Powered by TypePad

« Libby Wins A Round In Court | Main | Able Danger, RIP? »

September 21, 2006

Comments

TallDave

I have a college friend in the armed forces. He described screaming, regular sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, and repeatedly forcing people to sit and endure tear gassing. Conditions were so harsh more than one attempted suicide.

Mistreatment of detainees? No, that was Marine basic training.

PeterUK

"Freaknik and his ilk present a completely false choice.

They claim using stress interrogation techniques (what they call torture) will cause our enemies to do the same things to our soldiers/civilians when they are captured/kidnapped."


To Freakwit a Septicleo,having to clean their rooms is torture,having their dealers arrested,a fate worse than death.

Florence Schmieg

Spent time this morning getting the general feel about the deal. Overwhelmingly considered a win for Bush. So, the NYTimes article and headline on it spin it as the White House caving in despite the fact that their own editorial page is having a fit about it. Do they even try to talk to one another at that paper? So funny!

Cecil Turner

Finally got around to reading The Interrogators: Inside the Secret War Against al Qaeda (narrative of one of the professional interrogators in Kandahar, referenced extensively in an article by Heather Mac Donald). One of the most interesting points is the united front exhibited by the detainees, telling remarkably similar (and totally unbelievable) stories. Much was explained when they finally discovered a copy of the Al Qaeda training manual:

There was an entire section on the West. It showed a remarkable understanding of the American system. Hold out on providing any information for at least twenty-four hours, it said, to give "brothers" enough time to adjust their plans. The Americans "will not harm you physically," the manual said . . .
As Ms MacDonald suggests, the effectiveness of the program is mostly in uncertainty, not in the amount of force used. So, this whole debate has, by codifying acceptable measures, already done Al Qaeda a great kindness. Considering the worst thing alleged was waterboarding, I'm having a hard time seeing the "TORTURE!" side of the argument, and think we ought to've avoided it altogether. That was probably not feasible due to CIA interrogators' unease with the legal issues of the program, and as Interrogators made clear, they were implicitly threatened on that score. However, that doesn't make me more impressed with them (nor a certain grandstanding senator), though I suspect it was unavoidable. The tribunal debate was long past due, and if the actual legislation in fact authorizes Quirin-style military commissions, it was well worth it. And unless I'm missing something, the classified information discussion and Common Article 3 hand-wringing is mostly a sideshow.

zh

This compromise basically returns us to the status quo as far as torture goes. We likely tortured captured spies throughout the cold war to extract information (or at least went beyond Common Artice 3 standards in any case) and probably did so in secret to try and prevent various ticking-time-bomb scenarios like those that have been described in gruesome detail by various pro-torture voices in the past weeks. Bush tried to take these actions out of the darker corners of the government and grant interrogators official cover for their actions. Beyond that, he coupled this with a law to rig courts where information gathered from torturing both the defendent and quasi-anonymous witnesses can be used to hang someone. That's one motive for legalizing torture. Another is that this president is, for one reason or another, more vulnerable than most to whistle-blowing despite his gather-the-wagons attitude. Lastly, there's the obvious tactic that including certain odious factors in the bill (specifics about no trial rights, torture, etc) will make it impossible for most Dems to vote for this wedge.
The compromise does little to help Dems on the last prong of Bush's strategy, but provides cover for the anti-torture GOP members by sending torture back to the shadows. Evidence obtained with torture
probably won't be used in courts, and torture probably won't be made public again so long as the CIA does a better job than the military at keeping digital cameras out of its agents' hands. The compromise does to quite a bit in terms of saving our collective face and ensuring that the right to torture without penalty isn't enshrined in our laws, but anyone who actually opposes torture (as opposed to just opposing decriminalyzing it) should stand up, and probably should've asked a few more questions about our tactics several years ago before the first pictures came out as well.

Gary Maxwell

Here is the status quo on torture. We dont employ it. Period. The rest of your drivel condenses down to something akin to "shame on the Republicans for standing up for our troops and our intelligence officers, showing thoughtful concerns and working to get a compromise that everyone can live with and ESPECIALLY for forcing the Democrats to so publicly pick between their lunatic base and the strong sentiments of the general public."

TexasToast

I'm curious Cecil. Why was it important to you to have Quirin-like tribunals? What actual purpose will these "trials" serve?

As you have pointed out numerous times, a determination of "illegal combatant" status is legally sufficient to line these people up and shoot them. Why have a trial with crippled credibility at all?

Jane

OT: Bush just said in his press conference that the first he heard of the "Armitage threat" against Mushariff was when he read it in the newspaper today. All he knew was that Colin Powell came to him and said Pakistan was happy to help.

Mushariff said he couldn't comment because Simon and Schuster gagged him until his book comes out.

boris

"illegal combatant" status is legally sufficient to line these people up

At point of capture. There is a saying: If guilty, civilian court is better. If innocent, military court is better.

So at Gitmo, lacking normal police forensics, establishing that someone is not an innocent captured by mistake is a fairly important step.

sad

Mushariff said he couldn't comment because Simon and Schuster gagged him until his book comes out.

Those book deals sure do loosen tongues in spite of all of the admonitions NOT to talk until the book comes out.

lurker

"I'm curious Cecil. Why was it important to you to have Quirin-like tribunals? What actual purpose will these "trials" serve?"

Why have court martials?

Why have UCMJ?

They are not criminals nor US citizens.

Of course, you'll respond with Padilla and Massaoui!

lurker

Democrat’s Shade Truth On FISA-NSA

lurker

According to hotair, waterboarding may now be forbidden. True????

jerry

Hmm, everyone's (Tenet, Mushariff, more?)gagged by their publishers until after the election... sounds like a right wing op designed to keep the public mislead for the rest of the Bush reign.

Pofarmer

I'm curious Cecil. Why was it important to you to have Quirin-like tribunals? What actual purpose will these "trials" serve?

As you have pointed out numerous times, a determination of "illegal combatant" status is legally sufficient to line these people up and shoot them. Why have a trial with crippled credibility at all?

Best guess.

So those that have plotted and planned and led in coordinated acts of terror can be held legally after the action ceases, when and if that day comes.

The plain ole foot soldiers may not be so important, but you don't want a Khalid Sheik Mohamed back on the street, ever. The best way to do that is to have a criminal trial. The way this has always been done is with military tribunals. Why change?


Pofarmer

And, IMHO, Padilla gave up any rights as a U.S. citizen when he tried to blow up a civilian airliner. Clearly an act of terror, and this is the "Global War on Terror" doncha know.

Rick Ballard

Great Banana,

I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of JAG lawyers are excellent in all respects. Graham is not in that group. I wasn't suggesting SERE training as a reprisal but as an element of training. I think that the JAG lawyers advising our interrogators have done them a good service in informing them of potential risk arising from that SCOTUS decision and in the unlikely event that they were ever asked to defend an interrogator the fact that they as well as the interrogator had been subjected to stress techniques that some drooling liberal described as torture would be helpful.

Cecil Turner

This compromise basically returns us to the status quo as far as torture goes. We likely tortured captured spies throughout the cold war to extract information (or at least went beyond Common Artice 3 standards in any case) . . .

While I agree with the general thrust, I can't accept the terminology. The gulf between "torture" and Common Article 3 (no "adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion . . ."; no "humiliating and degrading treatment") is so vast it's meaningless. For all the scorn heaped on the Administration, at least they tried to define "torture". Something that cannot be said about the loyal opposition, who usually start hand-wringing at "good cop=bad cop." If the definition of "torture" is anything like the Yoo or Bybee memos (or what was done to McCain and others), then I am absolutely against it . . . and would strenuously object to being called "pro-torture." However, if it's a set of predominantly mind games like we do to our own troops at SERE School (which does not include "urine drinking" or any other truly weird crap as in the Wikipedia entry), culminating in waterboarding for the worst offenders, then it's clearly not "torture" (or even terribly close, IMHO). And I do think that's about where we ought to be on this.

As you have pointed out numerous times, a determination of "illegal combatant" status is legally sufficient to line these people up and shoot them.

The final determination of that status is made in the tribunal, or later in the military review, or SCOTUS (any can overturn the tribunal). The SCOTUS review checks for claims that a tribunal wasn't appropriate (e.g., Ex Parte Milligan, 1866, tribunal decision overturned because--short answer--Milligan wasn't a combatant), or that it wasn't properly established or used improper procedures (e.g., In Re Yamashita, SCOTUS affirmed tribunal and refused Yamashita some due process rights).

Why have a trial with crippled credibility at all?

Crippled credibility? Federal rules of evidence are obviously not appropriate (in many cases there are no surviving witnesses, nor do we necessarily even have control the area of capture). Federal courts are obviously not appropriate (imagine the court cases springing from a single WWII-style offensive . . . and the resultant chaos). Further, a tribunal is the appropriate venue for those who flout civilized standards of warfare, and to protect our belligerency rights as a nation. It's more of a military operation than a search for justice, and a means of protecting innocent civilians from the horrors of war. The criteria for a criminal trial do not attend: it is not better to let "ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted" when the ten will then do their best to kill thousands with modern military weapons.

Cecil Turner

All he knew was that Colin Powell came to him and said Pakistan was happy to help.

I suspect that's a polite fiction. The meeting wasn't exactly a secret:

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage Thursday presented the Pakistani ambassador to the United States with what Powell called "a specific list" of concrete steps the United States wants Pakistan to agree to as a measure of its cooperation.
And Pakistan's response had some fairly obvious implications (even to dumb retired jarheads):
I suspect the decider was a very big stick displayed in private.
Not sure why Musharraf wants to hold forth now, but it probably isn't a good sign.

owl

Scrappleface reports the RNC has offered to fund a Chavez and Ihmamadjihadi speaking tours throughout the country.

Someone mentioned earlier on another thread the voice of the translator and this is what hit me at the time. Almost unbelievable....it was high drama. Exactly like the advertisements for Geico. Those are the best on TV since the pooch with the sombrero riding in the convertible.

They claim using stress interrogation techniques (what they call torture)...

The only reason 'they' were allowed to paint us as torturers was because McCain/Graham gave them cover when this issue first surfaced with Abu Ghraib. They not only allowed but encouraged the MSM to label that horrible, disgusting sexual perverted looking thing to be labeled 'torture' but then allowed Bush as Torturer in Chief with little Pug enablers.

Complaining loudly to Graham did no good....believe I got an email back explaining Moral behavior.

boris

With conflict between uniformed regular militaries, tribunals to determine "enemy" are not necessary. Anybody in the arena of conflict wearing the enemy uniform is "enemy" regardless of their combat or support role.

Failure to abide by those rules is not being "punished". Failure to abide by those rules means the more complicated system of tribunals and interrogation are NECESSARY to effectively engage the enemy while reducing collateral harm.

clarice

BTW the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are unique to this country and I remind those who insist we must impose them on these tribunals that they exist nowere else in the world.

clarice

**noWHere else in the world********

Neo

since Dems have been hiding behind St. John on this issue, they will have a hard time announicng at this late date that McCain lacks the integrity and judgment to be trusted

Wasn't this Karl Rove's plan all along ?

boris

According to hotair, waterboarding may now be forbidden. True???

The compromise interpretation may be that it is no longer officially sanctioned. It would appear to fall into the category of action under control of the president. One suspects if another KSM needs to be waterboarded to save American lives, the president will, in McCains words, "do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it."

Gary Maxwell

For what its worth Armitage is categorically denying the the threat was delivered. He says he had no authorization to make such a threat and as such did not deliver any such threat. Now Musharraf on the other hand is hated by many in his country and might like to 'splain his actions in a very favorable light, plus he apparently is trying to sell a book. Believe what you will here, but I dont see the State Dept getting in folks face too often on anything so it seems to be far fetched to me. Perhaps Musharref should listen to Democrats, he really meant to say "Cheney and those evil NeoCons ( read Jews). That of course would sell well in Pakistan too.

Gary Maxwell

have a hard time announicng at this late date that McCain lacks the integrity and judgment to be trusted

Doesn't preclude me from saying it now, does it?

JohnH

In the old media world, the Democrats would have been spinning the detainee deal as a victory for them, saying they got the White House to back down and so on.

The advantage of having a blogosphere, with leftie blogs that are not beholden to the institutional Democratic party, is that their outrage is the clearest indication of who won. It also prevents the MSM from blandly publishing the Democrats' spin.

Neo

"do what you have to do. But you take responsibility for it."

Aah, there is a "Jack Bauer" escape clause.

boris

lol ... I was almost going to suggest the standard '24' scene where Jack gets the presidents permission to waterboard the terorist to find the ticking bomb.

Neo

the experts think that the threat of physical coercion is a useful interrogation tactic but they offer few examples of torture itself providing actionable intelligence.

This kind of logical is familiar to any parent.

If you draw a "hard and fast" line, your child will march right up to the line (then stick their tongue out at you). If you don't mention ahead of time the double secret "no tongue" rule, you have recourse.

Pofarmer

Musharaff is clearly trying to cover his ass. I wonder though, if it's from in internal problem, or more of an external one. It seems like he's trying to insulate himself in the case of some huge Ramadan attack. Makes me a little nervous.

Jane

Musharaff is clearly trying to cover his ass. I wonder though, if it's from in internal problem, or more of an external one.

Hasn't there always been "an internal problem"? Trying to assasinate him is like a parlor game in Pakistan.

Neo

I caught Howard Dean's "NewD irection" piece in the WSJ. Frankly, if that is what the Democrats are running on, let malaise be the order of the day.

Given that a broken clock is right twice a day, some of these ideas might work better for a Democratic "NewD irection":

1) allow "insider trading" for those below "poverty level"
2) raise "poverty level"
3) raise taxes
4) deadset against photo ID to vote
5) electronic voting machines made by Democrats
6) political theater of Congressional investigations
7) require WalMart put Hilary back on board of directors
8) develop "multicultural" plan to have Chicago Cubs win World Series
9) disallow any party candidate whose mere presence is considered "torture"
10) "Manhattan project" effort to create planetary defense
11) stamp out prejudice and bigotry for everyone, except Evangelical Christians
12) new "exit strategy" for "War on Poverty"
13) require all new DHS jobs be unionized
14) require al Qaeda be unionized, submit to OHSA rules

Other Tom

"As you have pointed out numerous times, a determination of 'illegal combatant' status is legally sufficient to line these people up and shoot them."

I'm not sure who pointed it out or where they did so, but that assertion is simply untrue. It is legally sufficient to detain them for the duration of hositilities, but Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and now US law, requires that they be treated humanely. Like any other combatant, legal or illegal, they can be shot on a battlefield, but not if they surrender.

clarice

Perhaps we should simply redefine "battlefield" .

cathyf

Other Tom, I don't think that you are correct about that at all. Spies and sabateurs have always been subject to summary execution. The german sabateurs of ex parte quirin got exactly that, with the exception of the 2 guys who turned in their comrades. Those two were sentenced to prison, and held until after the war was over, when they were released and deported to Germany. But the rest of them had already been executed when the Supreme Court ruled on quirin.

Patton

Maybe Armitage isn't yet aware that he is the person Muscharraf is talking about...maybe it will hit him in October......He probably forgot he told
El Presidente' Woodward of DrivebyMediastan the same thing, but earlier.

Sue

Maybe I'm dense (shut up peanut gallery) but what the heck does it matter if Armitage told Musharaf help us or we will kick your a$$ too?

clarice

It provides cover for Musharaff with his domestic critics--I was only acting to save us--and an interest in the book --more royalties for him and profit for Simon & Schuster)

Geek, Esq.

My read:

1) Anything that honestly merits comparisons with Nazi Germany is illegal and considered a war crime.

2) Anything less--e.g. inducing hypothermia, waterboarding--is still technically a no-no. But, the CIA can do it without any negative consequences whatsoever. Evidence collected through the use of no-no's like waterboarding may still be admitted as evidence, and no one may be prosecuted for waterboarding or inducing hypothermia.

Bush got 100% of what he wanted, and McCain et al got to pretend to be standing up for some lofty principals.

Sue

It provides cover for Musharaff with his domestic critics

Well that isn't how I'm reading the critics of his remarks (that he is denying, BTW). It seems to me they are portraying Bush as a bully by having Armitage relay that message. I say, so what?

boris

the CIA can do it without any negative consequences whatsoever

Aside for the obvious cases where rogue elements in the CIA conduct fake missions to dis-elect the commander in chief ... one exepcts that disobeying a direct prohibition wihout explicit permission from the executive (subject as an elected official to public diapproval) would be dealt with in some punitive fashion.

So ... basically "your read" is BS.

Gary Maxwell

Geek you sound dejected. Is it that you hoped Khalid Sheik Muhammed would walk free again? If not a detailed explanation of your glumness please. Seems like if the terrorists are losing, you are winning. So what exactly am I missing?

freaknik

a brain

Cecil Turner

But the rest of them had already been executed when the Supreme Court ruled on quirin.

The Per Curiam decision was filed July 31, 1942; the executions took place on August 2, 1942. The full opinion wasn't filed until October 29, but the ruling was before the execution.

Bush got 100% of what he wanted, and McCain et al got to pretend to be standing up for some lofty principals.

Not sure he got it all . . . it looks like he got most of it. But the devil's in the details, and there are conflicting reports on how public and specific the interrogation guidelines have to be, which is probably the central issue on that front. He won big time on the tribunals, which I maintain was the larger concern. (BTW, the "principals" pun was funny . . . not sure it was intentional.)

TexasToast

OtherT

Its good to see some lines that you won't cross - unlike some others on this board.

Geek

Yep - Bush gets to do whatever he wants (as long as its not on paper), we get "trials" of the "worst of the worst" that will satisfy the Republican base (but virtually no one else in the world) ane the CIA interregators get "Get Out of Jail Free" Cards.

I'd say its a pretty big win.

And where was my party?

Watching polls.

Gary Maxwell

Freaknik

Post you wanted ad in your local newspaper, and maybe you will be able to find one that will fit you. It does you no good to advertise here, the brains here are too big and developed and wont fit inside your pinhead.

Slartibartfast
Here's how the optics look to me:

Someone has no idea what the word optics means.

PeterUK

"Yep - Bush gets to do whatever he wants (as long as its not on paper), we get "trials" of the "worst of the worst" that will satisfy the Republican base (but virtually no one else in the world)"

Haven't quite got the hang of it have you Texas Taqiya? Bush, being a Republican president, as opposed to the Albanian Minister for Agriculture or the Palestinian Minister for Culture,is required,nay mandated to try and satisfy his constituency.
I might go as far as to say that pleasing everyone else in the world is probably un-constitutional.

clarice

TT, you are so right about your party. They let down the cause of justice mightily and got sucked into the Bushitler maw. Fight it! Rush to your pals at Counterpaunch and Buttsaw and Truthnot and Democrat Underpants or whatever and work to defeat them. The world needs to know the righteous left in this country has not lost its revolutionary fervor!!!!

*stiffling laughter and running off*

lurker

Indonesian Christians executed;
girls to be stoned in Iran

Somalia and the Establishment of the Islamist Caliphate

lurker

Good news!

Iraqi Tribes Turn on al Qaeda

lurker

McCain told Bush that waterboarding is ok as long as Bush takes responsibility for it.

Well, hell, Bush had been taking alot of responsibility for alot of things already. What's one more?

No big deal!

JohnH

Yes, Geek, Bush got everything he wanted. Why are the Dems powerless to stop him?

Bush will be accused of "scaring the public" to get his way. Dems are powerless to stop this terrorizing of the public. Bush may be a moron, but in a debate with the Dems over how scared the public should be, somehow, he always wins. How moronic. Of course, as freaknik would say, and has, within the last few days, this is becuase the public are all idiots. Not enlightened like our freak.

So the public are all idiots and Bush is a moron. Gosh, what a terrible country to live in!! The Dixie Chicks had it right all along.

Charlie (Colorado)

Challenge him to a debate on his knowledge of Bodhisattva, Tic. You might be able to teach him something.

Oh, yes, do please. This should be fun.

RichatUF

from (the always great) clarice...

My typing is worse than ever. I just read another of those health stories that say smoking can increase your chance of getting HIV. I'm really trying to smoke with a condom on my cigarette, but the tip always starts smoking making it hard to see the keyboard.......%^)

On this note, I'm calling it day-too funny...

great thread, as always, informative

RichatUF

Thomas Morrissey

Dismayed by the stupidity of his supporters,John Kerry hits the Beer-Bong.


http://www.howiecarr.org/

Other Tom

Cathyf, my recollection of the holding in ex parte Quirin is somewhat different from yours. I believe it stands for the proposition that unlawful combatants are subject to execution after conviction at a trial by a military tribunal, at which trial it is established that they have committed a war crime--not merely that they are unlawful combatants. In the present cases, the latter determination has been made by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. That, by itself, does not authorize their execution, or any punishment other than continued detention.

But as always, I could be wrong, and if you or anyone else views the matter differently, please let me know.

As for poor Texas Toast, if he's only now becoming disillusioned with the Democrats, I see little hope for him. I think he and his fellows should mount a vigorous campaign for Ralph Nader in 2008--it's the only principled thing to do.

Other Tom

Tradesports GOP house majority now at 57.

Charlie (Colorado)

Heading for Venezuela? Are you kidding me? For what to get shot by Castro's asshole buddy? Look for an increase in migration to places like Turks and Caico real soon. Good and decent Venezuleans who cant stand it under the boot any more.

Actually, I rather like the Turks and Caicos myself.....

Jane

McCain told Bush that waterboarding is ok as long as Bush takes responsibility for it.

Hell if he can be held responsible for Katrina, what's a little waterboarding?

Besides, since now everyone knows what is involved in waterboarding, it's probably lost a little of its effectiveness.

boris

It's simulates the panic reflex associated with drowning. It's not just that reflex panic is unpleasant, it also disrupts rational thought and disengages mental control and willpower. Pretty sure the only way to reduce the effect is training with it.

It's effectiveness isn't so much "Tell me where the ticking bomb is or we'll waterboard you!". It's the state of mind the procedure produces. I suspect it's very effective on certain groups.

boris

-- It's stimulates the panic reflex associated with drowning. --

cathyf
Pretty sure the only way to reduce the effect is training with it.
Which thanks to the big mouths, the terrorists now are. I think that's their plan -- blab to the terrorists about all of the effective non-torture techniques so that the terrorists can train around them, so that then the only thing left will be torture. Because they are sure that the evil rethuglicans will use the torture, and then they will be able to feel superior. And then they win. It's all about them and their feeeeeeelings, you know.
clarice

Well, Fox's resident ex-judge says waterboarding is out. He's freguently wrong but who knows?

I say if it is, the interrogators whould pretend they didn't get the manual--""heh heh Ahmed, We've been stuck out in Kandahar and though your AQ manual says we can't, I'm not taking it as the final word. Billy Bob, the equipment , please."

cathyf
It's stimulates the panic reflex associated with drowning.
So does breathing the thick toxic smoke of a burning skyscraper.
It's not just that reflex panic is unpleasant, it also disrupts rational thought and disengages mental control and willpower.
So, for example, jumping out of the skyscraper does not seem unreasonable.

Waterboarding is fundamentally fake. Remember that of the people who died in the WTC, virtually everyone who lived through the initial crash died in the midst of the reality of the panic and disruption of rational thought and willpower that "waterboarding" stimulates. The only exceptions would be the jumpers. They had a few seconds of breathing clean fresh air and to get their wits back about them. I think they are the lucky ones, because they were able to die thinking about the people that they loved.

Rick Ballard

If I could draft the Executive Order it would read:

"The use of any stressful interrogation technique not regularly used in training US Armed Forces to resist interrogation is forbidden."
boris

If waterboarding is what it took to break KSM and save American lives, it should be used when necessary. It may not be officially sanctioned, but if the president decides to use on in a certain case there doesn't seem to be any way to stop him short of public disapproval.

PeterUK

"Well Achmed,you won't talk,the rules say we can't coerce you,so we are going to let you go,as a token of our good will please accept this gift of $10,000.Now if you will just smile for the camera and shake the General's hand,we will drop you back in Afghanistan".

lurkerOT:

OT: Saints and U2 will open up the SuperDome soon!

clarice

PUK, Sometimes you're so diabolical, it's scarey.

cathyf

Nah, PUK, my idea was more along the lines of shaving off all of the body hair except on the head, which we keep them long enough so that they have long flowing locks. Then make them up and dress them up like cheap hookers, and drop them off at the muttawa's office. They should be beaten to death before the muttawas notice that they're kinda ugly for girls...

cathyf

Oh, yeah, I forgot, a little surgery on the throat to give them nice high voices. So that their soprano screams will give the muttawas hard-ons when they are being beaten to death.

PeterUK

Cathy F
I am totally opposed to doing anything to them they might enjoy.

lurkerOT:

PUK, donja think it odd to find porno videos and magazines, glossy women clothes among Zarkawi's belongings???

PeterUK

Clarice,
How about briefing the NYT in strict confidence about all those who had been co-operative with the Bush administration? Or a brief message in the personal columns,"George would like to thank Achmed for all his help".

PeterUK

Lurker,
It was the shoe catalogue,"Dainty Shoes for larger sizes"

Gary Maxwell

That seals it. I was on the fence not sure if I was aappalled or satisfied with the compromise that seems to have emerged. Then Carl Levin announced his absolute opposition. Must be pretty good stuff. Heck I vote yes then.

clarice

Puk.......Gary, that's a pretty good way of deciding. Saves a lot of time.

Other Tom

We have just had two weeks or so of debate, discussion and negotiation over one of the more profound moral issues of our time. An issue, by the way, with huge implications for the national security of the United States. During this period, not one single member of the Democratic party had one word to say. Not one person, not one word. Not Harry Pelosi, not Nancy Reid, not Dean Kerry, not Teddy Rangel.

Can we dare hope that the November election will be settled on the issue of leadership?

Geek, Esq.

Not sure he got it all . . . it looks like he got most of it. But the devil's in the details, and there are conflicting reports on how public and specific the interrogation guidelines have to be, which is probably the central issue on that front. He won big time on the tribunals, which I maintain was the larger concern. (BTW, the "principals" pun was funny . . . not sure it was intentional.)

Given that the 'compromise' went out of its way to make it clear that the executive has the discretion to make borderline calls, I'd be shocked if he got anything he didn't want.

one exepcts that disobeying a direct prohibition wihout explicit permission from the executive (subject as an elected official to public diapproval) would be dealt with in some punitive fashion.

Here's how it works: The Decider decides that waterboarding and inducing hypothermia doesn't constitute "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment." Debate over.

richard mcenroe

"Well, the rules say we can't waterboard anymore so we've come up with this new doctrine: we are now practicing enhanced hydrological saturation techniques. Everybody got that? Someone spell it slowly for the Marine MP's..."

Semanticleo

OT;

Is everyone ready for the Tonkin Gulf Revisited? Let the applause begin.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

boris

I'd be shocked if he got anything he didn't want

Yeah me too.

Course I'd also be mildly suprised if he didn't get what he wanted on the big issues.

Pofarmer

Sounds more like a blockading force to me Cleo. Ya don't need minesweepers to bomb the nuclear facilities. Remember the whole sanctions talk?

Semanticleo

pofarmer;

Provocative acts take a life of their own.
Naive much, or wishful thinking?

Pofarmer

Ahhh, this is more like it.

Ray McGovern reveals that his unnamed sources are telling him a naval battle group has orders to go to the Gulf with a planned ETA of October 21 -- just in time, Dave Lindorff suggests, for an October surprise:

Do you guys have any, ya know, real sources?

Semanticleo

And this info soothes your anxieties?

TexasToast

*stiffling laughter and running off*

Ahh Clarice!

Such wit! such charm! Such grace!

Enjoy!

A true wonder ......

Pofarmer

Pretty good assessment here

http://www.colossusblog.com/mt/archives/2006/09/wars_and_rumors_1.html

Gary Maxwell

Clarice

Your ol buddy Ray McGovern shows in that Nation article. And the cherry on top, the fruitcake Rep Maurice Hinchey NY is also quoted. I guess Scary Larry and Murtha had CNN microphones in front of them so the Nation could only find these two third stringers to quote to try to make their little nothingburger look like they had some kind of story.

Pitiful.

GM

ane the CIA interregators get "Get Out of Jail Free" Cards.

Ignoring the mispelling -- Lets try this

"and the CIA interrogators don't get sued for war crimes for actions that the Chicago Police Department take every day"

Syl

S..Leo

Provocative acts take a life of their own.
Naive much, or wishful thinking?

Not nice to speak of Osama in such patronizing tones.

Cecil Turner

my recollection of the holding in ex parte Quirin is somewhat different from yours. I believe it stands for the proposition that unlawful combatants are subject to execution after conviction at a trial by a military tribunal, at which trial it is established that they have committed a war crime--not merely that they are unlawful combatants. [. . .]
I could be wrong, and if you or anyone else views the matter differently, please let me know.

Dunno about wrong, but perhaps a definitions/perspective issue. Those executed in the Quirin case did nothing more aggressive than prepare for sabotage . . . they certainly didn't commit anything resembling what most folks would envision as a "war crime" (e.g., the Nuremberg definition):

WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
That said, they were guilty of being
an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property
Which appears to be sufficient to sustain the conviction. So merely attempting a prohibited act was enough to warrant execution. That said, technically I think you're correct. The violation was complete when the lines were passed surreptitiously, and that was a "violation[] of the laws or customs of war" and hence a war crime. I think the same applies for any active participation in belligerency acts for an organization that doesn't comport to the laws of war (IAW Article 4). So merely being an "unlawful combatant" is essentially a "violation . . ." and hence a "war crime" punishable by Military Tribunal, and thus little practical difference from TT's assertion. In my opinion. The conclusion that it obviates the need for the tribunal is of course incorrect.

clarice

About that "OCtober surprise" that has the sinsosphere in such a ditzy tizzy, Rove was probably certain that the surprise would be no more than the left would concoct some more nonsense and the surprise is that they are still stupidly shoooting themselves out of the like real real reality and the running.

Since Soylent is obviously old "turd blossom" himself we can wait to hear it from the horse's mouth.

clarice

Krauthammer is way smarter than I am.He said he read thru the Bill for 12 hours and only got a headache. The CIA and WSJ like it. This is one time, I'm willing to take someone else's word for it.

jerry

This will sound inane, coming from the happy depths of the sinosphere, but, don't you guys ever have a hint of doubt, about anything?

Wherever I look I see Republican incompetance and greed... Iraq, Katrina, Homeland Security, lobbying, Gitmo, Libby, Abu Ghraib, NSA, Brown and Root, Armitage, Haliburton, Abramoff (Rove), Bob Ney, Ted Stevens, Duke Cuninghamm, Tom Delay... hey, I'm not even an expert in theworkd of DC sleaze! Then there's the Grand Conspiracy in the WH which cannot speak it's name.

Why do you guys want these people running our government for another day, another week, another month? Haven't we had enough?

Discuss....

Syl

Jerry

Wherever I look I see Republican incompetance and greed...

as opposed to what, exactly?

Democrat competence and selflessness?

ROTF!

Cecil Turner

This will sound inane, coming from the happy depths of the sinosphere, but, don't you guys ever have a hint of doubt, about anything?

The flip side of that concept: can't you guys ever manage to put aside your doubts and fears, for just a moment, and stop hand-wringing long enough to come up with a positive proposal? Because that's kind of a requirement, if you really want to run things.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame