Caterpillar in a Box

[Oakman]

Obama had to make a choice this week. There were internal memos from the time of the Bush administration detailing some of the tougher interogation techniques used by the CIA in th days right after 9/11. Nancy Pelosi et al were pressing him to publish the memos. The intelligence community - from top to bottom and probably including his own appointees was telling him this was a bad idea and would compromise the effectivesness our our intelligence gathering in the future. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said that the Obama administration would endanger the country by releasing the Justice Department memos[^] Now in one case, according to Charles Krauthammer, the "torture" was to show a prisoner who was pathologically afraid of bugs a caterpillar in a box and then reclose the box and put it in the cell with the prisoner. Today, Obama decided to piss everyone off. He's going to release enough of the memos for Congress to have a reason to hold hearings and posture for TV and embarass the intelligence agencies further. But he's not going to release the names of the agents who conducted the interrogation and he's not going to prosecute them - for doing what the government lawyers and their president told them was legal and necessary for the defense of the country. There was no mention that John Roberts could be heard smacking his lips in eager anticipation of that case getting to the Supreme Court. If, at some time in the near future, you were a mid-grade justice dept lawyer, would you write a memo talking about whether some distasteful act was legal? If you were a senior executive in MI5 or the Mossad and the CIA wanted to swap information with you that might compromise your agents or even place their life in danger - would you do it? If you were offered the chance to be a field agent with the CIA - would you do it? And before someone brings up Valerie Plame as if her outing somehow meant it was okay for Obama to do this to the CIA, I spoke long and strong about my anger in that case and cheered the conviction of Libby.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Do you not have a "30 year rule" where secretive (or in-confidence) government data/files cannot be put into publicly scrutable archives, and even longer if the data/files is still relevant or is still so harmful to disclose. The murky world of intelligence is murky for a reason - namely National Security - and may involve some level of law bending/breaking to function effectively.

[Oakman]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Do you not have a "30 year rule" where secretive (or in-confidence) government data/files cannot be put into publicly scrutable archives, and even longer if the data/files is still relevant or is still so harmful to disclose.

Apparently not in this case, though I believe everyone involved at the time, thought so.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

The murky world of intelligence is murky for a reason - namely National Security - and may involve some level of law bending/breaking to function effectively.

That can be an awfully slippery slope to navigate. At what point do we bring out the rack and the iron maiden?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Oakman wrote:

That can be an awfully slippery slope to navigate

Yes as well as some dubious things such as the allegation that the terrorist suspect "Haroon Rashid Aswat" was in the pay of British Intelligence.

Oakman wrote:

At what point do we bring out the rack and the iron maiden?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if some countries still use that kind of torture. For example, just look at some of those reported confessions from China and Saudi Arabia. I question what methods were used to get those confessions.

[Oakman]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if some countries still use that kind of torture.

Don't be. It was S.O.P. in Vietnam. I feel reasonably certain that's why there were so many MIA's. And I am quite sure John McCain tells the truth about why he can't raise his arms above his shoulders.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Ilion]

NYT: [Alleged-]President Obama’s Statement on the Memos[^]

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

If, at some time in the near future, you were a mid-grade justice dept lawyer, would you write a memo talking about whether some distasteful act was legal? If you were a senior executive in MI5 or the Mossad and the CIA wanted to swap information with you that might compromise your agents or even place their life in danger - would you do it? If you were offered the chance to be a field agent with the CIA - would you do it?

I think that discouraging people from doing some things in the future --- like commit war crimes --- is rather the point of the exercise.

John Carson

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

like commit war crimes

I suspect that forgetting to say "please," is a war-crime even when dealing with someone responsible for the nurder of many civilians, in some peoples' eyes.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

I suspect that forgetting to say "please," is a war-crime even when dealing with someone responsible for the nurder of many civilians, in some peoples' eyes.

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html[^]

John Carson

[oilFactotum]

I have been greatly disappointed by Obama in the past few weeks for his recent support of some of Bush's worst abuses of executive power and secrecy and progressives have strongly criticized him for it. But Obama is doing the right thing now by releasing these memos and he deserves real credit for doing so. It is a victory for government transparency and the rule of law and a rejection of the use of secret law. The ACLU also deserves credit for pushing long and hard for the release of the memos. I don't think it's right, but I'm not too upset that Obama promised not to prosecute CIA interrogators and I am glad to see that he did not make the same promise to Bush officials. It is Obama's obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes and I am disappointed that he doesn't seem to be prepared to fullfill those obligations. Perhaps these released memos will assist the Spanish in building their own case for war crimes. Along with the caterpillars, the memo also authorized walling, stress positions, sleep deprivation and waterboarding. The prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, was still suffering from the effects of 3 gunshot wounds at the time. These memos were written by OLC chief Steven Bradbury and OLC Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee.

[Oakman]

John Carson wrote:

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/21236prs20051024.html\[^\]

I used to belong to the ACLU, until they became the Mexican Civil Liberties Union. Look, John, I am not saying that there haven't been actions taken which do not reflect my image of what American should be. I am glad that we have eschewed water-boarding and agree with John McCain that it is torure or the next best thing. At the same time, I am sick to death of people who see no difference between people trying to get descent intel from a self-confessed terrorist and people who fly a planeload of innocents into a building for the express purpose of killing as many more innocents as possible. Somehow I am reminded of the screams of outrage that rose up all over Australia when it was discovered that the US knew that Indonesian terrorists were planning something - what turned out to be that horrific firebombing - and the demands for an exsplanation of why the US did not share its intel. Ironically, of course, the US had shared the info, and your government was forced to admit that it had chosen not to pass on the warnings. I find myself wondering if that intel had come from someone who was waterboarded. Perhaps that was why your government felt it needed to ignore it?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

oilFactotum wrote:

sleep deprivation

omg they kept self-confessed terrorists awake????

oilFactotum wrote:

stress positions

similar to what I went through in basic training.

oilFactotum wrote:

walling,

absolutely unacceptable

oilFactotum wrote:

waterboarding

The terrible truth is that it works. By the way, do you have any sympathy at all for the victims of terrorism, or just terrorists? I have read you express the latter many times, but never the former. :confused:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[wolfbinary]

In all of this and the posts I've read. Is anyone here saying the ends justifies the means?

[oilFactotum]

Oakman wrote:

omg they kept self-confessed terrorists awake????

Oakman wrote:

similar to what I went through in basic training

Attempt to trivialize it all you like. Doesn't change the fact that it is illegal and it can and does kill.

Oakman wrote:

The terrible truth is that it(waterboarding) works...

very effectively in extracting false confessions. It is illegal and it is a war crime.

Oakman wrote:

I have read you express the latter many times

Utter bullshit. You have never read any such expressions. Opposition to torture is not an expression of sympathy for terrorists.

[Oakman]

wolfbinary wrote:

Is anyone here saying the ends justifies the means?

I think the question I would put forth - because I don't know the answer - is: do the ends ever justify the means? The trouble is, I pretty much automatically distrust anyone who is absolutely sure of the answer.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

oilFactotum wrote:

Attempt to trivialize it all you like.

I don't have to. Caterpillars in a box are trvial. standing in awkward positions for hours is painful as hell, but seldom if ever has any lasting effects. Even less damaging is being kept awake for three days - done all the time in sleep studies. Expressing moral outrage over the idea that these people are not coddled is, on the other hand, as ludicrous as Stan exprssing moral outrage over someone smoking a joint - and claiming it can and does kill.

oilFactotum wrote:

it can and does kill.

I'd like to hear about all the folks who have been killed by being kept awake. The truth is that it is a very effective means of interogation because, without the use of truth serums or other foreign substances, it causes the person to to have less ability to censor his responses to questions.

oilFactotum wrote:

You have never read any such expressions.

Perhaps you should review your way of expressing yourself. You certainly comes across as if you care more for the rights of the enemies of the U.S. than for the lives of your fellow Americans. Look at your first response to this thread - any attempt on the part of Obama to maintain an agressive pursuit of our enemies upsets you and your "progressive" friends. Any time spent digging up past history and whining about it delights you.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[wolfbinary]

Oakman wrote:

do the ends ever justify the means?

That's pretty much where I was going with it.

[Oakman]

wolfbinary wrote:

That's pretty much where I was going with it.

So what do you think? Don't tell me you're going to come up with a wussy answer like "I don't know, either." Oily will call you a fascist; Ilion will call you godless; Stan will call you a socialist; and Karl will call you an American. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[oilFactotum]

Again, more attempts to trivialize. All of these methods are either outright torture or can easily rise to the level of torture if use is extended. They have all been illegal since well before 2001. Your claims that some of these methods are 'very effective' is unsupported by the evidence. Any intelligence gathered by these methods will always be unreliable because the victims will say anything to get it to stop.

Oakman wrote:

Perhaps you should review your way of expressing yourself.

No that is not the problem. The problem is the false assumptions you bring to the conversation and how they color you reading of what I write.

Oakman wrote:

You certainly comes across as if you care more for the rights of the enemies of the U.S. than for the lives of your fellow Americans.

I'm concerned about my rights as an American citizen. But, of course, those rights also apply to my enemies. And not everyone who has be imprisoned, tortured or killed while in custody has been our enemy. And I have no interest in allowing my government the ability to disappear me.

Oakman wrote:

Look at your first response to this thread...

More bullshit. A complete mischaracterization of what I said. "any attempt"? I said no such thing. "agressive pursuit of our enemies upsets you" to characterize unlimited warrantless wiretaps with no oversight in this manner is simply dishonest.

Oakman wrote:

"progressive"

Scare quotes. :rolleyes:

Oakman wrote:

digging up past history

Another attempt to trivialize possible war crimes.

[John Carson]

Oakman wrote:

Look, John, I am not saying that there haven't been actions taken which do not reflect my image of what American should be. I am glad that we have eschewed water-boarding and agree with John McCain that it is torure or the next best thing. At the same time, I am sick to death of people who see no difference between people trying to get descent intel from a self-confessed terrorist and people who fly a planeload of innocents into a building for the express purpose of killing as many more innocents as possible.

I'm not sure who these people are that can't see differences. However the fact that criminal act A is worse than criminal act B doesn't stop criminal act B from being criminal. "Seeing differences" is not the point. Following appropriate procedures is the point.

Oakman wrote:

Somehow I am reminded of the screams of outrage that rose up all over Australia when it was discovered that the US knew that Indonesian terrorists were planning something - what turned out to be that horrific firebombing - and the demands for an exsplanation of why the US did not share its intel. Ironically, of course, the US had shared the info, and your government was forced to admit that it had chosen not to pass on the warnings. I find myself wondering if that intel had come from someone who was waterboarded. Perhaps that was why your government felt it needed to ignore it?

I have no recollection of "screams of outrage". Indeed, I don't even recall the allegation. Lots of claims get thrown around with everyone trying to be wise after the event and to cast the blame on someone. Not many people are realistic enough to recognise that shit happens. I take it all with a grain of salt. A little Googling suggests that the US warnings were non-specific, as these warnings typically are, and hence the government chose not to pass them on. Nothing to do with water-boarding. Just the usual "we know they may have something planned, but don't know what" deal. The idea that the John Howard government would give a toss how the intel was acquired is rather comical. An indication of its attitude to human rights can be gathered from this article: http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/07/08/1057430195786.html[