White House Wants CIA Exempt From Detainee Abuse Ban, etc.

[grandpa]

Notes Say Cheney Told Aide of Plame's Identity:
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news5/nyt9.htm
"WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday."

[Again, I am in a unique position of getting two separate rewards--not only was a CIA operative outed, but the White House is in the doghouse.

{And, speaking of the CIA:]
White House Wants CIA Exempt From Detainee Abuse Ban:
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news5/nyt10.htm
"WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists."

[Here are some other things of interest]

US Military Death Toll in Iraq Reaches 2,000:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...tml?eref=yahoo
"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The war in Iraq saw two milestones Tuesday that reflect the country's path toward democracy and its human toll as officials said the referendum on a draft constitution passed and the number of U.S. military deaths reached 2,000."

Iraq Draft Constitution Approved, Officials Say:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq’s constitution was adopted by a majority in a fair vote during the Oct. 15 referendum, as Sunni Arab opponents failed to muster enough support to defeat it, election officials said Tuesday. A prominent Sunni politician called the balloting “a farce.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9803257/

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

I want the citizens of this nation to be immune from White House abuse, and Executive Privlidge abuse.

Something tells me Bush will have more luck in his wishes than I will with mine.....

[Livemike]

Quote by: grandpa Notes Say Cheney Told Aide of Plame's Identity: http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news5/nyt9.htm "WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday." [Again, I am in a unique position of getting two separate rewards--not only was a CIA operative outed, but the White House is in the doghouse.

Sadly this operative may actually have done the world some good.

Quote by: grandpa {And, speaking of the CIA:] White House Wants CIA Exempt From Detainee Abuse Ban: http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news5/nyt10.htm "WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - Stepping up a confrontation with the Senate over the handling of detainees, the White House is insisting that the Central Intelligence Agency be exempted from a proposed ban on abusive treatment of suspected Qaeda militants and other terrorists." [Here are some other things of interest] US Military Death Toll in Iraq Reaches 2,000: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...tml?eref=yahoo "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The war in Iraq saw two milestones Tuesday that reflect the country's path toward democracy and its human toll as officials said the referendum on a draft constitution passed and the number of U.S. military deaths reached 2,000." Iraq Draft Constitution Approved, Officials Say: BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq’s constitution was adopted by a majority in a fair vote during the Oct. 15 referendum, as Sunni Arab opponents failed to muster enough support to defeat it, election officials said Tuesday. A prominent Sunni politician called the balloting “a farce.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9803257/ Grandpa h.

So Grandpa are you going to be telling the authorities about any suspicious
behaviour by people you know? Me neither. Informing the authorities might
save lives but it's far more likely to get people tortured. And when the bombs
go off nobody will admit they could have prevented it if torture wasn't an option.
Instead it will be calls for more powers, so that the civil libertarians will take the
heat for government failure.

[SteveA]

And to think after 5 years, Bush actually finally vetoed something in his 'career'. And he could have stopped a ton of other bad pieces of legislation but instead he vetoes in a fit because when he wasn't allowed to torture people. And to think we wasted countless hundreds of millions of man hours debating who the best president should be for this. What a waste.

[lsbskins1]

My God! Somewhere, back in my post history, you will find that I was bitchin' about how this administration uses lawyer speak to lie without committing perjury, and here they are, confirming exactally the point I was making. I was saying that in all the denials they were putting out, they were complaining that "No memeber of the US Armed forces was guilty of abuses against detainees at Gitmo" and I said, "notice how that means that if we find it was all done by the CIA and NGOs, they have issued seemingly blanket denials without actually telling a "lie"." Now, we have a form of proof, from their own mouths, that this is exactally what they were up to. I hate this administration. I hate that they claimed they were going to bring honor back to the White House and that this is what they believe to be honorable. Of course, everyone knows it is much worse to lie about an affair than it is to try to cover you ass with half-truths so that you can continue to torture people. At least, that is what all Conservative hypocrits think they know...

ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

How did this happen to my country?

[rmnunez]

I would anticipate “Bush & Co.” would demand CIA exemption from prisoner abuse ban preclusions, after all, they are most likely directly involved in such. I suppose it’s the myopically pollyannaish perspective prevalent in the critical left that fails to appreciate terrorist suspects cannot be handled like other humans. People who think terrorists need to be handled with all the due process expected for common criminals need to have a close relative kidnapped by one of those Islamic fundamentalists.

Vice-president Cheney’s chief of staff would have to know Ms Plane’s details long before the media got wind of it, nothing wrong in that.

Two thousand military fatalities are lamentable and unfortunate, but its still just 2 and change per day, as it has remained since about D-day, which calls into question this critical lefty claim the insurgency is “growing” and enjoys ever-increasing support among the masses in general.

Iraq’s draft constitution is an accomplishment, Sunnis, who suffer a substantial diminution in status thereby, could be expected to object to a constitution that equitably distributes power in Iraq (where they are the minority).

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: rmnunez Two thousand military fatalities are lamentable and unfortunate, but its still just 2 and change per day, as it has remained since about D-day,

This from a non-citizen of the US who lives in a foreign nation. Nunez, send YOUR kids to die!!

[SteveA]

Truthfully, I'm not opposed to people fighting for something they feel is important or in order to assure we live in a just (yes, the definition of 'just' is a word that's open to debate) society. But the people fighting and dying there now aren't doing it for any valuable cause. It's simply over greed and power, masked in compassion and liberty. If 20,000 or even 200,000 soldiers had died so far, I wouldn't be complaining if it was truly in an attempt to stop some larger atrocities from occuring, and we truly had a voluntary military system (which we don't from my perspective) but sadly I think the ones dying now are simply doing it out of a blind faith in the benevolence of our leaders and an undeserved trust in the wisdom of our current policies, or even simply because they don't see any realistic alternatives.

Either way though, I don't believe a draft is ever needed. If people don't believe in a cause, noone should attempt to force them to fight and possibly die for it (and it's not even practical for leaders to try).

That's a bit off topic but I wanted to comment on the deaths of soldiers there, since the subject came up.

[rmnunez]

There is a problem with the motivation behind intervention in Iraq. I think the motives are too complicated for critical lefties to understand. I see a variety of reasons, all of them quite compelling. The critical left just takes single possible motivations and discards them individually. For example, critical lefties say concern over WMDs couldn't be genuine given there weren't any recovered, or that terrorist ties couldn't be a concern given no relationship between 911 and Iraq was found. The critical lefty logic seems to be that if each individual alleged motive can be separately discounted then all of them together are just as false.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez There is a problem with the motivation behind intervention in Iraq. I think the motives are too complicated for critical lefties to understand. I see a variety of reasons, all of them quite compelling. The critical left just takes single possible motivations and discards them individually. For example, critical lefties say concern over WMDs couldn't be genuine given there weren't any recovered, or that terrorist ties couldn't be a concern given no relationship between 911 and Iraq was found. The critical lefty logic seems to be that if each individual alleged motive can be separately discounted then all of them together are just as false.

So lies, distortions and a lust for imperial power are "compelling" reasons to you? If each claim is false you seem to imply that taken together they can be true. But the "motives are too complicated for critical lefties to understand"? Sure. How completely absurd.

[grandpa]

Quote by: RickSp So lies, distortions and a lust for imperial power are "compelling" reasons to you?

Well, some people are still compelled by these attitudes.
And they also feed the opposition.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

There could be other compelling reasons besides lust for imperial power to torture terrorists.

Imminent threat, the "ticking bomb" is a compelling reason under basic ethical and moral principles relating to the greater harm avoided. Captives held for years obviously wouldn't easily pass this imminence requirement, but there could be other factors like association with others of greater threat. The possession or knowledge of instrumentalities relating to WMDs might also prove compelling, clearly the notion of a greater harm avoided is relevant.

My impression is that torture, if and when justifiable, would be more so closer to initial capture. Years later it makes much less sense unless there is some new, credible and highly threatening evidence relating to a previously held captive.

The fear of pain and death induces confession, this is why torture could be productive. Persuasion, negotiation or other argument may not be effective under a fanatical mindset.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez There could be other compelling reasons besides lust for imperial power to torture terrorists. Imminent threat, the "ticking bomb" is a compelling reason under basic ethical and moral principles relating to the greater harm avoided.

Iraq was not a "ticking timebomb." It was a defused, impoversished country.
No WMD plans were underway. Even the administration has abandoned that angle.
It didn't start exploding until our invasion.
You don't avoid greater harm by creating greater harm.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

This thread discusses a legislative initiative by the Bush administration to exempt CIA agents from torture preclusions. The imminence of the threat Iraq posed is not the issue, what is relevant is the imminence of the threat the torture victim poses.

An argument to exempt CIA agents from torture preclusions could be premised on a situation where a terrorist suspect knew of the location of a ticking bomb, when he may have information or equipment related to an attack of massive proportions or impact, or knowledge of the location of others with such information and/or equipment.

Simply possessing information or knowledge of a threat is not enough, what is required is that in addition, greater harm would result from not torturing the suspect to remove that threat.

Of course, there will be situations when the suspect doesn't have information or knowledge of any imminent threat. If the CIA agents torturing a terrorist suspect don't know he doesn't really have any information on any imminent threat and believe the suspect does have such information, Bush wants them to be able to torture him with impunity.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez This thread discusses a legislative initiative by the Bush administration to exempt CIA agents from torture preclusions. The imminence of the threat Iraq posed is not the issue, what is relevant is the imminence of the threat the torture victim poses.

Well, if the CIA is out torturing Al-Qaeda suspects, then they too are a threat.
I'm skeptical that every suspect is the real deal and that torture is a moral thing.

BTW, you actually DID mention WMD's as a component of the "ticking timebomb."
You said:
"The possession or knowledge of instrumentalities relating to WMDs might also prove compelling, clearly the notion of a greater harm avoided is relevant."

Grandpa h.

[northtexan]

Quote by: rmnunez There is a problem with the motivation behind intervention in Iraq. I think the motives are too complicated for critical lefties to understand. I see a variety of reasons, all of them quite compelling. The critical left just takes single possible motivations and discards them individually. For example, critical lefties say concern over WMDs couldn't be genuine given there weren't any recovered, or that terrorist ties couldn't be a concern given no relationship between 911 and Iraq was found. The critical lefty logic seems to be that if each individual alleged motive can be separately discounted then all of them together are just as false.

Yeah, what leftie false consciousness: that if each individual lie can be revealed, we can ignore the entire corrupt policy of war criminality. Oh wait: no, we're against that too!

RMNUNEZ, I disagree with those that say to send your children to die in Iraq. I think that you should go yourself.

[rmnunez]

"I have no candle in that funeral" (a Mexican saying).

I've already remarked on the synergistic effect of terrorism and WMDs when coupled. I suppose 100% uncontrovertible evidence of WMDs or terrorist ties may not be required when there is some evidence of both.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: rmnunez I've already remarked on the synergistic effect of terrorism and WMDs when coupled. I suppose 100% uncontrovertible evidence of WMDs or terrorist ties may not be required when there is some evidence of both.

This is where the problem lies. We never have proof that someone has knowledge. It's like saying, "If the police know he is guilty, they should be allowed to torture a confession out of a prisoner". If they have the eviedence in front of them that proves his guilt, there is no need to torture, because the confession is unneccessary. The point you make is basically empty. And this is the perfect example of the slippery slope problem. You think he is a terrorist because you arrested him in an apartment rented by a known terrorist. You received a threat from the organization behind the known terrorist who rented said apartment. So, you now have some evidence that he is a terrorist and some evidence that a building in Chicago is going to be blown up(the afore-mentioned threat). Do you torture this guy? What if he never "breaks"? Can you torture his room-mate? Ignore the fact that it has been shown over and over again that this is basically a useless tactic. Think about how many people admitted to being "in league with Satan" during the inquisition. And ask yourself this question, did the seven methods bring the Troubles to a quick end in Northern Ireland? But we are putting that aside. Let's suppose that once every thousand times you torture, you get some "actionable intellegence". Is that acceptable to you? 999 times you fail, and at least half of those times, you will be failing because the person you are torturing does not have any information that is of any use to you, and at least half of those times, the person will be completely innocent. Is that the system you want? That is why you don't torture. It always ends up victimizing innocents and it almost never achieves the ends you seek. It is cruel, useless and completely immoral.

[rmnunez]

Suppose instead that one out of two or three torture victims discloses "actionable intellegence", would you still feel victimizing one or two perhaps wholly innocent (or maybe just too recalcitrant) is not worth the greater harm avoided by extracting that actionable intelligence?

We just don't have all the information needed to address the question. How many are tortured? Was any intelligence derived thereby and how valuable was it? Could a situation arise where a suspect was tortured, revealed intelligence that seemed valuable, but then turned out to be worthless? Would the torturer have to know he was getting garbage before his actions could be objectionable?

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez Suppose instead that one out of two or three torture victims discloses "actionable intellegence", would you still feel victimizing one or two perhaps wholly innocent (or maybe just too recalcitrant) is not worth the greater harm avoided by extracting that actionable intelligence?

So the ends justify the means, eh? That's utterly shocking coming from someone who seems to support Bush. The funny thing about the Machievallian approach is it can be applied to any conflict on the planet (and will be).

Quote by: rmnunez We just don't have all the information needed to address the question.

Why is that?

Grandpa h.