Torture Lawyer Sez: I Can Haz Waterboarding? [Archive]

Lemur

01-30-2009, 14:22

John Yoo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo), a fat little academic largely notable for writing pro-torture opinions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo) (including the classic President-may-crush-a-child's-testicles (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm) argument) repudiated by all men of sense, wrote a lovely op-ed piece for the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318955345726797.html) in which he claims that torture is teh bomb and that Obama will kill us all:

Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.

So true! So true! Has anyone else noticed how the only way we obtain information is through torture? That's why the police never obtain confessions ever, and why out criminal courts never convict. It's because they don't torture. The FBI's empathetic system of interrogation? Useless!

It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

So true! Out Constitution is hopelessly naive, frankly. The first, second, and fifth amendments are all kind of hippie-dippie, while we're at it. Free speech? Pshaw. Arm the populace? What kind of Cuban Revolutionary silliness is that? Ideals exist to be pushed aside when you're feeling nervous. That's their function.

And last but not least, if we get hit again, it's all because the Obama-Antichrist went all soft on torture, which is like a magic pixie dust that protects us at all times until it doesn't.

But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.

Why, exactly, isn't this man bring brought up for war crimes? Is it because we're "looking forward," as the various wimps from the Obama administration like to say? Here's a thought -- how about I shoot a guy on the street, and then argue in my trial that it's time to look forward, not back. That would be morally equivalent.

Another take (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/01/29/youre-a-loudmouth-baby-you-better-shut-up/) on Torture Boy's self-adulating editorial.

Vladimir

01-30-2009, 14:28

What's with all the lolz catz thread titles? :laugh4:

Teh torture:

On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

Wow, three times huh?

naut

01-30-2009, 15:13

Muppet.

KukriKhan

01-30-2009, 15:34

The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

How does he know that? That such meeting/review did not take place?

Because they didn't invite him?

...Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil...

Getting his bid in now for an "I TOLD YOU SO!" moment, anywhere down the line.

I'm just stunned this guy came out of Berkeley.

Tribesman

01-30-2009, 16:01

Wow, three times huh?
Wow 3 times , that means he is a habitual so its life in prison without parole :2thumbsup:

Lemur

01-30-2009, 16:21

Wow, three times huh?
Yeah, I'm really sure that only three people were tortured during the entire "enhanced interrogation techniques" program. I'm sure that's why about 100 detainees have died (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/exec-sum.asp), and "according to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides."

Upon re-reading the WSJ piece, it's increasingly clear that Yoo is concerned about going to jail. If I were in his shoes, I certainly wouldn't vacation in Europe anytime soon.

InsaneApache

01-30-2009, 16:34

On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

That would be the sensory deprivation tank/white noise thingy then. It didn't do the UK all that good. Along with locking people up without charge or due process, all it did was help the Republican cause by acting as a recruiting sergeant. When will these whackos ever learn that torture is counter- productive?

HoreTore

01-30-2009, 17:31

When will these whackos ever learn that torture is counter- productive?

Well, we've known it since the Romans.... I'd give "the challenged people" a couple of thousand years more.

What's more, is that the reasoning used to justify this, is that they are terrorists... Uhm... Yes, that's why Bush has released a bunch of them, not because a lot of them were completely innocent. It's a good thing we always trust our government to be both prosecutor, judge and jury!

Separation of power? Get a job, lousy hippie!!

EDIT: Oh, and I nominate the OP for Post of the Year. Well done, Lemur!

drone

01-30-2009, 18:27

Yoo and Addington definitely need to take a trip to Europe.

I'm just stunned this guy came out of Berkeley.
His law degree is from Yale, BA from Harvard. He just works at Berkeley. I guess the truly amazing thing is that they gave him a job there. He must be really popular in that town.

naut

01-30-2009, 18:33

That would be the sensory deprivation tank/white noise thingy then.
Yep. Not something anyone would want to experience, but no doubt better (if torture, can ever really be better) than the R2I methods often used by US forces.

Ironside

01-30-2009, 19:09

That would be the sensory deprivation tank/white noise thingy then. It didn't do the UK all that good. Along with locking people up without charge or due process, all it did was help the Republican cause by acting as a recruiting sergeant. When will these whackos ever learn that torture is counter- productive?

Counterproductive? Name any other method that gives 100% signation of these pre-written confessions and prove my value on capturing a lot of terrorists and also without any innocent captures. It is also a fine, proven method to convince American soldiers about the evils of capitalism and the true glory of communism.

Now if you excuse me, it's pretty obvious that Mr. Yoo is in fact a terrorists, working for Iran, North Korea, Colombia, Cuba, China, Russia and a few others we haven't figured out yet. But fear not brave Americans, soon we will have Mr. Yoo's written confession on the matter and will also unwind the net which he's the spider in, threatening the freedom of USA.

Pannonian

01-30-2009, 20:27

Counterproductive? Name any other method that gives 100% signation of these pre-written confessions and prove my value on capturing a lot of terrorists and also without any innocent captures. It is also a fine, proven method to convince American soldiers about the evils of capitalism and the true glory of communism.

Now if you excuse me, it's pretty obvious that Mr. Yoo is in fact a terrorists, working for Iran, North Korea, Colombia, Cuba, China, Russia and a few others we haven't figured out yet. But fear not brave Americans, soon we will have Mr. Yoo's written confession on the matter and will also unwind the net which he's the spider in, threatening the freedom of USA.
While they're at it, can they nail him for the Jack the Ripper murders as well?

Tribesman

01-30-2009, 21:33

While they're at it, can they nail him for the Jack the Ripper murders as well?
No , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed already confessed to that .
I think Yoo should be persuaded to confess that he was the iceberg and say that he really regrets that more imperialist era pigs didn't die when he deliberately rammed the titanic.....oh and when he says the word pigs he has to squeal it or he is back off for more educational recreation exercises .

Lemur

01-30-2009, 22:18

Another take (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004296) on the Yoo editorial:

I’ve followed John Yoo and his writings with some care for a while now, and I think I finally understand what this is about. Namely, a pending probe by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is looking at serious ethical issues surrounding the issuance of Yoo’s legal opinions.

But the OPR probe is far from Yoo’s only or even most pressing worry. The likelihood that he will face a criminal probe and then possibly prosecution is growing. Susan J. Crawford, the Cheney protege tapped as the senior Bush Administration official to oversee the Guantánamo military commissions, publicly admitted in an interview with Bob Woodward, that at least one of the detainees had been tortured through the application of an interrogation regime that had been approved by the White House. In their exit interviews, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney were emphatic that in authorizing torture, they relied on the advice of their lawyers, meaning John Yoo. But in the ultimate act of ingratitude, Bush left office without issuing the anticipated blanket pardons to his torture team. NATO allies and United Nations officials are reminding the new Obama Administration that it has a solemn obligation under article 4 of the Convention Against Torture to begin a criminal investigation into how the United States came to use torture as a matter of official policy. And public opinion has changed, with a clear majority of Americans now favoring a probe into the Bush Administration’s use of torture techniques.

Yoo cannot be oblivious to all of this. And indeed, his column in the Wall Street Journal and his presentations elsewhere tell us exactly what the defense will be. At its core is the argument that, no matter how mistaken, John Yoo acted in good faith when he issued the torture memoranda. He truly, sincerely believes the analysis of law that is presented in those memos.

InsaneApache

01-31-2009, 00:41

Counterproductive? Name any other method that gives 100% signation of these pre-written confessions and prove my value on capturing a lot of terrorists and also without any innocent captures. It is also a fine, proven method to convince American soldiers about the evils of capitalism and the true glory of communism.

Now if you excuse me, it's pretty obvious that Mr. Yoo is in fact a terrorists, working for Iran, North Korea, Colombia, Cuba, China, Russia and a few others we haven't figured out yet. But fear not brave Americans, soon we will have Mr. Yoo's written confession on the matter and will also unwind the net which he's the spider in, threatening the freedom of USA.

Brainwashing not torture. Although a moot point. :idea2:

Lord Winter

01-31-2009, 01:59

Brainwashing not torture. Although a moot point. :idea2:

One can lead to another pretty fast though...

Seamus Fermanagh

01-31-2009, 02:28

Of course Yoo is writing a piece in support of the tactics he outlined. To do otherwise would be suicidal either figuratively (because charges would be brought) or literally (because he would then be wallowing in self loathing.

It strikes me that those decrying the use of torture are too willing to believe that it never works. If the only point were an exercise in sadism, it would not have been used with the frequency it has been throughout history. That said, it is clear that as an interrogation tool it has numerous limitations -- foremost being that some subjects (most?) will say anything to avoid the pain and thereby render the point moot.

For the most part, our interrogators have chosen NOT to use such harsh methods because they were no more (and often were viewed as less) likely to generate the needed results. That is why waterboarding was authorized so rarely. If it would not generate intelligence better/more quickly, then what would be the point?

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous. If that is your basic moral stance, than few governments around the world -- if any -- would win "points" from you. The use of waterboarding would be anathema and, for those with this perspective, no better than a rack and hot irons.

Tribesman

01-31-2009, 02:56

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous.
The problem there Seamus is that the US calls waterboarding torture if it is used by others , so it isn't a question of what other people think morally it is what the US calls it itself .

Lemur

01-31-2009, 04:11

For the most part, our interrogators have chosen NOT to use such harsh methods because they were no more (and often were viewed as less) likely to generate the needed results. That is why waterboarding was authorized so rarely.
Actually, it's very, very hard to get any hard numbers on when torture was used and when it was not. Even in cases where we know "enhanced interrogation" (what an Orwellian turn of phrase) was used, the evidence seems to go missing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7134860.stm). It's also impossible to read the decisions behind "enhanced interrogation" as a policy. Here's a partial list of missing memos (http://www.propublica.org/special/missing-memos). If you're going to accept the Bush administration's assertion that they only waterboarded three people, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. No, seriously, it's a wonderful bridge in excellent condition.

Your question about why the military would engage in torture is a good one. Turns out they were following orders (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302313.html), as good soldiers should.

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous.
I call strawman. This is the exact smokescreen that has been thrown up around this issue since day one. "Oh, some Berkley hippies don't want us to say mean things to terrorists." That and the "What is torture, anyway?" line of obfuscation that we have heard unendingly from various pro-authoritarians.

Read up on Susan Crawford (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?hpid=topnews), and then get back to me about how "numerous people" (I'd like to meet them, what with them being so numerous) are defining anything after hot cocoa and a blankie as torture.

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

What fun! Not only do we get to torture people, but afterward it means we can't prosecute them. Double bonus!

Seamus Fermanagh

01-31-2009, 06:26

Your question about why the military would engage in torture is a good one. Turns out they were following orders (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302313.html), as good soldiers should.

I've spoken with a couple of different JAG officers who, when queried by the Bush administration, responded that any method not then sanctioned for use by the military should NOT be employed. They were NOT happy with the policy which ultimately developed.

I call strawman. This is the exact smokescreen that has been thrown up around this issue since day one. "Oh, some Berkley hippies don't want us to say mean things to terrorists." That and the "What is torture, anyway?" line of obfuscation that we have heard unendingly from various pro-authoritarians.

I don't play the strawman game. My point was that many people in the USA, and probably greater numbers in Europe, think that many of the procedures used in the "harsh methods" interrogations were torture and should not have been used. A much smaller subset believes that anyone involved with those techniques should be prosecuted. I don't believe I ever resorted to the hot cocoa hyperbole level -- though some right wing pundits certainly have.

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution. [/indent]

What fun! Not only do we get to torture people, but afterward it means we can't prosecute them. Double bonus!

Of COURSE any information gained through torture or near-torture methods cannot be used in a court of law. What may generate information in intelligence terms will almost certainly NOT pass the reasonable doubt test. If you are going to go that route, you must expect that any subsequent prosecution will fail, so you either have to execute the detainee or release her/him -- so the information gained better have been worth it.

Mooks

01-31-2009, 07:41

Not to mention that forcing someone to listen to 4+ hours of Britney Spears and crappy nationalistic country songs is horrible .

trying to lighten the conversation.did it work?

HoreTore

01-31-2009, 07:44

It strikes me that those decrying the use of torture are too willing to believe that it never works. If the only point were an exercise in sadism, it would not have been used with the frequency it has been throughout history.

Torture is a wonderful thing indeed, though only for two things:

1. To terrorize a population. If someone does something you don't want them to, then torturing him is a good way to deter any others thinking about doing said thing. Someone stirring up trouble in the lower classes? Chop him to pieces alive in front of the rest of the population, and they'll be too afraid to do anything.

2. To make someone confess to something. And it's irrelevant whether it's true or not. Want Galileo to say that the earth is the centre of the solar system? Burn his toes until he says it, he will eventually.

Both of these have been and are of great benefit to despots and tyrants everywhere. We like to think that our democratically elected overlords don't have the same need, however...

Ironside

01-31-2009, 10:11

Brainwashing not torture. Although a moot point. :idea2:

Well, the "enhanced interogation techniques" are coming from a program developed to resist brainwashing (the breakdown process involves torture)...

Brenus

01-31-2009, 10:50

“I think Yoo should be persuaded to confess that he was the iceberg and say that he really regrets that more imperialist era pigs didn't die when he deliberately rammed the titanic.....oh and when he says the word pigs he has to squeal it or he is back off for more educational recreation exercises .” Err, we have unsolved crimes in France… Do you think he can tell us why he did it?

“Brainwashing is not torture”. I interviewed for my studies (French Indochina Wars) a former Prisoner (3 years in Camp). It is not only Brainwashing. Brainwashing works with deprivation of sleep, hard work and repetitive action, senseless on purpose, you do without question any more…
And of course a system of rewards and punishment (rewards being more food and punishment 1 week in a very small cage), promises of speed-up freedom if you comply and accept the rules…

“To terrorize a population”. Didn’t work on my Grand Parents… They carried on in blowing German Trains to the sky. And killing German Soldiers, and French militias…
Just made they more determined in the Anti-Nazi/barbarians fight… And prove them right in their fight...

“To make someone confess to something” Well, if you approach with this hot poker, give my the Yellow Pages, I will denounce all of them…:sweatdrop::shame:

Lemur

01-31-2009, 14:41

My point was that many people in the USA, and probably greater numbers in Europe, think that many of the procedures used in the "harsh methods" interrogations were torture and should not have been used.
Now I really don't understand. When you say "harsh methods," what are you referring to? "Enhanced interrogation"? Because many of the methods employed under "Enhanced Interrogation" have already been classified as torture on many occasions, often by us. We declared waterboarding to be a war crime in 1947 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402005.html), for example. Does that fall under your "harsh methods" category? If so, is there any reason to debate whether or not torture has been employed? If so, why?

We also prosecuted Nazi officials who employed "Verschärfte Vernehmung," which means -- wait for it -- "Enhanced Interrogation." The methods (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/bruns.htm) (and the euphemisms) are quite strikingly similar:

Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of "verschärfte Vernehmung" on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body.

I can just hear a German equivalent to Limbaugh declaring on the radio that "cold baths" and some kicks do not constitute anything more than vigorous information-gathering. Oh and guess what? The Norwegians in question were not in uniform, so the Nazis attempted the same defense used when we classify detainees as beyond the reach of the Geneva Conventions.

Anyway, maybe you could clarify the position you're taking, as I'm not quite getting it.

KukriKhan

01-31-2009, 15:15

Seamus can, of course, speak for himself, and far more eloquently than I. Yet:

is there any reason to debate whether or not torture has been employed? If so, why?

I don't see anything in his response that debates whether or not torture has been employed. My read of his words revealed something more along the lines of:

"Once it was discovered that torture MIGHT have been employed, many US citizens (and prominent ones, like the latest Repub potus nominee) and europens as well, said it should not be used."

Lemur

01-31-2009, 15:21

I don't see anything in his response that debates whether or not torture has been employed.
My response makes sense in light of Seamus' earlier statement:

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous. If that is your basic moral stance, than few governments around the world -- if any -- would win "points" from you.
... which does not bear any resemblance to your summation, "Once it was discovered that torture MIGHT have been employed, many US citizens (and prominent ones, like the latest Repub potus nominee) and europens as well, said it should not be used."

KukriKhan

01-31-2009, 15:37

I see. You meant an earlier quote than the one you used. O.K.

And now, not being a qualified dental technician, I'll quit stuffing my words into other people's mouths.

Lemur

01-31-2009, 15:39

I see. You meant an earlier quote than the one you used.
Close. I meant that his clarification did not illuminate any alternative meaning to his earlier statement. And now, I will dance the watusi.

InsaneApache

01-31-2009, 17:00

Do you do it like this? :belly:

HoreTore

01-31-2009, 17:09

Oh and guess what? The Norwegians in question were not in uniform, so the Nazis attempted the same defense used when we classify detainees as beyond the reach of the Geneva Conventions.

Indeed. Except on the bigger sabotage missions when they were dropped from England, they wore civilian clothing at all times, to avoid capture and execution. For this, they were classed as criminals and terrorists by the nazi government.

It should be said though, that the nazi government also used much harder methods than the ones in that case... Look up "Henry Rinnan" or "Rinnanbanden/The Rinnan Gang" if interested....

Lemur

01-31-2009, 17:14

I am in no way trying to equate our rendition and torture techniques to the Nazis. What I am trying to point out is that every industrialized nation uses the same euphemisms and excuses when they want to go beyond decency and the law.

Tribesman

01-31-2009, 17:17

I am in no way trying to equate our rendition and torture techniques to the Nazis.
If the cap fits .
After all the nazis were only doing it to protect their country from terrorists :idea2:

Lemur

01-31-2009, 17:37

Here I am trying not to invoke Godwin's Law, and you go wallow in it. There's no helping some people.

Here's a good article about "Enhanced Interrogation," (http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbc-90000179) its history and its results:

One of the truly disturbing aspects of the Bush Administration’s program of “enhanced interrogation techniques” is that there’s nothing new about them. Each of the techniques is well known; each has a very long legacy. The practice of waterboarding, for instance, was closely associated with the Spanish Inquisition, and appears diagramed and explained in woodcut prints from the early sixteenth century. Similarly, the practice we know as the “cold cell”—or hypothermia—was carefully developed by the Soviet NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, as a means of preparing prisoners for interrogation. The Soviets used the motto “no blood, no shame,” and the same motto recently emerged in units of the American armed forces in Iraq.

Many of these techniques were also practiced during World War II and the years leading up to it. They were certainly not practiced by the United States, however. The practitioners were German, particularly the Geheime Staatspolizei or Gestapo and the Sicherheitsdienst or SD, the intelligence arm of the SS. The procedures were known as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or in German, verschärfte Vernehmung. [...]

The Gestapo memo forbids waterboarding, hypothermia and several other techniques that the Bush Administration permits. And it imposed strict limits on how these “enhanced techniques” could be used—requiring oversight and permits. But what happened in practice? As usual, there was a race to the bottom and the obstacles put in place were quickly overcome.

HoreTore

01-31-2009, 17:40

Here I am trying not to invoke Godwin's Law, and you go wallow in it. There's no helping some people.

Well. The 1940-45 period consisted of two things really;

1. The nazi's.
2. A country at war, and under foreign occupation.

Some things during the war happened because of the nazi's. A lot of stuff happened because of the simple fact that we were at war. The departure of the jews the former. The torture being the latter.

Seamus Fermanagh

01-31-2009, 17:48

Okay, Lemur. I'll be blunt.

Most (and quite possibly all) of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used by the United States against select individuals in our custody are nothing more nor less than torture. Their specific purpose is to inflict pain, disorient, depress, and otherwise make the recipient miserable.

"Breaking" an individual with these methods is one means of minimizing their resistance to interrogation and forcing them to make responses. Done with differing methodologies, times, and appropriate repetition, these can be used as a means to elicit information and check that information for internal consistency. Internally consistent information can then be integrated with other known data to produce intelligence. According to the Bush administration, this is what occurred with KSM, for example.

The only advantage I can see to this approach is speed. It is acknowledged that a much more simple interrogation approach involving relationship building and repeated simple questioning over time will almost always generate the same information.

Torture carries several downsides, notably:

1. It is evil.

2. It may, if improperly conducted or conducted by an individual who takes pleasure in torture, end up creating confessions or admissions about virtually everything. While this may be useful for some tyrant who only seeks the official "confession" or simply seeks to evoke terror, this would obviously invalidate any intelligence information so gathered. Those employing torture as interrogation must always wonder if their own efforts went too far and diminshed the very thing they sought.

Because of both of the previous limitations, information gathered by torture is rightly viewed as inadmissable in court. If you torture somebody for information, trying them afterwards based on that information would be totally inappropriate. So either continue the evil and summarily kill them or recognize that they will have to be released as any means of legitimately trying them is gone.

Do I approve of torture? No. Do I believe the speed gained in generating information is worth stooping to such methods? No. Do I believe that using torture loses us the moral highground? Yes. Do I believe that using torture puts our troops at a greater risk of being tortured? No.

It is my view that US troops will always be subject to torture by any foreseeable opponent and that this has been the case since the 1920s. We were fortunate that Germany didn't do too much of that to our people during WW2. Virtually every other opponent we have faced has done so and will do so unless we end up in a war with Belgium. Though a basic truth, this should not generate a desire to reply in kind on our part.

Many Americans (but not most, most were and remain ignorant), angry over the deaths of 9/11/01, dehumanized the terrorists of Al-queda and close supporters thereof and were willing to have them brutalized in order to generate information. Part of this was generated by a sense of vengeance and hatred and not just as a clinical choice to enhance interrogation speed. Even at our most vengeful, however, you would have found very few Americans who would have condoned beating up on/torturing people just to vent frustration. Even at this stage, most of our legal community opposed the use of torture and declared opposition to the proposals if they were consulted. Nobody, however, felt strongly enough to start mass rallies or calls for impeachment if the proposed policy were not immediately rescinded.

As the public became more aware of incidents at Abu Gharib and the specifics of some of the interrogation methods used, more and more people began to view such actions as torture (remember, most of my countrymen hear "torture" and think beatings and thumbscrews, they did not intially think of sleep deprivation as something torturous because no lasting physical harm would result). As that definition shifted, support for this approach to interrogation evaporated. I am extrapolating from personal experience and anecdotal data here, though I believe polling on these concerns mirrors my own experience.

There are still people who think that torturing AQ operatives is fair game because they are evil and have thereby deprived themselves of their rights. Most of us, including myself, disagree.

The detainees at Guantanemo are a problem. If they are to be treated as POWs, then they should be released as we are no longer at war with Afghanistan or Iraq. If they are to be treated as criminals, they need to be tried in federal court (and most promptly released and compensated for unlawful incarceration as any compentent attorney can invalidate the "evidence" used to prove their crimes. By the way, that holds true even where torture was never used, battlefield soldiers aren't good at protecting evidentiary chains). If they are to be treated as special detainees, then the USA must acknowledge that we are holding them as political prisoners because they hold views we don't like and that the USA is no different from any other regime holding political prisoners. Obama is closing the place down and putting them in the federal court system. Over the next few years, some will be tried and convicted, but most should be released. Upon release, many of them will return to the fight (statistics among the less dangerous elements already released indicate this).

We'd have done better, overall, if we'd collected fewer prisoners on the battlefield.

All in all, the whole thing is a :daisy: sandwich for the USA, and we're in a huge catch 22 with the whole war on terror. The methods that might win it reduce us to the barbarism of our opponents. Other methods just let us stop a select few but keep up the recruiting drive for our opponents.

We need to re-think the whole thing and either:

A) stop being nice, and butcher any opposition to us with whatever force, methods, and collateral damage murders minimize our own casualties,

B) steadfastly negotiate and work for peace and stability globally, pursuing as criminal those terrorists we can catch but accepting that most will never be brought to justice. This approach sees the terrorism "dying on the vine" as we refuse to react to it, or

C) acknowledge defeat, withdraw US troops from all foreign postings aside from embassies, drasticaly reduce our defense budget -- still emphasize a high quality volunteer force but strictly focused on defense of US territory and citizens not living/traveling abroad -- and focus on rebuilding the USA. Essentially, we would have little interaction with any nation in Europe, Asia, Australia or the Middle East, focusing on building stronger and better relations with our neighbors.

What will happen is that things will continue in the haphazard ad hoc current inadequacies.

I am now thoroughly pissed off. :wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

Lemur

01-31-2009, 17:58

Wow, that's a tough read, Seamus, but I deeply appreciate your honesty. Of the three scenarios you outline (and the implied fourth) I hope we can make something work with (B). Overreaction and brutality is what a terrorist hopes for. If we refuse to descend to their level ... well, it's kind of like the internet maxim, "Don't feed the troll."

KukriKhan

01-31-2009, 18:17

See?

Tol'ja. (the more eloquent thingee)

Gee, I kinda like this not-being-a-moderator gig. I get to stick my tongue out once in awhile, like a child. :laugh4:

Lemur

02-01-2009, 18:06

Weird side-note: Jay Bybee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bybee), the man who constructed the Bybee Torture Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bybee_memo) with the able help of John Yoo, is now a Federal Judge in San Francisco (http://www.slate.com/id/2208517/).

What is it with torture advocates moving to the Bay Area?

Beren Son Of Barahi

02-02-2009, 06:07

Great post Seamus;

I too hope that history and common sense can help us find a meaningful and long term solution... B for me too.

On a side note; does anyone see the link to how Israel deals with Gaza?

Seamus Fermanagh

02-02-2009, 14:16

Xiahou

02-02-2009, 15:58

I just don't see "B" working....and even if it DOES work, I don't see it working in my lifetime. That's a LONG term strategy with a heavy price of its own. Accepting casualties and simply writing most of them off as the cost of doing business galls me.

I know, something reasonably close to B was the answer in NI. I wish I saw Islamo-terrorism in the same light.

I'm with you. We'll never have the political will for A or C, and B just plain won't work. We'll keep going with the implied option D, haphazard, make it up as you go. :juggle2:

HoreTore

02-02-2009, 19:51

I know, something reasonably close to B was the answer in NI. I wish I saw Islamo-terrorism in the same light.

How is "Islamo-terrorism" different from "regular terrorism"?

Don Corleone

02-02-2009, 20:02

A choice of B is a decision that the lives and creature comforts of the terrorists are more important than the lives of your own citizens. You have to be prepared to watch daycare centers explode while the perpetrator walks on a custody of evidence technicality.

I want to take issue with Lemur's calling 'strawman'. What is so flipping hard about establishing a definition of terror, either a theoretical definition or an empirical list of banned and accepted practices?

Whenever I hear somebody discussing the USA's devolution into widespread use of torture, a pervasive elusiveness on what qualifies as torture seems to accompany it. At the end of the day, from the quasi-defintional statements I've heard made, incarceration of any form, questioning of any form, could be interpreted as torture.

I agree the John Yoo's of the world have clearly left the bounds of reason and civility behind. But you're living in a delusion if you honestly believe simple law enforcement will end global terrorism. For starters, what do you do when the terrorists possess diplomatic credentials?

HoreTore

02-02-2009, 20:16

Lemur

02-02-2009, 20:32

I want to take issue with Lemur's calling 'strawman'. What is so flipping hard about establishing a definition of terror, either a theoretical definition or an empirical list of banned and accepted practices?
I assume by "terror" you mean "torture."

What's difficult about laying down a bright, shining line and saying "here beginneth torture" is that some techniques only cross the line when used together, or when used over time. Honestly I believe the easiest way to identify torture is to look at (a) the results and (b) the intent of the interrogator.

Sample problems:

When does sleep deprivation cross the line from irritant to torture? When the person dies? If earlier, when? Give me an exact time.
When does a beating become torture? We can all agree that a few slaps do not constitute torture. Please describe exactly how much beating is required to cross the line.
When do stress positions become torture? I would appreciate a description of which positions, and how long is required for them to become torture.
How about hypothermia? When is it torture? Is it only when the detainee dies? Or is it at some earlier point?
Now consider these techniques used in combination. When does a stress position in hypothermia-inducing conditions become torture? If some sort of beating preceded, does that shorten the time required?
And what about long-scale time? If I subject you to hypothermia, beatings and stress positions for one day, does that count as torture? If not, how about if I subject you to it for a month? A year? When, exactly is the line crossed? Please be specific.

-edit-

HoreTore, if you're trying to say that the United States and OBL are morally equivalent, then you're off your medication.

Don Corleone

02-02-2009, 20:36

I assume by "terror" you mean "torture."
Erh, yes, I was. Thanks for the help.

HoreTore, if you're trying to say that the United States and OBL are morally equivalent, then you're off your medication.
I think he represents more of your side on this matter than you do, my friend.

HoreTore

02-02-2009, 20:40

HoreTore, if you're trying to say that the United States and OBL are morally equivalent, then you're off your medication.

Of course I'm not. But a dead civilian is a dead civilian.

And you know, being a NATO-citizen, "US" means me too... You're not alone in terrorizing foreign populations, we're faithfully by your side ~;)

Lemur

02-02-2009, 20:43

I think he represents more of your side on this matter than you do, my friend.
Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

I think you're falling into a dualist trap.

Strike For The South

02-02-2009, 20:47

I'll say it with Mads Gilbert; If the US has the right to take the lives of civilians, then OBL has the right to crash airplanes into US buildings.

Ok, So can we use chemical weapons now? He already killed our civilians we might as well get our fill of this whole indiscriminate thing.

I thought this issue was comlpicated

HoreTore

02-02-2009, 20:52

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

Hey!

America? We're as much bastards as you are, I've never said otherwise....

But then again, so are the terrorists, of course. Admitting that we behave like bastards ourselves does not mean that other people stop being bastards...

HoreTore

02-02-2009, 20:53

Ok, So can we use chemical weapons now?

We're using them already on every violent demo, so I guess the answer is yes... ~;)

Lemur

02-02-2009, 21:00

America? We're as much bastards as you are, I've never said otherwise....
Sorry, I left myself wide open for misunderstanding there. I was characterizing the extremes that I imagined in Don C's head, not actual posters in this thread. I don't believe Don is my-country-right-or-wrong, and I don't think HoreTore believes America is the Great Satan. Again, apologies. The confusion was perfectly natural and entirely my fault.

As I was saying earlier, I think you can spot torture most easily by its results. Here are some sample autopsy reports that were obtained using FOIA (http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/):

Autopsy: ME 04-309; 27 year old male civilian presumed Iraqi national died in US custody 72 hours after being apprehended. Cause of Death: pending. Manner of Death: pending. Injuries: minor abrasions and bruises of extremities. Bruise on right side of neck. No evidence of natural disease, no evidence of drug abuse. Final autopsy report of this individual with more details is at DOD 013279. DOD 003323 lists an autopsy of the same date with the notation "Q[uestioned] by NSWT [Navy Seals], struggled/interrogated/died sleeping."

47 year old white male detainee died while in US custody. Cause of death: Blunt Force Injuries and Asphyxia; Manner of Death: Homicide. Autopsy revealed deep bruising of the chest wall, numerous displaced rib fractures, bruising on the lungs, hemorrhage into the mesentery of the small and large intestine. Examination of the neck structures revealed hemorrhage into the strap muscles and fractures of the thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone. History of asphyxia, secondary to occlusion of the oral airway. Pleural and pulmonary adhesions. Hypertensive cardiovascular disease. According to report provided by the US army CID, the detainee was shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth at the time he lost consciousness and became pulseless. The severe blunt force injuries, the hanging position, and the obstruction of the oral cavity with a gag contributed to this individual's death. DOD 00329 refers to this case as "gagged in standing restraint" DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trama and choking; gagged in standing restraint." DOD 003324 refers to this case with a note indicating "Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to CIA], gagged in standing restraint."

Male detainee died while in U.S. custody. The details surrounding the circumstances at the time of death are classified. Cause of death: Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Manner of Death: Homicide. Significant findings of the autopsy included rib fractures and numerous bruises, some of which were patterned due to impacts with a blunt object. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with note "Q[uestioned] by MI [Military Intelligence], died during interrogation."

Iraqi National male was captured by Navy Seal Team #7 and resisted aprehension. External injuries including multiple contusions are consistent with injuries sustained during apprehension. Fractures of the ribs and a contusion of the left lung imply significant blunt force injuries of the thorax and likely resulted in impaired respiration. Ligature marks of the wrists and ankles. Remote gunshot would of torso. No significant natural diseases identified. According to investigating agents, during interrogation of the detainee, a hood made of synthetic material was placed over the head and neck of the detainee. He died while detained at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Cause of death: Blunt force injuries complicated by compromised respiration. Manner of Death: Homicide. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with the notation "Q[uestioned] by OGA [Other Governmental Agency - non-military, often refers to the CIA] and NSWT [Navy Seals] died during interrogation."

Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.

Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.
Remember, kids, if the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/41388.html)

Strike For The South

02-02-2009, 21:05

Disgusting. You'd figure if were willing to do that We'd at least have moved onto kidnapping there families and then threatening them.

That would seem to work better.

Don Corleone

02-02-2009, 23:33

Don, are you seriously suggesting that there are only two sides on this issue? For real? So I must either throw in with my-country-right-or-wrong or sign up with America-is-the-Great-Satan, and that's it?

I think you're falling into a dualist trap.

I'm sorry, you're right. I guess my point is the only difference between HoreTore and a large swath of the European and American left is that at least he's honest about his moral equivalency (at least he was, until he retracted his comment and reaffirmed it, all in one sentance).

HoreTore

02-03-2009, 07:48

I'm sorry, you're right. I guess my point is the only difference between HoreTore and a large swath of the European and American left is that at least he's honest about his moral equivalency (at least he was, until he retracted his comment and reaffirmed it, all in one sentance).

No, no Don. You see, my point is this: admitting that we're bastards ourselves does not make other bastards less "bastardous"(or whatever, you get the drift).

Yes, we kill innocent people. Yes, that makes us bastards, pretty much by default. If killing innocent people doesn't make you a bastard, then what does? That we also moan a bit about it does not help the victims one bit.

Now the point is that killing innocents is wrong. The statement, however, was that if it's OK for us to do it, then it must be OK for OBL to do it too. The reason for the statement, is that a lot of people don't care too much when a third worlder dies, but it's the end of the world when a westerner dies. And that, my friend, I'm sure you agree is a despicable double standard we can't have. It's wrong for OBL to kill innocent americans, and it's wrong when we kill innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs or whatever. Which we have.

I hope I've made myself clear now, although I doubt I have... :clown:

Seamus Fermanagh

02-03-2009, 11:09

No, no Don. You see, my point is this: admitting that we're bastards ourselves does not make other bastards less "bastardous"(or whatever, you get the drift).

Yes, we kill innocent people. Yes, that makes us bastards, pretty much by default. If killing innocent people doesn't make you a bastard, then what does? That we also moan a bit about it does not help the victims one bit.

Now the point is that killing innocents is wrong. The statement, however, was that if it's OK for us to do it, then it must be OK for OBL to do it too. The reason for the statement, is that a lot of people don't care too much when a third worlder dies, but it's the end of the world when a westerner dies. And that, my friend, I'm sure you agree is a despicable double standard we can't have. It's wrong for OBL to kill innocent americans, and it's wrong when we kill innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Serbs or whatever. Which we have.

I hope I've made myself clear now, although I doubt I have... :clown:

Crystal clear. On a moral level, it is impossible to argue that any one life is more important than another. This is a general principle that holds true across Western culture, along with numerous other cultures across the globe.

Historically, it has been held to be acceptable to take the view that protecting the lives of one's own family/tribe/nation was more important to a member of that family/tribe/nation than would be the lives of a differing family/tribe/nation. By implication, defense of one's own could justify the taking of lives from the other group if no other viable alternative existed. Based on other posts long since, I recognize that you tend to eschew this point of view since you see nationalism as an inappropriate motivator for such decisions.

Absent that old idea of "protecting one's own," Horetore, the limitation with your attitude is that it boils down to ALL VIOLENCE IS BAD (yes, I'm simplifying your theme for the sake of discussion). While I suspect that we would all agree in principle, it does not address the practical situation very well. Our world demonstrates, with a 5 millenia track record, that some will choose violence and murder to achieve their objectives. So how does one respond effectively?

Lemur

02-03-2009, 18:12

You'd figure if were willing to do that We'd at least have moved onto kidnapping there families and then threatening them.
We actually did that to one of the Al Qaeda leaders early in the GWoT. Unfortunately, I'm having a hell of a time finding a web-friendly source that recounts the info, and I can't be bothered to go back to the library and re-find the book that details it (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0385526393), so you're going to have to make do with my memory.

We captured one of the AQ lieutenants early in the GWoT, and among other things we threatened to kill his children, whom we had in custody. He responded that if we killed them they would join Allah, so go right ahead.

Stalemate. There's nowhere to escalate once you've threatened a man's children with harm and he has called your bluff.

If I can find a web-friendly version of this info, I'll post a link. I curse books and their static text, their un-indexed knowledge and their inability to be read by Firefox!

HoreTore

02-03-2009, 20:13

So how does one respond effectively?

If you would respond like they were citizens in your own country, and the civilians american citizens, I would be more than happy.

To expand a little:

You have monsters in your own country. Monsters just as bad as OBL and his gang. The Manson Family, brainwashed psychopaths who would've continued killing if they weren't stopped. People like Lee Harvey Oswald, who did more harm to your democracy and freedom by gunning down JFK, an elected president, than killing ten thousand civilians ever will. You have people in your country who limits by fear the mobility of others, by making them afraid to go certain places or do certain things at certain times or places.

Yet, these monsters are given rights. They have the right to be judged by their peers in a fair trial, they have the right not to be tortured under interrogation. When trying to catch a particular psycho, the police takes extreme care not to harm any civilians in the area. If a monster is shielded behind a civilian, then the police will not shoot.

Even with these precautions, we do manage to catch the monsters. We are able to protect ourselves from them. Do the same thing when in another country.

Strike For The South

02-04-2009, 01:41

We actually did that to one of the Al Qaeda leaders early in the GWoT. Unfortunately, I'm having a hell of a time finding a web-friendly source that recounts the info, and I can't be bothered to go back to the library and re-find the book that details it (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Inside-Terror-American/dp/0385526393), so you're going to have to make do with my memory.

We captured one of the AQ lieutenants early in the GWoT, and among other things we threatened to kill his children, whom we had in custody. He responded that if we killed them they would join Allah, so go right ahead.

Stalemate. There's nowhere to escalate once you've threatened a man's children with harm and he has called your bluff.

If I can find a web-friendly version of this info, I'll post a link. I curse books and their static text, their un-indexed knowledge and their inability to be read by Firefox!

Thats when you move onto disfigurement. These soldiers really should take a page at of the Texas Rangers book.

When you intimidate those Meskins YOU INTIMIDATE THOSE MESKINS.

Xiahou

02-04-2009, 02:17

Stalemate. There's nowhere to escalate once you've threatened a man's children with harm and he has called your bluff.Sure there is- waterboarding. I believe that was KSM who said that. And he cracked when waterboarded. He didn't care if his children were hurt, but when it came to himself....

That seems to be a familiar theme with Al Qaeda, they talk big about the virtues of martyrdom, when trying to convince others to blow themselves up. But when it comes to putting themselves in any danger, it doesn't apply.

Tribesman

02-04-2009, 02:22

And he cracked when waterboarded
yes and admitted to killing Archduke Ferdinand which was very helpful .

Xiahou

02-04-2009, 02:27

yes and admitted to killing Archduke Ferdinand which was very helpful .Oh lets not go thru this again. I've linked to sources in these threads several times where journalists spoke with interrogators (many of whom opposed waterboarding) and they admitted to gaining actionable intelligence from him.

You're good at using Google, so I'm sure you can find it if you care to. Otherwise, keep on trolling- I don't care either way. :shrug:

Lemur

02-04-2009, 02:31

I believe that was KSM who said that.
Thank you, that was the final piece of the puzzle I needed.

Story (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,445117,00.html):

He was water-boarded, hot and cold, all matter of deprivations, beatings, threats. He told us some things, but frankly things that professional interrogators say could have been gotten otherwise. [...]

The thing they did with Mohammed is that we had captured his children, a boy and a girl, age 7 and 9. And at the darkest moment we threatened grievous injury to his children if he did not cooperate. His response was quite clear: "That's fine. You can do what you want to my children, and they will find a better place with Allah."

This dovetails nicely with John Yoo's theory that the President has the inherent right to crush a child's testicles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz01hN9l-BM).

HoreTore

02-04-2009, 07:42

Sure there is- waterboarding. I believe that was KSM who said that. And he cracked when waterboarded. He didn't care if his children were not hurt, but when it came to himself....

There, fixed it for ya ~;)

As Lemur put it, he called their bluff.

Lemur

02-04-2009, 16:19

Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney comes out and declares that "enhanced interrogation" ("torture" in English) was all that stood between us and a Muslim-Nuclear apocalypse. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18390.html)

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.” [...]

“The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama adminstration believes.” [In other words, "Oderint dum metuant," — Lemur]

“If it hadn’t been for what we did—with respect to the terrorist surveillance program, or enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees, the Patriot Act, and so forth—then we would have been attacked again,” he said. “Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.”

Cheney said “the ultimate threat to the country” is “a 9/11-type event where the terrorists are armed with something much more dangerous than an airline ticket and a box cutter – a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind” that is deployed in the middle of an American city.

“That’s the one that would involve the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, and the one you have to spend a hell of a lot of time guarding against,” he said.

“I think there’s a high probability of such an attempt. Whether or not they can pull it off depends whether or not we keep in place policies that have allowed us to defeat all further attempts, since 9/11, to launch mass-casualty attacks against the United States.”

Don Corleone

02-04-2009, 16:25

I don't agree with his premise that defending against such an attack justifies any means necessary to prevent it. But your contributing lead-in seems to imply that you find large-scale casualty attacks, indeed even the desire to perpretrate one, the stuff of paranoid delusion. Do you really think that?

Lemur

02-04-2009, 16:39

But your contributing lead-in seems to imply that you find large-scale casualty attacks, indeed even the desire to perpretrate one, the stuff of paranoid delusion. Do you really think that?
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. AQ and their spin-offs have never demonstrated that they have the capacity to create, package and deliver bio-weapons. Neither have they delivered a nuclear package anywhere. They haven't even managed to deliver a dirty bomb, something that any fool with access to dynamite and some recycled medical machinery could manage.

The truth of the matter is that AQ has not been sitting idly in their caves for seven years; they have struck repeatedly in Europe and the Middle East. Look at the methods and tools used. Do any of those incidents bear any resemblance to Ex-VP Cheney's apocalyptic murmurings?

Even 9/11 was a low-tech bit of work, depending on muscle, flight training and box cutters.

I'm not saying that terrorists won't get their hands on nukes; obviously they will, someday. In fact, I think the interesting security problem for the next century will be the ability of smaller and smaller groups to get their hands on bigger and better destructive devices. How do you deal with security when eight guys on a message board can take out Cleveland? Should be a fascinating problem.

But I don't see any concrete evidence that AQ has accomplished anything more than some wish-list wet-dreaming when it comes to nukes or biological weapons. Sacrificing the moral high ground and deliberately losing the PR game to guard against such a contingency is strategically unsound.

-edit-

Something else to think about when you hear someone pointing out that the U.S. has not been struck since 9/11: It's completely untrue. AQ in Iraq had a literal shooting gallery of U.S. targets, and they struck them repeatedly. Remember, your enemy will usually tell you his intent, and AQ has done so. OBL bragged that 9/11 would force America to invade a Muslim country, where we would get bogged down and suffer ignominious defeat and economic collapse. Admittedly, he figured we would get bogged down in Afghanistan, not Iraq, but that was his plan. The strategy was not to bomb the U.S. repeatedly at home (although he would threaten that from time to time, probably just to bait us into further freaking out), but rather to entice us into the Middle East and keep us there. That much they have accomplished, although it hasn't worked out the way they planned, thankfully.

-edit of the edit-

A very good point about where Cheney is positioning (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/02/todays_gop_hoping_for_the_worst.php) his party, should they allow him to do so:

It occurred to me while reading Politico's interview with Dick Cheney, that the GOP's plan to regain political viability in the short term rests on two disaster scenarios: the failure of the financial rescue efforts (stimulus, TARP, and other bailouts) to stave off complete economic collapse and a new mass casualty terrorist attack -- both of which they are positioning themselves to blame Obama for.

Without one of those two, they have to figure it's going to be a long time wandering in the political wilderness. Now think about the curdling effect, the blight on the soul that comes with rooting for such disasters to befall your country.

Tribesman

02-04-2009, 18:51

OBL bragged that 9/11 would force America to invade a Muslim country, where we would get bogged down and suffer ignominious defeat and economic collapse. Admittedly, he figured we would get bogged down in Afghanistan, not Iraq, but that was his plan.
Yeah well , OBL was right , they are bogged down in Afghanistan , but not even the fundamentalist nutjobs could have envisioned Saddam getting linked to Al-Qaida and America screwing up so badly in Iraq .

Seamus Fermanagh

02-04-2009, 19:52

Option D isn't working, Option B requires a level of self-denial we're nationally incapable of, Option A is the most practical but moribund on a moral level.

Seems like C is lookin' pretty good. Dear God Almighty, I think I'm beginning to see something positive in Pat Buchannan's rants.....

Xiahou

02-04-2009, 23:02

Something else to think about when you hear someone pointing out that the U.S. has not been struck since 9/11: It's completely untrue. AQ in Iraq had a literal shooting gallery of U.S. targets, and they struck them repeatedly. Remember, your enemy will usually tell you his intent, and AQ has done so. OBL bragged that 9/11 would force America to invade a Muslim country, where we would get bogged down and suffer ignominious defeat and economic collapse. Admittedly, he figured we would get bogged down in Afghanistan, not Iraq, but that was his plan. The strategy was not to bomb the U.S. repeatedly at home (although he would threaten that from time to time, probably just to bait us into further freaking out), but rather to entice us into the Middle East and keep us there. That much they have accomplished, although it hasn't worked out the way they planned, thankfully.That's actually been pointed to as one of the successes of the war in Iraq- keeping Al Qaeda's attention away from the continental US and civilians and focused on our armed forces in Iraq. In that much, it's been a pretty resounding success. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been devastated.

Now think about the curdling effect, the blight on the soul that comes with rooting for such disasters to befall your country. Wow, my head is spinning after this one. In less than a month it seems the leftwing is already recycling all of the rightwing's talking points. How long ago was it when we heard about the Democrats wishing for the country to fail so they could make political points. Now we hear them doing the same thing....

Option D isn't working, Option B requires a level of self-denial we're nationally incapable of, Option A is the most practical but moribund on a moral level.

Seems like C is lookin' pretty good. Dear God Almighty, I think I'm beginning to see something positive in Pat Buchannan's rants.....I'm thinking the same. The trouble with C is that it never seems to work as anything other than a short-term policy. "Just when I thought I was out.... they pull me back in. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKR3QU3dB0M)"