We praise democracy most of the time, but we practice it as if we had accepted every argument against it, as if we believed it must depress the level of culture and of public life
Quote of the day
 Avaaz/Mugabe Petition Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
NavigationThe World
|
 |
Infamy All AroundInfamy All Around Consider these three links: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4583256 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/cheney-others-okd-harsh-i_n_96158.html?view=print http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/04/14/BL2008041401428_pf.html This from the first of them (I understand the initial break of the story) Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
Detailed Discussions Were Held About Techniques to Use on al Qaeda Suspects By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE April 9, 2008— In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News. Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding. And from the second: WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.
The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved. A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue. Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture. It would be difficult to imaging anything more devastating or extraordinary. The story broke about the middle of last week. Over the week end another story broke: Obama’s remarks at a San Francisco fund raiser which could be intepreted as a liberal elitist dismissal of the values, and especially the deep religeous commitments, of the ‘common people’. I trust I will not have to provide you with links on that issue, but should that be untrue, you can begin to see the dimensions of the response in the April 14, 2008 Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/ then click on HOME So a story of IMMENSE CONSEQUENCE: moral, geopolitical, historical, and nearly every other which way imaginable, is brushed aside, and our Media spends the day in a whirlwind of obsessing over the ‘real meaning’ of some ineptly chosen words by a candidate who had been subjected to a similar fire storm only short time before for refusing to sever himself from the sometimes controversial pastor of a church who had been part and parcel of Obama’s own movingly related and enduring religeous involvment. The greater INFAMY certainly lies with Bush and Co., and so history will have it. But as part and parcel of the Media’s performance after 9/11, this is as great an infamy as any it has perpatrated – save only the whole of its failure. Where is MY country?
Submitted on Tue, 2008-04-15 02:50
Where is your backbone?
...memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.
You can find critics anywhere that will call anything torture. http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2006/May/08-395333.html "John B. Bellinger III told the U.N. Committee Against Torture that there have been “relatively few actual cases of abuse and wrongdoing” by U.S. personnel, and that these isolated cases do not reflect widespread abuses. He asked the international committee to “keep a sense of proportion and perspective.” Bellinger, the senior legal adviser to the State Department, is leading a high-level U.S. delegation that is presenting a formal report to the Committee Against Torture..."
"Bellinger said he is “acutely aware of the innumerable allegations … about various U.S. actions” against captured combatants in U.S. custody. “I would ask you not to believe every allegation that you have heard,” Bellinger told the U.N. committee. “Allegations about U.S. military or intelligence activities have become so hyperbolic as to be absurd. Critics will now accept virtually any speculation and rumor and circulate them as fact.” You forgot to mention the incessant playing of pop music and underinflated soccer balls at Guantanamo. I'm sure you can find critics that have also called that torture. ...Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
I'm sorry but are you referring to all the above techniques which are imposed upon US forces during SERE training? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SERE What happened to your country? It went to war. Most of us are more concerned with the security of our nation than the comfort of those trying to kill us. ...our Media spends the day in a whirlwind of obsessing over the ‘real meaning’ of some ineptly chosen words by a candidate... The words were not inept, they were finally honest. The media is finally getting the true picture of a true Liberal elitist candidate who believes himself superior and feels a divine calling to lead the great unwashed masses of poor unfortunate Americans too dumb to think for themselves. And who are we at war with?
Iron Mike,
What happened to your country? It went to war.
See title. THAT is the question, isn't it? EXACTLY who are we at war with and what amounts to an optimal strategy. I have witten on this extensively. Here are a couple of things to consider:
They are a rag tag collections of fanatics whose greatest hope is to ignite a much larger conflagration in their area of the world. They would then hope to pursue that opening to some ultimately undeterminable, but more advantageous, end.
For the moment, the threat of ‘terrorism’ lies with its most immediate and pressing incarnation through radical Islam. Ultimately this can only be dealt with by a great, continuing cooperative effort on the part of the whole world, but most especially the developed world. Its resources, moral, intellectual, economic, and military are overwhelming. There is no way radical Islam can hope bring these societies down. Only the developed world itself can bestow such power upon a mere faction, by making repeated poor, foolish, and even catastrophic choices. That faction is lethal to the very people they seek to enlist and enflame – and those people know it. Radical Islam has nothing to offer but pyrotechnic nihilism and stagnation in life closed to all of the opportunities that open to people in the modern world. The societies of the developed world enjoy the free and deep commitment of the vast majority of their people, people of enormous cultivated talents and abilities. Does any one propose that such societies, with such vast resources, both human and material, will simply fold their tents and go away when challenged? Anyone who does propose it – and it is a core Neocon propaganda fixation - should be made to defend it.
Care to popose something of your own?
, , , ...our Media spends the day in a whirlwind of obsessing over the ‘real meaning’ of some ineptly chosen words by a candidate...
Well at least you indicated there was material before and after. The full quote would be: So a story of IMMENSE CONSEQUENCE: moral, geopolitical, historical, and nearly every other which way imaginable, is brushed aside, and our Media spends the day in a whirlwind of obsessing over the ‘real meaning’ of some ineptly chosen words by a candidate who had been subjected to a similar fire storm only short time before for refusing to sever himself from the sometimes controversial pastor of a church who had been part and parcel of Obama’s own movingly related and enduring religeous involvment.
Care to deal with that last bit after candidate . . . . ?
deal, dealt, done
Ron, We both AGREE the end state of radical Islam is "...pyrotechnic nihilism and stagnation in life closed to all of the opportunities that open to people in the modern world." You seem to believe that because that is so obvious, that no strong and vibrant society can be undermined by it. I think the onus is on you to defend that statement, not for me to prove the negative. Personally, I see the effect of radical Islam in France, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, and to a lesser degree the UK to be a significant trend worth scrutiny. The mistake would be to dismiss radical Islam as a rag-tag bunch of fanatics and underestimate your enemy. That's not Neocon philosophy, that's Sun Tzu.
...candidate who had been subjected to a similar fire storm only short time before for refusing to sever himself from the sometimes controversial pastor of a church who had been part and parcel of Obama’s own movingly related and enduring religeous involvment.
Care to deal with that last bit after candidate . . . . ? What is there to deal with? ...Obama's opportunistic associations with his racist pastor? Old news, but hardly a "movingly related and enduring religious involvement." I can just see you swooning over "Saint Obama the Racist." Does Obama give you a tingle up your leg like Chris Matthews? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/chris-matthews-i-felt-t_n_86449.html Too funny! But if your point is how this is a distraction from a story of IMMENSE CONSEQUENCE <insert thunderous background music here> about approved interrogation techniques that SOME critics call torture...well, I already dealt with that and you ignored it.
“Allegations about U.S. military or intelligence activities have become so hyperbolic as to be absurd. Critics will now accept virtually any speculation and rumor and circulate them as fact.”
-- John B. Bellinger, senior legal adviser to the State Department, is leading a high-level U.S. delegation that presented a formal report to the Committee Against Torture
Second-Guessing A Crisis
bonr; We all know that hacks like to assign themselves the moral high ground in order to criticize those have to decide between the lesser of two evils. But for once let's weigh the self-appointed outrage against a few realities. In the wake on WTC, no one knew if terrorists had more attacks planned. Enhanced techniques were thought necessary to prevent more 9/11's. Europe was very sympathetic toward America's tragedy at that time. Enhanced interrogation techniques were not approved in a back room. A congessional committe was thoroughly briefed by the CIA, in 2002. Members of that committee included Democrats Nancy Pelosi and John Reid. They approved the techniques as part of the national emergency. Today, they have reversed their approvals as part of the party's drive for the White House. In war, no matter what happens, people die. Even a hack has to acknowledge that. Preventing the loss of life has to prevail. The waterboarding of exactly three al Qeada suspects prevented several 9/11's. One suspect who was waterboarded planned 9/11. He lasted 30 seconds and revealed several terrorist plans. He also encouraged other prisoners to cooperate. How great would the criticism have been if hacks found out the US could have prevented more 9/11's and did nothing? One Texas Congressman summed up the war on terror very well. On a recent talk show he was asked his opinion about enhanced interrogations. He said that if hooking up a terrorist's balls to a car battery would save the life of one Texas GI, all he could say was Red is positive and Black in negative. There is a lot of truth in that. Deal, Dealt, Done? No Evaded!
Iron Mike,
We both AGREE the end state of radical Islam is "...pyrotechnic nihilism and stagnation in life closed to all of the opportunities that open to people in the modern world." You seem to believe that because that is so obvious, that no strong and vibrant society can be undermined by it. I think the onus is on you to defend that statement, not for me to prove the negative.
But I thought we AGREED! Why not deal with the WHOLE quotation:
For the moment, the threat of ‘terrorism’ lies with its most immediate and pressing incarnation through radical Islam. Ultimately this can only be dealt with by a great, continuing cooperative effort on the part of the whole world, but most especially the developed world. Its resources, moral, intellectual, economic, and military are overwhelming. There is no way radical Islam can hope bring these societies down. Only the developed world itself can bestow such power upon a mere faction, by making repeated poor, foolish, and even catastrophic choices. That faction is lethal to the very people they seek to enlist and enflame – and those people know it. Radical Islam has nothing to offer but pyrotechnic nihilism and stagnation in life closed to all of the opportunities that open to people in the modern world. The societies of the developed world enjoy the free and deep commitment of the vast majority of their people, people of enormous cultivated talents and abilities. Does any one propose that such societies, with such vast resources, both human and material, will simply fold their tents and go away when challenged? Anyone who does propose it – and it is a core Neocon propaganda fixation - should be made to defend it.
But if your point is how this is a distraction from a story of IMMENSE CONSEQUENCE <insert thunderous background music here> about approved interrogation techniques that SOME critics call torture...
IT IS!
. . . well, I already dealt with that and you ignored it.
What I 'ignored' was this: “Allegations about U.S. military or intelligence activities have become so hyperbolic as to be absurd. Critics will now accept virtually any speculation and rumor and circulate them as fact.”
-- John B. Bellinger, senior legal adviser to the State Department, is leading a high-level U.S. delegation that presented a formal report to the Committee Against Torture An administration spokeman explictly charged with pleading its case. The statement itself reads like what you might hear from an advertising man - a bald faced assertion only. The provided link is to a 2006 administration press release that references the submission of the report, and cites other 'related articles', and additional administration statements by Bellinger and and Lowenkron. No link to the report itself. THIS is your idea of evidence? YOU WLL BE BURIED!
What is there to deal with?
It seems to me, your 'default' response to 'uncomfortable' questions.
hardly a "movingly related and enduring religious involvement."
Have you actually read the passage in question? It is indeed "movingly related". It is from Obama's book 'Letters from my Father' , and he quotes it in the speech addressing the Wright affair a few weeks ago. I would say 20 years is 'enduring'. Endured even when it was palpably to Obama's (at least short term) political advantage to no longer so 'endure'. How EXACTLY does this jibe with someone for whom religious commitement isn't 'really something serious'. efficacy of torture
TT
The waterboarding of exactly three al Qeada suspects prevented several
9/11's. One suspect who was waterboarded planned 9/11. He lasted 30 seconds and revealed several terrorist plans. You really are gullible aren't you? If you were subject to this torture you'd "reveal" as many 9/11s as the interogator asked you to! If you're talking about the same one I remember he also confessed to a list of crimes which would have been physically impossible for one man to commit. (The story is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/confession-of-911-architect-backfires-on-us-440726.html)
One Texas Congressman summed up the war on terror very well. On a
recent talk show he was asked his opinion about enhanced interrogations. He said that if hooking up a terrorist's balls to a car battery would save the life of one Texas GI, all he could say was Red is positive and Black in negative. There is a lot of truth in that. Apart from it's moral repugnance the problem with this is that it wouldn't save the life of anyone. The subject would say whatever was necessary to stop the pain - whether it was true or false. The real significance of this statement is what it tells us about the Texas congressman (and yourself of course). Big C, Right On!
From TT:
One Texas Congressman summed up the war on terror very well. On a
recent talk show he was asked his opinion about enhanced interrogations. He said that if hooking up a terrorist's balls to a car battery would save the life of one Texas GI, all he could say was Red is positive and Black in negative.
There is a lot of truth in that. Exactly the kind of 'truth', say, a Swabian German might have taken to trumpeting about one German soldier at Lidice. http://www.lidice-memorial.cz/default_en.aspx Big C:
Apart from it's moral repugnance . . .
In EXACTLY the right ballpark. So TT, How, I wonder, would John McCain("it's not about who they are, it's about who we are") react to your bit of foaming at the mouth?
Interrogation, not torture.
How, I wonder, would John McCain("it's not about who they are, it's about who we are") react to your bit of foaming at the mouth?
He'd disagree of course. What's your point? You might be in 100% lock-step with Saint Obama, but conservatives are rallying around McCain for the 80% agreement with him instead of 5% with the Democrat alternative.
Ron: Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.
IM: I'm sorry but are you referring to all the above techniques which are imposed upon US forces during SERE training? If all this is torture, you have yet to explain why are you not outraged that our troops undergo it in training?
If you're talking about the same one I remember he also confessed to a list of crimes which would have been physically impossible for one man to commit.
...But not physically impossible to "plan" since that is what he is accused of doing, not committing the act. He is accused of being the architect, not carpenter. Frankly I find torture as morally repugnant as war and especially as repugnant as terrorism. But I find the failure to use aggressive interrogation avoid a terror attack the most morally repugnant of all. Post new comment |
|
50.50Podcast: Women and Memory, a report from Egypt In the blog: Positive Anger, Zainab Magdy Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 624
Joined: 2003-02-15