BS: Obama and torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:57 AM

Peter, I think we actually disagree very little. Holding those who formulated these policies should be dealt with and addressed primarily by the justice system. Obama has essentially backed up and said that.

For the legal system to be reinstated, it seems to me that not only must the justice system be empowered to operate independent from political pressures to foster "power" agendas, but the population must also believe the system is operating independently and impartially.

It seems to me that the most effective use of the "Bully Pulpit" is not to make statements about who will or will not prosecuted, but to advocate in words, and to practice, by transparent deed, policies that foster an independent judiciary and that allow the justice department the independence to fully explore and then follow the appropriate course of action based on our laws and constitution.

I am not worried that this administration will attempt to sweep this under the rug. And I think it clear that national debate and discussion will continue. However, this is not the only important issue pertaining to social justice that needs rectified. What has happened with the financial system, the gutting of worker rights, the lack of universal health care are all important social justice issues where the rights and needs of people have been strongly eroded, and not just during the last 8 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:08 AM

Frank, it shouldn't just go away, and I have written nothing to suggest that I think it should.

I also think there is other very important business to which attention needs paid.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:35 AM

My point was a little different. it was that none of these other things you want will be secure unless the fundamentals are restored. It is the complacency of living in a supposedly law abiding society that blinds one to this. So here's an example:

Tomorrow morning, your best friend since high school, an American citizen, Abdul, for some unknown reason simply goes mad and takes a gun and somehow finds his way to a place where he kills Barack Obama.   This is a national emergency. You are taken into custody as a known associate. You are completely innocent, but there are precedents now for torture under extraordinary circumstances, "no torture and the rule of law" was just a declaration by a President who is now dead -- it is a Presidential directive which can be overturned by another Presidential directive -- and anyway, lots of people thought it was ok as long as it yielded results. So you now have no rights. You are a citizen of a lawless state. (If you are a citizen of a foreign country resident in America, you are in even more trouble, if that is possible). Every email or letter you have ever written, all your tax returns, every affair you have ever had, all your personal details, all are subject to viewing and investigating and subjected to the darkest of interpretations by authorities who you know nothing about, and over whom you have no say, and no recourse, and no right of complaint. It is a national emergency, which justifies everything they want to do to you. Laws don't matter, because flushing out the conspiracy to which you are a party -- that is what the new President says, Joe Biden, the people's friend, says -- and he must be obeyed because he is the President and can do no wrong -- finding out what your role in the conspiracy is, is all important.   Your torture continues for days or weeks until they are bored with you, and you have told them anything to get them to stop, and you are permanently crippled in body and mind.

But the government that did this needs to carry on doing its other important work. Janie will understand that it was done with the best intentions, and we had other important priorities, like health care to deal with.

Without the rule of law nailed down hard and tight, this is what is not just a fantasy, but absolutely possible -- every single aspect of it has happened, and (god forbid) could happen tomorrow. Until you are safe in your person, the rest is less important. I think.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:59 AM

Peter,

Again, I agree with you.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:34 PM

It would be more accurate for me to say that there are nuanced differences in our perspectives. I think your perspective is valid. However, so is mine.

It is vitally important that some voices insist, as do you, that the first priority must be to insure the USA be held accountable to the world, and that our political leaders must be held accountable to the people, even if that means everything else of importance is allowed to sit on the sidelines.   Otherwise, it is likely the whole thing would indeed be swept under the rug.

I think it also vitally important that some voices insist, as do I, that the nation and our political leaders continue to press on and prioritize addressing these other issues. Otherwise, we come to an empasse and the nation enables the politicos and power brokers on both sides of the political spectrum to use us as pawns.

As always, there is a dialectic out of which it is my belief that a synthesis will arise.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:43 PM

There are many mansions in the house of Washington. There is no reason a special investigator in the Justice Department could not press forward while th emain business of the Senate, Congress and Executive branches continues to be reconstructing a viable economy, etc.

Peter, your chilling hypothetical narrative was very persuasive.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:56 PM

I have not seen anyone suggest that priorities like health care should not be addressed at the same time that people are being held responsible for the crimes they have committed. I can't imagine where anyone would have gotten the idea that such a thing was even being considered. I think the idea that all of them can't be addressed at the same time is no more than an excuse for not dealing with bringing criminals to justice.

We have different agencies for dealing with addressing all of these different concerns, and there is no reason why we can't do all of it all at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:58 PM

I agree. Other things should still go ahead, of course.   One is just desperate for the days when justice will be as unnoticed as air, that is all. As the Taoists say.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:01 PM

Peter-

That is a chilling reality to ponder, and not that much of a stretch in my opinion.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:04 PM

It's precisely those concerns you mention, Peter, that persuaded me not to visit the USA during the 8 years of the Bush administration, and I am still rather reluctant to visit there now, because I feel pretty much like I'm living next door to Germany, circa 1938 or something along that line...potentially. I feel there is that risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 08:00 AM

Lines on a Slippery Slope

By Michael Gerson
Monday, April 27, 2009

By releasing the Justice Department memos on coercive interrogations, the Obama administration has produced an unintended effect: Revealing the context and care of these decisions has made them more understandable, not less.

I had come to view harsh interrogations as a clear mistake. The war on terror is as much an ideological conflict as a military one, and the combination of Abu Ghraib and revelations about waterboarding had the practical effect of a battle lost. I worried also that these techniques might lead to a dehumanized view of the enemy -- always a risk in a time of war -- thus greasing a slippery slope toward abuse.

But the Justice Department memos disclose a different sort of deliberation -- a government struggling with similar worries even after immense provocation; a government convinced that new attacks were imminent but still weighing the rights of captured murderers, drawing boundaries to prevent permanent injury during questioning, well aware of the laws regarding torture and determined not to violate them.

Historically, did America ever give such exhaustive consideration to the consequences of its actions in safeguarding the homeland? To the rights of children incinerated during the firebombing of Dresden? To the long-term mental and physical health of the elderly of Hiroshima? Even the most questionable techniques employed in the war on terror bear no comparison to methods common in past American wars.

The Justice Department memos raise a question: Can coercive interrogation ever be justified? Few Americans would object to the slapping of a terrorist during questioning, for example, if this yielded important intelligence. The coercion would be minimal; the goal of saving lives, overriding. Few Americans, on the other hand, would support pressuring a terrorist by torturing his child. Such a heinous act could not be justified in pursuit of an inherently uncertain outcome -- securing information that may or may not prevent greater loss of life.

So the use of coercion in interrogations lies on a continuum of ethics and risk. Lines must somehow be drawn on the slippery slope -- the difficult task that Justice Department lawyers were given. On which side of the line should waterboarding lie? It is the hardest case. The practice remains deeply troubling to me, and it was discontinued by the CIA in 2003 after being used on three terrorists. But some members of Congress, it is now apparent, knew of the technique and funded it. The decision was not easy or obvious for them. It was just as difficult for intelligence and Justice Department officials in the months of uncertainty following Sept. 11.

I respect many of those who say "never" in regard to coercive interrogation -- just as I respect pacifists who believe that the use of violence and coercion by government is always wrong. This can be a position of admirable moral consistency, and some have willingly sacrificed for its sake. But holding this view is not an option for those in government, charged with the protection of citizens who share this position and those who do not. Adherence to this principle could involve unwilling sacrifice for many others.

Some have dismissed this argument as "moral relativism" or the assertion that the ends justify the means. But this betrays a misunderstanding of ethics itself. The most difficult moral decisions in government are required when two moral goods come into conflict. Most of us believe in the dignity of the human person, a principle that covers even those who commit grave evils. Most of us believe in the responsibility of government to protect the innocent from death and harm. Government officials pursue both moral goods in a complicated world. In retrospect, they may sometimes get the balance wrong. But national security decisions are not made in retrospect.

I suspect that most Americans, in considering these matters, would come to certain conclusions: There should be a broad presumption against harsh interrogations by our government. An atmosphere of permission can result in discrediting crimes such as Abu Ghraib. But perhaps in the most extreme cases -- when the threat of a terrorist attack is clear and serious -- American officials may need to employ harsh questioning, while protecting terrorists from permanent injury. In broad outlines, this approach is consistent with the Justice Department memos.

I remain ambivalent about these issues. There may be other, equally effective ways to get information from terrorists -- I don't know enough about such techniques to be certain. Elements of the interrogation program may have been mistaken. But these were not clear or obvious calls -- and they deserve more than facile, retrospective judgments.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:01 AM

Ah, yes- Mike Gerson, George Dumbya's speech writer....

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:13 AM

An article like that, which is otherwise full of interesting points, goes immediately into my mental trashcan when it contains even one significant factual error. In this case, it says historically, did America ever give such exhaustive consideration to the consequences of its actions in safeguarding the homeland? To the rights of children incinerated during the firebombing of Dresden? The Dresden firebombing was the result of a bombing raid by the Royal Air Force.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:30 AM

It is now reasonably clear that the most important reason for continued torturing was so that the Bush administration could find evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Iraq. It had little to do with what Gerson is talking about -- "clear and serious" evidence of terrorism. He also says "captured murderers". How does he know they are murderers? By what evidence: forced confessions?

There is also no evidence brought forward so far that there was any agonizing at the higher echelons at all: everyone seems to have signed on quite blithely.   Where is the deliberative agony? The only agony seems to be among the military lawyers and others who protested at the risk of their careers.

This piece does not even rise to the level of an argument.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:17 AM

Greg F.

I will remember, the next time someone quotes any member of the Obama administration, that they are wrong by definition.





Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):
attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality:

Turing thinks machines think.
Turing lies with men.
Therefore, machines don't think.
(Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".)

A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?" The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.

A variation (related to Argument By Generalization) is to attack a whole class of people. For example, "Evolutionary biology is a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of Secular Humanism." Similarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a whole category of evidence by announcing "All the scientists were drunk."

Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic?"

There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem." Or "I don't care if other people say you're [opinionated/boring/overbearing]."

Attacks don't have to be strong or direct. You can merely show disrespect, or cut down his stature by saying that he seems to be sweating a lot, or that he has forgotten what he said last week. Some examples: "I used to think that way when I was your age." "You're new here, aren't you?" "You weren't breast fed as a child, were you?" "What drives you to make such a statement?" "If you'd just listen.." "You seem very emotional." (This last works well if you have been hogging the microphone, so that they have had to yell to be heard.)

Sometimes the attack is on the other person's intelligence. For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view." Or, "Even you should understand my next point."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:09 AM

You need to brush up on your rhetoric. It is not an ad hominem if you cast doubt on someone's argument in defence of their previous boss, and not alone their previous boss, but as someone who wrote words that defended their actions at the time and is doing the same now.   He is being questioned based on his position, and not his person.   This seems to be absolutely fair.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: pdq
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:34 AM

I don't like quoting Wikipedia as a rule, but Wiki sez:


"The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945, twelve weeks before the surrender of the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) of Nazi Germany, remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. The raids saw 1,300 heavy bombers drop over 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices in four raids, destroying 13 square miles (34 km2) of the city, the baroque capital of the German state of Saxony, and causing a firestorm that consumed the city centre. Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:14 PM

Arguments which are ad hominem against a leading personage in political affairs,such as Bush, have a certain amount of merit in that a moronic player is likely to play a moronic game; it is better by far, though, to argue against his moronic deeds and hismoronic logic in making moronic decisions, if you can find what it was.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:29 PM

It's true that the US government has committed many crimes against humanity in the past. However, we can't use that as an excuse to continue committing crimes against humanity. And the only thing that will stop us from continuing to do that is for us to start holding responsible the people in our government who commit those crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:10 PM

BB - "Can coercive interrogation ever be justified?"

Well, sure it can...under certain desperate circumstances, and we all know that (if we are prepared to be honest about it). Every police force in the world has at one time or another used "coercive interrogation" on a suspect (whether or not they were technically allowed to do so by the letter of the official rules they serve under)

My argument all along, however, has been this, BB: Such forms of coercive interrogation, meaning torture, should NEVER be sanctioned and legitimized by making them an officially legal policy of a government or a police force. The Bush administration did sanction them and did make it an official policy, and that was what scared me about the Bush administration.

I already know perfectly well that there have been and will continue to be some instances of coercive interrogation under virtually all governments at certain times...but it should never be sanctioned and made a legal (and therefore presumably justifiable) policy. If it is, you have right there the establishment of a fascist state, in my opinion. You have opened the door to massive abuses by the state, because the state has made the policy legal and there is therefore no redress against it, and no protection for prisoners at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:13 PM

New Evidence of Torture Prison in Poland

By John Goetz and Britta Sandberg

The current debate in the US on the "special interrogation methods" sanctioned by the Bush administration could soon reach Europe. It has long been clear that the CIA used the Szymany military airbase in Poland for extraordinary renditions. Now there is evidence of a secret prison nearby.

Only a smattering of clouds dotted the sky over Szymany on March 7, 2003, and visibility was good. A light breeze blew from the southeast as a plane approached the small military airfield in northeastern Poland, and the temperature outside was 2 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit). At around 4:00 p.m., the Gulfstream N379P -- known among investigators as the "torture taxi" -- touched down on the landing strip.

On board was the most important prisoner the US had been able to produce in the war on terror: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, also known as "the brains" behind al-Qaida. This was the man who had presented Osama bin Laden with plans to attack the US with commercial jets. He personally selected the pilots and supervised preparations for the attacks. Eighteen months later, on March 1, 2003, Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by US Special Forces and brought to Afghanistan two days later. Now the CIA was flying him to a remote area in Poland's Masuria region. The prisoner slept during the flight from Kabul to Szymany, for the first time in days, as he later recounted:

FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication.
"My eyes were covered with a cloth tied around my head. A cloth bag was then pulled over my head. … I fell asleep. ... I therefore don't know how long the journey lasted."

Jerry M., age 56 at the time, probably sat at the controls of the plane chartered by the CIA. The trained airplane and helicopter pilot had been hired by Aero Contractors, a company that transferred prisoners around the world for US intelligence agencies. According to documents from the European aviation safety agency Eurocontrol, Jerry M. had taken off from Kabul at 8:51 a.m. that morning. Only hours after landing in Poland, at 7:16 p.m., he took off again, headed for Washington.

A large number of Polish and American intelligence operatives have since gone on record that the CIA maintained a prison in northeastern Poland. Independent of these sources, Polish government officials from the Justice and Defense Ministry have also reported that the Americans had a secret base near Szymany airport. And so began on March 7, 2003 one of the darkest chapters of recent American -- and European -- history. ... (Der Spiegel)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:29 PM

More evidence, if needed, that the release of this information is not exactly going to reveal any secrets to our enemies.

I agree with the argument about a certain amount of hypocrisy in government up to a point. But there are issues and repercussions. Two completely different examples (for those who are weary of talking about torture, how torturous a discussion......): prostitution and drugs. The main claim for many years has been that prostitution shouldn't be legalised for the "certain amount of hypocrisy" argument: governments shouldn't agree to the prostitution of people. But the levels of prostitution are so high, it now seems to me to be useless, and troublesome. Far better for it to be legalized (as it is in Canada, shock, horror). The same is true for drugs. The levels of drug use are now so high, and the costs so great, that it would be much better for them to be legalized.   It is the management of these pervasive social facts that is complicated by a lack of legalization.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:44 PM

Indubitably. (as Holmes might have said to Watson)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:34 PM

Most singular, my dear Little Hawk, and very perplexing. But I think Obama is on the right track on a number of fronts in correcting some of the major problems. I think it would be a mistake for him to get bogged down in trying to press charges against members of the previous administration, and most of them would be dead and gone before anyone reached any kind of conclusion, if they ever did.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: pdq
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:53 PM

in case artbrooks needs more testimony concerning his mistaken beliefs...

Air Attack on Dresden

(13-15 February 1945)

Allied strategic bombing raid against the German city of Dresden. This operation, conducted 13-15 February 1945, has become the most commonly evoked image to illustrate the excesses and horror of conventional bombing of cities. The firestorm caused by Royal Air Force (RAF) Bomber Command on the night of 13 February rivaled that of the raid on Hamburg of 27 July 1943. The immediate controversy about the raid contributed to the end of Allied strategic bombing. Cold War rhetoric and sensationalist presentations in history books and movies have clouded the facts ever since.

At the Yalta Conference on 4 February 1945, the Soviets asked for Allied air attacks on communication centers to prevent the shifting of German troops to the Eastern Front. They specifically mentioned Berlin and Leipzig, but Allied planners also identified Dresden and Chemnitz as appropriate objectives to meet Soviet needs. On 8 February, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) instructed RAF Bomber Command and the U.S. Strategic Air Forces to prepare an attack on Dresden because of its importance in relation to movements of military forces to the Eastern Front. Contrary to later reports, Dresden did contain many important industrial and transportation targets, and it was defended, although many of its guns had been sent east to fight the Soviets. The allocation of effort was also shaped by the prodding of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, although he later tried to distance himself from the operation and the atmosphere engendered by the pursuit of Operation THUNDERCLAP. The latter was a British plan to break German morale with a massive Allied assault on the German capital, Berlin, and refugee centers. The attack on Berlin was conducted on 3 February over the protests of U.S. Eighth Air Force Commander James Doolittle. Other Americans in the U.S. Strategic Air Forces headquarters and in Washington were also uneasy over concentrating on cities such as Dresden, but that did not stop the operation.

The operation opened on the night of 13 February with two separate British raids. The first blow was delivered by 244 Lancasters dropping more than 800 tons of bombs. This attack was moderately successful. The inhabitants of the city were surprised with a second attack three hours later, this time by 529 Lancasters delivering a further 1,800 tons of bombs. The concentrated accuracy of the bombing against so many wooden structures and during ideal weather conditions produced a terrible conflagration. The smoke and flames made aiming very difficult the next day for the more than 300 American B-17s attempting to drop another 700 tons of bombs on the city's marshaling yards. Obscuration of the target area was even worse for a similar attack on 15 February.

When news of the destruction of Dresden reached Britain, there was considerable public outcry over the destruction of such a beautiful city when the war seemed to be virtually won. American air leaders were worried by similar reactions in the United States, especially after careless remarks by a SHAEF briefing officer inspired such nationwide newspaper headlines as "Terror Bombing Gets Allied Approval as Step to Speed Victory." Secretary of War Henry Stimson ordered an investigation of the "unnecessary" destruction but was satisfied by the resulting report explaining the background of the operation. Public reaction in the United States was muted. The controversy contributed to the Allied decision to suspend strategic bombing in April.

The casualty figures reported by German fire and police services ranged between 25,000 and 35,000 dead. However, thousands more were missing, and there were many unidentified refugees in the city. It is probable that the death total approached the 45,000 killed in the bombing of Hamburg in July-August 1943. Some careless historians, encouraged by Soviet and East German propaganda, promulgated figures as high as 250,000. Although David Irving later recanted his claim of 135,000 dead, one can still find that number cited in many history books.

Public impressions of the excesses of Dresden were reinforced by Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse Five and the movie it inspired. More than 50 years later, when critics of U.S. air operations against Iraq or Yugoslavia needed a metaphor to condemn conventional bombing attacks on cities, almost invariably they cited Dresden in 1945.

Conrad C. Crane

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:45 PM

Sorry, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:46 PM

Sen. John McCain: re torture investigations

"Let bygones be bygones, there is no need to even old political scores. Lets put this behind us and fight the wars we are in right now."

********************

You know what if he is right? What if what the country needs now is a little TLC. Forgiveness and amnesty for unknown people for unknown crimes might be the best policy. Since we don't torture, all those people between 14 and 86 years old that were given special treatment and advanced inquisitiveness and interrogation technique training have no reason to hold a grudge.

Afterall, looking into these matters would only be distasteful.
Sure we spent $56 million dollars on the whitewater and Starr Reports but be honest...they were fun. All those salient facts and titillating stimulous packages of cigars were enetertaining. Whitewater investigations aka (operation POTUS sperm) kept us all in stitches.

Even a dollars worth of investigating torture would simply be a downer and a real buzz kill. (start to break into song) These kind of investigations lead to regurgitations. So don't worry, be happy. Be happy.

Don't investigate like White water and Water Gate's illegal missions.
Let it go like the Warren report and the 9-11 Commissions.
don't worry, be happy

as the Madgascar Penguin Skipper says "You didn't see a thiing"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:56 PM

And that idiot was nearly President.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM

Mc Cain sings:


What we all
need now
is T L C
Not some torture files
but to all
be glad again

You know it hurts
to be tortured
so stop all these torture investigations
stop all these nations
who want to sue
want to do
us harm...

What we all
need now
is T L C
Not some torture files
but to all
be glad again

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:18 AM

In my opinion:
1. Water Gate         - mildly important
2. Whitewater         - not important at all
3. Warren commission - extremely important
4. Torture issue      - not very important

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 10:36 AM

Meanwhile, back on earth, those crazy, wacky British have just concluded a jury trial of those associated with the 7/7 attacks, and after some agonizing have sifted through the evidence and come up with what seem like reasonable verdicts for and against people who (on the face of it) were associated with the original bombers. Police work.

For some mysterious reason, in spite of this, Britain seems to still be functioning today like a reasonable country.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Apr 09 - 05:29 PM

This afternoon the appellate court threw out the Obama Justice Department's attempt to support the Bush administration's sweeping argument that state secrecy should be extended to cover all court cases (not just over foreigners, but over Americans as well) in the Jeppensen case. Glenn Greenwald (at Salon.com) goes on to say:

"Critically, the court went on to note that the Government's interests in maintaining secrecy "is not the only weighty constitutional values at stake." Quoting the Supreme Court's language in Boumediene -- which in 2008 declared unconstitutional the Military Commission Act's attempt to abolish habeas corpus -- the court today noted that equally imperative for the court is to preserve "freedom's first principles [including] freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers."

It was completely bizarre and against everything that Obama said during the election, but typical of executive encroachment. If they were decent, they would stop, but it will likely be appealed. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, even against such a nice photogenic guy.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:47 AM

Tom Friedman, apologist for the war in Iraq (still at it) has an interesting column in today's New York Times making the best argument for the torture machinery that went into action after 9/11. He argues that Al-Qaeda is a bizarre aberration, and that the legal apparatus is not designed for suicide bombers and those essentially willing to kill anyone in their path. I disagree with the position, but it is worth considering.

He also makes the point -- for the first time in a serious American newspaper -- that if there were serious investigations, they would have to bring George W. and Dick Cheney and the whole bunch of them to trial.   This worries him -- it would "tear the country apart".   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:57 AM

The Republican lawyers for the military industrial complex are trying to argue that the 3rd branch of goverment, The Judiciary, should not be able to have any say over what laws are broken or not obeyed when it comes to defense policies and National Security. It is an old argument but to ever argue it in court seems to me to be the epitomy of irony.


TO PUT IT IN CLEAR AND SIMPLE LANGUAGE...

Peter, Now the Obama administration can say,

"we tried to hide what you did, just like you did, but the court says we gotta prosecute wrong doers and evil doers even if they are powerful neocons just like the grunts and a few bad apples that you guys prosecuted for doing what you told them to do."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 10:03 AM

Imagine if both Bush and Cheney are found guilty. Then pardoned by Obama at the end of his term. While it would not be in the cowardly character of George's and Dick's nature, what if they refused the pardon? Can they refuse a Pardon? What if they martyred themselves in white collar prisons to unify thier base?   nah

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 12:01 PM

The great, long-standing issue, which was identified way back by the Greeks, was the fact that the executive branch always gains power during wartime. This was why the Framers of the US Constitution and others made declaring war a legislative function, strengthened the judiciary, etc. They knew that the executive is always bent on this kind of thing, because it gets the glory, and does the deeds, and so on.   They didn't really consider what happens when you have war all the time (the Cold War was an example of the need for constant readiness -- there was only a short demobilization time after WWII), although Orwell pegged it pretty nearly in 1984 -- you have to have a constant enemy. The bad luck was that, just as the Cold War necessity folded, and there was this chance of pulling back on the executive, Osama Bin Laden arrived. And now there is the "war on terrorism" which is endless (I note that for the moment, the Obama team has dropped the term, which is interesting).

The legal fight would open up the power of the executive to more scrutiny than anyone seems to be prepared for, so long has the executive appeared to be necessary and godlike. It is hard to imagine Obama going after his own throat like that. He might try it for a little while, but he's an executive branch leader now -- it is unsustainable by him, it has to be generated elsewhere -- which is why public revulsion is so important.

The astonishing thing is that Republicans, supposedly the big libertarians, have no interest in this. Their drift to fascism has been going on so long, they have forgotten libertarianism.

yours,

PEter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 01:29 PM

Al Qaeda formed as a response to Western imperialism. It is hardly unique, or even an aberration. It's a perfectly normal and predictable response. The solution to the problem of Al Qaeda is to end Western imperialism, not to eliminate freedom in Western Countries. Tom Friedman is an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 01:48 PM

...(T)he appellate court threw out the Obama Justice Department's attempt to support the Bush administration's sweeping argument that state secrecy should be extended to cover all court cases (not just over foreigners, but over Americans as well) in the Jeppensen case.

I am very proud of the Court for this. Of the OJD, not so much.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:21 PM

Well and succinctly put, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: TIA
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 09:58 PM

Tom Friedman IS a f***king idiot. An investigation of George Bush would tear the country apart??????????????? The actions of George Bush are what tore the coutnry apart!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 10:25 PM

Of course the torture is more a Cheney and Rumsfeld perversion of American values but Bush was the perfect candidate to accept torture techniques as a powerful tool. So would a 15 year old.

Republicans say "Now you've ruined our best surprise tortures"

not so fast. The memos and files did not include some that even frightened Bush.
note:the blade is not only disposable, its been used 200 times...
a totrure that even scared Bush


PS I'm not sure but shaving the beard off a muslim might be some sort of sin in Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Apr 09 - 10:30 PM

"The astonishing thing is that Republicans, supposedly the big libertarians, have no interest in this. Their drift to fascism has been going on so long, they have forgotten libertarianism."

Lately they are calling this drift "purifying" the party especailly when moderates flee the party. I think Rush called it boiling down the party to its true essence.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 02:45 AM

I'm afraid you are wrong about British justice Peter.

Three friends of the 7/7 London bombers have recentely been on trail.
They were found innocent of any complicity in the bombings, but were given 7 years in jail for "planning" to attend training camps in Pakistan to fight against the US presence in Iraq.....essentially a "thought crime"
The "reasonable" judge ruled that they would have attended these camps if it was not for their "apprehension"...(they were too scared)

British justice at its best here

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 05:11 AM

Excerpt from the link to which akenaton refers:
"Your intention, but for your apprehension, was to attend a real camp and to use real guns in training at that camp..."

I would read this "but for your apprehension," as "but for the fact that you were apprehended (caught)".

It is common that if a criminal is apprehended during the planning of a crime that charges be brought. ie, that conspiacy to commit a crime, is in itself a crime.

Two caveats:
(1) I don't know what evidence there was, that these men planned to do something illegal.
(2) I am not a lawyer or paralegal of any sort.

I just think that the word "apprehension" may have been misunderstood.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:33 AM

Yes, I was deeply troubled by that "intention" aspect too. I wasn't for a moment saying that the British process was perfect -- what can you say about a country that is supposedly the great bastion of freedom, but they have security cameras everywhere? -- but there was at least a jury trial mostly out in the open.

The problem remains: do you live with the risk of being blown up or having lots of people blown up as one of the costs of giving everyone full rights up until the moment they blow you up.   There has to be some margin of safety, but I pull the margin much tighter than other people would.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:49 AM

Obama, Wednesday night's press conference:

"Q: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush's use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush's? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?
OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it's over broad.
But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We're in for a week, and suddenly we've got a court filing that's coming up. And so we don't have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We've got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.
There — I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can't litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.
But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument.
And we're interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak."

Well, maybe. Nice he was confronted by it. But if you read the original filing, it is not exactly "well, here we are, what's going on?", it was definite, pure Bushism.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 10:11 AM

"PS: I'm not sure but shaving the beard off a muslim might be some sort of sin in Islam."


                   Well that's what they should have done, just give 'em a shave, and then if they don't tell you what you want to hear, shave 'em again.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 04:52 PM

I think you may be right Eddie.....I was quoting from the Guardian report, but later stories suggested that the accused were indeed apprehended leaving for Pakistan...these later reports may or may not be true, but as Peter says there is always the question of "intent"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 06:36 PM

"The Dresden firebombing was the result of a bombing raid by the Royal Air Force." - Artbrooks

That is not correct it was a combined operation which was supposed to have intitiated by the US 8th Air Force between 13 February and 15 February 1945.

The Dresden attack was to have begun with a USAAF Eighth Air Force bombing raid on 13 February but bad weather over Europe prevented any USAAF operations, and it was left to RAF Bomber Command to carry out the first raid.

The RAF attacked two times on the night of the 13th/14th, on the morning of 14 February, 431 bombers of the 1st Bombardment Division of the United States VIII Bomber Command were scheduled to bomb Dresden at around midday. Targeting sequence was to be the centre of the built up area in Dresden if the weather was clear. If clouds obscured Dresden and if it was clear over Chemnitz, then Chemnitz was to be the target. If both were obscured then the centre of Dresden would be bombed using H2X radar.

316 B-17 Flying Fortresses bombed Dresden, dropping 771 tons of bombs. The 379th bombardment group started to bomb Dresden at 12:17 aiming at marshalling yards in the Friedrichstadt district west of the city centre as the area was not obscured by smoke and cloud. The 303rd group arrived over Dresden 2 minutes after the 379th found that the their view was obscured by clouds so they bombed Dresden using H2X radar to target this location. The groups that followed the 303rd, (92nd, 306th, 379th, 384th and 457th) also found Dresden obscured by clouds and they too used H2X to locate the target. H2X aiming caused the groups to bomb inaccurately with a wide dispersal over the Dresden area. The last group to bomb Dresden was the 306th and they had finished by 12:30.

On 15 February, bombers of the USAAF returned, the 1st Bombardment Division's primary target — the Böhlen synthetic oil plant near Leipzig — was obscured by cloud so the Division's groups diverted to their secondary target which was the city of Dresden. As Dresden was also obscured by clouds the groups targeted the city using H2X.

On the subject of Obama and torture, I read an interesting question that appeared as a comment in "The Times", it went something like:

As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured according to President Barack Obama's interpretation of the practice of waterboarding, any statement or admission made by KSM is inadmissable. Further as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could not possibly receive a "fair" trial in the United States of America, when will President Barack Obama release Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Apr 09 - 07:46 PM

I stand corrected. There was US participation in the Dresden bombing. However, many historical sources indicate that Bomber Harris was interested primarily in a terror raid, and the strategic targets assigned to the US were secondary to this goal. Churchill said "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."