Org Mobile Site
The case of Binyam Mohammed has been causing concern for quite some time, and has flared into the mainstream news because of a High Court commentary by some eminent judges as to the behaviour of US intelligence.
This information, however, raises some very disturbing questions about the legacy of President Bush and the intelligence communities. In short, it appears that someone is attempting to deny President Obama access to information about torture activities that he may have a view on.
It should be noted that Binyam Mohammed has had all charges dropped against him and therefore by both US and UK standards is a completely innocent man. A man who has been shipped by "rendition" to some of the nastiest regimes in the world for torture described in the letter to President Obama as "mediaeval". His military lawyer Lt Col Bradley, has described his condition currently as utterly frail and he is on hunger strike, suffering from physical and psychological breakdown. There is hope however, that he may be released to the UK soon.
Is it remotely acceptable that evidence of such barbarism is not only hidden behind a cloak of "national security" dissimulation, but from the president as well?
This information, however, raises some very disturbing questions about the legacy of President Bush and the intelligence communities. In short, it appears that someone is attempting to deny President Obama access to information about torture activities that he may have a view on.
"You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command."
It should be noted that Binyam Mohammed has had all charges dropped against him and therefore by both US and UK standards is a completely innocent man. A man who has been shipped by "rendition" to some of the nastiest regimes in the world for torture described in the letter to President Obama as "mediaeval". His military lawyer Lt Col Bradley, has described his condition currently as utterly frail and he is on hunger strike, suffering from physical and psychological breakdown. There is hope however, that he may be released to the UK soon.
Is it remotely acceptable that evidence of such barbarism is not only hidden behind a cloak of "national security" dissimulation, but from the president as well?
Thanks BG, I feel a little safer now knowing that there is an attempt to keep this information from our Manchurian President. Now that's Hope.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Thanks BG, I feel a little safer now knowing that there is an attempt to keep this information from our Manchurian President. Now that's Hope.
Yes - damn that Constitutional command over the intelligence services to hell!Thanks BG, I feel a little safer now knowing that there is an attempt to keep this information from our Manchurian President. Now that's Hope.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Yes - damn that Constitutional command over the intelligence services to hell!
I wouldn't trust the safety of a freshly laid steaming Yes - damn that Constitutional command over the intelligence services to hell!
, much less this nations security. I'm not suicidal.Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
I wouldn't trust the safety of a freshly laid steaming, much less this nations security. I'm not suicidal.
Then leave! I wouldn't trust the safety of a freshly laid steaming
, much less this nations security. I'm not suicidal.
Originally Posted by CountArach:
Then leave!
I thought about moving to Australia, but your government is too busy roasting its own citizens in the name of being Green. Also, according to many of you and Grand Harpy Herself, Hillary Clinton, dessent is patriotic. So I'm just being patriotic when I oppose my insurgent leader.Then leave!
That is an awful lot of redacting:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
Is it remotely acceptable that evidence of such barbarism is not only hidden behind a cloak of "national security" dissimulation, but from the president as well?
I wouldn't bet on it's being "hidden... from the president", despite the charity's lawyers' assumption of the same in their memo.Is it remotely acceptable that evidence of such barbarism is not only hidden behind a cloak of "national security" dissimulation, but from the president as well?
Oh my. It looks like the kings advisers rendered him a disservice much the same way King George was. 'Tis a shame.
Of course Bush '43 knew EVERYTHING and is therefore held accountable for all misdeeds committed while he was President. I mean, it can't be President Obama's fault right? Hope and change tm is infallible. I also see that "blanked out" is now a legal term.
Of course Bush '43 knew EVERYTHING and is therefore held accountable for all misdeeds committed while he was President. I mean, it can't be President Obama's fault right? Hope and change tm is infallible. I also see that "blanked out" is now a legal term.
Originally Posted by article:
US defence officials are preventing Barack Obama from seeing evidence...
Sorry, I don't see how this is possible as he's their boss!US defence officials are preventing Barack Obama from seeing evidence...
Intelligence work has, for a long time now, viewed "sources and methods" as not being regularly in the purview of the President. The President and advisors require information and an assessment of its accuracy, but NOT how it was collected or from whom. If they have access to that information, it is likely to leak and get someone killed. Protecting that confidentiality is vital to intelligence work.
This is the reason that RICHARD ARMMITAGE SHOULD have faced charges over Valerie Plame and why "Scooter" Libby was not supposed to make stuff up/be evasivee under investigation. Even though Plame's cover was "aging" at best, it was NOT within the purview of those "in the know" to leak that information.
President Obama may not have been made privy to the "sources and methods" used here (and neither may his predecessor have been) based on that rationale.
However, if the subject in question has been cleared of all charges, a proper (even if confidential) inquiry into the sources and methods used -- and their legality -- may be very appropriate.
This is the reason that RICHARD ARMMITAGE SHOULD have faced charges over Valerie Plame and why "Scooter" Libby was not supposed to make stuff up/be evasivee under investigation. Even though Plame's cover was "aging" at best, it was NOT within the purview of those "in the know" to leak that information.
President Obama may not have been made privy to the "sources and methods" used here (and neither may his predecessor have been) based on that rationale.
However, if the subject in question has been cleared of all charges, a proper (even if confidential) inquiry into the sources and methods used -- and their legality -- may be very appropriate.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Intelligence work has, for a long time now, viewed "sources and methods" as not being regularly in the purview of the President. The President and advisors require information and an assessment of its accuracy, but NOT how it was collected or from whom. If they have access to that information, it is likely to leak and get someone killed. Protecting that confidentiality is vital to intelligence work.
This is the reason that Dick Armey SHOULD have faced charges over Valerie Plame and why "Scooter" Libby was not supposed to make stuff up/be evasivee under investigation. Even though Plame's cover was "aging" at best, it was NOT within the purview of those "in the know" to leak that information.
President Obama may not have been made privy to the "sources and methods" used here (and neither may his predecessor have been) based on that rationale.
However, if the subject in question has been cleared of all charges, a proper (even if confidential) inquiry into the sources and methods used -- and their legality -- may be very appropriate.
By sources and methods do you mean this: http://sourcesandmethods.blogspot.com/Intelligence work has, for a long time now, viewed "sources and methods" as not being regularly in the purview of the President. The President and advisors require information and an assessment of its accuracy, but NOT how it was collected or from whom. If they have access to that information, it is likely to leak and get someone killed. Protecting that confidentiality is vital to intelligence work.
This is the reason that Dick Armey SHOULD have faced charges over Valerie Plame and why "Scooter" Libby was not supposed to make stuff up/be evasivee under investigation. Even though Plame's cover was "aging" at best, it was NOT within the purview of those "in the know" to leak that information.
President Obama may not have been made privy to the "sources and methods" used here (and neither may his predecessor have been) based on that rationale.
However, if the subject in question has been cleared of all charges, a proper (even if confidential) inquiry into the sources and methods used -- and their legality -- may be very appropriate.
Just kidding, but it is a great site.
When it comes to the "torture" debate the methods are important. The biggest argument against torture, or coercive interrogation techniques, is that the quality if information is unreliable at best. However none of this is the emphasis of this poor excuse for journalism. It is that DoD officials, who work directly for the POTUS, "blanked out" information and are preventing "Barrack Obama" (not President Obama, mind you) from knowing the truth. If he leaks information, it isn't a leak. His first and maybe only leak occurred after his Top Secret candidate briefing.
You mean Richard Armitage. He is the one who leaked Valerie's name and started the Plame game. But he's a leftie at state so who cares, right? I don't know where you got Dick Armey from.
Whether or not he was told the What and now the How is irrelevant. If he wants to know how, DoD will tell him.
Not to cut to the quick or anything. I'm willing to let the superfluous use of passive language in the thread title slide, but I can't excuse shoddy journalism.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
When it comes to the "torture" debate the methods are important. The biggest argument against torture, or coercive interrogation techniques, is that the quality if information is unreliable at best. However none of this is the emphasis of this poor excuse for journalism. It is that DoD officials, who work directly for the POTUS, "blanked out" information and are preventing "Barrack Obama" (not President Obama, mind you) from knowing the truth. If he leaks information, it isn't a leak. His first and maybe only leak occurred after his Top Secret candidate briefing.
I was reminding folks that materials are often redacted to protect sources, even from the big boss, in the name of operational security. You can argue that this is overkill, you can argue that this class of sources and methods should be treated differently in this context, etc. I was merely pointing out that the fact that a POTUS wasn't hearing HOW the information was developed was not, in and of itself, evidence of a conspiracy to deny information. It very well COULD be, but so far it's correlation not causality.When it comes to the "torture" debate the methods are important. The biggest argument against torture, or coercive interrogation techniques, is that the quality if information is unreliable at best. However none of this is the emphasis of this poor excuse for journalism. It is that DoD officials, who work directly for the POTUS, "blanked out" information and are preventing "Barrack Obama" (not President Obama, mind you) from knowing the truth. If he leaks information, it isn't a leak. His first and maybe only leak occurred after his Top Secret candidate briefing.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
You mean Richard Armitage. He is the one who leaked Valerie's name and started the Plame game. But he's a leftie at state so who cares, right? I don't know where you got Dick Armey from.
You are correct, I meant Armitage. I had a brief moment of intellectual flatulence, please forgive me.You mean Richard Armitage. He is the one who leaked Valerie's name and started the Plame game. But he's a leftie at state so who cares, right? I don't know where you got Dick Armey from.
Easy there. No need for forgiveness. This place is so cathartic for me. 
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO