[speechlesstx]

I guess I've lost my mind because I think it's despicable for members of Congress to be fully aware of what was taking place and then turn their backs on their country, their soldiers and intelligence personnel in lying through their teeth about it in manufactured political outrage.

Security Before Politics

By Porter J. Goss
Saturday, April 25, 2009

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat -- or God forbid, another successful attack -- captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

[excon]

The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives.

Hello again, Steve:

In other words, they deserved it. I think I mentioned that. See reason 3), above.

But, thanks for a new reason to torture; 5) it was OK because we told the Democrats. Noooo, Steve. Telling someone you're breaking the law doesn't excuse you from breaking the law. It really doesn't.

excon

[ETWolverine]

excon,

"[A] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all hose who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

--- Thomas Jefferson

"[An insurrection] in nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws.. . Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one [Constitutional law] be violated?"

--- Abraham Lincoln


[Congressman Clement Vallandigham was arrested] because he was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, to encourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without an adequate military force to suppress it.. . Must I shoot a simple-minded deserter, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert [because of Constitutional law]?"

--- Abraham Lincoln

(In both of these statements, Lincoln was defending his violation of the Constitution because it made no sense to follow the Constitution to the point of destruction of the Nation. He was saying, in essence, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.)



"The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

---Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson, 1949, Terminiello v. Chicago


"The Constitution is silent about the permissibility of involuntary forfeiture of citizenship rights. While it confirms citizenship rights, plainly there are imperative obligations of citizenship, performance of which Congress in the exercise of its powers may constitutionally exact. One of the most important of these is to serve the country in time of war and national emergency. The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact. Similarly, Congress has broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs. Latitude in this area is necessary to ensure effectuation of this indispensable function of government."

--- Justice Arthur Goldberg, 1963, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez


I am still trying to figure out where in our history you get the idea that our country has to be better vis-à-vis human rights than our enemies, unto the point of committing suicide. Can you please tell me WHERE you got this idea? Can you show me a time when this idea was ever true and not some sort of idealistic fantasy? When have we ever agreed to commit suicide in order to uphold the Constitution for our ENEMIES?

Elliot

[excon]

I am still trying to figure out where in our history you get the idea that our country has to be better vis-a-vis human rights than our enemies, unto the point of committing suicide. When have we ever agreed to commit suicide in order to uphold the Constitution for our ENEMIES?

Hello El:

Couple things.

Dude! We don't HAVE to be better. We CHOOSE to be.

Bush was supposed to uphold the Constitution. It's got nothing to do with our enemy.

But, you are to be commended by offering reason to torture 6); OK, we broke the law, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

I guess that makes you feel better... You guys only seem to glom onto that old rightwing saw when you want to VIOLATE the Constitution. But, when it comes to your Second Amendment rights, you're all over it.

Your hypocrisy is manifest. It's here for all to read. I say again, you guys have lost your minds.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I am still trying to figure out where in our history you get the idea that our country has to be better vis-a-vis human rights than our enemies, unto the point of committing suicide. Can you please tell me WHERE you got this idea? Can you show me a time when this idea was ever true and not some sort of idealistic fantasy? When have we ever agreed to commit suicide in order to uphold the Constitution for our ENEMIES?

"Unto the point of committing suicide." Exactly, and I have to ask what would you NOT do to protect your family from imminent danger? I certainly would not whip out my pocket constitution and give it a read through, I'd do whatever was necessary to protect them.

[excon]

"Unto the point of committing suicide." Exactly, and I have to ask what would you NOT do to protect your family from imminent danger? I certainly would not whip out my pocket constitution and give it a read through, I'd do whatever was necessary to protect them.

Hello again, Steve:

My gosh, my gosh. Nobody is asking YOU to take out your pocket Constitution... Whether YOU violate somebody's rights ISN'T the issue.

The issue IS, if you're the president, and you're about to make a big decision, you'd BETTER WHIP OUT YOUR POCKET CONSTITUTION!! If you don't, you go to jail. That's the law.

So, you TOO are admitting now that the dufus broke the law?? I'm sure you're not, but it looks that way. Let me know when you find your minds again, and want to have a RATIONAL discussion.

excon

[ETWolverine]

I certainly would not whip out my pocket constitution and give it a read through, I'd do whatever was necessary to protect them.

Did you get your copy from the Heritage Foundation too?

Funny, it is only excon who feels that we need to follow the Constitution until we go down with the ship. I guess he knows better than Jefferson, Lincoln and various Justices of the Supreme Court, as well as many lower judges. AND he knows better than the military and the CIA what the military and intelligence ramifications are.

[excon]

Hello again, El:

We are a nation of laws and not men.

Yes, I DO know better than the men you list... I know, because every time we've made law out of fear, we've been wrong.

You're afraid. The policy we're speaking of here was born out of fear. The men you list are, or were afraid. I'm not. The Constitution has served us well for over 200 years, and I think it's good for another 200.

excon

PS> Your post DOES suggest that the Constitution WAS violated by somebody. Would that be the dufus in chief?? I think it would be.

[excon]

Hello again,

I just want to make SURE that I've got your reasoning correctly:

1) enhanced interrogation isn't torture, 2) besides that, it's lawful and Constitutional, 3) they deserve it, 4) torture works, 5) it was OK to torture because we told the Democrats, and finally, 6) OK we DID torture, and we DID break the law, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Do I have it right?

excon

[excon]

Hello again:

Help me out here, righty's. Now I'm a real intelligence type guy. I actually worked in intelligence when I served. So I know a little about it...

I can't figure out what intelligence distaster will unfold because Al Quaida knows what will happen to them if their caught... I'm having a real hard time with that. I can't believe that that information will do ANYTHING to embolden or strengthen their resolve, or do us harm in any way...

Please, tell me what that information does to a hardened Al Quaida warrior, and how whatever it does makes us more susceptible to attack or endangers our troops.

Now, I understand if they found out what our troop strength is, that would be bad. Or if they found out when we were going to attack them next, that would be bad...

But, I don't understand how it's bad that they know we're going to use enhanced interrogation techniques on them if we catch them. Can you explain it to me in ways I, as a former intelligence officer can understand?

If anything, it seems to me it would dissuade fighters from continuing.

It also seems evident that it's a recruiting tool that has put us and our troops in harms way...

You say no... But, if you were an Iraqi who was glad the US liberated him, as soon as you saw the pictures of Abu Grahib, you would have joined a resistance movement. Certainly, if you were a proud Iraqi, you would have. I would have. Steve, tom and the Wolverine would have. What makes you think an ordinary Iraqi won't do the same thing you would?

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again,

I just want to make SURE that I've got your reasoning correctly:

1) enhanced interrogation isn't torture,

Correct

2) besides that, it's lawful and Constitutional,

Also correct.

3) they deserve it,

Incorrect. Whether they deserved it or not is irrelevant. They had information we needed, and they didn't want to share it. We needed that information in order to keep American citizens alive. Weighing the value of American lives against the civil rights of terrorists, the decision was made that American lives are more important than the civil rights of terrorists.

4) torture works,

It does. If it didn't work, the point would be moot. That is the ONLY reason for torture... the fact that it works and that it saves American lives. (Incidentally, that is also the only reason for animal testing for drugs is that it works and it saves lives. If it didn't work, there would be no reason to do it.)

5) it was OK to torture because we told the Democrats,

No, that is merely a statement on the hypocrisy of the left... they were all for it before they were against it. That's not a justification, just a statement of historical fact.

and finally, 6) OK we DID torture, and we DID break the law, but the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Slight mistake here. It wasn't torture, and the terrorists do not have Constitutional rights. But EVEN IF IT WAS TORTURE and EVEN IF THE TERRORISTS HAD CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, it still wouldn't matter, because the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

Do I have it right?

excon

Not very often.

[speechlesstx]

The issue IS, if you're the president, and you're about to make a big decision, you'd BETTER WHIP OUT YOUR POCKET CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!! If you don't, you go to jail. That's the law.

Wasn't that the purpose of the memos, to run it by the OLC so they could advise the president? Wasn't that the purpose of briefing Congress so everyone was aware of the situation, to lay it all out on the table, provide opportunities for feedback and to raise objections? If there were none as Goss said, then if the law was broken than everyone involved was culpable - not just "the Dufus." You said so yourself I believe, so let's stop pretending this is all about Bush crimes.

The nation cannot have an honest discussion about it if the Democrats that were in on this just want to play partisan politics with manufactured outrage, outright lies and self-righteous self-promotion to cover their own a$$es

[tomder55]

Abu Ghraib

I noticed on Matthews that he kept on going back to the Abu Ghraib issue which really is different than CIA interrogation .

No one suggests that what happened there was sanctioned. In fact investigations related to prisoner abuse by the military have resulted in 400 disciplinary actions including imprisonment, bad-conduct discharges, forfeiture of pay and other punitive actions.

[tomder55]

Another thing that is NOT true is that the CIA agents waterboarded KSM and Abu Zubaydah 266 times combined .They were waterboarded fewer than 15 times in all, according to the Red Cross, which has spoken to them.The large number the MSM ran with is the number of times water was poured on them, with each pour lasting only seconds.