[excon]

Go ahead and prosecute . Obama's administration had better be as pure as a fresh snow fall because he will open up a precedential can of worms he doesn't want to taste. The idea that a legal opinion on our laws based in good faith by an adviser to the President could land that advisor in jail is as disgusting to me as any one of those Fear Factor stunts

Hello again, tom:

You still don't get it. We BRUTALIZED people and you're still comparing it to a game show. I'm surprised you didn't show a picture of a nice fuzzy caterpillar! Like Hannity last night, in his zeal to minimize what we did, he continually referred to waterboarding as a "dunk in the water". He NEVER called it waterboarding. If it's so cool, I wonder why he can't say it.

You and I (and ALL these people reading this post) know why. Dunk in the water, Twister games, TV quiz shows... If those comparisons weren't so gruesome and bizarre, I'd get a chuckle out of it...

You DO NOT GET IT!! It's CLEAR to me, because you don't want to say the WORDS, that you (and Hannity) know who the EVIL ones were. Yes, WE'RE the EVIL ones...

But, you're right about one thing. If they gave their legal opinion in GOOD FAITH, they're not guilty... But, if they gave their opinion because that's the opinion dufus and vice wanted, they're EVIL, and need to be brought down...

And, before you counter with the argument, that I already debunked, about criminalizing policy decisions, I must point out to you again, that if it were true, Pinnochet would only have been guilty of making bad policy...

In other words, if you make a policy that is CRIMINAL, you can't fall back on "it was just POLICY". My reading of the memos tells me that were LOOKING for the justification to torture - pure and simple.

excon

[ETWolverine]

So what we have here is a situation where the detainees were not subject to the legal system because they weren't criminals, but rather POWs. They were subjected to interrogation techniques which, while harsh, do not meet the legal or moral criterion of "torture". And we now know from Dennis Blair that these techniques WORKED.

There's an old military saying: If it's stupid but it works it isn't stupid.

Similarly, if it is distasteful but it works, it isn't distasteful.

We should be holding these guys up as heroes for doing their jobs to protect us and keep us safe. We should be training others to do the job as well as they did. We sure as heck shouldn't be prosecuting them for doing their jobs.

Nor are Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush guilty of anything except doing the jobs they were elected and appointed to do. The single, primary responsibility of any government is to protect it from threats both foreign and domestic. That is their Constitutional mandate. That is what they did.

Elliot

[excon]

Nor are Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush guilty of anything except doing the jobs they were elected and appointed to do. The single, primary responsibility of any government is to protect it from threats both foreign and domestic. That is their Constitutional mandate. That is what they did.

Hello again, El:

Maybe the troubles stem from your inability to read the Constitution... You can't find privacy rights in there, but you can find the crap you're spouting...

Well, I don't find that crap. In fact, what I find is that their primary job is to do what they swore to do in their oath of office, which is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

So, as long as one side can't read, It's not surprising they think torture is cool.

excon

[tomder55]

It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions. Obama is also playing political games . Why would he selective edit out Blair's comments from Blair's memo if he weren't ? Why would he "cherry pick " which memos the release from the DOJ files if the truth weren't that it is a political game he is playing ? Seems to me that Blair is confirming what Cheney and the previous people from the Bush administration I have cited have already said.

[tomder55]

It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions. Obama is also playing political games . Why would he selective edit out Blair's comments from Blair's memo if he weren't ? Why would he "cherry pick " which memos the release from the DOJ files if the truth weren't that it is a political game he is playing ? Seems to me that Blair is confirming what Cheney and the previous people from the Bush administration I have cited have already said.

Here is the redacted part of Blair's memo :

"High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

"The leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to executive branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques."

"Even in 2009 there are organizations plotting to kill Americans using terror tactics, and although the memories of 9/11 are becoming more distant, we in the intelligence service must stop them."

[excon]

It is much worse than criminalizing policy decisions.

Hello again, tom:

Laws against torture were well established BEFORE the dufus and vice indulged in them. Nobody criminalized their activities except they themselves. It's not difficult to understand. If the policy WAS criminal, then THEY who indulged in it are criminals. To say that we're NOW making torture illegal is disingenuous at best.

I wonder why you ignore any discussion of the Pinochet "policy" to torture, which landed him in jail. Nahhhh. I know why - because you wouldn't be able to keep on saying what you're saying...

It's cool.

But, you know... The attitude you display, the BLIND leading the BLIND, is what got us into this jackpot in the first place. There was, and is, ample evidence that torture doesn't work, and besides that, it's illegal. However, the important questions were never asked. Nobody wanted to know stuff. Is it because they wouldn't have liked the answers, or were they just plain scared?

It turns out, they did it because they were afraid. You know, anytime we make decisions because we're afraid, we make 'em wrong.

excon

[tomder55]

OK I'm game re Pinochet .

He was also charged ,besides torture, with mass-murder and widespread theft of the treasury .

Specific counts of torture included : inflicting electric shocks until death;beatings to death ,threatening the rape of relatives;suspending from ceiling ;forcing to imbibe hallucinogenic drugs ;burnings ,etc etc .
More than 3,000 people were killed or disappeared during Pinochet's military rule.

He was arrested in England on a Spanish warrant for the murder in Chile of Spanish citizens while he was president. He eventually returned to Chile without facing trial .

After some more political back and forth he was indicted in Chile. July 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed Pinochet's indictment .He was again placed under house arrest a couple of times again before his death without any trials.

Anyway ;as you see ,what was done under his reign was indeed torture. I am not convinced ,nor do I believe that what was done by the CIA in the GWOT rises to that level . Oh they definitely pushed the envelope to go to the edge of what is legal .But as the memos clearly show ,they went to great lengths to insure that they stayed within the boundries of legality .

Sorry your sensiblities got offended but it is a rough world .

[excon]

But as the memos clearly show ,they went to great lengths to insure that they stayed within the boundries of legality.

Hello again, tom:

Then policy CAN be criminal. Cool. That wasn't too tough to admit, was it? I know you think what they did was legal. I don't.

However, there has been a sea change in these issues just since yesterday. The president, of course, has grasped the limits of his authority. Yes, contrary to the beliefs of the dufus, there ARE limits to presidential authority. Obama's proclamation goes a long way to restoring the balance of power.

No longer will legal decisions made at the Justice Department be guided by politics. That IS the way it should be, no? Well, that's the way it's GOING to be, so if I was vice, I'd be shutting up and hiring a lawyer.

excon

[cozyk]

Hello again:

I guess it assuages your conscience to pretend that we didn't brutalize people. You even make fun of it.. I'll bet the Nazi's posted pictures of Jews having the time of their life too...

Then you say, well if we did brutalize them, they deserved it....

All this, from people who claim to be staunch Christians, like Hannity.

I understand why you don't want to discuss it seriously, or you pretend it didn't happen. I don't blame you at all. It turns my stomach too to know what was done in my name. I want to forget about as quickly as possible too..

But, I can't, and I'm not going to let you!!

From the NY Times, today: Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said.

Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, “seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect on me...”

But, I guess if you're on a website that shows nice pictures of fuzzy catapillars, you won't be traumatized, because you're lying to yourselves.

I'm not a Christian. If this is what you guys do, I'm really glad I'm not.

excon

That's my con. Always right on the money.:D

[tomder55]

As of yesterday Obama left his determination not to criminalize policy differences into what Steve accurately described as a short expiration date. He is taking the cowardly way out by speaking lofty about moving on while leaving the dirty work to either Holder or Waxman. That way ,like Pilot he can wash his hands of it ,stay above the fray and pretend to be above it all.

No... policy differences cannot be criminal .Only criminal acts can be criminal . Prosecuting a lawyer because he wrote a legal analysis with which the current Attorney General disagrees reeks of politics .

[tomder55]

Quick quiz :

Who said this ?

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.


"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."

[excon]

Quick quiz : who said this ?

Hello again, tom:

I don't know, and I don't care. The law is what's important here - not the politics du jour.

I'm sure you see a witch hunt underway for vice and Bush. Nothing I could say would change your mind.

But, let me ask you this. Do you think my stance on torture is because Bush did it? Do you think I'd be chuckling and guffawing about it with my buddies if Obama did it?

You probably do.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Maybe the troubles stem from your inability to read the Constitution... You can't find privacy rights in there, but you can find the crap you're spouting...

Well, I don't find that crap. In fact, what I find is that their primary job is to do what they swore to do in their oath of office, which is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

So, as long as one side can't read, It's not surprising they think torture is cool.

excon

and

The law is what's important here - not the politics du jour.

I agree. The law of the land is what's important.

Let's start with Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

THAT gives the Geneva Convention, which is a treaty ratified by Congress, the authority of Constitutional Law... the Supreme Law of the Land.

Then there's Article I section 8 of the Constitution:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So... Congress has a responsibility to see to the security of the Nation. In fact, seen above, it seems to be the single largest responsibility that Congress has.

And from Article II Section 2:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

There seems to be a Presidential responsibility toward the security of the nation as well.

These things are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. They are spelled out in very easy to read language. So if you can't read them, it isn't because they aren't there, excon.

Can you find any statement of a right to privacy in the Constitution? Can you even find the word "privacy" in the Constitution?

So to recap,

-We have a Constitutional imprimature regarding the power of the Geneva Convention in US law.
-We have a declaration of war by Congress, giving the President the power to conduct the war as he sees fit.
-We have unlawful combatants that were captured during the prosecution of that war.
-We have the war still ongoing; there has been no cessation of hostilities in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
-We have a Geneva Convention that specifically denies unlawful combatants the protections of POWs, but we gant them those protections anyway.
-We have both historical data and legal advice by the AGs office stating that the methods of questioning the prisoners do not constitute torture.
-We have Obama's head of National Intelligence stating that the methods of questioning were effective, informative, and operationally sound.

In other words, excon, you are wrong. The LAW, which "is what's important here", is on our side, not yours.

Elliot

[tomder55]

But, let me ask you this. Do you think my stance on torture is because Bush did it? Do you think I'd be chuckling and guffawing about it with my buddies if Obama did it?

Good then I'm sure you will join me in demanding indictments of Nancy Pelosi ,and every member of both House intelligence comittees who were briefed and signed onto the policy before it was implemented... and also got frequent updates over the last 8 years.

Answer to the question is Eric Holder . He said that back in Jan 2002 when the attacks were still fresh in everyone's mind. A whole bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking going on is what I see.

[excon]

So to recap,

1) -We have a Constitutional imprimature regarding the power of the Geneva Convention in US law.

2) -We have a declaration of war by Congress, giving the President the power to conduct the war as he sees fit.

3) -We have unlawful combatants that were captured during the prosecution of that war.

4) -We have the war still ongoing; there has been no cessation of hostilities in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

5) -(a) We have both historical data and (b) legal advice by the AGs office stating that the methods of questioning the prisoners do not constitute torture.

6) -We have Obama's head of National Intelligence stating that the methods of questioning were effective, informative, and operationally sound.

7) In other words, excon, you are wrong.

8) Can you find any statement of a right to privacy in the Constitution?

Elliot

Hello again, El:

1) True.

2) Not true. Congress did not declare war, and no president has the power to do as he sees fit.

3) True.

4) True.

5)(a) Not true. Historical evidence weighs heavily against torture.

5)(b) True. It has, however, yet to be determined whether the advice was LEGAL.

6) Might be true, but who cares?

7) Not true.

8) The Fourth Amendment.

What's your point?

excon

[excon]

Good then I'm sure you will join me in demanding indictments of Nancy Pelosi ,and every member of both House intelligence comittees who were briefed and signed onto the policy before it was implemented ...and also got frequent updates over the last 8 years

Hello again, tom:

You betcha! Justice is BLIND. Didn't I say that a while ago??

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

1) True.

2) Not true. Congress did not declare war, and no president has the power to do as he sees fit.

Congress authorized the use of military force, not once, but twice. An authorization to use military force IS a legal declaration of war. See the war powers act.

3) True.

4) True.

5)(a) Not true. Historical evidence weighs heavily against torture.

True, but historical evidence also shows that what was done to the detainees wasn't torture.

5)(b) True. It has, however, yet to be determined whether the advice was LEGAL.

Congress was informed on multiple occasions of this legal advice and didn't complain about it being illegal. The courts have never deemed it illegal. Ergo, it is legal until such time as a court deems it illegal.

6) Might be true, but who cares?

Actually, that is the crux of the matter. The head of National Intelligence (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) is saying that it was both legal and effective. As I said before, if it's stupid but it works, it ain't stupid.

7) Not true.

Extremely true, again.

8) The Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment never mentions a right to privacy at all. It prevents illegal search and seizure by the police or government, but it does NOT guarantee privacy of any sort.

What's your point?

My point is I'm right and you're wrong.

Elliot

[tomder55]

This is what David Ignatius of the Compost wrote today:

Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, “hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway.” President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution.

The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.

One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called “risk of capture” interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and “pocket litter” were exploited quickly.
Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.
Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the United States in a process politely known as “liaison.” A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: “There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they've done in the past.”

washingtonpost.com

I wonder what the shadow warriors at Langley feel about their new CIC now ?

[speechlesstx]

This is what David Ignatius of the Compost wrote today:

washingtonpost.com

I wonder what the shadow warriors at Langley feel about their new CIC now ?

And just think, the Taliban has moved to within 70 miles of Islamabad. Imagine Mullah Omar with his hand on the nuclear trigger.

[tomder55]

Bottom line... dunking KSM exposed the 'next wave' which was a plot to attack LA with International Airliners . The question is ;since the technique most likey saved the lives of hundreds if not thousands in LA ,where is the moral authority... in using aggressive interrogation or not using them at the cost of lives lost. That is what the rough people on our side have to consider .
"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."