etc. would be treated with their own medicine applied by the very best of the profession and would die the slowest and most agonizing death human ingenuity could engineer. In public and unfiltered! And the main apologists should get a non-lethal dose of the same, also in public.
We can talk about ISIS directly afterwards.
The tapes of the above should be mandatory to watch for anyone running for higher office. And anyone not flinching should be barred from taking office, there already too many socio- and psychopaths in position sof power.
There was no investigation by the Senate Committee that had the report prepared, they didn’t interview a single person.
Oh come on, Marty! The Senate Committee was asked by the Department of Justice not to interview individuals so as not to jeopardize on-going criminal invesigations. Now it may be that the DoJ lied about those investigations. But you can’t really fault the Senators for deciding not to put criminal prosecutions at risk.
OK, maybe you would rather they had conducted those interviews, so individuals couldn’t be successfully charged with crimes. But I really hesitate to believe you are engaging in that level of chicanery. Still what other reason would there be…? Isn’t the information in the documents damning enough?
There was no investigation by the Senate Committee that had the report prepared, they didn’t interview a single person.
Oh come on, Marty! The Senate Committee was asked by the Department of Justice not to interview individuals so as not to jeopardize on-going criminal invesigations. Now it may be that the DoJ lied about those investigations. But you can’t really fault the Senators for deciding not to put criminal prosecutions at risk.
OK, maybe you would rather they had conducted those interviews, so individuals couldn’t be successfully charged with crimes. But I really hesitate to believe you are engaging in that level of chicanery. Still what other reason would there be…? Isn’t the information in the documents damning enough?
There was no investigation by the Senate Committee that had the report prepared, they didn’t interview a single person.
Oh come on, Marty! The Senate Committee was asked by the Department of Justice not to interview individuals so as not to jeopardize on-going criminal invesigations. Now it may be that the DoJ lied about those investigations. But you can’t really fault the Senators for deciding not to put criminal prosecutions at risk.
OK, maybe you would rather they had conducted those interviews, so individuals couldn’t be successfully charged with crimes. But I really hesitate to believe you are engaging in that level of chicanery. Still what other reason would there be…? Isn’t the information in the documents damning enough?
You’re trying to have it both ways here.
it looks like he’s trying to have it just one way: the way where nobody says anything about any of this anymore. everything else is in service of that.
You’re trying to have it both ways here.
it looks like he’s trying to have it just one way: the way where nobody says anything about any of this anymore. everything else is in service of that.
You’re trying to have it both ways here.
it looks like he’s trying to have it just one way: the way where nobody says anything about any of this anymore. everything else is in service of that.
Marty: “I don’t think it should have been released. I am glad the report was done, but it was done in April. The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment. The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians. Now its all about politics.”
So many words, and not a single one is true (even the last sentence, in the sense that Marty meant it).
Marty: “I don’t think it should have been released. I am glad the report was done, but it was done in April. The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment. The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians. Now its all about politics.”
So many words, and not a single one is true (even the last sentence, in the sense that Marty meant it).
Marty: “I don’t think it should have been released. I am glad the report was done, but it was done in April. The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment. The vast majority of Americans will actually know just as much about it tomorrow as they did yesterday. Any additional information they have will be the titillations of the media, and politicians. Now its all about politics.”
So many words, and not a single one is true (even the last sentence, in the sense that Marty meant it).
Marty,
I get your point: the First Rule of the “Bush torture regime” is that you don’t talk about the “Bush torture regime”.
The thing is, the First Rule of X only applies to members of X. Members of X can complain all they want that non-members are breaking the First Rule, but they only make themselves look asinine when they do.
Alternatively, the complainers are insisting that we are all members of X so we are all obligated to obey the First Rule.
Then of course there are those who put quotes around X, as in
which seems to suggest a certain amount of denialism.
You must believe that you’re making sense in this thread, Marty, but someday you will re-read it and be embarrassed by your comments here.
–TP
Marty,
I get your point: the First Rule of the “Bush torture regime” is that you don’t talk about the “Bush torture regime”.
The thing is, the First Rule of X only applies to members of X. Members of X can complain all they want that non-members are breaking the First Rule, but they only make themselves look asinine when they do.
Alternatively, the complainers are insisting that we are all members of X so we are all obligated to obey the First Rule.
Then of course there are those who put quotes around X, as in
which seems to suggest a certain amount of denialism.
You must believe that you’re making sense in this thread, Marty, but someday you will re-read it and be embarrassed by your comments here.
–TP
Marty,
I get your point: the First Rule of the “Bush torture regime” is that you don’t talk about the “Bush torture regime”.
The thing is, the First Rule of X only applies to members of X. Members of X can complain all they want that non-members are breaking the First Rule, but they only make themselves look asinine when they do.
Alternatively, the complainers are insisting that we are all members of X so we are all obligated to obey the First Rule.
Then of course there are those who put quotes around X, as in
which seems to suggest a certain amount of denialism.
You must believe that you’re making sense in this thread, Marty, but someday you will re-read it and be embarrassed by your comments here.
–TP
I wont be embarrassed. I have shown amazing restraint. With the words I am allowing myself to use, this is the best one can do.
I wont be embarrassed. I have shown amazing restraint. With the words I am allowing myself to use, this is the best one can do.
I wont be embarrassed. I have shown amazing restraint. With the words I am allowing myself to use, this is the best one can do.
NV, I suppose the problem here is that I don’t believe you have made ANY point. There is no new information here, there is no actionable investigation, there is nothing here except some more examples of things we already knew happened. Certainly nothing the DOJ didn’t know. It is theater.
The RELEASE of this report is therefore a purely political act. Whatever else you are going on about is irrelevant.
NV, I suppose the problem here is that I don’t believe you have made ANY point. There is no new information here, there is no actionable investigation, there is nothing here except some more examples of things we already knew happened. Certainly nothing the DOJ didn’t know. It is theater.
The RELEASE of this report is therefore a purely political act. Whatever else you are going on about is irrelevant.
NV, I suppose the problem here is that I don’t believe you have made ANY point. There is no new information here, there is no actionable investigation, there is nothing here except some more examples of things we already knew happened. Certainly nothing the DOJ didn’t know. It is theater.
The RELEASE of this report is therefore a purely political act. Whatever else you are going on about is irrelevant.
IF one agrees that “The RELEASE of this report is therefore a purely political act,” then you might have a point. The thing is, a lot of us don’t accept the premise. Not even close.
And since we don’t, there doesn’t seem to be much prospect for a meeting on the minds on the rest.
IF one agrees that “The RELEASE of this report is therefore a purely political act,” then you might have a point. The thing is, a lot of us don’t accept the premise. Not even close.
And since we don’t, there doesn’t seem to be much prospect for a meeting on the minds on the rest.
IF one agrees that “The RELEASE of this report is therefore a purely political act,” then you might have a point. The thing is, a lot of us don’t accept the premise. Not even close.
And since we don’t, there doesn’t seem to be much prospect for a meeting on the minds on the rest.
One other thought worth noting, I didn’t scornfully assert anything about the US being a shining anything on the hill. I scornfully mocked someone else’s assertions that some other place is a shining city on the hill. There is a big difference.
One other thought worth noting, I didn’t scornfully assert anything about the US being a shining anything on the hill. I scornfully mocked someone else’s assertions that some other place is a shining city on the hill. There is a big difference.
One other thought worth noting, I didn’t scornfully assert anything about the US being a shining anything on the hill. I scornfully mocked someone else’s assertions that some other place is a shining city on the hill. There is a big difference.
wj, true enough. Probably not happening.
wj, true enough. Probably not happening.
wj, true enough. Probably not happening.
Well, I suppose you could try making a case for why it is a purely political act. Not sure how you would go about doing that. But it would seem to be the only path available.
Well, I suppose you could try making a case for why it is a purely political act. Not sure how you would go about doing that. But it would seem to be the only path available.
Well, I suppose you could try making a case for why it is a purely political act. Not sure how you would go about doing that. But it would seem to be the only path available.
“I get your point: the First Rule of the “Bush torture regime” is that you don’t talk about the “Bush torture regime”.”
I’m certainly getting the clear impression that the first rule of the Clinton torture regime is similar. Look, can we at least have an admission this started during a Democratic administration?
Yes, yes, it was wrong of Bush to continue this Clinton policy. I have no problem saying that. There were a lot of things I didn’t like about the Bush administration, and not reversing Clinton policies was high on the list.
“I get your point: the First Rule of the “Bush torture regime” is that you don’t talk about the “Bush torture regime”.”
I’m certainly getting the clear impression that the first rule of the Clinton torture regime is similar. Look, can we at least have an admission this started during a Democratic administration?
Yes, yes, it was wrong of Bush to continue this Clinton policy. I have no problem saying that. There were a lot of things I didn’t like about the Bush administration, and not reversing Clinton policies was high on the list.
“I get your point: the First Rule of the “Bush torture regime” is that you don’t talk about the “Bush torture regime”.”
I’m certainly getting the clear impression that the first rule of the Clinton torture regime is similar. Look, can we at least have an admission this started during a Democratic administration?
Yes, yes, it was wrong of Bush to continue this Clinton policy. I have no problem saying that. There were a lot of things I didn’t like about the Bush administration, and not reversing Clinton policies was high on the list.
Look, can we at least have an admission this started during a Democratic administration?
yep: LBJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
Look, can we at least have an admission this started during a Democratic administration?
yep: LBJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
Look, can we at least have an admission this started during a Democratic administration?
yep: LBJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
I (and several others here) have gone on the record multiple times in the past on that I/we think the same standards should apply to Clinton, in other words: no excuses for either. To go after one but not the other would indeed by a purely partisan way. And a short way up I said that all living presidents (plus their direct accomplices) would have to hang, if the laws got actually applied to them. Not international law but US laws. The former would just mean a rather comfortable jail cell in a civilized country not one of those clunky (but ‘clean’) ‘go to hell’ mechanisms’ the US is so fond of. Despite me entertaining fantasies of Rummy, Cheney, Yoo & Co* going to hell on a waterboard via a cauldron of boiling crude and mustard gas, I’d vote for the jail cell though (but it would be a non-negotiable condition that the keys have to be thrown away).
*M.Albright and some other Clintonites would be on the list too. Out of respect for the office of POTUS the bosses themmselves should get the molten gold treatment instead of the crude.
I (and several others here) have gone on the record multiple times in the past on that I/we think the same standards should apply to Clinton, in other words: no excuses for either. To go after one but not the other would indeed by a purely partisan way. And a short way up I said that all living presidents (plus their direct accomplices) would have to hang, if the laws got actually applied to them. Not international law but US laws. The former would just mean a rather comfortable jail cell in a civilized country not one of those clunky (but ‘clean’) ‘go to hell’ mechanisms’ the US is so fond of. Despite me entertaining fantasies of Rummy, Cheney, Yoo & Co* going to hell on a waterboard via a cauldron of boiling crude and mustard gas, I’d vote for the jail cell though (but it would be a non-negotiable condition that the keys have to be thrown away).
*M.Albright and some other Clintonites would be on the list too. Out of respect for the office of POTUS the bosses themmselves should get the molten gold treatment instead of the crude.
I (and several others here) have gone on the record multiple times in the past on that I/we think the same standards should apply to Clinton, in other words: no excuses for either. To go after one but not the other would indeed by a purely partisan way. And a short way up I said that all living presidents (plus their direct accomplices) would have to hang, if the laws got actually applied to them. Not international law but US laws. The former would just mean a rather comfortable jail cell in a civilized country not one of those clunky (but ‘clean’) ‘go to hell’ mechanisms’ the US is so fond of. Despite me entertaining fantasies of Rummy, Cheney, Yoo & Co* going to hell on a waterboard via a cauldron of boiling crude and mustard gas, I’d vote for the jail cell though (but it would be a non-negotiable condition that the keys have to be thrown away).
*M.Albright and some other Clintonites would be on the list too. Out of respect for the office of POTUS the bosses themmselves should get the molten gold treatment instead of the crude.
One other thought worth noting, Marty. Nigel did not assert that other places were shining cities on hills. He asserted they respected rule of law more than the US. That doesn’t mean that he was asserting that they were a bright exemplar to be held up as a model to all; i.e., a shining city on a hill. My inaccurate assertion that you asserted the US is such is based on your claims that the US should not admit wrongdoing because it would be viewed poorly overseas coupled with your open contempt for the notion that other nations can conceivably adhere to the rule of law more than the US. So yes, it was inference on my part, but it was not baseless inference.
Also, if you want to come back to this, sure, okay. Your condescending dismissal of the possibility of other nations being more adherent to the rule of law than the US is laughable on the surface, but it becomes a farce when the defense you present for it is an assertion that governments invariably pick and choose what laws will be enforced and who will be targeted in doing so, and then proceed to cite strictly American examples of such. You presented no basis for your scornful, haughty mockery of Nigel beyond barely-veiled nationalism… which is wholly in keeping with American Exceptionalism, and hence my invocation of the City on the Hill myth.
there is nothing here except some more examples of things we already knew happened.
To chose one example, lying in testimony to Congress is nothing? I’ll remember that, Marty. To chose another, government incompetence and conflict of interest is nothing? I’ll remember that too.
Although I’m always pleased to see another incarnation of the cheerful old argument that we knew everything in whatever document has just come to light, so it’s unimportant and should be dismissed out of hand… but how DARE they release that document, given how damaging the information in it is?!?!?!? Nice to see you keeping the classics alive.
But even if there was nothing new beyond detailed examples of things we already knew, it’s being pushed out officially, and is derived from the documentation of the responsible agency. That’s something new. And the level of detail will shock the sensibilities of some who otherwise dismissed it, so it’s more likely to cause meaningful change rising above your political theater of “proper chastisement”.
—
I do agree with wj that there’s little reason for us to continue this conversation, though. You’ve proudly flaunted your authoritarian sympathies alongside your anti-democratic contempt for the American citizenry at large, openness in government, and the rule of law. And I’m sure I’ve flaunted some beliefs that you find to be comparably damning ideological sins. And you think there’s nothing to see here, and I think there’s plenty. So yeah, I think there’s no point in keeping on barring some change in the line one of us is spouting.
One other thought worth noting, Marty. Nigel did not assert that other places were shining cities on hills. He asserted they respected rule of law more than the US. That doesn’t mean that he was asserting that they were a bright exemplar to be held up as a model to all; i.e., a shining city on a hill. My inaccurate assertion that you asserted the US is such is based on your claims that the US should not admit wrongdoing because it would be viewed poorly overseas coupled with your open contempt for the notion that other nations can conceivably adhere to the rule of law more than the US. So yes, it was inference on my part, but it was not baseless inference.
Also, if you want to come back to this, sure, okay. Your condescending dismissal of the possibility of other nations being more adherent to the rule of law than the US is laughable on the surface, but it becomes a farce when the defense you present for it is an assertion that governments invariably pick and choose what laws will be enforced and who will be targeted in doing so, and then proceed to cite strictly American examples of such. You presented no basis for your scornful, haughty mockery of Nigel beyond barely-veiled nationalism… which is wholly in keeping with American Exceptionalism, and hence my invocation of the City on the Hill myth.
there is nothing here except some more examples of things we already knew happened.
To chose one example, lying in testimony to Congress is nothing? I’ll remember that, Marty. To chose another, government incompetence and conflict of interest is nothing? I’ll remember that too.
Although I’m always pleased to see another incarnation of the cheerful old argument that we knew everything in whatever document has just come to light, so it’s unimportant and should be dismissed out of hand… but how DARE they release that document, given how damaging the information in it is?!?!?!? Nice to see you keeping the classics alive.
But even if there was nothing new beyond detailed examples of things we already knew, it’s being pushed out officially, and is derived from the documentation of the responsible agency. That’s something new. And the level of detail will shock the sensibilities of some who otherwise dismissed it, so it’s more likely to cause meaningful change rising above your political theater of “proper chastisement”.
—
I do agree with wj that there’s little reason for us to continue this conversation, though. You’ve proudly flaunted your authoritarian sympathies alongside your anti-democratic contempt for the American citizenry at large, openness in government, and the rule of law. And I’m sure I’ve flaunted some beliefs that you find to be comparably damning ideological sins. And you think there’s nothing to see here, and I think there’s plenty. So yeah, I think there’s no point in keeping on barring some change in the line one of us is spouting.
One other thought worth noting, Marty. Nigel did not assert that other places were shining cities on hills. He asserted they respected rule of law more than the US. That doesn’t mean that he was asserting that they were a bright exemplar to be held up as a model to all; i.e., a shining city on a hill. My inaccurate assertion that you asserted the US is such is based on your claims that the US should not admit wrongdoing because it would be viewed poorly overseas coupled with your open contempt for the notion that other nations can conceivably adhere to the rule of law more than the US. So yes, it was inference on my part, but it was not baseless inference.
Also, if you want to come back to this, sure, okay. Your condescending dismissal of the possibility of other nations being more adherent to the rule of law than the US is laughable on the surface, but it becomes a farce when the defense you present for it is an assertion that governments invariably pick and choose what laws will be enforced and who will be targeted in doing so, and then proceed to cite strictly American examples of such. You presented no basis for your scornful, haughty mockery of Nigel beyond barely-veiled nationalism… which is wholly in keeping with American Exceptionalism, and hence my invocation of the City on the Hill myth.
there is nothing here except some more examples of things we already knew happened.
To chose one example, lying in testimony to Congress is nothing? I’ll remember that, Marty. To chose another, government incompetence and conflict of interest is nothing? I’ll remember that too.
Although I’m always pleased to see another incarnation of the cheerful old argument that we knew everything in whatever document has just come to light, so it’s unimportant and should be dismissed out of hand… but how DARE they release that document, given how damaging the information in it is?!?!?!? Nice to see you keeping the classics alive.
But even if there was nothing new beyond detailed examples of things we already knew, it’s being pushed out officially, and is derived from the documentation of the responsible agency. That’s something new. And the level of detail will shock the sensibilities of some who otherwise dismissed it, so it’s more likely to cause meaningful change rising above your political theater of “proper chastisement”.
—
I do agree with wj that there’s little reason for us to continue this conversation, though. You’ve proudly flaunted your authoritarian sympathies alongside your anti-democratic contempt for the American citizenry at large, openness in government, and the rule of law. And I’m sure I’ve flaunted some beliefs that you find to be comparably damning ideological sins. And you think there’s nothing to see here, and I think there’s plenty. So yeah, I think there’s no point in keeping on barring some change in the line one of us is spouting.
perjury? bygones!
perjury? bygones!
perjury? bygones!
As a, probably final, note. I have no authoritarian tendencies, I have great respect for the American citizenry, most of them figured all this out years ago. The Dems ran the table on the citizens understanding of this issue 6 years ago.
Openness in government is great, but even Obama learned it wasn’t good or necessary to be completely open.
The rule of law is discussed dozens of times in this document. There was incredible, I might use the word extraordinary, effort to remain just inside it or, yes, to get around it without breaking it.. Sometimes they failed, the American people found out and within our system made sure the change was implemented. To some extent that is the way it is supposed to work.
Finally, if I thought anyone really believed this was a nonpartisan discussion, I might even try to walk a tighter rope.
But it isn’t, its a Bush bashing rerun. In fact, more of that because the Dems have had a tough year and their proponents have needed something to get on their soapbox about.Which is completely useless and political.
As a, probably final, note. I have no authoritarian tendencies, I have great respect for the American citizenry, most of them figured all this out years ago. The Dems ran the table on the citizens understanding of this issue 6 years ago.
Openness in government is great, but even Obama learned it wasn’t good or necessary to be completely open.
The rule of law is discussed dozens of times in this document. There was incredible, I might use the word extraordinary, effort to remain just inside it or, yes, to get around it without breaking it.. Sometimes they failed, the American people found out and within our system made sure the change was implemented. To some extent that is the way it is supposed to work.
Finally, if I thought anyone really believed this was a nonpartisan discussion, I might even try to walk a tighter rope.
But it isn’t, its a Bush bashing rerun. In fact, more of that because the Dems have had a tough year and their proponents have needed something to get on their soapbox about.Which is completely useless and political.
As a, probably final, note. I have no authoritarian tendencies, I have great respect for the American citizenry, most of them figured all this out years ago. The Dems ran the table on the citizens understanding of this issue 6 years ago.
Openness in government is great, but even Obama learned it wasn’t good or necessary to be completely open.
The rule of law is discussed dozens of times in this document. There was incredible, I might use the word extraordinary, effort to remain just inside it or, yes, to get around it without breaking it.. Sometimes they failed, the American people found out and within our system made sure the change was implemented. To some extent that is the way it is supposed to work.
Finally, if I thought anyone really believed this was a nonpartisan discussion, I might even try to walk a tighter rope.
But it isn’t, its a Bush bashing rerun. In fact, more of that because the Dems have had a tough year and their proponents have needed something to get on their soapbox about.Which is completely useless and political.
its a Bush bashing rerun
the only reason it’s a rerun of any kind is because there have been precious few consequences any of the other times it’s come up. it remains unresolved.
its a Bush bashing rerun
the only reason it’s a rerun of any kind is because there have been precious few consequences any of the other times it’s come up. it remains unresolved.
its a Bush bashing rerun
the only reason it’s a rerun of any kind is because there have been precious few consequences any of the other times it’s come up. it remains unresolved.
Marty: “The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.”
Iraq was – not an example of a bloated government.
Trying to do even a little to restrain the US government – example of a bloated government.
Marty: “The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.”
Iraq was – not an example of a bloated government.
Trying to do even a little to restrain the US government – example of a bloated government.
Marty: “The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.”
Iraq was – not an example of a bloated government.
Trying to do even a little to restrain the US government – example of a bloated government.
Marty (about his comments here): I wont be embarrassed.
Not until a Senate committee releases a report on them, at any rate.
–TP
Marty (about his comments here): I wont be embarrassed.
Not until a Senate committee releases a report on them, at any rate.
–TP
Marty (about his comments here): I wont be embarrassed.
Not until a Senate committee releases a report on them, at any rate.
–TP
“I (and several others here) have gone on the record multiple times in the past on that I/we think the same standards should apply to Clinton, in other words: no excuses for either. ”
And then go back to raving about Cheney.
Metapoint here: If you want to stop rape, complain about rape, not men raping women. If you want to stop cops shooting innocent people, complain about cops shooting innocent people, not white cops shooting innocent black people.
And if you want to stop war crimes by the government, complain about war crimes by the government, not war crimes by Republican Presidents. If Cheney is going before the Hague, he better have bipartisan company.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
“I (and several others here) have gone on the record multiple times in the past on that I/we think the same standards should apply to Clinton, in other words: no excuses for either. ”
And then go back to raving about Cheney.
Metapoint here: If you want to stop rape, complain about rape, not men raping women. If you want to stop cops shooting innocent people, complain about cops shooting innocent people, not white cops shooting innocent black people.
And if you want to stop war crimes by the government, complain about war crimes by the government, not war crimes by Republican Presidents. If Cheney is going before the Hague, he better have bipartisan company.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
“I (and several others here) have gone on the record multiple times in the past on that I/we think the same standards should apply to Clinton, in other words: no excuses for either. ”
And then go back to raving about Cheney.
Metapoint here: If you want to stop rape, complain about rape, not men raping women. If you want to stop cops shooting innocent people, complain about cops shooting innocent people, not white cops shooting innocent black people.
And if you want to stop war crimes by the government, complain about war crimes by the government, not war crimes by Republican Presidents. If Cheney is going before the Hague, he better have bipartisan company.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
“The report is nothing that we did not already know in 2004-2006” (paraphrasing here).
Well, no. It fleshes out in more detail what some knew or suspected back then, lending veracity and detail to what was “known”, and maybe even pushing a few fence sitting denialists into finally admitting that yes, we did engage in torture. In itself, I should think this to be important.
“The release of the report was a political act.”
Basically you are arguing that compiling the report itself was a political act, because the timing of the release is really of no political consequence. Six months from now it will be but a distant memory for most.
As for starting to compile the report in the first place…it could be seen as a political act. So what? We elect politicians to engage in political acts, do we not?
“Bush bashing.”
I can think of few presidents who deserve a sound bashing more. His presidency was a total disaster.
“The report is nothing that we did not already know in 2004-2006” (paraphrasing here).
Well, no. It fleshes out in more detail what some knew or suspected back then, lending veracity and detail to what was “known”, and maybe even pushing a few fence sitting denialists into finally admitting that yes, we did engage in torture. In itself, I should think this to be important.
“The release of the report was a political act.”
Basically you are arguing that compiling the report itself was a political act, because the timing of the release is really of no political consequence. Six months from now it will be but a distant memory for most.
As for starting to compile the report in the first place…it could be seen as a political act. So what? We elect politicians to engage in political acts, do we not?
“Bush bashing.”
I can think of few presidents who deserve a sound bashing more. His presidency was a total disaster.
“The report is nothing that we did not already know in 2004-2006” (paraphrasing here).
Well, no. It fleshes out in more detail what some knew or suspected back then, lending veracity and detail to what was “known”, and maybe even pushing a few fence sitting denialists into finally admitting that yes, we did engage in torture. In itself, I should think this to be important.
“The release of the report was a political act.”
Basically you are arguing that compiling the report itself was a political act, because the timing of the release is really of no political consequence. Six months from now it will be but a distant memory for most.
As for starting to compile the report in the first place…it could be seen as a political act. So what? We elect politicians to engage in political acts, do we not?
“Bush bashing.”
I can think of few presidents who deserve a sound bashing more. His presidency was a total disaster.
A smile at the end if the day. I needed that today. Thanks Tony
A smile at the end if the day. I needed that today. Thanks Tony
A smile at the end if the day. I needed that today. Thanks Tony
Mark Udall calls CIA director John Brennan – an Obama appointee – a liar:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YNvW9p3eaVY
The idea that this is a partisan political argument seems to me a convenient way to avoid engaging with the issue.
I’m sure that its an idea genuinely believed by some. That does not make it any less absurd.
Mark Udall calls CIA director John Brennan – an Obama appointee – a liar:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YNvW9p3eaVY
The idea that this is a partisan political argument seems to me a convenient way to avoid engaging with the issue.
I’m sure that its an idea genuinely believed by some. That does not make it any less absurd.
Mark Udall calls CIA director John Brennan – an Obama appointee – a liar:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YNvW9p3eaVY
The idea that this is a partisan political argument seems to me a convenient way to avoid engaging with the issue.
I’m sure that its an idea genuinely believed by some. That does not make it any less absurd.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
I want to complain about death and taxes. So where do I start? With Bill Clinton?
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
I want to complain about death and taxes. So where do I start? With Bill Clinton?
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
I want to complain about death and taxes. So where do I start? With Bill Clinton?
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
so, as soon as we elect a President who belongs to every (or no?) party we can complain about the President?
how convenient!
this is one of those things that deserves to be bookmarked.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
so, as soon as we elect a President who belongs to every (or no?) party we can complain about the President?
how convenient!
this is one of those things that deserves to be bookmarked.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
so, as soon as we elect a President who belongs to every (or no?) party we can complain about the President?
how convenient!
this is one of those things that deserves to be bookmarked.
I would like to see the Venn diagram of who or what rapes who or what, especially the “partisan subset”. Could be arousing.
I would like to see the Venn diagram of who or what rapes who or what, especially the “partisan subset”. Could be arousing.
I would like to see the Venn diagram of who or what rapes who or what, especially the “partisan subset”. Could be arousing.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
Yes, obviously, if you want to talk about racism, you have to talk about all races. This gets us the “White people are a race, too!” argumentation.
Roll on, clown show, roll on.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
Yes, obviously, if you want to talk about racism, you have to talk about all races. This gets us the “White people are a race, too!” argumentation.
Roll on, clown show, roll on.
If you want a problem solved, don’t complain about a subset of it, particularly a partisan subset of it.
Yes, obviously, if you want to talk about racism, you have to talk about all races. This gets us the “White people are a race, too!” argumentation.
Roll on, clown show, roll on.
Yes, It’s a scandal that no one is talking about Maori women raped by Inuits (or was it the other way around?), so how do we dare discuss rape problems in India (or in US prisons just to be closer to home)?
How could we bash Cheney (unapologetic about torture and Iraq) instead of (Bill) Clinton (who wisely seems to prefer to keep his mouth shut on the topic)?
Put them all in the docks, I say, and bash them in parallel each according to his/her amount of guilt and brazenness. Clinton would not make the top 10 and Bush the Lesser just barely (the top spots would go to Cheney, Rummy, Yoo and some of their direct associates). We can discuss Hillary once (or if) she makes the WH again. She did not have that many chances to acquire a criminal record while being SoSt (or did I miss something major? No, Mr. Issa, Bang Hazy does not count, read your own party’s report on that.).
Yes, It’s a scandal that no one is talking about Maori women raped by Inuits (or was it the other way around?), so how do we dare discuss rape problems in India (or in US prisons just to be closer to home)?
How could we bash Cheney (unapologetic about torture and Iraq) instead of (Bill) Clinton (who wisely seems to prefer to keep his mouth shut on the topic)?
Put them all in the docks, I say, and bash them in parallel each according to his/her amount of guilt and brazenness. Clinton would not make the top 10 and Bush the Lesser just barely (the top spots would go to Cheney, Rummy, Yoo and some of their direct associates). We can discuss Hillary once (or if) she makes the WH again. She did not have that many chances to acquire a criminal record while being SoSt (or did I miss something major? No, Mr. Issa, Bang Hazy does not count, read your own party’s report on that.).
Yes, It’s a scandal that no one is talking about Maori women raped by Inuits (or was it the other way around?), so how do we dare discuss rape problems in India (or in US prisons just to be closer to home)?
How could we bash Cheney (unapologetic about torture and Iraq) instead of (Bill) Clinton (who wisely seems to prefer to keep his mouth shut on the topic)?
Put them all in the docks, I say, and bash them in parallel each according to his/her amount of guilt and brazenness. Clinton would not make the top 10 and Bush the Lesser just barely (the top spots would go to Cheney, Rummy, Yoo and some of their direct associates). We can discuss Hillary once (or if) she makes the WH again. She did not have that many chances to acquire a criminal record while being SoSt (or did I miss something major? No, Mr. Issa, Bang Hazy does not count, read your own party’s report on that.).
Clinton would not make the top 10 and Bush the Lesser just barely (the top spots would go to Cheney, Rummy, Yoo and some of their direct associates)
According to the morning’s Times, Rumsfeld – and Colin Powell – were kept out of the loop on the CIA torture policy discussion.
Clinton would not make the top 10 and Bush the Lesser just barely (the top spots would go to Cheney, Rummy, Yoo and some of their direct associates)
According to the morning’s Times, Rumsfeld – and Colin Powell – were kept out of the loop on the CIA torture policy discussion.
Clinton would not make the top 10 and Bush the Lesser just barely (the top spots would go to Cheney, Rummy, Yoo and some of their direct associates)
According to the morning’s Times, Rumsfeld – and Colin Powell – were kept out of the loop on the CIA torture policy discussion.
L.J.: “This gets us the “White people are a race, too!” argumentation.”
Actually, to the extent race is real, they are. Just because you don’t like the implications of, say, blacks being able to be racist, and whites being able to be victims of racism, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
But, that’s the point: If you want to solve a problem, you try to bring in everybody who suffers from it. If you just want to use a problem for some other purpose, you’ll focus on just the part of it you find useful.
There’s a LOT of focus here on just the parts of problems that you find useful. I suspect because you’re more interested in their utility than solving them.
L.J.: “This gets us the “White people are a race, too!” argumentation.”
Actually, to the extent race is real, they are. Just because you don’t like the implications of, say, blacks being able to be racist, and whites being able to be victims of racism, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
But, that’s the point: If you want to solve a problem, you try to bring in everybody who suffers from it. If you just want to use a problem for some other purpose, you’ll focus on just the part of it you find useful.
There’s a LOT of focus here on just the parts of problems that you find useful. I suspect because you’re more interested in their utility than solving them.
L.J.: “This gets us the “White people are a race, too!” argumentation.”
Actually, to the extent race is real, they are. Just because you don’t like the implications of, say, blacks being able to be racist, and whites being able to be victims of racism, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
But, that’s the point: If you want to solve a problem, you try to bring in everybody who suffers from it. If you just want to use a problem for some other purpose, you’ll focus on just the part of it you find useful.
There’s a LOT of focus here on just the parts of problems that you find useful. I suspect because you’re more interested in their utility than solving them.
John Wilkes Booth thanks you, suh!
John Wilkes Booth thanks you, suh!
John Wilkes Booth thanks you, suh!
http://crookedtimber.org/2014/12/09/cheney-and-manning-a-modest-proposal-repost/
http://crookedtimber.org/2014/12/09/cheney-and-manning-a-modest-proposal-repost/
http://crookedtimber.org/2014/12/09/cheney-and-manning-a-modest-proposal-repost/
Actually, to the extent race is real, they are. Just because you don’t like the implications of, say, blacks being able to be racist, and whites being able to be victims of racism, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Way to miss the point. It doesn’t matter whether or not white is a race, and no one is saying that blacks can’t be racists or that whites can’t be the victims of racism.
The point is that that American experience is one of whites dominating and subjugating blacks far, far, far, far, far more than the other way around. It’s not an abstract conceptualization of how racism might work that’s at issue. It’s the reality of race as it has happened and happens to be.
Gary Farber was probably the best at explaining to people that the experiences of white people and black people weren’t simply mirror images of each other. Too bad it still didn’t sink in.
Actually, to the extent race is real, they are. Just because you don’t like the implications of, say, blacks being able to be racist, and whites being able to be victims of racism, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Way to miss the point. It doesn’t matter whether or not white is a race, and no one is saying that blacks can’t be racists or that whites can’t be the victims of racism.
The point is that that American experience is one of whites dominating and subjugating blacks far, far, far, far, far more than the other way around. It’s not an abstract conceptualization of how racism might work that’s at issue. It’s the reality of race as it has happened and happens to be.
Gary Farber was probably the best at explaining to people that the experiences of white people and black people weren’t simply mirror images of each other. Too bad it still didn’t sink in.
Actually, to the extent race is real, they are. Just because you don’t like the implications of, say, blacks being able to be racist, and whites being able to be victims of racism, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Way to miss the point. It doesn’t matter whether or not white is a race, and no one is saying that blacks can’t be racists or that whites can’t be the victims of racism.
The point is that that American experience is one of whites dominating and subjugating blacks far, far, far, far, far more than the other way around. It’s not an abstract conceptualization of how racism might work that’s at issue. It’s the reality of race as it has happened and happens to be.
Gary Farber was probably the best at explaining to people that the experiences of white people and black people weren’t simply mirror images of each other. Too bad it still didn’t sink in.
According to the morning’s Times, Rumsfeld – and Colin Powell – were kept out of the loop on the CIA torture policy discussion.
maybe they knew nothing about the CIA, because they weren’t in charge of it. but Rumsfeld certainly knew about the military’s torture policy.
According to the morning’s Times, Rumsfeld – and Colin Powell – were kept out of the loop on the CIA torture policy discussion.
maybe they knew nothing about the CIA, because they weren’t in charge of it. but Rumsfeld certainly knew about the military’s torture policy.
According to the morning’s Times, Rumsfeld – and Colin Powell – were kept out of the loop on the CIA torture policy discussion.
maybe they knew nothing about the CIA, because they weren’t in charge of it. but Rumsfeld certainly knew about the military’s torture policy.
hilarious…
Cheney says that the CIA report is a lie because Bush certainly knew about it before 2006.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dick-cheney-george-w-bush-knew-about-torture-program
like a bag of rats
hilarious…
Cheney says that the CIA report is a lie because Bush certainly knew about it before 2006.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dick-cheney-george-w-bush-knew-about-torture-program
like a bag of rats
hilarious…
Cheney says that the CIA report is a lie because Bush certainly knew about it before 2006.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dick-cheney-george-w-bush-knew-about-torture-program
like a bag of rats
I’m not defending Rumsfeld for a moment.
He deserves his own day in court, as you say – just not on this particular issue.
As far as the “we have to do what we have to do to keep the US safe” rationalisation is concerned, this article makes instructive reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story
Baghdadi also seemed to have a way with his captors. According to Abu Ahmed, and two other men who were jailed at Bucca in 2004, the Americans saw him as a fixer who could solve fractious disputes between competing factions and keep the camp quiet.
“But as time went on, every time there was a problem in the camp, he was at the centre of it,” Abu Ahmed recalled. “He wanted to be the head of the prison – and when I look back now, he was using a policy of conquer and divide to get what he wanted, which was status. And it worked.” By December 2004, Baghdadi was deemed by his jailers to pose no further risk and his release was authorised.
“He was respected very much by the US army,” Abu Ahmed said. “If he wanted to visit people in another camp he could, but we couldn’t. And all the while, a new strategy, which he was leading, was rising under their noses, and that was to build the Islamic State. If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.”
As Isis has rampaged through the region, it has been led by men who spent time in US detention centres during the American occupation of Iraq – in addition to Bucca, the US also ran Camp Cropper, near Baghdad airport, and, for an ill-fated 18 months early in the war, Abu Ghraib prison on the capital’s western outskirts. Many of those released from these prisons – and indeed, several senior American officers who ran detention operations – have admitted that the prisons had an incendiary effect on the insurgency…
I’m not defending Rumsfeld for a moment.
He deserves his own day in court, as you say – just not on this particular issue.
As far as the “we have to do what we have to do to keep the US safe” rationalisation is concerned, this article makes instructive reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story
Baghdadi also seemed to have a way with his captors. According to Abu Ahmed, and two other men who were jailed at Bucca in 2004, the Americans saw him as a fixer who could solve fractious disputes between competing factions and keep the camp quiet.
“But as time went on, every time there was a problem in the camp, he was at the centre of it,” Abu Ahmed recalled. “He wanted to be the head of the prison – and when I look back now, he was using a policy of conquer and divide to get what he wanted, which was status. And it worked.” By December 2004, Baghdadi was deemed by his jailers to pose no further risk and his release was authorised.
“He was respected very much by the US army,” Abu Ahmed said. “If he wanted to visit people in another camp he could, but we couldn’t. And all the while, a new strategy, which he was leading, was rising under their noses, and that was to build the Islamic State. If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.”
As Isis has rampaged through the region, it has been led by men who spent time in US detention centres during the American occupation of Iraq – in addition to Bucca, the US also ran Camp Cropper, near Baghdad airport, and, for an ill-fated 18 months early in the war, Abu Ghraib prison on the capital’s western outskirts. Many of those released from these prisons – and indeed, several senior American officers who ran detention operations – have admitted that the prisons had an incendiary effect on the insurgency…
I’m not defending Rumsfeld for a moment.
He deserves his own day in court, as you say – just not on this particular issue.
As far as the “we have to do what we have to do to keep the US safe” rationalisation is concerned, this article makes instructive reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/11/-sp-isis-the-inside-story
Baghdadi also seemed to have a way with his captors. According to Abu Ahmed, and two other men who were jailed at Bucca in 2004, the Americans saw him as a fixer who could solve fractious disputes between competing factions and keep the camp quiet.
“But as time went on, every time there was a problem in the camp, he was at the centre of it,” Abu Ahmed recalled. “He wanted to be the head of the prison – and when I look back now, he was using a policy of conquer and divide to get what he wanted, which was status. And it worked.” By December 2004, Baghdadi was deemed by his jailers to pose no further risk and his release was authorised.
“He was respected very much by the US army,” Abu Ahmed said. “If he wanted to visit people in another camp he could, but we couldn’t. And all the while, a new strategy, which he was leading, was rising under their noses, and that was to build the Islamic State. If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now. Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.”
As Isis has rampaged through the region, it has been led by men who spent time in US detention centres during the American occupation of Iraq – in addition to Bucca, the US also ran Camp Cropper, near Baghdad airport, and, for an ill-fated 18 months early in the war, Abu Ghraib prison on the capital’s western outskirts. Many of those released from these prisons – and indeed, several senior American officers who ran detention operations – have admitted that the prisons had an incendiary effect on the insurgency…
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now.
And just in case anyone thinks I’m being partisan, I believe similar condemnation should be piled on the Obama drone program:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-us-stopped-torturing-terror-suspectsand-started-droning-them/383590/
But despite the vast disparity in the numbers of people abused through the CIA’s detention program versus killed by drones, there has been no official accounting of the latter program on par with the torture report released this week. “[T]hose normally interested in upholding human rights ideals and promoting transparency (generally Democrats) simply will not investigate their own,” Zenko explained. “And as I’ve pointed out in every public opinion poll … Americans are more comfortable killing suspected terrorists than torturing them.”
In his statement on the report’s release, Obama managed to find a silver lining, contending that “one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better.” But that willingness may only go so far. As Zenko wrote in a blog post today, if 119 CIA detainees “deserve a public accounting, then don’t the 3,500 who have been killed deserve this as well?
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now.
And just in case anyone thinks I’m being partisan, I believe similar condemnation should be piled on the Obama drone program:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-us-stopped-torturing-terror-suspectsand-started-droning-them/383590/
But despite the vast disparity in the numbers of people abused through the CIA’s detention program versus killed by drones, there has been no official accounting of the latter program on par with the torture report released this week. “[T]hose normally interested in upholding human rights ideals and promoting transparency (generally Democrats) simply will not investigate their own,” Zenko explained. “And as I’ve pointed out in every public opinion poll … Americans are more comfortable killing suspected terrorists than torturing them.”
In his statement on the report’s release, Obama managed to find a silver lining, contending that “one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better.” But that willingness may only go so far. As Zenko wrote in a blog post today, if 119 CIA detainees “deserve a public accounting, then don’t the 3,500 who have been killed deserve this as well?
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now.
And just in case anyone thinks I’m being partisan, I believe similar condemnation should be piled on the Obama drone program:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-us-stopped-torturing-terror-suspectsand-started-droning-them/383590/
But despite the vast disparity in the numbers of people abused through the CIA’s detention program versus killed by drones, there has been no official accounting of the latter program on par with the torture report released this week. “[T]hose normally interested in upholding human rights ideals and promoting transparency (generally Democrats) simply will not investigate their own,” Zenko explained. “And as I’ve pointed out in every public opinion poll … Americans are more comfortable killing suspected terrorists than torturing them.”
In his statement on the report’s release, Obama managed to find a silver lining, contending that “one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better.” But that willingness may only go so far. As Zenko wrote in a blog post today, if 119 CIA detainees “deserve a public accounting, then don’t the 3,500 who have been killed deserve this as well?
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now
That’s a bold statement. Not sure that al Qaeda planned to hang out in caves in Afghanistan forever. The game of what if is pretty hard to win for lack of proof.
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now
That’s a bold statement. Not sure that al Qaeda planned to hang out in caves in Afghanistan forever. The game of what if is pretty hard to win for lack of proof.
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now
That’s a bold statement. Not sure that al Qaeda planned to hang out in caves in Afghanistan forever. The game of what if is pretty hard to win for lack of proof.
Nigel, I think you are an anti-American partisan, and apoarent friend of ISIS. So you just complain about the US whenever possible. So, IMO, anything you say needs to be filtered through that lens.
Nigel, I think you are an anti-American partisan, and apoarent friend of ISIS. So you just complain about the US whenever possible. So, IMO, anything you say needs to be filtered through that lens.
Nigel, I think you are an anti-American partisan, and apoarent friend of ISIS. So you just complain about the US whenever possible. So, IMO, anything you say needs to be filtered through that lens.
Nigel, I think you are an anti-American partisan, and apoarent friend of ISIS. So you just complain about the US whenever possible. So, IMO, anything you say needs to be filtered through that lens.
I believe that’s called ad hominem ?
So, IMO, pretty feeble.
Nigel, I think you are an anti-American partisan, and apoarent friend of ISIS. So you just complain about the US whenever possible. So, IMO, anything you say needs to be filtered through that lens.
I believe that’s called ad hominem ?
So, IMO, pretty feeble.
Nigel, I think you are an anti-American partisan, and apoarent friend of ISIS. So you just complain about the US whenever possible. So, IMO, anything you say needs to be filtered through that lens.
I believe that’s called ad hominem ?
So, IMO, pretty feeble.
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now
That’s a bold statement. Not sure that al Qaeda planned to hang out in caves in Afghanistan forever. The game of what if is pretty hard to win for lack of proof.
Not my statement. And it’s about IS, not al Qaeda, which is not the same thing at all.
Counterfactuals are indeed problematic, but when someone who was there claims – “Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.” – it is at least worth considering, along with the view of several “senior American officers who ran detention operations”.
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now
That’s a bold statement. Not sure that al Qaeda planned to hang out in caves in Afghanistan forever. The game of what if is pretty hard to win for lack of proof.
Not my statement. And it’s about IS, not al Qaeda, which is not the same thing at all.
Counterfactuals are indeed problematic, but when someone who was there claims – “Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.” – it is at least worth considering, along with the view of several “senior American officers who ran detention operations”.
If there was no American prison in Iraq, there would be no IS now
That’s a bold statement. Not sure that al Qaeda planned to hang out in caves in Afghanistan forever. The game of what if is pretty hard to win for lack of proof.
Not my statement. And it’s about IS, not al Qaeda, which is not the same thing at all.
Counterfactuals are indeed problematic, but when someone who was there claims – “Bucca was a factory. It made us all. It built our ideology.” – it is at least worth considering, along with the view of several “senior American officers who ran detention operations”.
Not ad hominem, an observation and response to “just in case anyone thinks I’m partisan”. I truly believe you don’t prefer Republican or Democrat, but it should be noted you are anti US.
Not ad hominem, an observation and response to “just in case anyone thinks I’m partisan”. I truly believe you don’t prefer Republican or Democrat, but it should be noted you are anti US.
Not ad hominem, an observation and response to “just in case anyone thinks I’m partisan”. I truly believe you don’t prefer Republican or Democrat, but it should be noted you are anti US.
“apparent friend of ISIS”
Is that a friendship with benefits?
I think “awesome” is the word you are looking for here, Marty.
Also, “uncomfortable positions”.
Does Nigel have beheading privileges with ISIL, because he may need them by the time this thread reaches exhaustion, which may have been yesterday?
“apparent friend of ISIS”
Is that a friendship with benefits?
I think “awesome” is the word you are looking for here, Marty.
Also, “uncomfortable positions”.
Does Nigel have beheading privileges with ISIL, because he may need them by the time this thread reaches exhaustion, which may have been yesterday?
“apparent friend of ISIS”
Is that a friendship with benefits?
I think “awesome” is the word you are looking for here, Marty.
Also, “uncomfortable positions”.
Does Nigel have beheading privileges with ISIL, because he may need them by the time this thread reaches exhaustion, which may have been yesterday?
OK, I took the trouble to go back through and read everybody’s comments again. Nigel may be a Brit (just guessing), but if he is “anti
American,” Marty, then that label would apply to everybody here except you.
At which point, wouldn’t “anti-Marty,” or at least “anti-Marty’s views”, be a clearer label?
OK, I took the trouble to go back through and read everybody’s comments again. Nigel may be a Brit (just guessing), but if he is “anti
American,” Marty, then that label would apply to everybody here except you.
At which point, wouldn’t “anti-Marty,” or at least “anti-Marty’s views”, be a clearer label?
OK, I took the trouble to go back through and read everybody’s comments again. Nigel may be a Brit (just guessing), but if he is “anti
American,” Marty, then that label would apply to everybody here except you.
At which point, wouldn’t “anti-Marty,” or at least “anti-Marty’s views”, be a clearer label?
I’m pretty sure Nigel hates my guys because I’m American.
I’m pretty sure Nigel hates my guys because I’m American.
I’m pretty sure Nigel hates my guys because I’m American.
yeah, Nigel, don’t you that if you want to stop America from doing bad things, you can’t just complain about America doing bad things, you must complain about every country doing bad things; but you can’t complain about America because that makes you un-American, which makes your concerns invalid anyway. so don’t even bother. it’s all old news anyway.
get back to loving America unconditionally like a conservative does, like (in the words of Al Franken) “like a child loves his mommy and mommy can do no wrong”.
yeah, Nigel, don’t you that if you want to stop America from doing bad things, you can’t just complain about America doing bad things, you must complain about every country doing bad things; but you can’t complain about America because that makes you un-American, which makes your concerns invalid anyway. so don’t even bother. it’s all old news anyway.
get back to loving America unconditionally like a conservative does, like (in the words of Al Franken) “like a child loves his mommy and mommy can do no wrong”.
yeah, Nigel, don’t you that if you want to stop America from doing bad things, you can’t just complain about America doing bad things, you must complain about every country doing bad things; but you can’t complain about America because that makes you un-American, which makes your concerns invalid anyway. so don’t even bother. it’s all old news anyway.
get back to loving America unconditionally like a conservative does, like (in the words of Al Franken) “like a child loves his mommy and mommy can do no wrong”.
Not ad hominem, an observation and response to “just in case anyone thinks I’m partisan”. I truly believe you don’t prefer Republican or Democrat, but it should be noted you are anti US.
Your definition of ad hominem would seem to exclude anything meaningful, then.
One might also observe that you appear to reject any criticism of US government behaviour, both for being partisan, and also for not being partisan, in which case it’s “anti-US”.
Not ad hominem, an observation and response to “just in case anyone thinks I’m partisan”. I truly believe you don’t prefer Republican or Democrat, but it should be noted you are anti US.
Your definition of ad hominem would seem to exclude anything meaningful, then.
One might also observe that you appear to reject any criticism of US government behaviour, both for being partisan, and also for not being partisan, in which case it’s “anti-US”.
Not ad hominem, an observation and response to “just in case anyone thinks I’m partisan”. I truly believe you don’t prefer Republican or Democrat, but it should be noted you are anti US.
Your definition of ad hominem would seem to exclude anything meaningful, then.
One might also observe that you appear to reject any criticism of US government behaviour, both for being partisan, and also for not being partisan, in which case it’s “anti-US”.
apoarent friend of ISIS
Not only is that defamatory, it’s also mis-spelled.
apoarent friend of ISIS
Not only is that defamatory, it’s also mis-spelled.
apoarent friend of ISIS
Not only is that defamatory, it’s also mis-spelled.
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley:
“I hope that the Justice Department might reconsider and appoint a special prosecutor…I think there needs to be some accountability so that this doesn’t happen again.”
It may not actually happen. But at least the politicians are starting to talk about it.
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley:
“I hope that the Justice Department might reconsider and appoint a special prosecutor…I think there needs to be some accountability so that this doesn’t happen again.”
It may not actually happen. But at least the politicians are starting to talk about it.
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley:
“I hope that the Justice Department might reconsider and appoint a special prosecutor…I think there needs to be some accountability so that this doesn’t happen again.”
It may not actually happen. But at least the politicians are starting to talk about it.
One might also observe that you appear to reject any criticism of US government behaviour
A non-partisan standard that applies only to Republican administrations.
But, to be fair, we must consider the entire possible array of the group “partisans” before we tackle this particular problem.
One might also observe that you appear to reject any criticism of US government behaviour
A non-partisan standard that applies only to Republican administrations.
But, to be fair, we must consider the entire possible array of the group “partisans” before we tackle this particular problem.
One might also observe that you appear to reject any criticism of US government behaviour
A non-partisan standard that applies only to Republican administrations.
But, to be fair, we must consider the entire possible array of the group “partisans” before we tackle this particular problem.
And just to keep the exceptionalists happy, here’s some UK blowback.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11288239/Downing-Street-British-spies-discussed-redactions-in-CIA-torture-report.html
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said a full judicial inquiry may be required.
“Once the police investigations are done, once the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee is done, we should keep an open mind if we need to about moving to a full judicial inquiry if there are any outstanding questions,” he told LBC Radio.
“I’m like anybody else: I want the truth out there.” He said he would oppose torture even if it resulted in the discovery of Osama Bin Laden.
Today Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, insisted his brother, the former Foreign Secretary, was innocent of any involvement in torture. However, he refused to offer similar assurances for Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister…
And just to keep the exceptionalists happy, here’s some UK blowback.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11288239/Downing-Street-British-spies-discussed-redactions-in-CIA-torture-report.html
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said a full judicial inquiry may be required.
“Once the police investigations are done, once the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee is done, we should keep an open mind if we need to about moving to a full judicial inquiry if there are any outstanding questions,” he told LBC Radio.
“I’m like anybody else: I want the truth out there.” He said he would oppose torture even if it resulted in the discovery of Osama Bin Laden.
Today Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, insisted his brother, the former Foreign Secretary, was innocent of any involvement in torture. However, he refused to offer similar assurances for Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister…
And just to keep the exceptionalists happy, here’s some UK blowback.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11288239/Downing-Street-British-spies-discussed-redactions-in-CIA-torture-report.html
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, said a full judicial inquiry may be required.
“Once the police investigations are done, once the report from the Intelligence and Security Committee is done, we should keep an open mind if we need to about moving to a full judicial inquiry if there are any outstanding questions,” he told LBC Radio.
“I’m like anybody else: I want the truth out there.” He said he would oppose torture even if it resulted in the discovery of Osama Bin Laden.
Today Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, insisted his brother, the former Foreign Secretary, was innocent of any involvement in torture. However, he refused to offer similar assurances for Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister…
The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited.
Who’s in jail?
Who was even fired?
The CIA is a law unto themselves.
Crap like this has been going on for as long as I’ve been alive. Assassinations, performing drug experiments on people, domestic spying, interfering with constitutionally protected speech and assembly, aiding and abetting criminal activity, conducting rogue foreign policy in defiance of law, training fascistic dictatorial police states in excruciating detail how best to f**** up their people.
Everyone will be all aflutter about some guy having pureed hummus rammed up his butt for a few days, because that is certainly an interesting novelty in the realm of intelligence ops malfeasance, and then it will be forgotten.
A handful of people who have, for their sins, made it their life’s work to try to do something about this crap will continue to beat their heads against the wall. They may, perhaps, move the imponderable freaking boulder of intelligence community reform one or two inches in a desirable direction.
In the meantime, the intel community will find 1,000 ways to work around whatever reforms emerge from the latest round of revelations.
The CIA and related organizations are out of fucking control. Period.
“Proper chastistment” would mean that we would jail the principals involved in this, including those folks in the civilian leadership who participated in the planning and execution of the torture regime. That would include he lawyers in the OLC who authored the opinions providing legal cover, and the folks in the executive who approved the regime based on those opinions, among whom would almost certainly appear Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
We would make an open disclosure of how the program came to be, and at a minimum fire anybody involved.
Some folks might be surrendered to international courts, for violations of international law and laws of war.
None – not a single one – of those things will be done. A couple of higher-ups will probably be moved out the CIA and will then either move to some other position of high responsibility in the government, or else will find a position paying 7 or 8 figures with some security consultancy.
9/11 was, among other things, a test of our national character and values. What our response has demonstrated more than anything else is our utterly craven willingness to throw any semblance of regard for basic human rights out the window, with both hands, if somebody on the TV told us it was necessary to do so to prevent Anything Like That From Ever Happening Again.
We found a couple of shitty little countries to throw against the wall, we decided we needed to hoover up every electronic point of contact made by anybody in this country to anybody else in the entire freaking world just in case they might be Sekrit Terrorist, we grabbed anybody we could get our hands on who had a long beard and a rag around their head and threw them into dog cages in an island paradise conveniently outside the scope of US courts, and we killed or reduced to freaking psychic zombiehood some dozens or hundreds of people to Make Them Talk, even if they had nothing to say. Even if they were just some guy in the wrong place at the wrong time who got sold to us for a couple hundred bucks. Even if they were demonstrable mental incompetents and, basically, nuts.
This country has utterly lost the plot. We have no idea what we stand for, or what our purpose is in the world, beyond making huge freaking piles of money for a handful of people, and bombing the living shit out of anyone in the world that we think might be looking at us sideways.
We’ve become a cowardly and corrupt people, lazy, self-entitled, arrogant, and terrified of losing any aspect of our privilege or position at the very top of the food chain. It appears to be baked into our national character, I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
If we think that there will be no consequences flowing back to us from all of the people we’ve terrorized, abused, mutilated, and destroyed – that we are, somehow, beyond it all and unaccountable for how we behave toward others – we are wrong.
The disclosures we see, let alone what we don’t and won’t be allowed to see, are real Nazi-level bullshit. I don’t see that we have the stones to deal with it candidly and forthrightly, so it will not be reformed, removed, or otherwise dealt with in anything like an effective manner.
In two weeks, nobody outside of some cranky bloggers will give a crap.
The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited.
Who’s in jail?
Who was even fired?
The CIA is a law unto themselves.
Crap like this has been going on for as long as I’ve been alive. Assassinations, performing drug experiments on people, domestic spying, interfering with constitutionally protected speech and assembly, aiding and abetting criminal activity, conducting rogue foreign policy in defiance of law, training fascistic dictatorial police states in excruciating detail how best to f**** up their people.
Everyone will be all aflutter about some guy having pureed hummus rammed up his butt for a few days, because that is certainly an interesting novelty in the realm of intelligence ops malfeasance, and then it will be forgotten.
A handful of people who have, for their sins, made it their life’s work to try to do something about this crap will continue to beat their heads against the wall. They may, perhaps, move the imponderable freaking boulder of intelligence community reform one or two inches in a desirable direction.
In the meantime, the intel community will find 1,000 ways to work around whatever reforms emerge from the latest round of revelations.
The CIA and related organizations are out of fucking control. Period.
“Proper chastistment” would mean that we would jail the principals involved in this, including those folks in the civilian leadership who participated in the planning and execution of the torture regime. That would include he lawyers in the OLC who authored the opinions providing legal cover, and the folks in the executive who approved the regime based on those opinions, among whom would almost certainly appear Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
We would make an open disclosure of how the program came to be, and at a minimum fire anybody involved.
Some folks might be surrendered to international courts, for violations of international law and laws of war.
None – not a single one – of those things will be done. A couple of higher-ups will probably be moved out the CIA and will then either move to some other position of high responsibility in the government, or else will find a position paying 7 or 8 figures with some security consultancy.
9/11 was, among other things, a test of our national character and values. What our response has demonstrated more than anything else is our utterly craven willingness to throw any semblance of regard for basic human rights out the window, with both hands, if somebody on the TV told us it was necessary to do so to prevent Anything Like That From Ever Happening Again.
We found a couple of shitty little countries to throw against the wall, we decided we needed to hoover up every electronic point of contact made by anybody in this country to anybody else in the entire freaking world just in case they might be Sekrit Terrorist, we grabbed anybody we could get our hands on who had a long beard and a rag around their head and threw them into dog cages in an island paradise conveniently outside the scope of US courts, and we killed or reduced to freaking psychic zombiehood some dozens or hundreds of people to Make Them Talk, even if they had nothing to say. Even if they were just some guy in the wrong place at the wrong time who got sold to us for a couple hundred bucks. Even if they were demonstrable mental incompetents and, basically, nuts.
This country has utterly lost the plot. We have no idea what we stand for, or what our purpose is in the world, beyond making huge freaking piles of money for a handful of people, and bombing the living shit out of anyone in the world that we think might be looking at us sideways.
We’ve become a cowardly and corrupt people, lazy, self-entitled, arrogant, and terrified of losing any aspect of our privilege or position at the very top of the food chain. It appears to be baked into our national character, I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
If we think that there will be no consequences flowing back to us from all of the people we’ve terrorized, abused, mutilated, and destroyed – that we are, somehow, beyond it all and unaccountable for how we behave toward others – we are wrong.
The disclosures we see, let alone what we don’t and won’t be allowed to see, are real Nazi-level bullshit. I don’t see that we have the stones to deal with it candidly and forthrightly, so it will not be reformed, removed, or otherwise dealt with in anything like an effective manner.
In two weeks, nobody outside of some cranky bloggers will give a crap.
The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited.
Who’s in jail?
Who was even fired?
The CIA is a law unto themselves.
Crap like this has been going on for as long as I’ve been alive. Assassinations, performing drug experiments on people, domestic spying, interfering with constitutionally protected speech and assembly, aiding and abetting criminal activity, conducting rogue foreign policy in defiance of law, training fascistic dictatorial police states in excruciating detail how best to f**** up their people.
Everyone will be all aflutter about some guy having pureed hummus rammed up his butt for a few days, because that is certainly an interesting novelty in the realm of intelligence ops malfeasance, and then it will be forgotten.
A handful of people who have, for their sins, made it their life’s work to try to do something about this crap will continue to beat their heads against the wall. They may, perhaps, move the imponderable freaking boulder of intelligence community reform one or two inches in a desirable direction.
In the meantime, the intel community will find 1,000 ways to work around whatever reforms emerge from the latest round of revelations.
The CIA and related organizations are out of fucking control. Period.
“Proper chastistment” would mean that we would jail the principals involved in this, including those folks in the civilian leadership who participated in the planning and execution of the torture regime. That would include he lawyers in the OLC who authored the opinions providing legal cover, and the folks in the executive who approved the regime based on those opinions, among whom would almost certainly appear Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
We would make an open disclosure of how the program came to be, and at a minimum fire anybody involved.
Some folks might be surrendered to international courts, for violations of international law and laws of war.
None – not a single one – of those things will be done. A couple of higher-ups will probably be moved out the CIA and will then either move to some other position of high responsibility in the government, or else will find a position paying 7 or 8 figures with some security consultancy.
9/11 was, among other things, a test of our national character and values. What our response has demonstrated more than anything else is our utterly craven willingness to throw any semblance of regard for basic human rights out the window, with both hands, if somebody on the TV told us it was necessary to do so to prevent Anything Like That From Ever Happening Again.
We found a couple of shitty little countries to throw against the wall, we decided we needed to hoover up every electronic point of contact made by anybody in this country to anybody else in the entire freaking world just in case they might be Sekrit Terrorist, we grabbed anybody we could get our hands on who had a long beard and a rag around their head and threw them into dog cages in an island paradise conveniently outside the scope of US courts, and we killed or reduced to freaking psychic zombiehood some dozens or hundreds of people to Make Them Talk, even if they had nothing to say. Even if they were just some guy in the wrong place at the wrong time who got sold to us for a couple hundred bucks. Even if they were demonstrable mental incompetents and, basically, nuts.
This country has utterly lost the plot. We have no idea what we stand for, or what our purpose is in the world, beyond making huge freaking piles of money for a handful of people, and bombing the living shit out of anyone in the world that we think might be looking at us sideways.
We’ve become a cowardly and corrupt people, lazy, self-entitled, arrogant, and terrified of losing any aspect of our privilege or position at the very top of the food chain. It appears to be baked into our national character, I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
If we think that there will be no consequences flowing back to us from all of the people we’ve terrorized, abused, mutilated, and destroyed – that we are, somehow, beyond it all and unaccountable for how we behave toward others – we are wrong.
The disclosures we see, let alone what we don’t and won’t be allowed to see, are real Nazi-level bullshit. I don’t see that we have the stones to deal with it candidly and forthrightly, so it will not be reformed, removed, or otherwise dealt with in anything like an effective manner.
In two weeks, nobody outside of some cranky bloggers will give a crap.
yeah, what russell said.
yeah, what russell said.
yeah, what russell said.
I’ve actually written a lot more on Facebook than I have here, because I’m trying to persuade some folks who I think should know better.
But I keep running into people who think that basic human dignity is not a right that we should afford to people we don’t like, but still think we should be outraged by what the likes if ISIS does to people it doesn’t like.
There but by the grace of God and of a few years of consideration go I, because I was certainly there for a while.
It’s not something I like very much about myself, but neither is it something I think I can or should hide from.
I’ve actually written a lot more on Facebook than I have here, because I’m trying to persuade some folks who I think should know better.
But I keep running into people who think that basic human dignity is not a right that we should afford to people we don’t like, but still think we should be outraged by what the likes if ISIS does to people it doesn’t like.
There but by the grace of God and of a few years of consideration go I, because I was certainly there for a while.
It’s not something I like very much about myself, but neither is it something I think I can or should hide from.
I’ve actually written a lot more on Facebook than I have here, because I’m trying to persuade some folks who I think should know better.
But I keep running into people who think that basic human dignity is not a right that we should afford to people we don’t like, but still think we should be outraged by what the likes if ISIS does to people it doesn’t like.
There but by the grace of God and of a few years of consideration go I, because I was certainly there for a while.
It’s not something I like very much about myself, but neither is it something I think I can or should hide from.
russell
This country has lost the plot? I don’t think so. I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now. I believe we continue to learn. Yes, the covert agencies have always been an oversight challenge, but some of that is simply what we ask our government to accomplish. Then we realize the effects of that and draw lines. Retribution for the excesses is counterproductive, it is a violent world we ask them to engage, we should have more patience in the learning process. Which wont end because the threats don’t go away, or remain the same.
russell
This country has lost the plot? I don’t think so. I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now. I believe we continue to learn. Yes, the covert agencies have always been an oversight challenge, but some of that is simply what we ask our government to accomplish. Then we realize the effects of that and draw lines. Retribution for the excesses is counterproductive, it is a violent world we ask them to engage, we should have more patience in the learning process. Which wont end because the threats don’t go away, or remain the same.
russell
This country has lost the plot? I don’t think so. I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now. I believe we continue to learn. Yes, the covert agencies have always been an oversight challenge, but some of that is simply what we ask our government to accomplish. Then we realize the effects of that and draw lines. Retribution for the excesses is counterproductive, it is a violent world we ask them to engage, we should have more patience in the learning process. Which wont end because the threats don’t go away, or remain the same.
…it is a violent world we ask them to engage
Who’s we, suckah?
…it is a violent world we ask them to engage
Who’s we, suckah?
…it is a violent world we ask them to engage
Who’s we, suckah?
This country
This country
This country
I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now.
US history is a virtual parade of exercises in cruelty and brutality. And, we’re not at all unique in that regard.
Systematic programs of torture, with OLC sign-offs, manuals, medical and psychiatric oversight, a cottage industry of professional consultants expert in the delivery of excruciating pain and harrowing mental distress, and (lest we forget) video tape recordings for later review, is, IMO, a novelty that takes us past mere brutality. It’s brutality as a deliberately chosen policy.
Plus, it’s against the f***ing law.
Retribution for the excesses is counterproductive, it is a violent world we ask them to engage, we should have more patience in the learning process.
“Retribution” does not mean the same thing as “accountability”.
I reject the argument that a “violent world” means we must respond by torturing people. I reject the argument that the only way to get useful information from people that want to harm us is by strapado, or drowning up to but not quite past the point of death, or inducing hypothermia, or inducement of psychosis by forcing people to stay awake or isolating them in cells the size of coffins. Or, for that matter, slamming people’s heads against the wall, or beating their legs until the bone structure of their joints turns to non-functional gravel.
Append to the list as you will, there’s no lack of additional practices to add.
I reject the entire steaming pile of horseshit that says we are entitled to abuse and mutilate people who we hold, captive, unable to defend or protect themselves, in order to get what we want from them. I don’t care what flavor of “bad guy” they are.
This kind of shit is how the wheels come off. If you ask me, they’re already off, the question on the table is whether we are capable of putting them back on, or if that’s even possible.
I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now.
US history is a virtual parade of exercises in cruelty and brutality. And, we’re not at all unique in that regard.
Systematic programs of torture, with OLC sign-offs, manuals, medical and psychiatric oversight, a cottage industry of professional consultants expert in the delivery of excruciating pain and harrowing mental distress, and (lest we forget) video tape recordings for later review, is, IMO, a novelty that takes us past mere brutality. It’s brutality as a deliberately chosen policy.
Plus, it’s against the f***ing law.
Retribution for the excesses is counterproductive, it is a violent world we ask them to engage, we should have more patience in the learning process.
“Retribution” does not mean the same thing as “accountability”.
I reject the argument that a “violent world” means we must respond by torturing people. I reject the argument that the only way to get useful information from people that want to harm us is by strapado, or drowning up to but not quite past the point of death, or inducing hypothermia, or inducement of psychosis by forcing people to stay awake or isolating them in cells the size of coffins. Or, for that matter, slamming people’s heads against the wall, or beating their legs until the bone structure of their joints turns to non-functional gravel.
Append to the list as you will, there’s no lack of additional practices to add.
I reject the entire steaming pile of horseshit that says we are entitled to abuse and mutilate people who we hold, captive, unable to defend or protect themselves, in order to get what we want from them. I don’t care what flavor of “bad guy” they are.
This kind of shit is how the wheels come off. If you ask me, they’re already off, the question on the table is whether we are capable of putting them back on, or if that’s even possible.
I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now.
US history is a virtual parade of exercises in cruelty and brutality. And, we’re not at all unique in that regard.
Systematic programs of torture, with OLC sign-offs, manuals, medical and psychiatric oversight, a cottage industry of professional consultants expert in the delivery of excruciating pain and harrowing mental distress, and (lest we forget) video tape recordings for later review, is, IMO, a novelty that takes us past mere brutality. It’s brutality as a deliberately chosen policy.
Plus, it’s against the f***ing law.
Retribution for the excesses is counterproductive, it is a violent world we ask them to engage, we should have more patience in the learning process.
“Retribution” does not mean the same thing as “accountability”.
I reject the argument that a “violent world” means we must respond by torturing people. I reject the argument that the only way to get useful information from people that want to harm us is by strapado, or drowning up to but not quite past the point of death, or inducing hypothermia, or inducement of psychosis by forcing people to stay awake or isolating them in cells the size of coffins. Or, for that matter, slamming people’s heads against the wall, or beating their legs until the bone structure of their joints turns to non-functional gravel.
Append to the list as you will, there’s no lack of additional practices to add.
I reject the entire steaming pile of horseshit that says we are entitled to abuse and mutilate people who we hold, captive, unable to defend or protect themselves, in order to get what we want from them. I don’t care what flavor of “bad guy” they are.
This kind of shit is how the wheels come off. If you ask me, they’re already off, the question on the table is whether we are capable of putting them back on, or if that’s even possible.
kudos, slarti
kudos, slarti
kudos, slarti
80 Million Dollars?
WTF. My home town continues to disappoint.
80 Million Dollars?
WTF. My home town continues to disappoint.
80 Million Dollars?
WTF. My home town continues to disappoint.
OT: cromnibus:
The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.
OT: cromnibus:
The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.
OT: cromnibus:
The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.
Brett’s chickens are safe, at last.
Brett’s chickens are safe, at last.
Brett’s chickens are safe, at last.
cleek, we could have a whole new thread on the (frequently insane) bits of legislation sneaked into the temporary funding bill. Anyone want to start it up?
cleek, we could have a whole new thread on the (frequently insane) bits of legislation sneaked into the temporary funding bill. Anyone want to start it up?
cleek, we could have a whole new thread on the (frequently insane) bits of legislation sneaked into the temporary funding bill. Anyone want to start it up?
I have this nifty thing called a heat lamp that I am still able to purchase legally in the US.
This whole discussion reminds me of Dave Barry’s bit about importing black-market toilets from Canada.
I have this nifty thing called a heat lamp that I am still able to purchase legally in the US.
This whole discussion reminds me of Dave Barry’s bit about importing black-market toilets from Canada.
I have this nifty thing called a heat lamp that I am still able to purchase legally in the US.
This whole discussion reminds me of Dave Barry’s bit about importing black-market toilets from Canada.
The former Vice President condemned out of his own mouth.
Scofflaw is too generous a term for this sociopath.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/11/watching-cheney-hes-got-nothing/
Here’s the truly revealing part. Cheney is told about a prisoner, Gul Rahman, who died after unimaginable brutality – beaten, kept awake for 48 hours, kept in total darkness for days, thrown into the Gestapo-pioneered cold bath treatment, and then chained to a wall and left to die of hypothermia. The factors in his death included “dehydration, lack of food, and immobility due to ‘short chaining.” This is Cheney’s response:
“3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because of what these guys did, and I have no sympathy for them. I don’t know the specific details … I haven’t read the report … I keep coming back to the basic, fundamental proposition: how nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3000 Americans?”
But Gul Rahman had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 plot…
The former Vice President condemned out of his own mouth.
Scofflaw is too generous a term for this sociopath.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/11/watching-cheney-hes-got-nothing/
Here’s the truly revealing part. Cheney is told about a prisoner, Gul Rahman, who died after unimaginable brutality – beaten, kept awake for 48 hours, kept in total darkness for days, thrown into the Gestapo-pioneered cold bath treatment, and then chained to a wall and left to die of hypothermia. The factors in his death included “dehydration, lack of food, and immobility due to ‘short chaining.” This is Cheney’s response:
“3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because of what these guys did, and I have no sympathy for them. I don’t know the specific details … I haven’t read the report … I keep coming back to the basic, fundamental proposition: how nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3000 Americans?”
But Gul Rahman had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 plot…
The former Vice President condemned out of his own mouth.
Scofflaw is too generous a term for this sociopath.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/11/watching-cheney-hes-got-nothing/
Here’s the truly revealing part. Cheney is told about a prisoner, Gul Rahman, who died after unimaginable brutality – beaten, kept awake for 48 hours, kept in total darkness for days, thrown into the Gestapo-pioneered cold bath treatment, and then chained to a wall and left to die of hypothermia. The factors in his death included “dehydration, lack of food, and immobility due to ‘short chaining.” This is Cheney’s response:
“3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because of what these guys did, and I have no sympathy for them. I don’t know the specific details … I haven’t read the report … I keep coming back to the basic, fundamental proposition: how nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3000 Americans?”
But Gul Rahman had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 plot…
I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now.
The exceptionalist argument in a nutshell – everyone else is and was worse than us, so anything we might choose to do, however distasteful that might be, is by definition morally superior.
Intellectually bankrupt, but impervious to argument.
I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now.
The exceptionalist argument in a nutshell – everyone else is and was worse than us, so anything we might choose to do, however distasteful that might be, is by definition morally superior.
Intellectually bankrupt, but impervious to argument.
I am looking for the place in US history that is better in these terms than now.
The exceptionalist argument in a nutshell – everyone else is and was worse than us, so anything we might choose to do, however distasteful that might be, is by definition morally superior.
Intellectually bankrupt, but impervious to argument.
“The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.”
Technological/economic changes might render incandescent light bulbs obsolete. Legal changes can only render them illegal or unaffordable, and have no bearing on whether they are obsolete.
There are some things in the lame duck omnibus bill I approve of, many I disapprove of, but mainly I find the idea of legislators who just got kicked out of office voting on ANYTHING offensive. I don’t think they should be holding lame duck sessions save in utter emergency, and I don’t think they should be writing omnibus legislation in closed conferences and forcing a vote on it before it can be studied in detail at any time.
I did not expect the GOP leadership to favorably impress me, and I must say they are off to an even more wretched start than I expected.
But I’m still going to laugh at you guys when the President starts vetoing legislation, and you call that Republican obstructionism.
“The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.”
Technological/economic changes might render incandescent light bulbs obsolete. Legal changes can only render them illegal or unaffordable, and have no bearing on whether they are obsolete.
There are some things in the lame duck omnibus bill I approve of, many I disapprove of, but mainly I find the idea of legislators who just got kicked out of office voting on ANYTHING offensive. I don’t think they should be holding lame duck sessions save in utter emergency, and I don’t think they should be writing omnibus legislation in closed conferences and forcing a vote on it before it can be studied in detail at any time.
I did not expect the GOP leadership to favorably impress me, and I must say they are off to an even more wretched start than I expected.
But I’m still going to laugh at you guys when the President starts vetoing legislation, and you call that Republican obstructionism.
“The bill blocks new energy efficient standards that would have made incandescent light bulbs obsolete.”
Technological/economic changes might render incandescent light bulbs obsolete. Legal changes can only render them illegal or unaffordable, and have no bearing on whether they are obsolete.
There are some things in the lame duck omnibus bill I approve of, many I disapprove of, but mainly I find the idea of legislators who just got kicked out of office voting on ANYTHING offensive. I don’t think they should be holding lame duck sessions save in utter emergency, and I don’t think they should be writing omnibus legislation in closed conferences and forcing a vote on it before it can be studied in detail at any time.
I did not expect the GOP leadership to favorably impress me, and I must say they are off to an even more wretched start than I expected.
But I’m still going to laugh at you guys when the President starts vetoing legislation, and you call that Republican obstructionism.
Just to be clear Nigel, I am less an exceptionalist and more a, I don’t give a crap what other countries do or don’t do if it doesn’t effect our security. When I discuss better and worse it is in comparison to us, and I think we continue to improve. We live in a country where a principled stand is often mocked, and often by the same people lecturing on principles and rights in this thread. I think we continue to refine our principles based on trying to achieve the goals set out by the founding fathers, who were better goal setters than achievers. I think that allows us to make exceptional progress. We did that again 6 years ago when we made it clear that being against torture was a requirement for our next President. While you can find thousands of Americans on the internet that defend it, the vast majority spoke in that election, where both candidates condemned it.
Just to be clear Nigel, I am less an exceptionalist and more a, I don’t give a crap what other countries do or don’t do if it doesn’t effect our security. When I discuss better and worse it is in comparison to us, and I think we continue to improve. We live in a country where a principled stand is often mocked, and often by the same people lecturing on principles and rights in this thread. I think we continue to refine our principles based on trying to achieve the goals set out by the founding fathers, who were better goal setters than achievers. I think that allows us to make exceptional progress. We did that again 6 years ago when we made it clear that being against torture was a requirement for our next President. While you can find thousands of Americans on the internet that defend it, the vast majority spoke in that election, where both candidates condemned it.
Just to be clear Nigel, I am less an exceptionalist and more a, I don’t give a crap what other countries do or don’t do if it doesn’t effect our security. When I discuss better and worse it is in comparison to us, and I think we continue to improve. We live in a country where a principled stand is often mocked, and often by the same people lecturing on principles and rights in this thread. I think we continue to refine our principles based on trying to achieve the goals set out by the founding fathers, who were better goal setters than achievers. I think that allows us to make exceptional progress. We did that again 6 years ago when we made it clear that being against torture was a requirement for our next President. While you can find thousands of Americans on the internet that defend it, the vast majority spoke in that election, where both candidates condemned it.
Brett, since they didn’t manage to do their job and pass a budget and funding bills during the regular session, the options at the moment are:
a) a lame duck session to vote on this stuff, or
b) having the government shut down from tomorrow thru whenever the next Congress shows up and gets something done. Which has some serious negative implications for everybody in the country.
I’ll agree with you that the idea of these idiots not doing the basic job that we are paying them to do is offensive. But given that they didn’t . . .
Brett, since they didn’t manage to do their job and pass a budget and funding bills during the regular session, the options at the moment are:
a) a lame duck session to vote on this stuff, or
b) having the government shut down from tomorrow thru whenever the next Congress shows up and gets something done. Which has some serious negative implications for everybody in the country.
I’ll agree with you that the idea of these idiots not doing the basic job that we are paying them to do is offensive. But given that they didn’t . . .
Brett, since they didn’t manage to do their job and pass a budget and funding bills during the regular session, the options at the moment are:
a) a lame duck session to vote on this stuff, or
b) having the government shut down from tomorrow thru whenever the next Congress shows up and gets something done. Which has some serious negative implications for everybody in the country.
I’ll agree with you that the idea of these idiots not doing the basic job that we are paying them to do is offensive. But given that they didn’t . . .
Yes, they didn’t do it during the regular session. I think they should have just passed a ‘bridge’ bill to carry things over to the new session, and left it at that, with otherwise no changes.
Yes, they didn’t do it during the regular session. I think they should have just passed a ‘bridge’ bill to carry things over to the new session, and left it at that, with otherwise no changes.
Yes, they didn’t do it during the regular session. I think they should have just passed a ‘bridge’ bill to carry things over to the new session, and left it at that, with otherwise no changes.
Fair enough. Although I’m not sure that there are even a couple dozen members of Congress who would actually be willing to do things that way.
But that’s not to say that there shouldn’t be. Just that we seem disinclined, as a country, to elect many people like that to Congress. Consider how many times in the last decade the Congress actually did manage to pass a budget and normal spending bills, vs “continuing resolutions” and other ploys to avoid doing their job.
Fair enough. Although I’m not sure that there are even a couple dozen members of Congress who would actually be willing to do things that way.
But that’s not to say that there shouldn’t be. Just that we seem disinclined, as a country, to elect many people like that to Congress. Consider how many times in the last decade the Congress actually did manage to pass a budget and normal spending bills, vs “continuing resolutions” and other ploys to avoid doing their job.
Fair enough. Although I’m not sure that there are even a couple dozen members of Congress who would actually be willing to do things that way.
But that’s not to say that there shouldn’t be. Just that we seem disinclined, as a country, to elect many people like that to Congress. Consider how many times in the last decade the Congress actually did manage to pass a budget and normal spending bills, vs “continuing resolutions” and other ploys to avoid doing their job.
The CIA is a law unto themselves.
This is not the case. The fact is, the CIA report deflected blame from elected officials. They knew about this; they sanctioned it.
Everytime we pretend that there’s a “rogue CIA”, we pretend that the American people are absolved, that elected officials (the Bush administration, the Democrats in Congress who failed in their oversight) are blameless. We, the people, reelected Bush when many of these abuses were well known. We got tired of it in 2006, and elected a Democratic Congress, and guess what – it stopped. We elected Obama, and it became public that torture would not be used.
We, the people, after having had a split party Congress, just put Republicans in charge of the Senate. We’re backtracking here.
This is not a “CIA – a law unto itself.” This is the American people not giving a flying f*** about our basic values. It was wrong. We, the people, were wrong.
The CIA is a law unto themselves.
This is not the case. The fact is, the CIA report deflected blame from elected officials. They knew about this; they sanctioned it.
Everytime we pretend that there’s a “rogue CIA”, we pretend that the American people are absolved, that elected officials (the Bush administration, the Democrats in Congress who failed in their oversight) are blameless. We, the people, reelected Bush when many of these abuses were well known. We got tired of it in 2006, and elected a Democratic Congress, and guess what – it stopped. We elected Obama, and it became public that torture would not be used.
We, the people, after having had a split party Congress, just put Republicans in charge of the Senate. We’re backtracking here.
This is not a “CIA – a law unto itself.” This is the American people not giving a flying f*** about our basic values. It was wrong. We, the people, were wrong.
The CIA is a law unto themselves.
This is not the case. The fact is, the CIA report deflected blame from elected officials. They knew about this; they sanctioned it.
Everytime we pretend that there’s a “rogue CIA”, we pretend that the American people are absolved, that elected officials (the Bush administration, the Democrats in Congress who failed in their oversight) are blameless. We, the people, reelected Bush when many of these abuses were well known. We got tired of it in 2006, and elected a Democratic Congress, and guess what – it stopped. We elected Obama, and it became public that torture would not be used.
We, the people, after having had a split party Congress, just put Republicans in charge of the Senate. We’re backtracking here.
This is not a “CIA – a law unto itself.” This is the American people not giving a flying f*** about our basic values. It was wrong. We, the people, were wrong.
But I’m still going to laugh at you guys when the President starts vetoing legislation, and you call that Republican obstructionism.
tell us again how you hate people who do violence to the language.
that’s a good one.
But I’m still going to laugh at you guys when the President starts vetoing legislation, and you call that Republican obstructionism.
tell us again how you hate people who do violence to the language.
that’s a good one.
But I’m still going to laugh at you guys when the President starts vetoing legislation, and you call that Republican obstructionism.
tell us again how you hate people who do violence to the language.
that’s a good one.
This is not a “CIA – a law unto itself.” This is the American people not giving a flying f*** about our basic values. It was wrong. We, the people, were wrong.
I agree with you here.
My point about the CIA being a “law unto themselves” is simply that they – meaning actual individual people who work for the CIA – never seem to end up doing any time when they break the law.
I guess you could see that as them being a law unto themselves, or you could see it as all of the rest of us not holding them to account.
Either way, the end result is the same.
My takeaway from 9/11 is that Americans will gladly toss their political birthright out the freaking window if somebody tells them it will save them from the boogieman.
It doesn’t speak well of us.
This is not a “CIA – a law unto itself.” This is the American people not giving a flying f*** about our basic values. It was wrong. We, the people, were wrong.
I agree with you here.
My point about the CIA being a “law unto themselves” is simply that they – meaning actual individual people who work for the CIA – never seem to end up doing any time when they break the law.
I guess you could see that as them being a law unto themselves, or you could see it as all of the rest of us not holding them to account.
Either way, the end result is the same.
My takeaway from 9/11 is that Americans will gladly toss their political birthright out the freaking window if somebody tells them it will save them from the boogieman.
It doesn’t speak well of us.
This is not a “CIA – a law unto itself.” This is the American people not giving a flying f*** about our basic values. It was wrong. We, the people, were wrong.
I agree with you here.
My point about the CIA being a “law unto themselves” is simply that they – meaning actual individual people who work for the CIA – never seem to end up doing any time when they break the law.
I guess you could see that as them being a law unto themselves, or you could see it as all of the rest of us not holding them to account.
Either way, the end result is the same.
My takeaway from 9/11 is that Americans will gladly toss their political birthright out the freaking window if somebody tells them it will save them from the boogieman.
It doesn’t speak well of us.
We got tired of it in 2006, and elected a Democratic Congress, and guess what – it stopped. We elected Obama, and it became public that torture would not be used.
Except that the man Obama appointed as CIA director still argues (lies) in favour of its efficacy, argues against any consequences for the documented lawbreaking, and contemplates its future use:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/11/john-brennan-is-still-lying/
Brennan goes on to lie again that torture helped us find Osama bin Laden. This is disproved – not challenged or questioned, but disproved – in the report. And continuing to suggest – against the evidence – that torture may have helped get that monster is an invitation for such an evil to be imported back into the the US in the future. And, indeed, Brennan concedes that it is perfectly possible that torture will return:
“I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis.”
We have a CIA whose head believes in the efficacy of torture, and that the only reason to refrain from it is that it hurts our national security and international standing. We have a CIA head who will not rule out the use of torture in the future. We have a CIA head who believes that much of the torture conducted in the Bush-Cheney years was legal. And we have a CIA head prepared to argue in public that the facts and documented evidence in a summary of the CIA’s own documents are untrue. Because he says so.
And he wants us to end this debate and move. He has to be kidding.
I agree with you that this is a matter for which society, not merely its leaders, is responsible. Arguing for consequences for illegal acts is a necessary exercise of responsibility.
We got tired of it in 2006, and elected a Democratic Congress, and guess what – it stopped. We elected Obama, and it became public that torture would not be used.
Except that the man Obama appointed as CIA director still argues (lies) in favour of its efficacy, argues against any consequences for the documented lawbreaking, and contemplates its future use:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/11/john-brennan-is-still-lying/
Brennan goes on to lie again that torture helped us find Osama bin Laden. This is disproved – not challenged or questioned, but disproved – in the report. And continuing to suggest – against the evidence – that torture may have helped get that monster is an invitation for such an evil to be imported back into the the US in the future. And, indeed, Brennan concedes that it is perfectly possible that torture will return:
“I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis.”
We have a CIA whose head believes in the efficacy of torture, and that the only reason to refrain from it is that it hurts our national security and international standing. We have a CIA head who will not rule out the use of torture in the future. We have a CIA head who believes that much of the torture conducted in the Bush-Cheney years was legal. And we have a CIA head prepared to argue in public that the facts and documented evidence in a summary of the CIA’s own documents are untrue. Because he says so.
And he wants us to end this debate and move. He has to be kidding.
I agree with you that this is a matter for which society, not merely its leaders, is responsible. Arguing for consequences for illegal acts is a necessary exercise of responsibility.
We got tired of it in 2006, and elected a Democratic Congress, and guess what – it stopped. We elected Obama, and it became public that torture would not be used.
Except that the man Obama appointed as CIA director still argues (lies) in favour of its efficacy, argues against any consequences for the documented lawbreaking, and contemplates its future use:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/11/john-brennan-is-still-lying/
Brennan goes on to lie again that torture helped us find Osama bin Laden. This is disproved – not challenged or questioned, but disproved – in the report. And continuing to suggest – against the evidence – that torture may have helped get that monster is an invitation for such an evil to be imported back into the the US in the future. And, indeed, Brennan concedes that it is perfectly possible that torture will return:
“I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis.”
We have a CIA whose head believes in the efficacy of torture, and that the only reason to refrain from it is that it hurts our national security and international standing. We have a CIA head who will not rule out the use of torture in the future. We have a CIA head who believes that much of the torture conducted in the Bush-Cheney years was legal. And we have a CIA head prepared to argue in public that the facts and documented evidence in a summary of the CIA’s own documents are untrue. Because he says so.
And he wants us to end this debate and move. He has to be kidding.
I agree with you that this is a matter for which society, not merely its leaders, is responsible. Arguing for consequences for illegal acts is a necessary exercise of responsibility.
Brennan, August 2009:
“…I have seen—we all have seen—how our fight against terrorists sometimes led us to stray from our ideals as a nation. Tactics such as waterboarding were not in keeping with our values as Americans, and these practices have been rightly terminated and should not, and will not, happen again.
I believe President Obama is absolutely correct: such practices not only fail to advance our counterterrorism efforts, they actually set back our efforts. They are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists, increase the determination of our enemies, and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us. In short, they undermine our national security…”
Today:
“There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to E.I.T.’s…
…I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis…”
And, as an aside, “E.I.T.” is a piece of shit circumlocution, characteristic of those who wish to shut down any debate on torture.
Brennan, August 2009:
“…I have seen—we all have seen—how our fight against terrorists sometimes led us to stray from our ideals as a nation. Tactics such as waterboarding were not in keeping with our values as Americans, and these practices have been rightly terminated and should not, and will not, happen again.
I believe President Obama is absolutely correct: such practices not only fail to advance our counterterrorism efforts, they actually set back our efforts. They are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists, increase the determination of our enemies, and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us. In short, they undermine our national security…”
Today:
“There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to E.I.T.’s…
…I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis…”
And, as an aside, “E.I.T.” is a piece of shit circumlocution, characteristic of those who wish to shut down any debate on torture.
Brennan, August 2009:
“…I have seen—we all have seen—how our fight against terrorists sometimes led us to stray from our ideals as a nation. Tactics such as waterboarding were not in keeping with our values as Americans, and these practices have been rightly terminated and should not, and will not, happen again.
I believe President Obama is absolutely correct: such practices not only fail to advance our counterterrorism efforts, they actually set back our efforts. They are a recruitment bonanza for terrorists, increase the determination of our enemies, and decrease the willingness of other nations to cooperate with us. In short, they undermine our national security…”
Today:
“There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to E.I.T.’s…
…I defer to the policymakers in future times when there is going to be the need to be able to ensure that this country stays safe if we face a similar type of crisis…”
And, as an aside, “E.I.T.” is a piece of shit circumlocution, characteristic of those who wish to shut down any debate on torture.
“tell us again how you hate people who do violence to the language.”
That’s why I’ll be laughing at you. Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President, and this will be because Democrats lost control of the Senate. And those laws, passed by House and Senate, will arrive on the President’s desk, and he will shut down the government by vetoing them, and you will refer to this as a Republican shutdown, because it is never your side’s fault.
Somehow the logjam in the Senate, with Reid refusing to allow bills to be brought to a vote, was the Republicans’ fault. And soon, Obama’s vetoes will be the Republicans’ fault. As though Obama has no agency of his own.
“tell us again how you hate people who do violence to the language.”
That’s why I’ll be laughing at you. Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President, and this will be because Democrats lost control of the Senate. And those laws, passed by House and Senate, will arrive on the President’s desk, and he will shut down the government by vetoing them, and you will refer to this as a Republican shutdown, because it is never your side’s fault.
Somehow the logjam in the Senate, with Reid refusing to allow bills to be brought to a vote, was the Republicans’ fault. And soon, Obama’s vetoes will be the Republicans’ fault. As though Obama has no agency of his own.
“tell us again how you hate people who do violence to the language.”
That’s why I’ll be laughing at you. Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President, and this will be because Democrats lost control of the Senate. And those laws, passed by House and Senate, will arrive on the President’s desk, and he will shut down the government by vetoing them, and you will refer to this as a Republican shutdown, because it is never your side’s fault.
Somehow the logjam in the Senate, with Reid refusing to allow bills to be brought to a vote, was the Republicans’ fault. And soon, Obama’s vetoes will be the Republicans’ fault. As though Obama has no agency of his own.
“There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to E.I.T.’s…”
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s. He stood by his earlier statements against there necessity and then clearly deferred on the future question, because he doesn’t control the future.
“There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to E.I.T.’s…”
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s. He stood by his earlier statements against there necessity and then clearly deferred on the future question, because he doesn’t control the future.
“There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to E.I.T.’s…”
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s. He stood by his earlier statements against there necessity and then clearly deferred on the future question, because he doesn’t control the future.
John Brennan to the president when asked about the use of torture: “That’s right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it’s beginning to look like, uh, some CIA officers exceeded their authority.”
John Brennan to the president when asked about the use of torture: “That’s right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it’s beginning to look like, uh, some CIA officers exceeded their authority.”
John Brennan to the president when asked about the use of torture: “That’s right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it’s beginning to look like, uh, some CIA officers exceeded their authority.”
That’s why I’ll be laughing at you.
then it will be a hy-larious circle of laughter.
That’s why I’ll be laughing at you.
then it will be a hy-larious circle of laughter.
That’s why I’ll be laughing at you.
then it will be a hy-larious circle of laughter.
I’m just going to re-post this, because it’s stunning:
“3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because of what these guys did, and I have no sympathy for them. I don’t know the specific details … I haven’t read the report … I keep coming back to the basic, fundamental proposition: how nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3000 Americans?”
But Gul Rahman had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 plot…
Hey, they use stunt doubles in movies, right?
I’m just going to re-post this, because it’s stunning:
“3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because of what these guys did, and I have no sympathy for them. I don’t know the specific details … I haven’t read the report … I keep coming back to the basic, fundamental proposition: how nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3000 Americans?”
But Gul Rahman had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 plot…
Hey, they use stunt doubles in movies, right?
I’m just going to re-post this, because it’s stunning:
“3,000 Americans died on 9/11 because of what these guys did, and I have no sympathy for them. I don’t know the specific details … I haven’t read the report … I keep coming back to the basic, fundamental proposition: how nice do you want to be to the murderers of 3000 Americans?”
But Gul Rahman had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 plot…
Hey, they use stunt doubles in movies, right?
Except that the man Obama appointed as CIA director still argues (lies) in favour of its efficacy, argues against any consequences for the documented lawbreaking, and contemplates its future use
which is different than continuing to torture.
Except that the man Obama appointed as CIA director still argues (lies) in favour of its efficacy, argues against any consequences for the documented lawbreaking, and contemplates its future use
which is different than continuing to torture.
Except that the man Obama appointed as CIA director still argues (lies) in favour of its efficacy, argues against any consequences for the documented lawbreaking, and contemplates its future use
which is different than continuing to torture.
and you can hear Cheney’s sentiment still, everywhere wingnuts gather.
we must torture and kill and exterminate them because they want to kill us. where ‘them’ = anyone with a middle eastern name.
(but don’t call them racists! and don’t challenge them when they say this is a “Christian” nation! and don’t tell them they’re a bunch of cowardly fncking frauds when they start whining about the Rule Of Law!)
and you can hear Cheney’s sentiment still, everywhere wingnuts gather.
we must torture and kill and exterminate them because they want to kill us. where ‘them’ = anyone with a middle eastern name.
(but don’t call them racists! and don’t challenge them when they say this is a “Christian” nation! and don’t tell them they’re a bunch of cowardly fncking frauds when they start whining about the Rule Of Law!)
and you can hear Cheney’s sentiment still, everywhere wingnuts gather.
we must torture and kill and exterminate them because they want to kill us. where ‘them’ = anyone with a middle eastern name.
(but don’t call them racists! and don’t challenge them when they say this is a “Christian” nation! and don’t tell them they’re a bunch of cowardly fncking frauds when they start whining about the Rule Of Law!)
Hey, the law is what we say it is. That way, Rule of Law still holds.
This is as well as I can distill down that kind of thinking.
Hey, the law is what we say it is. That way, Rule of Law still holds.
This is as well as I can distill down that kind of thinking.
Hey, the law is what we say it is. That way, Rule of Law still holds.
This is as well as I can distill down that kind of thinking.
Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President
Brett, that may happen. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President
Brett, that may happen. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President
Brett, that may happen. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it.
and, again, the notion that a presidential veto is somehow outside SOP is laughable goalpost-moving.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm
and, again, the notion that a presidential veto is somehow outside SOP is laughable goalpost-moving.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm
and, again, the notion that a presidential veto is somehow outside SOP is laughable goalpost-moving.
https://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm
I would not argue that Presidential vetoes are not SOP. I would argue that if Congress passes legislation, and the President vetoes it, any ‘obstruction’ is on the President’s part.
I would not argue that Presidential vetoes are not SOP. I would argue that if Congress passes legislation, and the President vetoes it, any ‘obstruction’ is on the President’s part.
I would not argue that Presidential vetoes are not SOP. I would argue that if Congress passes legislation, and the President vetoes it, any ‘obstruction’ is on the President’s part.
why must you abuse the language so ?
why must you abuse the language so ?
why must you abuse the language so ?
To return to the original topic of this post:
The Director of the CIA, speaking after the release of the report, said: “in a limited number of instances, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent, and rightly should be repudiated by all.”
OK, that’s the man in charge saying that some officers of the CIA acted illegally. Anyone got a reason why those individuals have not been charged with their violations of the law? Since, apparently, the head of the agency agrees that their actions were illegal.
To return to the original topic of this post:
The Director of the CIA, speaking after the release of the report, said: “in a limited number of instances, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent, and rightly should be repudiated by all.”
OK, that’s the man in charge saying that some officers of the CIA acted illegally. Anyone got a reason why those individuals have not been charged with their violations of the law? Since, apparently, the head of the agency agrees that their actions were illegal.
To return to the original topic of this post:
The Director of the CIA, speaking after the release of the report, said: “in a limited number of instances, agency officers used interrogation techniques that had not been authorized, were abhorrent, and rightly should be repudiated by all.”
OK, that’s the man in charge saying that some officers of the CIA acted illegally. Anyone got a reason why those individuals have not been charged with their violations of the law? Since, apparently, the head of the agency agrees that their actions were illegal.
the DOJ says it doesn’t think it could prove guilt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-will-not-pursue-criminal-charges-over-torture-report/
which is probably ass-covering. i doubt anyone in the WH has the stomach for that fight. it would be a political nightmare for them, since far too many people in this country, including all of the GOP except McCain (who can’t be counted on to side against his party when it matters), support torture.
the DOJ says it doesn’t think it could prove guilt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-will-not-pursue-criminal-charges-over-torture-report/
which is probably ass-covering. i doubt anyone in the WH has the stomach for that fight. it would be a political nightmare for them, since far too many people in this country, including all of the GOP except McCain (who can’t be counted on to side against his party when it matters), support torture.
the DOJ says it doesn’t think it could prove guilt.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-will-not-pursue-criminal-charges-over-torture-report/
which is probably ass-covering. i doubt anyone in the WH has the stomach for that fight. it would be a political nightmare for them, since far too many people in this country, including all of the GOP except McCain (who can’t be counted on to side against his party when it matters), support torture.
The only guy who’s doing any time, or is going to do any time, over this stuff is Kiriakou.
The only guy who’s doing any time, or is going to do any time, over this stuff is Kiriakou.
The only guy who’s doing any time, or is going to do any time, over this stuff is Kiriakou.
You have to wonder whether DoJ had access to all of the relevant documents in its investigation. And whether the Director has knowledge that they did not get.
Because either
a) he knows something that DoJ was not informed of,
b) DoJ knew it had a case, but chose not to prosecute anyway,
c) DoJ knew, but did not think that the CIA would be successfully forced to provide the evidence needed to prosecute, or
d) he’s lying thru his teeth.
We can argue, based on our personal prejudices, since we have no access to data, which of those is most likely. But I’m not really seeing a fifth possibility.
You have to wonder whether DoJ had access to all of the relevant documents in its investigation. And whether the Director has knowledge that they did not get.
Because either
a) he knows something that DoJ was not informed of,
b) DoJ knew it had a case, but chose not to prosecute anyway,
c) DoJ knew, but did not think that the CIA would be successfully forced to provide the evidence needed to prosecute, or
d) he’s lying thru his teeth.
We can argue, based on our personal prejudices, since we have no access to data, which of those is most likely. But I’m not really seeing a fifth possibility.
You have to wonder whether DoJ had access to all of the relevant documents in its investigation. And whether the Director has knowledge that they did not get.
Because either
a) he knows something that DoJ was not informed of,
b) DoJ knew it had a case, but chose not to prosecute anyway,
c) DoJ knew, but did not think that the CIA would be successfully forced to provide the evidence needed to prosecute, or
d) he’s lying thru his teeth.
We can argue, based on our personal prejudices, since we have no access to data, which of those is most likely. But I’m not really seeing a fifth possibility.
i think b is the answer.
Holder said a long time ago that he’s not going to go after anyone over this.
i think b is the answer.
Holder said a long time ago that he’s not going to go after anyone over this.
i think b is the answer.
Holder said a long time ago that he’s not going to go after anyone over this.
But was that b or c?
But was that b or c?
But was that b or c?
b. because i’m pretty sure they don’t want the fight.
b. because i’m pretty sure they don’t want the fight.
b. because i’m pretty sure they don’t want the fight.
(yes, i think ‘b’ is cowardly)
(yes, i think ‘b’ is cowardly)
(yes, i think ‘b’ is cowardly)
I would actually say that ‘c’ is the cowardly one. Not willing to make the fight on principle, because they would expect to lose.
‘b’ would seem to suggest more reprehensible motives, at least as a distinct possibility.
I would actually say that ‘c’ is the cowardly one. Not willing to make the fight on principle, because they would expect to lose.
‘b’ would seem to suggest more reprehensible motives, at least as a distinct possibility.
I would actually say that ‘c’ is the cowardly one. Not willing to make the fight on principle, because they would expect to lose.
‘b’ would seem to suggest more reprehensible motives, at least as a distinct possibility.
i can see there being some of that cowardly c in there too.
not Obama’s finest hour.
i’m glad he officially stopped the torture. but i do wish he’d find a way to hand out some justice.
i can see there being some of that cowardly c in there too.
not Obama’s finest hour.
i’m glad he officially stopped the torture. but i do wish he’d find a way to hand out some justice.
i can see there being some of that cowardly c in there too.
not Obama’s finest hour.
i’m glad he officially stopped the torture. but i do wish he’d find a way to hand out some justice.
Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President
I, for one, look forward to 60 vote thresholds in the Senate being called ‘filibusters’ once more, with attendant whining about ‘up or down votes’ and how horribly unprecedented the Democrats are obstructing the Senate’s business.
Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President
I, for one, look forward to 60 vote thresholds in the Senate being called ‘filibusters’ once more, with attendant whining about ‘up or down votes’ and how horribly unprecedented the Democrats are obstructing the Senate’s business.
Starting next year, we will return to regular order, budgets passed, laws enacted and sent to the President
I, for one, look forward to 60 vote thresholds in the Senate being called ‘filibusters’ once more, with attendant whining about ‘up or down votes’ and how horribly unprecedented the Democrats are obstructing the Senate’s business.
OK, that’s the man in charge saying that some officers of the CIA acted illegally. Anyone got a reason why those individuals have not been charged with their violations of the law? Since, apparently, the head of the agency agrees that their actions were illegal.
Because if you’re going to prosecute the low level douchebags, they’re going to immediately roll over on the higher-level douchebags who ordered them to do it, who are then going to roll-over on the even higher-level douchebags who ordered them to do it, until you’re up to 1600 Penn.
IOW, Brennan’s “had not been authorized” is doing a great deal of work in his statement, I would guess. I.e., the orders were “rough them up” or “get tough with them” or something that didn’t say exactly what to do, and left it to the imagination of the low-level douchebags, who then went “too far.”
OK, that’s the man in charge saying that some officers of the CIA acted illegally. Anyone got a reason why those individuals have not been charged with their violations of the law? Since, apparently, the head of the agency agrees that their actions were illegal.
Because if you’re going to prosecute the low level douchebags, they’re going to immediately roll over on the higher-level douchebags who ordered them to do it, who are then going to roll-over on the even higher-level douchebags who ordered them to do it, until you’re up to 1600 Penn.
IOW, Brennan’s “had not been authorized” is doing a great deal of work in his statement, I would guess. I.e., the orders were “rough them up” or “get tough with them” or something that didn’t say exactly what to do, and left it to the imagination of the low-level douchebags, who then went “too far.”
OK, that’s the man in charge saying that some officers of the CIA acted illegally. Anyone got a reason why those individuals have not been charged with their violations of the law? Since, apparently, the head of the agency agrees that their actions were illegal.
Because if you’re going to prosecute the low level douchebags, they’re going to immediately roll over on the higher-level douchebags who ordered them to do it, who are then going to roll-over on the even higher-level douchebags who ordered them to do it, until you’re up to 1600 Penn.
IOW, Brennan’s “had not been authorized” is doing a great deal of work in his statement, I would guess. I.e., the orders were “rough them up” or “get tough with them” or something that didn’t say exactly what to do, and left it to the imagination of the low-level douchebags, who then went “too far.”
“will no one rid me of these troublesome scruples, and torture some rag-heads?”
“will no one rid me of these troublesome scruples, and torture some rag-heads?”
“will no one rid me of these troublesome scruples, and torture some rag-heads?”
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s.
What prevarication. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. FULL. STOP. How many ‘effing times does this have to be repeated?
He stood by his earlier statements against there necessity and then clearly deferred on the future question, because he doesn’t control the future.
Basically, he is saying he is OK with torture under some kind of imagined future circumstances. Therefore he is OK with torture. Period. Because “circumstances” are as malleable as jello. What an asshole.
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s.
What prevarication. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. FULL. STOP. How many ‘effing times does this have to be repeated?
He stood by his earlier statements against there necessity and then clearly deferred on the future question, because he doesn’t control the future.
Basically, he is saying he is OK with torture under some kind of imagined future circumstances. Therefore he is OK with torture. Period. Because “circumstances” are as malleable as jello. What an asshole.
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s.
What prevarication. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. FULL. STOP. How many ‘effing times does this have to be repeated?
He stood by his earlier statements against there necessity and then clearly deferred on the future question, because he doesn’t control the future.
Basically, he is saying he is OK with torture under some kind of imagined future circumstances. Therefore he is OK with torture. Period. Because “circumstances” are as malleable as jello. What an asshole.
How many ‘effing times does this have to be repeated?
ad infinitum.
but it’s still a step closer to truth than when you’re dealing with those who insist that what the CIA and military did wasn’t really torture.
How many ‘effing times does this have to be repeated?
ad infinitum.
but it’s still a step closer to truth than when you’re dealing with those who insist that what the CIA and military did wasn’t really torture.
How many ‘effing times does this have to be repeated?
ad infinitum.
but it’s still a step closer to truth than when you’re dealing with those who insist that what the CIA and military did wasn’t really torture.
– torture is illegal
– the ends do not justify the means
Either you accept those two basics, or you do not. If you do, there is nothing that can be said to justify what the CIA was doing. If you do not, there is nothing you can do to justify your place among civilized human beings.
Note that this does not even touch on the not so minor detail, relative to the second point, that the ends claimed seem to have been entirely illusory. According to the CIA’s own documents, every single instance of useful intelligence gain and used was, if fact, data that was gained by legal means not involving torture at all. (Maybe there was some other instance where real information was gained. But if so, one has to wonder why they have restricted themselves to fictions instead of real cases.)
– torture is illegal
– the ends do not justify the means
Either you accept those two basics, or you do not. If you do, there is nothing that can be said to justify what the CIA was doing. If you do not, there is nothing you can do to justify your place among civilized human beings.
Note that this does not even touch on the not so minor detail, relative to the second point, that the ends claimed seem to have been entirely illusory. According to the CIA’s own documents, every single instance of useful intelligence gain and used was, if fact, data that was gained by legal means not involving torture at all. (Maybe there was some other instance where real information was gained. But if so, one has to wonder why they have restricted themselves to fictions instead of real cases.)
– torture is illegal
– the ends do not justify the means
Either you accept those two basics, or you do not. If you do, there is nothing that can be said to justify what the CIA was doing. If you do not, there is nothing you can do to justify your place among civilized human beings.
Note that this does not even touch on the not so minor detail, relative to the second point, that the ends claimed seem to have been entirely illusory. According to the CIA’s own documents, every single instance of useful intelligence gain and used was, if fact, data that was gained by legal means not involving torture at all. (Maybe there was some other instance where real information was gained. But if so, one has to wonder why they have restricted themselves to fictions instead of real cases.)
Holder said a long time ago that he’s not going to go after anyone over this.
One thing to keep in mind is that US courts are not the only possible venue for prosecution.
We have already had to intervene to prevent US citizens from being prosecuted for war crimes and other violations of law committed in the course of the great War On Terror. The findings in the Senate report may increase the likelihood of more of the same.
There are a lot of folks who should be reconsidering international travel right about now.
I can see how a guy like Holder (or his successor), and via them Obama, would really rather not wade into this freaking unholy mess.
It may, however, be a choice that is made for them, if folks involved in this stuff start getting picked up and prosecuted in international courts.
Holder said a long time ago that he’s not going to go after anyone over this.
One thing to keep in mind is that US courts are not the only possible venue for prosecution.
We have already had to intervene to prevent US citizens from being prosecuted for war crimes and other violations of law committed in the course of the great War On Terror. The findings in the Senate report may increase the likelihood of more of the same.
There are a lot of folks who should be reconsidering international travel right about now.
I can see how a guy like Holder (or his successor), and via them Obama, would really rather not wade into this freaking unholy mess.
It may, however, be a choice that is made for them, if folks involved in this stuff start getting picked up and prosecuted in international courts.
Holder said a long time ago that he’s not going to go after anyone over this.
One thing to keep in mind is that US courts are not the only possible venue for prosecution.
We have already had to intervene to prevent US citizens from being prosecuted for war crimes and other violations of law committed in the course of the great War On Terror. The findings in the Senate report may increase the likelihood of more of the same.
There are a lot of folks who should be reconsidering international travel right about now.
I can see how a guy like Holder (or his successor), and via them Obama, would really rather not wade into this freaking unholy mess.
It may, however, be a choice that is made for them, if folks involved in this stuff start getting picked up and prosecuted in international courts.
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s.
First of all, as an argument for the efficacy of torture (I notice you have adopted the latest circumlocution ‘EIT’) that is utterly pathetic.
As a ‘justification’, it doesn’t even begin to crawl out of the gutter.
And even give that, he is demonstrably still lying, as evinced by the CIA’s own documents, cited in the report:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/12/john-brennan-is-still-lying-ctd/
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s.
First of all, as an argument for the efficacy of torture (I notice you have adopted the latest circumlocution ‘EIT’) that is utterly pathetic.
As a ‘justification’, it doesn’t even begin to crawl out of the gutter.
And even give that, he is demonstrably still lying, as evinced by the CIA’s own documents, cited in the report:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/12/john-brennan-is-still-lying-ctd/
Of course all those dots were words Some of the more important ones were that there was no way to know if the information was gained because of EIT’s.
First of all, as an argument for the efficacy of torture (I notice you have adopted the latest circumlocution ‘EIT’) that is utterly pathetic.
As a ‘justification’, it doesn’t even begin to crawl out of the gutter.
And even give that, he is demonstrably still lying, as evinced by the CIA’s own documents, cited in the report:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/12/john-brennan-is-still-lying-ctd/
It may, however, be a choice that is made for them, if folks involved in this stuff start getting picked up and prosecuted in international courts.
That is a possibility.
The report certainly provides prima facie evidence for a signatory to the UN convention on torture to institute proceedings.
My impression is that public opinion in Europe is far less divided on this than it seems to be in the US, so governments would have far less incentive to obstruct any legal action in the way the Obama administration appears to be doing. Moreover, legal action could originate with the judiciary rather than at a government level.
This is pretty speculative, but if I were Dick Chaney, I would not be visiting somewhere like Spain, where there are activist judges, anytime soon.
It may, however, be a choice that is made for them, if folks involved in this stuff start getting picked up and prosecuted in international courts.
That is a possibility.
The report certainly provides prima facie evidence for a signatory to the UN convention on torture to institute proceedings.
My impression is that public opinion in Europe is far less divided on this than it seems to be in the US, so governments would have far less incentive to obstruct any legal action in the way the Obama administration appears to be doing. Moreover, legal action could originate with the judiciary rather than at a government level.
This is pretty speculative, but if I were Dick Chaney, I would not be visiting somewhere like Spain, where there are activist judges, anytime soon.
It may, however, be a choice that is made for them, if folks involved in this stuff start getting picked up and prosecuted in international courts.
That is a possibility.
The report certainly provides prima facie evidence for a signatory to the UN convention on torture to institute proceedings.
My impression is that public opinion in Europe is far less divided on this than it seems to be in the US, so governments would have far less incentive to obstruct any legal action in the way the Obama administration appears to be doing. Moreover, legal action could originate with the judiciary rather than at a government level.
This is pretty speculative, but if I were Dick Chaney, I would not be visiting somewhere like Spain, where there are activist judges, anytime soon.
I adopted crap, I used the term you did. Second, you quoted the first sentence, I paraphrased the rest, third I never justified torture in my life.
I adopted crap, I used the term you did. Second, you quoted the first sentence, I paraphrased the rest, third I never justified torture in my life.
I adopted crap, I used the term you did. Second, you quoted the first sentence, I paraphrased the rest, third I never justified torture in my life.
And as for the allegation that this is all Democrat partisanship:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_27108319/udall-blasts-obama-breaking-word-cia-torture-disclosures
WASHINGTON — A day after the Senate made public its report on CIA abuses following the 9/11 attacks, Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado took to the floor of the Senate to disclose more details about the agency’s treatment of terrorism suspects.
He also blasted President Barack Obama on Wednesday for breaking his word to shine light on what Udall has dubbed a “dark chapter of our history.”
“The White House has not led on this issue in the manner we expected,” the Democratic lawmaker said. “This administration, like so many before it, has released information only when forced to.”…
…As part of his speech, Udall renewed his calls for Brennan’s resignation and said there should be a “purge” of culpable officials in the administration.
But he saved his toughest rhetoric for the president.
“To date there has been no accountability,” said Udall, who took direct aim at how Obama characterized CIA behavior this summer at a news conference.
“Torture just didn’t happen after all. Contrary to the president’s recent statement, we didn’t ‘torture some folks.’ Real actual people engaged in torture,” he said. “Some of these people are still employed by the CIA and U.S. government.”
And as for the allegation that this is all Democrat partisanship:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_27108319/udall-blasts-obama-breaking-word-cia-torture-disclosures
WASHINGTON — A day after the Senate made public its report on CIA abuses following the 9/11 attacks, Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado took to the floor of the Senate to disclose more details about the agency’s treatment of terrorism suspects.
He also blasted President Barack Obama on Wednesday for breaking his word to shine light on what Udall has dubbed a “dark chapter of our history.”
“The White House has not led on this issue in the manner we expected,” the Democratic lawmaker said. “This administration, like so many before it, has released information only when forced to.”…
…As part of his speech, Udall renewed his calls for Brennan’s resignation and said there should be a “purge” of culpable officials in the administration.
But he saved his toughest rhetoric for the president.
“To date there has been no accountability,” said Udall, who took direct aim at how Obama characterized CIA behavior this summer at a news conference.
“Torture just didn’t happen after all. Contrary to the president’s recent statement, we didn’t ‘torture some folks.’ Real actual people engaged in torture,” he said. “Some of these people are still employed by the CIA and U.S. government.”
And as for the allegation that this is all Democrat partisanship:
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_27108319/udall-blasts-obama-breaking-word-cia-torture-disclosures
WASHINGTON — A day after the Senate made public its report on CIA abuses following the 9/11 attacks, Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado took to the floor of the Senate to disclose more details about the agency’s treatment of terrorism suspects.
He also blasted President Barack Obama on Wednesday for breaking his word to shine light on what Udall has dubbed a “dark chapter of our history.”
“The White House has not led on this issue in the manner we expected,” the Democratic lawmaker said. “This administration, like so many before it, has released information only when forced to.”…
…As part of his speech, Udall renewed his calls for Brennan’s resignation and said there should be a “purge” of culpable officials in the administration.
But he saved his toughest rhetoric for the president.
“To date there has been no accountability,” said Udall, who took direct aim at how Obama characterized CIA behavior this summer at a news conference.
“Torture just didn’t happen after all. Contrary to the president’s recent statement, we didn’t ‘torture some folks.’ Real actual people engaged in torture,” he said. “Some of these people are still employed by the CIA and U.S. government.”
BAM!
There ya go, cleek, order is restored in the universe: we’re back to insisting that what the CIA and military did wasn’t really torture.
(It was only e.g. assault, sexual assault, and negligent homicide as unanticipated “excesses” in the service of the lofty cause of Enhanced Interrogation.)
BAM!
There ya go, cleek, order is restored in the universe: we’re back to insisting that what the CIA and military did wasn’t really torture.
(It was only e.g. assault, sexual assault, and negligent homicide as unanticipated “excesses” in the service of the lofty cause of Enhanced Interrogation.)
BAM!
There ya go, cleek, order is restored in the universe: we’re back to insisting that what the CIA and military did wasn’t really torture.
(It was only e.g. assault, sexual assault, and negligent homicide as unanticipated “excesses” in the service of the lofty cause of Enhanced Interrogation.)
(That “BAM!” wasn’t at Nigel, for likely-needless clarity’s sake.)
(That “BAM!” wasn’t at Nigel, for likely-needless clarity’s sake.)
(That “BAM!” wasn’t at Nigel, for likely-needless clarity’s sake.)
Nigel, the case against Cheney is actually one of the weaker ones. Legally, he wasn’t even in the chain of command. (He may have been acting like he was, but his actual authority would have to be proven.) Which would make him guilty of advocating and encouraging, but not ordering.
You can make a far better case for the various heads of the CIA, for Yoo, and for Bush. They were in charge (or, in Yoo’s case, made an attempt to legally justify something that was not legally justifiable). Which, from the precedents at Nuremburg, makes them responsible. Certainly if I were any of them, I would not be leaving US territory again in my lifetime.
Nigel, the case against Cheney is actually one of the weaker ones. Legally, he wasn’t even in the chain of command. (He may have been acting like he was, but his actual authority would have to be proven.) Which would make him guilty of advocating and encouraging, but not ordering.
You can make a far better case for the various heads of the CIA, for Yoo, and for Bush. They were in charge (or, in Yoo’s case, made an attempt to legally justify something that was not legally justifiable). Which, from the precedents at Nuremburg, makes them responsible. Certainly if I were any of them, I would not be leaving US territory again in my lifetime.
Nigel, the case against Cheney is actually one of the weaker ones. Legally, he wasn’t even in the chain of command. (He may have been acting like he was, but his actual authority would have to be proven.) Which would make him guilty of advocating and encouraging, but not ordering.
You can make a far better case for the various heads of the CIA, for Yoo, and for Bush. They were in charge (or, in Yoo’s case, made an attempt to legally justify something that was not legally justifiable). Which, from the precedents at Nuremburg, makes them responsible. Certainly if I were any of them, I would not be leaving US territory again in my lifetime.
Fair point, wj.
Proving Cheney’s direct involvement legally might be difficult – his moral responsibility is quite another matter, as he and his lawyer Addington effectively determined the entire policy:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html
Fair point, wj.
Proving Cheney’s direct involvement legally might be difficult – his moral responsibility is quite another matter, as he and his lawyer Addington effectively determined the entire policy:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html
Fair point, wj.
Proving Cheney’s direct involvement legally might be difficult – his moral responsibility is quite another matter, as he and his lawyer Addington effectively determined the entire policy:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html
Mistakes were Minotaured.
Mistakes were Minotaured.
Mistakes were Minotaured.
Nigel, no question (at least in my mind) of his moral responsibility. It’s his legal responsibility that is harder to establish.
Nigel, no question (at least in my mind) of his moral responsibility. It’s his legal responsibility that is harder to establish.
Nigel, no question (at least in my mind) of his moral responsibility. It’s his legal responsibility that is harder to establish.
A disturbing Atlantic interview article explores the role of doctors in the torture program (and explains the origin of the bizarre ‘rectal feeding’ – it’s a medieval torture technique):
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/do-no-harm-when-doctors-torture/383677/?single_page=true
In general, doctors in torture have a couple roles. Number one, they design methods of torture that do not leave scars. For example, the so-called “rectal feeding” which is actually a medieval technique in which the intestines are inflated with a viscous material to cause intestinal pain. The docs are also involved in making sure that the prisoners who weren’t supposed to die didn’t die. The third thing doctors do is they falsify medical records and death certificates to conceal the injuries of torture…
…As human rights groups have put additional pressure on regimes around the world with regard to torture, regimes that are responsive to human rights pressure want to use torture that doesn’t leave scars. So they prefer methods like asphyxiation, isolation, cramming people in small boxes, white rooms with loud noises, because it just destroys people psychologically. Whereas regimes like Assad’s regime [in Syria] don’t really care if there are scars. So there is no role for medicine in that respect in an Assad-type regime or in North Korea’s regime…
…The first question I asked when I saw the Abu Ghraib pictures was, “My god, where were the doctors when all this was going on? How did the government turn off the protests from the medical system?” What I discovered instead was that the doctors and psychologists were built into the interrogational abuses. So it wasn’t a matter of turning off their protests, it was a matter of a structured system of complicity. This has greatly harmed the U.S. medical community’s ability to speak on behalf of doctors who are protesting torture around the world.
A disturbing Atlantic interview article explores the role of doctors in the torture program (and explains the origin of the bizarre ‘rectal feeding’ – it’s a medieval torture technique):
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/do-no-harm-when-doctors-torture/383677/?single_page=true
In general, doctors in torture have a couple roles. Number one, they design methods of torture that do not leave scars. For example, the so-called “rectal feeding” which is actually a medieval technique in which the intestines are inflated with a viscous material to cause intestinal pain. The docs are also involved in making sure that the prisoners who weren’t supposed to die didn’t die. The third thing doctors do is they falsify medical records and death certificates to conceal the injuries of torture…
…As human rights groups have put additional pressure on regimes around the world with regard to torture, regimes that are responsive to human rights pressure want to use torture that doesn’t leave scars. So they prefer methods like asphyxiation, isolation, cramming people in small boxes, white rooms with loud noises, because it just destroys people psychologically. Whereas regimes like Assad’s regime [in Syria] don’t really care if there are scars. So there is no role for medicine in that respect in an Assad-type regime or in North Korea’s regime…
…The first question I asked when I saw the Abu Ghraib pictures was, “My god, where were the doctors when all this was going on? How did the government turn off the protests from the medical system?” What I discovered instead was that the doctors and psychologists were built into the interrogational abuses. So it wasn’t a matter of turning off their protests, it was a matter of a structured system of complicity. This has greatly harmed the U.S. medical community’s ability to speak on behalf of doctors who are protesting torture around the world.
A disturbing Atlantic interview article explores the role of doctors in the torture program (and explains the origin of the bizarre ‘rectal feeding’ – it’s a medieval torture technique):
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/do-no-harm-when-doctors-torture/383677/?single_page=true
In general, doctors in torture have a couple roles. Number one, they design methods of torture that do not leave scars. For example, the so-called “rectal feeding” which is actually a medieval technique in which the intestines are inflated with a viscous material to cause intestinal pain. The docs are also involved in making sure that the prisoners who weren’t supposed to die didn’t die. The third thing doctors do is they falsify medical records and death certificates to conceal the injuries of torture…
…As human rights groups have put additional pressure on regimes around the world with regard to torture, regimes that are responsive to human rights pressure want to use torture that doesn’t leave scars. So they prefer methods like asphyxiation, isolation, cramming people in small boxes, white rooms with loud noises, because it just destroys people psychologically. Whereas regimes like Assad’s regime [in Syria] don’t really care if there are scars. So there is no role for medicine in that respect in an Assad-type regime or in North Korea’s regime…
…The first question I asked when I saw the Abu Ghraib pictures was, “My god, where were the doctors when all this was going on? How did the government turn off the protests from the medical system?” What I discovered instead was that the doctors and psychologists were built into the interrogational abuses. So it wasn’t a matter of turning off their protests, it was a matter of a structured system of complicity. This has greatly harmed the U.S. medical community’s ability to speak on behalf of doctors who are protesting torture around the world.
“and how horribly unprecedented the Democrats are obstructing the Senate’s business.”
And I look forward to you rationalizing that the Democrats doing everything humanly possible to keep a bill from passing isn’t “obstruction”. So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.
Mind, I don’t think “obstruction” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being obstructed, but it is hilarious watching the House pass bills, and send them to the Senate where they just get sat on, and it being called Republican “obstructionism”.
Seriously, though, the Republicans will ideally start rolling out a lot of bills that Reid didn’t permit votes on because it would have been politically damaging for Democrats to vote against them. Now you’ll have to take that damage, or let Obama field them, and explain why a veto is the legislature being obstructive. Perhaps the Republicans will peel off enough Democratic votes to actually get some things passed. At the very least, they should make Democrats go on record opposing them.
“and how horribly unprecedented the Democrats are obstructing the Senate’s business.”
And I look forward to you rationalizing that the Democrats doing everything humanly possible to keep a bill from passing isn’t “obstruction”. So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.
Mind, I don’t think “obstruction” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being obstructed, but it is hilarious watching the House pass bills, and send them to the Senate where they just get sat on, and it being called Republican “obstructionism”.
Seriously, though, the Republicans will ideally start rolling out a lot of bills that Reid didn’t permit votes on because it would have been politically damaging for Democrats to vote against them. Now you’ll have to take that damage, or let Obama field them, and explain why a veto is the legislature being obstructive. Perhaps the Republicans will peel off enough Democratic votes to actually get some things passed. At the very least, they should make Democrats go on record opposing them.
“and how horribly unprecedented the Democrats are obstructing the Senate’s business.”
And I look forward to you rationalizing that the Democrats doing everything humanly possible to keep a bill from passing isn’t “obstruction”. So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.
Mind, I don’t think “obstruction” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being obstructed, but it is hilarious watching the House pass bills, and send them to the Senate where they just get sat on, and it being called Republican “obstructionism”.
Seriously, though, the Republicans will ideally start rolling out a lot of bills that Reid didn’t permit votes on because it would have been politically damaging for Democrats to vote against them. Now you’ll have to take that damage, or let Obama field them, and explain why a veto is the legislature being obstructive. Perhaps the Republicans will peel off enough Democratic votes to actually get some things passed. At the very least, they should make Democrats go on record opposing them.
but it is hilarious watching the House pass bills, and send them to the Senate where they just get sat on
bunk
but it is hilarious watching the House pass bills, and send them to the Senate where they just get sat on
bunk
but it is hilarious watching the House pass bills, and send them to the Senate where they just get sat on
bunk
Mind, I don’t think “obstruction” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being obstructed
Likewise.
I look forward to Obama vetoing whatever garbage gets sent to his desk until his pen runs out of ink.
Then, I’ll be happy to buy him a new pen. I’ll even lend him mine.
Some things are worth obstructing.
A disturbing Atlantic interview article explores the role of doctors in the torture program
The Bush administration turned everything they touched into a steaming pile of sh*t. We’ll be digging ourselves out of their various messes for another generation, at least.
Anyone so inclined, feel free to get all pissed off about me hating on Bush. The plain fact is that the man was the worst President of our lifetimes. Incompetent, ignorant, and careless.
And his main man Cheney is either criminally insane, or is just a straight-up old school black-hearted evil power-hungry MF’er. Proudly and unapologetically so.
The rest, as they say, is commentary.
To cut to the chase on all of the Senate committee BS, the CIA tortured people because folks in the executive wanted the information they wanted, whether it was actually so or not, and they didn’t give a flying you-know-what if the folks being tortured knew anything or not, if they were involved in anything remotely resembling terrorism or not, or if the folks they suborned into implementing the torture program ended up criminally liable or not.
They just didn’t give a shit. They still don’t.
In a just world, they’d hang.
Mind, I don’t think “obstruction” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being obstructed
Likewise.
I look forward to Obama vetoing whatever garbage gets sent to his desk until his pen runs out of ink.
Then, I’ll be happy to buy him a new pen. I’ll even lend him mine.
Some things are worth obstructing.
A disturbing Atlantic interview article explores the role of doctors in the torture program
The Bush administration turned everything they touched into a steaming pile of sh*t. We’ll be digging ourselves out of their various messes for another generation, at least.
Anyone so inclined, feel free to get all pissed off about me hating on Bush. The plain fact is that the man was the worst President of our lifetimes. Incompetent, ignorant, and careless.
And his main man Cheney is either criminally insane, or is just a straight-up old school black-hearted evil power-hungry MF’er. Proudly and unapologetically so.
The rest, as they say, is commentary.
To cut to the chase on all of the Senate committee BS, the CIA tortured people because folks in the executive wanted the information they wanted, whether it was actually so or not, and they didn’t give a flying you-know-what if the folks being tortured knew anything or not, if they were involved in anything remotely resembling terrorism or not, or if the folks they suborned into implementing the torture program ended up criminally liable or not.
They just didn’t give a shit. They still don’t.
In a just world, they’d hang.
Mind, I don’t think “obstruction” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being obstructed
Likewise.
I look forward to Obama vetoing whatever garbage gets sent to his desk until his pen runs out of ink.
Then, I’ll be happy to buy him a new pen. I’ll even lend him mine.
Some things are worth obstructing.
A disturbing Atlantic interview article explores the role of doctors in the torture program
The Bush administration turned everything they touched into a steaming pile of sh*t. We’ll be digging ourselves out of their various messes for another generation, at least.
Anyone so inclined, feel free to get all pissed off about me hating on Bush. The plain fact is that the man was the worst President of our lifetimes. Incompetent, ignorant, and careless.
And his main man Cheney is either criminally insane, or is just a straight-up old school black-hearted evil power-hungry MF’er. Proudly and unapologetically so.
The rest, as they say, is commentary.
To cut to the chase on all of the Senate committee BS, the CIA tortured people because folks in the executive wanted the information they wanted, whether it was actually so or not, and they didn’t give a flying you-know-what if the folks being tortured knew anything or not, if they were involved in anything remotely resembling terrorism or not, or if the folks they suborned into implementing the torture program ended up criminally liable or not.
They just didn’t give a shit. They still don’t.
In a just world, they’d hang.
So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.
you mean the GOP’s record number of cloture motions ?
not allowing votes by arcane procedural chicanery: not obstruction. using the Constitutionally-defined power of the veto: obstruction.
why do you hate the English language so?
So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.
you mean the GOP’s record number of cloture motions ?
not allowing votes by arcane procedural chicanery: not obstruction. using the Constitutionally-defined power of the veto: obstruction.
why do you hate the English language so?
So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.
you mean the GOP’s record number of cloture motions ?
not allowing votes by arcane procedural chicanery: not obstruction. using the Constitutionally-defined power of the veto: obstruction.
why do you hate the English language so?
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11, a lot more than that from all kinds of other tragedies, millions from centuries of wars, none of that counting sickness, starvation and human carelessness. In a just world we wouldn’t have to close how to defend ourselves against people who’s primary goal is to wipe away us, at a minimum or way of life. In a just world we would nt need to strive to a higher moral standard, in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes. In a just world retribution isn’t the choice, from either one. Hanging the people who made that mistake is no more just than the torture itself.
Calling for it is as brutally hateful.
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11, a lot more than that from all kinds of other tragedies, millions from centuries of wars, none of that counting sickness, starvation and human carelessness. In a just world we wouldn’t have to close how to defend ourselves against people who’s primary goal is to wipe away us, at a minimum or way of life. In a just world we would nt need to strive to a higher moral standard, in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes. In a just world retribution isn’t the choice, from either one. Hanging the people who made that mistake is no more just than the torture itself.
Calling for it is as brutally hateful.
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11, a lot more than that from all kinds of other tragedies, millions from centuries of wars, none of that counting sickness, starvation and human carelessness. In a just world we wouldn’t have to close how to defend ourselves against people who’s primary goal is to wipe away us, at a minimum or way of life. In a just world we would nt need to strive to a higher moral standard, in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes. In a just world retribution isn’t the choice, from either one. Hanging the people who made that mistake is no more just than the torture itself.
Calling for it is as brutally hateful.
Close / choose
Or / our
Close / choose
Or / our
Close / choose
Or / our
for the world be evil, a man must be as evil.
i think Jefferson said that. or maybe Jesus.
for the world be evil, a man must be as evil.
i think Jefferson said that. or maybe Jesus.
for the world be evil, a man must be as evil.
i think Jefferson said that. or maybe Jesus.
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11
I couldn’t agree more.
in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes.
You assume that the torture regime was a mistake.
Hanging the people who made that mistake is no more just than the torture itself.
I didn’t make the law, I’m simply pointing out what the consequences would be if they were applied consistently and fairly.
Calling for it is as brutally hateful.
As noted above, I’m not calling for anything.
The death penalty is the penalty under the US code for torture leading to the death of the person tortured. I don’t know what the penalties are under international law, but under US law it is a capital offense.
It is against the law – US and international law – to torture people. Against the law, period. There are no exceptions.
Even under the extraordinarily permissive definition given for torture under the US code, the actions described in the Senate findings are unambiguously torture.
Under international law, they are so in spades.
There is no justification under law, no exceptional case, no wiggle room, by which torture can be finessed as a “mistake”.
“Mistakes” do not come with legal justifications, extensive scrupulous and detailed descriptions of precisely what is and is not a “mistake”, or cottage industries of trained specialists in how to inflict “mistakes”.
Feel free to defend this horseshit under the rubric of “mistakes were made”, but the program and policies were considered, justified, documented, implemented carefully and with deliberative intent, and carried out for years.
Not a mistake. An intentional policy and program, with all the bells and whistles.
Stuff like this corrupts people and nations. There is a reason it’s against the law.
It’s just fucking wrong, and there is no justification for it. I’m bloody well sick and tired of people trying to defend it or explain it away.
The Brits were subject to terrorist attacks. They did not respond with a program of torture.
The Spanish were subject to terrorist attacks. They did not respond with a program of torture.
We did. And we did so under the administration of George W Bush, and the preponderance of the evidence is that we did so at the urging and direction of the office of the VPOTUS.
People have, literally, hung for what they did. Not only have they hung, *we hung them*.
Why the hell should they be any different?
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11
I couldn’t agree more.
in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes.
You assume that the torture regime was a mistake.
Hanging the people who made that mistake is no more just than the torture itself.
I didn’t make the law, I’m simply pointing out what the consequences would be if they were applied consistently and fairly.
Calling for it is as brutally hateful.
As noted above, I’m not calling for anything.
The death penalty is the penalty under the US code for torture leading to the death of the person tortured. I don’t know what the penalties are under international law, but under US law it is a capital offense.
It is against the law – US and international law – to torture people. Against the law, period. There are no exceptions.
Even under the extraordinarily permissive definition given for torture under the US code, the actions described in the Senate findings are unambiguously torture.
Under international law, they are so in spades.
There is no justification under law, no exceptional case, no wiggle room, by which torture can be finessed as a “mistake”.
“Mistakes” do not come with legal justifications, extensive scrupulous and detailed descriptions of precisely what is and is not a “mistake”, or cottage industries of trained specialists in how to inflict “mistakes”.
Feel free to defend this horseshit under the rubric of “mistakes were made”, but the program and policies were considered, justified, documented, implemented carefully and with deliberative intent, and carried out for years.
Not a mistake. An intentional policy and program, with all the bells and whistles.
Stuff like this corrupts people and nations. There is a reason it’s against the law.
It’s just fucking wrong, and there is no justification for it. I’m bloody well sick and tired of people trying to defend it or explain it away.
The Brits were subject to terrorist attacks. They did not respond with a program of torture.
The Spanish were subject to terrorist attacks. They did not respond with a program of torture.
We did. And we did so under the administration of George W Bush, and the preponderance of the evidence is that we did so at the urging and direction of the office of the VPOTUS.
People have, literally, hung for what they did. Not only have they hung, *we hung them*.
Why the hell should they be any different?
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11
I couldn’t agree more.
in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes.
You assume that the torture regime was a mistake.
Hanging the people who made that mistake is no more just than the torture itself.
I didn’t make the law, I’m simply pointing out what the consequences would be if they were applied consistently and fairly.
Calling for it is as brutally hateful.
As noted above, I’m not calling for anything.
The death penalty is the penalty under the US code for torture leading to the death of the person tortured. I don’t know what the penalties are under international law, but under US law it is a capital offense.
It is against the law – US and international law – to torture people. Against the law, period. There are no exceptions.
Even under the extraordinarily permissive definition given for torture under the US code, the actions described in the Senate findings are unambiguously torture.
Under international law, they are so in spades.
There is no justification under law, no exceptional case, no wiggle room, by which torture can be finessed as a “mistake”.
“Mistakes” do not come with legal justifications, extensive scrupulous and detailed descriptions of precisely what is and is not a “mistake”, or cottage industries of trained specialists in how to inflict “mistakes”.
Feel free to defend this horseshit under the rubric of “mistakes were made”, but the program and policies were considered, justified, documented, implemented carefully and with deliberative intent, and carried out for years.
Not a mistake. An intentional policy and program, with all the bells and whistles.
Stuff like this corrupts people and nations. There is a reason it’s against the law.
It’s just fucking wrong, and there is no justification for it. I’m bloody well sick and tired of people trying to defend it or explain it away.
The Brits were subject to terrorist attacks. They did not respond with a program of torture.
The Spanish were subject to terrorist attacks. They did not respond with a program of torture.
We did. And we did so under the administration of George W Bush, and the preponderance of the evidence is that we did so at the urging and direction of the office of the VPOTUS.
People have, literally, hung for what they did. Not only have they hung, *we hung them*.
Why the hell should they be any different?
And just to clarify the point, for any folks who find it somehow too freaking obscure to grasp, this is what it looks like when a “mistake” happens:
“They water boarded Zubaydah”
“Holy crap, that’s against the law! Tell them to stop that immediately!”
That’s how you respond to a mistake.
That isn’t what happened.
And just to clarify the point, for any folks who find it somehow too freaking obscure to grasp, this is what it looks like when a “mistake” happens:
“They water boarded Zubaydah”
“Holy crap, that’s against the law! Tell them to stop that immediately!”
That’s how you respond to a mistake.
That isn’t what happened.
And just to clarify the point, for any folks who find it somehow too freaking obscure to grasp, this is what it looks like when a “mistake” happens:
“They water boarded Zubaydah”
“Holy crap, that’s against the law! Tell them to stop that immediately!”
That’s how you respond to a mistake.
That isn’t what happened.
I’m bloody well sick of brutal vindictive people talking about killing people in s self righteous rant. So we are even.
I’m bloody well sick of brutal vindictive people talking about killing people in s self righteous rant. So we are even.
I’m bloody well sick of brutal vindictive people talking about killing people in s self righteous rant. So we are even.
yeah marty, that’s me in a nutshell.
have a nice day.
yeah marty, that’s me in a nutshell.
have a nice day.
yeah marty, that’s me in a nutshell.
have a nice day.
Brett: Perhaps the Republicans will peel off enough Democratic votes to actually get some things passed.
Mind, I don’t think “getting things passed” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being passed.
Russell: And his main man Cheney is either criminally insane, or is just a straight-up old school black-hearted evil power-hungry MF’er.
Hilzoy used the phrase “motiveless malignancy” to describe Cheney way back when. Yet some people not only respect him themselves, but demand respect for him from others. For example:
Marty: … in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes.
In a just world, the criminally insane would not be “protectors” of anybody.
–TP
Brett: Perhaps the Republicans will peel off enough Democratic votes to actually get some things passed.
Mind, I don’t think “getting things passed” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being passed.
Russell: And his main man Cheney is either criminally insane, or is just a straight-up old school black-hearted evil power-hungry MF’er.
Hilzoy used the phrase “motiveless malignancy” to describe Cheney way back when. Yet some people not only respect him themselves, but demand respect for him from others. For example:
Marty: … in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes.
In a just world, the criminally insane would not be “protectors” of anybody.
–TP
Brett: Perhaps the Republicans will peel off enough Democratic votes to actually get some things passed.
Mind, I don’t think “getting things passed” is good or bad, apart from the nature of what is being passed.
Russell: And his main man Cheney is either criminally insane, or is just a straight-up old school black-hearted evil power-hungry MF’er.
Hilzoy used the phrase “motiveless malignancy” to describe Cheney way back when. Yet some people not only respect him themselves, but demand respect for him from others. For example:
Marty: … in a just world there would be understanding and respect from those being protected when the protectors make mistakes.
In a just world, the criminally insane would not be “protectors” of anybody.
–TP
No its not you. But it is you on this subject, which confuses me. Context matters.
No its not you. But it is you on this subject, which confuses me. Context matters.
No its not you. But it is you on this subject, which confuses me. Context matters.
not for nothing, but in another thread your response to the killing of a 12 year old kid playing with a pellet gun was basically, “he shouldn’t have been waving that thing around, my grandkids know better than that”.
A 12 year old kid. Shot down like a f***ing dog.
So save your freaking crocodile tears for the poor brutal vindictive MF’ers who beat people to death in your name and mine.
“The gloves are off!”, right? No vindictiveness there.
It’s freaking amazing to me the crap that people decide to defend.
not for nothing, but in another thread your response to the killing of a 12 year old kid playing with a pellet gun was basically, “he shouldn’t have been waving that thing around, my grandkids know better than that”.
A 12 year old kid. Shot down like a f***ing dog.
So save your freaking crocodile tears for the poor brutal vindictive MF’ers who beat people to death in your name and mine.
“The gloves are off!”, right? No vindictiveness there.
It’s freaking amazing to me the crap that people decide to defend.
not for nothing, but in another thread your response to the killing of a 12 year old kid playing with a pellet gun was basically, “he shouldn’t have been waving that thing around, my grandkids know better than that”.
A 12 year old kid. Shot down like a f***ing dog.
So save your freaking crocodile tears for the poor brutal vindictive MF’ers who beat people to death in your name and mine.
“The gloves are off!”, right? No vindictiveness there.
It’s freaking amazing to me the crap that people decide to defend.
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11
I’m sure you are aware of this Marty, but history did not start on September 11, 2001. There is a rather lengthy back story to the event, with many injustices on many sides.
Our response to the 9/11 attacks was out of all proportion to the crime. In our blindness for revenge, we went after the wrong people. We didn’t give a shit who or what got in our way. This melded nicely with our exceptionalism, our blind hubris, the whiff of empire, and geopolitics. We even went out of our way to protect some of the guilty.
It was a tragic mistake* from the start to an end that is still unfolding.
All this can be understood, but what cannot be understood or condoned is the stain on our honor. That was entirely voluntary. Those who condoned, enabled, or participated in this crime should at least have the courage to fall on their swords. That’s what they used to do in the good old days.
Instead they try to redefine torture, make excuses, or just flat out lie.
It is reprehensible.
*as someone famously remarked, “It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.”
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11
I’m sure you are aware of this Marty, but history did not start on September 11, 2001. There is a rather lengthy back story to the event, with many injustices on many sides.
Our response to the 9/11 attacks was out of all proportion to the crime. In our blindness for revenge, we went after the wrong people. We didn’t give a shit who or what got in our way. This melded nicely with our exceptionalism, our blind hubris, the whiff of empire, and geopolitics. We even went out of our way to protect some of the guilty.
It was a tragic mistake* from the start to an end that is still unfolding.
All this can be understood, but what cannot be understood or condoned is the stain on our honor. That was entirely voluntary. Those who condoned, enabled, or participated in this crime should at least have the courage to fall on their swords. That’s what they used to do in the good old days.
Instead they try to redefine torture, make excuses, or just flat out lie.
It is reprehensible.
*as someone famously remarked, “It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.”
In a just world there would be 3000+ people alive from Sept 11
I’m sure you are aware of this Marty, but history did not start on September 11, 2001. There is a rather lengthy back story to the event, with many injustices on many sides.
Our response to the 9/11 attacks was out of all proportion to the crime. In our blindness for revenge, we went after the wrong people. We didn’t give a shit who or what got in our way. This melded nicely with our exceptionalism, our blind hubris, the whiff of empire, and geopolitics. We even went out of our way to protect some of the guilty.
It was a tragic mistake* from the start to an end that is still unfolding.
All this can be understood, but what cannot be understood or condoned is the stain on our honor. That was entirely voluntary. Those who condoned, enabled, or participated in this crime should at least have the courage to fall on their swords. That’s what they used to do in the good old days.
Instead they try to redefine torture, make excuses, or just flat out lie.
It is reprehensible.
*as someone famously remarked, “It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake.”
It amazes me also. Cops shot down like dogs, soldiers killed every day, I have no crocodile tears. I shed real tears for a twelve year old boy, and the cop and the parents. We used to live in a society that had empathy and shared grief. Now we just blame somebody. Save your outrage for the stupid parents who let their kid take the orange tip off the pellet gun, and leave it for another kid to find. Sue them. For stupidity. Or feel bad for them too. Or Fing hang em.
It amazes me also. Cops shot down like dogs, soldiers killed every day, I have no crocodile tears. I shed real tears for a twelve year old boy, and the cop and the parents. We used to live in a society that had empathy and shared grief. Now we just blame somebody. Save your outrage for the stupid parents who let their kid take the orange tip off the pellet gun, and leave it for another kid to find. Sue them. For stupidity. Or feel bad for them too. Or Fing hang em.
It amazes me also. Cops shot down like dogs, soldiers killed every day, I have no crocodile tears. I shed real tears for a twelve year old boy, and the cop and the parents. We used to live in a society that had empathy and shared grief. Now we just blame somebody. Save your outrage for the stupid parents who let their kid take the orange tip off the pellet gun, and leave it for another kid to find. Sue them. For stupidity. Or feel bad for them too. Or Fing hang em.
But it is you on this subject, which confuses me.
Because I don’t find the idea that it was a mistake made in the heat of the moment to be supportable, given what we know about what happened.
Because the preponderance of the evidence available to us tells me that the decision to torture people was deliberately and thoughtfully taken.
And because the preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that the purpose of the torture regime extended beyond trying to gain critical and timely information about possible impending acts of terror, and included a desire to build a case for widening the war to include Iraq. Whether there was any reasonable cause for invading Iraq or not.
That’s why.
I believe many of the principals of the Bush administrating to be criminals. In my opinion they should be required to answer for what they did, and also in my opinion that will never happen in this country.
It may happen elsewhere, in which case their blood is on their own heads. Not mine, theirs.
And I say all of this not because I’m a brutal vindictive idiot indulging in self-righteous rants, but because all of the above is freaking wrong. Not “wrong” like “mistake”, but “wrong” like profoundly and consequentially evil.
Hope that clarifies things.
But it is you on this subject, which confuses me.
Because I don’t find the idea that it was a mistake made in the heat of the moment to be supportable, given what we know about what happened.
Because the preponderance of the evidence available to us tells me that the decision to torture people was deliberately and thoughtfully taken.
And because the preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that the purpose of the torture regime extended beyond trying to gain critical and timely information about possible impending acts of terror, and included a desire to build a case for widening the war to include Iraq. Whether there was any reasonable cause for invading Iraq or not.
That’s why.
I believe many of the principals of the Bush administrating to be criminals. In my opinion they should be required to answer for what they did, and also in my opinion that will never happen in this country.
It may happen elsewhere, in which case their blood is on their own heads. Not mine, theirs.
And I say all of this not because I’m a brutal vindictive idiot indulging in self-righteous rants, but because all of the above is freaking wrong. Not “wrong” like “mistake”, but “wrong” like profoundly and consequentially evil.
Hope that clarifies things.
But it is you on this subject, which confuses me.
Because I don’t find the idea that it was a mistake made in the heat of the moment to be supportable, given what we know about what happened.
Because the preponderance of the evidence available to us tells me that the decision to torture people was deliberately and thoughtfully taken.
And because the preponderance of the evidence leads me to believe that the purpose of the torture regime extended beyond trying to gain critical and timely information about possible impending acts of terror, and included a desire to build a case for widening the war to include Iraq. Whether there was any reasonable cause for invading Iraq or not.
That’s why.
I believe many of the principals of the Bush administrating to be criminals. In my opinion they should be required to answer for what they did, and also in my opinion that will never happen in this country.
It may happen elsewhere, in which case their blood is on their own heads. Not mine, theirs.
And I say all of this not because I’m a brutal vindictive idiot indulging in self-righteous rants, but because all of the above is freaking wrong. Not “wrong” like “mistake”, but “wrong” like profoundly and consequentially evil.
Hope that clarifies things.
Save your outrage for the stupid parents who let their kid take the orange tip off the pellet gun, and leave it for another kid to find.
I’m only allowed to be angry about one thing?
Sue them. For stupidity. Or feel bad for them too.
I’m going with “feel bad for”.
Kids do stupid stuff every day. I sure as hell did when I was 12. I didn’t end up dead.
Save your outrage for the stupid parents who let their kid take the orange tip off the pellet gun, and leave it for another kid to find.
I’m only allowed to be angry about one thing?
Sue them. For stupidity. Or feel bad for them too.
I’m going with “feel bad for”.
Kids do stupid stuff every day. I sure as hell did when I was 12. I didn’t end up dead.
Save your outrage for the stupid parents who let their kid take the orange tip off the pellet gun, and leave it for another kid to find.
I’m only allowed to be angry about one thing?
Sue them. For stupidity. Or feel bad for them too.
I’m going with “feel bad for”.
Kids do stupid stuff every day. I sure as hell did when I was 12. I didn’t end up dead.
“The psychologists required not only indemnification for legal liability (Mitchell and Jessen were promised a $5 million legal defense fund by the CIA), but they also required indemnification from … the American Psychological Association.” This is vile.
“The psychologists required not only indemnification for legal liability (Mitchell and Jessen were promised a $5 million legal defense fund by the CIA), but they also required indemnification from … the American Psychological Association.” This is vile.
“The psychologists required not only indemnification for legal liability (Mitchell and Jessen were promised a $5 million legal defense fund by the CIA), but they also required indemnification from … the American Psychological Association.” This is vile.
“We used to live in a society that had empathy and shared grief. Now we just blame somebody.”
Like after this other September event in 1963?
Or perhaps you could provide some other example from some golden age of your imagination.
“We used to live in a society that had empathy and shared grief. Now we just blame somebody.”
Like after this other September event in 1963?
Or perhaps you could provide some other example from some golden age of your imagination.
“We used to live in a society that had empathy and shared grief. Now we just blame somebody.”
Like after this other September event in 1963?
Or perhaps you could provide some other example from some golden age of your imagination.
I guess we are all wrong. Torture accountability.
I guess we are all wrong. Torture accountability.
I guess we are all wrong. Torture accountability.
And the less-expansive-than-the-treaty-it’s-implementing definition of torture; note very carefully subparagraphs C and D.:
(Note that the signed and ratified treaty that this implements – with no reservations on this point – makes very clear that there are no exceptions for “necessity” regardless of circumstances, and that the law does not attempt to carve out exceptions for “necessity”.)
You want to know why I say you have authoritarian sympathies, Marty? Because you think it’s sufficiently important for an alleged thief of $50 of cigars (which carries a punishment of up to 1y imprisonment) to be apprehended immediately no matter the force or risk involved to the officer, suspect, or bystanders because to do otherwise would be contrary to law and order, but when an agent of the Executive, with knowledge aforethought and a professional responsibility to know what their superiors and the law have authorized them to do to helpless detainees in their power, chooses to e.g. stage a mock execution of a detainee or threatens to kill or torture one of their relatives, in black-and-white, unambiguous violation of the law of the land (which carries a punishment of up to 20y imprisonment), and in a manner that was not approved by their EIT SOPs… you consider it “proper chastisement” to tell them that no, you really mean it, that’s still illegal, and no more violations of that law will be permitted from now on… but you totally understand why they did it, and kudos for that.
If you were half the proponent of rule of law – and not mere authority – that you claim to be, you’d not be making claims like that. The hard part about being for rule of law is that the rules have to apply to the weak as well as the powerful, and the people you find sympathetic as well as those you despise. If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.
I’m bloody well sick of brutal vindictive people talking about killing people in s self righteous rant.
Marty, I’m not sure how it’s better for you to scornfully mock and deride people who take a principled stand against governmental torture and misconduct, and characterize calls for alleged criminals to at least be formally investigated with the possibility of prosecution, as “vindictiveness” seeking “retribution”. That’s as fair and accurate a characterization as describing your calls for Brown to have not resisted arrest as vindictive calls for him to be summarily executed in retribution for theft. Which is to say, it’s pretty damned unfair and inaccurate, and requires ascribing bad faith to the people you’re talking to. I know you can be better than that from past experience. On this subject, though, you seem unwilling to even try.
And the less-expansive-than-the-treaty-it’s-implementing definition of torture; note very carefully subparagraphs C and D.:
(Note that the signed and ratified treaty that this implements – with no reservations on this point – makes very clear that there are no exceptions for “necessity” regardless of circumstances, and that the law does not attempt to carve out exceptions for “necessity”.)
You want to know why I say you have authoritarian sympathies, Marty? Because you think it’s sufficiently important for an alleged thief of $50 of cigars (which carries a punishment of up to 1y imprisonment) to be apprehended immediately no matter the force or risk involved to the officer, suspect, or bystanders because to do otherwise would be contrary to law and order, but when an agent of the Executive, with knowledge aforethought and a professional responsibility to know what their superiors and the law have authorized them to do to helpless detainees in their power, chooses to e.g. stage a mock execution of a detainee or threatens to kill or torture one of their relatives, in black-and-white, unambiguous violation of the law of the land (which carries a punishment of up to 20y imprisonment), and in a manner that was not approved by their EIT SOPs… you consider it “proper chastisement” to tell them that no, you really mean it, that’s still illegal, and no more violations of that law will be permitted from now on… but you totally understand why they did it, and kudos for that.
If you were half the proponent of rule of law – and not mere authority – that you claim to be, you’d not be making claims like that. The hard part about being for rule of law is that the rules have to apply to the weak as well as the powerful, and the people you find sympathetic as well as those you despise. If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.
I’m bloody well sick of brutal vindictive people talking about killing people in s self righteous rant.
Marty, I’m not sure how it’s better for you to scornfully mock and deride people who take a principled stand against governmental torture and misconduct, and characterize calls for alleged criminals to at least be formally investigated with the possibility of prosecution, as “vindictiveness” seeking “retribution”. That’s as fair and accurate a characterization as describing your calls for Brown to have not resisted arrest as vindictive calls for him to be summarily executed in retribution for theft. Which is to say, it’s pretty damned unfair and inaccurate, and requires ascribing bad faith to the people you’re talking to. I know you can be better than that from past experience. On this subject, though, you seem unwilling to even try.
And the less-expansive-than-the-treaty-it’s-implementing definition of torture; note very carefully subparagraphs C and D.:
(Note that the signed and ratified treaty that this implements – with no reservations on this point – makes very clear that there are no exceptions for “necessity” regardless of circumstances, and that the law does not attempt to carve out exceptions for “necessity”.)
You want to know why I say you have authoritarian sympathies, Marty? Because you think it’s sufficiently important for an alleged thief of $50 of cigars (which carries a punishment of up to 1y imprisonment) to be apprehended immediately no matter the force or risk involved to the officer, suspect, or bystanders because to do otherwise would be contrary to law and order, but when an agent of the Executive, with knowledge aforethought and a professional responsibility to know what their superiors and the law have authorized them to do to helpless detainees in their power, chooses to e.g. stage a mock execution of a detainee or threatens to kill or torture one of their relatives, in black-and-white, unambiguous violation of the law of the land (which carries a punishment of up to 20y imprisonment), and in a manner that was not approved by their EIT SOPs… you consider it “proper chastisement” to tell them that no, you really mean it, that’s still illegal, and no more violations of that law will be permitted from now on… but you totally understand why they did it, and kudos for that.
If you were half the proponent of rule of law – and not mere authority – that you claim to be, you’d not be making claims like that. The hard part about being for rule of law is that the rules have to apply to the weak as well as the powerful, and the people you find sympathetic as well as those you despise. If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.
I’m bloody well sick of brutal vindictive people talking about killing people in s self righteous rant.
Marty, I’m not sure how it’s better for you to scornfully mock and deride people who take a principled stand against governmental torture and misconduct, and characterize calls for alleged criminals to at least be formally investigated with the possibility of prosecution, as “vindictiveness” seeking “retribution”. That’s as fair and accurate a characterization as describing your calls for Brown to have not resisted arrest as vindictive calls for him to be summarily executed in retribution for theft. Which is to say, it’s pretty damned unfair and inaccurate, and requires ascribing bad faith to the people you’re talking to. I know you can be better than that from past experience. On this subject, though, you seem unwilling to even try.
(If there’s an almost-identical version of that in the spam trap, let it rot there. Typepad acted like it let me post that, but then didn’t – fortunately (???) I was paranoid and had copied the comment before trying to post it, so it wasn’t lost…)
(If there’s an almost-identical version of that in the spam trap, let it rot there. Typepad acted like it let me post that, but then didn’t – fortunately (???) I was paranoid and had copied the comment before trying to post it, so it wasn’t lost…)
(If there’s an almost-identical version of that in the spam trap, let it rot there. Typepad acted like it let me post that, but then didn’t – fortunately (???) I was paranoid and had copied the comment before trying to post it, so it wasn’t lost…)
NV – there was and I deleted it. Always good practice to copy a long comment before posting.
NV – there was and I deleted it. Always good practice to copy a long comment before posting.
NV – there was and I deleted it. Always good practice to copy a long comment before posting.
“If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.”
Lots of nice words not a shred of sense. Both of those things can be true, they are NOT the same. Not even close. Its a completely false comparison. What’s more in both cases the appropriate legal authority agreed with me. You don’t want to follow the law, you want to make it decide what you want.
“If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.”
Lots of nice words not a shred of sense. Both of those things can be true, they are NOT the same. Not even close. Its a completely false comparison. What’s more in both cases the appropriate legal authority agreed with me. You don’t want to follow the law, you want to make it decide what you want.
“If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.”
Lots of nice words not a shred of sense. Both of those things can be true, they are NOT the same. Not even close. Its a completely false comparison. What’s more in both cases the appropriate legal authority agreed with me. You don’t want to follow the law, you want to make it decide what you want.
It would be nice if we could stop having the question framed as “was it okay to torture KSM?” As if that’s all that went on.
This also needs to be mentioned more often. E.g.:
Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”
But torture saved lives!
And let us not forget that we now have, what, dozens? Hundreds? Of people running around, some still employed by CIA and DoD, who are knowledgeable about these techniques and have employed them in practice.
It would be nice if we could stop having the question framed as “was it okay to torture KSM?” As if that’s all that went on.
This also needs to be mentioned more often. E.g.:
Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”
But torture saved lives!
And let us not forget that we now have, what, dozens? Hundreds? Of people running around, some still employed by CIA and DoD, who are knowledgeable about these techniques and have employed them in practice.
It would be nice if we could stop having the question framed as “was it okay to torture KSM?” As if that’s all that went on.
This also needs to be mentioned more often. E.g.:
Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.”
But torture saved lives!
And let us not forget that we now have, what, dozens? Hundreds? Of people running around, some still employed by CIA and DoD, who are knowledgeable about these techniques and have employed them in practice.
I always thought that the use of waterboarding by the Khmer Rouge – as memorialized at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnomh Penh (complete with an actual waterboard and drawing of it’s use, no less) – would have been good enough to foreclose any thought that it wasn’t torture.
Note the other torture techniques grouped with waterboarding as described by wikipedia (and which is consistent with the portrayal at the Museum, IIRC):
The torture system at Tuol Sleng was designed to make prisoners confess to whatever crimes they were charged with by their captors. Prisoners were routinely beaten and tortured with electric shocks, searing hot metal instruments and hanging, as well as through the use of various other devices. Some prisoners were cut with knives or suffocated with plastic bags. Other methods for generating confessions included pulling out fingernails while pouring alcohol on the wounds, holding prisoners’ heads under water, and the use of the waterboarding technique (see picture).
But mistakes were made….
I always thought that the use of waterboarding by the Khmer Rouge – as memorialized at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnomh Penh (complete with an actual waterboard and drawing of it’s use, no less) – would have been good enough to foreclose any thought that it wasn’t torture.
Note the other torture techniques grouped with waterboarding as described by wikipedia (and which is consistent with the portrayal at the Museum, IIRC):
The torture system at Tuol Sleng was designed to make prisoners confess to whatever crimes they were charged with by their captors. Prisoners were routinely beaten and tortured with electric shocks, searing hot metal instruments and hanging, as well as through the use of various other devices. Some prisoners were cut with knives or suffocated with plastic bags. Other methods for generating confessions included pulling out fingernails while pouring alcohol on the wounds, holding prisoners’ heads under water, and the use of the waterboarding technique (see picture).
But mistakes were made….
I always thought that the use of waterboarding by the Khmer Rouge – as memorialized at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnomh Penh (complete with an actual waterboard and drawing of it’s use, no less) – would have been good enough to foreclose any thought that it wasn’t torture.
Note the other torture techniques grouped with waterboarding as described by wikipedia (and which is consistent with the portrayal at the Museum, IIRC):
The torture system at Tuol Sleng was designed to make prisoners confess to whatever crimes they were charged with by their captors. Prisoners were routinely beaten and tortured with electric shocks, searing hot metal instruments and hanging, as well as through the use of various other devices. Some prisoners were cut with knives or suffocated with plastic bags. Other methods for generating confessions included pulling out fingernails while pouring alcohol on the wounds, holding prisoners’ heads under water, and the use of the waterboarding technique (see picture).
But mistakes were made….
What’s more in both cases the appropriate legal authority agreed with me.
That’s a keeper. But consider this: In both cases the “appropriate legal authority” made a political decision, a criteria that you are typically at great pains to deplore for some reason.
Somehow I get the impression that if the Obama administration had vigorously pursued prosecution of the torturers and obtained convictions, that you would not be making this argument. Instead, you would be whining about “partisanship”, something that seems to be very bad in your book, but only if Democrats engage in it.
What’s more in both cases the appropriate legal authority agreed with me.
That’s a keeper. But consider this: In both cases the “appropriate legal authority” made a political decision, a criteria that you are typically at great pains to deplore for some reason.
Somehow I get the impression that if the Obama administration had vigorously pursued prosecution of the torturers and obtained convictions, that you would not be making this argument. Instead, you would be whining about “partisanship”, something that seems to be very bad in your book, but only if Democrats engage in it.
What’s more in both cases the appropriate legal authority agreed with me.
That’s a keeper. But consider this: In both cases the “appropriate legal authority” made a political decision, a criteria that you are typically at great pains to deplore for some reason.
Somehow I get the impression that if the Obama administration had vigorously pursued prosecution of the torturers and obtained convictions, that you would not be making this argument. Instead, you would be whining about “partisanship”, something that seems to be very bad in your book, but only if Democrats engage in it.
“Instead, you would be whining about “partisanship”, something that seems to be very bad in your book, but only if Democrats engage in it.”
Could be, My assessment 6 years ago was that too many Democrats would be implicated in any investigation, therefore prosecutions of any kind were unlikely. Neither party has the sufficient moral high ground to push through a prosecution. No one in government wants to empower an international court, and I certainly don’t. For the few times it might be legitimate the risk of the precedent is too great. So, while it is pretty cheesy on my part to say the legal authority agreed with me, I did understand the challenges of the political authority pretty well. Didn’t take a genius.
In the end the leaders in our government screwed up, we voted them out, changed the policy and condemned the actions. But, context matters, outside of a few people who went beyond what was approved, there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law. Just within. And lots of people actively or tacitly approved.
I suspect that at this point is where we diverge. I think that evil was done in the name of good. It was wrong, with few exceptions that is pretty universally accepted. No matter what spin someone puts on Obama or Brennans speeches, they start with recognizing it was wrong. Cheney wont ever be in charge again.
So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed. I think we need a functioning CIA for our security. And, our leaders think so too, both parties. So while I am accused of being authoritarian and partisan, probably more partisan is accurate, I don’t see a lot of either in my assessment, maybe something else.
Finally, I think the cry for retribution is simply not a cry for justice. You can talk about reparations for those unjustly held, ok. There are many fewer of those than legitimate bad guys. The bad guys that were tortured should not have been, but, contextually, they would have been happy to kill me, walking down the street Not on a battlefield, just in an airplane flying to New York. One of the few things Obama has done well os the transition to lets just kill them, we are at war, they have declared anywhere is their battlefield, when we find them just kill them. No rendition, no risk of torture. Thats worse you say? Not if you believe we are at war. I believe any notion that our leaders have been wrong about that ended with ISIS. The idea that we should treat these terrorists ad criminals rather than enemy combatants is just wrong. So, full circle, no torture. No requirement though to take them prisoner. Drones aren’t the way we should be killing them, btw. Thats a bigger mistake.
All more than I started out to write. Waking up in the middle of the night sux.
“Instead, you would be whining about “partisanship”, something that seems to be very bad in your book, but only if Democrats engage in it.”
Could be, My assessment 6 years ago was that too many Democrats would be implicated in any investigation, therefore prosecutions of any kind were unlikely. Neither party has the sufficient moral high ground to push through a prosecution. No one in government wants to empower an international court, and I certainly don’t. For the few times it might be legitimate the risk of the precedent is too great. So, while it is pretty cheesy on my part to say the legal authority agreed with me, I did understand the challenges of the political authority pretty well. Didn’t take a genius.
In the end the leaders in our government screwed up, we voted them out, changed the policy and condemned the actions. But, context matters, outside of a few people who went beyond what was approved, there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law. Just within. And lots of people actively or tacitly approved.
I suspect that at this point is where we diverge. I think that evil was done in the name of good. It was wrong, with few exceptions that is pretty universally accepted. No matter what spin someone puts on Obama or Brennans speeches, they start with recognizing it was wrong. Cheney wont ever be in charge again.
So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed. I think we need a functioning CIA for our security. And, our leaders think so too, both parties. So while I am accused of being authoritarian and partisan, probably more partisan is accurate, I don’t see a lot of either in my assessment, maybe something else.
Finally, I think the cry for retribution is simply not a cry for justice. You can talk about reparations for those unjustly held, ok. There are many fewer of those than legitimate bad guys. The bad guys that were tortured should not have been, but, contextually, they would have been happy to kill me, walking down the street Not on a battlefield, just in an airplane flying to New York. One of the few things Obama has done well os the transition to lets just kill them, we are at war, they have declared anywhere is their battlefield, when we find them just kill them. No rendition, no risk of torture. Thats worse you say? Not if you believe we are at war. I believe any notion that our leaders have been wrong about that ended with ISIS. The idea that we should treat these terrorists ad criminals rather than enemy combatants is just wrong. So, full circle, no torture. No requirement though to take them prisoner. Drones aren’t the way we should be killing them, btw. Thats a bigger mistake.
All more than I started out to write. Waking up in the middle of the night sux.
“Instead, you would be whining about “partisanship”, something that seems to be very bad in your book, but only if Democrats engage in it.”
Could be, My assessment 6 years ago was that too many Democrats would be implicated in any investigation, therefore prosecutions of any kind were unlikely. Neither party has the sufficient moral high ground to push through a prosecution. No one in government wants to empower an international court, and I certainly don’t. For the few times it might be legitimate the risk of the precedent is too great. So, while it is pretty cheesy on my part to say the legal authority agreed with me, I did understand the challenges of the political authority pretty well. Didn’t take a genius.
In the end the leaders in our government screwed up, we voted them out, changed the policy and condemned the actions. But, context matters, outside of a few people who went beyond what was approved, there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law. Just within. And lots of people actively or tacitly approved.
I suspect that at this point is where we diverge. I think that evil was done in the name of good. It was wrong, with few exceptions that is pretty universally accepted. No matter what spin someone puts on Obama or Brennans speeches, they start with recognizing it was wrong. Cheney wont ever be in charge again.
So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed. I think we need a functioning CIA for our security. And, our leaders think so too, both parties. So while I am accused of being authoritarian and partisan, probably more partisan is accurate, I don’t see a lot of either in my assessment, maybe something else.
Finally, I think the cry for retribution is simply not a cry for justice. You can talk about reparations for those unjustly held, ok. There are many fewer of those than legitimate bad guys. The bad guys that were tortured should not have been, but, contextually, they would have been happy to kill me, walking down the street Not on a battlefield, just in an airplane flying to New York. One of the few things Obama has done well os the transition to lets just kill them, we are at war, they have declared anywhere is their battlefield, when we find them just kill them. No rendition, no risk of torture. Thats worse you say? Not if you believe we are at war. I believe any notion that our leaders have been wrong about that ended with ISIS. The idea that we should treat these terrorists ad criminals rather than enemy combatants is just wrong. So, full circle, no torture. No requirement though to take them prisoner. Drones aren’t the way we should be killing them, btw. Thats a bigger mistake.
All more than I started out to write. Waking up in the middle of the night sux.
I suspect that at this point is where we diverge.
I suspect so. The program was a conscious attempt to go beyond widely recognized moral limits and clear and bright lines enshrined in our law going back to the Eighth Amendment.
The claim that “there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law” is simply not true. They sought to bend it, and did.
I suspect that at this point is where we diverge.
I suspect so. The program was a conscious attempt to go beyond widely recognized moral limits and clear and bright lines enshrined in our law going back to the Eighth Amendment.
The claim that “there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law” is simply not true. They sought to bend it, and did.
I suspect that at this point is where we diverge.
I suspect so. The program was a conscious attempt to go beyond widely recognized moral limits and clear and bright lines enshrined in our law going back to the Eighth Amendment.
The claim that “there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law” is simply not true. They sought to bend it, and did.
Finally, I think the cry for retribution is simply not a cry for justice.
Capital punishment debate, which see.
Finally, I think the cry for retribution is simply not a cry for justice.
Capital punishment debate, which see.
Finally, I think the cry for retribution is simply not a cry for justice.
Capital punishment debate, which see.
“Capital punishment debate, which see.”
Yep, other consideration: If the war on terror lasts as long as the war on drugs, when do you release the POWs/
“Capital punishment debate, which see.”
Yep, other consideration: If the war on terror lasts as long as the war on drugs, when do you release the POWs/
“Capital punishment debate, which see.”
Yep, other consideration: If the war on terror lasts as long as the war on drugs, when do you release the POWs/
All more than I started out to write.
Actually, speaking for myself, I appreciate the longer comment. Your point of view here is more complex and thoughtful than can be expressed in the short form.
Where I part ways with you is here:
there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law. Just within.
My reading of the situation is that the approach that was taken to “staying within the law” was to redefine the law. And not through the actual law-making process, but via weasel-worded, secret OLC memos.
Don’t want to color outside the lines? Move the lines.
And lots of people actively or tacitly approved.
No question about that.
So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed.
That’s an interesting point, and a reasonable concern.
There were a lot of folks involved.
All more than I started out to write.
Actually, speaking for myself, I appreciate the longer comment. Your point of view here is more complex and thoughtful than can be expressed in the short form.
Where I part ways with you is here:
there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law. Just within.
My reading of the situation is that the approach that was taken to “staying within the law” was to redefine the law. And not through the actual law-making process, but via weasel-worded, secret OLC memos.
Don’t want to color outside the lines? Move the lines.
And lots of people actively or tacitly approved.
No question about that.
So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed.
That’s an interesting point, and a reasonable concern.
There were a lot of folks involved.
All more than I started out to write.
Actually, speaking for myself, I appreciate the longer comment. Your point of view here is more complex and thoughtful than can be expressed in the short form.
Where I part ways with you is here:
there was every attempt to make sure they stayed within the law. Just within.
My reading of the situation is that the approach that was taken to “staying within the law” was to redefine the law. And not through the actual law-making process, but via weasel-worded, secret OLC memos.
Don’t want to color outside the lines? Move the lines.
And lots of people actively or tacitly approved.
No question about that.
So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed.
That’s an interesting point, and a reasonable concern.
There were a lot of folks involved.
Marty:
“If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.”
Lots of nice words not a shred of sense. Both of those things can be true, they are NOT the same. Not even close. Its a completely false comparison.
What you appear to be saying is that, if a given law is enforced it should be enforced for all. But once you choose not to enforce a law (e.g. against torture) then everybody is free to ignore it. At least, I can’t see another way to read your words. And that would mean that, today, it is acceptable for anybody to torture anybody else. Because we have decided to ignore the letter of the law on that subject.
I accept that this is probably not your position as you see it. But that is sure what you seem to be saying here.
Marty:
“If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.”
Lots of nice words not a shred of sense. Both of those things can be true, they are NOT the same. Not even close. Its a completely false comparison.
What you appear to be saying is that, if a given law is enforced it should be enforced for all. But once you choose not to enforce a law (e.g. against torture) then everybody is free to ignore it. At least, I can’t see another way to read your words. And that would mean that, today, it is acceptable for anybody to torture anybody else. Because we have decided to ignore the letter of the law on that subject.
I accept that this is probably not your position as you see it. But that is sure what you seem to be saying here.
Marty:
“If not it’s just rules for thee, but not for me.”
Lots of nice words not a shred of sense. Both of those things can be true, they are NOT the same. Not even close. Its a completely false comparison.
What you appear to be saying is that, if a given law is enforced it should be enforced for all. But once you choose not to enforce a law (e.g. against torture) then everybody is free to ignore it. At least, I can’t see another way to read your words. And that would mean that, today, it is acceptable for anybody to torture anybody else. Because we have decided to ignore the letter of the law on that subject.
I accept that this is probably not your position as you see it. But that is sure what you seem to be saying here.
I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed. I think we need a functioning CIA for our security.
Agreed that, once the prosecutions get going, a lot of people are going to get implicated. And a lot of them, although by no means all, are going to be in the CIA.
And we do need a functioning intelligence agency for our security. HOWEVER, the CIA doesn’t need to be that agency. And I don’t think that, at this point, the CIA can be that agency. Too many clearly documented (in their own files, lies to the people that they are responsible to. It won’t be trivial to junk the whole thing and start anew. But it needs to be done.
I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed. I think we need a functioning CIA for our security.
Agreed that, once the prosecutions get going, a lot of people are going to get implicated. And a lot of them, although by no means all, are going to be in the CIA.
And we do need a functioning intelligence agency for our security. HOWEVER, the CIA doesn’t need to be that agency. And I don’t think that, at this point, the CIA can be that agency. Too many clearly documented (in their own files, lies to the people that they are responsible to. It won’t be trivial to junk the whole thing and start anew. But it needs to be done.
I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed. I think we need a functioning CIA for our security.
Agreed that, once the prosecutions get going, a lot of people are going to get implicated. And a lot of them, although by no means all, are going to be in the CIA.
And we do need a functioning intelligence agency for our security. HOWEVER, the CIA doesn’t need to be that agency. And I don’t think that, at this point, the CIA can be that agency. Too many clearly documented (in their own files, lies to the people that they are responsible to. It won’t be trivial to junk the whole thing and start anew. But it needs to be done.
My opinion – the CIA should be in the business of collecting and analyzing information.
And they don’t even need to do the collecting when it comes to signals, we have the NSA for that. And, that’s all the NSA should be doing.
Killing people and bombing should be the province of the military.
Cowboys with great big budgets and no accountability makes trouble.
My opinion – the CIA should be in the business of collecting and analyzing information.
And they don’t even need to do the collecting when it comes to signals, we have the NSA for that. And, that’s all the NSA should be doing.
Killing people and bombing should be the province of the military.
Cowboys with great big budgets and no accountability makes trouble.
My opinion – the CIA should be in the business of collecting and analyzing information.
And they don’t even need to do the collecting when it comes to signals, we have the NSA for that. And, that’s all the NSA should be doing.
Killing people and bombing should be the province of the military.
Cowboys with great big budgets and no accountability makes trouble.
the CIA should be in the business of collecting and analyzing information.
I guess interrogations would come under the rubric of collecting information.
CIA agents might legitimately find themselves in difficult moral situations since many of them have to lie for a living. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. Torturing captives needs to be beyond that line.
the CIA should be in the business of collecting and analyzing information.
I guess interrogations would come under the rubric of collecting information.
CIA agents might legitimately find themselves in difficult moral situations since many of them have to lie for a living. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. Torturing captives needs to be beyond that line.
the CIA should be in the business of collecting and analyzing information.
I guess interrogations would come under the rubric of collecting information.
CIA agents might legitimately find themselves in difficult moral situations since many of them have to lie for a living. A line has to be drawn somewhere, though. Torturing captives needs to be beyond that line.
CIA agents might legitimately find themselves in difficult moral situations since many of them have to lie for a living.
I’m not really concerned about the moral issues facing CIA agents who lie as part of working under cover.
The stuff I don’t think they should be involved in is stuff like assassinations, hands-on participation in military actions like firing missiles at people, and overthrowing other countries’ governments.
And yes, torture not only needs to be, but is, beyond the line, due if for no other reason than to this nation’s participation in any number of international treaties and conventions.
CIA agents might legitimately find themselves in difficult moral situations since many of them have to lie for a living.
I’m not really concerned about the moral issues facing CIA agents who lie as part of working under cover.
The stuff I don’t think they should be involved in is stuff like assassinations, hands-on participation in military actions like firing missiles at people, and overthrowing other countries’ governments.
And yes, torture not only needs to be, but is, beyond the line, due if for no other reason than to this nation’s participation in any number of international treaties and conventions.
CIA agents might legitimately find themselves in difficult moral situations since many of them have to lie for a living.
I’m not really concerned about the moral issues facing CIA agents who lie as part of working under cover.
The stuff I don’t think they should be involved in is stuff like assassinations, hands-on participation in military actions like firing missiles at people, and overthrowing other countries’ governments.
And yes, torture not only needs to be, but is, beyond the line, due if for no other reason than to this nation’s participation in any number of international treaties and conventions.
“So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed.”
Sigh. I meant to remain a permanent lurker. But anyway, the above is not a bug, in my opinion, but a feature. If the US won’t prosecute its own war criminals as we are legally obligated to do, then I hope that some prominent American is arrested abroad and our government is forced to take a stand. (I suspect it will be on the wrong side.) At some point Western government officials and voters in Western countries need to learn that we don’t have a moral license to commit atrocities because we see ourselves as the good guys. And yes, if one did a serious investigation into such things it would expand to include a great many people, and I also doubt that every single person who deserves to go to jail actually would be prosecuted. We don’t expect to jail or assassinate every terrorist–sometimes we make agreements with them. Sometimes they make agreements with us.
The fact is that some terrorists (not all) can make a good case for their own causes and probably none of us here would agree that the rightness of their cause justifies the war crimes they commit. But I could point you towards blogs where some in the commentariat think that oppressed people have the right to liberate themselves “by any means necessary”. I despise that phrase, but it’s not any different from the reasoning of someone who makes excuses for torturers on the grounds that the torturers were supposedly defending us. By the way, people who criticize, say, Hamas rocket fire are accused of being moralizing white racist assholes who presume to tell Palestinians what they can or cannot do to fight Israeli oppression and violence. I disagree (being the white moralizing asshole in question, along with some others), but I think they’ve got a better case than Marty does in this thread.
“So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed.”
Sigh. I meant to remain a permanent lurker. But anyway, the above is not a bug, in my opinion, but a feature. If the US won’t prosecute its own war criminals as we are legally obligated to do, then I hope that some prominent American is arrested abroad and our government is forced to take a stand. (I suspect it will be on the wrong side.) At some point Western government officials and voters in Western countries need to learn that we don’t have a moral license to commit atrocities because we see ourselves as the good guys. And yes, if one did a serious investigation into such things it would expand to include a great many people, and I also doubt that every single person who deserves to go to jail actually would be prosecuted. We don’t expect to jail or assassinate every terrorist–sometimes we make agreements with them. Sometimes they make agreements with us.
The fact is that some terrorists (not all) can make a good case for their own causes and probably none of us here would agree that the rightness of their cause justifies the war crimes they commit. But I could point you towards blogs where some in the commentariat think that oppressed people have the right to liberate themselves “by any means necessary”. I despise that phrase, but it’s not any different from the reasoning of someone who makes excuses for torturers on the grounds that the torturers were supposedly defending us. By the way, people who criticize, say, Hamas rocket fire are accused of being moralizing white racist assholes who presume to tell Palestinians what they can or cannot do to fight Israeli oppression and violence. I disagree (being the white moralizing asshole in question, along with some others), but I think they’ve got a better case than Marty does in this thread.
“So I am more concerned that the prosecutions that, once started, would expand exponentially and create a larger problem than the one that has been addressed.”
Sigh. I meant to remain a permanent lurker. But anyway, the above is not a bug, in my opinion, but a feature. If the US won’t prosecute its own war criminals as we are legally obligated to do, then I hope that some prominent American is arrested abroad and our government is forced to take a stand. (I suspect it will be on the wrong side.) At some point Western government officials and voters in Western countries need to learn that we don’t have a moral license to commit atrocities because we see ourselves as the good guys. And yes, if one did a serious investigation into such things it would expand to include a great many people, and I also doubt that every single person who deserves to go to jail actually would be prosecuted. We don’t expect to jail or assassinate every terrorist–sometimes we make agreements with them. Sometimes they make agreements with us.
The fact is that some terrorists (not all) can make a good case for their own causes and probably none of us here would agree that the rightness of their cause justifies the war crimes they commit. But I could point you towards blogs where some in the commentariat think that oppressed people have the right to liberate themselves “by any means necessary”. I despise that phrase, but it’s not any different from the reasoning of someone who makes excuses for torturers on the grounds that the torturers were supposedly defending us. By the way, people who criticize, say, Hamas rocket fire are accused of being moralizing white racist assholes who presume to tell Palestinians what they can or cannot do to fight Israeli oppression and violence. I disagree (being the white moralizing asshole in question, along with some others), but I think they’ve got a better case than Marty does in this thread.
Let me agree with russell that the longer comment format is more conducive to conversation (and I’ll leave it at that since wj made the clarification needed), and emphatically, and with a certain pleasure in getting the too-rare opportunity to say it, what DJ said – every last word.
(I sympathize with the only-lurking impulse; I made myself walk away from the blog for ~3 of the last 5 days…)
Let me agree with russell that the longer comment format is more conducive to conversation (and I’ll leave it at that since wj made the clarification needed), and emphatically, and with a certain pleasure in getting the too-rare opportunity to say it, what DJ said – every last word.
(I sympathize with the only-lurking impulse; I made myself walk away from the blog for ~3 of the last 5 days…)
Let me agree with russell that the longer comment format is more conducive to conversation (and I’ll leave it at that since wj made the clarification needed), and emphatically, and with a certain pleasure in getting the too-rare opportunity to say it, what DJ said – every last word.
(I sympathize with the only-lurking impulse; I made myself walk away from the blog for ~3 of the last 5 days…)
Bottom line, nice people torture too. Torture does not in any way reflect on our awesomeness. As long as we’re still behind Hitler, and wayyyyyy behind Stalin, it’ s a lovely day in the Americahood.
Bottom line, nice people torture too. Torture does not in any way reflect on our awesomeness. As long as we’re still behind Hitler, and wayyyyyy behind Stalin, it’ s a lovely day in the Americahood.
Bottom line, nice people torture too. Torture does not in any way reflect on our awesomeness. As long as we’re still behind Hitler, and wayyyyyy behind Stalin, it’ s a lovely day in the Americahood.
So I think Dick Cheney is really Andy Kaufman and has been since the mid-1980s. Andy keeps trying to let us know by becoming more and more ridiculous and cartoonishly evil, but we keep buying it.
I mean, selecting himself as W’s Veep after leading the search? Declaring that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons? Hanging out with Donald Rumsfeld on purpose? Rectal feeding? Wearing this coat to the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz? Arriving at Obama’s inaugeration in a wheel chair? Describing Scooter Libby as a “soldier on a battle field”? Having a fire in your own office? And, most recently, “yada yada-ing” torturing innocent people including at least one to death?
Well played Andy.
So I think Dick Cheney is really Andy Kaufman and has been since the mid-1980s. Andy keeps trying to let us know by becoming more and more ridiculous and cartoonishly evil, but we keep buying it.
I mean, selecting himself as W’s Veep after leading the search? Declaring that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons? Hanging out with Donald Rumsfeld on purpose? Rectal feeding? Wearing this coat to the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz? Arriving at Obama’s inaugeration in a wheel chair? Describing Scooter Libby as a “soldier on a battle field”? Having a fire in your own office? And, most recently, “yada yada-ing” torturing innocent people including at least one to death?
Well played Andy.
So I think Dick Cheney is really Andy Kaufman and has been since the mid-1980s. Andy keeps trying to let us know by becoming more and more ridiculous and cartoonishly evil, but we keep buying it.
I mean, selecting himself as W’s Veep after leading the search? Declaring that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons? Hanging out with Donald Rumsfeld on purpose? Rectal feeding? Wearing this coat to the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz? Arriving at Obama’s inaugeration in a wheel chair? Describing Scooter Libby as a “soldier on a battle field”? Having a fire in your own office? And, most recently, “yada yada-ing” torturing innocent people including at least one to death?
Well played Andy.
An example to shame Dick Cheney (if such a thing were possible):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-30479306
As a gunman holds people hostage in a cafe in Sydney, thousands of messages of support have been posted online for Muslims in Australia who are afraid of an Islamophobic backlash.
The spark was this post on Facebook by Rachael Jacobs, who said she’d seen a woman she presumed was Muslim silently removing her hijab while sitting next to her on the train: “I ran after her at the train station. I said ‘put it back on. I’ll walk with u’. She started to cry and hugged me for about a minute – then walked off alone’.
An example to shame Dick Cheney (if such a thing were possible):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-30479306
As a gunman holds people hostage in a cafe in Sydney, thousands of messages of support have been posted online for Muslims in Australia who are afraid of an Islamophobic backlash.
The spark was this post on Facebook by Rachael Jacobs, who said she’d seen a woman she presumed was Muslim silently removing her hijab while sitting next to her on the train: “I ran after her at the train station. I said ‘put it back on. I’ll walk with u’. She started to cry and hugged me for about a minute – then walked off alone’.
An example to shame Dick Cheney (if such a thing were possible):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-30479306
As a gunman holds people hostage in a cafe in Sydney, thousands of messages of support have been posted online for Muslims in Australia who are afraid of an Islamophobic backlash.
The spark was this post on Facebook by Rachael Jacobs, who said she’d seen a woman she presumed was Muslim silently removing her hijab while sitting next to her on the train: “I ran after her at the train station. I said ‘put it back on. I’ll walk with u’. She started to cry and hugged me for about a minute – then walked off alone’.
My personal opinion, nothing more or less, is that Cheney may well be nuts. Delusional, detached from reality, off his rocker crazy.
Given his health history, it might be a plain old physiological deficit of some kind. Not enough oxygen, maybe, or a side effect of a med.
It wouldn’t be the first time that somebody in a position of power was straight up out of his mind.
Then again, he might be the incarnation of some bizarre unreasoning wrathful demonic hallucination from the sidpa bardo.
Your guess is a good as mine.
My personal opinion, nothing more or less, is that Cheney may well be nuts. Delusional, detached from reality, off his rocker crazy.
Given his health history, it might be a plain old physiological deficit of some kind. Not enough oxygen, maybe, or a side effect of a med.
It wouldn’t be the first time that somebody in a position of power was straight up out of his mind.
Then again, he might be the incarnation of some bizarre unreasoning wrathful demonic hallucination from the sidpa bardo.
Your guess is a good as mine.
My personal opinion, nothing more or less, is that Cheney may well be nuts. Delusional, detached from reality, off his rocker crazy.
Given his health history, it might be a plain old physiological deficit of some kind. Not enough oxygen, maybe, or a side effect of a med.
It wouldn’t be the first time that somebody in a position of power was straight up out of his mind.
Then again, he might be the incarnation of some bizarre unreasoning wrathful demonic hallucination from the sidpa bardo.
Your guess is a good as mine.
Another one for your wonderful list of Dick Cheney’s Dark Acts, Ugh: “Shooting a guy in the face.. and getting the shot guy to apologize for having been shot.”
Another one for your wonderful list of Dick Cheney’s Dark Acts, Ugh: “Shooting a guy in the face.. and getting the shot guy to apologize for having been shot.”
Another one for your wonderful list of Dick Cheney’s Dark Acts, Ugh: “Shooting a guy in the face.. and getting the shot guy to apologize for having been shot.”
I don’t know that Cheney is crazy. He’s ruthless and honest about it and always has been. He hides his ruthlessness less than many Americans expect from their politicians, but he’s got a big fan club on the right who applaud him for being exactly who he is. Here’s some love for Cheney today on Red State–
God bless Dick Cheney
On one of my Middle Eastern tangents, a couple of years ago it came out that the Assad family likes Harry Potter. I suspect that they side with Harry, Ron, and Hermione just like everyone else and not Voldemort, because no doubt the Assads see themselves as the good guys. War criminals and torturers are people too.
I don’t know that Cheney is crazy. He’s ruthless and honest about it and always has been. He hides his ruthlessness less than many Americans expect from their politicians, but he’s got a big fan club on the right who applaud him for being exactly who he is. Here’s some love for Cheney today on Red State–
God bless Dick Cheney
On one of my Middle Eastern tangents, a couple of years ago it came out that the Assad family likes Harry Potter. I suspect that they side with Harry, Ron, and Hermione just like everyone else and not Voldemort, because no doubt the Assads see themselves as the good guys. War criminals and torturers are people too.
I don’t know that Cheney is crazy. He’s ruthless and honest about it and always has been. He hides his ruthlessness less than many Americans expect from their politicians, but he’s got a big fan club on the right who applaud him for being exactly who he is. Here’s some love for Cheney today on Red State–
God bless Dick Cheney
On one of my Middle Eastern tangents, a couple of years ago it came out that the Assad family likes Harry Potter. I suspect that they side with Harry, Ron, and Hermione just like everyone else and not Voldemort, because no doubt the Assads see themselves as the good guys. War criminals and torturers are people too.
Well, here’s something I never suspected to see, John Yoo saying people went beyond what was in his memos and thus subjecting themselves to legal risk.
Well, here’s something I never suspected to see, John Yoo saying people went beyond what was in his memos and thus subjecting themselves to legal risk.
Well, here’s something I never suspected to see, John Yoo saying people went beyond what was in his memos and thus subjecting themselves to legal risk.
God bless Dick Cheney
The God to whom those over at Red State give thanks appears to share many of the characteristics of the God of those in ISIS and Al Quaeda.
God bless Dick Cheney
The God to whom those over at Red State give thanks appears to share many of the characteristics of the God of those in ISIS and Al Quaeda.
God bless Dick Cheney
The God to whom those over at Red State give thanks appears to share many of the characteristics of the God of those in ISIS and Al Quaeda.
John Yoo saying people went beyond what was in his memos and thus subjecting themselves to legal risk.
What, no more crushing of young boy’s testicles?
Alright, John Yoo, you’ve covered your ass now.
Nice try, anyway.
John Yoo saying people went beyond what was in his memos and thus subjecting themselves to legal risk.
What, no more crushing of young boy’s testicles?
Alright, John Yoo, you’ve covered your ass now.
Nice try, anyway.
John Yoo saying people went beyond what was in his memos and thus subjecting themselves to legal risk.
What, no more crushing of young boy’s testicles?
Alright, John Yoo, you’ve covered your ass now.
Nice try, anyway.
I don’t know that Cheney is crazy. He’s ruthless and honest about it and always has been.
Those are not mutually exclusive states.
I’m really and truly not kidding when I say that Cheney might be nuts. It would explain a lot, actually.
I don’t know that Cheney is crazy. He’s ruthless and honest about it and always has been.
Those are not mutually exclusive states.
I’m really and truly not kidding when I say that Cheney might be nuts. It would explain a lot, actually.
I don’t know that Cheney is crazy. He’s ruthless and honest about it and always has been.
Those are not mutually exclusive states.
I’m really and truly not kidding when I say that Cheney might be nuts. It would explain a lot, actually.
So does HUMINT. I wonder, what became of our ability to infiltrate and glean intelligence in foreign countries?
I think that part of the CIA’s charter should (don’t know whether it already is) be developing HUMINT. Not relying on it exclusively, just dedicating a certain percentage of its time and funding to developing HUMINT in parts of the world where we perceive the threats to be.
It’s not as glamorous as SIGINT or analyzing drone imagery, but it is necessary, IMO.
So does HUMINT. I wonder, what became of our ability to infiltrate and glean intelligence in foreign countries?
I think that part of the CIA’s charter should (don’t know whether it already is) be developing HUMINT. Not relying on it exclusively, just dedicating a certain percentage of its time and funding to developing HUMINT in parts of the world where we perceive the threats to be.
It’s not as glamorous as SIGINT or analyzing drone imagery, but it is necessary, IMO.
So does HUMINT. I wonder, what became of our ability to infiltrate and glean intelligence in foreign countries?
I think that part of the CIA’s charter should (don’t know whether it already is) be developing HUMINT. Not relying on it exclusively, just dedicating a certain percentage of its time and funding to developing HUMINT in parts of the world where we perceive the threats to be.
It’s not as glamorous as SIGINT or analyzing drone imagery, but it is necessary, IMO.
How could I forget Cheney’s view that the Vice President is a mysterious fourth branch of government?
How could I forget Cheney’s view that the Vice President is a mysterious fourth branch of government?
How could I forget Cheney’s view that the Vice President is a mysterious fourth branch of government?
“Cheney might be nuts. It would explain a lot, actually”
I’m looking for the explanation of the escalating popularity of torture here in America. https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/steele-2013-torture-popularity.pdf
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK
The Land of the Brave
“Cheney might be nuts. It would explain a lot, actually”
I’m looking for the explanation of the escalating popularity of torture here in America. https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/steele-2013-torture-popularity.pdf
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK
The Land of the Brave
“Cheney might be nuts. It would explain a lot, actually”
I’m looking for the explanation of the escalating popularity of torture here in America. https://sullydish.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/steele-2013-torture-popularity.pdf
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK
The Land of the Brave
I think that part of the CIA’s charter should (don’t know whether it already is) be developing HUMINT.
I’ve always assumed that this is actually the main work of the CIA. It seems to me that signal intelligence would direct the agency towards more efficient human intelligence, or that the two would be used hand in hand. According to Wikipedia: “CIA’s HUMINT budget is $2.3 billion, the SIGINT budget is $1.7 billion, and spending for security and logistics of CIA missions is $2.5 billion. Covert action programs, including a variety of activities such as the CIA’s drone fleet and anti-Iranian nuclear program activities, accounts for $2.6 billion.”
I think that part of the CIA’s charter should (don’t know whether it already is) be developing HUMINT.
I’ve always assumed that this is actually the main work of the CIA. It seems to me that signal intelligence would direct the agency towards more efficient human intelligence, or that the two would be used hand in hand. According to Wikipedia: “CIA’s HUMINT budget is $2.3 billion, the SIGINT budget is $1.7 billion, and spending for security and logistics of CIA missions is $2.5 billion. Covert action programs, including a variety of activities such as the CIA’s drone fleet and anti-Iranian nuclear program activities, accounts for $2.6 billion.”
I think that part of the CIA’s charter should (don’t know whether it already is) be developing HUMINT.
I’ve always assumed that this is actually the main work of the CIA. It seems to me that signal intelligence would direct the agency towards more efficient human intelligence, or that the two would be used hand in hand. According to Wikipedia: “CIA’s HUMINT budget is $2.3 billion, the SIGINT budget is $1.7 billion, and spending for security and logistics of CIA missions is $2.5 billion. Covert action programs, including a variety of activities such as the CIA’s drone fleet and anti-Iranian nuclear program activities, accounts for $2.6 billion.”
I don’t think Cheney is anywhere near crazy. He’s a power-hungry bully and a**hole, but there are lots of them around, whose outlook on the world is as crazy as – or even crazier than – his.
What make him unique is the power that we have given him – and by “we” I mean the people of Wyoming, and the Republican Party, and eventually the people/government of the USA. There are plenty of people just as nasty, but none of them have risen as high as he. Agnew (and Harding before him) were simply corrupt. Nixon was devious as hell, and black-hearted in certain respects, but he also had intelligence and a genuine desire to be a good president, by his lights. Bush was a lightweight. Clinton a philanderer. LBJ a bully in his own way. None of them were (IMHO) in the same league as Cheney when it comes to dickish a**holery, however.
Insane, however? No. Read the comments on any of a number of blogs – not this one – for similar opinions by legions of our fellow country(wo)men. It’s not Insane, it’s American!
I don’t think Cheney is anywhere near crazy. He’s a power-hungry bully and a**hole, but there are lots of them around, whose outlook on the world is as crazy as – or even crazier than – his.
What make him unique is the power that we have given him – and by “we” I mean the people of Wyoming, and the Republican Party, and eventually the people/government of the USA. There are plenty of people just as nasty, but none of them have risen as high as he. Agnew (and Harding before him) were simply corrupt. Nixon was devious as hell, and black-hearted in certain respects, but he also had intelligence and a genuine desire to be a good president, by his lights. Bush was a lightweight. Clinton a philanderer. LBJ a bully in his own way. None of them were (IMHO) in the same league as Cheney when it comes to dickish a**holery, however.
Insane, however? No. Read the comments on any of a number of blogs – not this one – for similar opinions by legions of our fellow country(wo)men. It’s not Insane, it’s American!
I don’t think Cheney is anywhere near crazy. He’s a power-hungry bully and a**hole, but there are lots of them around, whose outlook on the world is as crazy as – or even crazier than – his.
What make him unique is the power that we have given him – and by “we” I mean the people of Wyoming, and the Republican Party, and eventually the people/government of the USA. There are plenty of people just as nasty, but none of them have risen as high as he. Agnew (and Harding before him) were simply corrupt. Nixon was devious as hell, and black-hearted in certain respects, but he also had intelligence and a genuine desire to be a good president, by his lights. Bush was a lightweight. Clinton a philanderer. LBJ a bully in his own way. None of them were (IMHO) in the same league as Cheney when it comes to dickish a**holery, however.
Insane, however? No. Read the comments on any of a number of blogs – not this one – for similar opinions by legions of our fellow country(wo)men. It’s not Insane, it’s American!
He’s a power-hungry bully and a**hole
Also a completely sufficient explanation.
I’m happy to defer to your position here, numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
He’s a power-hungry bully and a**hole
Also a completely sufficient explanation.
I’m happy to defer to your position here, numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
He’s a power-hungry bully and a**hole
Also a completely sufficient explanation.
I’m happy to defer to your position here, numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
So does HUMINT. I wonder, what became of our ability to infiltrate and glean intelligence in foreign countries?
Nothing.
The CIA has always been (to use a Cheney phrase) crap at this.
So does HUMINT. I wonder, what became of our ability to infiltrate and glean intelligence in foreign countries?
Nothing.
The CIA has always been (to use a Cheney phrase) crap at this.
So does HUMINT. I wonder, what became of our ability to infiltrate and glean intelligence in foreign countries?
Nothing.
The CIA has always been (to use a Cheney phrase) crap at this.
Obviously we should outsource, to use the buzz word, the HUMINT gathering to the Brits and others who are actually good at it. Luckily, we still have enough friends left, in spite of Cheney’s efforts, for this to actually be feasible. (I think.)
Stick with analyzing the results. That’s the sort of thing that can’t really be outsourced. At least, not without creating more problems than it solves.
Obviously we should outsource, to use the buzz word, the HUMINT gathering to the Brits and others who are actually good at it. Luckily, we still have enough friends left, in spite of Cheney’s efforts, for this to actually be feasible. (I think.)
Stick with analyzing the results. That’s the sort of thing that can’t really be outsourced. At least, not without creating more problems than it solves.
Obviously we should outsource, to use the buzz word, the HUMINT gathering to the Brits and others who are actually good at it. Luckily, we still have enough friends left, in spite of Cheney’s efforts, for this to actually be feasible. (I think.)
Stick with analyzing the results. That’s the sort of thing that can’t really be outsourced. At least, not without creating more problems than it solves.
Care to be more specific, Nigel and wj? From my experience working with a British company, the Brits think Americans are crap at everything when, in fact, sometimes the Brits are blinded by their own arrogance to their extreme detriment.
I’m certainly not going to defend Bush’s torture program, but if the U.S. is such crap at intelligence and foreign policy, why are the Brits usually “our strongest allies” (e.g. Tony Blair lapping right along at our heels)?
By the way, I love the Brits. But they’re far from perfect.
Care to be more specific, Nigel and wj? From my experience working with a British company, the Brits think Americans are crap at everything when, in fact, sometimes the Brits are blinded by their own arrogance to their extreme detriment.
I’m certainly not going to defend Bush’s torture program, but if the U.S. is such crap at intelligence and foreign policy, why are the Brits usually “our strongest allies” (e.g. Tony Blair lapping right along at our heels)?
By the way, I love the Brits. But they’re far from perfect.
Care to be more specific, Nigel and wj? From my experience working with a British company, the Brits think Americans are crap at everything when, in fact, sometimes the Brits are blinded by their own arrogance to their extreme detriment.
I’m certainly not going to defend Bush’s torture program, but if the U.S. is such crap at intelligence and foreign policy, why are the Brits usually “our strongest allies” (e.g. Tony Blair lapping right along at our heels)?
By the way, I love the Brits. But they’re far from perfect.
My impression (and it is just that, an impression; not the results of a study) is that the Brits do better at human intelligence. That is, getting people into other countries, organizations, etc. and getting information from them out. In fact, Europeans generally seem to do bettter. My guess is that they start from being better (training, not nature) at foreign languages.
Not to say that we don’t have our own advantages in that regard, from having large immigrant communities from which native speakers can sometimes be recruited. But overall….
Perhaps others can supply some specific cases. I, alas, cannot.
My impression (and it is just that, an impression; not the results of a study) is that the Brits do better at human intelligence. That is, getting people into other countries, organizations, etc. and getting information from them out. In fact, Europeans generally seem to do bettter. My guess is that they start from being better (training, not nature) at foreign languages.
Not to say that we don’t have our own advantages in that regard, from having large immigrant communities from which native speakers can sometimes be recruited. But overall….
Perhaps others can supply some specific cases. I, alas, cannot.
My impression (and it is just that, an impression; not the results of a study) is that the Brits do better at human intelligence. That is, getting people into other countries, organizations, etc. and getting information from them out. In fact, Europeans generally seem to do bettter. My guess is that they start from being better (training, not nature) at foreign languages.
Not to say that we don’t have our own advantages in that regard, from having large immigrant communities from which native speakers can sometimes be recruited. But overall….
Perhaps others can supply some specific cases. I, alas, cannot.
My guess is that they start from being better (training, not nature) at foreign languages.
Don’t have a clue how old you are, wj, but my guess is that you’re a post-50 person (like me). If not, please clarify.
I think that our youth (under 35) have huge foreign language skills that match or exceed their European counterparts. For example, I have a young (under 30) friend who works in China. He speaks fluently (and is constantly improving his “business jargon” Mandarin). Many of his European friends do not have good language skills – some speak no Chinese at all.
If, in fact, you are my age, you might be behind in knowing about how incredibly smart and well-educated our young people are. There are myths going around that they’re illiterate and innumerate because of too many video games. Myths.
My guess is that they start from being better (training, not nature) at foreign languages.
Don’t have a clue how old you are, wj, but my guess is that you’re a post-50 person (like me). If not, please clarify.
I think that our youth (under 35) have huge foreign language skills that match or exceed their European counterparts. For example, I have a young (under 30) friend who works in China. He speaks fluently (and is constantly improving his “business jargon” Mandarin). Many of his European friends do not have good language skills – some speak no Chinese at all.
If, in fact, you are my age, you might be behind in knowing about how incredibly smart and well-educated our young people are. There are myths going around that they’re illiterate and innumerate because of too many video games. Myths.
My guess is that they start from being better (training, not nature) at foreign languages.
Don’t have a clue how old you are, wj, but my guess is that you’re a post-50 person (like me). If not, please clarify.
I think that our youth (under 35) have huge foreign language skills that match or exceed their European counterparts. For example, I have a young (under 30) friend who works in China. He speaks fluently (and is constantly improving his “business jargon” Mandarin). Many of his European friends do not have good language skills – some speak no Chinese at all.
If, in fact, you are my age, you might be behind in knowing about how incredibly smart and well-educated our young people are. There are myths going around that they’re illiterate and innumerate because of too many video games. Myths.
Busted!
If we’ve improved our language instruction, I’m delighted. That would certianly have lots of benefits, far beyond the intelligence community. But that is where I was coming from.
Busted!
If we’ve improved our language instruction, I’m delighted. That would certianly have lots of benefits, far beyond the intelligence community. But that is where I was coming from.
Busted!
If we’ve improved our language instruction, I’m delighted. That would certianly have lots of benefits, far beyond the intelligence community. But that is where I was coming from.
And, let me add regarding foreign languages: British people and Europeans have huge advantages in practicing conversational languages of European countries because of the proximity of those countries. And it’s greatly helpful, as a tourist, or as a scholar, to have those skills. Americans who speak English at home have a harder time with that.
But in terms of deep commitment to foreign language study, and self-examination regarding chauvinism, American kids understand what’s up, and those who are motivated to work abroad try to overcome their deficits.
And, let me add regarding foreign languages: British people and Europeans have huge advantages in practicing conversational languages of European countries because of the proximity of those countries. And it’s greatly helpful, as a tourist, or as a scholar, to have those skills. Americans who speak English at home have a harder time with that.
But in terms of deep commitment to foreign language study, and self-examination regarding chauvinism, American kids understand what’s up, and those who are motivated to work abroad try to overcome their deficits.
And, let me add regarding foreign languages: British people and Europeans have huge advantages in practicing conversational languages of European countries because of the proximity of those countries. And it’s greatly helpful, as a tourist, or as a scholar, to have those skills. Americans who speak English at home have a harder time with that.
But in terms of deep commitment to foreign language study, and self-examination regarding chauvinism, American kids understand what’s up, and those who are motivated to work abroad try to overcome their deficits.
Busted!
Thanks, wj. I’m just incredibly proud of the “kids” (young adults – under 35’s) I know. I love them and am tired of them carrying the “ugly American” stereotype. They don’t deserve it. That was something from awhile ago.
Busted!
Thanks, wj. I’m just incredibly proud of the “kids” (young adults – under 35’s) I know. I love them and am tired of them carrying the “ugly American” stereotype. They don’t deserve it. That was something from awhile ago.
Busted!
Thanks, wj. I’m just incredibly proud of the “kids” (young adults – under 35’s) I know. I love them and am tired of them carrying the “ugly American” stereotype. They don’t deserve it. That was something from awhile ago.
It could be done in the past. (When I was in high school, I got to the point where I was dreaming in German.) But it was damn rare.
And I would not be surprised if a depressing number of those making decisions about our intelligence operations are my (our?) age, and share the same image of what young people were — and therefore are….
The question then becomes, what is the reason that our HUMINT skills seem to be so bad? Or is it that they are actually quite good, and their poor reputation is being carefully conserved in order to protect our assets?
It could be done in the past. (When I was in high school, I got to the point where I was dreaming in German.) But it was damn rare.
And I would not be surprised if a depressing number of those making decisions about our intelligence operations are my (our?) age, and share the same image of what young people were — and therefore are….
The question then becomes, what is the reason that our HUMINT skills seem to be so bad? Or is it that they are actually quite good, and their poor reputation is being carefully conserved in order to protect our assets?
It could be done in the past. (When I was in high school, I got to the point where I was dreaming in German.) But it was damn rare.
And I would not be surprised if a depressing number of those making decisions about our intelligence operations are my (our?) age, and share the same image of what young people were — and therefore are….
The question then becomes, what is the reason that our HUMINT skills seem to be so bad? Or is it that they are actually quite good, and their poor reputation is being carefully conserved in order to protect our assets?
What use is the knowledge of foreign languages, if it is treated as a disqualifier?
During the Bush era people with a working knowledge of Arabic were actively discriminated against with regard to employment in the great Iraq adventure for example (at least on par with not having voted for Bush and accepting him as personal saviour).
If actually knowing the enemy is seen as the first step to being him it does not bode well for HUMINT.
What use is the knowledge of foreign languages, if it is treated as a disqualifier?
During the Bush era people with a working knowledge of Arabic were actively discriminated against with regard to employment in the great Iraq adventure for example (at least on par with not having voted for Bush and accepting him as personal saviour).
If actually knowing the enemy is seen as the first step to being him it does not bode well for HUMINT.
What use is the knowledge of foreign languages, if it is treated as a disqualifier?
During the Bush era people with a working knowledge of Arabic were actively discriminated against with regard to employment in the great Iraq adventure for example (at least on par with not having voted for Bush and accepting him as personal saviour).
If actually knowing the enemy is seen as the first step to being him it does not bode well for HUMINT.
As far as the CIA is concerned, this makes an interesting read:
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418710345&sr=1-1&keywords=legacy+of+ashes
And yes, kids are smarter today.
As far as the CIA is concerned, this makes an interesting read:
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418710345&sr=1-1&keywords=legacy+of+ashes
And yes, kids are smarter today.
As far as the CIA is concerned, this makes an interesting read:
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418710345&sr=1-1&keywords=legacy+of+ashes
And yes, kids are smarter today.
the Brits think Americans are crap at everything when, in fact, sometimes the Brits are blinded by their own arrogance…
Certainly not my attitude – and I suspect the ‘British arrogance’ thing is also a little dated.
Most of us are well cognisant of our reduced role in the world.
If anything, American exceptionalism has taken the place of the old belief (untrue even back then) that to have been born British was to “have won first prize in the lottery of life”…
the Brits think Americans are crap at everything when, in fact, sometimes the Brits are blinded by their own arrogance…
Certainly not my attitude – and I suspect the ‘British arrogance’ thing is also a little dated.
Most of us are well cognisant of our reduced role in the world.
If anything, American exceptionalism has taken the place of the old belief (untrue even back then) that to have been born British was to “have won first prize in the lottery of life”…
the Brits think Americans are crap at everything when, in fact, sometimes the Brits are blinded by their own arrogance…
Certainly not my attitude – and I suspect the ‘British arrogance’ thing is also a little dated.
Most of us are well cognisant of our reduced role in the world.
If anything, American exceptionalism has taken the place of the old belief (untrue even back then) that to have been born British was to “have won first prize in the lottery of life”…
In case anyone was concerned by the self-serving, very limited, and entirely conditional rebuke Yoo delivered to the CIA, rest assured he’s still John Yoo. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach.
In case anyone was concerned by the self-serving, very limited, and entirely conditional rebuke Yoo delivered to the CIA, rest assured he’s still John Yoo. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach.
In case anyone was concerned by the self-serving, very limited, and entirely conditional rebuke Yoo delivered to the CIA, rest assured he’s still John Yoo. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach.
It’s not that our skills are bad; it’s that our policy has been bad. It’s particularly demonstrable that during the Bush administration, the policymakers cherrypicked the CIA for “intelligence” that would support preexisting plans (such as the invasion of Iraq).
Anyway, thanks for the book recommendation, Nigel. I’ll put it on my list.
It’s not that our skills are bad; it’s that our policy has been bad. It’s particularly demonstrable that during the Bush administration, the policymakers cherrypicked the CIA for “intelligence” that would support preexisting plans (such as the invasion of Iraq).
Anyway, thanks for the book recommendation, Nigel. I’ll put it on my list.
It’s not that our skills are bad; it’s that our policy has been bad. It’s particularly demonstrable that during the Bush administration, the policymakers cherrypicked the CIA for “intelligence” that would support preexisting plans (such as the invasion of Iraq).
Anyway, thanks for the book recommendation, Nigel. I’ll put it on my list.
wj:
what is the reason that our HUMINT skills seem to be so bad? Or is it that they are actually quite good, and their poor reputation is being carefully conserved in order to protect our assets?
This is along the lines of what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread. We really have no way of knowing, because the CIA actively resists oversight. Perhaps with good reason, but I doubt it.
I have no problem with the CIA conducting HUMINT, I just don’t think its absolutely critical to have a mole EVERYWHERE. And I would like HUMINT to be very separate from military/paramilitary actions.
My speculation, based mostly on knowing a number of failures (frex: didn’t the rise of ISIS basically blindside the CIA?) and not knowing many successes, is that intelligence gathering is really, really hard and the CIA isn’t an exceptional organization.
If someone with data wants to explain to me the critical role the CIA plays in maintaining our way of life, I’m all ears. Other then that, I think they are overpriced and in many ways, work against our national interest.
wj:
what is the reason that our HUMINT skills seem to be so bad? Or is it that they are actually quite good, and their poor reputation is being carefully conserved in order to protect our assets?
This is along the lines of what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread. We really have no way of knowing, because the CIA actively resists oversight. Perhaps with good reason, but I doubt it.
I have no problem with the CIA conducting HUMINT, I just don’t think its absolutely critical to have a mole EVERYWHERE. And I would like HUMINT to be very separate from military/paramilitary actions.
My speculation, based mostly on knowing a number of failures (frex: didn’t the rise of ISIS basically blindside the CIA?) and not knowing many successes, is that intelligence gathering is really, really hard and the CIA isn’t an exceptional organization.
If someone with data wants to explain to me the critical role the CIA plays in maintaining our way of life, I’m all ears. Other then that, I think they are overpriced and in many ways, work against our national interest.
wj:
what is the reason that our HUMINT skills seem to be so bad? Or is it that they are actually quite good, and their poor reputation is being carefully conserved in order to protect our assets?
This is along the lines of what I was trying to get at earlier in the thread. We really have no way of knowing, because the CIA actively resists oversight. Perhaps with good reason, but I doubt it.
I have no problem with the CIA conducting HUMINT, I just don’t think its absolutely critical to have a mole EVERYWHERE. And I would like HUMINT to be very separate from military/paramilitary actions.
My speculation, based mostly on knowing a number of failures (frex: didn’t the rise of ISIS basically blindside the CIA?) and not knowing many successes, is that intelligence gathering is really, really hard and the CIA isn’t an exceptional organization.
If someone with data wants to explain to me the critical role the CIA plays in maintaining our way of life, I’m all ears. Other then that, I think they are overpriced and in many ways, work against our national interest.
Posted by: Marty: “The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.”
To all, please note that Marty’s defnition of ‘bloated government’ is ‘any effort to investigate, audit or otherwise restrain the government’.
Posted by: Marty: “The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.”
To all, please note that Marty’s defnition of ‘bloated government’ is ‘any effort to investigate, audit or otherwise restrain the government’.
Posted by: Marty: “The time and effort to release the report, wow that must have taken a bunch of effort, another example of bloated government.”
To all, please note that Marty’s defnition of ‘bloated government’ is ‘any effort to investigate, audit or otherwise restrain the government’.
Wow. Thats twice in this thread that the sarcasm in that statement was completely missed, or ignored. It must be subtext confusing the issue.
Wow. Thats twice in this thread that the sarcasm in that statement was completely missed, or ignored. It must be subtext confusing the issue.
Wow. Thats twice in this thread that the sarcasm in that statement was completely missed, or ignored. It must be subtext confusing the issue.
It’s much easier to identify failures of intelligence than successes. Success is when bad things don’t happen.
What happened in Pakistan today was an intelligence failure. How many similar situations have been prevented by intelligence successes? We can’t know.
As to whether the CIA resists oversight, sure, but the CIA doesn’t run itself. It responds to elected officials and policy makers. If elected officials are serious about conducting oversight, they can do so, or pull the plug.
It’s naive to think that we don’t need an intelligence service. Obviously, it needs to aim for high competency. But it’s important that policy makers respond to intelligence information rather than making policy, then cherry-picking intelligence to support it.
It’s much easier to identify failures of intelligence than successes. Success is when bad things don’t happen.
What happened in Pakistan today was an intelligence failure. How many similar situations have been prevented by intelligence successes? We can’t know.
As to whether the CIA resists oversight, sure, but the CIA doesn’t run itself. It responds to elected officials and policy makers. If elected officials are serious about conducting oversight, they can do so, or pull the plug.
It’s naive to think that we don’t need an intelligence service. Obviously, it needs to aim for high competency. But it’s important that policy makers respond to intelligence information rather than making policy, then cherry-picking intelligence to support it.
It’s much easier to identify failures of intelligence than successes. Success is when bad things don’t happen.
What happened in Pakistan today was an intelligence failure. How many similar situations have been prevented by intelligence successes? We can’t know.
As to whether the CIA resists oversight, sure, but the CIA doesn’t run itself. It responds to elected officials and policy makers. If elected officials are serious about conducting oversight, they can do so, or pull the plug.
It’s naive to think that we don’t need an intelligence service. Obviously, it needs to aim for high competency. But it’s important that policy makers respond to intelligence information rather than making policy, then cherry-picking intelligence to support it.
Marty, perhaps if you could label the sarcasm, for those of us who are never quite sure….
I find /sarcasm at the end helpful.
Marty, perhaps if you could label the sarcasm, for those of us who are never quite sure….
I find /sarcasm at the end helpful.
Marty, perhaps if you could label the sarcasm, for those of us who are never quite sure….
I find /sarcasm at the end helpful.
The conclusion to take from Legacy of ashes is that the CIA is just terrible and we would be better off without it. It’s just one big fail parade all the way down. The overthrow of Mosaddegh alone probably outweighs all the good the CIA’s done in its history. We’re still paying for that more than 60 years later.
The conclusion to take from Legacy of ashes is that the CIA is just terrible and we would be better off without it. It’s just one big fail parade all the way down. The overthrow of Mosaddegh alone probably outweighs all the good the CIA’s done in its history. We’re still paying for that more than 60 years later.
The conclusion to take from Legacy of ashes is that the CIA is just terrible and we would be better off without it. It’s just one big fail parade all the way down. The overthrow of Mosaddegh alone probably outweighs all the good the CIA’s done in its history. We’re still paying for that more than 60 years later.
wj: “Nigel, the case against Cheney is actually one of the weaker ones. Legally, he wasn’t even in the chain of command. (He may have been acting like he was, but his actual authority would have to be proven.) Which would make him guilty of advocating and encouraging, but not ordering.”
So John Gotti wasn’t sent to prison?
Cheney is at least guilty of conspiracy.
wj: “Nigel, the case against Cheney is actually one of the weaker ones. Legally, he wasn’t even in the chain of command. (He may have been acting like he was, but his actual authority would have to be proven.) Which would make him guilty of advocating and encouraging, but not ordering.”
So John Gotti wasn’t sent to prison?
Cheney is at least guilty of conspiracy.
wj: “Nigel, the case against Cheney is actually one of the weaker ones. Legally, he wasn’t even in the chain of command. (He may have been acting like he was, but his actual authority would have to be proven.) Which would make him guilty of advocating and encouraging, but not ordering.”
So John Gotti wasn’t sent to prison?
Cheney is at least guilty of conspiracy.
sapient:
We can’t know.
Why not? Does the CIA not keep records of its operations, the intelligence gathered, and how it was used?
It’s much easier to identify failures of intelligence than successes.
I don’t know about that. Intercepting printer cartridge bombs is a success. Locating OBL was a success, although personally I don’t think it was worth the cost of diminished trust in vaccination campaigns. Knowing that Russia is about to invade Ukraine would be a success. Predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success.
None of these are unknowable, or even particularly hard to identify.
Obviously, it needs to aim for high competency.
And how do you propose we measure competency, if you believe it is difficult to identify successes?
It’s naive to think that we don’t need an intelligence service.
The trick is figuring out how much of one we need, how to ensure its tactics don’t undermine our national interests or values, and how to effectively provide oversight. While it may be naive to think we don’t need one, its also naive to think that having one is an automatic benefit.
From what I see, the CIA does a lot to destabilize regions and foment hate of the US. That’s a big price we pay for its successes, regardless of how difficult it is to measure them.
And on preview…what Ugh said.
sapient:
We can’t know.
Why not? Does the CIA not keep records of its operations, the intelligence gathered, and how it was used?
It’s much easier to identify failures of intelligence than successes.
I don’t know about that. Intercepting printer cartridge bombs is a success. Locating OBL was a success, although personally I don’t think it was worth the cost of diminished trust in vaccination campaigns. Knowing that Russia is about to invade Ukraine would be a success. Predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success.
None of these are unknowable, or even particularly hard to identify.
Obviously, it needs to aim for high competency.
And how do you propose we measure competency, if you believe it is difficult to identify successes?
It’s naive to think that we don’t need an intelligence service.
The trick is figuring out how much of one we need, how to ensure its tactics don’t undermine our national interests or values, and how to effectively provide oversight. While it may be naive to think we don’t need one, its also naive to think that having one is an automatic benefit.
From what I see, the CIA does a lot to destabilize regions and foment hate of the US. That’s a big price we pay for its successes, regardless of how difficult it is to measure them.
And on preview…what Ugh said.
sapient:
We can’t know.
Why not? Does the CIA not keep records of its operations, the intelligence gathered, and how it was used?
It’s much easier to identify failures of intelligence than successes.
I don’t know about that. Intercepting printer cartridge bombs is a success. Locating OBL was a success, although personally I don’t think it was worth the cost of diminished trust in vaccination campaigns. Knowing that Russia is about to invade Ukraine would be a success. Predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success.
None of these are unknowable, or even particularly hard to identify.
Obviously, it needs to aim for high competency.
And how do you propose we measure competency, if you believe it is difficult to identify successes?
It’s naive to think that we don’t need an intelligence service.
The trick is figuring out how much of one we need, how to ensure its tactics don’t undermine our national interests or values, and how to effectively provide oversight. While it may be naive to think we don’t need one, its also naive to think that having one is an automatic benefit.
From what I see, the CIA does a lot to destabilize regions and foment hate of the US. That’s a big price we pay for its successes, regardless of how difficult it is to measure them.
And on preview…what Ugh said.
Posted by: Marty: “Wow. Thats twice in this thread that the sarcasm in that statement was completely missed, or ignored. It must be subtext confusing the issue.”
Marty, people do look at your extensive history here, and draw conclusions.
Posted by: Marty: “Wow. Thats twice in this thread that the sarcasm in that statement was completely missed, or ignored. It must be subtext confusing the issue.”
Marty, people do look at your extensive history here, and draw conclusions.
Posted by: Marty: “Wow. Thats twice in this thread that the sarcasm in that statement was completely missed, or ignored. It must be subtext confusing the issue.”
Marty, people do look at your extensive history here, and draw conclusions.
So John Gotti wasn’t sent to prison?
Barry, a criminal organization doesn’t have legally mandated lines of responsibility. The US government does.
But yes, conspiracy would look to be a reasonable charge. But not at the level of actually ordering (from a position of real legal authority) torture, giving it pseudo-legal justification, supervising it, or carrying it out. Which was all that I meant by saying the case was weaker.
So John Gotti wasn’t sent to prison?
Barry, a criminal organization doesn’t have legally mandated lines of responsibility. The US government does.
But yes, conspiracy would look to be a reasonable charge. But not at the level of actually ordering (from a position of real legal authority) torture, giving it pseudo-legal justification, supervising it, or carrying it out. Which was all that I meant by saying the case was weaker.
So John Gotti wasn’t sent to prison?
Barry, a criminal organization doesn’t have legally mandated lines of responsibility. The US government does.
But yes, conspiracy would look to be a reasonable charge. But not at the level of actually ordering (from a position of real legal authority) torture, giving it pseudo-legal justification, supervising it, or carrying it out. Which was all that I meant by saying the case was weaker.
Brett: “And I look forward to you rationalizing that the Democrats doing everything humanly possible to keep a bill from passing isn’t “obstruction”. So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.”
I’ve been expecting this, but still the raw shamelessness is – well, disgusting. The GOP took a stance of 100% nihilistic, dishonest, partisan and disloyal opposition, and *now* they’ll howl about ‘obstructionism’. Just like the Tea Party got off their knees, wiped Bush/Cheney’s shoe polish off of their tongues, and became shocked! at the federal government.
Brett: “And I look forward to you rationalizing that the Democrats doing everything humanly possible to keep a bill from passing isn’t “obstruction”. So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.”
I’ve been expecting this, but still the raw shamelessness is – well, disgusting. The GOP took a stance of 100% nihilistic, dishonest, partisan and disloyal opposition, and *now* they’ll howl about ‘obstructionism’. Just like the Tea Party got off their knees, wiped Bush/Cheney’s shoe polish off of their tongues, and became shocked! at the federal government.
Brett: “And I look forward to you rationalizing that the Democrats doing everything humanly possible to keep a bill from passing isn’t “obstruction”. So far as I can see, all the “obstruction” of late has been happening in the Democratic Senate.”
I’ve been expecting this, but still the raw shamelessness is – well, disgusting. The GOP took a stance of 100% nihilistic, dishonest, partisan and disloyal opposition, and *now* they’ll howl about ‘obstructionism’. Just like the Tea Party got off their knees, wiped Bush/Cheney’s shoe polish off of their tongues, and became shocked! at the federal government.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide:
“In case anyone was concerned by the self-serving, very limited, and entirely conditional rebuke Yoo delivered to the CIA, rest assured he’s still John Yoo. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach.”
Yoo, first and foremost, is a liar and a wh*re. He’s putting a leeetle distance between himself and what he conspired to do, just in case.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide:
“In case anyone was concerned by the self-serving, very limited, and entirely conditional rebuke Yoo delivered to the CIA, rest assured he’s still John Yoo. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach.”
Yoo, first and foremost, is a liar and a wh*re. He’s putting a leeetle distance between himself and what he conspired to do, just in case.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide:
“In case anyone was concerned by the self-serving, very limited, and entirely conditional rebuke Yoo delivered to the CIA, rest assured he’s still John Yoo. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach.”
Yoo, first and foremost, is a liar and a wh*re. He’s putting a leeetle distance between himself and what he conspired to do, just in case.
It strikes me that there is a lot of daylight between human intelligence collection, including plain old spying, and chaining naked people to the floor of rooms cold enough that they die from hypothermia.
Etc etc etc.
Hopefully that distinction is apparent to one and all.
Folks acting on behalf of the US – soldiers and others – have committed acts of torture and other crimes in pretty much every war this country has been involved in.
Sometimes they were prosecuted, most times the approach was forgive, forget, and move on.
To my knowledge, prior to the 9/11 stuff, we’ve never had an explicit regime of torture established with the collusion of and at the urging of the highest levels of government.
That’s what is different.
And yes, I am aware that many of the principals claim that the “EIT’s” weren’t really torture, but they are plainly understood to be torture by everyone else in the world, both legally and as a matter of common sense, and have been for hundreds of years.
The legal support for this BS includes claims that pain isn’t severe unless it reaches the level associated with massive organ failure, and that US persons torturing people outside the country aren’t liable (which flatly contradicts the US Code), and that Congress cannot pass laws regulating torture by the military because that would interfere with the President’s war-making powers (which makes a mockery of the Constitution).
It is, plainly, utter horseshit, and we’ve all been asked to accept it, because the “political climate” won’t tolerate addressing it candidly.
The closest we come to that is our current policy of “we don’t do that anymore, so let’s move on”.
That is not addressing the issue, it’s ignoring it.
And the reason the “political climate” won’t tolerate doing more is because the people of the US either don’t really give a crap either way, or they are enthusiastically in favor of torturing people who they think are a threat, or might be a threat, or might know about a threat, or know a guy who knows a guy who might know about a threat.
We’re fine with it. That’s why nothing further will be done about it.
And because nothing further will be done about it, it ain’t going away.
Obama has ruled out waterboarding by executive order, if I understand it correctly.
Obama won’t be President forever.
It strikes me that there is a lot of daylight between human intelligence collection, including plain old spying, and chaining naked people to the floor of rooms cold enough that they die from hypothermia.
Etc etc etc.
Hopefully that distinction is apparent to one and all.
Folks acting on behalf of the US – soldiers and others – have committed acts of torture and other crimes in pretty much every war this country has been involved in.
Sometimes they were prosecuted, most times the approach was forgive, forget, and move on.
To my knowledge, prior to the 9/11 stuff, we’ve never had an explicit regime of torture established with the collusion of and at the urging of the highest levels of government.
That’s what is different.
And yes, I am aware that many of the principals claim that the “EIT’s” weren’t really torture, but they are plainly understood to be torture by everyone else in the world, both legally and as a matter of common sense, and have been for hundreds of years.
The legal support for this BS includes claims that pain isn’t severe unless it reaches the level associated with massive organ failure, and that US persons torturing people outside the country aren’t liable (which flatly contradicts the US Code), and that Congress cannot pass laws regulating torture by the military because that would interfere with the President’s war-making powers (which makes a mockery of the Constitution).
It is, plainly, utter horseshit, and we’ve all been asked to accept it, because the “political climate” won’t tolerate addressing it candidly.
The closest we come to that is our current policy of “we don’t do that anymore, so let’s move on”.
That is not addressing the issue, it’s ignoring it.
And the reason the “political climate” won’t tolerate doing more is because the people of the US either don’t really give a crap either way, or they are enthusiastically in favor of torturing people who they think are a threat, or might be a threat, or might know about a threat, or know a guy who knows a guy who might know about a threat.
We’re fine with it. That’s why nothing further will be done about it.
And because nothing further will be done about it, it ain’t going away.
Obama has ruled out waterboarding by executive order, if I understand it correctly.
Obama won’t be President forever.
It strikes me that there is a lot of daylight between human intelligence collection, including plain old spying, and chaining naked people to the floor of rooms cold enough that they die from hypothermia.
Etc etc etc.
Hopefully that distinction is apparent to one and all.
Folks acting on behalf of the US – soldiers and others – have committed acts of torture and other crimes in pretty much every war this country has been involved in.
Sometimes they were prosecuted, most times the approach was forgive, forget, and move on.
To my knowledge, prior to the 9/11 stuff, we’ve never had an explicit regime of torture established with the collusion of and at the urging of the highest levels of government.
That’s what is different.
And yes, I am aware that many of the principals claim that the “EIT’s” weren’t really torture, but they are plainly understood to be torture by everyone else in the world, both legally and as a matter of common sense, and have been for hundreds of years.
The legal support for this BS includes claims that pain isn’t severe unless it reaches the level associated with massive organ failure, and that US persons torturing people outside the country aren’t liable (which flatly contradicts the US Code), and that Congress cannot pass laws regulating torture by the military because that would interfere with the President’s war-making powers (which makes a mockery of the Constitution).
It is, plainly, utter horseshit, and we’ve all been asked to accept it, because the “political climate” won’t tolerate addressing it candidly.
The closest we come to that is our current policy of “we don’t do that anymore, so let’s move on”.
That is not addressing the issue, it’s ignoring it.
And the reason the “political climate” won’t tolerate doing more is because the people of the US either don’t really give a crap either way, or they are enthusiastically in favor of torturing people who they think are a threat, or might be a threat, or might know about a threat, or know a guy who knows a guy who might know about a threat.
We’re fine with it. That’s why nothing further will be done about it.
And because nothing further will be done about it, it ain’t going away.
Obama has ruled out waterboarding by executive order, if I understand it correctly.
Obama won’t be President forever.
Marty, people do look at your extensive history here
I been talking with Marty here on ObWi for a couple of years now, probably, and it wasn’t hard for me to hear the comment as sarcasm.
I disagree with Marty about a lot of stuff, but he’s a lot more thoughtful than you give him credit for here.
There really aren’t too many folks here who are knee-jerk anything. We all have our hobby horses, but most folks are actually pretty thoughtful. IMO, anyway.
Marty, people do look at your extensive history here
I been talking with Marty here on ObWi for a couple of years now, probably, and it wasn’t hard for me to hear the comment as sarcasm.
I disagree with Marty about a lot of stuff, but he’s a lot more thoughtful than you give him credit for here.
There really aren’t too many folks here who are knee-jerk anything. We all have our hobby horses, but most folks are actually pretty thoughtful. IMO, anyway.
Marty, people do look at your extensive history here
I been talking with Marty here on ObWi for a couple of years now, probably, and it wasn’t hard for me to hear the comment as sarcasm.
I disagree with Marty about a lot of stuff, but he’s a lot more thoughtful than you give him credit for here.
There really aren’t too many folks here who are knee-jerk anything. We all have our hobby horses, but most folks are actually pretty thoughtful. IMO, anyway.
I don’t know about that. Intercepting printer cartridge bombs is a success. Locating OBL was a success, although personally I don’t think it was worth the cost of diminished trust in vaccination campaigns. Knowing that Russia is about to invade Ukraine would be a success. Predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success.
It’s certainly easy to figure out whether an ongoing plot has been thwarted. It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
As to whether the rise of ISIS was a CIA screw-up, I seriously doubt that. I would suggest that the rise of ISIS was an aftermath of the Iraq war, and that given the country’s huge opposition to being in Iraq any longer, there wouldn’t have been a response to any kind of intelligence about ISIS that would have thwarted ISIS. I know that the intelligence services have been blamed for not realizing the extent of the ISIS threat, but really? How many people would have supported sending the military back into Iraq or into Syria before ISIS actually materialized?
I don’t know about that. Intercepting printer cartridge bombs is a success. Locating OBL was a success, although personally I don’t think it was worth the cost of diminished trust in vaccination campaigns. Knowing that Russia is about to invade Ukraine would be a success. Predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success.
It’s certainly easy to figure out whether an ongoing plot has been thwarted. It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
As to whether the rise of ISIS was a CIA screw-up, I seriously doubt that. I would suggest that the rise of ISIS was an aftermath of the Iraq war, and that given the country’s huge opposition to being in Iraq any longer, there wouldn’t have been a response to any kind of intelligence about ISIS that would have thwarted ISIS. I know that the intelligence services have been blamed for not realizing the extent of the ISIS threat, but really? How many people would have supported sending the military back into Iraq or into Syria before ISIS actually materialized?
I don’t know about that. Intercepting printer cartridge bombs is a success. Locating OBL was a success, although personally I don’t think it was worth the cost of diminished trust in vaccination campaigns. Knowing that Russia is about to invade Ukraine would be a success. Predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success.
It’s certainly easy to figure out whether an ongoing plot has been thwarted. It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
As to whether the rise of ISIS was a CIA screw-up, I seriously doubt that. I would suggest that the rise of ISIS was an aftermath of the Iraq war, and that given the country’s huge opposition to being in Iraq any longer, there wouldn’t have been a response to any kind of intelligence about ISIS that would have thwarted ISIS. I know that the intelligence services have been blamed for not realizing the extent of the ISIS threat, but really? How many people would have supported sending the military back into Iraq or into Syria before ISIS actually materialized?
ISIS existed before we left Iraq. it even existed, under a different name, before W invaded Iraq. the invasion gave it an opportunity to grow, and then the Syrian civil war allowed it to flourish.
the CIA surely knew of it.
ISIS existed before we left Iraq. it even existed, under a different name, before W invaded Iraq. the invasion gave it an opportunity to grow, and then the Syrian civil war allowed it to flourish.
the CIA surely knew of it.
ISIS existed before we left Iraq. it even existed, under a different name, before W invaded Iraq. the invasion gave it an opportunity to grow, and then the Syrian civil war allowed it to flourish.
the CIA surely knew of it.
A reader nails the essence of the Republican Party at Sullivan.
Scroll down to “A Republican Pop-Quiz”
A reader nails the essence of the Republican Party at Sullivan.
Scroll down to “A Republican Pop-Quiz”
A reader nails the essence of the Republican Party at Sullivan.
Scroll down to “A Republican Pop-Quiz”
It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
This is a fairly typical response, but I don’t find it enlightening. What actions are the CIA taking that reduce terrorism before the plot stage? Now or in the past? What evidence exists that suggests the CIA has had a positive influence on world or US events?
I am aware of many things the CIA has done, and mostly they seem bad. They certainly are willing and capable to point out some of their successes, so clearly it’s not an absolute rule that they must toil in secret.
What evidence is there that there that the CIA, in aggregate, performs a necessary or even useful function?
As to whether the rise of ISIS was a CIA screw-up
I said predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success, or alternatively, that my understanding was that they were blindsided by their rise. To be clear, I did not attribute the rise of ISIS to the CIA.
My point is when I think of the potential good that a HUMINT agency would provide, giving notice that an organization like ISIS is about to rise in capabilities, manpower, and territory seems like a good example.
That they failed to do that is just further support for the concept that they don’t provide a necessary or useful function to the US. It’s certainly not, in and of itself, conclusive. Merely a recent example.
It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
This is a fairly typical response, but I don’t find it enlightening. What actions are the CIA taking that reduce terrorism before the plot stage? Now or in the past? What evidence exists that suggests the CIA has had a positive influence on world or US events?
I am aware of many things the CIA has done, and mostly they seem bad. They certainly are willing and capable to point out some of their successes, so clearly it’s not an absolute rule that they must toil in secret.
What evidence is there that there that the CIA, in aggregate, performs a necessary or even useful function?
As to whether the rise of ISIS was a CIA screw-up
I said predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success, or alternatively, that my understanding was that they were blindsided by their rise. To be clear, I did not attribute the rise of ISIS to the CIA.
My point is when I think of the potential good that a HUMINT agency would provide, giving notice that an organization like ISIS is about to rise in capabilities, manpower, and territory seems like a good example.
That they failed to do that is just further support for the concept that they don’t provide a necessary or useful function to the US. It’s certainly not, in and of itself, conclusive. Merely a recent example.
It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
This is a fairly typical response, but I don’t find it enlightening. What actions are the CIA taking that reduce terrorism before the plot stage? Now or in the past? What evidence exists that suggests the CIA has had a positive influence on world or US events?
I am aware of many things the CIA has done, and mostly they seem bad. They certainly are willing and capable to point out some of their successes, so clearly it’s not an absolute rule that they must toil in secret.
What evidence is there that there that the CIA, in aggregate, performs a necessary or even useful function?
As to whether the rise of ISIS was a CIA screw-up
I said predicting the rise of ISIS would be a success, or alternatively, that my understanding was that they were blindsided by their rise. To be clear, I did not attribute the rise of ISIS to the CIA.
My point is when I think of the potential good that a HUMINT agency would provide, giving notice that an organization like ISIS is about to rise in capabilities, manpower, and territory seems like a good example.
That they failed to do that is just further support for the concept that they don’t provide a necessary or useful function to the US. It’s certainly not, in and of itself, conclusive. Merely a recent example.
Interesting tidbits from the report here.
Interesting tidbits from the report here.
Interesting tidbits from the report here.
This is a fairly typical response, but I don’t find it enlightening.
Sorry.
What actions are the CIA taking that reduce terrorism before the plot stage?
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the rationale for the drone war.
What evidence is there that there that the CIA, in aggregate, performs a necessary or even useful function?
I guess some people think they do since they’ve been receiving huge Congressional appropriations throughout my lifetime. Maybe the government knows things that they wouldn’t otherwise know if it weren’t for the CIA.
This is a fairly typical response, but I don’t find it enlightening.
Sorry.
What actions are the CIA taking that reduce terrorism before the plot stage?
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the rationale for the drone war.
What evidence is there that there that the CIA, in aggregate, performs a necessary or even useful function?
I guess some people think they do since they’ve been receiving huge Congressional appropriations throughout my lifetime. Maybe the government knows things that they wouldn’t otherwise know if it weren’t for the CIA.
This is a fairly typical response, but I don’t find it enlightening.
Sorry.
What actions are the CIA taking that reduce terrorism before the plot stage?
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the rationale for the drone war.
What evidence is there that there that the CIA, in aggregate, performs a necessary or even useful function?
I guess some people think they do since they’ve been receiving huge Congressional appropriations throughout my lifetime. Maybe the government knows things that they wouldn’t otherwise know if it weren’t for the CIA.
It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
IMO “didn’t even reach the plot stage” is kind of a funny business. It’s one thing to say an actual plot was disrupted, it’s another to tell if a plot would ever have existed.
All of that said, I’m more than happy to assume that terrorist plots have either been disrupted, or never even “reached the plot stage”, due to some intervention.
Given the money we shovel to the intelligence community, there by god better be a very generous number of examples of exactly that.
The question is what kind of “intervention” you are talking about.
It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
IMO “didn’t even reach the plot stage” is kind of a funny business. It’s one thing to say an actual plot was disrupted, it’s another to tell if a plot would ever have existed.
All of that said, I’m more than happy to assume that terrorist plots have either been disrupted, or never even “reached the plot stage”, due to some intervention.
Given the money we shovel to the intelligence community, there by god better be a very generous number of examples of exactly that.
The question is what kind of “intervention” you are talking about.
It’s more difficult to know whether there has been an act of terrorism that didn’t even reach the plot stage because of some intervention.
IMO “didn’t even reach the plot stage” is kind of a funny business. It’s one thing to say an actual plot was disrupted, it’s another to tell if a plot would ever have existed.
All of that said, I’m more than happy to assume that terrorist plots have either been disrupted, or never even “reached the plot stage”, due to some intervention.
Given the money we shovel to the intelligence community, there by god better be a very generous number of examples of exactly that.
The question is what kind of “intervention” you are talking about.
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the rationale for the drone war.
Also, not for nothing, but I sure as hell hope that is NOT the rationale for the drone war.
Killing people who are actually engaged in activity that threatens us by firing missiles at them is one thing.
Killing people who we think, maybe, someday might be engaged in activity that threatens us, even though those hypothetical activities “haven’t reached the plot stage” seems kind of insane to me.
We’re on One Percent Doctrine territory at that point.
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the rationale for the drone war.
Also, not for nothing, but I sure as hell hope that is NOT the rationale for the drone war.
Killing people who are actually engaged in activity that threatens us by firing missiles at them is one thing.
Killing people who we think, maybe, someday might be engaged in activity that threatens us, even though those hypothetical activities “haven’t reached the plot stage” seems kind of insane to me.
We’re on One Percent Doctrine territory at that point.
Unless I’m mistaken, that’s the rationale for the drone war.
Also, not for nothing, but I sure as hell hope that is NOT the rationale for the drone war.
Killing people who are actually engaged in activity that threatens us by firing missiles at them is one thing.
Killing people who we think, maybe, someday might be engaged in activity that threatens us, even though those hypothetical activities “haven’t reached the plot stage” seems kind of insane to me.
We’re on One Percent Doctrine territory at that point.
@russell: I’m more than happy to assume that terrorist plots have either been disrupted, or never even “reached the plot stage”, due to some intervention.
That was supposedly the reason that we have to put small containers of liquids into plastic baggies in carryon luggage.
Also, the prohibition of snow-globes. I, for one, am glad to be free of the dastardly threat of snow-globe wielding hijackers.
@russell: I’m more than happy to assume that terrorist plots have either been disrupted, or never even “reached the plot stage”, due to some intervention.
That was supposedly the reason that we have to put small containers of liquids into plastic baggies in carryon luggage.
Also, the prohibition of snow-globes. I, for one, am glad to be free of the dastardly threat of snow-globe wielding hijackers.
@russell: I’m more than happy to assume that terrorist plots have either been disrupted, or never even “reached the plot stage”, due to some intervention.
That was supposedly the reason that we have to put small containers of liquids into plastic baggies in carryon luggage.
Also, the prohibition of snow-globes. I, for one, am glad to be free of the dastardly threat of snow-globe wielding hijackers.
russell, is it insanity? Or just two-step logic?
First, there’s the the NRA approach: if nasty people have weapons, we obviously must have more and better of everything. Than anybody and everybody.
Second, but since we have all these weapons, it would be ridiculous to leave them sitting on the shelf gathering dust. We ought to use them! Stupid to wait to get hurt first.
See, simple logic.
russell, is it insanity? Or just two-step logic?
First, there’s the the NRA approach: if nasty people have weapons, we obviously must have more and better of everything. Than anybody and everybody.
Second, but since we have all these weapons, it would be ridiculous to leave them sitting on the shelf gathering dust. We ought to use them! Stupid to wait to get hurt first.
See, simple logic.
russell, is it insanity? Or just two-step logic?
First, there’s the the NRA approach: if nasty people have weapons, we obviously must have more and better of everything. Than anybody and everybody.
Second, but since we have all these weapons, it would be ridiculous to leave them sitting on the shelf gathering dust. We ought to use them! Stupid to wait to get hurt first.
See, simple logic.
sapient:
Thanks for providing a specific example. Far too often I think defenders of various covert programs fall back on: it’s really important and we can’t know why.
Nonetheless, I think the drone program is a terrible justification of the CIA. Largely for the reason russell noted, with an addendum.
If these people are not part of an organized group that we have the legal authority to make war against, the CIA is undermining our values.
If they are part of such group, we have an extremely large and well funded military, and having a second agency making war on our behalf serves to do little except muddy oversight, accountability, and make coordination difficult.
Either way, I personally view the drone campaign as a negative. First of all, we kill a lot of people that have minimal, if any, evidence against them. Second of all, drones may be a recruitment tool (frex: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/ ), in which case the drone campaign may actively work against US interests.
I guess some people think they do since they’ve been receiving huge Congressional appropriations throughout my lifetime.
This is not compelling. Congress is hardly a faultless organization, and in general I wouldn’t consider ‘congress did X’ as equivalent to ‘X being worthwhile’.
sapient:
Thanks for providing a specific example. Far too often I think defenders of various covert programs fall back on: it’s really important and we can’t know why.
Nonetheless, I think the drone program is a terrible justification of the CIA. Largely for the reason russell noted, with an addendum.
If these people are not part of an organized group that we have the legal authority to make war against, the CIA is undermining our values.
If they are part of such group, we have an extremely large and well funded military, and having a second agency making war on our behalf serves to do little except muddy oversight, accountability, and make coordination difficult.
Either way, I personally view the drone campaign as a negative. First of all, we kill a lot of people that have minimal, if any, evidence against them. Second of all, drones may be a recruitment tool (frex: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/ ), in which case the drone campaign may actively work against US interests.
I guess some people think they do since they’ve been receiving huge Congressional appropriations throughout my lifetime.
This is not compelling. Congress is hardly a faultless organization, and in general I wouldn’t consider ‘congress did X’ as equivalent to ‘X being worthwhile’.
sapient:
Thanks for providing a specific example. Far too often I think defenders of various covert programs fall back on: it’s really important and we can’t know why.
Nonetheless, I think the drone program is a terrible justification of the CIA. Largely for the reason russell noted, with an addendum.
If these people are not part of an organized group that we have the legal authority to make war against, the CIA is undermining our values.
If they are part of such group, we have an extremely large and well funded military, and having a second agency making war on our behalf serves to do little except muddy oversight, accountability, and make coordination difficult.
Either way, I personally view the drone campaign as a negative. First of all, we kill a lot of people that have minimal, if any, evidence against them. Second of all, drones may be a recruitment tool (frex: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/ ), in which case the drone campaign may actively work against US interests.
I guess some people think they do since they’ve been receiving huge Congressional appropriations throughout my lifetime.
This is not compelling. Congress is hardly a faultless organization, and in general I wouldn’t consider ‘congress did X’ as equivalent to ‘X being worthwhile’.
I have to second thompson. There are just way too many examples of Congress funding stuff, for decades, which nobody except those getting paid believes are useful. We could start with farm programs, for just one example. But no doubt every one of us could come up with an example — even if duplicate entries were not allowed.
I have to second thompson. There are just way too many examples of Congress funding stuff, for decades, which nobody except those getting paid believes are useful. We could start with farm programs, for just one example. But no doubt every one of us could come up with an example — even if duplicate entries were not allowed.
I have to second thompson. There are just way too many examples of Congress funding stuff, for decades, which nobody except those getting paid believes are useful. We could start with farm programs, for just one example. But no doubt every one of us could come up with an example — even if duplicate entries were not allowed.
I have to second thompson. There are just way too many examples of Congress funding stuff, for decades, which nobody except those getting paid believes are useful.
I’m pretty sure that our intelligence services don’t fall into that category. You’re welcome to disagree, but it does seem to me that a lot of people in both Congress and the Executive branch purport to rely on intelligence briefings, and don’t really complain too often that they’re crap at doing that work.
I have to second thompson. There are just way too many examples of Congress funding stuff, for decades, which nobody except those getting paid believes are useful.
I’m pretty sure that our intelligence services don’t fall into that category. You’re welcome to disagree, but it does seem to me that a lot of people in both Congress and the Executive branch purport to rely on intelligence briefings, and don’t really complain too often that they’re crap at doing that work.
I have to second thompson. There are just way too many examples of Congress funding stuff, for decades, which nobody except those getting paid believes are useful.
I’m pretty sure that our intelligence services don’t fall into that category. You’re welcome to disagree, but it does seem to me that a lot of people in both Congress and the Executive branch purport to rely on intelligence briefings, and don’t really complain too often that they’re crap at doing that work.
Killing people who are actually engaged in activity that threatens us by firing missiles at them is one thing.
Killing people who we think, maybe, someday might be engaged in activity that threatens us, even though those hypothetical activities “haven’t reached the plot stage” seems kind of insane to me.
Today several members of the Taliban in Pakistan succeeded in their “plot” to kill many civilians, mostly children, in a school. The Taliban in Pakistan kill civilians as a general strategy. I don’t think that it’s insane to target the Taliban in Pakistan with drones, whether or not a specific plot against specific children is uncovered.
Killing people who are actually engaged in activity that threatens us by firing missiles at them is one thing.
Killing people who we think, maybe, someday might be engaged in activity that threatens us, even though those hypothetical activities “haven’t reached the plot stage” seems kind of insane to me.
Today several members of the Taliban in Pakistan succeeded in their “plot” to kill many civilians, mostly children, in a school. The Taliban in Pakistan kill civilians as a general strategy. I don’t think that it’s insane to target the Taliban in Pakistan with drones, whether or not a specific plot against specific children is uncovered.
Killing people who are actually engaged in activity that threatens us by firing missiles at them is one thing.
Killing people who we think, maybe, someday might be engaged in activity that threatens us, even though those hypothetical activities “haven’t reached the plot stage” seems kind of insane to me.
Today several members of the Taliban in Pakistan succeeded in their “plot” to kill many civilians, mostly children, in a school. The Taliban in Pakistan kill civilians as a general strategy. I don’t think that it’s insane to target the Taliban in Pakistan with drones, whether or not a specific plot against specific children is uncovered.
we understand the world via the intelligence services we have, not the ones we wish we had.
for better or worse.
we understand the world via the intelligence services we have, not the ones we wish we had.
for better or worse.
we understand the world via the intelligence services we have, not the ones we wish we had.
for better or worse.
I don’t think that it’s insane to target the Taliban in Pakistan with drones
Are we at war with the entire Pakistani Taliban now?
Kill them all. Let god sort them out.
I don’t think that it’s insane to target the Taliban in Pakistan with drones
Are we at war with the entire Pakistani Taliban now?
Kill them all. Let god sort them out.
I don’t think that it’s insane to target the Taliban in Pakistan with drones
Are we at war with the entire Pakistani Taliban now?
Kill them all. Let god sort them out.
Are we at war with the entire Pakistani Taliban now?
AUMF.
Are we at war with the entire Pakistani Taliban now?
AUMF.
Are we at war with the entire Pakistani Taliban now?
AUMF.
sapient, the discussion was not about how good the CIA is at analysis and intelligence briefings. It was about how good, or bad, they are at HUMINT. And whether the Congress would have spent so much on them, if they were not good at covert operations and human intelligence gathering.
My view is that they could be (and perhaps are) terrible at those two, and still get enormous amounts of money budgetted for them. Independent of whether their briefings were valuable.
sapient, the discussion was not about how good the CIA is at analysis and intelligence briefings. It was about how good, or bad, they are at HUMINT. And whether the Congress would have spent so much on them, if they were not good at covert operations and human intelligence gathering.
My view is that they could be (and perhaps are) terrible at those two, and still get enormous amounts of money budgetted for them. Independent of whether their briefings were valuable.
sapient, the discussion was not about how good the CIA is at analysis and intelligence briefings. It was about how good, or bad, they are at HUMINT. And whether the Congress would have spent so much on them, if they were not good at covert operations and human intelligence gathering.
My view is that they could be (and perhaps are) terrible at those two, and still get enormous amounts of money budgetted for them. Independent of whether their briefings were valuable.
My view is that they could be (and perhaps are) terrible at those two, and still get enormous amounts of money budgetted for them
I don’t do the kind of work that the CIA is charged with doing (and the CIA is a large organization that does a lot of different things). It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
Add to that the fact that most CIA operations are classified, and that when things do come to light, most of what’s newsworthy are screw-ups. Sometimes foiled plots are newsworthy, but day to day information that is collected is unlikely to make news, even though it might be valuable.
I think that Nigel’s suggested book is probably worth reading (although, again, it’s probably easier to write and to sell an exposé than it is to sell a book about how much we know because of our brave intelligence people).
I agree that any secret government agency is inherently problematic, and that the CIA has demonstrated that many times. But I certainly would not try to make the case that we don’t need the basic services the CIA provides, even if it doesn’t come up with perfect information, and even if its information is misused by political office holders.
Of course, one of our favorite pastimes here is second guessing the competence of people whose professions we know nothing about. So have at it.
My view is that they could be (and perhaps are) terrible at those two, and still get enormous amounts of money budgetted for them
I don’t do the kind of work that the CIA is charged with doing (and the CIA is a large organization that does a lot of different things). It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
Add to that the fact that most CIA operations are classified, and that when things do come to light, most of what’s newsworthy are screw-ups. Sometimes foiled plots are newsworthy, but day to day information that is collected is unlikely to make news, even though it might be valuable.
I think that Nigel’s suggested book is probably worth reading (although, again, it’s probably easier to write and to sell an exposé than it is to sell a book about how much we know because of our brave intelligence people).
I agree that any secret government agency is inherently problematic, and that the CIA has demonstrated that many times. But I certainly would not try to make the case that we don’t need the basic services the CIA provides, even if it doesn’t come up with perfect information, and even if its information is misused by political office holders.
Of course, one of our favorite pastimes here is second guessing the competence of people whose professions we know nothing about. So have at it.
My view is that they could be (and perhaps are) terrible at those two, and still get enormous amounts of money budgetted for them
I don’t do the kind of work that the CIA is charged with doing (and the CIA is a large organization that does a lot of different things). It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
Add to that the fact that most CIA operations are classified, and that when things do come to light, most of what’s newsworthy are screw-ups. Sometimes foiled plots are newsworthy, but day to day information that is collected is unlikely to make news, even though it might be valuable.
I think that Nigel’s suggested book is probably worth reading (although, again, it’s probably easier to write and to sell an exposé than it is to sell a book about how much we know because of our brave intelligence people).
I agree that any secret government agency is inherently problematic, and that the CIA has demonstrated that many times. But I certainly would not try to make the case that we don’t need the basic services the CIA provides, even if it doesn’t come up with perfect information, and even if its information is misused by political office holders.
Of course, one of our favorite pastimes here is second guessing the competence of people whose professions we know nothing about. So have at it.
russell, as to whether we’re legitimately at war with the Pakistani Taliban, there’s this in today’s New York Times. Whether our policy is effective or not is worth considering, but I don’t think this is mission creep.
russell, as to whether we’re legitimately at war with the Pakistani Taliban, there’s this in today’s New York Times. Whether our policy is effective or not is worth considering, but I don’t think this is mission creep.
russell, as to whether we’re legitimately at war with the Pakistani Taliban, there’s this in today’s New York Times. Whether our policy is effective or not is worth considering, but I don’t think this is mission creep.
AUMF
OK, then. Kill them all. But it has bugger all to do with whether a plan to bomb a school had “reached the plot stage”.
The justification for killing people under the AUMF is participation in the 9/11 attack, or harboring folks who participated.
“Planning to bomb a school in Pakistan” is not covered under the AUMF.
Neither is killing people who we think might, someday, for some reason, think about killing Americans, but whose thoughts have not yet reached the “plot stage”, let alone any actual action.
I don’t care how good the CIA is at HUMINT, they aren’t mind readers or clairvoyants.
And we don’t have enough freaking missiles to kill everyone who simply wishes us ill.
AUMF
OK, then. Kill them all. But it has bugger all to do with whether a plan to bomb a school had “reached the plot stage”.
The justification for killing people under the AUMF is participation in the 9/11 attack, or harboring folks who participated.
“Planning to bomb a school in Pakistan” is not covered under the AUMF.
Neither is killing people who we think might, someday, for some reason, think about killing Americans, but whose thoughts have not yet reached the “plot stage”, let alone any actual action.
I don’t care how good the CIA is at HUMINT, they aren’t mind readers or clairvoyants.
And we don’t have enough freaking missiles to kill everyone who simply wishes us ill.
AUMF
OK, then. Kill them all. But it has bugger all to do with whether a plan to bomb a school had “reached the plot stage”.
The justification for killing people under the AUMF is participation in the 9/11 attack, or harboring folks who participated.
“Planning to bomb a school in Pakistan” is not covered under the AUMF.
Neither is killing people who we think might, someday, for some reason, think about killing Americans, but whose thoughts have not yet reached the “plot stage”, let alone any actual action.
I don’t care how good the CIA is at HUMINT, they aren’t mind readers or clairvoyants.
And we don’t have enough freaking missiles to kill everyone who simply wishes us ill.
And we don’t have enough freaking missiles to kill everyone who simply wishes us ill.
Ah, russell, you forget this option.
And we don’t have enough freaking missiles to kill everyone who simply wishes us ill.
Ah, russell, you forget this option.
And we don’t have enough freaking missiles to kill everyone who simply wishes us ill.
Ah, russell, you forget this option.
sapient, I doubt that any thoughtful person would argue that we don’t need the services that the CIA is charged to provide.
The argument is around whether the CIA is good at providing them. And, regardless of whether they are or not, whether it is possible to salvage an organization which has demonstrably been subverting their lawful oversight bodies and, also demonstrably, engaging in activities which are clearly in violation of US law (as even John Yoo has stated quite clearly) — and then lying and destroying evidence (videos) in an attempt to cover up their crimes.
My own take is that the CIA as an organization is not salvagable. So what we need to do is start over. Pretty much all of the management will have to go, in order to build an organization with a significantly different “corporate culture.” (Some of the staff, at least those who were not involved in the torture activities, may be still be employable.)
sapient, I doubt that any thoughtful person would argue that we don’t need the services that the CIA is charged to provide.
The argument is around whether the CIA is good at providing them. And, regardless of whether they are or not, whether it is possible to salvage an organization which has demonstrably been subverting their lawful oversight bodies and, also demonstrably, engaging in activities which are clearly in violation of US law (as even John Yoo has stated quite clearly) — and then lying and destroying evidence (videos) in an attempt to cover up their crimes.
My own take is that the CIA as an organization is not salvagable. So what we need to do is start over. Pretty much all of the management will have to go, in order to build an organization with a significantly different “corporate culture.” (Some of the staff, at least those who were not involved in the torture activities, may be still be employable.)
sapient, I doubt that any thoughtful person would argue that we don’t need the services that the CIA is charged to provide.
The argument is around whether the CIA is good at providing them. And, regardless of whether they are or not, whether it is possible to salvage an organization which has demonstrably been subverting their lawful oversight bodies and, also demonstrably, engaging in activities which are clearly in violation of US law (as even John Yoo has stated quite clearly) — and then lying and destroying evidence (videos) in an attempt to cover up their crimes.
My own take is that the CIA as an organization is not salvagable. So what we need to do is start over. Pretty much all of the management will have to go, in order to build an organization with a significantly different “corporate culture.” (Some of the staff, at least those who were not involved in the torture activities, may be still be employable.)
Ah, russell, you forget this option.
The option of killing everyone who wishes us ill is not available.
The option of killing everyone who is engaged in plotting against us is not available.
The option of killing everyone who is actively trying to carry out a plot against us is not available.
That is the reality. Drones are not going to save us. I only wish it were that simple.
And whatever drone strikes get us has to be weighed against the downside, which at a minimum includes all the ill will they create.
It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
It bothers me when people belittle other people’s opinions by minimizing their understanding of the topic under discussion.
The history of the CIA’s activities is not that obscure. Even folks who have never seen a James Bond movie may have a more than passing familiarity with it.
I don’t have any idea how the CIA’s HUMINT skills compares to that of other countries’ intelligence services. What I do know is that they have been blindsided by a number of quite significant developments over the last 40 or 50 years, and that quite a number of their interventions in the political and social life of other countries have not turned out so well.
I’m sure they have had successes as well, but since they act in our name, and since their activities have consequences for all of us, and since we freaking pay for it all, it seems to me we’re entitled to have an opinion about it.
YMMV
Ah, russell, you forget this option.
The option of killing everyone who wishes us ill is not available.
The option of killing everyone who is engaged in plotting against us is not available.
The option of killing everyone who is actively trying to carry out a plot against us is not available.
That is the reality. Drones are not going to save us. I only wish it were that simple.
And whatever drone strikes get us has to be weighed against the downside, which at a minimum includes all the ill will they create.
It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
It bothers me when people belittle other people’s opinions by minimizing their understanding of the topic under discussion.
The history of the CIA’s activities is not that obscure. Even folks who have never seen a James Bond movie may have a more than passing familiarity with it.
I don’t have any idea how the CIA’s HUMINT skills compares to that of other countries’ intelligence services. What I do know is that they have been blindsided by a number of quite significant developments over the last 40 or 50 years, and that quite a number of their interventions in the political and social life of other countries have not turned out so well.
I’m sure they have had successes as well, but since they act in our name, and since their activities have consequences for all of us, and since we freaking pay for it all, it seems to me we’re entitled to have an opinion about it.
YMMV
Ah, russell, you forget this option.
The option of killing everyone who wishes us ill is not available.
The option of killing everyone who is engaged in plotting against us is not available.
The option of killing everyone who is actively trying to carry out a plot against us is not available.
That is the reality. Drones are not going to save us. I only wish it were that simple.
And whatever drone strikes get us has to be weighed against the downside, which at a minimum includes all the ill will they create.
It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
It bothers me when people belittle other people’s opinions by minimizing their understanding of the topic under discussion.
The history of the CIA’s activities is not that obscure. Even folks who have never seen a James Bond movie may have a more than passing familiarity with it.
I don’t have any idea how the CIA’s HUMINT skills compares to that of other countries’ intelligence services. What I do know is that they have been blindsided by a number of quite significant developments over the last 40 or 50 years, and that quite a number of their interventions in the political and social life of other countries have not turned out so well.
I’m sure they have had successes as well, but since they act in our name, and since their activities have consequences for all of us, and since we freaking pay for it all, it seems to me we’re entitled to have an opinion about it.
YMMV
What the torture report shows (confirms): We are f***ing sadists: We are not decent, and we are not a democracy http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/we_are_fing_sadists_we_are_not_decent_and_we_are_not_a_democracy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
This.
What the torture report shows (confirms): We are f***ing sadists: We are not decent, and we are not a democracy http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/we_are_fing_sadists_we_are_not_decent_and_we_are_not_a_democracy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
This.
What the torture report shows (confirms): We are f***ing sadists: We are not decent, and we are not a democracy http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/we_are_fing_sadists_we_are_not_decent_and_we_are_not_a_democracy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
This.
I don’t care how good the CIA is at HUMINT, they aren’t mind readers or clairvoyants.
Have they fired their old ones from the Cold War? [/sarcasm]
I don’t care how good the CIA is at HUMINT, they aren’t mind readers or clairvoyants.
Have they fired their old ones from the Cold War? [/sarcasm]
I don’t care how good the CIA is at HUMINT, they aren’t mind readers or clairvoyants.
Have they fired their old ones from the Cold War? [/sarcasm]
What I do know is that they have been blindsided by a number of quite significant developments over the last 40 or 50 years, and that quite a number of their interventions in the political and social life of other countries have not turned out so well.
Being blindsided occasionally and screwing up from time to time is pretty much true of anyone’s experience over a 50 year period. That doesn’t excuse torture or other evil things that the CIA has done (often under the guidance of various elected officials and their appointees).
My own take is that the CIA as an organization is not salvagable.
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else. It would be interesting to try to recreate an intelligence agency that was able to anticipate all “significant developments” without any of the bad juju that we’ve come to associate with spying. I wouldn’t be opposed to coming up with a Utopian solution.
What I do know is that they have been blindsided by a number of quite significant developments over the last 40 or 50 years, and that quite a number of their interventions in the political and social life of other countries have not turned out so well.
Being blindsided occasionally and screwing up from time to time is pretty much true of anyone’s experience over a 50 year period. That doesn’t excuse torture or other evil things that the CIA has done (often under the guidance of various elected officials and their appointees).
My own take is that the CIA as an organization is not salvagable.
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else. It would be interesting to try to recreate an intelligence agency that was able to anticipate all “significant developments” without any of the bad juju that we’ve come to associate with spying. I wouldn’t be opposed to coming up with a Utopian solution.
What I do know is that they have been blindsided by a number of quite significant developments over the last 40 or 50 years, and that quite a number of their interventions in the political and social life of other countries have not turned out so well.
Being blindsided occasionally and screwing up from time to time is pretty much true of anyone’s experience over a 50 year period. That doesn’t excuse torture or other evil things that the CIA has done (often under the guidance of various elected officials and their appointees).
My own take is that the CIA as an organization is not salvagable.
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else. It would be interesting to try to recreate an intelligence agency that was able to anticipate all “significant developments” without any of the bad juju that we’ve come to associate with spying. I wouldn’t be opposed to coming up with a Utopian solution.
without any of the bad juju that we’ve come to associate with spying.
It might be useful in the context of this discussion to be specific about what “bad juju” you’re talking about.
I think everybody here recognizes and is basically fine with the idea that different countries spy on each other.
The things that folks in general, and I specifically, find objectionable include torture, assassinations, kidnapping, drug experiments on unwitting human subjects, and overthrowing other people’s democratically elected governments.
A crisp-er definition of “occasionally” would also be of value.
without any of the bad juju that we’ve come to associate with spying.
It might be useful in the context of this discussion to be specific about what “bad juju” you’re talking about.
I think everybody here recognizes and is basically fine with the idea that different countries spy on each other.
The things that folks in general, and I specifically, find objectionable include torture, assassinations, kidnapping, drug experiments on unwitting human subjects, and overthrowing other people’s democratically elected governments.
A crisp-er definition of “occasionally” would also be of value.
without any of the bad juju that we’ve come to associate with spying.
It might be useful in the context of this discussion to be specific about what “bad juju” you’re talking about.
I think everybody here recognizes and is basically fine with the idea that different countries spy on each other.
The things that folks in general, and I specifically, find objectionable include torture, assassinations, kidnapping, drug experiments on unwitting human subjects, and overthrowing other people’s democratically elected governments.
A crisp-er definition of “occasionally” would also be of value.
I’d just like to say: what wj and russell said.
Also:
Being blindsided occasionally and screwing up from time to time is pretty much true of anyone’s experience over a 50 year period.
I’d agree, and the evidence of a single failure certainly shouldn’t condemn a valuable agency. The difficulty I’m having with the CIA is: they have a long history of fairly atrocious actions, few known successes, and some notable blindsidings.
In other words, however their agency is organized and whatever oversight they have seems to not produce good results. Gutting and restructuring the agency to prevent “bad juju” seems like a good idea.
It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
If all people knew about covert ops came from Bond and 24, it seems like they would think very highly of the CIA, as in those fictions the spies are heroes, the stakes are high, and any means are justified by the ends.
often under the guidance of various elected officials and their appointees
That’s true and a good point, but the excesses and failures of the CIA span decades…in other words, past any single administration or congress. There is something about the structure of the CIA that produces torture, coups, and drug experimentation. Even if its always under the direction of a president, I’m left with the conclusion that giving the president the tool of the CIA (in its current form) a bad idea. As by its very nature, it allows for these excesses to take place.
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else.
This is a tiresome argument. Congress answers to the voters, the voters are informed by vigorous public debate, such as the one we are having now. Much as ‘congress does X’ does not imply ‘X is worth doing’, nor does ‘congress doesn’t do Y’ imply ‘Y is not worth doing’.
As a final note, I’m struck by the parallels between the CIA torture program and the abuses at Abu Graib by the military. Both atrocious, but the CIA has come away largely unscathed, while there was a string of court martials and demotions in the military. It didn’t reach high enough, imo, but there were some repercussions. Why is it so different with the CIA?
I’d just like to say: what wj and russell said.
Also:
Being blindsided occasionally and screwing up from time to time is pretty much true of anyone’s experience over a 50 year period.
I’d agree, and the evidence of a single failure certainly shouldn’t condemn a valuable agency. The difficulty I’m having with the CIA is: they have a long history of fairly atrocious actions, few known successes, and some notable blindsidings.
In other words, however their agency is organized and whatever oversight they have seems to not produce good results. Gutting and restructuring the agency to prevent “bad juju” seems like a good idea.
It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
If all people knew about covert ops came from Bond and 24, it seems like they would think very highly of the CIA, as in those fictions the spies are heroes, the stakes are high, and any means are justified by the ends.
often under the guidance of various elected officials and their appointees
That’s true and a good point, but the excesses and failures of the CIA span decades…in other words, past any single administration or congress. There is something about the structure of the CIA that produces torture, coups, and drug experimentation. Even if its always under the direction of a president, I’m left with the conclusion that giving the president the tool of the CIA (in its current form) a bad idea. As by its very nature, it allows for these excesses to take place.
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else.
This is a tiresome argument. Congress answers to the voters, the voters are informed by vigorous public debate, such as the one we are having now. Much as ‘congress does X’ does not imply ‘X is worth doing’, nor does ‘congress doesn’t do Y’ imply ‘Y is not worth doing’.
As a final note, I’m struck by the parallels between the CIA torture program and the abuses at Abu Graib by the military. Both atrocious, but the CIA has come away largely unscathed, while there was a string of court martials and demotions in the military. It didn’t reach high enough, imo, but there were some repercussions. Why is it so different with the CIA?
I’d just like to say: what wj and russell said.
Also:
Being blindsided occasionally and screwing up from time to time is pretty much true of anyone’s experience over a 50 year period.
I’d agree, and the evidence of a single failure certainly shouldn’t condemn a valuable agency. The difficulty I’m having with the CIA is: they have a long history of fairly atrocious actions, few known successes, and some notable blindsidings.
In other words, however their agency is organized and whatever oversight they have seems to not produce good results. Gutting and restructuring the agency to prevent “bad juju” seems like a good idea.
It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work by people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.
If all people knew about covert ops came from Bond and 24, it seems like they would think very highly of the CIA, as in those fictions the spies are heroes, the stakes are high, and any means are justified by the ends.
often under the guidance of various elected officials and their appointees
That’s true and a good point, but the excesses and failures of the CIA span decades…in other words, past any single administration or congress. There is something about the structure of the CIA that produces torture, coups, and drug experimentation. Even if its always under the direction of a president, I’m left with the conclusion that giving the president the tool of the CIA (in its current form) a bad idea. As by its very nature, it allows for these excesses to take place.
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else.
This is a tiresome argument. Congress answers to the voters, the voters are informed by vigorous public debate, such as the one we are having now. Much as ‘congress does X’ does not imply ‘X is worth doing’, nor does ‘congress doesn’t do Y’ imply ‘Y is not worth doing’.
As a final note, I’m struck by the parallels between the CIA torture program and the abuses at Abu Graib by the military. Both atrocious, but the CIA has come away largely unscathed, while there was a string of court martials and demotions in the military. It didn’t reach high enough, imo, but there were some repercussions. Why is it so different with the CIA?
The things that folks in general, and I specifically, find objectionable include torture, assassinations, kidnapping, drug experiments on unwitting human subjects, and overthrowing other people’s democratically elected governments.
I’ll agree with everything here except for the “kidnapping” part. To that, I would say, it depends on what you’re talking about.
I would also say that in the cases where the CIA did these objectionable things, including the recent torture regime, it’s pretty clear that the CIA was not acting in a vacuum (except for a few examples of “going rogue” many decades ago). You can dismantle an agency all you want, and replace it with another one, but if a President and Congress decide to accomplish certain bad acts, they will find a way to do so.
What makes a difference is who we elect. We’re not doing too well with that lately. It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA. That’s just not true. They do what they’re told. The torture regime is here and now being defended by the Republican party, who was just elected to take over Congress. Good luck with your new and better intelligence program with the Republican Congress creating it!
The things that folks in general, and I specifically, find objectionable include torture, assassinations, kidnapping, drug experiments on unwitting human subjects, and overthrowing other people’s democratically elected governments.
I’ll agree with everything here except for the “kidnapping” part. To that, I would say, it depends on what you’re talking about.
I would also say that in the cases where the CIA did these objectionable things, including the recent torture regime, it’s pretty clear that the CIA was not acting in a vacuum (except for a few examples of “going rogue” many decades ago). You can dismantle an agency all you want, and replace it with another one, but if a President and Congress decide to accomplish certain bad acts, they will find a way to do so.
What makes a difference is who we elect. We’re not doing too well with that lately. It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA. That’s just not true. They do what they’re told. The torture regime is here and now being defended by the Republican party, who was just elected to take over Congress. Good luck with your new and better intelligence program with the Republican Congress creating it!
The things that folks in general, and I specifically, find objectionable include torture, assassinations, kidnapping, drug experiments on unwitting human subjects, and overthrowing other people’s democratically elected governments.
I’ll agree with everything here except for the “kidnapping” part. To that, I would say, it depends on what you’re talking about.
I would also say that in the cases where the CIA did these objectionable things, including the recent torture regime, it’s pretty clear that the CIA was not acting in a vacuum (except for a few examples of “going rogue” many decades ago). You can dismantle an agency all you want, and replace it with another one, but if a President and Congress decide to accomplish certain bad acts, they will find a way to do so.
What makes a difference is who we elect. We’re not doing too well with that lately. It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA. That’s just not true. They do what they’re told. The torture regime is here and now being defended by the Republican party, who was just elected to take over Congress. Good luck with your new and better intelligence program with the Republican Congress creating it!
” It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work of people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.”
Heh, such is the lot of professionals who work for institutions, public and private, in a democracy that they must put up with the opinions and the Will of the People who are sh@t out of clues about what they are opining about.
America is all about non-professionals by the boatload telling professionals how to do their jobs.
The private sector has of course set up vast barricades of public relations and customer service and shareholder communications bullsh@tters to kick up huge clouds of their product —- b$llshit. —- in the eyes of the clueless.
Government fancies various degrees of privacy to keep the clueless from the clues for their opining.
After, where would bloggers be if opining cluelessly about the work professionals do was off-limits?
As to James Bond, when the women he rubs shoulders with have names like Pussy Galore, my completely uniformed opinion is who do I have to torture to get a piece of that action?
” It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work of people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.”
Heh, such is the lot of professionals who work for institutions, public and private, in a democracy that they must put up with the opinions and the Will of the People who are sh@t out of clues about what they are opining about.
America is all about non-professionals by the boatload telling professionals how to do their jobs.
The private sector has of course set up vast barricades of public relations and customer service and shareholder communications bullsh@tters to kick up huge clouds of their product —- b$llshit. —- in the eyes of the clueless.
Government fancies various degrees of privacy to keep the clueless from the clues for their opining.
After, where would bloggers be if opining cluelessly about the work professionals do was off-limits?
As to James Bond, when the women he rubs shoulders with have names like Pussy Galore, my completely uniformed opinion is who do I have to torture to get a piece of that action?
” It bothers me, generally, to have a lot of people opining on the quality of work of people whose professions they know little about, save some James Bond movies, etc.”
Heh, such is the lot of professionals who work for institutions, public and private, in a democracy that they must put up with the opinions and the Will of the People who are sh@t out of clues about what they are opining about.
America is all about non-professionals by the boatload telling professionals how to do their jobs.
The private sector has of course set up vast barricades of public relations and customer service and shareholder communications bullsh@tters to kick up huge clouds of their product —- b$llshit. —- in the eyes of the clueless.
Government fancies various degrees of privacy to keep the clueless from the clues for their opining.
After, where would bloggers be if opining cluelessly about the work professionals do was off-limits?
As to James Bond, when the women he rubs shoulders with have names like Pussy Galore, my completely uniformed opinion is who do I have to torture to get a piece of that action?
The Capcha for that comment was 9-007.
Must be the NSA professionals at work, IMHO.
The Capcha for that comment was 9-007.
Must be the NSA professionals at work, IMHO.
The Capcha for that comment was 9-007.
Must be the NSA professionals at work, IMHO.
What makes a difference is who we elect. We’re not doing too well with that lately. It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA. That’s just not true. They do what they’re told. The torture regime is here and now being defended by the Republican party, who was just elected to take over Congress. Good luck with your new and better intelligence program with the Republican Congress creating it!
Kind of, what sapient said. More important,from here:
So 51% plus the 20% unsure doesn’t resolve to a deep commitment to condemn EIT, and a majority, 56% is actually a pretty big majority, think it helped. So the CIA may be looked upon by many as being successful in both that and the drones.
What makes a difference is who we elect. We’re not doing too well with that lately. It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA. That’s just not true. They do what they’re told. The torture regime is here and now being defended by the Republican party, who was just elected to take over Congress. Good luck with your new and better intelligence program with the Republican Congress creating it!
Kind of, what sapient said. More important,from here:
So 51% plus the 20% unsure doesn’t resolve to a deep commitment to condemn EIT, and a majority, 56% is actually a pretty big majority, think it helped. So the CIA may be looked upon by many as being successful in both that and the drones.
What makes a difference is who we elect. We’re not doing too well with that lately. It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA. That’s just not true. They do what they’re told. The torture regime is here and now being defended by the Republican party, who was just elected to take over Congress. Good luck with your new and better intelligence program with the Republican Congress creating it!
Kind of, what sapient said. More important,from here:
So 51% plus the 20% unsure doesn’t resolve to a deep commitment to condemn EIT, and a majority, 56% is actually a pretty big majority, think it helped. So the CIA may be looked upon by many as being successful in both that and the drones.
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else.
I wasn’t suggesting that there was such a serious proposal. (At least, if there is I haven’t heard about it.)
But a part of the discussion here has been around whether and how the CIA should be reformed. Which has naturally led into consideration of whether reform is even possible. And some of us, including me, are of the opinion that the current culture (torture and all) is too ingrained in the structure of the organization for reform to have a good chance of success.
And if changes are needed and cannot be made successfully to the existing organization, but you still need a lot of the functions that it performs (and I think we do), then….
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else.
I wasn’t suggesting that there was such a serious proposal. (At least, if there is I haven’t heard about it.)
But a part of the discussion here has been around whether and how the CIA should be reformed. Which has naturally led into consideration of whether reform is even possible. And some of us, including me, are of the opinion that the current culture (torture and all) is too ingrained in the structure of the organization for reform to have a good chance of success.
And if changes are needed and cannot be made successfully to the existing organization, but you still need a lot of the functions that it performs (and I think we do), then….
I didn’t realize that there was any serious proposal in Congress or anywhere else to dismantle the CIA and replace it with something else.
I wasn’t suggesting that there was such a serious proposal. (At least, if there is I haven’t heard about it.)
But a part of the discussion here has been around whether and how the CIA should be reformed. Which has naturally led into consideration of whether reform is even possible. And some of us, including me, are of the opinion that the current culture (torture and all) is too ingrained in the structure of the organization for reform to have a good chance of success.
And if changes are needed and cannot be made successfully to the existing organization, but you still need a lot of the functions that it performs (and I think we do), then….
And some of us, including me, are of the opinion that the current culture (torture and all) is too ingrained in the structure of the organization for reform to have a good chance of success.
Sorry, but like the last-in-class, I just don’t get it. Torture and the “bad ingrained culture” of the CIA suddenly stops when someone is elected who is committed to stopping it. When we elect people who feel like continuing it, there they go again.
It’s not CIA culture that needs to change, so much as our culture. I find Marty’s poll disheartening in the extreme, but there’s where the change needs to be.
And some of us, including me, are of the opinion that the current culture (torture and all) is too ingrained in the structure of the organization for reform to have a good chance of success.
Sorry, but like the last-in-class, I just don’t get it. Torture and the “bad ingrained culture” of the CIA suddenly stops when someone is elected who is committed to stopping it. When we elect people who feel like continuing it, there they go again.
It’s not CIA culture that needs to change, so much as our culture. I find Marty’s poll disheartening in the extreme, but there’s where the change needs to be.
And some of us, including me, are of the opinion that the current culture (torture and all) is too ingrained in the structure of the organization for reform to have a good chance of success.
Sorry, but like the last-in-class, I just don’t get it. Torture and the “bad ingrained culture” of the CIA suddenly stops when someone is elected who is committed to stopping it. When we elect people who feel like continuing it, there they go again.
It’s not CIA culture that needs to change, so much as our culture. I find Marty’s poll disheartening in the extreme, but there’s where the change needs to be.
It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA.
If that were so, it would trouble me, too.
What makes a difference is who we elect
Briefly, if acting effectively within the nation and in the world depends on always electing good people, we’re f’ed.
Marty’s poll disturbs me, too, but it makes my point. 99% of the people in the US could be wildly in favor of tossing every Muslim in the world into a log chipper, but it would continue to be wrong.
I completely agree that the CIA to a large degree acts at the direction of folks holding elective office, or at least that they would find it hard to act without the support of at least some folks holding elective office.
They do not act in a vacuum.
None of that legitimizes the kinds of activities that folks are objecting to here.
There are folks who, at least in blog-land, call for the CIA to be dismantled root and branch. That’s not going to happen.
There is a very legitimate need for the collection and analysis of information about. There is a legitimate need for collecting some kinds of information that, as a practical matter, is only going to be available through covert means, i.e., spying.
There is even a need for us to act, either explicitly or sub rosa, in other places to try to influence events to insure best outcomes, from our point of view.
None of those things are what folks here are objecting to.
Everyone reading this benefits, materially, from the laws, treaties, and conventions that restrain the use of power by governments, whether in the context of war or peace. Every one of us.
Do you serve in the military, or know anyone who does? You benefit. Do you travel overseas, or know someone who does? You benefit.
And so on.
It behooves us to not undermine those things by our own actions, or actions taken in our name.
And, I’m curious to know what forms of kidnapping you consider to be fair game.
It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA.
If that were so, it would trouble me, too.
What makes a difference is who we elect
Briefly, if acting effectively within the nation and in the world depends on always electing good people, we’re f’ed.
Marty’s poll disturbs me, too, but it makes my point. 99% of the people in the US could be wildly in favor of tossing every Muslim in the world into a log chipper, but it would continue to be wrong.
I completely agree that the CIA to a large degree acts at the direction of folks holding elective office, or at least that they would find it hard to act without the support of at least some folks holding elective office.
They do not act in a vacuum.
None of that legitimizes the kinds of activities that folks are objecting to here.
There are folks who, at least in blog-land, call for the CIA to be dismantled root and branch. That’s not going to happen.
There is a very legitimate need for the collection and analysis of information about. There is a legitimate need for collecting some kinds of information that, as a practical matter, is only going to be available through covert means, i.e., spying.
There is even a need for us to act, either explicitly or sub rosa, in other places to try to influence events to insure best outcomes, from our point of view.
None of those things are what folks here are objecting to.
Everyone reading this benefits, materially, from the laws, treaties, and conventions that restrain the use of power by governments, whether in the context of war or peace. Every one of us.
Do you serve in the military, or know anyone who does? You benefit. Do you travel overseas, or know someone who does? You benefit.
And so on.
It behooves us to not undermine those things by our own actions, or actions taken in our name.
And, I’m curious to know what forms of kidnapping you consider to be fair game.
It troubles me that we’re pretending that all of the bad things that we’ve done in the world are because of a rotten CIA.
If that were so, it would trouble me, too.
What makes a difference is who we elect
Briefly, if acting effectively within the nation and in the world depends on always electing good people, we’re f’ed.
Marty’s poll disturbs me, too, but it makes my point. 99% of the people in the US could be wildly in favor of tossing every Muslim in the world into a log chipper, but it would continue to be wrong.
I completely agree that the CIA to a large degree acts at the direction of folks holding elective office, or at least that they would find it hard to act without the support of at least some folks holding elective office.
They do not act in a vacuum.
None of that legitimizes the kinds of activities that folks are objecting to here.
There are folks who, at least in blog-land, call for the CIA to be dismantled root and branch. That’s not going to happen.
There is a very legitimate need for the collection and analysis of information about. There is a legitimate need for collecting some kinds of information that, as a practical matter, is only going to be available through covert means, i.e., spying.
There is even a need for us to act, either explicitly or sub rosa, in other places to try to influence events to insure best outcomes, from our point of view.
None of those things are what folks here are objecting to.
Everyone reading this benefits, materially, from the laws, treaties, and conventions that restrain the use of power by governments, whether in the context of war or peace. Every one of us.
Do you serve in the military, or know anyone who does? You benefit. Do you travel overseas, or know someone who does? You benefit.
And so on.
It behooves us to not undermine those things by our own actions, or actions taken in our name.
And, I’m curious to know what forms of kidnapping you consider to be fair game.
I wouldn’t disagree that the national culture on torture needs to change, too. But, unlike the CIA, the nation as a whole hasn’t been charged with implementing the decision on torture. And most people’s knowledge of the subject comes from watching TV shows about how great it works. Rather than, as with the CIA, actual experience with it.
Sorry, but like the last-in-class, I just don’t get it. Torture and the “bad ingrained culture” of the CIA suddenly stops when someone is elected who is committed to stopping it.
I’m not sure where this is coming from. (Guess I’m last in class also.) Torture may have stopped by Presidential edict. Then again, reading what the CIA documents say about how they lied to their Congressional oversight committee, it isn’t entirely obvious that they haven’t lied to the President as well. That part of the culture seems unlikely to have changed just because the man at the top changed. Torture is not the only problematic part of the CIA culture, IMHO.
I wouldn’t disagree that the national culture on torture needs to change, too. But, unlike the CIA, the nation as a whole hasn’t been charged with implementing the decision on torture. And most people’s knowledge of the subject comes from watching TV shows about how great it works. Rather than, as with the CIA, actual experience with it.
Sorry, but like the last-in-class, I just don’t get it. Torture and the “bad ingrained culture” of the CIA suddenly stops when someone is elected who is committed to stopping it.
I’m not sure where this is coming from. (Guess I’m last in class also.) Torture may have stopped by Presidential edict. Then again, reading what the CIA documents say about how they lied to their Congressional oversight committee, it isn’t entirely obvious that they haven’t lied to the President as well. That part of the culture seems unlikely to have changed just because the man at the top changed. Torture is not the only problematic part of the CIA culture, IMHO.
I wouldn’t disagree that the national culture on torture needs to change, too. But, unlike the CIA, the nation as a whole hasn’t been charged with implementing the decision on torture. And most people’s knowledge of the subject comes from watching TV shows about how great it works. Rather than, as with the CIA, actual experience with it.
Sorry, but like the last-in-class, I just don’t get it. Torture and the “bad ingrained culture” of the CIA suddenly stops when someone is elected who is committed to stopping it.
I’m not sure where this is coming from. (Guess I’m last in class also.) Torture may have stopped by Presidential edict. Then again, reading what the CIA documents say about how they lied to their Congressional oversight committee, it isn’t entirely obvious that they haven’t lied to the President as well. That part of the culture seems unlikely to have changed just because the man at the top changed. Torture is not the only problematic part of the CIA culture, IMHO.
I hate to go all Godwin on what has hitherto been a fairly civil thread, but much of the implicit argument of Marty & Sapient (not to pick on them for articulating a far wider-spread viewpoint) could be applied interestingly to Nazi Germany. Yes, the German people seem to have approved of what Hitler and the boys were doing, and in that sense German culture needed an overhaul. But I don’t think most of us would feel that such a conclusion vitiated all criticism of the Gestapo and the SS. I’m increasingly drawn to the conclusion that the CIA – at least significant elements of it – has become more similar to these institutions than I would ever have dreamed, or hoped. And as such needs to be dismantled.
The fact that Congress as constituted won’t do it, and the American public at the moment is unwilling to consider it, is all the more reason for us here to have this discussion. ObWi is not, I hope, merely a forum for “discussion about politically plausible outcomes.” We have network news for that, if anyone wants it.
I hate to go all Godwin on what has hitherto been a fairly civil thread, but much of the implicit argument of Marty & Sapient (not to pick on them for articulating a far wider-spread viewpoint) could be applied interestingly to Nazi Germany. Yes, the German people seem to have approved of what Hitler and the boys were doing, and in that sense German culture needed an overhaul. But I don’t think most of us would feel that such a conclusion vitiated all criticism of the Gestapo and the SS. I’m increasingly drawn to the conclusion that the CIA – at least significant elements of it – has become more similar to these institutions than I would ever have dreamed, or hoped. And as such needs to be dismantled.
The fact that Congress as constituted won’t do it, and the American public at the moment is unwilling to consider it, is all the more reason for us here to have this discussion. ObWi is not, I hope, merely a forum for “discussion about politically plausible outcomes.” We have network news for that, if anyone wants it.
I hate to go all Godwin on what has hitherto been a fairly civil thread, but much of the implicit argument of Marty & Sapient (not to pick on them for articulating a far wider-spread viewpoint) could be applied interestingly to Nazi Germany. Yes, the German people seem to have approved of what Hitler and the boys were doing, and in that sense German culture needed an overhaul. But I don’t think most of us would feel that such a conclusion vitiated all criticism of the Gestapo and the SS. I’m increasingly drawn to the conclusion that the CIA – at least significant elements of it – has become more similar to these institutions than I would ever have dreamed, or hoped. And as such needs to be dismantled.
The fact that Congress as constituted won’t do it, and the American public at the moment is unwilling to consider it, is all the more reason for us here to have this discussion. ObWi is not, I hope, merely a forum for “discussion about politically plausible outcomes.” We have network news for that, if anyone wants it.
Just so we make this absolutely clear, and I want to do this now, there is a gulf the size of the Milky Way between anything expressed here and Nazi Germany.
First, no one is saying we can do this because we are American, or because we are a superior race or that we should rule the world. All the reasons Hitler used.
We are talking, so far, about some hundreds enemy combatants that, from our perspective attacked and continue to plan to attack American. And a subset of those subjected to the worst of the torture. The comparison to Nazi Germany’s desire to perform genocide is a red herring of the worst order.
By that metric we could compare every government who ever exited to the Nazi’s and should dismantle them all.
Just so we make this absolutely clear, and I want to do this now, there is a gulf the size of the Milky Way between anything expressed here and Nazi Germany.
First, no one is saying we can do this because we are American, or because we are a superior race or that we should rule the world. All the reasons Hitler used.
We are talking, so far, about some hundreds enemy combatants that, from our perspective attacked and continue to plan to attack American. And a subset of those subjected to the worst of the torture. The comparison to Nazi Germany’s desire to perform genocide is a red herring of the worst order.
By that metric we could compare every government who ever exited to the Nazi’s and should dismantle them all.
Just so we make this absolutely clear, and I want to do this now, there is a gulf the size of the Milky Way between anything expressed here and Nazi Germany.
First, no one is saying we can do this because we are American, or because we are a superior race or that we should rule the world. All the reasons Hitler used.
We are talking, so far, about some hundreds enemy combatants that, from our perspective attacked and continue to plan to attack American. And a subset of those subjected to the worst of the torture. The comparison to Nazi Germany’s desire to perform genocide is a red herring of the worst order.
By that metric we could compare every government who ever exited to the Nazi’s and should dismantle them all.
wj:
Then again, reading what the CIA documents say about how they lied to their Congressional oversight committee, it isn’t entirely obvious that they haven’t lied to the President as well.
Not to mention the fairly drawn out cat-and-mouse game for the Senate to even assemble the report on torture, including the CIA spying on Senate staffers. There are problems at the CIA that go beyond what congress and the president tell them to do.
dr ngo:
This is absolutely correct:
The fact that Congress as constituted won’t do it, and the American public at the moment is unwilling to consider it, is all the more reason for us here to have this discussion.
wj:
Then again, reading what the CIA documents say about how they lied to their Congressional oversight committee, it isn’t entirely obvious that they haven’t lied to the President as well.
Not to mention the fairly drawn out cat-and-mouse game for the Senate to even assemble the report on torture, including the CIA spying on Senate staffers. There are problems at the CIA that go beyond what congress and the president tell them to do.
dr ngo:
This is absolutely correct:
The fact that Congress as constituted won’t do it, and the American public at the moment is unwilling to consider it, is all the more reason for us here to have this discussion.
wj:
Then again, reading what the CIA documents say about how they lied to their Congressional oversight committee, it isn’t entirely obvious that they haven’t lied to the President as well.
Not to mention the fairly drawn out cat-and-mouse game for the Senate to even assemble the report on torture, including the CIA spying on Senate staffers. There are problems at the CIA that go beyond what congress and the president tell them to do.
dr ngo:
This is absolutely correct:
The fact that Congress as constituted won’t do it, and the American public at the moment is unwilling to consider it, is all the more reason for us here to have this discussion.
Marty: I am loath to venture into US-Nazi Germany comparisons, but that’s the historical example most familiar to most people. (I welcome anyone’s suggestion as to an alternative historical or contemporary parallel.) I do not believe that the USA today is like Nazi Germany, though I’m not convinced the gulf between us is anything like “the size of the Milky Way.” Would that it were.
What I’m trying to do is pinpoint a certain logical fallacy here.
We (as a people) are complicit, to a greater or lesser extent, in what the CIA does. You said/implied this, and I sadly agree.
The German people were complicit in the actions of the SS and the Gestapo, to a greater or lesser extent. Any dispute?
We (as historians/observers) do not generally use the complicity of the German people to let the SS and Gestapo off the hook for what they did.
You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?
It’s a kind of syllogism, and may well be shown to be wrong, but not simply by labeling it “a red herring of the worst order.”
Marty: I am loath to venture into US-Nazi Germany comparisons, but that’s the historical example most familiar to most people. (I welcome anyone’s suggestion as to an alternative historical or contemporary parallel.) I do not believe that the USA today is like Nazi Germany, though I’m not convinced the gulf between us is anything like “the size of the Milky Way.” Would that it were.
What I’m trying to do is pinpoint a certain logical fallacy here.
We (as a people) are complicit, to a greater or lesser extent, in what the CIA does. You said/implied this, and I sadly agree.
The German people were complicit in the actions of the SS and the Gestapo, to a greater or lesser extent. Any dispute?
We (as historians/observers) do not generally use the complicity of the German people to let the SS and Gestapo off the hook for what they did.
You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?
It’s a kind of syllogism, and may well be shown to be wrong, but not simply by labeling it “a red herring of the worst order.”
Marty: I am loath to venture into US-Nazi Germany comparisons, but that’s the historical example most familiar to most people. (I welcome anyone’s suggestion as to an alternative historical or contemporary parallel.) I do not believe that the USA today is like Nazi Germany, though I’m not convinced the gulf between us is anything like “the size of the Milky Way.” Would that it were.
What I’m trying to do is pinpoint a certain logical fallacy here.
We (as a people) are complicit, to a greater or lesser extent, in what the CIA does. You said/implied this, and I sadly agree.
The German people were complicit in the actions of the SS and the Gestapo, to a greater or lesser extent. Any dispute?
We (as historians/observers) do not generally use the complicity of the German people to let the SS and Gestapo off the hook for what they did.
You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?
It’s a kind of syllogism, and may well be shown to be wrong, but not simply by labeling it “a red herring of the worst order.”
Okay, reposting this in the correct thread–
If sapient and marty were making a practical point then I agree–it’s highly unlikely that CIA torturers will be prosecuted if the majority of Americans think they did the right thing. If they’re making a moral argument, then dr. ngo is right.
One doesn’t really have to bring the Nazis into it anyway. I can think of several Western democracies off the top of my head which have committed massive human rights violations and no high ranking official ever goes to jail for them.
About the only time a high ranking official is brought to trial is when a dictator is overthrown, either by his own people or by invaders. Dictators oppress their own, which leaves them with few friends if they lose power, but democracies that abuse human rights usually abuse those of foreigners or non-voters or second class citizens of the wrong ethnicity or religion, and these policies are often popular. Democracies have a lousy record of self-policing because the voters are implicated in the crimes, so many or most deny that any crimes were committed.
Okay, reposting this in the correct thread–
If sapient and marty were making a practical point then I agree–it’s highly unlikely that CIA torturers will be prosecuted if the majority of Americans think they did the right thing. If they’re making a moral argument, then dr. ngo is right.
One doesn’t really have to bring the Nazis into it anyway. I can think of several Western democracies off the top of my head which have committed massive human rights violations and no high ranking official ever goes to jail for them.
About the only time a high ranking official is brought to trial is when a dictator is overthrown, either by his own people or by invaders. Dictators oppress their own, which leaves them with few friends if they lose power, but democracies that abuse human rights usually abuse those of foreigners or non-voters or second class citizens of the wrong ethnicity or religion, and these policies are often popular. Democracies have a lousy record of self-policing because the voters are implicated in the crimes, so many or most deny that any crimes were committed.
Okay, reposting this in the correct thread–
If sapient and marty were making a practical point then I agree–it’s highly unlikely that CIA torturers will be prosecuted if the majority of Americans think they did the right thing. If they’re making a moral argument, then dr. ngo is right.
One doesn’t really have to bring the Nazis into it anyway. I can think of several Western democracies off the top of my head which have committed massive human rights violations and no high ranking official ever goes to jail for them.
About the only time a high ranking official is brought to trial is when a dictator is overthrown, either by his own people or by invaders. Dictators oppress their own, which leaves them with few friends if they lose power, but democracies that abuse human rights usually abuse those of foreigners or non-voters or second class citizens of the wrong ethnicity or religion, and these policies are often popular. Democracies have a lousy record of self-policing because the voters are implicated in the crimes, so many or most deny that any crimes were committed.
The polls Marty refers to at 10:23 uses the term “torture” and not the popular 2000s euphemism “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Americans were expressing support for torture not techniques “short of” torture. It should also be noted that those who said that torture is “rarely” justified are sanctioning an illegal act.
I’d like to be able to shout “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK”
however it’s now looking to me that this is who we are.
Sorry if my suffering from depression does not help the conversation.
The polls Marty refers to at 10:23 uses the term “torture” and not the popular 2000s euphemism “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Americans were expressing support for torture not techniques “short of” torture. It should also be noted that those who said that torture is “rarely” justified are sanctioning an illegal act.
I’d like to be able to shout “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK”
however it’s now looking to me that this is who we are.
Sorry if my suffering from depression does not help the conversation.
The polls Marty refers to at 10:23 uses the term “torture” and not the popular 2000s euphemism “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Americans were expressing support for torture not techniques “short of” torture. It should also be noted that those who said that torture is “rarely” justified are sanctioning an illegal act.
I’d like to be able to shout “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK”
however it’s now looking to me that this is who we are.
Sorry if my suffering from depression does not help the conversation.
“You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?”
I am sure that I implied no such thing.
I will also take exception to this whole assertion that somehow the report, written by the very people that would have been lied to, in whose interest it is to prove they were lied to, proves they were lied to.
Tortured sentence perhaps. But lets not forget that the Congress, Democrats in particular, benefit greatly from the proof.
“You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?”
I am sure that I implied no such thing.
I will also take exception to this whole assertion that somehow the report, written by the very people that would have been lied to, in whose interest it is to prove they were lied to, proves they were lied to.
Tortured sentence perhaps. But lets not forget that the Congress, Democrats in particular, benefit greatly from the proof.
“You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?”
I am sure that I implied no such thing.
I will also take exception to this whole assertion that somehow the report, written by the very people that would have been lied to, in whose interest it is to prove they were lied to, proves they were lied to.
Tortured sentence perhaps. But lets not forget that the Congress, Democrats in particular, benefit greatly from the proof.
My completely uniformed opinion.
To be clear, the uniform includes a chapeau placed at a jaunty angle, otherwise the uniform, for the uninformed, shall remain a matter for the clueless to figure out.
My completely uniformed opinion.
To be clear, the uniform includes a chapeau placed at a jaunty angle, otherwise the uniform, for the uninformed, shall remain a matter for the clueless to figure out.
My completely uniformed opinion.
To be clear, the uniform includes a chapeau placed at a jaunty angle, otherwise the uniform, for the uninformed, shall remain a matter for the clueless to figure out.
Marty,
Either
a) the report’s quotes from CIA internal memos are made up (and the CIA’s response in defense does not claim that it is; they only go as far as “out of context”, and that not very convincingly), or
b) the CIA’s public statements to Congress, which flat contradict those memos, were lies.
One or the other. Whatever the authors’ of the report personal interest, one of those two still has to be true. And since nobody, including those in the CIA with the greatest interest in saying so if the quotes were invented, is claiming a), what else is there?
Marty,
Either
a) the report’s quotes from CIA internal memos are made up (and the CIA’s response in defense does not claim that it is; they only go as far as “out of context”, and that not very convincingly), or
b) the CIA’s public statements to Congress, which flat contradict those memos, were lies.
One or the other. Whatever the authors’ of the report personal interest, one of those two still has to be true. And since nobody, including those in the CIA with the greatest interest in saying so if the quotes were invented, is claiming a), what else is there?
Marty,
Either
a) the report’s quotes from CIA internal memos are made up (and the CIA’s response in defense does not claim that it is; they only go as far as “out of context”, and that not very convincingly), or
b) the CIA’s public statements to Congress, which flat contradict those memos, were lies.
One or the other. Whatever the authors’ of the report personal interest, one of those two still has to be true. And since nobody, including those in the CIA with the greatest interest in saying so if the quotes were invented, is claiming a), what else is there?
Marty,
Either
a) the report’s quotes from CIA internal memos are made up (and the CIA’s response in defense does not claim that it is; they only go as far as “out of context”, and that not very convincingly), or
b) the CIA’s public statements to Congress, which flat contradict those memos, were lies.
One or the other. Whatever the authors’ of the report personal interest, one of those two still has to be true. And since nobody, including those in the CIA with the greatest interest in saying so if the quotes were invented, is claiming a), what else is there?
Marty,
Either
a) the report’s quotes from CIA internal memos are made up (and the CIA’s response in defense does not claim that it is; they only go as far as “out of context”, and that not very convincingly), or
b) the CIA’s public statements to Congress, which flat contradict those memos, were lies.
One or the other. Whatever the authors’ of the report personal interest, one of those two still has to be true. And since nobody, including those in the CIA with the greatest interest in saying so if the quotes were invented, is claiming a), what else is there?
Marty,
Either
a) the report’s quotes from CIA internal memos are made up (and the CIA’s response in defense does not claim that it is; they only go as far as “out of context”, and that not very convincingly), or
b) the CIA’s public statements to Congress, which flat contradict those memos, were lies.
One or the other. Whatever the authors’ of the report personal interest, one of those two still has to be true. And since nobody, including those in the CIA with the greatest interest in saying so if the quotes were invented, is claiming a), what else is there?
Actually, c can be true. Millions of documents out of context can be put together to present a story that sounds like what Congress is saying it didn’t know. Without testimony from Congressmen and the heads of the CIA who knows what they really knew. I have an opinion, like everyone.
Actually, c can be true. Millions of documents out of context can be put together to present a story that sounds like what Congress is saying it didn’t know. Without testimony from Congressmen and the heads of the CIA who knows what they really knew. I have an opinion, like everyone.
Actually, c can be true. Millions of documents out of context can be put together to present a story that sounds like what Congress is saying it didn’t know. Without testimony from Congressmen and the heads of the CIA who knows what they really knew. I have an opinion, like everyone.
OK. That can happen. Especially if we are talking about gray areas.
But that isn’t what I’m looking at. In places the report contains a memo in which CIA official X says: “Y happened.” And yet CIA official X testified, at the time of the memo, that “Y did not happen.” There isn’t a whole lot of room for context or interpretation there that I can see. And it’s the same guy, so we don’t have a question about what did he know and when.
And we don’t just see one or two of those. We see a pattern of them.
OK. That can happen. Especially if we are talking about gray areas.
But that isn’t what I’m looking at. In places the report contains a memo in which CIA official X says: “Y happened.” And yet CIA official X testified, at the time of the memo, that “Y did not happen.” There isn’t a whole lot of room for context or interpretation there that I can see. And it’s the same guy, so we don’t have a question about what did he know and when.
And we don’t just see one or two of those. We see a pattern of them.
OK. That can happen. Especially if we are talking about gray areas.
But that isn’t what I’m looking at. In places the report contains a memo in which CIA official X says: “Y happened.” And yet CIA official X testified, at the time of the memo, that “Y did not happen.” There isn’t a whole lot of room for context or interpretation there that I can see. And it’s the same guy, so we don’t have a question about what did he know and when.
And we don’t just see one or two of those. We see a pattern of them.
Marty (recently): “You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?”
I am sure that I implied no such thing.
Marty (much earlier): The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment.
I would call that letting the CIA off the hook, but YMMV. I took your introduction of the poll showing most Americans support torture as being another element in that argument; that may not have been what you intended, but as someone once said, context matters.
FWIW, I personally would have no objection to pushing exposure of CIA misdeeds back into the Clinton administration (or earlier) or forward into Obama, assuming – arguendo, against the odds – that some sense of proportion entered into our judgment, rather than just “They did it, we did it, so it’s a wash.” I’m not particularly interested at the moment in chastising GWB & Cheney for this, so much as in insuring it doesn’t continue.
Which assurance I am not convinced we have.
All of this being – as previously mentioned – totally hypothetical with regard to what might actually happen in the real political world in which we live.
That being said, Merry Christmas, Marty.
Marty (recently): “You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?”
I am sure that I implied no such thing.
Marty (much earlier): The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment.
I would call that letting the CIA off the hook, but YMMV. I took your introduction of the poll showing most Americans support torture as being another element in that argument; that may not have been what you intended, but as someone once said, context matters.
FWIW, I personally would have no objection to pushing exposure of CIA misdeeds back into the Clinton administration (or earlier) or forward into Obama, assuming – arguendo, against the odds – that some sense of proportion entered into our judgment, rather than just “They did it, we did it, so it’s a wash.” I’m not particularly interested at the moment in chastising GWB & Cheney for this, so much as in insuring it doesn’t continue.
Which assurance I am not convinced we have.
All of this being – as previously mentioned – totally hypothetical with regard to what might actually happen in the real political world in which we live.
That being said, Merry Christmas, Marty.
Marty (recently): “You seem to be implying – correct me if I am wrong – that the complicity of the American people lets the CIA off the hook. Why?”
I am sure that I implied no such thing.
Marty (much earlier): The CIA has been properly chastised, and limited. Additional limitations will be to our detriment.
I would call that letting the CIA off the hook, but YMMV. I took your introduction of the poll showing most Americans support torture as being another element in that argument; that may not have been what you intended, but as someone once said, context matters.
FWIW, I personally would have no objection to pushing exposure of CIA misdeeds back into the Clinton administration (or earlier) or forward into Obama, assuming – arguendo, against the odds – that some sense of proportion entered into our judgment, rather than just “They did it, we did it, so it’s a wash.” I’m not particularly interested at the moment in chastising GWB & Cheney for this, so much as in insuring it doesn’t continue.
Which assurance I am not convinced we have.
All of this being – as previously mentioned – totally hypothetical with regard to what might actually happen in the real political world in which we live.
That being said, Merry Christmas, Marty.
As a final note, I’m struck by the parallels between the CIA torture program and the abuses at Abu Graib by the military. Both atrocious, but the CIA has come away largely unscathed, while there was a string of court martials and demotions in the military. It didn’t reach high enough, imo, but there were some repercussions. Why is it so different with the CIA?
I’d also underscore that this didn’t just result in some-but-not-high-enough-level criminal and administrative repercussions, it also led to broad reforms in Army corrections. The Army was preparing to eliminate the specialized role of corrections officer, and these reforms not only saved that from being de-professionalized/outsourced (I never did hear which was contemplated, but I strongly suspect a mix), but also made significant changes to the rules of conduct in Army prisons. So while there was not as much holding of those responsible accountable as there might/should have been, there were meaningful institutional reforms, and not just a half-hearted, insincere-sounding re-affirmation that torture is still illegal, m’kay?
As a final note, I’m struck by the parallels between the CIA torture program and the abuses at Abu Graib by the military. Both atrocious, but the CIA has come away largely unscathed, while there was a string of court martials and demotions in the military. It didn’t reach high enough, imo, but there were some repercussions. Why is it so different with the CIA?
I’d also underscore that this didn’t just result in some-but-not-high-enough-level criminal and administrative repercussions, it also led to broad reforms in Army corrections. The Army was preparing to eliminate the specialized role of corrections officer, and these reforms not only saved that from being de-professionalized/outsourced (I never did hear which was contemplated, but I strongly suspect a mix), but also made significant changes to the rules of conduct in Army prisons. So while there was not as much holding of those responsible accountable as there might/should have been, there were meaningful institutional reforms, and not just a half-hearted, insincere-sounding re-affirmation that torture is still illegal, m’kay?
As a final note, I’m struck by the parallels between the CIA torture program and the abuses at Abu Graib by the military. Both atrocious, but the CIA has come away largely unscathed, while there was a string of court martials and demotions in the military. It didn’t reach high enough, imo, but there were some repercussions. Why is it so different with the CIA?
I’d also underscore that this didn’t just result in some-but-not-high-enough-level criminal and administrative repercussions, it also led to broad reforms in Army corrections. The Army was preparing to eliminate the specialized role of corrections officer, and these reforms not only saved that from being de-professionalized/outsourced (I never did hear which was contemplated, but I strongly suspect a mix), but also made significant changes to the rules of conduct in Army prisons. So while there was not as much holding of those responsible accountable as there might/should have been, there were meaningful institutional reforms, and not just a half-hearted, insincere-sounding re-affirmation that torture is still illegal, m’kay?
NV:
So while there was not as much holding of those responsible accountable as there might/should have been, there were meaningful institutional reforms
Thanks for the informed opinion. I was hoping you would weigh in re: military.
The larger point I wanted to make is that beyond a change in the political leadership, the institutions themselves can change. But the CIA seems very resistant to that institution-level change.
Marty:
I will also take exception to this whole assertion that somehow the report, written by the very people that would have been lied to, in whose interest it is to prove they were lied to, proves they were lied to.
While I think there were very likely things congress didn’t know (as noted by internal memos mentioned by wj, also spying on the SIC), I am certainly not trying to absolve congress of responsibility in that regard.
But IMO, even if the congress/executive was fully informed at every step of the process, I still have problems with how the CIA is structured. I don’t trust the the congress/executive with unlimited power, and if they refuse to reign in an organization that can sell cocaine to fund paramilitary action in a foreign country or commit torture or depose a democratically elected foreign leader…well, the simple answer to me would be to eliminate or trim down that agency.
This isn’t to say we don’t need spies, and that those spies don’t need to operate largely in secret and without direct public oversight. It’s that the CIA isn’t just a spy agency. It’s a paramilitary agency. We have a very good military that does seem to have some capacity to reform itself. We don’t need to augment it with the CIA.
NV:
So while there was not as much holding of those responsible accountable as there might/should have been, there were meaningful institutional reforms
Thanks for the informed opinion. I was hoping you would weigh in re: military.
The larger point I wanted to make is that beyond a change in the political leadership, the institutions themselves can change. But the CIA seems very resistant to that institution-level change.
Marty:
I will also take exception to this whole assertion that somehow the report, written by the very people that would have been lied to, in whose interest it is to prove they were lied to, proves they were lied to.
While I think there were very likely things congress didn’t know (as noted by internal memos mentioned by wj, also spying on the SIC), I am certainly not trying to absolve congress of responsibility in that regard.
But IMO, even if the congress/executive was fully informed at every step of the process, I still have problems with how the CIA is structured. I don’t trust the the congress/executive with unlimited power, and if they refuse to reign in an organization that can sell cocaine to fund paramilitary action in a foreign country or commit torture or depose a democratically elected foreign leader…well, the simple answer to me would be to eliminate or trim down that agency.
This isn’t to say we don’t need spies, and that those spies don’t need to operate largely in secret and without direct public oversight. It’s that the CIA isn’t just a spy agency. It’s a paramilitary agency. We have a very good military that does seem to have some capacity to reform itself. We don’t need to augment it with the CIA.
NV:
So while there was not as much holding of those responsible accountable as there might/should have been, there were meaningful institutional reforms
Thanks for the informed opinion. I was hoping you would weigh in re: military.
The larger point I wanted to make is that beyond a change in the political leadership, the institutions themselves can change. But the CIA seems very resistant to that institution-level change.
Marty:
I will also take exception to this whole assertion that somehow the report, written by the very people that would have been lied to, in whose interest it is to prove they were lied to, proves they were lied to.
While I think there were very likely things congress didn’t know (as noted by internal memos mentioned by wj, also spying on the SIC), I am certainly not trying to absolve congress of responsibility in that regard.
But IMO, even if the congress/executive was fully informed at every step of the process, I still have problems with how the CIA is structured. I don’t trust the the congress/executive with unlimited power, and if they refuse to reign in an organization that can sell cocaine to fund paramilitary action in a foreign country or commit torture or depose a democratically elected foreign leader…well, the simple answer to me would be to eliminate or trim down that agency.
This isn’t to say we don’t need spies, and that those spies don’t need to operate largely in secret and without direct public oversight. It’s that the CIA isn’t just a spy agency. It’s a paramilitary agency. We have a very good military that does seem to have some capacity to reform itself. We don’t need to augment it with the CIA.
Let me second thompson’s point:
no matter what is in the memos, the oversight committees in Congress manifestly have been remiss in their duties. As such, even if they knew absolutely nothing (which I am not willing to assume), they would still IMO bear some responsibility for what happened.
Let me second thompson’s point:
no matter what is in the memos, the oversight committees in Congress manifestly have been remiss in their duties. As such, even if they knew absolutely nothing (which I am not willing to assume), they would still IMO bear some responsibility for what happened.
Let me second thompson’s point:
no matter what is in the memos, the oversight committees in Congress manifestly have been remiss in their duties. As such, even if they knew absolutely nothing (which I am not willing to assume), they would still IMO bear some responsibility for what happened.
We have a very good military that does seem to have some capacity to reform itself. We don’t need to augment it with the CIA.
Well, if they would quit reforming themselves we wouldn’t need to keep augmenting them. Right?
We have a very good military that does seem to have some capacity to reform itself. We don’t need to augment it with the CIA.
Well, if they would quit reforming themselves we wouldn’t need to keep augmenting them. Right?
We have a very good military that does seem to have some capacity to reform itself. We don’t need to augment it with the CIA.
Well, if they would quit reforming themselves we wouldn’t need to keep augmenting them. Right?
. I don’t trust the the congress/executive with unlimited power, and if they refuse to reign in an organization that can sell cocaine to fund paramilitary action in a foreign country or commit torture or depose a democratically elected foreign leader…well, the simple answer to me would be to eliminate or trim down that agency.
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
If the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (who are, by the way elected by The People) refuse to reign [sic] in an agency [maybe because they think the agency is doing their bidding], we need to get rid of the agency?
I think that that we need to get rid of the people who have the power to rein in the agency, but won’t do so.
Get it? It’s called Democracy.
. I don’t trust the the congress/executive with unlimited power, and if they refuse to reign in an organization that can sell cocaine to fund paramilitary action in a foreign country or commit torture or depose a democratically elected foreign leader…well, the simple answer to me would be to eliminate or trim down that agency.
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
If the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (who are, by the way elected by The People) refuse to reign [sic] in an agency [maybe because they think the agency is doing their bidding], we need to get rid of the agency?
I think that that we need to get rid of the people who have the power to rein in the agency, but won’t do so.
Get it? It’s called Democracy.
. I don’t trust the the congress/executive with unlimited power, and if they refuse to reign in an organization that can sell cocaine to fund paramilitary action in a foreign country or commit torture or depose a democratically elected foreign leader…well, the simple answer to me would be to eliminate or trim down that agency.
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
If the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (who are, by the way elected by The People) refuse to reign [sic] in an agency [maybe because they think the agency is doing their bidding], we need to get rid of the agency?
I think that that we need to get rid of the people who have the power to rein in the agency, but won’t do so.
Get it? It’s called Democracy.
Marty:
Well, if they would quit reforming themselves we wouldn’t need to keep augmenting them. Right?
I can’t tell if you are making a joke that I don’t get, or making a point I don’t understand.
It’s called Democracy.
Yes, and just because someone is democratically elected, doesn’t mean they have absolute power. Our system works, as does any democracy, based on an informed and engaged voting public. Even after that point, our elected officials are (or at least should be) constrained by law.
While electing good people is a key part of the equation, we also have laws and procedures in place to mitigate the damage done by a misguided elected official.
In other words, we are a nation of laws, not people.
Finally, as the abuses of the CIA span administrations and congresses, we are either particularly bad at electing people or something more then ‘vote better’ is required. Either way, it seems like there is a need for institutional reform of the CIA.
Marty:
Well, if they would quit reforming themselves we wouldn’t need to keep augmenting them. Right?
I can’t tell if you are making a joke that I don’t get, or making a point I don’t understand.
It’s called Democracy.
Yes, and just because someone is democratically elected, doesn’t mean they have absolute power. Our system works, as does any democracy, based on an informed and engaged voting public. Even after that point, our elected officials are (or at least should be) constrained by law.
While electing good people is a key part of the equation, we also have laws and procedures in place to mitigate the damage done by a misguided elected official.
In other words, we are a nation of laws, not people.
Finally, as the abuses of the CIA span administrations and congresses, we are either particularly bad at electing people or something more then ‘vote better’ is required. Either way, it seems like there is a need for institutional reform of the CIA.
Marty:
Well, if they would quit reforming themselves we wouldn’t need to keep augmenting them. Right?
I can’t tell if you are making a joke that I don’t get, or making a point I don’t understand.
It’s called Democracy.
Yes, and just because someone is democratically elected, doesn’t mean they have absolute power. Our system works, as does any democracy, based on an informed and engaged voting public. Even after that point, our elected officials are (or at least should be) constrained by law.
While electing good people is a key part of the equation, we also have laws and procedures in place to mitigate the damage done by a misguided elected official.
In other words, we are a nation of laws, not people.
Finally, as the abuses of the CIA span administrations and congresses, we are either particularly bad at electing people or something more then ‘vote better’ is required. Either way, it seems like there is a need for institutional reform of the CIA.
Sorry, to be clear, the 2nd part of my last comment was directed at sapient, not Marty.
Sorry, to be clear, the 2nd part of my last comment was directed at sapient, not Marty.
Sorry, to be clear, the 2nd part of my last comment was directed at sapient, not Marty.
Finally, as the abuses of the CIA span administrations and congresses, we are either particularly bad at electing people or something more then ‘vote better’ is required. Either way, it seems like there is a need for institutional reform of the CIA.
No no, this is evidence that the CIA is doing great work!
Finally, as the abuses of the CIA span administrations and congresses, we are either particularly bad at electing people or something more then ‘vote better’ is required. Either way, it seems like there is a need for institutional reform of the CIA.
No no, this is evidence that the CIA is doing great work!
Finally, as the abuses of the CIA span administrations and congresses, we are either particularly bad at electing people or something more then ‘vote better’ is required. Either way, it seems like there is a need for institutional reform of the CIA.
No no, this is evidence that the CIA is doing great work!
Get it? It’s called Democracy.
We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
The two forms of government are not the same. In our form of government, the will of the majority is constrained by the Constitution, and by law.
Further, our nation participates in a community of nations, and is bound by the international treaties and conventions that we participate in. Per our own Constitution, those treaties and conventions have the force of law in our country.
We may or may not have the discipline to require our institutions to comply with the law. If we don’t, it may be done for us, to the degree that that is feasible.
It would be better for us to do it ourselves.
Get it? It’s called Democracy.
We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
The two forms of government are not the same. In our form of government, the will of the majority is constrained by the Constitution, and by law.
Further, our nation participates in a community of nations, and is bound by the international treaties and conventions that we participate in. Per our own Constitution, those treaties and conventions have the force of law in our country.
We may or may not have the discipline to require our institutions to comply with the law. If we don’t, it may be done for us, to the degree that that is feasible.
It would be better for us to do it ourselves.
Get it? It’s called Democracy.
We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
The two forms of government are not the same. In our form of government, the will of the majority is constrained by the Constitution, and by law.
Further, our nation participates in a community of nations, and is bound by the international treaties and conventions that we participate in. Per our own Constitution, those treaties and conventions have the force of law in our country.
We may or may not have the discipline to require our institutions to comply with the law. If we don’t, it may be done for us, to the degree that that is feasible.
It would be better for us to do it ourselves.
Katherine Hawkins–some of us remember her here–seems to agree with the Senators who think the CIA is out of control.
link
Katherine Hawkins–some of us remember her here–seems to agree with the Senators who think the CIA is out of control.
link
Katherine Hawkins–some of us remember her here–seems to agree with the Senators who think the CIA is out of control.
link
It’s a little hard to look at the CIA’s reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation and not conclude that the agency as an institution is out of control. Or, at the very most optimistic reading, trying extremely hard to break the last few bonds that constrain it.
It’s a little hard to look at the CIA’s reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation and not conclude that the agency as an institution is out of control. Or, at the very most optimistic reading, trying extremely hard to break the last few bonds that constrain it.
It’s a little hard to look at the CIA’s reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation and not conclude that the agency as an institution is out of control. Or, at the very most optimistic reading, trying extremely hard to break the last few bonds that constrain it.
Katherine Hawkins–some of us remember her here–seems to agree with the Senators who think the CIA is out of control.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Why was I not informed that Katherine was blogging elsewhere?
Katherine Hawkins–some of us remember her here–seems to agree with the Senators who think the CIA is out of control.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Why was I not informed that Katherine was blogging elsewhere?
Katherine Hawkins–some of us remember her here–seems to agree with the Senators who think the CIA is out of control.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Why was I not informed that Katherine was blogging elsewhere?
I think that that we need to get rid of the people who have the power to rein in the agency, but won’t do so.
Whether someone(?) reins in the agency or the agency is dissolved and replaced (by the same someone?) probably doesn’t matter all that much if the same result is achieved.
Either way, someone with the power to do it has to do it, and, yes, those people are elected officials, so they will have to be or have been voted into office at some point – future or past.
I don’t know what that has to do with having an opinion about what should be done about the CIA. It may inform how you vote or whatever other political activities you might engage in, but I don’t see that one must only find one particular course of action to be reasonable simply because *we get to elect people* in this country.
This is a tedious and frustrating line of thinking IMO.
I think that that we need to get rid of the people who have the power to rein in the agency, but won’t do so.
Whether someone(?) reins in the agency or the agency is dissolved and replaced (by the same someone?) probably doesn’t matter all that much if the same result is achieved.
Either way, someone with the power to do it has to do it, and, yes, those people are elected officials, so they will have to be or have been voted into office at some point – future or past.
I don’t know what that has to do with having an opinion about what should be done about the CIA. It may inform how you vote or whatever other political activities you might engage in, but I don’t see that one must only find one particular course of action to be reasonable simply because *we get to elect people* in this country.
This is a tedious and frustrating line of thinking IMO.
I think that that we need to get rid of the people who have the power to rein in the agency, but won’t do so.
Whether someone(?) reins in the agency or the agency is dissolved and replaced (by the same someone?) probably doesn’t matter all that much if the same result is achieved.
Either way, someone with the power to do it has to do it, and, yes, those people are elected officials, so they will have to be or have been voted into office at some point – future or past.
I don’t know what that has to do with having an opinion about what should be done about the CIA. It may inform how you vote or whatever other political activities you might engage in, but I don’t see that one must only find one particular course of action to be reasonable simply because *we get to elect people* in this country.
This is a tedious and frustrating line of thinking IMO.
hi! I don’t blog very often but google the full name.
Isn’t it weird that Maher Arar isn’t in there? But it’s an extraordinary report all the same.
hi! I don’t blog very often but google the full name.
Isn’t it weird that Maher Arar isn’t in there? But it’s an extraordinary report all the same.
hi! I don’t blog very often but google the full name.
Isn’t it weird that Maher Arar isn’t in there? But it’s an extraordinary report all the same.
This is a tedious and frustrating line of thinking IMO.
What’s tedious and frustrating to me is that people seem not to recognize a huge amount of cause and effect between which party is in office and what happens at the CIA.
And, sure, the CIA doesn’t have a perfect record under any administration, but the most egregious abuses in recent memory have clearly happened at the behest of Republican President.
So I don’t have a problem if the CIA is torn down and replaced, but if the Republican Congress (many of whom have loudly defended the torture regime) does it, how different will the new thing be?
And why is talking about the power of the vote so disturbing to people? What’s the alternative, marching on Langley? Is anyone organizing that effort?
This is a tedious and frustrating line of thinking IMO.
What’s tedious and frustrating to me is that people seem not to recognize a huge amount of cause and effect between which party is in office and what happens at the CIA.
And, sure, the CIA doesn’t have a perfect record under any administration, but the most egregious abuses in recent memory have clearly happened at the behest of Republican President.
So I don’t have a problem if the CIA is torn down and replaced, but if the Republican Congress (many of whom have loudly defended the torture regime) does it, how different will the new thing be?
And why is talking about the power of the vote so disturbing to people? What’s the alternative, marching on Langley? Is anyone organizing that effort?
This is a tedious and frustrating line of thinking IMO.
What’s tedious and frustrating to me is that people seem not to recognize a huge amount of cause and effect between which party is in office and what happens at the CIA.
And, sure, the CIA doesn’t have a perfect record under any administration, but the most egregious abuses in recent memory have clearly happened at the behest of Republican President.
So I don’t have a problem if the CIA is torn down and replaced, but if the Republican Congress (many of whom have loudly defended the torture regime) does it, how different will the new thing be?
And why is talking about the power of the vote so disturbing to people? What’s the alternative, marching on Langley? Is anyone organizing that effort?
And why is talking about the power of the vote so disturbing to people?
It’s not disturbing, it’s secondary. Yes, I will generally vote based on what I think should be done, be it about the CIA or anything else. But the power of the vote just isn’t that great, particularly about specific issues such as this. There are only so many candidates, they only align to anyone’s full range of policy preferences so well, and one can only tell to some degree how well they do align with his or her preferences.
If you don’t have a problem with the CIA being torn down and replaced, I guess there’s not much disagreement between us. You’ll also get no argument from me about Republican administrations allowing or even initiating the worst abuses. I’m with you on both counts.
I’m just not The American Electorate, and neither is the entire collection of people commenting on this blog, so we can’t simply elect whomever we like to enact the policies we prefer. What we can do is have online conversations about those policy preferences, so that’s what we do, for whatever reasons.
And why is talking about the power of the vote so disturbing to people?
It’s not disturbing, it’s secondary. Yes, I will generally vote based on what I think should be done, be it about the CIA or anything else. But the power of the vote just isn’t that great, particularly about specific issues such as this. There are only so many candidates, they only align to anyone’s full range of policy preferences so well, and one can only tell to some degree how well they do align with his or her preferences.
If you don’t have a problem with the CIA being torn down and replaced, I guess there’s not much disagreement between us. You’ll also get no argument from me about Republican administrations allowing or even initiating the worst abuses. I’m with you on both counts.
I’m just not The American Electorate, and neither is the entire collection of people commenting on this blog, so we can’t simply elect whomever we like to enact the policies we prefer. What we can do is have online conversations about those policy preferences, so that’s what we do, for whatever reasons.
And why is talking about the power of the vote so disturbing to people?
It’s not disturbing, it’s secondary. Yes, I will generally vote based on what I think should be done, be it about the CIA or anything else. But the power of the vote just isn’t that great, particularly about specific issues such as this. There are only so many candidates, they only align to anyone’s full range of policy preferences so well, and one can only tell to some degree how well they do align with his or her preferences.
If you don’t have a problem with the CIA being torn down and replaced, I guess there’s not much disagreement between us. You’ll also get no argument from me about Republican administrations allowing or even initiating the worst abuses. I’m with you on both counts.
I’m just not The American Electorate, and neither is the entire collection of people commenting on this blog, so we can’t simply elect whomever we like to enact the policies we prefer. What we can do is have online conversations about those policy preferences, so that’s what we do, for whatever reasons.
What we can do is have online conversations about those policy preferences, so that’s what we do, for whatever reasons.
Right. I participate. For whatever reason, rather than skimming my “tedious” comments and moving on, people have to state how tedious and frustrating my comments are.
I have the attitude that when things are wrong in American public life, it’s great to talk about them, and even more important to do something about them. For an ordinary citizen, “doing” usually involves 1) writing to Congresspeople and 2) becoming involved in the electoral process. Passive resistance and street protests have also been tried, and maybe they work sometimes.
I understand how frustrating it is to feel disenfranchised – I live in a heavily gerrymandered Republican district in Virginia, and my Congressperson does not speak for me (or most of my neighbors). On the other hand, there are few other ways to effect change in this country than to try to elect likeminded Representatives.
Yet, some people who post here identify as Republicans (whether or not they vote for Republicans) or Libertarians, and they expect to rebuild a new and more humane CIA? Huh?
I know that not everyone falls into that category, but pretending that CIA misconduct is not a partisan issue seems mistaken. For example, I read Katherine’s blog post, which was really interesting and enlightening. (Thank you for that.) However, what I came away with was that some Democratic Senators are taking Obama to task for enabling the CIA’s secrecy and duplicity. But still, it’s only Democratic Senators who seem to object to CIA misconduct.
And further to that blog post, I think it’s great that some people are trying to take these issues to the courts. But as long as we have a Republican Supreme Court, does anyone think anything will change there either?
What we can do is have online conversations about those policy preferences, so that’s what we do, for whatever reasons.
Right. I participate. For whatever reason, rather than skimming my “tedious” comments and moving on, people have to state how tedious and frustrating my comments are.
I have the attitude that when things are wrong in American public life, it’s great to talk about them, and even more important to do something about them. For an ordinary citizen, “doing” usually involves 1) writing to Congresspeople and 2) becoming involved in the electoral process. Passive resistance and street protests have also been tried, and maybe they work sometimes.
I understand how frustrating it is to feel disenfranchised – I live in a heavily gerrymandered Republican district in Virginia, and my Congressperson does not speak for me (or most of my neighbors). On the other hand, there are few other ways to effect change in this country than to try to elect likeminded Representatives.
Yet, some people who post here identify as Republicans (whether or not they vote for Republicans) or Libertarians, and they expect to rebuild a new and more humane CIA? Huh?
I know that not everyone falls into that category, but pretending that CIA misconduct is not a partisan issue seems mistaken. For example, I read Katherine’s blog post, which was really interesting and enlightening. (Thank you for that.) However, what I came away with was that some Democratic Senators are taking Obama to task for enabling the CIA’s secrecy and duplicity. But still, it’s only Democratic Senators who seem to object to CIA misconduct.
And further to that blog post, I think it’s great that some people are trying to take these issues to the courts. But as long as we have a Republican Supreme Court, does anyone think anything will change there either?
What we can do is have online conversations about those policy preferences, so that’s what we do, for whatever reasons.
Right. I participate. For whatever reason, rather than skimming my “tedious” comments and moving on, people have to state how tedious and frustrating my comments are.
I have the attitude that when things are wrong in American public life, it’s great to talk about them, and even more important to do something about them. For an ordinary citizen, “doing” usually involves 1) writing to Congresspeople and 2) becoming involved in the electoral process. Passive resistance and street protests have also been tried, and maybe they work sometimes.
I understand how frustrating it is to feel disenfranchised – I live in a heavily gerrymandered Republican district in Virginia, and my Congressperson does not speak for me (or most of my neighbors). On the other hand, there are few other ways to effect change in this country than to try to elect likeminded Representatives.
Yet, some people who post here identify as Republicans (whether or not they vote for Republicans) or Libertarians, and they expect to rebuild a new and more humane CIA? Huh?
I know that not everyone falls into that category, but pretending that CIA misconduct is not a partisan issue seems mistaken. For example, I read Katherine’s blog post, which was really interesting and enlightening. (Thank you for that.) However, what I came away with was that some Democratic Senators are taking Obama to task for enabling the CIA’s secrecy and duplicity. But still, it’s only Democratic Senators who seem to object to CIA misconduct.
And further to that blog post, I think it’s great that some people are trying to take these issues to the courts. But as long as we have a Republican Supreme Court, does anyone think anything will change there either?
“But the power of the vote just isn’t that great, particularly about specific issues such as this. There are only so many candidates, they only align to anyone’s full range of policy preferences so well, and one can only tell to some degree how well they do align with his or her preferences.”
Yeah, exactly. On an issue like torture, where maybe the majority of the population agrees with the torturers, one has to win over a majority of the population first and even then that might not be enough, if there are powerful donors on the other side. If you are concerned about an individual issue you try to change people’s minds and you do that by talking about the issue and also criticizing the positions of politicians who are on the wrong side. Once every two to four years you also vote, usually on the basis that on a broad range of issues one candidate is better (or less bad) than the other.
“But the power of the vote just isn’t that great, particularly about specific issues such as this. There are only so many candidates, they only align to anyone’s full range of policy preferences so well, and one can only tell to some degree how well they do align with his or her preferences.”
Yeah, exactly. On an issue like torture, where maybe the majority of the population agrees with the torturers, one has to win over a majority of the population first and even then that might not be enough, if there are powerful donors on the other side. If you are concerned about an individual issue you try to change people’s minds and you do that by talking about the issue and also criticizing the positions of politicians who are on the wrong side. Once every two to four years you also vote, usually on the basis that on a broad range of issues one candidate is better (or less bad) than the other.
“But the power of the vote just isn’t that great, particularly about specific issues such as this. There are only so many candidates, they only align to anyone’s full range of policy preferences so well, and one can only tell to some degree how well they do align with his or her preferences.”
Yeah, exactly. On an issue like torture, where maybe the majority of the population agrees with the torturers, one has to win over a majority of the population first and even then that might not be enough, if there are powerful donors on the other side. If you are concerned about an individual issue you try to change people’s minds and you do that by talking about the issue and also criticizing the positions of politicians who are on the wrong side. Once every two to four years you also vote, usually on the basis that on a broad range of issues one candidate is better (or less bad) than the other.
If you are concerned about an individual issue you try to change people’s minds and you do that by talking about the issue and also criticizing the positions of politicians who are on the wrong side.
I’m all for that, except when false equivalence is drawn. Then I feel that more harm than good is often done.
If you are concerned about an individual issue you try to change people’s minds and you do that by talking about the issue and also criticizing the positions of politicians who are on the wrong side.
I’m all for that, except when false equivalence is drawn. Then I feel that more harm than good is often done.
If you are concerned about an individual issue you try to change people’s minds and you do that by talking about the issue and also criticizing the positions of politicians who are on the wrong side.
I’m all for that, except when false equivalence is drawn. Then I feel that more harm than good is often done.
it’s only Democratic Senators who seem to object to CIA misconduct.
Fair enough. But it may be worth noting just how bad, and for how long, it had to be before those Democratic Senators finally decided that they had had enough. (And, from where I sit, it was only when the CIA started messing with them that their patience finally snapped.) So, they rate “better,” but not really “good.”
it’s only Democratic Senators who seem to object to CIA misconduct.
Fair enough. But it may be worth noting just how bad, and for how long, it had to be before those Democratic Senators finally decided that they had had enough. (And, from where I sit, it was only when the CIA started messing with them that their patience finally snapped.) So, they rate “better,” but not really “good.”
it’s only Democratic Senators who seem to object to CIA misconduct.
Fair enough. But it may be worth noting just how bad, and for how long, it had to be before those Democratic Senators finally decided that they had had enough. (And, from where I sit, it was only when the CIA started messing with them that their patience finally snapped.) So, they rate “better,” but not really “good.”
So, they rate “better,” but not really “good.”
Perhaps so, but you’ll note that the torture itself stopped once there was a Democratic Congress. So I would say “much better” as far as the most egregious conduct of the CIA is concerned.
So, they rate “better,” but not really “good.”
Perhaps so, but you’ll note that the torture itself stopped once there was a Democratic Congress. So I would say “much better” as far as the most egregious conduct of the CIA is concerned.
So, they rate “better,” but not really “good.”
Perhaps so, but you’ll note that the torture itself stopped once there was a Democratic Congress. So I would say “much better” as far as the most egregious conduct of the CIA is concerned.
No, the torture itself stopped once there was a Democratic President. (Although it is debatable whether it was his party, or just being a different President.)
The Congress was not visibly involved in causing it to stop. And the Republicans lost control of the Senate and the House in 2007, two years before it stopped. so I don’t see how you can credit the Democrats in Congress for stopping it. What am I missing?
No, the torture itself stopped once there was a Democratic President. (Although it is debatable whether it was his party, or just being a different President.)
The Congress was not visibly involved in causing it to stop. And the Republicans lost control of the Senate and the House in 2007, two years before it stopped. so I don’t see how you can credit the Democrats in Congress for stopping it. What am I missing?
No, the torture itself stopped once there was a Democratic President. (Although it is debatable whether it was his party, or just being a different President.)
The Congress was not visibly involved in causing it to stop. And the Republicans lost control of the Senate and the House in 2007, two years before it stopped. so I don’t see how you can credit the Democrats in Congress for stopping it. What am I missing?
I think the damage is done when everything is seen as part of a battle between two political parties. Then it becomes tribal. I am closer to the Democrats on every issue I can think of offhand, but I can recall a distant time when Republicans weren’t opposed to the notion of anthropogenic global warming, and agreed that torture was bad, and so I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties. Also, while Democrats are better, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are good. The Democratic Senators in Katherine’s piece are pretty critical of Obama for holding on to Brennan. Even if nobody gets prosecuted (after all, the US is too powerful a rogue state for laws to apply to us), at the very least one might hope that people directly involved in the torture program get fired. Or something. Maybe they get a bad performance review or maybe someone hurts their feelings by calling them torturers rather than patriots.
I think the damage is done when everything is seen as part of a battle between two political parties. Then it becomes tribal. I am closer to the Democrats on every issue I can think of offhand, but I can recall a distant time when Republicans weren’t opposed to the notion of anthropogenic global warming, and agreed that torture was bad, and so I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties. Also, while Democrats are better, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are good. The Democratic Senators in Katherine’s piece are pretty critical of Obama for holding on to Brennan. Even if nobody gets prosecuted (after all, the US is too powerful a rogue state for laws to apply to us), at the very least one might hope that people directly involved in the torture program get fired. Or something. Maybe they get a bad performance review or maybe someone hurts their feelings by calling them torturers rather than patriots.
I think the damage is done when everything is seen as part of a battle between two political parties. Then it becomes tribal. I am closer to the Democrats on every issue I can think of offhand, but I can recall a distant time when Republicans weren’t opposed to the notion of anthropogenic global warming, and agreed that torture was bad, and so I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties. Also, while Democrats are better, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are good. The Democratic Senators in Katherine’s piece are pretty critical of Obama for holding on to Brennan. Even if nobody gets prosecuted (after all, the US is too powerful a rogue state for laws to apply to us), at the very least one might hope that people directly involved in the torture program get fired. Or something. Maybe they get a bad performance review or maybe someone hurts their feelings by calling them torturers rather than patriots.
“I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties. ”
So as not to be accused of false equivalence, I think the bulk of the blame for our partisan inability to agree on anything falls on the rightwing media machine. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reach some conservatives on some issues. You can find some right-wingers and libertarians who are on our side on torture, at least online.
“I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties. ”
So as not to be accused of false equivalence, I think the bulk of the blame for our partisan inability to agree on anything falls on the rightwing media machine. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reach some conservatives on some issues. You can find some right-wingers and libertarians who are on our side on torture, at least online.
“I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties. ”
So as not to be accused of false equivalence, I think the bulk of the blame for our partisan inability to agree on anything falls on the rightwing media machine. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reach some conservatives on some issues. You can find some right-wingers and libertarians who are on our side on torture, at least online.
Not just on-line generally, but here specifically. We’ve got libertarians here opposed to torture. We’ve got conservatives here opposed to torture.
The closest anyone comes to supporting it is arguing that it might, sometimes, in very special circumstances, be useful. Not good, but useful. And nobody here (that I can recall, anyway) seems particularly wedded to that particular bit of TV/movie fantasy, jus to pen to it.
Not just on-line generally, but here specifically. We’ve got libertarians here opposed to torture. We’ve got conservatives here opposed to torture.
The closest anyone comes to supporting it is arguing that it might, sometimes, in very special circumstances, be useful. Not good, but useful. And nobody here (that I can recall, anyway) seems particularly wedded to that particular bit of TV/movie fantasy, jus to pen to it.
Not just on-line generally, but here specifically. We’ve got libertarians here opposed to torture. We’ve got conservatives here opposed to torture.
The closest anyone comes to supporting it is arguing that it might, sometimes, in very special circumstances, be useful. Not good, but useful. And nobody here (that I can recall, anyway) seems particularly wedded to that particular bit of TV/movie fantasy, jus to pen to it.
Actually, wj, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture) ended in 2007. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Then, when Obama took office, he officially ended them.
Actually, wj, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture) ended in 2007. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Then, when Obama took office, he officially ended them.
Actually, wj, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture) ended in 2007. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Then, when Obama took office, he officially ended them.
Thanks, Donald and wj, for saving me the trouble of posting. What you guys said.
Thanks, Donald and wj, for saving me the trouble of posting. What you guys said.
Thanks, Donald and wj, for saving me the trouble of posting. What you guys said.
I should actually spread the blame around on the acceptance of torture by many Americans. It’s not just the rightwing press-the MSM has in some respects been cowardly or dishonest about this. Here’s Glenn on how they’ve mostly avoided putting torture victims on the air–
link
The other night Charlie Rose had an extended conversation with a CIA apparatchik who was outraged by all the criticism the CIA was receiving. It seemed like more evidence that a thorough house-cleaning over there is needed, but it won’t happen if Americans insist on humanizing the torturers and not their victims, some of whom were innocent (except, of course, of the crime of being Muslim). Obama reflects the views of many Americans in the determination to look forward and not back. This problem isn’t solved by pointing out that Democrats haven’t been as bad as Republicans on the issue.
I should actually spread the blame around on the acceptance of torture by many Americans. It’s not just the rightwing press-the MSM has in some respects been cowardly or dishonest about this. Here’s Glenn on how they’ve mostly avoided putting torture victims on the air–
link
The other night Charlie Rose had an extended conversation with a CIA apparatchik who was outraged by all the criticism the CIA was receiving. It seemed like more evidence that a thorough house-cleaning over there is needed, but it won’t happen if Americans insist on humanizing the torturers and not their victims, some of whom were innocent (except, of course, of the crime of being Muslim). Obama reflects the views of many Americans in the determination to look forward and not back. This problem isn’t solved by pointing out that Democrats haven’t been as bad as Republicans on the issue.
I should actually spread the blame around on the acceptance of torture by many Americans. It’s not just the rightwing press-the MSM has in some respects been cowardly or dishonest about this. Here’s Glenn on how they’ve mostly avoided putting torture victims on the air–
link
The other night Charlie Rose had an extended conversation with a CIA apparatchik who was outraged by all the criticism the CIA was receiving. It seemed like more evidence that a thorough house-cleaning over there is needed, but it won’t happen if Americans insist on humanizing the torturers and not their victims, some of whom were innocent (except, of course, of the crime of being Muslim). Obama reflects the views of many Americans in the determination to look forward and not back. This problem isn’t solved by pointing out that Democrats haven’t been as bad as Republicans on the issue.
I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties.
That’s a nice sentiment, but if people’s views aren’t reflected in their voting patterns, it doesn’t do the cause much good.
I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties.
That’s a nice sentiment, but if people’s views aren’t reflected in their voting patterns, it doesn’t do the cause much good.
I’d like to appeal to individuals whose views aren’t totally dictated by their tribal loyalties.
That’s a nice sentiment, but if people’s views aren’t reflected in their voting patterns, it doesn’t do the cause much good.
As, maybe, an aside on what members of Congress knew and when, the first briefings of folks in Congress – the briefings that were held when the program was initially started – were only to the so-called Gang of Eight – the chair and vice-chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leading Senator and Rep from each party.
My understanding is that they were not allowed to disclose what they had been told, to anyone, under threat of criminal prosecution. And, it’s unclear what details of the program were disclosed at that point.
Other members of Congress were not briefed until 2006, four years into the program.
Apparently, Bush himself was not briefed until 2006, four years into the program.
The folks in the executive who appear to have been in the loop were Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Addington, Cheney. Maybe Rice.
Of them, Cheney is arguably accountable to the public via the electoral process, but it’s hard to express your opinion about torture programs – or, whatever programs you like – via your vote if you aren’t made aware of them.
Here is a timeline of what allegedly happened, and when.
What I take away from all of this is that it’s not sufficient to simply have “good people” in office. There were lots of good people in office during the time in question. As regards the torture program specifically, Bush himself may well have been a “good person” in office, in the sense that, had he known of its existence in early days he may well have quashed it.
We don’t know, if the account in the report is accurate, he couldn’t have done so, because he didn’t know it existed.
What’s obvious to me is that there are, at this point, institutional and structural impediments to having effective oversight of highly covert CIA programs. Those need to change, so that we aren’t dependent on people exposing themselves to risk of prosecution in order to have any kind of meaningful control over what the spooks are up to.
As, maybe, an aside on what members of Congress knew and when, the first briefings of folks in Congress – the briefings that were held when the program was initially started – were only to the so-called Gang of Eight – the chair and vice-chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leading Senator and Rep from each party.
My understanding is that they were not allowed to disclose what they had been told, to anyone, under threat of criminal prosecution. And, it’s unclear what details of the program were disclosed at that point.
Other members of Congress were not briefed until 2006, four years into the program.
Apparently, Bush himself was not briefed until 2006, four years into the program.
The folks in the executive who appear to have been in the loop were Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Addington, Cheney. Maybe Rice.
Of them, Cheney is arguably accountable to the public via the electoral process, but it’s hard to express your opinion about torture programs – or, whatever programs you like – via your vote if you aren’t made aware of them.
Here is a timeline of what allegedly happened, and when.
What I take away from all of this is that it’s not sufficient to simply have “good people” in office. There were lots of good people in office during the time in question. As regards the torture program specifically, Bush himself may well have been a “good person” in office, in the sense that, had he known of its existence in early days he may well have quashed it.
We don’t know, if the account in the report is accurate, he couldn’t have done so, because he didn’t know it existed.
What’s obvious to me is that there are, at this point, institutional and structural impediments to having effective oversight of highly covert CIA programs. Those need to change, so that we aren’t dependent on people exposing themselves to risk of prosecution in order to have any kind of meaningful control over what the spooks are up to.
As, maybe, an aside on what members of Congress knew and when, the first briefings of folks in Congress – the briefings that were held when the program was initially started – were only to the so-called Gang of Eight – the chair and vice-chairs of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leading Senator and Rep from each party.
My understanding is that they were not allowed to disclose what they had been told, to anyone, under threat of criminal prosecution. And, it’s unclear what details of the program were disclosed at that point.
Other members of Congress were not briefed until 2006, four years into the program.
Apparently, Bush himself was not briefed until 2006, four years into the program.
The folks in the executive who appear to have been in the loop were Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, Ashcroft, Addington, Cheney. Maybe Rice.
Of them, Cheney is arguably accountable to the public via the electoral process, but it’s hard to express your opinion about torture programs – or, whatever programs you like – via your vote if you aren’t made aware of them.
Here is a timeline of what allegedly happened, and when.
What I take away from all of this is that it’s not sufficient to simply have “good people” in office. There were lots of good people in office during the time in question. As regards the torture program specifically, Bush himself may well have been a “good person” in office, in the sense that, had he known of its existence in early days he may well have quashed it.
We don’t know, if the account in the report is accurate, he couldn’t have done so, because he didn’t know it existed.
What’s obvious to me is that there are, at this point, institutional and structural impediments to having effective oversight of highly covert CIA programs. Those need to change, so that we aren’t dependent on people exposing themselves to risk of prosecution in order to have any kind of meaningful control over what the spooks are up to.
russell, the timeline is might be true as far as official briefings are concerned, but John Yoo’s memo was leaked to a suspicious public in late 2003, and torture was being actively discussed. The link is to a PBS article posted in 2005.
Everybody knew. People were disgusted and voted Democratic when the Congressional elections came around in 2006.
russell, the timeline is might be true as far as official briefings are concerned, but John Yoo’s memo was leaked to a suspicious public in late 2003, and torture was being actively discussed. The link is to a PBS article posted in 2005.
Everybody knew. People were disgusted and voted Democratic when the Congressional elections came around in 2006.
russell, the timeline is might be true as far as official briefings are concerned, but John Yoo’s memo was leaked to a suspicious public in late 2003, and torture was being actively discussed. The link is to a PBS article posted in 2005.
Everybody knew. People were disgusted and voted Democratic when the Congressional elections came around in 2006.
“That’s a nice sentiment, but if people’s views aren’t reflected in their voting patterns, it doesn’t do the cause much good.”
I don’t like John McCain, but if enough Republican voters agreed with him on the torture issue, the Republican Party would shift on that issue. Maybe some Republicans would say that they generally agree with the Republican Party on most issues, but as a member of the party of Lincoln they are deeply ashamed of those who are in favor of torture. Maybe some would temporarily vote with Democrats, while others wouldn’t, but would express their opinion that torture is wrong. I think that would make a difference and we should be trying to reach conservatives on that issue. Christian evangelicals, according to the slacktivist blogger, tend to support “enhanced interrogation”, but one can find evangelicals who come out strongly against torture. Maybe these are mostly Democrats, but I don’t think that’s true–as wj points out, we have some anti-torture conservatives at ObiWi.
But if torture is seen as a partisan issue, then we’ve lost. The Democratic/Republican or liberal/conservative divide isn’t going to go away, but one would like to see at least some moral issues transcending party loyalties, so we all agree that water boarding is something that we never ever do. Then we can go back to having vicious arguments about marginal tax rates.
“That’s a nice sentiment, but if people’s views aren’t reflected in their voting patterns, it doesn’t do the cause much good.”
I don’t like John McCain, but if enough Republican voters agreed with him on the torture issue, the Republican Party would shift on that issue. Maybe some Republicans would say that they generally agree with the Republican Party on most issues, but as a member of the party of Lincoln they are deeply ashamed of those who are in favor of torture. Maybe some would temporarily vote with Democrats, while others wouldn’t, but would express their opinion that torture is wrong. I think that would make a difference and we should be trying to reach conservatives on that issue. Christian evangelicals, according to the slacktivist blogger, tend to support “enhanced interrogation”, but one can find evangelicals who come out strongly against torture. Maybe these are mostly Democrats, but I don’t think that’s true–as wj points out, we have some anti-torture conservatives at ObiWi.
But if torture is seen as a partisan issue, then we’ve lost. The Democratic/Republican or liberal/conservative divide isn’t going to go away, but one would like to see at least some moral issues transcending party loyalties, so we all agree that water boarding is something that we never ever do. Then we can go back to having vicious arguments about marginal tax rates.
“That’s a nice sentiment, but if people’s views aren’t reflected in their voting patterns, it doesn’t do the cause much good.”
I don’t like John McCain, but if enough Republican voters agreed with him on the torture issue, the Republican Party would shift on that issue. Maybe some Republicans would say that they generally agree with the Republican Party on most issues, but as a member of the party of Lincoln they are deeply ashamed of those who are in favor of torture. Maybe some would temporarily vote with Democrats, while others wouldn’t, but would express their opinion that torture is wrong. I think that would make a difference and we should be trying to reach conservatives on that issue. Christian evangelicals, according to the slacktivist blogger, tend to support “enhanced interrogation”, but one can find evangelicals who come out strongly against torture. Maybe these are mostly Democrats, but I don’t think that’s true–as wj points out, we have some anti-torture conservatives at ObiWi.
But if torture is seen as a partisan issue, then we’ve lost. The Democratic/Republican or liberal/conservative divide isn’t going to go away, but one would like to see at least some moral issues transcending party loyalties, so we all agree that water boarding is something that we never ever do. Then we can go back to having vicious arguments about marginal tax rates.
But if torture is seen as a partisan issue, then we’ve lost.
If people who don’t support torture continue to vote for Republicans who support torture (or allow Republicans to win), we’ve lost. The only way we’ll win is for people to vote for people who don’t support torture. Those people, almost exclusively, are Democrats. The only exception seems to be John McCain, and his constituency won’t change.
If we refuse to point out that Democrats are the only people who consistently support humane policies, they will lose. They won in 2006 because people realized what was happening. People have gotten lost in the false equivalency since then (Obama’s just as bad!!!), and don’t bother to vote.
But if torture is seen as a partisan issue, then we’ve lost.
If people who don’t support torture continue to vote for Republicans who support torture (or allow Republicans to win), we’ve lost. The only way we’ll win is for people to vote for people who don’t support torture. Those people, almost exclusively, are Democrats. The only exception seems to be John McCain, and his constituency won’t change.
If we refuse to point out that Democrats are the only people who consistently support humane policies, they will lose. They won in 2006 because people realized what was happening. People have gotten lost in the false equivalency since then (Obama’s just as bad!!!), and don’t bother to vote.
But if torture is seen as a partisan issue, then we’ve lost.
If people who don’t support torture continue to vote for Republicans who support torture (or allow Republicans to win), we’ve lost. The only way we’ll win is for people to vote for people who don’t support torture. Those people, almost exclusively, are Democrats. The only exception seems to be John McCain, and his constituency won’t change.
If we refuse to point out that Democrats are the only people who consistently support humane policies, they will lose. They won in 2006 because people realized what was happening. People have gotten lost in the false equivalency since then (Obama’s just as bad!!!), and don’t bother to vote.
Okay, this is getting nowhere. I think we need to persuade at least some conservative voters that torture is wrong and that this will have an effect on their party. You just want to count on Democrats always getting a majority, which won’t always happen. (There’s also the question of whether we should always assume that praising Democrats is the necessary and sufficient response to all moral questions.)
Many conservatives are evangelical Christians and at least some in that group like to think of themselves as deeply interested in questions of right and wrong (which I know, having been one and now considering myself more of a mainstream Protestant). One might be able to reach many of them with the sorts of religiously based arguments that they might find persuasive–for instance, that torture is a desecration, since man was created in the image of God. Others might be reached with arguments about how small government conservatives should be horrified at the thought that the state be allowed to have this kind of power over prisoners. Or one could just make it about Democrats vs. Republicans, which won’t do anything to change anyone’s mind.
Okay, this is getting nowhere. I think we need to persuade at least some conservative voters that torture is wrong and that this will have an effect on their party. You just want to count on Democrats always getting a majority, which won’t always happen. (There’s also the question of whether we should always assume that praising Democrats is the necessary and sufficient response to all moral questions.)
Many conservatives are evangelical Christians and at least some in that group like to think of themselves as deeply interested in questions of right and wrong (which I know, having been one and now considering myself more of a mainstream Protestant). One might be able to reach many of them with the sorts of religiously based arguments that they might find persuasive–for instance, that torture is a desecration, since man was created in the image of God. Others might be reached with arguments about how small government conservatives should be horrified at the thought that the state be allowed to have this kind of power over prisoners. Or one could just make it about Democrats vs. Republicans, which won’t do anything to change anyone’s mind.
Okay, this is getting nowhere. I think we need to persuade at least some conservative voters that torture is wrong and that this will have an effect on their party. You just want to count on Democrats always getting a majority, which won’t always happen. (There’s also the question of whether we should always assume that praising Democrats is the necessary and sufficient response to all moral questions.)
Many conservatives are evangelical Christians and at least some in that group like to think of themselves as deeply interested in questions of right and wrong (which I know, having been one and now considering myself more of a mainstream Protestant). One might be able to reach many of them with the sorts of religiously based arguments that they might find persuasive–for instance, that torture is a desecration, since man was created in the image of God. Others might be reached with arguments about how small government conservatives should be horrified at the thought that the state be allowed to have this kind of power over prisoners. Or one could just make it about Democrats vs. Republicans, which won’t do anything to change anyone’s mind.
Everybody knew.
I think, more accurately, that most people believed, with justification, that something bad was going on. Unfortunately, that doesn’t get us all the way to effective oversight.
I have no disagreement, at all, that (D) policies are preferable to (R).
What I disagree with is the idea that simply electing (D)’s will be a sufficient solution to the issue of oversight of the intelligence community.
I’m not sure that’s a claim you are making, specifically, but it’s a claim I would refute.
Everybody knew.
I think, more accurately, that most people believed, with justification, that something bad was going on. Unfortunately, that doesn’t get us all the way to effective oversight.
I have no disagreement, at all, that (D) policies are preferable to (R).
What I disagree with is the idea that simply electing (D)’s will be a sufficient solution to the issue of oversight of the intelligence community.
I’m not sure that’s a claim you are making, specifically, but it’s a claim I would refute.
Everybody knew.
I think, more accurately, that most people believed, with justification, that something bad was going on. Unfortunately, that doesn’t get us all the way to effective oversight.
I have no disagreement, at all, that (D) policies are preferable to (R).
What I disagree with is the idea that simply electing (D)’s will be a sufficient solution to the issue of oversight of the intelligence community.
I’m not sure that’s a claim you are making, specifically, but it’s a claim I would refute.
It took them too long to get around to publishing something, but Christianity Today online finally put something up about torture and this is the kind of thing I have in mind. It makes all the necessary points about why torture is wrong, and says nothing about Democrats and Republicans. That’s exactly as it should be–he’s trying to persuade an audience which might be (probably is) predominantly Republican that torture is wrong and doesn’t work.
link
It took them too long to get around to publishing something, but Christianity Today online finally put something up about torture and this is the kind of thing I have in mind. It makes all the necessary points about why torture is wrong, and says nothing about Democrats and Republicans. That’s exactly as it should be–he’s trying to persuade an audience which might be (probably is) predominantly Republican that torture is wrong and doesn’t work.
link
It took them too long to get around to publishing something, but Christianity Today online finally put something up about torture and this is the kind of thing I have in mind. It makes all the necessary points about why torture is wrong, and says nothing about Democrats and Republicans. That’s exactly as it should be–he’s trying to persuade an audience which might be (probably is) predominantly Republican that torture is wrong and doesn’t work.
link
Donald, you make an excellent point. The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs. And to have two parties switch back and forth, both have to be tolerable. Which, at the current time, means that drastic changes need to be made in the Republican Party. And that means making the case to conservatives (probably mostly by other conservatives) that things like torture are morally unacceptable and must be renounced completely.
We can’t fix things by just voting for Democrats. We can’t fix things by voting for Republicans and praying that those elected act sensibly once in office. (And no matter what some people hope, the chances of crating a viable new party are slim to none.)
So we will have to work with what we have. Which means, for starters, liberals and Democrats (overlapping but far from identical groups) accepting that there will be those who disagree with them on lots of issues, but are still decent human beings. Because nothing drives people together like beng attacked en masse. Which is what approaches like sapient’s, which appear to lump all conservatives and all Republicans (also two overlapping but not identical groups), feel like from the receiving end.
Donald, you make an excellent point. The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs. And to have two parties switch back and forth, both have to be tolerable. Which, at the current time, means that drastic changes need to be made in the Republican Party. And that means making the case to conservatives (probably mostly by other conservatives) that things like torture are morally unacceptable and must be renounced completely.
We can’t fix things by just voting for Democrats. We can’t fix things by voting for Republicans and praying that those elected act sensibly once in office. (And no matter what some people hope, the chances of crating a viable new party are slim to none.)
So we will have to work with what we have. Which means, for starters, liberals and Democrats (overlapping but far from identical groups) accepting that there will be those who disagree with them on lots of issues, but are still decent human beings. Because nothing drives people together like beng attacked en masse. Which is what approaches like sapient’s, which appear to lump all conservatives and all Republicans (also two overlapping but not identical groups), feel like from the receiving end.
Donald, you make an excellent point. The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs. And to have two parties switch back and forth, both have to be tolerable. Which, at the current time, means that drastic changes need to be made in the Republican Party. And that means making the case to conservatives (probably mostly by other conservatives) that things like torture are morally unacceptable and must be renounced completely.
We can’t fix things by just voting for Democrats. We can’t fix things by voting for Republicans and praying that those elected act sensibly once in office. (And no matter what some people hope, the chances of crating a viable new party are slim to none.)
So we will have to work with what we have. Which means, for starters, liberals and Democrats (overlapping but far from identical groups) accepting that there will be those who disagree with them on lots of issues, but are still decent human beings. Because nothing drives people together like beng attacked en masse. Which is what approaches like sapient’s, which appear to lump all conservatives and all Republicans (also two overlapping but not identical groups), feel like from the receiving end.
DJ, I hope you are right about convincing conservatives that torture is morally wrong, but I strongly suspect that it will require the real, immanent, threat of torture applied to conservatives to get them to change their position.
Luckily (?), domestic right-wing terror is working to make that option more acceptable.
DJ, I hope you are right about convincing conservatives that torture is morally wrong, but I strongly suspect that it will require the real, immanent, threat of torture applied to conservatives to get them to change their position.
Luckily (?), domestic right-wing terror is working to make that option more acceptable.
DJ, I hope you are right about convincing conservatives that torture is morally wrong, but I strongly suspect that it will require the real, immanent, threat of torture applied to conservatives to get them to change their position.
Luckily (?), domestic right-wing terror is working to make that option more acceptable.
Donald, wj, and russell have been making all the points I’ve wanted to make, with far more nuance and reasonableness than I can muster. So let me just say, I agree with all of them.
Donald, wj, and russell have been making all the points I’ve wanted to make, with far more nuance and reasonableness than I can muster. So let me just say, I agree with all of them.
Donald, wj, and russell have been making all the points I’ve wanted to make, with far more nuance and reasonableness than I can muster. So let me just say, I agree with all of them.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t get us all the way to effective oversight.
No, just a giant leap, from torture to not-torture. And maybe if we could keep the government (yes, at least two branches of the government) in Democratic hands for more than 2 years, we could urge them along to better oversight.
Unfortunately, after our one giant step, we’ve made a couple of steps backwards. And we’re probably not finished.
The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs.
We certainly have evidence that the country doesn’t work well when Republicans govern. Not so much when Democrats control the presidency and the House. But, yeah, I’ve been hearing that line since I was in the 4th grade.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t get us all the way to effective oversight.
No, just a giant leap, from torture to not-torture. And maybe if we could keep the government (yes, at least two branches of the government) in Democratic hands for more than 2 years, we could urge them along to better oversight.
Unfortunately, after our one giant step, we’ve made a couple of steps backwards. And we’re probably not finished.
The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs.
We certainly have evidence that the country doesn’t work well when Republicans govern. Not so much when Democrats control the presidency and the House. But, yeah, I’ve been hearing that line since I was in the 4th grade.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t get us all the way to effective oversight.
No, just a giant leap, from torture to not-torture. And maybe if we could keep the government (yes, at least two branches of the government) in Democratic hands for more than 2 years, we could urge them along to better oversight.
Unfortunately, after our one giant step, we’ve made a couple of steps backwards. And we’re probably not finished.
The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs.
We certainly have evidence that the country doesn’t work well when Republicans govern. Not so much when Democrats control the presidency and the House. But, yeah, I’ve been hearing that line since I was in the 4th grade.
Actually, wj, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture) ended in 2007. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Then, when Obama took office, he officially ended them.
My takeaway from the report and such was that it was daylight that made the program stop, not an election. I’ve not seen anything suggesting that a Democratic majority was what did it; it was details of the program becoming public (which did not happen via the actions of the new majority) and embarrassing/inconveniencing/debilitating the CIA and the administration.
Actually, wj, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture) ended in 2007. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Then, when Obama took office, he officially ended them.
My takeaway from the report and such was that it was daylight that made the program stop, not an election. I’ve not seen anything suggesting that a Democratic majority was what did it; it was details of the program becoming public (which did not happen via the actions of the new majority) and embarrassing/inconveniencing/debilitating the CIA and the administration.
Actually, wj, the “enhanced interrogation techniques” (torture) ended in 2007. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Then, when Obama took office, he officially ended them.
My takeaway from the report and such was that it was daylight that made the program stop, not an election. I’ve not seen anything suggesting that a Democratic majority was what did it; it was details of the program becoming public (which did not happen via the actions of the new majority) and embarrassing/inconveniencing/debilitating the CIA and the administration.
My takeaway from the report and such
If you have to “takeaway” from the report, my guess is that you weren’t paying attention. Maybe it’s because you’re too young, or were in the military, or many other legitimate reasons.
But if you have to “takeaway” anything about this issue from this torture report [other than the rectal feeding – I hadn’t heard about that], you were skipping a lot of the news since at least 2004.
My takeaway from the report and such
If you have to “takeaway” from the report, my guess is that you weren’t paying attention. Maybe it’s because you’re too young, or were in the military, or many other legitimate reasons.
But if you have to “takeaway” anything about this issue from this torture report [other than the rectal feeding – I hadn’t heard about that], you were skipping a lot of the news since at least 2004.
My takeaway from the report and such
If you have to “takeaway” from the report, my guess is that you weren’t paying attention. Maybe it’s because you’re too young, or were in the military, or many other legitimate reasons.
But if you have to “takeaway” anything about this issue from this torture report [other than the rectal feeding – I hadn’t heard about that], you were skipping a lot of the news since at least 2004.
But if you have to “takeaway” anything about this issue from this torture report [other than the rectal feeding – I hadn’t heard about that], you were skipping a lot of the news since at least 2004.
No, I take that back. The psychologists …
But if you have to “takeaway” anything about this issue from this torture report [other than the rectal feeding – I hadn’t heard about that], you were skipping a lot of the news since at least 2004.
No, I take that back. The psychologists …
But if you have to “takeaway” anything about this issue from this torture report [other than the rectal feeding – I hadn’t heard about that], you were skipping a lot of the news since at least 2004.
No, I take that back. The psychologists …
Just as a point of curiosity – has there ever been a (political-ish) thread on ObWi that “sapient” has not turned into an opportunity to proclaim: We better support Obama, or else!?
Just as a point of curiosity – has there ever been a (political-ish) thread on ObWi that “sapient” has not turned into an opportunity to proclaim: We better support Obama, or else!?
Just as a point of curiosity – has there ever been a (political-ish) thread on ObWi that “sapient” has not turned into an opportunity to proclaim: We better support Obama, or else!?
“dr ngo”
Could you explain why that’s a problem?
“dr ngo”
Could you explain why that’s a problem?
“dr ngo”
Could you explain why that’s a problem?
Oh, “dr ngo”, I guess it’s tedious, right hairshirthedonist?
Oh, “dr ngo”, I guess it’s tedious, right hairshirthedonist?
Oh, “dr ngo”, I guess it’s tedious, right hairshirthedonist?
Sapient, I’m not quite “young” by your recently-stated standards (i.e., lt 35), my “political awakening” happened in fall ’00/spring ’01, and my AD military service was ’10-’13. I’ve been following this crap since word of it started seeping out around the edges around a decade ago. And my impression at the time was that the degree to which we heard the programs were eventually scaled back was not at all due to Congressional pressure. Honestly, at the time there was very little clarity as to whether or how much it was being scaled back to a casual-but-interested observer. If you had asked me prior to Obama ordering it definitively shut down, I’d have said it was ongoing (and you may recall when you and I sparred post-“shutdown” about torture still being ongoing owing to things like the barbaric force-feeding regime at GITMO; if we don’t limit this to EIT, my insufferable ivory-tower self is still convinced we’re torturing) because there was no clear public documentation that it was done – at least not that I can recall. But historic impressions of one fallible observer to the side, the report (which I’ll admit I’m not done with yet; mea culpa) has only reinforced my impression that it was sunlight and not a changing of the Congressional guard that saw the program finally grind to a halt.
Sapient, I’m not quite “young” by your recently-stated standards (i.e., lt 35), my “political awakening” happened in fall ’00/spring ’01, and my AD military service was ’10-’13. I’ve been following this crap since word of it started seeping out around the edges around a decade ago. And my impression at the time was that the degree to which we heard the programs were eventually scaled back was not at all due to Congressional pressure. Honestly, at the time there was very little clarity as to whether or how much it was being scaled back to a casual-but-interested observer. If you had asked me prior to Obama ordering it definitively shut down, I’d have said it was ongoing (and you may recall when you and I sparred post-“shutdown” about torture still being ongoing owing to things like the barbaric force-feeding regime at GITMO; if we don’t limit this to EIT, my insufferable ivory-tower self is still convinced we’re torturing) because there was no clear public documentation that it was done – at least not that I can recall. But historic impressions of one fallible observer to the side, the report (which I’ll admit I’m not done with yet; mea culpa) has only reinforced my impression that it was sunlight and not a changing of the Congressional guard that saw the program finally grind to a halt.
Sapient, I’m not quite “young” by your recently-stated standards (i.e., lt 35), my “political awakening” happened in fall ’00/spring ’01, and my AD military service was ’10-’13. I’ve been following this crap since word of it started seeping out around the edges around a decade ago. And my impression at the time was that the degree to which we heard the programs were eventually scaled back was not at all due to Congressional pressure. Honestly, at the time there was very little clarity as to whether or how much it was being scaled back to a casual-but-interested observer. If you had asked me prior to Obama ordering it definitively shut down, I’d have said it was ongoing (and you may recall when you and I sparred post-“shutdown” about torture still being ongoing owing to things like the barbaric force-feeding regime at GITMO; if we don’t limit this to EIT, my insufferable ivory-tower self is still convinced we’re torturing) because there was no clear public documentation that it was done – at least not that I can recall. But historic impressions of one fallible observer to the side, the report (which I’ll admit I’m not done with yet; mea culpa) has only reinforced my impression that it was sunlight and not a changing of the Congressional guard that saw the program finally grind to a halt.
my impression that it was sunlight and not a changing of the Congressional guard that saw the program finally grind to a halt.
That’s fine – I respect that, and don’t agree. How’s the law school thing going, btw?
my impression that it was sunlight and not a changing of the Congressional guard that saw the program finally grind to a halt.
That’s fine – I respect that, and don’t agree. How’s the law school thing going, btw?
my impression that it was sunlight and not a changing of the Congressional guard that saw the program finally grind to a halt.
That’s fine – I respect that, and don’t agree. How’s the law school thing going, btw?
Meh, I’m still assembling my application packet, despite the fact that I should be long done with that. I’ve already missed almost all the early decision deadlines. So it’s going, but with much less alacrity than it should be. As long as I get it wrapped up in the next couple of weeks, though, it should only make it harder (though not impossible) to get aid, not to get admitted, and depending on what the VA eventually gets around to saying to my request for aid from them, that may or may not be a big deal.
Blah. I hate the school application process.
Meh, I’m still assembling my application packet, despite the fact that I should be long done with that. I’ve already missed almost all the early decision deadlines. So it’s going, but with much less alacrity than it should be. As long as I get it wrapped up in the next couple of weeks, though, it should only make it harder (though not impossible) to get aid, not to get admitted, and depending on what the VA eventually gets around to saying to my request for aid from them, that may or may not be a big deal.
Blah. I hate the school application process.
Meh, I’m still assembling my application packet, despite the fact that I should be long done with that. I’ve already missed almost all the early decision deadlines. So it’s going, but with much less alacrity than it should be. As long as I get it wrapped up in the next couple of weeks, though, it should only make it harder (though not impossible) to get aid, not to get admitted, and depending on what the VA eventually gets around to saying to my request for aid from them, that may or may not be a big deal.
Blah. I hate the school application process.
NV, I’m totally sending any positive vibes I have your way. Although, judging from the folks here, my good vibes might be jinxes. I’ll ask somebody else to do it.
russell, this is on you.
NV, I’m totally sending any positive vibes I have your way. Although, judging from the folks here, my good vibes might be jinxes. I’ll ask somebody else to do it.
russell, this is on you.
NV, I’m totally sending any positive vibes I have your way. Although, judging from the folks here, my good vibes might be jinxes. I’ll ask somebody else to do it.
russell, this is on you.
This is on all of us, I think.
Good luck, NV!
This is on all of us, I think.
Good luck, NV!
This is on all of us, I think.
Good luck, NV!
You’re a mensch, wj. And you deserve the best possible, NV!
You’re a mensch, wj. And you deserve the best possible, NV!
You’re a mensch, wj. And you deserve the best possible, NV!
“DJ, I hope you are right about convincing conservatives that torture is morally wrong, but I strongly suspect that it will require the real, immanent, threat of torture applied to conservatives to get them to change their position.”
It’s going to depend on the individual–I wouldn’t have high hopes for the kinds of people that post at Red State. I linked to an Erickson piece praising Cheney way upthread and read a few of the supporting comments. People like that have invested a lot in being complete assholes–I have no idea how someone like that could be reached. But not every cpmservative is like that. Also, from what I’ve read, the way to reach people on particular issues is not to attack their entire worldview, but to point out (in this case) that there are good conservative reasons why a conservative should oppose torture. Again, of course, the nastier Republicans might be unreachable, but that doesn’t mean everyone is.
Thanks to wj, thompson, and NV for the kind words. And good luck with your law school application process, NV.
“DJ, I hope you are right about convincing conservatives that torture is morally wrong, but I strongly suspect that it will require the real, immanent, threat of torture applied to conservatives to get them to change their position.”
It’s going to depend on the individual–I wouldn’t have high hopes for the kinds of people that post at Red State. I linked to an Erickson piece praising Cheney way upthread and read a few of the supporting comments. People like that have invested a lot in being complete assholes–I have no idea how someone like that could be reached. But not every cpmservative is like that. Also, from what I’ve read, the way to reach people on particular issues is not to attack their entire worldview, but to point out (in this case) that there are good conservative reasons why a conservative should oppose torture. Again, of course, the nastier Republicans might be unreachable, but that doesn’t mean everyone is.
Thanks to wj, thompson, and NV for the kind words. And good luck with your law school application process, NV.
“DJ, I hope you are right about convincing conservatives that torture is morally wrong, but I strongly suspect that it will require the real, immanent, threat of torture applied to conservatives to get them to change their position.”
It’s going to depend on the individual–I wouldn’t have high hopes for the kinds of people that post at Red State. I linked to an Erickson piece praising Cheney way upthread and read a few of the supporting comments. People like that have invested a lot in being complete assholes–I have no idea how someone like that could be reached. But not every cpmservative is like that. Also, from what I’ve read, the way to reach people on particular issues is not to attack their entire worldview, but to point out (in this case) that there are good conservative reasons why a conservative should oppose torture. Again, of course, the nastier Republicans might be unreachable, but that doesn’t mean everyone is.
Thanks to wj, thompson, and NV for the kind words. And good luck with your law school application process, NV.
Thanks all.
DJ, I know some conservatives who are very, very concerned about torture. Unfortunately, they’re conservative like e.g. wj is conservative: CINO according to partisan mainstream conservatism.
One reason I’d argue it’s perfectly acceptable to argue right here, right now for structural/cultural changes in the CIA despite Congress being Republican and thus in a position to sabotage any efforts to make meaningful changes and/or to make bad changes is pragmatic cynicism. Right now CIA reform is fodder for idle chatter on blogs. In the “real world”, it’s a non-idea. It’d likely be years (I’d say 5-10 at a minimum, and even that sounds desperately optimistic) before that could hope to dream of translating into enough of a meme to register in the political discourse. So I’m not too concerned about the current composition of Congress in re: this subject. Although that same cynicism says that this can’t be anything but idle blog chatter ever…
Thanks all.
DJ, I know some conservatives who are very, very concerned about torture. Unfortunately, they’re conservative like e.g. wj is conservative: CINO according to partisan mainstream conservatism.
One reason I’d argue it’s perfectly acceptable to argue right here, right now for structural/cultural changes in the CIA despite Congress being Republican and thus in a position to sabotage any efforts to make meaningful changes and/or to make bad changes is pragmatic cynicism. Right now CIA reform is fodder for idle chatter on blogs. In the “real world”, it’s a non-idea. It’d likely be years (I’d say 5-10 at a minimum, and even that sounds desperately optimistic) before that could hope to dream of translating into enough of a meme to register in the political discourse. So I’m not too concerned about the current composition of Congress in re: this subject. Although that same cynicism says that this can’t be anything but idle blog chatter ever…
Thanks all.
DJ, I know some conservatives who are very, very concerned about torture. Unfortunately, they’re conservative like e.g. wj is conservative: CINO according to partisan mainstream conservatism.
One reason I’d argue it’s perfectly acceptable to argue right here, right now for structural/cultural changes in the CIA despite Congress being Republican and thus in a position to sabotage any efforts to make meaningful changes and/or to make bad changes is pragmatic cynicism. Right now CIA reform is fodder for idle chatter on blogs. In the “real world”, it’s a non-idea. It’d likely be years (I’d say 5-10 at a minimum, and even that sounds desperately optimistic) before that could hope to dream of translating into enough of a meme to register in the political discourse. So I’m not too concerned about the current composition of Congress in re: this subject. Although that same cynicism says that this can’t be anything but idle blog chatter ever…
Oh, and Donald:
Completely off-topic and very much “old business”, but I finally got around to reading Children of the Sky two weeks ago. I really wanted to like it, but it was very disappointing. The best way I could describe my problems with it would be that just felt like very lazy writing as far as an awful lot of the plot advancement/resolution went. I don’t know if that matches up with the issues you had with it, but compared to its predecessors (which, again, I adored) it was a painful letdown for me.
Oh, and Donald:
Completely off-topic and very much “old business”, but I finally got around to reading Children of the Sky two weeks ago. I really wanted to like it, but it was very disappointing. The best way I could describe my problems with it would be that just felt like very lazy writing as far as an awful lot of the plot advancement/resolution went. I don’t know if that matches up with the issues you had with it, but compared to its predecessors (which, again, I adored) it was a painful letdown for me.
Oh, and Donald:
Completely off-topic and very much “old business”, but I finally got around to reading Children of the Sky two weeks ago. I really wanted to like it, but it was very disappointing. The best way I could describe my problems with it would be that just felt like very lazy writing as far as an awful lot of the plot advancement/resolution went. I don’t know if that matches up with the issues you had with it, but compared to its predecessors (which, again, I adored) it was a painful letdown for me.
NV, just remember this, when you are dispairing at how long change is likely to take. 20 years ago, anybody with any sense figured it would be 50 years minimum before gay marriage was even a serious discussion. Never mind actually happening.
And yet here we are today, with most of the population living in states where it is already legal. And the overwhelming majority of the under 40 population not even seeing why it should be an issue. Who’d a thunk it?
So maybe, just maybe, we’ll see change sooner than you might believe possible. Here’s hoping.
NV, just remember this, when you are dispairing at how long change is likely to take. 20 years ago, anybody with any sense figured it would be 50 years minimum before gay marriage was even a serious discussion. Never mind actually happening.
And yet here we are today, with most of the population living in states where it is already legal. And the overwhelming majority of the under 40 population not even seeing why it should be an issue. Who’d a thunk it?
So maybe, just maybe, we’ll see change sooner than you might believe possible. Here’s hoping.
NV, just remember this, when you are dispairing at how long change is likely to take. 20 years ago, anybody with any sense figured it would be 50 years minimum before gay marriage was even a serious discussion. Never mind actually happening.
And yet here we are today, with most of the population living in states where it is already legal. And the overwhelming majority of the under 40 population not even seeing why it should be an issue. Who’d a thunk it?
So maybe, just maybe, we’ll see change sooner than you might believe possible. Here’s hoping.
wj: The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs.
One-party control of the government gave us Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA. Bipartisanship gave us the Iraq War, but also (to be fair) the Marshall Plan. I’d put the non-prosecution of torturers and banksters into the bipartisan fruit basket, myself, but I suspect some would object.
By and large, I’d say one-particular-party government has a better track record than even split-party government does.
–TP
wj: The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs.
One-party control of the government gave us Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA. Bipartisanship gave us the Iraq War, but also (to be fair) the Marshall Plan. I’d put the non-prosecution of torturers and banksters into the bipartisan fruit basket, myself, but I suspect some would object.
By and large, I’d say one-particular-party government has a better track record than even split-party government does.
–TP
wj: The country doesn’t work well when only one party governs.
One-party control of the government gave us Social Security, Medicare, and the ACA. Bipartisanship gave us the Iraq War, but also (to be fair) the Marshall Plan. I’d put the non-prosecution of torturers and banksters into the bipartisan fruit basket, myself, but I suspect some would object.
By and large, I’d say one-particular-party government has a better track record than even split-party government does.
–TP
Tony, I would distinguish between one party temporarily in control of the government, and a situation where one party is in control of the government because there simply is no other viable party. Which (non-viable) is where my party seems determined to go. Unless we can figure out how to wrest control back fromthe crazies.
Not, in case anyone asks, that I think every body in the party has to agree with me. (Though, of course, if they were sensible they naturally would. 😉 But there is a difference between even serious disagreement on policy and simple refusal to face reality. Which is the direction we are charging.
Tony, I would distinguish between one party temporarily in control of the government, and a situation where one party is in control of the government because there simply is no other viable party. Which (non-viable) is where my party seems determined to go. Unless we can figure out how to wrest control back fromthe crazies.
Not, in case anyone asks, that I think every body in the party has to agree with me. (Though, of course, if they were sensible they naturally would. 😉 But there is a difference between even serious disagreement on policy and simple refusal to face reality. Which is the direction we are charging.
Tony, I would distinguish between one party temporarily in control of the government, and a situation where one party is in control of the government because there simply is no other viable party. Which (non-viable) is where my party seems determined to go. Unless we can figure out how to wrest control back fromthe crazies.
Not, in case anyone asks, that I think every body in the party has to agree with me. (Though, of course, if they were sensible they naturally would. 😉 But there is a difference between even serious disagreement on policy and simple refusal to face reality. Which is the direction we are charging.
P.S. What you term “divided government” also gave us the Interstate Highway System and the beginnings of the space program. Among many other things.
P.S. What you term “divided government” also gave us the Interstate Highway System and the beginnings of the space program. Among many other things.
P.S. What you term “divided government” also gave us the Interstate Highway System and the beginnings of the space program. Among many other things.
This is astonishing, and not in a good way. It also goes some way to explaining just why the fight over the Senate report took quite so long.
Jane Mayer is one of the reporters who have covered the torture story from the beginning; read the whole thing.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture
The NBC News investigative reporter Matthew Cole has pieced together a remarkable story revealing that a single senior officer, who is still in a position of high authority over counterterrorism at the C.I.A.—a woman who he does not name—appears to have been a source of years’ worth of terrible judgment, with tragic consequences for the United States. Her story runs through the entire report. She dropped the ball when the C.I.A. was given information that might very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks; she gleefully participated in torture sessions afterward; she misinterpreted intelligence in such a way that it sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana. And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.
Had the Senate Intelligence Committee been permitted to use pseudonyms for the central characters in its report, as all previous congressional studies of intelligence failures, including the widely heralded Church Committee report in 1975, have done, it might not have taken a painstaking, and still somewhat cryptic, investigation after the fact in order for the American public to hold this senior official accountable. Many people who have worked with her over the years expressed shock to NBC that she has been entrusted with so much power. A former intelligence officer who worked directly with her is quoted by NBC, on background, as saying that she bears so much responsibility for so many intelligence failures that “she should be put on trial and put in jail for what she has done.”
Instead, however, she has been promoted to the rank of a general in the military, most recently working as the head of the C.I.A.’s global-jihad unit. In that perch, she oversees the targeting of terror suspects around the world. (She was also, in part, the model for the lead character in “Zero Dark Thirty.”)
According to sources in the law-enforcement community who I have interviewed over the years, and who I spoke to again this week, this woman—whose name the C.I.A. has asked the news media to withhold—had supervision over an underling at the agency who failed to share with the F.B.I. the news that two of the future 9/11 hijackers had entered the United States prior to the terrorist attacks.
This is astonishing, and not in a good way. It also goes some way to explaining just why the fight over the Senate report took quite so long.
Jane Mayer is one of the reporters who have covered the torture story from the beginning; read the whole thing.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture
The NBC News investigative reporter Matthew Cole has pieced together a remarkable story revealing that a single senior officer, who is still in a position of high authority over counterterrorism at the C.I.A.—a woman who he does not name—appears to have been a source of years’ worth of terrible judgment, with tragic consequences for the United States. Her story runs through the entire report. She dropped the ball when the C.I.A. was given information that might very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks; she gleefully participated in torture sessions afterward; she misinterpreted intelligence in such a way that it sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana. And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.
Had the Senate Intelligence Committee been permitted to use pseudonyms for the central characters in its report, as all previous congressional studies of intelligence failures, including the widely heralded Church Committee report in 1975, have done, it might not have taken a painstaking, and still somewhat cryptic, investigation after the fact in order for the American public to hold this senior official accountable. Many people who have worked with her over the years expressed shock to NBC that she has been entrusted with so much power. A former intelligence officer who worked directly with her is quoted by NBC, on background, as saying that she bears so much responsibility for so many intelligence failures that “she should be put on trial and put in jail for what she has done.”
Instead, however, she has been promoted to the rank of a general in the military, most recently working as the head of the C.I.A.’s global-jihad unit. In that perch, she oversees the targeting of terror suspects around the world. (She was also, in part, the model for the lead character in “Zero Dark Thirty.”)
According to sources in the law-enforcement community who I have interviewed over the years, and who I spoke to again this week, this woman—whose name the C.I.A. has asked the news media to withhold—had supervision over an underling at the agency who failed to share with the F.B.I. the news that two of the future 9/11 hijackers had entered the United States prior to the terrorist attacks.
This is astonishing, and not in a good way. It also goes some way to explaining just why the fight over the Senate report took quite so long.
Jane Mayer is one of the reporters who have covered the torture story from the beginning; read the whole thing.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/unidentified-queen-torture
The NBC News investigative reporter Matthew Cole has pieced together a remarkable story revealing that a single senior officer, who is still in a position of high authority over counterterrorism at the C.I.A.—a woman who he does not name—appears to have been a source of years’ worth of terrible judgment, with tragic consequences for the United States. Her story runs through the entire report. She dropped the ball when the C.I.A. was given information that might very well have prevented the 9/11 attacks; she gleefully participated in torture sessions afterward; she misinterpreted intelligence in such a way that it sent the C.I.A. on an absurd chase for Al Qaeda sleeper cells in Montana. And then she falsely told congressional overseers that the torture worked.
Had the Senate Intelligence Committee been permitted to use pseudonyms for the central characters in its report, as all previous congressional studies of intelligence failures, including the widely heralded Church Committee report in 1975, have done, it might not have taken a painstaking, and still somewhat cryptic, investigation after the fact in order for the American public to hold this senior official accountable. Many people who have worked with her over the years expressed shock to NBC that she has been entrusted with so much power. A former intelligence officer who worked directly with her is quoted by NBC, on background, as saying that she bears so much responsibility for so many intelligence failures that “she should be put on trial and put in jail for what she has done.”
Instead, however, she has been promoted to the rank of a general in the military, most recently working as the head of the C.I.A.’s global-jihad unit. In that perch, she oversees the targeting of terror suspects around the world. (She was also, in part, the model for the lead character in “Zero Dark Thirty.”)
According to sources in the law-enforcement community who I have interviewed over the years, and who I spoke to again this week, this woman—whose name the C.I.A. has asked the news media to withhold—had supervision over an underling at the agency who failed to share with the F.B.I. the news that two of the future 9/11 hijackers had entered the United States prior to the terrorist attacks.
” And to have two parties switch back and forth, both have to be tolerable. Which, at the current time, means that drastic changes need to be made in the Republican Party.”
There’s a certain air of unreality about that statement, in light of the recent elections. Which party lost seats again?
I think the problem with that statement is that the term “tolerable” carries a gloss of being some kind of objective status, when it really has no meaning apart from the particular people doing the tolerating.
I’ve no doubt that the Republican party would need drastic changes to be tolerable to a liberal Democrat, just as the Democratic party would need huge changes to be tolerable to a conservative Republican. The wide center barely tolerates either party, and keeps swinging back and forth because each, in power, makes fresh the memory of why it is so objectionable, while memories about what is wrong with the other fades.
What we really need is to escape this two party trap, but not permitting that is one thing Democrats and Republicans have no trouble cooperating on.
” And to have two parties switch back and forth, both have to be tolerable. Which, at the current time, means that drastic changes need to be made in the Republican Party.”
There’s a certain air of unreality about that statement, in light of the recent elections. Which party lost seats again?
I think the problem with that statement is that the term “tolerable” carries a gloss of being some kind of objective status, when it really has no meaning apart from the particular people doing the tolerating.
I’ve no doubt that the Republican party would need drastic changes to be tolerable to a liberal Democrat, just as the Democratic party would need huge changes to be tolerable to a conservative Republican. The wide center barely tolerates either party, and keeps swinging back and forth because each, in power, makes fresh the memory of why it is so objectionable, while memories about what is wrong with the other fades.
What we really need is to escape this two party trap, but not permitting that is one thing Democrats and Republicans have no trouble cooperating on.
” And to have two parties switch back and forth, both have to be tolerable. Which, at the current time, means that drastic changes need to be made in the Republican Party.”
There’s a certain air of unreality about that statement, in light of the recent elections. Which party lost seats again?
I think the problem with that statement is that the term “tolerable” carries a gloss of being some kind of objective status, when it really has no meaning apart from the particular people doing the tolerating.
I’ve no doubt that the Republican party would need drastic changes to be tolerable to a liberal Democrat, just as the Democratic party would need huge changes to be tolerable to a conservative Republican. The wide center barely tolerates either party, and keeps swinging back and forth because each, in power, makes fresh the memory of why it is so objectionable, while memories about what is wrong with the other fades.
What we really need is to escape this two party trap, but not permitting that is one thing Democrats and Republicans have no trouble cooperating on.
We could agree on that the average party member of both parties would appreciate a significant change in the behaviour of their nominal and/or real party leadership.
Where we will likely disagree forever (at least in the details and reasons) is that I (and I think a majority here) consider the GOP far more off the plane of reality and acceptable behaviour (in decent society) than the Dems and you consider them to be either equal or the Dems being worse.
As has been said so often, the Dems would be considered a center-right party (with some corruption issues) in most civilized countries while the (current) GOP/TP could not exist as a single party at all (but as one ultra-corrupt very conservative and one extremist lunatic one distinct from the former). But the US is also probably the only country where Otto von Bismarck is mistaken for (or presented as) the founder of the Communist Party on a regular base.
We could agree on that the average party member of both parties would appreciate a significant change in the behaviour of their nominal and/or real party leadership.
Where we will likely disagree forever (at least in the details and reasons) is that I (and I think a majority here) consider the GOP far more off the plane of reality and acceptable behaviour (in decent society) than the Dems and you consider them to be either equal or the Dems being worse.
As has been said so often, the Dems would be considered a center-right party (with some corruption issues) in most civilized countries while the (current) GOP/TP could not exist as a single party at all (but as one ultra-corrupt very conservative and one extremist lunatic one distinct from the former). But the US is also probably the only country where Otto von Bismarck is mistaken for (or presented as) the founder of the Communist Party on a regular base.
We could agree on that the average party member of both parties would appreciate a significant change in the behaviour of their nominal and/or real party leadership.
Where we will likely disagree forever (at least in the details and reasons) is that I (and I think a majority here) consider the GOP far more off the plane of reality and acceptable behaviour (in decent society) than the Dems and you consider them to be either equal or the Dems being worse.
As has been said so often, the Dems would be considered a center-right party (with some corruption issues) in most civilized countries while the (current) GOP/TP could not exist as a single party at all (but as one ultra-corrupt very conservative and one extremist lunatic one distinct from the former). But the US is also probably the only country where Otto von Bismarck is mistaken for (or presented as) the founder of the Communist Party on a regular base.
Well, OF COURSE a majority here consider the Republicans to be worse. This is a left-wing site. That’s about like asking, “Which party do Democrats think is worse, the Democratic or Republican party?”
The fact remains, that the Republican party is being portrayed as somehow less “tolerable” than the Democratic, after an election in which it gained seats in the House, (The Democratic party has not been this weak in the house in living memory.) and took control of the Senate, and controls most state governments. Which leads me to think “tolerable” is being used in a somewhat idiosyncratic sense.
Well, OF COURSE a majority here consider the Republicans to be worse. This is a left-wing site. That’s about like asking, “Which party do Democrats think is worse, the Democratic or Republican party?”
The fact remains, that the Republican party is being portrayed as somehow less “tolerable” than the Democratic, after an election in which it gained seats in the House, (The Democratic party has not been this weak in the house in living memory.) and took control of the Senate, and controls most state governments. Which leads me to think “tolerable” is being used in a somewhat idiosyncratic sense.
Well, OF COURSE a majority here consider the Republicans to be worse. This is a left-wing site. That’s about like asking, “Which party do Democrats think is worse, the Democratic or Republican party?”
The fact remains, that the Republican party is being portrayed as somehow less “tolerable” than the Democratic, after an election in which it gained seats in the House, (The Democratic party has not been this weak in the house in living memory.) and took control of the Senate, and controls most state governments. Which leads me to think “tolerable” is being used in a somewhat idiosyncratic sense.
popular => tolerable is false
That said, I agree that definitions for tolerable vary with the eye of the beholder.
popular => tolerable is false
That said, I agree that definitions for tolerable vary with the eye of the beholder.
popular => tolerable is false
That said, I agree that definitions for tolerable vary with the eye of the beholder.
“popular => tolerable is false”
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable? That people like it, but can’t tolerate it?
No, I think the proposition that popular isn’t a subset of tolerable is contested at best. In fact, I’d like to see a defense of it that doesn’t rely on making “tolerable” NOT be in the eye of the beholder.
“popular => tolerable is false”
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable? That people like it, but can’t tolerate it?
No, I think the proposition that popular isn’t a subset of tolerable is contested at best. In fact, I’d like to see a defense of it that doesn’t rely on making “tolerable” NOT be in the eye of the beholder.
“popular => tolerable is false”
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable? That people like it, but can’t tolerate it?
No, I think the proposition that popular isn’t a subset of tolerable is contested at best. In fact, I’d like to see a defense of it that doesn’t rely on making “tolerable” NOT be in the eye of the beholder.
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable? That people like it, but can’t tolerate it?
You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable ?
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable? That people like it, but can’t tolerate it?
You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable ?
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable? That people like it, but can’t tolerate it?
You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable ?
I’d say, given their way, Republican office-holders would turn this country into a quasi-theocratic oligarchy (well, more of an oligarchy than it already is), which would, over time, come to resemble a Third World nation of sorts. So American socieity, as we know it, cannot tolerate the GOP in it’s current form were it to be fully in charge.
Forget the rest of the civilized world being able to tolerate that America.
I’d say, given their way, Republican office-holders would turn this country into a quasi-theocratic oligarchy (well, more of an oligarchy than it already is), which would, over time, come to resemble a Third World nation of sorts. So American socieity, as we know it, cannot tolerate the GOP in it’s current form were it to be fully in charge.
Forget the rest of the civilized world being able to tolerate that America.
I’d say, given their way, Republican office-holders would turn this country into a quasi-theocratic oligarchy (well, more of an oligarchy than it already is), which would, over time, come to resemble a Third World nation of sorts. So American socieity, as we know it, cannot tolerate the GOP in it’s current form were it to be fully in charge.
Forget the rest of the civilized world being able to tolerate that America.
I’d like to apologize for this sentence (not its intended meaning, just its form):
So American socieity, as we know it, cannot tolerate the GOP in it’s current form were it to be fully in charge.
I’d like to apologize for this sentence (not its intended meaning, just its form):
So American socieity, as we know it, cannot tolerate the GOP in it’s current form were it to be fully in charge.
I’d like to apologize for this sentence (not its intended meaning, just its form):
So American socieity, as we know it, cannot tolerate the GOP in it’s current form were it to be fully in charge.
“You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable ?”
Absolutely there’s such a difference, and by THAT standard, the Democratic party is no more ‘tolerable’ than the Republican. Or are you maybe under the impression that conservatives find the Democratic party any more tolerable?
My point was that identifying the party that just won control of the government in a free election as not “tolerable”, without qualification, is rather silly. It’s projecting liberal Democratic attitudes on the general population.
Neither major party is particularly popular at the moment. Both are “tolerable” to a majority of the population, and the people who find either of them “intolerable” are generally to be found among the supporters of the opposing party.
“You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable ?”
Absolutely there’s such a difference, and by THAT standard, the Democratic party is no more ‘tolerable’ than the Republican. Or are you maybe under the impression that conservatives find the Democratic party any more tolerable?
My point was that identifying the party that just won control of the government in a free election as not “tolerable”, without qualification, is rather silly. It’s projecting liberal Democratic attitudes on the general population.
Neither major party is particularly popular at the moment. Both are “tolerable” to a majority of the population, and the people who find either of them “intolerable” are generally to be found among the supporters of the opposing party.
“You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable ?”
Absolutely there’s such a difference, and by THAT standard, the Democratic party is no more ‘tolerable’ than the Republican. Or are you maybe under the impression that conservatives find the Democratic party any more tolerable?
My point was that identifying the party that just won control of the government in a free election as not “tolerable”, without qualification, is rather silly. It’s projecting liberal Democratic attitudes on the general population.
Neither major party is particularly popular at the moment. Both are “tolerable” to a majority of the population, and the people who find either of them “intolerable” are generally to be found among the supporters of the opposing party.
There’s a certain air of unreality about that statement, in light of the recent elections. Which party lost seats again?
Brett, look at it a couple of different ways. First, I haven’t seen the final results for 2014. But the preliminary results I saw suggest that it had the same feature as the 2012 election: total popular vote for Congress was higher for the Democratic candidates than for the Republican candidates. The Republicans came out with more seats, but we didn’t get more votes.
Second, if you look just at the votes in Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate has gotten more total votes nationwide than the Republican candidate in 5 of the last 6 elections. (The exception being 2004.)
More total votes nationwide doesn’t necessarily translate into winning the elections. Even given a total absence of gerrymandering. But losing both sets of total votes that consistently doesn’t really look like great popular success either.
And when you then look at the demographic trends, and compare how the parties do in growing vs shrinking groups? It sure looks to me like the GOP needs to be thinking seriously about making some changes. Not that we will, necessarily, lose the House before the 2010 census. But changes, especially when you are having to change people’s perceptions of your party, take time.
There’s a certain air of unreality about that statement, in light of the recent elections. Which party lost seats again?
Brett, look at it a couple of different ways. First, I haven’t seen the final results for 2014. But the preliminary results I saw suggest that it had the same feature as the 2012 election: total popular vote for Congress was higher for the Democratic candidates than for the Republican candidates. The Republicans came out with more seats, but we didn’t get more votes.
Second, if you look just at the votes in Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate has gotten more total votes nationwide than the Republican candidate in 5 of the last 6 elections. (The exception being 2004.)
More total votes nationwide doesn’t necessarily translate into winning the elections. Even given a total absence of gerrymandering. But losing both sets of total votes that consistently doesn’t really look like great popular success either.
And when you then look at the demographic trends, and compare how the parties do in growing vs shrinking groups? It sure looks to me like the GOP needs to be thinking seriously about making some changes. Not that we will, necessarily, lose the House before the 2010 census. But changes, especially when you are having to change people’s perceptions of your party, take time.
There’s a certain air of unreality about that statement, in light of the recent elections. Which party lost seats again?
Brett, look at it a couple of different ways. First, I haven’t seen the final results for 2014. But the preliminary results I saw suggest that it had the same feature as the 2012 election: total popular vote for Congress was higher for the Democratic candidates than for the Republican candidates. The Republicans came out with more seats, but we didn’t get more votes.
Second, if you look just at the votes in Presidential elections, the Democratic candidate has gotten more total votes nationwide than the Republican candidate in 5 of the last 6 elections. (The exception being 2004.)
More total votes nationwide doesn’t necessarily translate into winning the elections. Even given a total absence of gerrymandering. But losing both sets of total votes that consistently doesn’t really look like great popular success either.
And when you then look at the demographic trends, and compare how the parties do in growing vs shrinking groups? It sure looks to me like the GOP needs to be thinking seriously about making some changes. Not that we will, necessarily, lose the House before the 2010 census. But changes, especially when you are having to change people’s perceptions of your party, take time.
“But losing both sets of total votes that consistently doesn’t really look like great popular success either.”
The Democratic party would doubtless do much better, were it not that being insanely popular in some places, and mildly unpopular everywhere else, does not translate into a majority of the votes in our sort of election system. But the numbers do not support the idea that the GOP is uniquely intolerable.
According to the demographic destiny argument, the GOP should have been a decade in its grave by now. Somehow it just isn’t working out that way.
“But losing both sets of total votes that consistently doesn’t really look like great popular success either.”
The Democratic party would doubtless do much better, were it not that being insanely popular in some places, and mildly unpopular everywhere else, does not translate into a majority of the votes in our sort of election system. But the numbers do not support the idea that the GOP is uniquely intolerable.
According to the demographic destiny argument, the GOP should have been a decade in its grave by now. Somehow it just isn’t working out that way.
“But losing both sets of total votes that consistently doesn’t really look like great popular success either.”
The Democratic party would doubtless do much better, were it not that being insanely popular in some places, and mildly unpopular everywhere else, does not translate into a majority of the votes in our sort of election system. But the numbers do not support the idea that the GOP is uniquely intolerable.
According to the demographic destiny argument, the GOP should have been a decade in its grave by now. Somehow it just isn’t working out that way.
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable?
No, I’m saying that “popular” doesn’t per se imply “tolerable”.
Perhaps a clearer definition of “tolerable” is needed.
In any case, the list of things that lots of people like quite a lot, but which they may find difficult to tolerate in more than trivial amounts or even at all, is pretty long.
McDonalds burgers are demonstrably popular, but they’ll kill you if you try to live on them.
It remains to be seen how we will all tolerate a steady diet of (R) governance, regardless of how popular it is.
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable?
No, I’m saying that “popular” doesn’t per se imply “tolerable”.
Perhaps a clearer definition of “tolerable” is needed.
In any case, the list of things that lots of people like quite a lot, but which they may find difficult to tolerate in more than trivial amounts or even at all, is pretty long.
McDonalds burgers are demonstrably popular, but they’ll kill you if you try to live on them.
It remains to be seen how we will all tolerate a steady diet of (R) governance, regardless of how popular it is.
You’re saying that the GOP is popular but intolerable?
No, I’m saying that “popular” doesn’t per se imply “tolerable”.
Perhaps a clearer definition of “tolerable” is needed.
In any case, the list of things that lots of people like quite a lot, but which they may find difficult to tolerate in more than trivial amounts or even at all, is pretty long.
McDonalds burgers are demonstrably popular, but they’ll kill you if you try to live on them.
It remains to be seen how we will all tolerate a steady diet of (R) governance, regardless of how popular it is.
Both are “tolerable” to a majority of the population
of the US.
😉
Both are “tolerable” to a majority of the population
of the US.
😉
Both are “tolerable” to a majority of the population
of the US.
😉
Now Nigel, you and Hartmut must surely have noticed by now that Americans, even those of us who are aware of something of what is happening in the rest of the world, almost never stop and consider the opinions of those living there.
Now Nigel, you and Hartmut must surely have noticed by now that Americans, even those of us who are aware of something of what is happening in the rest of the world, almost never stop and consider the opinions of those living there.
Now Nigel, you and Hartmut must surely have noticed by now that Americans, even those of us who are aware of something of what is happening in the rest of the world, almost never stop and consider the opinions of those living there.
NV–On “Children of the Sky”, I’ve forgotten whatever I said here, but my reaction matched yours. I loved the other two books in that series (loosely defined, since the previous two occur tens of thousands of years apart and have one character in common), but the third was a huge letdown. At best it appears to be setting the stage for a fourth volume, with characters lined up to be on the opposite side, but as a story in itself it was dreary. I’ve had no inclination to reread it. (It was probably also one of the last SF books I will ever buy in cellulose form and one of the only I bought as a hardback.)
NV–On “Children of the Sky”, I’ve forgotten whatever I said here, but my reaction matched yours. I loved the other two books in that series (loosely defined, since the previous two occur tens of thousands of years apart and have one character in common), but the third was a huge letdown. At best it appears to be setting the stage for a fourth volume, with characters lined up to be on the opposite side, but as a story in itself it was dreary. I’ve had no inclination to reread it. (It was probably also one of the last SF books I will ever buy in cellulose form and one of the only I bought as a hardback.)
NV–On “Children of the Sky”, I’ve forgotten whatever I said here, but my reaction matched yours. I loved the other two books in that series (loosely defined, since the previous two occur tens of thousands of years apart and have one character in common), but the third was a huge letdown. At best it appears to be setting the stage for a fourth volume, with characters lined up to be on the opposite side, but as a story in itself it was dreary. I’ve had no inclination to reread it. (It was probably also one of the last SF books I will ever buy in cellulose form and one of the only I bought as a hardback.)
“characters lined up to be on opposite sides, where one will be tragically misguided and wrong” is what I should have said.
Incidentally, there is something deeply disturbing about the end of “A Fire Upon the Deep”. Uncounted trillions (probably vastly more) sentients wiped out, even if it is the lesser of two evils. But one would think it would be a bit more disturbing for the one character who understood what happened (Ravna). Maybe the fourth book will go into that issue.
“characters lined up to be on opposite sides, where one will be tragically misguided and wrong” is what I should have said.
Incidentally, there is something deeply disturbing about the end of “A Fire Upon the Deep”. Uncounted trillions (probably vastly more) sentients wiped out, even if it is the lesser of two evils. But one would think it would be a bit more disturbing for the one character who understood what happened (Ravna). Maybe the fourth book will go into that issue.
“characters lined up to be on opposite sides, where one will be tragically misguided and wrong” is what I should have said.
Incidentally, there is something deeply disturbing about the end of “A Fire Upon the Deep”. Uncounted trillions (probably vastly more) sentients wiped out, even if it is the lesser of two evils. But one would think it would be a bit more disturbing for the one character who understood what happened (Ravna). Maybe the fourth book will go into that issue.
Um, assuming there is a fourth one. But Vinge seems to be setting one up.
Um, assuming there is a fourth one. But Vinge seems to be setting one up.
Um, assuming there is a fourth one. But Vinge seems to be setting one up.
Back on topic–I just read Nigel’s link. Yet another reason for dissolving the CIA.
Incidentally, why should the media comply with the CIA’s request not to name this person?
Back on topic–I just read Nigel’s link. Yet another reason for dissolving the CIA.
Incidentally, why should the media comply with the CIA’s request not to name this person?
Back on topic–I just read Nigel’s link. Yet another reason for dissolving the CIA.
Incidentally, why should the media comply with the CIA’s request not to name this person?
why should the media comply with the CIA’s request not to name this person?
Because it might get her killed.
why should the media comply with the CIA’s request not to name this person?
Because it might get her killed.
why should the media comply with the CIA’s request not to name this person?
Because it might get her killed.
russell, who would kill her?
It’s not like someone who has reached the rank of general is off doing undercover work in foreign countries. And obviously it wouldn’t increase her risk of criminal prosecution here to have her name known. So who would threaten her — especially for being, on this account, a major screw-up in our intelligence operation?
russell, who would kill her?
It’s not like someone who has reached the rank of general is off doing undercover work in foreign countries. And obviously it wouldn’t increase her risk of criminal prosecution here to have her name known. So who would threaten her — especially for being, on this account, a major screw-up in our intelligence operation?
russell, who would kill her?
It’s not like someone who has reached the rank of general is off doing undercover work in foreign countries. And obviously it wouldn’t increase her risk of criminal prosecution here to have her name known. So who would threaten her — especially for being, on this account, a major screw-up in our intelligence operation?
russell, who would kill her?
I’m sure the list of folks who would like to see her dead is pretty long. The killing of CIA personnel here in the US is not without precedent.
Add to that the potential for (a) harassment and (b) prosecution.
I’m not a fan of any these people, but I can understand why their names would be redacted in the report, and why public media would be hesitant to name them. I am frankly surprised they named Mitchell and Jessen.
russell, who would kill her?
I’m sure the list of folks who would like to see her dead is pretty long. The killing of CIA personnel here in the US is not without precedent.
Add to that the potential for (a) harassment and (b) prosecution.
I’m not a fan of any these people, but I can understand why their names would be redacted in the report, and why public media would be hesitant to name them. I am frankly surprised they named Mitchell and Jessen.
russell, who would kill her?
I’m sure the list of folks who would like to see her dead is pretty long. The killing of CIA personnel here in the US is not without precedent.
Add to that the potential for (a) harassment and (b) prosecution.
I’m not a fan of any these people, but I can understand why their names would be redacted in the report, and why public media would be hesitant to name them. I am frankly surprised they named Mitchell and Jessen.
No doubt there is a long list of people who would like to see the people running the CIA dead. And their names are a matter of public record. So I’m not sure how real that concern is.
As for the risk of prosecution, no way that changes by having her name published. After all, the executive branch is already quite aware of who she is.
No doubt there is a long list of people who would like to see the people running the CIA dead. And their names are a matter of public record. So I’m not sure how real that concern is.
As for the risk of prosecution, no way that changes by having her name published. After all, the executive branch is already quite aware of who she is.
No doubt there is a long list of people who would like to see the people running the CIA dead. And their names are a matter of public record. So I’m not sure how real that concern is.
As for the risk of prosecution, no way that changes by having her name published. After all, the executive branch is already quite aware of who she is.
As for the risk of prosecution, no way that changes by having her name published. After all, the executive branch is already quite aware of who she is.
Torture is an international crime. The US DOJ is not her only worry.
As noted above, I’m not advocating that she be shielded from any and all consequences of her actions. What I’m saying is that I can understand why both the Senate committee and the media would be inclined to not publish her name.
Also as noted above, I’m surprised the names that were disclosed, were disclosed.
As for the risk of prosecution, no way that changes by having her name published. After all, the executive branch is already quite aware of who she is.
Torture is an international crime. The US DOJ is not her only worry.
As noted above, I’m not advocating that she be shielded from any and all consequences of her actions. What I’m saying is that I can understand why both the Senate committee and the media would be inclined to not publish her name.
Also as noted above, I’m surprised the names that were disclosed, were disclosed.
As for the risk of prosecution, no way that changes by having her name published. After all, the executive branch is already quite aware of who she is.
Torture is an international crime. The US DOJ is not her only worry.
As noted above, I’m not advocating that she be shielded from any and all consequences of her actions. What I’m saying is that I can understand why both the Senate committee and the media would be inclined to not publish her name.
Also as noted above, I’m surprised the names that were disclosed, were disclosed.
I’ve forgotten whatever I said here
Not much, to avoid spoiling it for me. :p
It was probably also one of the last SF books I will ever buy in cellulose form and one of the only I bought as a hardback.
I haven’t bought one in any form in a very long time. Excellent local libraries have spoiled me since my early childhood. I’m such a taker.
Incidentally, there is something deeply disturbing about the end of “A Fire Upon the Deep”. Uncounted trillions (probably vastly more) sentients wiped out, even if it is the lesser of two evils. But one would think it would be a bit more disturbing for the one character who understood what happened (Ravna).
The third book touched on it, albeit superficially. It was one of the original claims behind the formation of the Disaster Study Group (the human antagonists), though they also were expressing skepticism as to whether anything at all happened, and even moreso were shown as not being willing to blame their parents for precipitating the disaster. Ravna was portrayed as thinking the evil was necessary because the greater evil had already subverted/enslaved/killed billions and would have done likewise to the rest of the higher zones if not stopped, and on that basis she had fully and unquestioningly rationalized it.
But yeah, I don’t look forward to the crudely-telegraphed presumably-forthcoming sequel…
I’ve forgotten whatever I said here
Not much, to avoid spoiling it for me. :p
It was probably also one of the last SF books I will ever buy in cellulose form and one of the only I bought as a hardback.
I haven’t bought one in any form in a very long time. Excellent local libraries have spoiled me since my early childhood. I’m such a taker.
Incidentally, there is something deeply disturbing about the end of “A Fire Upon the Deep”. Uncounted trillions (probably vastly more) sentients wiped out, even if it is the lesser of two evils. But one would think it would be a bit more disturbing for the one character who understood what happened (Ravna).
The third book touched on it, albeit superficially. It was one of the original claims behind the formation of the Disaster Study Group (the human antagonists), though they also were expressing skepticism as to whether anything at all happened, and even moreso were shown as not being willing to blame their parents for precipitating the disaster. Ravna was portrayed as thinking the evil was necessary because the greater evil had already subverted/enslaved/killed billions and would have done likewise to the rest of the higher zones if not stopped, and on that basis she had fully and unquestioningly rationalized it.
But yeah, I don’t look forward to the crudely-telegraphed presumably-forthcoming sequel…
I’ve forgotten whatever I said here
Not much, to avoid spoiling it for me. :p
It was probably also one of the last SF books I will ever buy in cellulose form and one of the only I bought as a hardback.
I haven’t bought one in any form in a very long time. Excellent local libraries have spoiled me since my early childhood. I’m such a taker.
Incidentally, there is something deeply disturbing about the end of “A Fire Upon the Deep”. Uncounted trillions (probably vastly more) sentients wiped out, even if it is the lesser of two evils. But one would think it would be a bit more disturbing for the one character who understood what happened (Ravna).
The third book touched on it, albeit superficially. It was one of the original claims behind the formation of the Disaster Study Group (the human antagonists), though they also were expressing skepticism as to whether anything at all happened, and even moreso were shown as not being willing to blame their parents for precipitating the disaster. Ravna was portrayed as thinking the evil was necessary because the greater evil had already subverted/enslaved/killed billions and would have done likewise to the rest of the higher zones if not stopped, and on that basis she had fully and unquestioningly rationalized it.
But yeah, I don’t look forward to the crudely-telegraphed presumably-forthcoming sequel…
I can understand why their names would be redacted in the report
You’re missing the point.
It’s not that her name was redacted; it’s that the CIA denied the use of consistent pseudonyms, so that it would be difficult to demonstrate consistent wrongdoing by a particular, unnamed individual.
I’m sure you can see why that’s a problem.
I can understand why their names would be redacted in the report
You’re missing the point.
It’s not that her name was redacted; it’s that the CIA denied the use of consistent pseudonyms, so that it would be difficult to demonstrate consistent wrongdoing by a particular, unnamed individual.
I’m sure you can see why that’s a problem.
I can understand why their names would be redacted in the report
You’re missing the point.
It’s not that her name was redacted; it’s that the CIA denied the use of consistent pseudonyms, so that it would be difficult to demonstrate consistent wrongdoing by a particular, unnamed individual.
I’m sure you can see why that’s a problem.
And if the reporter managed to find out who she was, at least enough to determine that it was the same person, how hard can it be for some international tribunal to do the same? Possibly even just by accessing the same sources.
I can see why there would be a risk from such a tribunal. (Although no more than Bush, Yoo, etc. face.) But how big is it really?
And if the reporter managed to find out who she was, at least enough to determine that it was the same person, how hard can it be for some international tribunal to do the same? Possibly even just by accessing the same sources.
I can see why there would be a risk from such a tribunal. (Although no more than Bush, Yoo, etc. face.) But how big is it really?
And if the reporter managed to find out who she was, at least enough to determine that it was the same person, how hard can it be for some international tribunal to do the same? Possibly even just by accessing the same sources.
I can see why there would be a risk from such a tribunal. (Although no more than Bush, Yoo, etc. face.) But how big is it really?
I’m sure you can see why that’s a problem.
Yes, that is a different issue, and I see your point.
But how big is it really?
Don’t know, it’s hard to say.
Maybe they should divulge her name.
Apparently she backstopped the refusal to share 9/11 terrorists’ names with the FBI, materially contributing to the success of the plot. She championed the use of torture, and participated in the most hard-core of the interrogations.
And got promoted.
Maybe it’s not her butt that’s being covered.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I’m sure you can see why that’s a problem.
Yes, that is a different issue, and I see your point.
But how big is it really?
Don’t know, it’s hard to say.
Maybe they should divulge her name.
Apparently she backstopped the refusal to share 9/11 terrorists’ names with the FBI, materially contributing to the success of the plot. She championed the use of torture, and participated in the most hard-core of the interrogations.
And got promoted.
Maybe it’s not her butt that’s being covered.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I’m sure you can see why that’s a problem.
Yes, that is a different issue, and I see your point.
But how big is it really?
Don’t know, it’s hard to say.
Maybe they should divulge her name.
Apparently she backstopped the refusal to share 9/11 terrorists’ names with the FBI, materially contributing to the success of the plot. She championed the use of torture, and participated in the most hard-core of the interrogations.
And got promoted.
Maybe it’s not her butt that’s being covered.
Your guess is as good as mine.
It’s not that her name was redacted; it’s that the CIA denied the use of consistent pseudonyms, so that it would be difficult to demonstrate consistent wrongdoing by a particular, unnamed individual.
Well, it also helps them spin this as “stuff happens”, “mistakes were made”, etc. rather than showing patterns of misconduct. It’s not just avoiding holding particular individuals responsible, it’s also making it easier to portray as a broader effort that would require much broader action to address. If you have 500 individuals doing 500 awful things instead of 50 individuals doing the same 500 things, it’s a lot easier to argue that it’s neither practical nor necessary to hold individuals responsible, so no action should be taken against any. Which is very similar to what you’re saying, but broader in its impact.
It’s not that her name was redacted; it’s that the CIA denied the use of consistent pseudonyms, so that it would be difficult to demonstrate consistent wrongdoing by a particular, unnamed individual.
Well, it also helps them spin this as “stuff happens”, “mistakes were made”, etc. rather than showing patterns of misconduct. It’s not just avoiding holding particular individuals responsible, it’s also making it easier to portray as a broader effort that would require much broader action to address. If you have 500 individuals doing 500 awful things instead of 50 individuals doing the same 500 things, it’s a lot easier to argue that it’s neither practical nor necessary to hold individuals responsible, so no action should be taken against any. Which is very similar to what you’re saying, but broader in its impact.
It’s not that her name was redacted; it’s that the CIA denied the use of consistent pseudonyms, so that it would be difficult to demonstrate consistent wrongdoing by a particular, unnamed individual.
Well, it also helps them spin this as “stuff happens”, “mistakes were made”, etc. rather than showing patterns of misconduct. It’s not just avoiding holding particular individuals responsible, it’s also making it easier to portray as a broader effort that would require much broader action to address. If you have 500 individuals doing 500 awful things instead of 50 individuals doing the same 500 things, it’s a lot easier to argue that it’s neither practical nor necessary to hold individuals responsible, so no action should be taken against any. Which is very similar to what you’re saying, but broader in its impact.
Well, it also helps them spin this as “stuff happens”, “mistakes were made”, etc. rather than showing patterns of misconduct.
Absolutely.
That ‘patterns of misconduct’ (which is a generous way of putting it) result in promotion is yet more troubling.
Well, it also helps them spin this as “stuff happens”, “mistakes were made”, etc. rather than showing patterns of misconduct.
Absolutely.
That ‘patterns of misconduct’ (which is a generous way of putting it) result in promotion is yet more troubling.
Well, it also helps them spin this as “stuff happens”, “mistakes were made”, etc. rather than showing patterns of misconduct.
Absolutely.
That ‘patterns of misconduct’ (which is a generous way of putting it) result in promotion is yet more troubling.
“What I’m saying is that I can understand why both the Senate committee and the media would be inclined to not publish her name.”
One of those reasons was concern that she might be prosecuted overseas–that’s no reason the media should respect. It’s also not a reason our own government should respect, but I have no expectations that anything remotely resembling justice will ever be served on sufficiently powerful Americans.
As for her being killed, what wj said. She’s not a field agent and if she is in danger, so is every public figure in the US government who had something to do with the Iraq War or torture.
I suppose if she ever was a field agent, then the concern would be that her contacts might be killed. Or anyway, that seems like the sort of thing the CIA would say. That’s what makes them so hard to keep under control–they can always come up with some sort of reason why people shouldn’t know enough to hold them accountable.
But anyway, as Nigel said, I suspect the real reason for the secrecy is simply to make it harder to pin blame. Though that ties in with the concern that some foreign government might prosecute her, if they knew who she was.
“What I’m saying is that I can understand why both the Senate committee and the media would be inclined to not publish her name.”
One of those reasons was concern that she might be prosecuted overseas–that’s no reason the media should respect. It’s also not a reason our own government should respect, but I have no expectations that anything remotely resembling justice will ever be served on sufficiently powerful Americans.
As for her being killed, what wj said. She’s not a field agent and if she is in danger, so is every public figure in the US government who had something to do with the Iraq War or torture.
I suppose if she ever was a field agent, then the concern would be that her contacts might be killed. Or anyway, that seems like the sort of thing the CIA would say. That’s what makes them so hard to keep under control–they can always come up with some sort of reason why people shouldn’t know enough to hold them accountable.
But anyway, as Nigel said, I suspect the real reason for the secrecy is simply to make it harder to pin blame. Though that ties in with the concern that some foreign government might prosecute her, if they knew who she was.
“What I’m saying is that I can understand why both the Senate committee and the media would be inclined to not publish her name.”
One of those reasons was concern that she might be prosecuted overseas–that’s no reason the media should respect. It’s also not a reason our own government should respect, but I have no expectations that anything remotely resembling justice will ever be served on sufficiently powerful Americans.
As for her being killed, what wj said. She’s not a field agent and if she is in danger, so is every public figure in the US government who had something to do with the Iraq War or torture.
I suppose if she ever was a field agent, then the concern would be that her contacts might be killed. Or anyway, that seems like the sort of thing the CIA would say. That’s what makes them so hard to keep under control–they can always come up with some sort of reason why people shouldn’t know enough to hold them accountable.
But anyway, as Nigel said, I suspect the real reason for the secrecy is simply to make it harder to pin blame. Though that ties in with the concern that some foreign government might prosecute her, if they knew who she was.
I figured someone would leak it to the intercept. For those interested, her name is at the link. Alfreda Bikowsky.
link
I figured someone would leak it to the intercept. For those interested, her name is at the link. Alfreda Bikowsky.
link
I figured someone would leak it to the intercept. For those interested, her name is at the link. Alfreda Bikowsky.
link
I just finished the article. This is hysterical. She has a wikipedia article.
Afreda Frances Bikowsky
I just finished the article. This is hysterical. She has a wikipedia article.
Afreda Frances Bikowsky
I just finished the article. This is hysterical. She has a wikipedia article.
Afreda Frances Bikowsky
You, too, can be anonymous, with your name a closely held secret. Known only to a few selected individuals within the intelligence community, on a need to know basis. . . . And to anyone who looks at Wikipedia.
Gives you a whole new perspective on what “secret” means in the modern world, doesn’t it?
You, too, can be anonymous, with your name a closely held secret. Known only to a few selected individuals within the intelligence community, on a need to know basis. . . . And to anyone who looks at Wikipedia.
Gives you a whole new perspective on what “secret” means in the modern world, doesn’t it?
You, too, can be anonymous, with your name a closely held secret. Known only to a few selected individuals within the intelligence community, on a need to know basis. . . . And to anyone who looks at Wikipedia.
Gives you a whole new perspective on what “secret” means in the modern world, doesn’t it?
nigel: You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable?
I think Brett would agree that gun control is an example of something that could be “popular” and “intolerable” at the same time. But what do I know?
–TP
nigel: You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable?
I think Brett would agree that gun control is an example of something that could be “popular” and “intolerable” at the same time. But what do I know?
–TP
nigel: You can’t see that there is a difference between something a section of the population likes, and the rest find intolerable, as opposed to something a section of the population likes, and the rest find tolerable?
I think Brett would agree that gun control is an example of something that could be “popular” and “intolerable” at the same time. But what do I know?
–TP
While not dismissing the possibility of assassination, I think the real reason that the CIA was so intent on redacting the names might be level of opprobrium that those folks would suffer. It would/will probably surpass the Gamergate level of harassment. This is not to make any kind of equivalency between crushing someone’s testicles and having your name plastered all over the internet as an object of ridicule, but I think that is what they were worried about. Still trying to mull over what to think about this.
While not dismissing the possibility of assassination, I think the real reason that the CIA was so intent on redacting the names might be level of opprobrium that those folks would suffer. It would/will probably surpass the Gamergate level of harassment. This is not to make any kind of equivalency between crushing someone’s testicles and having your name plastered all over the internet as an object of ridicule, but I think that is what they were worried about. Still trying to mull over what to think about this.
While not dismissing the possibility of assassination, I think the real reason that the CIA was so intent on redacting the names might be level of opprobrium that those folks would suffer. It would/will probably surpass the Gamergate level of harassment. This is not to make any kind of equivalency between crushing someone’s testicles and having your name plastered all over the internet as an object of ridicule, but I think that is what they were worried about. Still trying to mull over what to think about this.
so is every public figure in the US government who had something to do with the Iraq War or torture.
Also not out of the question, IMO.
Look, back in ’93 a Pakistani guy named Mir Qazi got pissed off about the CIA screwing with folks in Pakistan. He went and bought a semi-automatic AK-47 from his friendly neighborhood guns ‘n ammo store, drove over to Langley, and shot up a bunch of CIA folks who were waiting for the light to change.
Then he hung out for a bit until he figure out that nobody had any freaking idea who he was, and caught a plane back home to Pakistan.
It took the US intel services a couple of years to find him.
He wasn’t a big international terrorist, he was just some guy who was pissed off.
So, I can understand why the Senate committee who assembled the report might want to redact names.
In any case, it’s academic at this point. Look both ways before you cross the street, Alfreda.
so is every public figure in the US government who had something to do with the Iraq War or torture.
Also not out of the question, IMO.
Look, back in ’93 a Pakistani guy named Mir Qazi got pissed off about the CIA screwing with folks in Pakistan. He went and bought a semi-automatic AK-47 from his friendly neighborhood guns ‘n ammo store, drove over to Langley, and shot up a bunch of CIA folks who were waiting for the light to change.
Then he hung out for a bit until he figure out that nobody had any freaking idea who he was, and caught a plane back home to Pakistan.
It took the US intel services a couple of years to find him.
He wasn’t a big international terrorist, he was just some guy who was pissed off.
So, I can understand why the Senate committee who assembled the report might want to redact names.
In any case, it’s academic at this point. Look both ways before you cross the street, Alfreda.
so is every public figure in the US government who had something to do with the Iraq War or torture.
Also not out of the question, IMO.
Look, back in ’93 a Pakistani guy named Mir Qazi got pissed off about the CIA screwing with folks in Pakistan. He went and bought a semi-automatic AK-47 from his friendly neighborhood guns ‘n ammo store, drove over to Langley, and shot up a bunch of CIA folks who were waiting for the light to change.
Then he hung out for a bit until he figure out that nobody had any freaking idea who he was, and caught a plane back home to Pakistan.
It took the US intel services a couple of years to find him.
He wasn’t a big international terrorist, he was just some guy who was pissed off.
So, I can understand why the Senate committee who assembled the report might want to redact names.
In any case, it’s academic at this point. Look both ways before you cross the street, Alfreda.
While not dismissing the possibility of assassination, I think the real reason that the CIA was so intent on redacting the names might be level of opprobrium that those folks would suffer.
Again, though, what the CIA was fighting against wasn’t the redaction of names, but redaction of pseudonyms. That’s not about protecting their people from harm, at least not in any way I can conceive of – that’s about reducing the coherence of the report.
While not dismissing the possibility of assassination, I think the real reason that the CIA was so intent on redacting the names might be level of opprobrium that those folks would suffer.
Again, though, what the CIA was fighting against wasn’t the redaction of names, but redaction of pseudonyms. That’s not about protecting their people from harm, at least not in any way I can conceive of – that’s about reducing the coherence of the report.
While not dismissing the possibility of assassination, I think the real reason that the CIA was so intent on redacting the names might be level of opprobrium that those folks would suffer.
Again, though, what the CIA was fighting against wasn’t the redaction of names, but redaction of pseudonyms. That’s not about protecting their people from harm, at least not in any way I can conceive of – that’s about reducing the coherence of the report.
Or, the use of pseudonyms is ineffective in many cases because, as happened, the chain of occurrences by the same individual makes it clear who it is.
Or, the use of pseudonyms is ineffective in many cases because, as happened, the chain of occurrences by the same individual makes it clear who it is.
Or, the use of pseudonyms is ineffective in many cases because, as happened, the chain of occurrences by the same individual makes it clear who it is.
Or, the use of pseudonyms is ineffective in many cases because, as happened, the chain of occurrences by the same individual makes it clear who it is.
I’d tend to agree. It didn’t take me long to figure out who “Shrub” was.
Or, the use of pseudonyms is ineffective in many cases because, as happened, the chain of occurrences by the same individual makes it clear who it is.
I’d tend to agree. It didn’t take me long to figure out who “Shrub” was.
Or, the use of pseudonyms is ineffective in many cases because, as happened, the chain of occurrences by the same individual makes it clear who it is.
I’d tend to agree. It didn’t take me long to figure out who “Shrub” was.
SSDD.
My bolds.
Yes, we need an intelligence organization.
Speciflcally, we need an intelligence organization that works for us, and not itself.
SSDD.
My bolds.
Yes, we need an intelligence organization.
Speciflcally, we need an intelligence organization that works for us, and not itself.
SSDD.
My bolds.
Yes, we need an intelligence organization.
Speciflcally, we need an intelligence organization that works for us, and not itself.
You have to wonder what the oanel is thinking to make such a recommendation.
and whether the Senators are still irritated enough to ignore that recommendation and take action. Now that they have names to work with.
You have to wonder what the oanel is thinking to make such a recommendation.
and whether the Senators are still irritated enough to ignore that recommendation and take action. Now that they have names to work with.
You have to wonder what the oanel is thinking to make such a recommendation.
and whether the Senators are still irritated enough to ignore that recommendation and take action. Now that they have names to work with.
Let’s stop beating around the bush (sic) here. They were only following orders, and everybody knows that gets you off the hook….the insider panel appointed by the chief perpitraitor says so.
Let’s stop beating around the bush (sic) here. They were only following orders, and everybody knows that gets you off the hook….the insider panel appointed by the chief perpitraitor says so.
Let’s stop beating around the bush (sic) here. They were only following orders, and everybody knows that gets you off the hook….the insider panel appointed by the chief perpitraitor says so.
Maybe if the Senate panel makes a crappy movie and the CIA reviews it badly in the New York Post, Fox News will call for nuclear strikes on Langley, ya think?
Some General with excessive fruit salad claims it’s every citizen’s patriotic duty to attend the opening of the “The Interview”‘ if it opens.
Meanwhile, I hear the Soviets are working on a comedy romp involving the assassination of Barack Obama and his family. The Kochs and Fox’s movie unit are producing. Glenn Beck is working on a screenplay in which he plays multiple roles, like Tom Hanks in Polar Express.
Ann Coulter will play Ann coulter, because Kieff Richards bowed out of the Coulter role because he doesn’t look good in a tight miniskirt while sh$tting wicked Bon mots from his mouth.
Broderick Crawford will be dug up, cleaned up and will play Erick Erickson, fully hog-jowled and approaching a shackled Ned Beatty from behind in a Georgia swamp as he weighs in on FOX regarding the Soviet movie, and Putin’s lickable physique.
Maybe if the Senate panel makes a crappy movie and the CIA reviews it badly in the New York Post, Fox News will call for nuclear strikes on Langley, ya think?
Some General with excessive fruit salad claims it’s every citizen’s patriotic duty to attend the opening of the “The Interview”‘ if it opens.
Meanwhile, I hear the Soviets are working on a comedy romp involving the assassination of Barack Obama and his family. The Kochs and Fox’s movie unit are producing. Glenn Beck is working on a screenplay in which he plays multiple roles, like Tom Hanks in Polar Express.
Ann Coulter will play Ann coulter, because Kieff Richards bowed out of the Coulter role because he doesn’t look good in a tight miniskirt while sh$tting wicked Bon mots from his mouth.
Broderick Crawford will be dug up, cleaned up and will play Erick Erickson, fully hog-jowled and approaching a shackled Ned Beatty from behind in a Georgia swamp as he weighs in on FOX regarding the Soviet movie, and Putin’s lickable physique.
Maybe if the Senate panel makes a crappy movie and the CIA reviews it badly in the New York Post, Fox News will call for nuclear strikes on Langley, ya think?
Some General with excessive fruit salad claims it’s every citizen’s patriotic duty to attend the opening of the “The Interview”‘ if it opens.
Meanwhile, I hear the Soviets are working on a comedy romp involving the assassination of Barack Obama and his family. The Kochs and Fox’s movie unit are producing. Glenn Beck is working on a screenplay in which he plays multiple roles, like Tom Hanks in Polar Express.
Ann Coulter will play Ann coulter, because Kieff Richards bowed out of the Coulter role because he doesn’t look good in a tight miniskirt while sh$tting wicked Bon mots from his mouth.
Broderick Crawford will be dug up, cleaned up and will play Erick Erickson, fully hog-jowled and approaching a shackled Ned Beatty from behind in a Georgia swamp as he weighs in on FOX regarding the Soviet movie, and Putin’s lickable physique.
Sullivan puts it quite well :
There is one person missing in all this: the president. He has allowed his own CIA director to violate the constitution and to lie to the public in defending the torture program’s effectiveness. After a report proved that American torture was sadistic and useless, the president allowed his CIA director to stand up and say the answer to the latter question is “unknowable”. This is not a neutral stance, and never has been. It is a classic example of truthiness versus the truth. It is a stance that reaffirms that we live in only the appearance of a democracy, but that the deep state of the US is a law unto itself. It is a position that one agency in government is beyond any accountability. It is a recognition that this president, like all the others, reports to the CIA and not the other way round.
Watching this truth unfold in front of my eyes these past ten years has been a revelation to me and a bitter rebuke to whatever naivete about American democracy and decency I once held. I don’t think anyone can truly believe in either American decency or democracy as long as the worst war criminals are not just left unpunished, but celebrated, defended and even promoted. And what the CIA will learn from this is surely that it can get away with anything. It can allow 9/11 to happen and war crimes to be committed and have nary a single soul so much as fired. The greatest intelligence failure in modern times and the greatest moral failure in modern times … and no one will ever be so much as demoted.
Sullivan puts it quite well :
There is one person missing in all this: the president. He has allowed his own CIA director to violate the constitution and to lie to the public in defending the torture program’s effectiveness. After a report proved that American torture was sadistic and useless, the president allowed his CIA director to stand up and say the answer to the latter question is “unknowable”. This is not a neutral stance, and never has been. It is a classic example of truthiness versus the truth. It is a stance that reaffirms that we live in only the appearance of a democracy, but that the deep state of the US is a law unto itself. It is a position that one agency in government is beyond any accountability. It is a recognition that this president, like all the others, reports to the CIA and not the other way round.
Watching this truth unfold in front of my eyes these past ten years has been a revelation to me and a bitter rebuke to whatever naivete about American democracy and decency I once held. I don’t think anyone can truly believe in either American decency or democracy as long as the worst war criminals are not just left unpunished, but celebrated, defended and even promoted. And what the CIA will learn from this is surely that it can get away with anything. It can allow 9/11 to happen and war crimes to be committed and have nary a single soul so much as fired. The greatest intelligence failure in modern times and the greatest moral failure in modern times … and no one will ever be so much as demoted.
Sullivan puts it quite well :
There is one person missing in all this: the president. He has allowed his own CIA director to violate the constitution and to lie to the public in defending the torture program’s effectiveness. After a report proved that American torture was sadistic and useless, the president allowed his CIA director to stand up and say the answer to the latter question is “unknowable”. This is not a neutral stance, and never has been. It is a classic example of truthiness versus the truth. It is a stance that reaffirms that we live in only the appearance of a democracy, but that the deep state of the US is a law unto itself. It is a position that one agency in government is beyond any accountability. It is a recognition that this president, like all the others, reports to the CIA and not the other way round.
Watching this truth unfold in front of my eyes these past ten years has been a revelation to me and a bitter rebuke to whatever naivete about American democracy and decency I once held. I don’t think anyone can truly believe in either American decency or democracy as long as the worst war criminals are not just left unpunished, but celebrated, defended and even promoted. And what the CIA will learn from this is surely that it can get away with anything. It can allow 9/11 to happen and war crimes to be committed and have nary a single soul so much as fired. The greatest intelligence failure in modern times and the greatest moral failure in modern times … and no one will ever be so much as demoted.
And what the CIA will learn from this is surely that it can get away with anything that those in power support.
nary a single soul so much as fired.
Actually, the administration responsible was fired. it was fired belatedly, but it was fired.
As to the relative competence of various intelligence agencies: this in today’s NYT. Sometimes they all fail.
And what the CIA will learn from this is surely that it can get away with anything that those in power support.
nary a single soul so much as fired.
Actually, the administration responsible was fired. it was fired belatedly, but it was fired.
As to the relative competence of various intelligence agencies: this in today’s NYT. Sometimes they all fail.
And what the CIA will learn from this is surely that it can get away with anything that those in power support.
nary a single soul so much as fired.
Actually, the administration responsible was fired. it was fired belatedly, but it was fired.
As to the relative competence of various intelligence agencies: this in today’s NYT. Sometimes they all fail.
Actually, the administration responsible was fired
Except it wasn’t.
Bush retired as a two term president.
The Democrats then won the presidency, but there is no direct connection between that and the previous administration’s culpability for the torture program.
Actually, the administration responsible was fired
Except it wasn’t.
Bush retired as a two term president.
The Democrats then won the presidency, but there is no direct connection between that and the previous administration’s culpability for the torture program.
Actually, the administration responsible was fired
Except it wasn’t.
Bush retired as a two term president.
The Democrats then won the presidency, but there is no direct connection between that and the previous administration’s culpability for the torture program.
The Democrats then won the presidency, but there is no direct connection between that and the previous administration’s culpability for the torture program.
Although I would like to see the torturers, especially the ones who the most obvious sadists, be prosecuted or somehow held accountable, the electoral system at least worked to end torture. No, it’s not the same as “justice.” But justice is a difficult standard even in the simplest of circumstances.
The Democrats then won the presidency, but there is no direct connection between that and the previous administration’s culpability for the torture program.
Although I would like to see the torturers, especially the ones who the most obvious sadists, be prosecuted or somehow held accountable, the electoral system at least worked to end torture. No, it’s not the same as “justice.” But justice is a difficult standard even in the simplest of circumstances.
The Democrats then won the presidency, but there is no direct connection between that and the previous administration’s culpability for the torture program.
Although I would like to see the torturers, especially the ones who the most obvious sadists, be prosecuted or somehow held accountable, the electoral system at least worked to end torture. No, it’s not the same as “justice.” But justice is a difficult standard even in the simplest of circumstances.