Hello:

If one has "principles", does violating them mean one really didn't have them in the first place?? I think it does. America has principles. Some of you, who want to violate those principles, have no idea what I'm talking about - or you're lying. I don't know which.

Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in our principles 99% of the time. But, if they're not principles you embrace with all your being, and all your heart, you don't believe those principles in the first place. You're only giving them lip service...

I think you can tell who these people are when they say unpatriotic things, like the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. To them, apparently, there's a BETTER system out there, that will remain nameless until the last minute. I'd really like to know what that system is? I'll bet it starts with F. Why don't those people tell us WHAT system they'd rather have? Wouldn't YOU like to know?? I would!

But, back to principles. Can I grasp, that because you want to torture, you AREN'T, and have never been REAL Americans?? That you've been lurking in the background for just such an opportunity to OVERTHROW our system and institute something else??

I could. Could you?

excon

Why should I accept your definition of torture ?

I have been saying for years that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact and I'll stick by that. I don't even think it is a perfect system . It is just the best document that the founders could come up with for the governance of the nation given the number of compromises they had to forge to make the nation work . It is not written in stone . It has already been amended 27 times (more amendments than articles) so you know that the founders themselves realized it could use improvements over time.

That being said ;I do think our system is the best system humans have yet to create and worth preserving from jihadists enemies by almost any means necessary .It is a tribute to our principles that the Justice Dept. and the CIA went to such steps to ensure these interrogation procedures were compliant with law. Other nations would not have bothered.

Why should I accept your definition of torture ? Hello again, tom:

Well, if you wanted to torture, and then wanted to pretend you weren't, you'd just change the definition of torture, which is what you did. You're welcome to accept the WRONG definition, made up by lawyers who wanted to give the dufus cover to torture.

They did, and he's sticking by it. So are you.

But, I'll betcha one thing, though. If one of our guys gets waterboarded, you aren't going to have such a hard time calling it torture.

The world sees through the subterfuge, tom. It's over.

excon

That's hilarious .

I've watched lawyers and judges dance on the head of a pin redefining the principles of the Constitution with language like rights can be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution. They have defined the murder of one's child as a right .

Yet I'm supposed to be concerned that a jihadist, WHO WE KNEW WAS PLOTTING MORE ATTACKS OF WAR AGAINST US ,was treated a little rough within strict guidelines?

I don't think I'll lose sleep over that,

Yet I'm supposed to be concerned that a jihadist, WHO WE KNEW WAS PLOTTING MORE ATTACKS OF WAR AGAINST US ,was treated a little rough within strict guidelines ?? Hello again, tom:

You don't KNOW SQUAT! You MAKE UP the scenerio, just like the DOJ lawyers made up the law. You do it because you WANT to torture. And, you don't do it for information. You do it for payback.

Go HERE, if you want some TRUTH!! Post #16: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/pelosi-gate-347087-2.html

excon

Excon,

Here are the principals I believe in as a Conservative.

1) Protecting the innocent by any means necessary.
2) Punishing the guilty.
3) Holding individuals accountable for their decisions.
4) NOT holding innocents accountable for things they didn't do and aren't responsible for.
5) Big government causes big problems, small government's cause smaller problems. Government is the problem, not the solution.
6) You can't spend your way out of a deficit and you can't borrow your way out of debt.
7) If allowed to be truly free, a free market system can solve most problems. If there is a demand for a problem to be solved and money in finding the solution, someone will do it if they are allowed to do it. If there is NOT a demand to solve the problem then it isn't much of a problem, and it is not the government's job to make it a problem.
8) Protecting and upholding The Constitution is one of the highest duties of any US citizen. But it is NOT the HIGHEST. The HIGHEST duty of a citizen is to protect the country and it's citizens so that the Constitution can continue to be followed.

Which of these principals have been broken?

Elliot

Here are the principals I believe in as a Conservative.

1) Protecting the innocent by any means necessary.
3) Holding individuals accountable for their decisions.
4) NOT holding innocents accountable for things they didn't do and aren't responsible for.
8) Protecting and upholding The Constitution is one of the highest duties of any US citizen. But it is NOT the HIGHEST. The HIGHEST duty of a citizen is to protect the country and it's citizens so that the Constitution can continue to be followed.

Which of these principals have been broken?Hello El:

Sorry to inform you, but YOUR principles are not the COUNTRY'S principles. Toward that end, the following list is offered per your request.

1) We don't use "any means necessary" to do anything. Never have, and never will

3) Holding people ACCEPT the dufus accountable. That's what you mean isn't it?

4) You're not innocent if your only defense is, "I was only following orders". As a Jew, this should be particularly offensive to you.

8) "Protecting and upholding The Constitution is one of the highest duties of any US citizen. But it is NOT the HIGHEST. The HIGHEST duty of a citizen is to protect the country and it's citizens so that the Constitution can continue to be followed."

I had to repeat it again, cause it's so bizarre... Let me see, you have to violate the Constitution so that it can continue to be followed??

Dude!

excon

Hello El:

Sorry to inform you, but YOUR principles are not the COUNTRY'S principles. Toward that end, the following list is offered per your request.

1) We don't use "any means necessary" to do anything. Never have, and never will

Actually, we always have. I challenge you to tell me what time in our history we didn't.


3) Holding people ACCEPT the dufus accountable. That's what you mean isn't it?

No. We should hold him accountable. In my opinion, he should be receiving his medal for stopping multiple terrorist attacks any day now. Accountability works BOTH ways.


4) You're not innocent if your only defense is, "I was only following orders". As a Jew, this should be particularly offensive to you.

That would be true if the orders were illegal. In the Holocaust they were. In the interrogations they are not.


8) "Protecting and upholding The Constitution is one of the highest duties of any US citizen. But it is NOT the HIGHEST. The HIGHEST duty of a citizen is to protect the country and it's citizens so that the Constitution can continue to be followed."

I had to repeat it again, cause it's so bizarre... Let me see, you have to violate the Constitution so that it can continue to be followed??

Dude!

Excon

I didn't say it first. Some guy named Thomas Jeferson came up with it about 200 years ago. Go argue with Thomas Jefferson. You know... the guy who helped create those national principals that you keep citing as a reason not to do these things? He clearly didn't agree with your definition of what our "national principals" are.

Let's see... I can follow excon's definition of our principals or Thomas Jeferson's. Tough choice, I know. But I'm just going to have to go with Jeferson on this one, ex.

Elliot

You don't KNOW SQUAT! You MAKE UP the scenerio

The proof is in the results . At least 2 major plots were uncovered and prevented and the infrastructer of the AQ organization was revealed . This is an undeniable fact. The only question is the supposition that the same intel couldve been revealed in a timely manner without the use of the techniques.

The only question is the supposition that the same intel couldve been revealed in a timely manner without the use of the techniques.Hello again, tom:

Seems to me, that if you KNOW what he knows, then you'd KNOW whether he'd give it up WITHOUT being tortured.

I guess you didn't KNOW that. But, the WORST is, you didn't even try. You went straight for torture.

excon

Huh ? We knew he was operationally planning more .WE did not know when or where ? Do I really have to explain that ?

From Obama's press conference last night


OBAMA: I have read the documents. Now they have not been officially declassified and released. And so I don't want to go to the details of them. But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, don't answer the core question.
Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?


Clearly that is an admission that the techniques worked .

huh ? we knew he was operationally planning more .Do I really have to explain that ?Hello tom:

Yes, please do.

HOW do you know it?? Some jihadist told you?? When, after you tortured him?? Some CIA agent told you?? He learned of it, where?? These would be the same CIA who told vice about the WMD's. The ones who you said are going to sit down on the job now, cause Obama screwed them. Those guys. Those wonderful Americans.

Nope. You don't know SQUAT! Before I pulled someone's fingernails out, I'd have to KNOW he KNOWS something... Do I have to explain how that just isn't possible?

Now, if I just THINK he knows something, the old standard, tried and true, interrogation techniques should be employed. Nothing else.

excon

Here is the thing I don't get about the torture. If these guys are willing to blow themselves up what makes us think that slapping them around, grabbing them with a goon grip, water boarding, sleep deprivation, and putting them in a box with insects etc.. Is going to make them talk.

Just doesn't make sense. After you have been water boarded for the 20th time wouldn't you think to yourself these people aren't going to kill me so the can go scratch their arse.

Here is the thing I don't get about the torture. If these guys are willing to blow themselves up what makes us think that slapping them around, grabbing them with a goon grip, water boarding, sleep deprivation, and putting them in a box with insects etc.. Is going to make them talk.

Well, they did.


Just doesn't make sense. After you have been water boarded for the 20th time wouldn't you think to yourself these people aren't going to kill me so the can go scratch their arse.

Not really. Ask anyone who has been through SERE training what they think about the effectiveness of these techniques, both individually and on a cumulative basis. US Special Forces and British SAS and SBS troops go through this sort of thing in training, and they seem unanimous about its effectiveness.

But we did not pull fingernails out . We put them in confined space much larger than a standard passenger class seat on a 737 . We put a caterpillar in the cell and did not lie to him and tell him it stings. The CIA was permitted to grab them by the collar... oh how cruel!! They were permitted to push them against a fake wall that made lots of noise. Wooooooooo! And the worse of the worse... waterboarding for very brief intervals .

And yes... we knew KSM was a senior planner. We knew he planned 9-11 . We knew in advance he was planning more . When he was asked by the old standard, tried and true, interrogation techniques(techniques which by the way you still refuse to detail) what was he planning his response was "soon you will find out"... implying that indeed time was of the essence.

I found this article interesting.


This is a story about two interrogation programs — one run by the U.S. military, the other run by the CIA. The military program was focused on getting important al-Qaida suspects in Iraq to talk. The CIA operation zeroed in on important al-Qaida suspects from around the world. Both programs had similar goals, but they operated under very difficult rules.

Earlier this month, former CIA Director Michael Hayden was on Fox News defending the CIA's enhanced interrogation program.

"The use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer," he said emphatically. "It really did work." As Hayden and others see it, the U.S. had to use tough techniques — some called it torture — to battle al-Qaida.

Matthew Alexander is an advocate of a different kind of interrogation — one that builds rapport, like the kind of technique you see on television cop shows. Alexander was a military interrogator in Iraq and doesn't see the need for rough questioning.

"One of my best techniques for building rapport was to bring into the interrogation booth a copy, my copy, of the Koran and to recite a verse out of it or to ask questions about Islam," he said.

It is important to know that Matthew Alexander wasn't just any run-of-the-mill military interrogator. He was in charge of an interrogation team working on one of the most important counterterrorism operations of the war: the hunt for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man in charge of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Learning From Challenges

Alexander and his team arrived in Iraq in March 2006 — well after the abuses at Abu Ghraib forced the military to reform its interrogation process. By the time Alexander's team was on the ground, a military task force had been searching for Zarqawi for three years. But it took Alexander's team just two months of questioning detainees to get one of them to reveal the location of Zarqawi's safe house. Based on that information, the al-Qaida leader was killed in a military operation in June 2006.

"I know on the chase to Zarqawi we had several people during that chase who didn't talk," Alexander says. "But that was OK. We used the opportunities with detainees we couldn't convince to cooperate to become better interrogators. And it was those skills we developed in those interrogations that allowed us to break the detainees who led us to Zarqawi."

Alexander's experience in Iraq is particularly instructive in the context of the current debate over whether harsh interrogation techniques work. That's because Alexander and his team followed international standards for questioning and didn't use any of the rough techniques the CIA adopted. And yet, without waterboarding or stress positions, Alexander says, he not only helped track down al-Qaida's top man in Iraq but also managed to give the military better information.

"When you use coercion, a detainee might tell you the location of a house, but if you use cooperation they will tell you if the house is booby-trapped, and that's a very important difference," says Alexander. He says his success in Iraq proves that torture isn't necessary to break a terrorist.

Philip Zelikow, a senior counselor to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, agrees.

"Against very dedicated, very dangerous Islamist terrorists in Iraq in a raging war, we did not need to adopt the extreme interrogation methods that the CIA was using in the program it designed in 2002 and 2003," he says.

Zelikow says the comparison of the two programs — one in Iraq and one by the CIA — allows one to judge whether harsh techniques were necessary. "Since the alternatives are effective and don't have all these downsides, including all the moral and legal issues that come with them," he says, "it seems like a very clear choice."

Even if Hayden is right about the information the U.S. got from its interrogations, Zelikow says, it came at too high a cost.

It took many weeks(according to Gen Caldwell ) to track down Zarqwai . Key to finding him was that he was such a bass turd that the locals came to the hunters with key information.

The assumption was that we did not have time to waste in getting critical new information on AQ following 9-11 . Within a short period there was the 9-11 attacks... snipers in DC... and anthrax attacks .

Hello:

If one has "principles", does violating them mean one really didn't have them in the first place??? I think it does. America has principles.
...



But, back to principles. Can I grasp, that because you want to torture, you AREN'T, and have never been REAL Americans??? That you've been lurking in the background for just such an opportunity to OVERTHROW our system and institute something else???

I could. Could you?

excon


Has anyone actually said they are for torture? Or is that an assumption that you make, and you know what they say about assuming.:)


Hey speaking of violation of principles in regard to torture I guess FDR, and his Japanese internment camps, or Truman, with the 2 atomic bomb drops, did not have principles either. :confused: Maybe the Obama administration can start prosecuting them :eek:








G&P

We don't use "any means necessary" to do anything. Never have, and never will

As a Vietnam Vet you must be familiar with the Phoenix Program . The CIA for years operated under the "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" .From 1950 to 1962, the CIA used drugs like LSD on subjects .

Speaking of principles, Obama is apparently clueless when speaking about principles.

Obama praises Churchill, the man who had Prez's own grandfather tortured
(http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Obama-praises-the-man-who-had-his-grandfather-tortured-44087827.html?page=1)

President Barack Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, must be turning over in his grave.

Winston Churchill — the man who ordered his torture during the Kenyan war of independence — was being praised by his grandson for not using torture. What a laugh.

Obama cited Britain as a country that never resorted to torture during war during his prime-time press conference on Tuesday night.

“London was being bombed to smithereens [and] had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, 'We don't torture,'" Obama said. "Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's best in a people."

Excuse me, Mr. President: Churchill did condone torture and he did use torture — and advocated using poison gas and concentration camps. And he was quite proud to do so, writing about it frequently as a means to an end.

I don’t know whose Kool-Aid Obama was drinking, but it must have been supplied by the British Embassy in bucketfuls.

It was an amazing gaffe, as there is clear evidence that Obama’s own grandfather, a member of the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya, was tortured by the British after he was captured.

Recent accounts in the British press note that he was whipped mercilessly every day when he refused to cooperate.

It was good old Winnie, drawing on his experience in similar tactics during the Boer War, who as Prime Minister ordered the savage suppression of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in 1952.

According to historians, “The ensuing torture caught up many uninvolved Kenyans, and just like many modern 'anti-terror' campaigns, radicalized them and their friends and family, too. One earlier victim of this approach was the President's grandfather.“

This was the same Churchill who drew an arbitrary line in the sand and created the state of Iraq, which has been the cause of all subsequent commotion — but not before writing in a 1919 memo that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" to "spread a lively terror." The specific targets were the Kurds, in what was then Mesopotamia.

Then, of course, we come to Northern Ireland — here, torture was definitely used. Between 1971 and 1975, more than 2,000 people were interned without trial by the British in Northern Ireland.

Many faced what was euphemistically called “Interrogation in depth.” This was the infamous five techniques, many of which you will recognize from the Guantanamo / Abu Graib / CIA methods' allegations.

They include sensory deprivation though being hooded, often while naked, forced to stand against walls for over 20 hours, subjected to continuous noise for periods up to six or seven days, deprivation of food and water, and sleep deprivation for up to one week. Relays of interrogation teams had to be used lest the torturers grew fatigued.

The British media exploded in anger when allegations of torture were made against their government. They claimed, incredibly, that some of the wounds were "self-inflicted."

“One hard-line Provisional was given large whiskies and a box of cigarettes for punching himself in both eyes,” claimed the hilariously wrong Daily Telegraph on 10/31/77.

In 1978, the European Court of Human Rights called the techniques Britain used “intense physical and mental suffering and acute psychiatric disturbance,” and said it was cruel and inhuman punishment.

Amnesty International called it what it was: torture.

In his book “Provos, the IRA and Sinn Fein,” Peter Taylor noted then Prime Minister Brian Faulkner was told by the army and senior British officials that the techniques had often been used "many times before when Britain was faced with insurgencies in her colonies — Palestine, Malaya, Kenya, Cyprus, the British Cameroons, Guyana, Borneo, Malaysia, and the Persian Gulf.”

In other words, the spirit, and worse, the torture philosophy of "old Winnie" is alive and well in Britain today. In fact, the British are as far from "banning torture" as you can get.

After all, they practically invented modern torture.

What the hell was Obama thinking?

or Truman, with the 2 atomic bomb drops, did not have principles either. :confused: Maybe the Obama administration can start prosecuting them :eek:


Obama admitted during the press conference that the methods employed worked and that useful intel was obtained . Then he went on to ask the broader question that Excon keeps bringing up .

Our answer to the broader question is to keep an advantage in technology. There is no need to carpet bomb or nuke when you have precision bombs... there is no need to send in hit squads when you have pilotless drones. We then can get on a pedestal and renounce the use of carpet bombing and hit squads because we have developed more efficient means to the same ends. That is why total war tactics are no longer employed.

We attempted the same level of sophistication in intel gathering ;replacing human assets with electronics and the results were a terrible intel gap. Turns out the old tried and true Humint is still the best means .

We can keep on our moral high horse as a society... but not without risks. Right now it is easy to whip up moral indignation after time has passed and the threat apparently diminshed. We'll see where the outrage is if another attack is not detected and instead effectively carried out.

Then he went on to ask the broader question that Excon keeps bringing up .Hello tom:

I'm sorry my questions are inconvenient... I have another inconvenient one, as well.

If saving lives is the only criteria, why don't we torture our domestic criminals? For SURE we could save lives if we did that. What?? THOSE lives aren't important??

Since the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, then why would you even care that it says you can't torture people? If you DID torture, you could, according to you, SAVE LIVES. Isn't that good??

excon

Has anyone actually said they are for torture? Or is that an assumption that you make, and you know what they say about assuming.:)


Hey speaking of violation of principles in regard to torture I guess FDR, and his Japanese internment camps, or Truman, with the 2 atomic bomb drops, did not have principles either. :confused: Maybe the Obama administration can start prosecuting them :eek:








G&P
Don't laugh. John Stewart called Truman a war criminal a couple of days ago. It might just come to that.

Hello tom:

I'm sorry my questions are inconvenient... I have another inconvenient one, as well.

If saving lives is the only criteria, why don't we torture our domestic criminals? For SURE we could save lives if we did that. What??? THOSE lives aren't important???

Since the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, then why would you even care that it says you can't torture people? If you DID torture, you could, according to you, SAVE LIVES. Isn't that good????

excon

Huh?

Interrogations of POWs are to prevent planned attacks from occurring. How does torturing a criminal who has already been captured prevent anything?

You seem to be comparing apples to sardines here. But then again, you have never gotten past the fact that terrorism isn't a criminal act, it's an act of war. It isn't fought by cops, it's fought by the military. They aren't tried and jailed as punishment, they are simply jailed, in terrogated and held until there is a cessation of hostilities. You have never gotten past the fact that crime and war are totally different and are fought differently. So I'm not surprised by the fact that you are making the comparison. What surprises me is the fact that such a comparison seems logical to you... the idea that if something is considered wrong in one venue or circumstance, it must be wrong in all venues or circumstances.

Elliot

Like I said Ex , the moral high horse is risky . I'm not saying you don't ride it most times .But there are times when survival is the imperitive. Our leaders must make those calculations.

Interrogations of POWs are to prevent planned attacks from occurring. How does torturing a criminal who has already been captured prevent anything?

What surprises me is the fact that such a comparison seems logical to you... Hello El:

So, saving lives has nothing to do with stopping planned attacks. What?? You just want to save the buildings??

Dude!

"How does torturing a criminal prevent anything????" Dude! You live in NY, and you never heard of a crime family, who just MIGHT be planning future crimes - maybe even with guns??

excon

Is this what you mean by principles?

ABC's Shame
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/abcs_shame.asp)

ABC runs a report showing the names and faces of two CIA contractors who may have had a role in the waterboarding of KSM and Abu Zubaydah. The network apparently outsourced this report to a freelancer named Matthew Cole, whose record in Nexis includes just three bylines -- two stories for Salon (one of which about "how Bush administration aid to Pakistan helps fund insurgents who kill U.S. troops"), and one for the San Jose Mercury News just two days after 9/11 reporting "anxiety about a backlash" among Muslims, who assure the reporter that the attack "has nothing to do with Islam."

In other words, Cole is a left-wing partisan with questionable reporting chops. This is obvious from the quality of the story tonight. Cole repeats the now throughly debunked claim that Zubaydah and KSM were waterboarded 83 and 183 times respectively. He posts video of the two refusing to answer questions in what is staged as a faux perp walk with no discernible news value other than to portray them as criminals. And, most amazingly, Cole indicts the two men for not having any experience prior to their work for the CIA -- as though being "previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics" isn't relevant.

ABC's conduct here, exposing two men who will now become obvious targets for terrorists and left-wing extremists, is deplorable. Will the Obama administration investigate who leaked their identities? Or is it now open-season on Americans who were only doing what their government asked of them in order to protect their country from attack?

You think waterboarding opened up a can of worms? Obama and ABC have opened up a bigger one which could likely have disastrous consequences.

Is this what you mean by principles?

ABC's Shame
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/abcs_shame.asp)


You think waterboarding opened up a can of worms? Obama and ABC have opened up a bigger one which could likely have disastrous consequences.

excon,

You asked before how revealing the so-called "torture memos" could possibly weaken the USA.

Now you know.

Or maybe you don't. But that is only because you don't want to open your eyes.

Waiting for the schmuckster to find the microphones and demand an investigation into who leaked the names to ABC's BRIAN ROSS, MATTHEW COLE, and JOSEPH RHEE. I want an independent prosecutor throwing these 3 slugs into jail until they reveal their sources just like what happened to Judith Miller!!

Andrew McCarthy's letter to Eric Holder




Andrew C. McCarthy

May 1, 2009
By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:
The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President's Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.
The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants—or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear—most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany—that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president's first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.
Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.
Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America's “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [adminstration's] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)
Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.
For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.
There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.
The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that's what it takes to close Gitmo by January.
Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from the United States. The Uighurs' impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration's propensity to deride its predecessor's purported insensitivity to the rule of law.
I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.
Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment. In any event, I've always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I've made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who've thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Andrew C. McCarthy
Cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

I bet Holder sprained his sphincter when he read that. McCarthy is absolutely right. Now if we could find more like him to find their spine and stand up to this nonsense.

"..it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice,"Hello tom:

The KEY legal question in all this, is DID the lawyers write the memos in good faith. You, and the rightwinger you quote above, believe they did. I don't.

The LAW the memos authorized ISN'T the law of the land anymore. It's been rescinded. The memos, and the legal argument creating them, have been totally repudiated by the legal community. At the very least, they were bad law. At worst, it was Bush lawyers redefining torture in order to cover vice and the dufus's a$$.

If it was the latter, that's criminal and they should go to jail. If it was the former, they're just dumb lawyers, and there's no prison for being stupid.

In order to find out, though, an investigation must be undertaken, and let the chips fall where they may.

excon

The LAW the memos authorized ISN'T the law of the land anymore. It's been rescinded.

Yes that is a fact and Obama has overridden the Bush policy which is within his authority . But also the facts are that the procedures have not been used since the law was changed.


At the very least, they were bad law. At worst, it was Bush lawyers redefining torture in order to cover vice and the dufus's a$$.

Either way the opinions were based on the current laws... bad law or not. Our laws frequently are open to varying interpretations The justice Dept lawyers should not be subject to liability or jeopardy for their legal advice or opinions they gave to the President .

Criminalizing differences over policy is corrosive to democracy. Elections are the way we decide which policies are better... the voters decide,not the courts.

As I have already said ;since the cat was let out of the bag ;then it makes sense to have a full national debate . Release the memos VP Cheney mentions are necessary to have full disclosure ;create an independent 9-11 like commission to get the facts before there is any thought of criminal prosecutions.

Hello again, Righty's:

Let me ask you some other stuff. Here's YOUR parameters, as I learned them from you:

1) You are in charge of interrogation.

2) SAVING AMERICAN LIVES is your objective in accordance with the law.

3) You KNOW (as in tom telling us he KNOWS), that the guy you are about to waterboard can SAVE AMERICAN LIVES, if you can get him to spill the beans.

4) You're waterboarding him for 60th time. He ISN'T spilling the beans and hasn't yet, because as Gal said, he can hold his breath for 40 seconds.

5) The clock is approaching 40 seconds, and he's struggling. If only you could waterboard him for 10 more seconds or maybe 20, you KNOW you could get him to spill the beans, and SAVE AMERICAN LIVES.

6) Are you going to stop when the 40 second bell rings? What's important here - AMERICAN LIVES or the law?? If you did stop, would you be a pantywaist terrorist loving jerk, or a good soldier? If you went beyond the 40 seconds, would you be an American patriot or a criminal?

7) If you got information from him after 60 seconds, does that make a difference?

Yes, my questions are inconvenient. Maybe if you had asked them FIRST, you wouldn't be torturers.

excon

Criminalizing differences over policy is corrosive to democracy. Elections are the way we decide which policies are better.....the voters decide,not the courts.Hello again, tom:

As we've previously established in our discussions regarding Augusto Pinnochet, policy CAN be criminal.

Therefore, if the policy that the makers made WAS criminal, then it's the policy makers themselves who criminalized their own behavior.

Those that hold them to account haven't criminalized anything. In fact, we are bound to do so because we ARE a nation of laws and not men.

excon

I have mixed feeling on this... I am sure we all do. But most of all, I think us (civilians) know too much. Excon, don't get me wrong, I like to know what's going on, but lately it just seems as if we know way too much about our world. When everyone knows "stuff", the "stuff" don't work as well as it did when it was hush hush. People have gone way too far here and around the world. I say in my own mind, would I try to talk it out with a guy that knew who may have my daughter in capture or would I go straight to torture... you all know the answer, you can't deny it. There are so many situations that make that "one thing" wrong, but some that make that "one thing" right. If that makes any sense.

Bill O'Reilly said that he believes in our principles 99% of the time. But, if they're not principles you embrace with all your being, and all your heart, you don't believe those principles in the first place. You're only giving them lip service...

You are saying a person has to be down right perfect in this statement. 100%... sheesh I can admit to going far less than 99%, how about you?

Bill O'Reilly said Bill O'Reilly is one of the last people I would ever quote. I'm glad to say that I would be at the opposite pole of whatever he preaches.

Really Need? I don't think you are as far away from him as you think... you are a good man. You take care of yer family, you work hard, and stick up for things you believe in... I could go on if you want me to. I also think Bill is a good man. All I was trying to say really is that no one is perfect.

EDIT:::
Need, that was in Ex's OP... he quoted him, I didn't post it right, sorry

EDIT:::
Need, that was in Ex's OP...he quoted him, I didnt post it right, sorryYou are completely correct, I'm sorry about that.

For the record I don't have any respect for O'Reilly. It doesn't take much googling to turn up mentions of his hypocrisy and lying.

I say in my own mind, would I try to talk it out with a guy that knew who may have my daughter in capture or would I go straight to torture.....you all know the answer, you can't deny it. Hello starty:

I don't disagree. I am not a nice guy at all. But, my country is better than me. That's why we've collectively given up our personal responses to the situation you describe, to the "authorities" who are bound by the law that we have agree to abide by. We aren't vigilantes.

If we DON'T agree with the laws, and we only obey them when its convenient, then let's have THAT system.

You know who else thinks our country is better than us?? That would Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you adopted Reagan's views on torture, you would be called a rabid score settler from the hard left. You'd be a Bush hater.

To wit: Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."

It's certainly true, of course, that Ronald Reagan was very pre 9/11, but the concept of a uniquely scary Islamic terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by them in 1979 and they occupied our embassy; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan in the early 1980s; 280 U.S. Marines were killed by them in Lebanon in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by them in 1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 where we killed the adopted infant daughter of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying to control Muslim countries way back then, too.

Yet even with all those Islamic terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.

excon

Then I say bring it back...
As in make torture legal under certain situations.. and circumstances. I am not afraid to say it. Screw this "let's talk it over" Do you still feel like you like in America? (yes I do have a heart)

That's all for now.

Then I say bring it back.... as in make torture legal under certain situations.Hello again, start:

Barbarism is like pregnant. There's no such thing as a little. If you open the door a crack, it will get opened all the way.

Lest you think I'm against torture because I'm soft on terrorists, be aware that I'm much more concerned with our American military men. They'll, of course, be tortured mercilessly, and we won't be able to say a thing.

Plus, I worry about what that makes us. Certainly, if torture is OK in some circumstances (and I guess how many lives could be saved would be the measure), then we could torture some of our own criminals. Why not? Certainly, if the guide is what torture could produce, instead of who we choose to be as a people, then all hell breaks loose. Civilization would break down.

Do you really want that?

excon

I don't want that. I have to disagree though, we wouldn't be going around just torturing who ever we want whenever. I do agree that a certain measure would have to be in place. Our own criminals? Like a guy that knows a serial killer? Please explain... what type of criminals?

Please explain....what type of criminals?Hello again, Start:

Any criminal who, if tortured, could give up information that could save lives. Drug dealers?? Sex offenders? Mafia? Kidnappers? Take your pick.

excon

I am talking warfare excon... bombings, hi jacking's and so on...

Hello again, start:

Your position is understandable. YOU only want torture to be used in war.

But, if saving lives is the criteria we use when deciding to torture, then it doesn't take a great leap of faith to envision some rightwing congressman saying we should torture drug dealers. If he did, what would be the basis for our argument against it?

excon

It is a viable argument or discussion rather. But I say war, and only war. There is a difference between one who wants to bring us down as a nation, and one who doesn't.

You are saying a person has to be down right perfect in this statement. 100%...sheesh I can admit to going far less than 99%, how about you?Hello again, starty:

I have a principle of not screwing little girls. It's not lip service. I'm not going to screw even ONE. If I did, I couldn't truthfully say that I have a principle of not screwing little girls. I could only say that I don't screw many.

I don't steal. That doesn't mean I can steal $.25 because it isn't much. It means that I don't steal.

If we say we don't torture, then we don't torture. But, if you only subscribe to not torturing 99% of the time, you can't say it's a principle you adhere to. Oh, you could say it, if you were hypoticritical like Bill O'Reilly. But a principle is a principle... It's inviolate, in my view. If it's NOT, it's lip service.

excon

I understand what you are saying, and like you, I think you have a valid point. So, I will go out on a limb and say I am hypocritical and want the torture to be held out under certain situations. BUT not in others. I find nothing wrong with it, if it has order and worthiness. Like if I know someone who is going to bomb the sh!t out of us, I could expect to be tortured until I say who, what, when, and where. I want "them" to think that, don't you?

Hello again, starty:

I like you too, starty, and I hope you have recovered from your bumps and bruises. Your mind is still in tact, though.

excon

Well, thanks for the well wishes, and I promise not to know something again... or even put my foot in a ring that may... I will never be healed from the mental damage of being scared...
Ok, now that we both got our points across, I need to relax, sheesh!

Your argument and simplifies down to a simple fundemental question. Was the methods approved torture? The lawyers in the Justice Dept. took great pains to study the law and determined that under strict conditions and guidelines the methods employed were not torture under law or treaty.
Did they take it to the edge ? Probably... However lots of things in the country are conducted on the edge.

It is funny that you would have some qualms about these methods but would applaud an extrajudicial assassination attempt that kills an "innocent " child.If there is a red line between murder and legal assassination in warfare then surely there is one between torture and aggressive interogation under the same circumstances.

Hello tom, and Steve:

I would like you to answer question #42.

excon

Hello tom, and Steve:

I would like you to answer question #42.

excon

Hey ex, I haven't posted since #32, how did I get dragged into this? Besides, what was the question? The only one I saw in #42 you answered.

how did I get dragged into this? Besides, what was the question? The only one I saw in #42 you answered.Hello again, Steve:

It got this far because you guys don't yet realize that torture is against the very notion of what the United States of America stands for. But, I ain't going to give up. I LOVE my country too much to see it devolve into madness.

Re:#42, you're right. But what I said DOES require a comment. Or do you think Reagan was a hard lefty?

Ex

PS> (edited) What?? I got to DRAG you into an argument with me??

Ex you are obsessed with "torture" of suspected terrorist, but have offered no solutions. This is all Monday morning quarterbacking. Anyone can complain and criticize but it does not hold water unless you can give us an answer as to what you would have done or what your solution is.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/torture-redux-342670-2.html#post1673573

See post #37 in the same thread also.






G&P

you are obssessed with "torture" of suspected terrorist..... answer as to what you would have done or what your solution is.Hello again, in:

You've followed my career here for a while. You should know that I am obsessed with the LAW - not torture.

What I would have done is OBEYED it. I'm not speaking hypothetically here either. When I served, I KNEW the law. If I were ordered to torture, I would have refused. Before this is over, we'll find others who did the same.

You DO know the law on torture, don't you? If not, I'll tell you. Torture is a crime that we are obligated to prosecute.

Oh, I forgot - you're still on the "denial" team. Even Krauthammer got off that crap. Like me, he knows torture when he sees it. washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043003108.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)

excon

Hello again, Steve and tom:

You're right. It wasn't #42. It was #35. #35 is real good.

excon

Ex you are obssessed with "torture" of suspected terrorist, but have offered no solutions. This is all Monday morning quarterbacking. Anyone can complain and criticize but it does not hold water unless you can give us an answer as to what you would have done or what your solution is.That kind of much sums up pretty all the threads in the Current Events section here don't you think?

Hello again, Steve:

It got this far because you guys don't yet realize that torture is against the very notion of what the United States of America stands for. But, I ain't going to give up. I LOVE my country too much to see it devolve into madness.

Re:#42, you're right. But what I said DOES require a comment. Or do you think Reagan was a hard lefty?

Ex

PS> (edited) What?? I got to DRAG you into an argument with me??

Nah, but when someone mentions me by name I've usually made a recent comment. Here is what Reagan said to the Senate (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/):


With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, subject to certain reservations, understandings, and declarations, I transmit herewith the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Convention was adopted by unanimous agreement of the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, and entered into force on June 26, 1987. The United States signed it on April 18, 1988. 1 also transmit, for the information of the Senate, the report of the Department of State on the Convention.

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

In view of the large number of States concerned, it was not possible to negotiate a treaty that was acceptable to the United States in all respects. Accordingly, certain reservations, understandings, and declarations have been drafted, which are discussed in the report of the Department of State. With the inclusion of these reservations, understandings, and declarations, I believe there are no constitutional or other legal obstacles to United States ratification, The recommended legislation necessary to implement the Convention will be submitted to the Congress separately.

Should the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention, I intend at the time of deposit of United States ratification to make a declaration pursuant to Article 28 that the United States does not recognize the competence of the Committee against Torture under Article 20 to make confidential investigations of charges that torture is being systematically practiced in the United States. In addition, I intend not to make declarations, pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the Convention, recognizing the competence of the Committee against Torture to receive and consider communications from States and individuals alleging that the United States is violating the Convention. I believe that a final United States decision as to whether to accept such competence of the Committee should be withheld until we have had an opportunity to assess the Committee's work. It would be possible for the United States in the future to accept the competence of the Committee pursuant to Articles 20, 21, and 22, should experience with the Committee prove satisfactory and should the United States consider this step desirable.

By giving its advice and consent to ratification of this Convention, the Senate of the United States will demonstrate unequivocally our desire to bring an end to the abhorrent practice of torture.

RONALD REAGAN

Sounded like he had his doubts, too. I'd love to be able to hear Reagan's opinion now.

If we DON'T agree with the laws, and we only obey them when its convenient, then let's have THAT system.

You already do that, by yoiur own admission, vis-à-vis drugs... specifically marijuana. You have said on any number of occasions that you ignore the laws vis-à-vis marijuana because you don't believe them to be fair, just, whatever. You clearly only obey laws that you find convenient and disobey them if they don't suit you.


You know who else thinks our country is better than us?? That would Ronald Reagan. In fact, if you adopted Reagan's views on torture, you would be called a rabid score settler from the hard left. You'd be a Bush hater.

To wit: Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law."

Interestingly enough, though, Ronald Reagan's CIA tortured captured KGB agents and other foreign combatants captured by the USA. And that was REAL torture, not the so-called "torture" used at Gitmo.

Reagan was nothing if not a realist.


It's certainly true, of course, that Ronald Reagan was very pre 9/11, but the concept of a uniquely scary Islamic terrorists was hardly unknown. Our client, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by them in 1979 and they occupied our embassy; we funded and supported them in Afghanistan in the early 1980s; 280 U.S. Marines were killed by them in Lebanon in 1982; Jewish community centers in Argentina were exploded by them in 1984; and Reagan himself invoked their Grave Threat in order to justify the American bombing of Libya in 1986 where we killed the adopted infant daughter of its leader. We were bombing, occupying, interfering in and trying to control Muslim countries way back then, too.

Yet even with all those Islamic terrorists running around, Reagan insisted that torture could never be justified under any circumstances and that those who do it must be criminally prosecuted.

Excon

No... he left it to the CIA to deal with.

Furthermore, you ignore the definition of torture defined in Article I of the convention:

"For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

What was done at Gitmo did not constitute "severe pain and suffering", and was not "based on descrimination of any kind". There was no descrimination involved, and the "pain and suffering" was anything but severe, as seen from the memos themselves. Furthermore, these actions DID arise only from "lawful sanctions" as defined by the Department of Justice under the Bush Administration, and as seen in the memos.

Reagan would have had absolutely NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with what was done in Gitmo, because it didn't constitute torture under any definition, and certainly not under the UN Convention Against Torture.

Elliot

The CIA ran School of the Americas under his watch.