Althouse: "The worse consequence of a partisan report can be seen in this disturbing fact: It contains no recommendations."

December 10, 2014

"The worse consequence of a partisan report can be seen in this disturbing fact: It contains no recommendations."

"This is perhaps the most significant missed opportunity, because no one would claim the program was perfect or without its problems. But equally, no one with real experience would claim it was the completely ineffective and superfluous effort this report alleges."

Writes Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years. (Kerrey was also a Navy SEAL, and he won the Medal of Honor heroism in the Vietnam War.)

143 comments:

Robert Cook said...: As I posted on another thread, here's a self-evident recommendation:

Do not torture.

Another:

Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes.; 12/10/14, 11:54 AM
The Drill SGT said...: three comments. Kerrey (the good Kerrey) is an endangered species:

1. I think another good quote comes early:

I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it.

2. He also lost his leg in Vietnam.

3. I think your sentence misses something. I would make it: "and he won the Medal of Honor for heroism in the Vietnam War"; 12/10/14, 11:58 AM
Expat(ish) said...: @Robert - I agree. Let's start with the senators who were fully informed and go from there.

-XC; 12/10/14, 11:58 AM
garage mahal said...: No labels! Third Way!; 12/10/14, 12:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: The only thing the outgoing majority Democrat Senators Report says over and over and over is that The Democrat Senators were never told that this interrogation was being done, to the best of their memory and belief at this time, maybe.; 12/10/14, 12:00 PM
J. Farmer said...: This is really quite depressing. And utterly besides the point. We could probably discover a lot of criminal activity if police officers started kicking in people's front doors and rifling through their drawers. Imagine what criminal conspiracies could be uncovered if we stopped every tenth car on the highway, forcibly removed its passengers, and searched it from top to bottom. Wait, what, privacy you say? Hey, why you wasting our time with all that abstract talk about principles? We're talking efficacy here. Some innocent people may be harmed as a result of these practices? Eh, no program is perfect.

Statements like these show just how deep the rot goes. The United States' entire post-9/11 defense posture, under Republican and Democractic leadership, has been one strategic blunder after another. We have thrown away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in order to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into even more failed states, where Islamist thugs hold even greater power and influence than they did pre-9/11. The threat from Islamic radicals has been overblown, hyperinflated, and distorted beyond any recognizable form by the so called "grown ups" of our foreign policy establishment, while the people advocating caution and restraint on the part of the U.S. were routinely called traitors, wackos, cut and runners, and worse by cable news clowns and the mental midgets that occupy large swathes of the Capitol building and White House.; 12/10/14, 12:05 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "and he won the Medal of Honor for heroism in the Vietnam War"

I thought that seemed redundant. Is the Medal of Honor for things other than heroism?; 12/10/14, 12:05 PM
The Drill SGT said...: no, you left off "FOR"; 12/10/14, 12:06 PM
Sebastian said...: "Disturbing" only to those who assumed good faith; a "missed opportunity" only to those who assumed more than political CYA was at stake.; 12/10/14, 12:06 PM
TreeJoe said...: Physical and psychological means have been used to interrogate and draw out information for millenia. Yes, bad information can come out. Yes, someone may be interrogated and have no new information to offer.

And, of course, they can have additional information that comes out during the process.

The concept of enhanced interrogation was specifically aimed at two types of detainees:
- Detainees who had been exposed to high level information of significant value
- Detainees who had been exposed to time-sensitive information

It's totally true that when you grab, hypothetically, 10 al qaeda agents from a safehouse with plans and pictures of bombing targets that 9 likely have no additional information of use. And the 10th MIGHT.

But there appears to be the belief that interrogating all of them rigorously - to include psychological and physical means but mainly non-marking physical means - is bad in all instances.

I appreciate how many intel community members have come out and said, "9/11 happened and Bin Laden was indicating it was just a start." - it goes to the mindset and reality that if a group of 1,000 people are planning another 9/11, and you are told that, and you round up 10 of them....what do you do?

Do you try to spend years collecting evidence to put them on trial while giving them miranda rights? Or do you try to find out more information about imminent attacks - even to the point you push the bounds of moral means of gaining that information.

In the aftermath of 9/11, that pendulum swung a certain way.; 12/10/14, 12:08 PM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Kerrey is also open about the fact the CIA briefed the Intelligence Committee prior to implementation of the EIT after 9/11. Feinstein and Pelosi and Reid said nothing about it then. They were all for it. Only now as their leadership positions in the Senate slip away do they rush a one-sided report (no interviews of ANY CIA personnel? Really?!) out and try to stick the stink all on Bush.

But Extraordinary Rendition started under Clinton and has continued to and through this present administration. Guess what happens when our "allies" to whom these prisoners are transferred work them over for intelligence. They don't use techniques that were vetted by the DOJ, briefed to Congress, and conform to US law.

So yes, this is supremely unserious. And a lie to say we got no good intel. And DiFi should freaking retire already.

As other wiser commenters noted yesterday, how much actionable intelligence do we get from the alleged terrorists that Obama vaporizes via drone? How much due process in that exercise DiFi?; 12/10/14, 12:09 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes"

LOL

The Left is full-blown pretend-history-doesn't-exist-mode and just blame others and there is no way Robert Cook and his pals are going to call for the dems who were fully informed and fully approved of these actions to be investigated.

The second anyone suggests that the dems come clean about their role the marching robo-minions (like ARM, garage, et al) will start screaming like stuck pigs.

"Investigate all...."

Who do you think you are kidding?; 12/10/14, 12:10 PM
TreeJoe said...: Also, there appears to be two differing outcomes of this report:

1. Torture, and anything we even loosely define as torture (i.e. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, extended hypothermic situations, etc.) is bad and immoral in all instances

2. The CIA has alot of evidence of ineptly keeping, maintaining, and interrogating detainees.

Number 2 is damning because our intelligence community really no longer has it's patina - which was a strength and armor we've lost.

Number 1 is just intellectually lazy.; 12/10/14, 12:11 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...there is no way Robert Cook and his pals are going to call for the dems who were fully informed and fully approved of these actions to be investigated."

Oh HO! I most certainly do! Charge and prosecute all of them, up to and including Obama!; 12/10/14, 12:11 PM
Hagar said...: Executive actions in a bureaucracy - Gov't or GE.

1. When contemplating something that might be controversial, get an opinion from an opposing lawyer as well as your own.

2. Keep your orders simple - anything complex is going to go awry.

3. In a bureaucracy, there is no such thing as a secret; anything you have ever said or done that can be used against you will eventually come to light and will be used against you.; 12/10/14, 12:13 PM
Heartless Aztec said...: The only real attention paid to this report were from CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS - it was a sad partisan spectacle. Even PBS knew it from watching their report.; 12/10/14, 12:19 PM
TreeJoe said...: Mike,

The drone program is, quite frankly, the best rebuttal. We have a very recent history of killing people remotely with no due process, detention or in person evaluation, and without a chance to hear any information they might be willing to share.

How is that not a violation of geneva? How is that not morally questionable?

I've got no problem with EIT personally WHEN ITS WELL RUN (which the CIA did not do consistently here, to our discredit). I do have a major problem with drone usage across 8 countries.; 12/10/14, 12:20 PM
Henry said...: Let's start with Robert Cook's statement: Do not torture.

The point is not that torture is immoral because it doesn't work; the point is that torture is immoral even if it does work.

But instead of asserting this clear principle, the report desperately attempts to ground the moral point in a utilitarian swamp. Instead of "we should never have done this" we read the feeble excuse "we didn't have to do this."

This is a dangerous and stupid defense to make for a moral standard. If false, it opens the case to such criticisms as Bob Kerrey's. If true, it simply pushes the moral question down the road to the next moment of risk. Who is to stop a future administration from arguing, with Benthamite ruthlessness, "this time we will torture in a more effective way."; 12/10/14, 12:23 PM
Brennan said...: It's odd to me that the committee that tells us the CIA failed to disclose all they were doing would opt out of interviewing any CIA personnel and now take the complete word of CIA internal review.

Which is it? Do you trust CIA now, but not previously?; 12/10/14, 12:24 PM
Brennan said...: Torture does work. Why do you think the United States was farming it out to Jordan and Egypt prior to 9/11?

It works depending on the outcome you hope to achieve.; 12/10/14, 12:26 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said... (Kerrey was also a Navy SEAL, and he won the Medal of Honor heroism in the Vietnam War.)

As I understand it many in the military prefer "was awarded" to "won" in describing how one comes to acquire a medal; "won" is too easily conflated with something gained on account of luck alone.; 12/10/14, 12:31 PM
Greg Hlatky said...: Of course, this is a McGuffin. Leftists don't care about campus rape victims, just about driving men off campus. Leftists don't care about Palestinians, just about destroying Israel. Leftists don't care about detainees, just about weakening the US.

Leftists don't care about the rights of prisoners. Americans were brainwashed by North Korea, tortured by North Vietnam, mutilated and killed by their jihadist pals without a murmur of complaint from the various Robert Cooks now ululating about this report. They have no moral standing whatsoever to say anything.; 12/10/14, 12:33 PM
garage mahal said...: Prosecute these bloody liars and dissolve the CIA entirely.; 12/10/14, 12:35 PM
Franklin said...: Do people legitimately believe that there is a "civilized" way to conduct a war?

The bombs, rockets, IEDs, and bullets do horrible things to people - much more horrible things than the torture described does. War is unfortunately sometimes necessary. Then why is one form of violence OK but another, torture, is not?

Is it because the US is a signatory to various international treaties that protect prisoners? Those treaties require certain behaviors from the captured as well as the capturers. If our enemy does not abide by the treaties, why is the United States expected to abide by the treaties?

Again, fighting a war does more violence to humans than waterboarding, but violence in a war is morally accepted, so there is no moral objection to violence (except by Quakers and other absolute pacificsts). So it must be a legal objection to torture, which is surely invalidated when one side breaks those rules, right?; 12/10/14, 12:41 PM
n.n said...: Why seek information at all? Why make any effort to limit collateral damage? Just bomb them into submission.

We used military force to carve out a new nation from Serbia without legal and moral considerations, in order to establish an Islamic nation in the heart of Europe. Without provocation, and without informing Congress, we used military force to change the regime in Libya, and then permitted the torture and murder of the regime's remnant, as well as our own citizens. We would have done the same in Syria, but Congress actually stood up and protested further unilateral regimes changes and expansion of wars. We were not so fortunate in Ukraine, which continues to suffer after a foreign-aided coup.

And in America... Well, we know that members of the reporting committee do not believe human life has intrinsic value, and they only offer selective consideration of individual dignity. Torture is not the issue. Not really.; 12/10/14, 12:44 PM
Franklin said...: To be clear, I don't like torture anymore than I like war, I'm just saying that there's not a clear logic chain for people to say that war is (sometimes) morally justified but torture is never morally justified.; 12/10/14, 12:44 PM
sdharms said...: what is worse: the CIA subjecting an enemy combatant to EIT or the POTUS personally selecting an American citizen to be hit with fire from a drone without due process?; 12/10/14, 12:44 PM
Dan Hossley said...: Here's a recommendation. The Senate shouldn't approve enhanced interrogation techniques in the first place.

Here's another. Senators that are briefed about the enhanced interrogation techniques and support them wholeheartedly at first, should be made to wear a dunce cap for a year when they later claim the program went too far. Or they should be branded with a scarlet "L" for liar.; 12/10/14, 12:45 PM
Dan Hossley said...: Remember one thing. The people pushing this narrative are the same people that repeatedly lied to us about "you can keep your plan and you can keep your doctor".

They are self serving hypocrites or liars if you prefer.; 12/10/14, 12:48 PM
n.n said...: Franklin:

For the same reason that we did (past tense) not assassinate foreign leaders: retribution. Clinton liked to poke people. Although, Serbia was a peculiar exception. Obama violates the terms and order of international (and domestic) agreements at will.; 12/10/14, 12:50 PM
Hagar said...: I am trying to cope with the information that the CIA paid 2 psychologists 80 million dollars to "design" the "enhanced interrogation" programs.

There surely are some zeros missing behind the 2, or too many behind the 80?

And the CIA embarks on executing what clearly are "illegal" orders, and subcontracts to civilians? This can't be right, can it?
If they were going to do it, they should at least have kept it in house, it seems to me.; 12/10/14, 12:52 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Robert Cook wrote:
"Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes."

Cook is finding them guilty before the investigation. In the name of justice!; 12/10/14, 12:53 PM
Hagar said...: "Investigate and prosecute" does not necessarily lead to conviction.

I do agree that this mess should be investigated and brought out into the light of day to serve as a warning not to let anything like this get going again.; 12/10/14, 12:59 PM
n.n said...: Franklin:

I think the distinction that people draw is with suffering. Of course, that only applies to a specific instance of a specific individual, which invalidates their argument. The same argument people use to justify premeditated abortion (i.e. "choice") of wholly innocent human lives, is equally valid to justify extra-judicial murder and torture. However, in the case of self-defense, there is a clear moral justification to commit murder and torture (e.g. psychological) of a population that does not exist with premeditated abortion which is incongruously defended as a "right".; 12/10/14, 1:01 PM
Big Mike said...: I read Kerrey's op-ed and it the main thing it did for me was remind me that once upon a time there were Democrats who believed in the United States, and thought that the United States was worth protecting. Patriots, if you will. Or use some other word if you've been brainwashed into thinking that "patriotism" is somehow e-e-e-evil and despicable.

One of Kerrey's points, and a point made by John Hinderaker, resonates: "I don’t know what the Agency did to get on the wrong side of Dianne Feinstein, but the report is, seemingly, an act of revenge."; 12/10/14, 1:07 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Americans were brainwashed by North Korea, tortured by North Vietnam, mutilated and killed by their jihadist pals without a murmur of complaint from the various Robert Cooks now ululating about this report. They have no moral standing whatsoever to say anything."

WTF are you going on about?

First, no one gets absolution for torture; it's always evil, whomever does it.

Second, it is sort of assumed, (not always accurately or fairly) that if we're fighting the "bad guys," they are "bad" and will do "bad" things we object to. But this is not about that; this is about the bad things we do.

If we are the purported "good guys," we should not be doing "bad" things, and we should raise our voices in objection to our government doing bad things in our name with our tax dollars. This is about us.

Complaining about bad guys (who are not us) doing bad things is sort of redundant and useless, is it not? That's like complaining about the neighbor down the road beating his wife; it's more pertinent and useful to complain when the husband who is beating his wife iscloser to hand--when it is one's father, brother, uncle, son.

As John McCain said, accurately:

"It's not about who they are; it's about who we are."

My own corollary to this is:

It's not about what they do; it's about what we do.; 12/10/14, 1:13 PM
Unknown said...: Lying is immoral. Lying to get information must therefore be immoral.; 12/10/14, 1:14 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...the report is, seemingly, an act of revenge."

Hmmm...publishing a fraction of a much longer report telling the truth about what we did is an act of revenge? Doesn't that reflect badly on what we did?; 12/10/14, 1:16 PM
traditionalguy said...: United States you say? States of what UN Province?

Oh yes, our world trade is currently measured in dollars from a Bank some where in North America from where it then flows freely in and out of Hong Kong where for the use of the real World Super Power, until that is replaced by its owners; 12/10/14, 1:16 PM
Robert Cook said...: "what is worse: the CIA subjecting an enemy combatant to EIT or the POTUS personally selecting an American citizen to be hit with fire from a drone without due process?"

Why choose? They're both grotesque and evil.; 12/10/14, 1:18 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Do people legitimately believe that there is a 'civilized' way to conduct a war?"

No, there isn't,(although there are ways to try to do so...such as, for example, forbidding one's own forces from committing atrocities or using torture. This will not stop such behavior, but it may limit it if it is known to be forbidden).

That's why one should not conduct a war unless it is absolutely unavoidable and necessary. That's why mounting an aggressive war is, under the Nuremberg Standard, the greatest of war crimes.

In case it needs to be made clear, no war we are presently involved in--wars we started--are necessary or were unavoidable. (The only war we've fought in in over 100 years that can be arguably justified is WWII...which was the culmination of forces set in motion by the unnecessary and pointless WWI.); 12/10/14, 1:26 PM
Robert Cook said...: "@Robert - I agree. Let's start with the senators who were fully informed and go from there."

Yes, lets.; 12/10/14, 1:27 PM
Hagar said...: I think Bush (and Cheney), or Congress, did not authorize quite what the CIA did, but the CIA took it as "OK, they want results, but with "plausible deniability," so we just won't tell them exactly what we are doing."
And then nobody wanted to get in the way of the train with everything going so swimmingly and the MSM cheering it on and so on.

But I do think they were told enough that they should have asked more questions then, and pretending to have been all innocent now, is not convincing.; 12/10/14, 1:30 PM
Hagar said...: Plus which, this agency, along with others, seem to have been on autopilot for the last 6 years under this administration.; 12/10/14, 1:46 PM
Rocketeer said...: I am not willing to cede the argument that the EIT we used constitute torture.; 12/10/14, 1:50 PM
Drago said...: garage mahal: "Prosecute these bloody liars and dissolve the CIA entirely."

LOL

Everyone knows you have no intention of prosecuting these dem liars.

Ever.; 12/10/14, 1:56 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: ""@Robert - I agree. Let's start with the senators who were fully informed and go from there."

Yes, lets."

Well then, by all means get your pals on the left fired up and calling for investigation of these dem liars immediately.

The rest of us will wait over here wondering why nothing ever comes of it......; 12/10/14, 1:58 PM
damikesc said...: Yeah, Democrats being in charge is a boon for the concept of ownership. Really.

As far as shuttering the CIA, add in numerous other agencies and we're getting somewhere.; 12/10/14, 2:18 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: What violation of the law are you going to prosecute these unnamed people for, Hagar? Or are you just going to make it up as you go along?; 12/10/14, 2:20 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Robert Cook wrote:
"Doesn't that reflect badly on what we did?"
"We" did? If you are including yourself in your list of law-breakers, turn yourself in.; 12/10/14, 2:25 PM
Drago said...: Hagar: "I think Bush (and Cheney), or Congress, did not authorize quite what the CIA did, but the CIA took it as "OK, they want results, but with "plausible deniability," so we just won't tell them exactly what we are doing."

I think the CIA fully informed the senators in the mistaken assumption that once fully informed, the dems would never, later on, turn around and pretend to not know and then to threaten the CIA officers with prosecution.; 12/10/14, 2:26 PM
Howard said...: The sad thing is that we wouldn't have to get our hands dirty with all this torture stuff if we had a modern day Curtis LeMay. All we need to do is firebomb the middle east and we can be safe once again to by cheap disposable shit we don't need made in Asian sweatshops so we can pay the Vig to Lloyd Blankfein and Hank Paulson so they can keep their G VI's aloft.

Unfortunately, we are no longer a christian nation so we probably can't do the firebombing anymore.; 12/10/14, 2:29 PM
Hagar said...: @ Terry,
There will be no prosecutions.
But that is not to say the actions were lawful.; 12/10/14, 2:32 PM
Howard said...: Drago: The CIA figured they could get enough dirt by spying on the senate to force them to keep their mouths shut. Unfortunately for them, they got caught before they got the goods.; 12/10/14, 2:32 PM
Howard said...: Althouse: you should add war criminal to Kerrey's bio (via Wiki)

In 2001, The New York Times Magazine and 60 Minutes II carried reports on an incident that occurred during Kerrey's Vietnam War service. On February 25, 1969, he led a Swift Boat raid on the isolated peasant village of Thanh Phong, Vietnam, targeting a Viet Cong leader whom intelligence suggested would be present. The village was considered part of a free-fire zone by the U.S. military.

Kerrey's SEAL team first encountered a peasant house, or hooch. Later, according to Kerrey, the team was shot at from the village and returned fire, only to find after the battle that some of the deceased appeared to be under 18, clustered together in the center of the village. "The thing that I will remember until the day I die is walking in and finding, I don't know, 14 or so, I don't even know what the number was, women and children who were dead", Kerrey said in 1998. "I was expecting to find Vietcong soldiers with weapons, dead. Instead I found women and children."[11]

Kerrey expressed anguish and guilt over the incident, saying "You can never, can never get away from it. It darkens your day. I thought dying for your country was the worst thing that could happen to you, and I don't think it is. I think killing for your country can be a lot worse."[12]

Kerrey was awarded a Bronze Star for the raid on Thanh Phong. The citation for the medal reads, "The net result of his patrol was 21 Viet Cong killed, two hooches destroyed and two enemy weapons captured."[11]

A display at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City is based on the incident. It includes several photos and a drain pipe, which it describes as the place where three children hid before they were found and killed.[13] The display reads:[14]

From 8PM to 9PM February 25th, 1969, a group of Seal Rangers [sic] (one of the most selective rangers of U.S. Army) led by Lieutenant Bob Kerry [sic] reached for Hamlet 5, Thanh Phong Village, Thanh Phu District, Ben Tre Province. They cut 66 year-old Bui Van Vat and 62 year-old Luu Thi Canh's necks and pulled their three grandchildren out from their hiding place in a drain and killed two, disembowelled one. Then, these rangers moved to dug-outs of other families, shot dead 15 civilians (including three pregnant women), disembowelled a girl. The only survivor was a 12-year-old girl named Bui Thi Luom who suffered a foot injury. It was not until April 2001 that U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey confessed his crime to the international public.; 12/10/14, 2:35 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Hagar wrote:
"But that is not to say the actions were lawful."
Was the law broken or not? If so, which law?; 12/10/14, 2:36 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I don't think of myself as an especially moral person, but if I believed what Robt. Cook and Hagar believe about the immorality of US actions in the GWOT (or Vietnam), I would renounce my citizenship and move to another country.; 12/10/14, 2:39 PM
Madison Mike said...: Are medals won or are they awarded? At least you didn't say it was the "congressional" medal of honor; 12/10/14, 2:40 PM
Drago said...: Howard: "Drago: The CIA figured they could get enough dirt by spying on the senate to force them to keep their mouths shut."

Laughable.

The CIA hacked the computer system used by Senate staffers to create the report the staffers were developing.

There was no "dirt" there on Senators.

Do you wanna try again? (I would strongly advise caution); 12/10/14, 2:40 PM
Drago said...: Madison Mike: "Are medals won or are they awarded? At least you didn't say it was the "congressional" medal of honor"

Medals are "awarded". Not "won".; 12/10/14, 2:41 PM
Krumhorn said...: Hmmm...publishing a fraction of a much longer report telling the truth about what we did is an act of revenge? Doesn't that reflect badly on what we did?

Yeah, the only thing being tortured is the truth. You squishy lefties should be so ashamed to being living in the safety of our borders and so unwilling to do what needs to be done to achieve our security. War is messy business; there is no way to avoid it. But Americans are almost angelic when viewed in the context of history.

- Krumhorn; 12/10/14, 2:45 PM
Drago said...: Howard: "From 8PM to 9PM February 25th, 1969, a group of Seal Rangers [sic] (one of the most selective rangers of U.S. Army) led by Lieutenant Bob Kerry [sic] reached for Hamlet 5, Thanh Phong Village,..."

Full. Stop.

WTF is a "Seal Ranger"?

Bob Kerrey was US Navy SEAL, which as most people know, is not a part of the US Army.

His team was a Navy SEAL Team, no army members. SEAL's really were quite independent in all their Vietnam ops, even when it came to coordinating with other Naval units.

Finally, always capitalize all the letters for Navy SEAL's.

Seriously Howard, have you been drinking? You are all over the place.

Isn't it enough that I've already had to put up with you mentioning Mr "Strategic bombing is all we'll evah need!!" Curtis cigar-crunching LeMay?; 12/10/14, 2:50 PM
Howard said...: Drago: I guess you believe the innocent story in the funny papers about those nice CIA hackers helping the senate staff write a report. I don't buy that, but I agree it may not have been a failed fishing expedition.

Maybe the CIA is weak because of the Snowden NSA leaks. In the bad old days, no one would ever cross The Company.

DiFi is a piece of work. Hell hath no fury and all. Folks here might not be aware of just how tough DiFi is. Again, from Wiki:

Dianne Feinstein, who was then President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, saw White quickly exit Mayor Moscone's office from a side door and called after him. White sharply responded with "I have something to do first."[6]

White proceeded to his former office, and intercepted Harvey Milk on the way, asking him to step inside for a moment. Milk agreed to join him.[7] Once the door to the office was closed, White positioned himself between the doorway and Milk, pulled out his revolver and opened fire on Milk. The first bullet hit Milk's right wrist, as he tried to protect himself. White continued firing rapidly, hitting Milk twice more in the chest, then fired a fourth bullet at Milk's head, killing him, followed by a fifth shot into his skull at close range.[8]

White fled the scene as Feinstein entered the office where Milk lay dead. She grabbed his wrist for a pulse, her finger entering Milk's bullet wound. Horrified, Feinstein was shaking so badly she required support from the police chief after identifying both bodies.[9] Feinstein then announced the murders to a stunned public, stating: "As President of the Board of Supervisors, it's my duty to make this announcement. Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed. The suspect is Supervisor Dan White."[10][11][12]

White left City Hall unchallenged and eventually turned himself in to Frank Falzon and another detective, former co-workers at his former precinct. He then recorded a statement in which he acknowledged shooting Moscone and Milk, but denied premeditation.; 12/10/14, 2:58 PM
Michael K said...: "I most certainly do! Charge and prosecute all of them, up to and including Obama!"

And would you then recommend Khalid Sheik Mohammed take his place ? Why not ?

The poor guy was waterboarded !

The left really has lost its collective mind.; 12/10/14, 3:07 PM
Michael K said...: "As John McCain said, accurately:

"It's not about who they are; it's about who we are."

McCain broke under real torture and has been ashamed of that fact ever since.

Jim Webb, before he got into politics, wrote a good screenplay for "Rules of Engagement." It's worth watching.; 12/10/14, 3:10 PM
J. Farmer said...: Reading these comments I am not sure whether to laugh or cry. Some if it almost reads like a parody of talk radio chest thumping. As for "doing what it takes" to protect the county, that apparently includes torturing innocent people and terrorizing Pakistani neighborhoods and blowing up their kids. But telling the Israelis they cannot steal other people's land even if their Big Book of Jewish Fairytales tell them they can? Oh no, absolutely out of the question.; 12/10/14, 3:10 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: If I believed what J Farmer did I would leave the country. Stolen from the Indians, don't you know.
It's the cheap moral preening by Lefties that bothers me.; 12/10/14, 3:19 PM
J. Farmer said...: Terry,

If anybody who knows me in real life heard that I was called a "Leftie," they would double over in hysterics. Are simplistic buzzwords the only means you have for interpreting the world? What do you make of Daniel Larison writing in "The American Conservative?" Is he simply a morally preening leftie? How does the antiwar right even fit into your worldview? Or the antiwar libertarians? All closet lefties? Do you have an actual argument to make beyond boring talk radio sloganeering?; 12/10/14, 3:27 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Michael K said...McCain broke under real torture and has been ashamed of that fact ever since.

The dirty secret is that everybody breaks on some given day under torture. The whole point of SERE is to:

1. hold out the operational details of what you know till they lose their criticality, and

2. pick yourself up and continue to resist tomorrow.

I don't know whether he broke, but he was very badly abused, and regained enough strength to be a problem for his captors till he was released.

Oh, and he refused to be released early...; 12/10/14, 3:52 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: I have made no statement for or against any war, J. Farmer. Do you think that the Israelis theft of Arab land is more or less reprehensible than the American theft of Indian lands?
How do your friends know that you aren't a lefty?
Does the category "boring talk radio sloganeering" exclude or include the phrase "Big Book of Jewish Fairytales"?; 12/10/14, 3:56 PM
Drago said...: J Farmer: "But telling the Israelis they cannot steal other people's land even if their Big Book of Jewish Fairytales tell them they can?"

Shorter J Farmer: darn those Israeli's for not allowing the arabs to push them into the sea!

Hey, I'll bet J Farmer hasn't ever told any islamists that they follow a "Big Book of Islamist Fairytales".; 12/10/14, 3:58 PM
Drago said...: So J Farmer, do you or do you not believe that the CIA kept the dems in congress informed of their activities and do you or do you not believe that those very same dems approved of the methods of interrogation that the CIA employed?

It's ok if you want to launch a "Howard-like" riff on talk radio sloganeering prior to answering. It appears it may be a "tic" with you.; 12/10/14, 4:00 PM
J. Farmer said...: My points were very clear. Ending our unwavering, uncritical support for a tiny client state on the far eastern fringe of the Mediterranean would go a long way towards making us safer. But it absolutely verboten in this country thanks to the large majority who believe that magical events occurred there thousand of years ago and the importance of Jewish money in domestic politics. But what, apparently, is not off the table, is to take people we suspect (the "suspect" part typically gets left out of the discussion) of terrorism and subject them to physical and psychological torment. I do not consider making that point to be "morally preening." As I said in my first post, I consider virtually everything the U.S. has done, under both administrations, in the name of fighting terror to be one strategic blunder after another. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and now Syria. More Americans are killed every year by other Americans than by terrorists. Why not subject suspected murderers to hours long stress positions, hypothermia inducing ice baths, and periodic bouts of drowning?; 12/10/14, 4:13 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Drago:

1) I do not care what letter comes after a Congressperson's name on C-span. I support politicians who favor anti-interventionism and the dismantling of our global military presence. What party they identify with is utterly irrelevant to me.

2) Have you ever been to Hebron? Do you believe that the messianic fanatics who settled deep into the west bank after 1967 are threatened with being pushes to the sea? Do you believe that a Jew born in Brooklyn has the right to return to Jerusalem, but an Arab born in Jerusalem does not? I think that whole situation is a total mess compounded by fanatics on both sides. But I don't think it's worth one American life or one cent of taxpayer money.; 12/10/14, 4:19 PM
Revenant said...: But equally, no one with real experience would claim it was the completely ineffective and superfluous effort this report alleges."

Because government officials make a habit of claiming that their work has been completely ineffective and superfluous.

Of *course* people who've been personally involved here are going to claim it worked. What else would we expect? Enough claims; hard evidence, please. Once there's hard evidence that torture saved American lives, THEN we can worry about whether it was worth it.; 12/10/14, 4:24 PM
Revenant said...: I do not need to read the report to know that the Democratic staff alone wrote it. The Republicans checked out early when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it.

If the staff had started out NOT knowing what the CIA had been up to, starting out with the premise that the CIA was guilty would have been bad.

However, as so many Republicans have repeatedly noted since the report came out, Congress knew what the CIA was doing. They received regular classified reports about the torture program. This means that saying they "started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty" is misleading. The word "premise" should be replaced with the word "knowledge".

If you tell me you stole $100 from someone and I launch an investigation based on the "premise" that you are guilty of theft, I'm not pre-judging you. I'm believing you.; 12/10/14, 4:40 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Revenant wrote:
"Once there's hard evidence that torture saved American lives, THEN we can worry about whether it was worth it."
So they needed a priori certainty that the EIT would save not just any lives, but multiple American lives?
It's all black and white to you, isn't it, Revenant?; 12/10/14, 4:40 PM
Drago said...: J. Farmer: "@Drago:

1) I do not care what letter comes after a Congressperson's name on C-span. I support politicians who favor anti-interventionism and the dismantling of our global military presence. What party they identify with is utterly irrelevant to me."

It would be difficult to be more non-responsive to a simple question of whether or not you believed the dems in congress (dems, since they are the ones claiming ignorance) were fully informed about the CIA program and then fully approved those actions.

Why don't you take another swing at the actual question asked sparky?

J Farmer continues: "2) Have you ever been to Hebron?"

Whether or not I've ever been to Hebron is irrelevant as to whether or not the dems in congress were actually informed of the CIA program and approved of it at the time.

BTW, the answer is yes.

J Farmer: "Do you believe that the messianic fanatics who settled deep into the west bank after 1967 are threatened with being pushes to the sea?"

All jews in Israel are being threatened with being pushed into the sea. The fact that your islamist pals have failed to do it thus far does not alter their intent.

J Farmer: "Do you believe that a Jew born in Brooklyn has the right to return to Jerusalem, but an Arab born in Jerusalem does not?"

Yes to the jew, no to Arab. The reasoning? The arabs have a tendency to target and blow up schools, school buses, childrens parties, etc. This has become standard islamist practice globally whereever they can get away with it.

J Farmer: "I think that whole situation is a total mess compounded by fanatics on both sides. But I don't think it's worth one American life or one cent of taxpayer money."

Good for you.; 12/10/14, 4:57 PM
J. Farmer said...: I have no idea what congressional democrats knew or did not know, and it is not relevant to any point I have made in this thread. If every single member of Congress knew of and approved of the torture methods we subjected suspected terrorists to, I would still oppose it for the exact reasons I oppose it now.

If the Jews in Israel find themselves in a rough neighborhood, that's there problem. If two tribalistic factions want to kill each other over real estate each believes an invisible spirit has promised to them, that is equally their problem. Again, not worth American diplomatic effort and certainly not worth taxpayer charity. A strategic partnership with Iran would be far more advantageous to the US than the tiny client state of Israel.; 12/10/14, 5:18 PM
Revenant said...: So they needed a priori certainty that the EIT would save not just any lives, but multiple American lives?

I'm sorry, is English your second language? You seem to have problems with verb tense.

I asked for "hard evidence that torture saved American lives". After-the-fact knowledge that something works is called "a posteriori" -- knowledge after the fact. It is not an unreasonable requirement. If you can't with certainty before OR after the fact that torture is saving American lives, there can be no moral or pragmatic justification for doing it.

As for the "multiple lives" thing -- supporters of torture claim multiple lives have been saved. That's what I'm asking for proof of. If you would like to revise the claim to "we had to torture all these people in order to save one American life", that's fine; I'll await proof of that single life saved, instead. :); 12/10/14, 5:31 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Revenant, I don't see the tense issue. You wrote "Once there's hard evidence that torture saved American lives, THEN we can worry about whether it was worth it." You have to decide whether or not it is worth it before you begin EIT. You can't just randomly torture people. That's illegal.; 12/10/14, 5:57 PM
Henry said...: Revenant wrote: Once there's hard evidence that torture saved American lives, THEN we can worry about whether it was worth it.

I understand your logic, but your thesis is flawed.

Using utility to judge the ethics of torture -- or war (to bring the Obama administration's drone assassination model into account) -- leaves amoral administrations fundamentally unchecked.

As I wrote upstream:

"Who is to stop a future administration from arguing, with Benthamite ruthlessness, "this time we will torture in a more effective way."

The reason for moral standards -- even for war, even for nation states -- is to guard against the appalling alternative of the moment.

In the end there is no war crimes tribunal that will judge the actors of our current empire, despite Robert Cook's protests. But history will judge. We will be judged as our imperialist predecessors are judged -- for the submission of the Moros, to name one example.; 12/10/14, 5:59 PM
Henry said...: @Terry -- Exactly. You cut to the point.; 12/10/14, 6:00 PM
harrogate said...: It's pretty clear Kerrey wanted nothing made public and nothing done about the torture ordered and committed by US officials. That makes him, on top of the other accolades awarded him in the post, a Tool and a Fool.; 12/10/14, 6:47 PM
John Cunningham said...: @/Robert Cook--who said

Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes.

how about starting with Boy Clinton who started the rendition of suspects to Jordan, Turkey, etc? I am sure their interrogators only ask polite questions. and the entire Senate leadership, including scum like Reid, Feinstein, Durbin, et al. were fully briefed from the beginning. in fact, they urged the CIA to do much more to find info. so, you ignorant scrote, you don't know that Holder's DOJ investigated all the CIA agents for 2 years and chose to indict NONE OF THEM??; 12/10/14, 6:59 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Perhaps it's because I like to think the best of people, but I believe that if a person had knowledge of a terrorist operation that would kill dozens of civilians, even Feinstein would authorize yanking the person's fingernails out of that's what it would take to save innocent lives.
It would be immoral not to.; 12/10/14, 7:04 PM
Revenant said...: Revenant, I don't see the tense issue

Yes, you obviously don't.; 12/10/14, 7:23 PM
Rusty said...: Terry said...

Robert Cook wrote:
"Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes."

Cook is finding them guilty before the investigation. In the name of justice!

He's hilarious.
He's the church lady of Althouse.
So morally rigid he could be a serial killer.; 12/10/14, 7:23 PM
Revenant said...: Using utility to judge the ethics of torture -- or war (to bring the Obama administration's drone assassination model into account) -- leaves amoral administrations fundamentally unchecked.

There are three problems with your position.

The first is that you seem to believe that ethics and morality have something to do with whether or not administrations are allowed to do something. You're wrong about that. Even if torture were demonstrably moral, that wouldn't mean that amoral administrations were allowed to do it.

The second problem is is your objection to the use of utilitarian morality in war. Utility is the only justification for war, which involves committing normally immoral acts (e.g., murder and arson) because NOT doing so would be even worse.

The third problem is that you seem to be assuming that I'm claiming torture is justified if it works. Not so. Defenders of the CIA are claiming that the torture was necessary because it worked; I'm saying that until we have evidence that it worked, you can't even begin an argument over whether it was justified on grounds of utility.; 12/10/14, 7:36 PM
Revenant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/10/14, 7:41 PM
Revenant said...: how about starting with Boy Clinton who started the rendition of suspects to Jordan, Turkey, etc?

If you think Robert Cook would object to sending Clinton to prison for war crimes, you're obviously new here.; 12/10/14, 7:42 PM
Big Mike said...: Is there a point where we return to Kerrey's basic objection, namely that the report contains no recommendations?

Giving the CIA the direction to do something, anything and we'll tell you later whether you did right or wrong is basically a direction to do nothing whatsoever. You all see that, right?; 12/10/14, 7:59 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "WTF is a "Seal Ranger"?"

It appears that's what the people who wrote the quoted text, who don't speak English as a first language most likely, called Bob Kerrey's unit.

That is why the "sic" was included, is my guess, in the quoted section.

So, for example, if I quote S. Johnson writing "the law is a ass (sic)" there are things to criticize, but to criticize using "a" as opposed to "an" when the quote is a famous one from a great author wouldn't make ultra/mega sense.

Same concept if the quote is from VC.; 12/10/14, 8:11 PM
Drago said...: Rusty (re Cook): "He's hilarious.
He's the church lady of Althouse.
So morally rigid he could be a serial killer."

Oh, I think you'll find that when you are speaking about non-white, non-western, non-Christians, Cookie's "morality" becomes infinitely elastic.; 12/10/14, 8:32 PM
Henry said...: @Rusty and Terry -- You need to look up what the word "prosecute" means.

@Revenant -- Good points. I'm under no illusions about how power is utilized. Yet it seems to me that the report-writers' declaration that torture wasn't justified because it didn't work is the flip-side of those who argue that torture was justified because it did work. Both demean principle in favor of expediency.

There is such a thing as just-war theory and it does sometimes constrain democratic nations in the exercise of their power, not least because democracies are prone to debates such as this, flawed as it is.; 12/10/14, 8:38 PM
RecChief said...: ""The worse consequence of a partisan report can be seen in this disturbing fact: It contains no recommendations.""

If you think about the purpose of this "report", then you know why.

It whitewashed that the Democrats knew the methods, were briefed on them by the CIA, and gave tacit approval.; 12/10/14, 9:14 PM
RecChief said...: ""The worse consequence of a partisan report can be seen in this disturbing fact: It contains no recommendations.""

If you think about the purpose of this "report", then you know why.

It whitewashed that the Democrats knew the methods, were briefed on them by the CIA, and gave tacit approval.; 12/10/14, 9:14 PM
Louis said...: I don't know why I thought it would be a well written report. It's frightening there is such a dearth of talent in the Senate.; 12/10/14, 9:23 PM
grackle said...: Robert Cook Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes.

Political show trials! Bring those evil CIA agents to answer before the DOJ.! Weeee – the slope is already slippery and would get even slippery-er. What fun! Can't wait!

J. Farmer This is really quite depressing … no program is perfect.

Two things I could identify with in the long rant they are taken from. I did not understand the rest.

J. Farmer We have thrown away trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in order to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into even more failed states, where Islamist thugs hold even greater power and influence than they did pre-9/11.

All Obama's doing of course. Repeat after me: Re-sid-u-al for-ces. See how easy that was? We were sitting pretty, before the amateur, naive ideologues in the Whitehouse took over foreign policy; now we are in deep shit. And it's gonna get deeper. Obama is a boy among men on the international diplomatic scene and especially when confronted with large-state maneuvering. Putin gives him little pats on the back.

J. Farmer The threat from Islamic radicals has been overblown, hyperinflated, and distorted … by the so called "grown ups" of our foreign policy establishment …

Islamic radicals are causing havoc all over the world but the commentor sees no threat worth mentioning … but wait, didn't the same commentor testily declare in the statement above that: … Islamist thugs hold even greater power and influence than they did pre-9/11.??

J. Farmer … while the people advocating caution and restraint on the part of the U.S. were routinely called traitors, wackos, cut and runners, and worse by cable news clowns and the mental midgets that occupy large swathes of the Capitol building and White House.

The context: 3,000 9/11 victims dead and who knows how many others might die in the next strike. Caution? Perhaps. Especially err on the side of caution if American civilian lives can be better protected. But "restraint?" Naw. Kill the SOBs and anyone who harbors them.

Rocketeer I am not willing to cede the argument that the EIT we used constitute torture.

I agree. The techniques were designed to avoid real torture – to make real torture unnecessary. The beauty of the techniques were that they worked very well yet left the detainees hale and hearty. Not the sort of techniques I would want to be used in the local police station, but after 3,000 were murdered? You bet.

Furthermore, these civilian murderers were NOT soldiers, and should never be given the status of POWs. Real POWs would of course be entitled to the protection of the agreements of the Geneva Convention.; 12/10/14, 9:25 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: It is worth mentioning that the reason the WTC terrorist attacks killed 3,000 rather than 20,000 was mostly random chance. The hijackers needed the planes to be full of fuel and low on people, so they had to hit the towers early in the day. It's not like they said "3,000 dead is okay, but 20,000 dead would be too many". They would have killed every person in NYC if they had had a way to do so.; 12/10/14, 9:35 PM
Lewis Wetzel said...: " while the people advocating caution and restraint on the part of the U.S. were routinely called traitors, wackos, cut and runners, and worse by cable news clowns and the mental midgets that occupy large swathes of the Capitol building and White House."
This is simply not true, J Farmer. Name someone, anyone, please, on cable or in "the capitol building and white house" who routinely called people traitors and wackos for urging caution and restraint.; 12/10/14, 9:57 PM
PB said...: This seems to be Feinstein's way of dealing with her anger of losing the senate majority, kind of tossing a grenade into a crowded room. Or was that her I saw standing next to Michael Brown's father echoing his "Let's burn this beotch down!"; 12/10/14, 10:02 PM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...
"As I posted on another thread, here's a self-evident recommendation:

Do not torture.

Another:

Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes."

As I have posted on another thread, here is a self-evident recommendation:

Get the fuck out. You don't like what we do then go somewhere we don't protect. You and your self righteous ass can get off your couch and go face these people yourself.

I am just glad there are good people in this country and that made it worth it. People like you who take what you have for granted are disgusting.; 12/10/14, 10:56 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "It's frightening there is such a dearth of talent in the Senate."

Quite absolutely wrong sir.

The talent is becoming as powerful, with a much more grateful populace, as Mexico has in their fair system.

Hey, 'ey I, want to travel South this year.

Won't, WON'T, won't prevent safe pass this year.; 12/10/14, 11:30 PM
Achilles said...: J. Farmer said...

"A strategic partnership with Iran would be far more advantageous to the US than the tiny client state of Israel."

On one side you have a democracy that allows minorities to live and believes in freedom and respects basic human rights.

On the other side you have a regime that has tortured people far more viciously than anything we are accused of doing, stones adultering women, and burns gay people alive.

Guess who the lefty wants to ally with.; 12/10/14, 11:31 PM
Achilles said...: Rusty said...
Terry said...

Robert Cook wrote:
"Investigate all who were involved in the planning, authorizing, implementation and commission of the program, from top to bottom, and prosecute them for their crimes."

Cook is finding them guilty before the investigation. In the name of justice!

"He's hilarious.
He's the church lady of Althouse.
So morally rigid he could be a serial killer."

He is right. We did terrible things. But we did them for him.

He is too cowardly to even accept responsibility for the quality of life and freedom he takes for granted. He would throw those who protect him in jail so he can feel morally superior.

He isn't as bad as a serial killer, but he is far more pathetic and worthless.; 12/10/14, 11:48 PM
jr565 said...: Back during the Clinton administration, when the dems were open about potential involvement with al Qaeda and Iraq they started "extraordinary renditions". Which Al Gore described thusly "That’s a no-brainer,” "Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
For dems it's all ends justifies means, including opposition to policies from their opponents. When it's Clinton,mod course Iraq posed a threat. Of course there are links between al Qaeda and Iraq. Whn it's Bush, what do you mean Iraq poses a threat? How dare you do extraordinary renditions it's against international law!

and let's note that when we outsource our interrogation to places outside America they do a lot worse than when we "torture". All we do is the same thing we do to our own troops. And when interrogators did waterboard those few people the interrogators made themselves alive through exactly what they did to those they were interrogating, they wouldn't do that if it was torture.
If the worst we do is what we do to our trainees, I'm ok with it. Who isn't?; 12/11/14, 7:14 AM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote:
"Oh HO! I most certainly do! Charge and prosecute all of them, up to and including Obama!"

it doesn't help then when the dems issue a blindingly partisan report that only goes after Bush. Why she we, knowing thr partisan nature of this, take it as anything other than what it is?
Let's have a report that equally dems everyone sitting on the Intel commitee who were apprised of this program.; 12/11/14, 7:17 AM
jr565 said...: Robert cook wrote:.
"First, no one gets absolution for torture; it's always evil, whomever does it."

so should we go after all the trainers in SERE programs who put our guys through TORTURE to graduate. Should we go to all the interrogators who water boarded people like Chris Hitchens so he could find out if he thought it was torture?
Since NO ONE could get absolution for Torture. And it's ALWAYS evil. Or, is torture evil, but water boarding falls short of torture? Then why compare it to torture?
If we use it as a technique on our own troops it can't be torture, because we aren't allowed to torture our troops. And if we use it on our troops as a matter of graduating from a program, why would there be an issue if we used the same technique to potentially stop a terrorist attack where people will die in horrific ways.
We don't actually have to torture since water boarding works just as well and doesn't require us to say stick needles u dear people's fingertips or cut out their tongues. Like you see real torturers do.; 12/11/14, 7:41 AM
Rusty said...: Achilles @ 11:48

It's just fun to make fun of morally bankrupt Bob.
When pressed for details of his absolute moral authority his logic breaks down real fast. I find his puritanical world view, well, childish.

War is never moral. It never has been and never will be. War is brutality. There is no morality in brutality. So. If you have to wap some bad guy upside the head with a copy of the NY yellow pages to save a dozen, a few hundred, even a thousand lives, yeah. OK get it done."We're better than that!" No son, we're not. It's a shit job we sometimes have to do to keep everybody safe, because a goodly part of the world isn't like Blue Mound. A goodly part of the world is like hell.; 12/11/14, 7:44 AM
jr565 said...: Grackle wrote:
"I agree. The techniques were designed to avoid real torture – to make real torture unnecessary. The beauty of the techniques were that they worked very well yet left the detainees hale and hearty. Not the sort of techniques I would want to be used in the local police station, but after 3,000 were murdered? You bet. "
And it can't be stressed enough, we used these techniques on SERE cadets.just so they could graduate. Think about the social value of that versus the social value of defending the homeland form a terrorist attack that kills thousands horrifically. We would waterboard soldiers just so they could get a diploma, but someohow wouldn't use that technique to save people's lives?
IF we had someone high level in ISIS who knew where they were keeping the journalists who's heads were going to get chopped off, and wasn't responding to standard interrogation, and there was obviously a time crunch since they were scheduled to be executed in a week, I'd waterboard the shit out of that guy until he gave up the goods.Just for the chance to rescue someone who otherwise might have his head sawed off, while alive, with no anasthetic even. THAT is torture. That is I finitely worse than water boarding, and if we don't do what we can to prevent such things we are basically sacrificing those people so we get to be morally superior.
Meanwhile if we found out where they were zobama would probably drone strike the area, and kill or maim a few innocent people along the way. Which is also worse than water boarding.
If we're talking about war, there are only horrid options. water boarding seems like the least horrible. They get to live, they have no bodily harm.; 12/11/14, 7:51 AM
Robert Cook said...: "It's just fun to make fun of morally bankrupt Bob."

Hahahaha! There is plenty of moral bankruptcy stinking up this blog and this country right now, but not an iota of the stench emanates from me.

It would be amusing, if not so disgusting, to see so many twisting themselves like contortionists to assure themselves that the torture we committed isn't torture, but then, the capacity of humans to deny the blunt truth in front of them is limitless.; 12/11/14, 8:09 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Grackle:

Islamist thugs hold greater sway in Afghanistan and Iraq, the precise opposite outcome our intervention in those two states was designed to protect. They have never been much of a threat to the United States. Although, to the degree that a threat exists at all, it has been exacerbated by our hamfisted fumbling on the international stage.

@Achilles:

The U.S. allies with regimes just as oppressive, if not more so, than the Iranians. See, for example, the Saudis. We believe it is an advantageous relationship despite the chauvinistic and totalitarian nature of the regime. Our hostility towards Iran is foolish and misplaced, and we would have a lot to gain from a strategic partnership with them.; 12/11/14, 8:14 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...so should we go after all the trainers in SERE programs who put our guys through TORTURE to graduate. Should we go to all the interrogators who water boarded people like Chris Hitchens so he could find out if he thought it was torture?
Since NO ONE could get absolution for Torture. And it's ALWAYS evil. Or, is torture evil, but water boarding falls short of torture? Then why compare it to torture?"

Oh, what a dope! Given that the SERE training is voluntary, there's no basis for prosecution. Consent makes the difference. (See: sex: consensual, vs. RAPE.)

If, however, the SERE trainers were at a bar and took some other bar patron in the back and subjected him to the SERE techniques, they could surely be prosecuted for torture and assault.

(BTW, water boarding does not "fall short" of torture; it IS torture.); 12/11/14, 8:17 AM
Robert Cook said...: "I am just glad there are good people in this country and that made it worth it. People like you who take what you have for granted are disgusting."

The torturers are not among those "good people" you mention, and NOTHING we're doing in the middle east is responsible for or protects what I or other Americans have.; 12/11/14, 8:20 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "Islamist thugs hold greater sway in Afghanistan and Iraq, the precise opposite outcome our intervention in those two states was designed to protect. They have never been much of a threat to the United States."
Greater sway than when Al Qaida ran the country.
I guess that back when "they have never been much of a threat to the United States" was when they destroyed the WTC, killed 3,000 Americans, and did a $100 billion hit to our economy.; 12/11/14, 8:33 AM
damikesc said...: while the people advocating caution and restraint on the part of the U.S. were routinely called traitors, wackos, cut and runners, and worse by cable news clowns and the mental midgets that occupy large swathes of the Capitol building and White House.

Can you name who called them traitors?

And why are these same people who "Advised caution" now asking for the biggest blank check for military action anybody has ever asked for in history?; 12/11/14, 8:38 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Terry:

"They" were a couple of dozen radicals who managed to exploit complacency, security weak spots, and bureaucratic ineptitude to pull off a brazen terrorist act. "They" are not a highly globalized network of operatives who pose any kind of significant risk to the United States. I am talking about proportionality. The notion that we needed to launch military interventions on a global scale, create yet another federal department, and nationalize airport security were overreactions on our part. The threat was never as significant as we made it out to be. Most of what calls itself al Qaeda nowadays are local movements looking to gain power at the national or regional level, for example the al Qaeda operating in North Africa or the Philippines.

@damikesc:

I oppose the current military operations against ISIS in western Iraq and in Syria. And I do not support injecting ourselves into the Syrian civil war on any side. It seems to be a difficult point to grasp for some in this thread that it is quite easy to oppose something that Republicans and Democrats do. They are really both quite capable of making a mess out of foreign policy.; 12/11/14, 9:08 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: You are confused, J. Farmer.
The Taliban and Al Qaida are weaker in Afghanistan than they were in 2001. Your odd use of tense (""They" were a couple of dozen radicals who managed to exploit complacency, security weak spots, and bureaucratic ineptitude to pull off a brazen terrorist act. "They" are not a highly globalized network of operatives who pose any kind of significant risk to the United States.")
When did 'were" become "are"?
Everything you wrote after that has nothing to do with your ridiculous claim that "Islamist thugs hold greater sway in Afghanistan" than they did before the US invasion. I do not believe that you understand that the Taliban controlled most of the Afghan countryside as well as Kandahar and Kabul in 2001, J. Farmer.; 12/11/14, 9:29 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Terry:

No, this is just an issue of nomenclature. "Islamist" is not the same as Taliban or al Qaeda. Afghanistan is an Islamic state, ruled by sharia law. Yes, the state may have nominal parliamentary institutions and some more infrastructure, but we have strategically gained nothing from our 13-year-long intervention in that country. Nation-building in one of the most backward, tribal-ridden regions of Central Asia was always a fool's errand. The notion that you need American military personnel in places like Afghanistan and Iraq to protect the US homeland from terrorist attack is ridiculous. Even after the thousands dead and trillions spent, a nutjob was still able to board a plane in Lagos and try to set his dick on fire over the skies of Detroit.; 12/11/14, 9:38 AM
J. Farmer said...: Correction: He boarded the plane in Amsterdam after arriving from Ghana. He was originally from Lagos.; 12/11/14, 9:40 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: J. Farmer @ 8:14
"Islamist thugs hold greater sway in Afghanistan and Iraq, the precise opposite outcome our intervention in those two states was designed to protect."
J. Farmer @ 9:38
"Yes, the state may have nominal parliamentary institutions and some more infrastructure, but we have strategically gained nothing from our 13-year-long intervention in that country."

This is why I can't take you seriously, J. Farmer. Rants against the Jews, bizarre claims that you have to walk back. The world makes much more sense when you think about things using reason rather than emotion. Try it sometime.; 12/11/14, 9:59 AM
grackle said...: J. Farmer: Islamist thugs hold greater sway in Afghanistan and Iraq, the precise opposite outcome our intervention in those two states was designed to protect.

Yes. And who changed the outcome to the "precise opposite" after he was elected? Why, that would be Obama. There was certainly no ISIS under Bush's watch because we had residual forces in place to keep that sort of thing from happening. Obama removed all the troops and the predictable happened, an inevitability which his military advisors warned him about beforehand but which he ignored. Obama couldn't have screwed things up more if he was trying to.

They have never been much of a threat to the United States.

3,000 killed on 9/11, planned in Afghanistan, the planner, Osama, provided with a base of operations and protected by the Afghanis with safe harbor in their country - but they have never, never been "much of a threat …" Astounding reasoning from anti-war quarters.

Although, to the degree that a threat exists at all, it has been exacerbated by our hamfisted fumbling on the international stage.

If by "our" the commentor means Obama and is referring to Obama's idiotic foreign policy antics then I must agree. "Fumbling" is too mild a word for it. Also, change "hamfisted" to "feckless" to have a more apt description.; 12/11/14, 10:05 AM
damikesc said...: I dont want to get involved either. Arm Israel, take the leash off, and let the barbarians slaughter one another en masse.; 12/11/14, 10:10 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Arm Israel...."

What do you mean? They're already armed...with their own (undisclosed) stockpile of nukes and everything!; 12/11/14, 10:14 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Terry:

I made no rants against "the Jews." I made a rant against Israelis. That's not the same thing. The Taliban not being in power in Afghanistan is not the same thing as "Islamists" having power in Afghanistan. I am walking back nothing. The Afghan government is attempting to make a deal with the Taliban insurgency based out of northwestern Pakistan.

@Grackle:

The Iraq government did not want a significant residual troop presence. Plus, is your position that we maintain permanent garrison in Iraq to referee their sectarianism and tribalism?

What created the power vacuum in western Iraq that allowed insurgent forces to gain control? The toppling of its authoritarian leader. You seem to think you are arguing with me by criticizing Obama. You are not. I don't support him. I don't support his foreign policy choices. He has taken most of the worst instincts of the Bush administration and doubled down. Yes, 9/11 was a huge tragedy. But it was not an existential threat, and the actions we have taken in response have mostly been (a) an overreaction or (b) not had much to do with protecting the US homeland from attack by small groups of people working mostly independently. The US Interstate system is a bigger threat to the average American's life than any member of ISIS.; 12/11/14, 10:57 AM
Rusty said...: Robert Cook said...
"Arm Israel...."

What do you mean? They're already armed...with their own (undisclosed) stockpile of nukes and everything!

Tis true. Most of the billions we send them is in the form of military hardware. It is the reason they use the M4 as opposed to the superior Galil.

Jews have the bomb! Run!; 12/11/14, 11:14 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: I think Robert Cook should be waterboarded.

And then afterwards, some actually real torture.

Stalinist douchebag.; 12/11/14, 11:25 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Oh and the Islamist supporting Jew hating J. Farmer too.; 12/11/14, 11:27 AM
J. Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/11/14, 11:46 AM
J. Farmer said...: @President-Mom-Jeans:

Nice to see you exemplifying the American values of open discussion and plurality of opinions. Also refreshing to see someone here support waterboarding not for any perceived efficacy but for simple sadism.

I have complained that our actions in the Middle East have emboldened Islamists and increased their prominence and cache. I also do not believe that American lives or taxpayer money should go to support corrupt, Islamic regimes in Baghdad and Kabul. That's a very low bar to make someone "Islamist supporting."

What do you make of the Israelis who also oppose settler activity in the West Bank? Also Jew-hating?; 12/11/14, 11:48 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "I made no rants against "the Jews." I made a rant against Israelis. That's not the same thing."
Read your remarks in this thread about "Jewish Fairy tales", J. Farmer.
If you aren't a Leftist, you are doing a good job of imitating a Leftist.
If you aren't an anti-Semite, you are doing a good job of imitating an anti-Semite.; 12/11/14, 12:00 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: Oh I think the efficacy would be quite high. The sadism is just a pleasant bonus.

Tell me some more about the book of Jewish Fairy Tales.; 12/11/14, 12:05 PM
J. Farmer said...: I do not believe that the Hebrew Bible had a supernatural author. It's the foundation myth of a tribe of people that claims there exists only a single god and that this god is in a special covenant with the Hebrew people. People are more than welcome to believe this if they wish. But certainly do not expect me to respect this or treat it with any real seriousness. I believe those stories (e.g. creation and expulsion from a mythical garden, a global deluge as punishment for insubordination, a supernatural slaughter of Egyptians and the subsequent exodus, etc.) are true in any meaningful sense and therefore qualify as "fairy tales." I similarly do not believe that the events described by Homer or the epics in the Upanishads have any real validity. This is generally considered an uncontroversial opinion (for non-Hindus) and certainly does not qualify one as anti-Greek or anti-Indian.; 12/11/14, 12:27 PM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: I notice that you go for Greek Mythology instead of critisizing the holy book of the fucker of 9 year olds, Muhammed.

Your islamic homeboys would want to do a lot nastier things to you than waterboarding, douchebag.; 12/11/14, 12:31 PM
J. Farmer said...: @Terry:

I do not consider myself a leftist because I oppose most forms of government legislation and government activism, in general, particularly at the federal level. I oppose affirmative actions and all preferential systems along those lines. I am socially liberal, but I tend to reject social constructionist explanations for differences among groups and believe that family breakdown has been one of the major engines of social pathology in the second half of the 20th century. I was a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 and 2012, and at this point will probably be a Rand Paul supporter going into 2016. Presidents do not have a tremendous amount of power, all things considered, all the domestic scene but tend to have a large role to play in foreign policy. Therefore, it tends to be a major criterion for me when choosing a candidate to support. My general orientation is to oppose military interventions without very direct US interests, and I believe that winding down our hegemonic position in the world would go a long way towards increasing our security, our diplomatic strength, and our fiscal position.; 12/11/14, 12:38 PM
J. Farmer said...: Very well if it will make you feel better. I think the Quran, like every other holy book of every other faith, was written by a human being and had no supernatural editorship. I believe that Islam is just as silly, superstitious, and nonsensical as Judaism. I am well aware of the shortcomings of Muslim-majority societies. It is precisely why I would never choose to call one home.; 12/11/14, 12:42 PM
grackle said...: The Iraq government did not want a significant residual troop presence.

Screw what the Iraq government wanted. We go to war – we win – we do what we determine is best for the USA and the Iraq government can eat the brown stuff if they don't like it. Obama loves to issue executive orders – let him do it to inform the Iraqis that they will have to suffer our presence. Let them complain to the UN.

Plus, is your position that we maintain permanent garrison in Iraq to referee their sectarianism and tribalism?

Naw, I could care less about refereeing their internecine spats or whether they are tribal or sectarian. My forces would be directed to kill anyone, like ISIS, that were a threat to the US or US military personnel in the area – to never allow another Osama bin Laden safe haven for planning strikes against the US. My garrison would be at least as permanent, if necessary, as the garrisons we have had in South Korea, Japan and Germany since the end of WW2 in 1945, for over 60 years now.

What created the power vacuum in western Iraq that allowed insurgent forces to gain control?

It's not what but who summarily announced the withdrawal of all troops in Iraq, replete with a withdrawal date, allowing the ISIS forces to better plan their take over. And that would be Obama.

You seem to think you are arguing with me by criticizing Obama … I don't support him.

Who the commentor supports or not supports politically is of no interest to me. I just want to set the record straight as to who actually caused the current calamity in the Middle East. The commentor uses the editorial "we" much too liberally. There's a specific person, Obama, whose policies have brought us to this present situation in the Middle East. This fact needs to be pointed out when folks write that "we" did this or "we" did that.

, 9/11 was a huge tragedy. But it was not an existential threat …

Well sure, the entire nation was not reduced to rubble, just a certain section of NYC. One wonders how many of these 'tragedies' the commentor would allow before taking action against the regime in Afghanistan who harbored Ben Laden. Apparently only a strike that destroyed the USA would qualify. Rubble could be produced in Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, etc., but not to worry, you see, because those strikes would not be "existential."

… and the actions we have taken in response have mostly been (a) an overreaction or (b) not had much to do with protecting the US homeland from attack by small groups of people working mostly independently.

There hasn't been a major attack in the USA since 9/11. Does the commentor believe that happy fact is an accident? Does the commentor believe that the Islamic terrorists simply decided to stop trying to kill us during those 13 years?; 12/11/14, 7:33 PM
J. Farmer said...: Have you ever considered the possibility that there has not been another attack because the threat was always overblown, and the competence of these people vastly overestimated?; 12/12/14, 6:35 AM
grackle said...: Have you ever considered the possibility that there has not been another attack because the threat was always overblown, and the competence of these people vastly overestimated?

3,000 dead, men, women and children. And the commentor calls it "overblown"!? Yikes!; 12/12/14, 9:24 AM
J. Farmer said...: Since 9/11, more than 400,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. More than 170,000 have been murdered. We are talking proportionality. Yes, obviously, 3000 deaths is a horrible tragedy. But that doesn't mean that anything you do in response is appropriate. We did not need to create yet another giant federal bureaucracy and wage war in half a dozen countries to protect ourselves. There's a difference between reacting to an event and overreacting to it.; 12/12/14, 9:45 AM
grackle said...: Since 9/11, more than 400,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. More than 170,000 have been murdered. We are talking proportionality. Yes, obviously, 3000 deaths is a horrible tragedy. But that doesn't mean that anything you do in response is appropriate. We did not need to create yet another giant federal bureaucracy and wage war in half a dozen countries to protect ourselves. There's a difference between reacting to an event and overreacting to it.

Anti-war logic: 400,000 traffic deaths, 170,000 murders – compared to the mere 3,000 dying on 9/11. I wonder? What's the number of deaths by Islamic terrorists that the commentor would deem horrible enough to merit the strong response he characterizes as overreaction? A million? 2 million?

We DO know, from the commentor's own words, that the commentor would wait until some unknown number, but greater than the 400,000 traffic deaths, were murdered. Then and only then, would the commentor act in a strong manner. After close to half a million at least, were dead.

Smaller strikes, resulting in relatively puny rubble piles like the one in NYC on 9/11, would merit … what? A strongly worded letter? A doubling of drone strikes, perhaps? Add to those a worldwide apology tour and maybe the response would be, in the mind of the commentor, "appropriate."; 12/12/14, 3:04 PM
J. Farmer said...: You seem to have a binary state of mind here where the only two options are do nothing or do exactly what we did? How, precisely, did an attempt to nation-build in Afghanistan and Iraq (spectacular failures on our part), contribute to our safety? Training camps and monkey bars are not particularly useful for pulling off a job like 9/11. The logistics could be worked out practically anywhere on the globe. Having tens of thousands US garrison troops in the middle of slow-simmering, tribal civil wars in the middle east does little to stop this. The US military, for all its technological advantage and human capital, has proven a very inefficient tool in fighting asymmetric, decentralized guerrilla wars. How do tens of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan stop small groups of terrorists from plotting attacks from Malaysia or Indonesia or the Philippines?

And how about the thousands upon thousands of innocent people who have been killed or had their lives irrevocably marred by our foreign policy bungling? Do they deserve any justice? Do their families deserve any recompense? Does your outrage and horror at human suffering extend only to the people who happen to have been born on this side of the border?; 12/13/14, 11:44 PM