open Democracy News Analysis - Proposition for Debate, - Comments

ronr327 on "Proposition for Debate"

ronr327 — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:57:11 +0100

iron Mike, The flat out assertion that FISA is obsolete is one of the administrations ploys. There is (and was) a debate, and changes were made, before and after 9/11. That was my point. The question from the perspective of this thread, however, is why the President stated that he was content with what Congress had given him, then issued an executive order obviating the (newly amended) law, and years later stated nothing of the sort had been done. As to FISA, if further changes are needed, pursue them. I have no inherent objection, only that the pursuit should be open, and the rule of law affirmed.

Iron Mike on "Proposition for Debate"

Iron Mike — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:43:23 +0100

Ron, There are plenty of experts who agree that FISA is obsolete. This is not just my opinion.

Quote:

Modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Hearing of the House Select Intelligence Committee Testimony of Judge Richard Posner Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's an honor to testify about the FISA problem. The controversial programs of surveillance by the National Security Agency, outside the framework of FISA, I think, can only be resolved by having congressional regularization of these programs. And I submitted very brief testimony, and I'll just paraphrase what I said. I do believe FISA is obsolete as a weapon for dealing with international terrorism. And the reason for that is precisely that it's tied to the idea of warrants. To get a warrant, you have to know that the person whose communications you want to intercept is an enemy of the United States, basically. You have to have strong suspicion of that. And that, of course, enables the NSA, within the FISA framework, to monitor known terrorists or suspected terrorists. But the real need is to find out who the terrorists are.

That's the first of many arguments. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/posner-fisa-testimony.html http://news.com.com/Spy+law+changes+divide+House+panel/2100-1028_3-6096157.html Lawyers disagree on the law? Say it ain't so!

Iron Mike on "Proposition for Debate"

Iron Mike — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:43:02 +0100

Quote:

It strains credulity to find the series would be somehow screened away from general observation.

I really don't think it's being screened away from general population. I think it's a local firewall issue for any site that uses the word "blog" in the URL. The FISA discussion is a fascinationg one. As communications technology has advanced, FISA has become obsolete and in need of updating. I certainly believe the citizenry deserves to be protected from intrusive spying, but the Bush administrations applications are far from the "domestic spying" buzzword perpetuated by major media. IM

Joe.Bloggs on "Proposition for Debate"

Joe.Bloggs — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 11:32:49 +0100

How does one make a Rather Exceedingly Good Point?

ronr327 on "Proposition for Debate"

ronr327 — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:54:07 +0100

IM,

Quote:

Yes, I skimmed three of your references which had nothing to do with water boarding. Reading them word-for-word would have netted no different result---they were just as irrelevant no matter how they are read. The only reference on topic is the Washington Post article you quoted that is contained within a blog which seems to be in conflict with my firewall---so I still can't read it beyond your quoted paragraphs.

Once more into the breach: In response to my "As the references above point out, water boarding is understood to be an outlawed interrogation technique under international agreements to which the United States is party. Not only party to those agreements, but we have incorporated them into American law." you wrote:

Quote:

I skimmed and did a word search for water boarding in your references and none make that claim

The Jane Meyer New Yorker article cited: Meyer references the aggressive interrogation techniques approved for use at Abu Ghraib, Guantanimo, and elsewhere, which we know extended to water boarding, and her article includes this paragraph: "In exasperation, according to another participant, Mora said that whether the Pentagon enshrined it as official policy or not, the Geneva conventions were already written into both U.S. and international law. Any grave breach of them, at home or abroad, was classified as a war crime. To emphasize his position, he took out a copy of the text of U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three, and read from it. The point, Mora told me, was that “it’s a statute. It exists—we’re not free to disregard it. We’re bound by it. It’s been adopted by the Congress. And we’re not the only interpreters of it. Other nations could have U.S. officials arrested.” "

Quote:

Reading them word-for-word would have netted no different result---they were just as irrelevant no matter how they are read.

Reading has its uses. As to irrelevant. This thread begins with: "Any relationship between what President Bush says and the truth is purely coincidental. The only necessary relationship is between what he says, and what he thinks will sell whatever he is trying to sell at that moment." I offered Bush's repeated statement that 'We don't torture' as an example of saying something demonstrably untrue, which nonetheless was a point he wanted to sell. It is incontestable that under Bush we have done things that, had they been done by others, we would have no hesitation describing as torture. With reference to an FBI eyewitness account of things seen at Guantanimo, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois stated on the floor of the US Senate that they sounded like things we would have expected to be done by Nazis, or done in Stalin's gulags. [Yes, yes I know, right wing media immediately exploded with a furious smokescreen over Durbin comparing us to the Nazis. At no point, of course, did these fulminating gauardians of America's reputation contend these things hadn’t happened. Do you, does anyone, contend these were NOT things we would have expected of the Nazis? After all that was the only point Durbin had actually made.] So let's move on to another selling point item (just coming back into the news). A 1978 US law requires the government to go to a FISA court in order to employ electronic surveillance against US citizens. The law has been amended several times to allow for the ways the environment in which the law has to function has changed, and never more so than in the wake of 9/11. When the President signed these changes into law, he specifically complimented the Congress on giving him what was needed. Yet, at more or less the same time he offered the compliment, Bush had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop without obtaining warrants. During thr 2004 campaign Bush said the following:

Quote:

”Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”

[For a more fulsome discussion of the administration’s way with the FISA question you can consult Glen Greenwalds salon blog: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/21/fisa_changes/index.html] Now the point to consider with respect to the matter leading off this thread is this: Bush need not have said anything. He did not have to offer the compliment to Congress, when he had issued, or was just about to issue, an order allowing wiretaps without a court order. And he did not have to assure an audience at a campaign stop that court orders were always required when he knew he had authorized wiretapping without court orders some two years earlier. He need not have done these things, but he did! Certainly consistent with: "Any relationship between what President Bush says and the truth is purely coincidental. The only necessary relationship is between what he says, and what he thinks will sell whatever he is trying to sell at that moment." Your problems with the Washington Post site are a puzzle. It has to be one of the most accessed web sites of its type in the world. The articles on Cheney this week were highly publicized and frequently commented upon in major media. It strains credulity to find the series would be somehow screened away from general observation.

chris9234 on "Proposition for Debate"

chris9234 — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 21:02:16 +0100

I think you view everything through a conservative prism and that you are using Dafur as a roundabout way to attack the left and at the same time as a way to defend Bush's war on Iraq, i.e., leftist's are 'do nothings' and 'hypocrites', 'at least those on the right have the courage to take a stand like in Iraq'. If it wasn't for that motive I'm sure you wouldn't have the slightest interest in commenting on Dafur. So yes, your conclusions may be different on different subjects, but the common thread to them all is always the same, behind the back leftist bashing, and unabashed Bush supporting. You call that 'evaluating each issue on its own merits' and I think the only person you have fooled is yourself.

Iron Mike on "Proposition for Debate"

Iron Mike — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:37:33 +0100

Courtney,

Quote:

It does beg the question as to what type of slavish ideology do the UN Special Commission on Darfur adhere to? Or what about the EU Special Investigation on Genocide in Darfur, what ideology are they slaves too?

I never suggested they were slaves to ideology. I was only referring to my own assessment. What you call “conveniently selective,” I’d call evaluating each issue on its own merits. I reach different conclusions on different topics—so what? That suggests that I am not a slave to ideology. In all fairness, I already threw you a bone on the issue of Darfur and promised to research the differences between the situations in the south and the west of Sudan…though you seem more interested in fighting semantics instead of mass murder. I think a willingness to evaluate additional information speaks to an open mind and makes Chris' comments pretty irrelevant--they surely don't add to either debate. Should I close ranks and defend every point regardless of evidence to ensure I am consistent? Hmm, that sounds pretty much like an ideologue to me and often describes many of the posters here, don’t you think? IM

Courtney Hamilton on "Proposition for Debate"

Courtney Hamilton — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:37:14 +0100

"What is "convenient" is my ability to evaluate the situation in Darfur and come to the conclusion it is genocide... There is no contradiction in the two evaluations and demonstrates my ability to think critically instead of being a slave to ideology." IM. It does beg the question as to what type of slavish ideology do the UN Special Commission on Darfur adhere to? Or what about the EU Special Investigation on Genocide in Darfur, what ideology are they slaves too? The truth appears to be that you are highly, and conveniently very selective when it comes to evaluating anything, let alone the situation in Darfur - indeed, hard evidence from special investigation teams from around the world, who were on the ground in Darfur is simply dismissed by you as slaves to ideology. If you ask me, you clearly haven't done enough evaluating of the current crisis in Darfur - therefore I must say that Chris does make a rather exceedingly good point.

Iron Mike on "Proposition for Debate"

Iron Mike — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:31:05 +0100

What is "convenient" is my ability to evaluate the situation in Darfur and come to the conclusion it is genocide, while simultaneously evaluating the use of waterboarding and agree with the Bush administration that as applied to KSM, it falls short of an ambigous definition of torture. There is no contradiction in the two evaluations and demonstrates my ability to think critically instead of being a slave to ideology. Why you are incapable of understanding that, I'll never know. As for why anyone takes me seriously...that's not really important to me. I come here to debate the issues and broaden my vision. I make quite a good living on my credibility, so I guess it's working. IM

chris9234 on "Proposition for Debate"

chris9234 — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:40:18 +0100

Ahh…How convenient it must be to talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one thread you talk with the right side of you mouth with such assuredness that genocide is or has occurred in Dafur, while on this thread you talk from the left side of your mouth of how difficult it is to determine what torture is, and that it all comes down to interpretation. Why anyone takes you seriously, I'll never know.

Iron Mike on "Proposition for Debate"

Iron Mike — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:34:04 +0100

Quote:

The second reason is torture is not a reliable tool for obtaining truthful information. The majority of tortures will lead to dead end and when they do lead to a confession, it most likely will be based on the detained suspect giving the interrogator the information which an interrogator wants to hear. Torture is useless tool because any real terrorist have already received the training to sustain interrogation tactics. Also, since most terror suspect do not fear committing suicide bombing, torture is even more sacrificial way to martyrdom in their perception and I believe it is futile. L.W

Aggressive coercive interrogation, short of torture is really what's at issue.---though admittedly many here on OD consider them one and the same. If the goal is to achieve a confession, I'd agree with you. If the goal is actionable intelligence, the evidence emphatically proves otherwise. I've already posted links above to the Library Tower plot foiled as the result of waterboarding KSM. What more do you need? IM

Iron Mike on "Proposition for Debate"

Iron Mike — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:20:51 +0100

Thanks Ron, Yes, I skimmed three of your references which had nothing to do with waterboarding. Reading them word-for-word would have netted no different result---they were just as irrelevant no matter how they are read. The only reference on topic is the Washington Post article you quoted that is contained within a blog which seems to be in conflict with my firewall---so I still can't read it beyond your quoted paragraphs. Frankly, I still find it irrelevant because it comes down to an issue of interpretation of the law. The administration has a different interpretation of the law and what constitutes torture. That does not make them liars. If all lawyers agreed on the law, there would be no need for lawsuits. Yet, the tort business is booming. There is an old saying that the difference between medicine and poison is a matter of dose. The same is true for waterboarding. Normally, desired results are achieved in 20-30 seconds. KSM lasted 2 1/2 minutes! Far short of any physical damage. Save lives...Give 'em the board! IM

ronr327 on "Proposition for Debate"

ronr327 — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:48:57 +0100

IM You wrote:

Quote:

But all this torture discussion is a diversion from the proposition offered. The proposition was that Bush was incapable of telling the truth.

No it wasn't. The proposition was: Any relationship between what President Bush says and the truth is purely coincidental. The only necessary relationship is between what he says, and what he thinks will sell whatever he is trying to sell at that moment. My claim is that Bush is a pitch-man, not a truth teller. What he says may be true, but it's what he is trying to sell that matters: exclusively.

Iron Mike on "Proposition for Debate"

Iron Mike — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:46:06 +0100

Yes, the US is a signatory nation to UNCAT, with reservations to certain paragraphs defining torture. Nor does UNCAT supersede US law. IT'S AMERICAN LAW THAT GOVERNS AMERICAN OBLIGATIONS "American law is thus clear. Torture is absolutely banned, but the CID prohibitions in UNCAT created no new duties for the United States — only duties that already existed under the Constitution. It is immaterial, as far as American law is concerned, that European and other nations may have ratified UNCAT without caveats. We didn't. And in the United States, international law — regardless of how it is interpreted elsewhere — applies only to the extent that the American people's representatives have made it part of American law. " http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/18951 Bottom line is the US does not fully agree with UNCAT definitions of torture and reserves the right to interpret it in the context of US law.

Quote:

However, we already have a problem: What is severe pain or suffering? Is pulling of the nails bound to produce more suffering than water boarding, where the individual has a horrible feeling of near drowning? (Robert)

The discussion on the definition of torture is interesting because it points to the lack of general agreement on a common definition of torture. I suffer from the mental stress of my employment for a government attempting to obtain information from me....am i tortured? How about the unscented soap and under-inflated balls given prisoners at GITMO....oh the horror! Such mental cruelty will make them talk! Waterboarding causes a "feeling" of near-drowning....it is NOT near drowning. It is mental, not physical and rarely lasts more than a minute. Kaled Sheik Mohammed lasted an incredible 2 1/2 minutes, but far less than it would take to actually drown. The MOST one could argue is that a 2 1/2 minute waterboarding could leave long-term emotional scars. Hmmm possibility Kaled will need psychotherapy for a brief 2 1/2 minute waterboarding or save the lives of innocent Americans. Nope...no hesitation required. Give him the waterboard! Where the focus is obtaining actionable intelligence, I have no problem with aggressive, coercive interrogation where no physical harm takes place, because I do not believe it rises to the level of torture. There is significant evidence this has saved thousands of lives. Foiling the Library tower plot alone saved thousands of lives and that is one of many plots foiled. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24653 But all this torture discussion is a diversion from the proposition offered. The proposition was that Bush was incapable of telling the truth. Yet, the length of discussion on the topic of torture alone suggests that no one will agree to what is truth. Therefore, a disagreement of "opinion" can never be a lie. IM

ronr327 on "Proposition for Debate"

ronr327 — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:40:17 +0100

iron Mike, In response to my "As the references above point out, waterboarding is understood to be an outlawed interrogation technique under intenational agreements to which the United States is party. Not only party to those agreements, but we have incorporated them into American law." you wrote:

Quote:

I skimmed and did a word search for water boarding in your references and none make that claim

You 'skimmed' all of them.? My My, you must have been very busy. Perhaps if you read them . . . . In the first article I proposed, the Washington Post 'ANGLER' series, the chapter on 'Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power" and the sub-section titled 'At any time and in any place' you will find the following paragraph: "That same day, Aug. 1, 2002, Yoo signed off on a second secret opinion, the contents of which have never been made public. According to a source with direct knowledge, that opinion approved as lawful a long list of interrogation techniques proposed by the CIA -- including waterboarding, a form of near-drowning that the U.S. government has prosecuted as a war crime since at least 1901. The opinion drew the line against one request: threatening to bury a prisoner alive." And, a bit further up you will find this paragraph: "Geneva rules forbade not only torture but also, in equally categorical terms, the use of "violence," "cruel treatment" or "humiliating and degrading treatment" against a detainee "at any time and in any place whatsoever." The War Crimes Act of 1996 made any grave breach of those restrictions a U.S. felony [Read the act]. The best defense against such a charge, Addington wrote, would combine a broad presidential directive for humane treatment, in general, with an assertion of unrestricted authority to make exceptions." Follow up by reading the succeeding five paragraphs and you will have a pretty clear picture of the game the administration played, and is playing to this day. I chose the particular sources cited because they not only reference the acts committed, but document that a direct line of documentation exists which ties those acts all the way up to the highest levels of the executive branch. Whatever punishments have been meted out, that linkage has never been followed out. It is a well established principle that examinations of misconduct by military personnel must extend to the question of command responsibility. I wonder what the right would say about this (or a Republican Congress do), if a Democratic administration were responsible. In general, the right wing take on Abu Ghraib/torture et al can be summed up as: No big deal, vastly overplayed (And it’s been dealt with!) This characterization is a gross distortion of a very sad and shameful reality. The rest of the world knows it to be true. A vast body of evidence exits, and when Americans are made to face it, we will be (quite properly) appalled. But let's cut to the chase. Governments, Interrogation and Torture All civilized governments will proclaim they don't torture. In reality nearly all assume, under sufficiently pressing circumstances, they and all others will do it. The question is what constitutes sufficiently pressing circumstances. I would propose this. You know, to the extent you can know, that a catastrophic act is about to occur (a matter of hours, not days). You know, to the extent you can know, you have in your custody an individual or individuals who can provide you with the information to avert the disaster. Then you do what you have to do, but don't make it public knowledge. If it becomes public, you own up to what was done, but point to overwhemingly compelling circumstances and are prepared to document those circumstances. You attest that you deeply regret what you had to do, and that you understand this to be a unique event, not one which will determine your future actions. This, I expect, we can all live with. Beyond this nothing.. What must not be done is to make torture a policy, which this administration patently did. Then they extended the policy from the intelligence community out into the general military community, willy-nilly, to people who had no interrogation training at all. Interrogation is a critcal matter for the conflict with radicalism. What experts know is that torture is, at best, a desparate measure. It is not reliable, and hardly optiimal. Intensive interrogation of key figures must be placed in the hands of individuals well trained in the art of obtaining actionable intelligence. Leaving it to utter amateurs, which the American chain of command -in Iraq and in Washington- did, was madness. Oh, and as to what is and is not torture? How about: it's a little like pornography, you'll know it when you see it? The point is that we did things - and explicitly condoned doing them - that had they been done by others to us, we would have no hesitation describing as torture.

Proposition for Debate,

ronr327 — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:29:01 +0100

Any relationship between what President Bush says and the truth is purely coincidental. The only necessary relationship is between what he says, and what he thinks will sell whatever he is trying to sell at that moment.