Timing Is Everything

Patterico and Marc Thiessen return to the Library Tower timeline puzzle - how did the arrest of Khalid Sheick Mohammed in 2003 disrupt a plot the leader of which was busted in 2002 - while the Wapo opens with the interrogation of KSM and grapples with whether the enhanced interrogation program saved lives.

Patterico and I are sharing the same page - there is no particular reason to assume that Khalid Sheik Mohammed dream of blowing up the Library Tower died with the arrest of four plotters in 2002; Al Qaeda had the obvious resources for another attempt.

Marc Thiessen, former Presidential speechwriter, adds some detail:

And not just in the released memos.  In his September 2006 speech revealing the existence of the CIA program, President Bush described specifically how the interrogation of KSM led to the capture of the key operatives in this attack.  This was the most carefully vetted speech in presidential history — reviewed by all the key players from the individuals who ran the program all the way up to the director of national intelligence, who personally attested to the accuracy of the speech in a memo to the president.  And just last week on Fox News, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said he went back and checked with the agency as to the accuracy of that speech and reported:  “We stand by our story.” 

In numerous subsequent speeches, President Bush said that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program.   Each of those speeches was carefully reviewed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — and each time the DNI provided the White House with a classified memo stating that the contents of the speech was accurate and did not compromise sources and methods.  So the Director of National Intelligence has repeatedly affirmed the accuracy of the statement that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program.  And Noah himself acknowledges in his post a CIA spokesman affirmed the accuracy of the story. 

So bottom line: The intelligence community says it is so.

Well.  Official reassurance plus common sense does not sum to proof (Even when it's Patterico's common sense, not to mention my own).  But the absence of common sense and a healthy skepticism for official pronouncements does not sum to proof either.  If a Truth Commisison could sort this sort of thing out without tipping our hand to the enemy I would be all for it.

MORE:  The Politico provides background on House Speaker Pelosi's problem with this.  One wonders whether either Pelosi or Bush can remain in office as these new revelatons come out...

Comments

[lurking]

One bottom line: How are we disrupting present plans? Obama has really shot himself in the foot with this pandering to his vengeful left.

[narciso]

He doesn't care, rest assured like the WTC
center, they'll be back for the Capitol building and the Library Tower, and the Sears (sorry Willis) tower and so many others. And the step suggested by McCain in the LUN, doesn't help things along.

[verner]

If a Truth Commisison could sort this sort of thing out without tipping our hand to the enemy I would be all for it.

Me too. If I thought if would be fair. It wouldn't be.

[verner]

"But the absence of common sense and a healthy skepticism for official pronouncements does not sum to proof either."

Normally that's called CONSPIRACY THEORY. And yes kids, we're there yet.

[Semanticleo]

As you know Patterico is a Deputy DA whose cases spring from So/Central LA, so I propounded one of his famous closed-loop scenarios (which he anally fumes about because he says I am questioning his professionalism) and, as is his custom he deletes the queries.

So, I post it here; If the DA reviews your
interrogation of a known Crip who has valuable info which could pre-empt
a gang kerfluffle that threatens dozens of innocent school children with great bodily harm, and you choose to waterboard the Crip,
do you think the effectiveness is going to be the DA's topline, or will it be the legality?

Does waterboarding meet the legal definition of torture?

War Crime........

[lurking]

Your link at 11:19 is pretty amusing; it shows McCain in all his many splendoured glories. He says he doesn't 'think it is necessary(to release the memoes showing effectiveness), to be honest with you', and then he gives no reason for his belief. What a way to be 'honest with us'.

[peter]

OT Jules Crittenden is very funny today. LUN

[RichatUF]

lurking-

Good question. Team Zero is probably being fattened with disinformation from KSA and Syria as we speak. Wonder what the next 9-11 type commission will "investigate" as the FBI and CIA (and DHS and all the others) again can't "connect the dots"?

And the point about disrupting plots: IIRC the East Africa cell which bombed our embassies was "disrupted" twice (once was a Fitz special) and they still carried out their attacks and the Yemeni cell tried twice before they got the USS Cole (iirc they tried to get the USS The Sullivans and HMS Invincible). Once al Qeada's central committee got a target in mind they pursued it with singleminded vigor.

[lurking]

Read the next one, too, peter. Let me show you how an Italian throws deck chairs.

[Tom]

Wasn't the arrest of Hambali (after KSM got waterboarded) a separate event than the 2002 arrest of the AQ cell planning to attack the Library Tower?

[clarice]

The German Vandervogel has a long history,,,and I think Valderi is a song stolen from the vandering vogels.

[Ranger]

Does waterboarding meet the legal definition of torture?

I think its been established pretty firmly that, as practiced by the US in SERE school, the answer is no. Or should be haul Bill Clinton into court for allowing the torture US servicemen?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Does waterboarding meet the legal definition of torture?

You know, it's funny you should ask that, leo, seeing as I asked you that question specifically several times.

So, what is the legal definition of torture to which you're referring, and what is your argument that waterboarding as practiced by the US (face cloth or saran wrap, preparation including telling the subject that they won't be killed) is torture under that definition?

[narciso]

I pointed that out, in one of Patrick's threads, that the London subway had two attempts before they succeeded on 7/7, so they'll be back for the Library Tower and
the Capitol Building, probably they'll assign another member of the Quahtani clan to do it, or the ever solicitous Uteibis, one of whom were about those 'tragic suicides' at Gitmo three years ago. Both are referred to in Doughty, more than a hundred years ago.

[verner]

Charlie, I think we should just ignore it until it tells us how it squares Obama's illegal extra-constitutional assasination of criminal suspects with hellfire missles, and the illegal rendition of criminal suspects to rogue nations where we know their Geneva Convention rights will not be respected.

Oh, and PATHETIC.

[lurking]

No, Leo, waterboarding is a safe, humane, smart bomb to the central nervous system, useful for gaining actionable intelligence when time is of the essence and justifiable when used under carefully regulated circumstances. It should be safe, legal, and rare. How many times do I have to tell you this?

[Semanticleo]

according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."[1]

Chaco;

How do you feel about mock executions, or forcing prisoners to play Russian Roulette while others are wagering?

Fear of imminent death is torture.

[lurking]

And after the next domestic terror disaster the obvious question is going to be 'Why didn't we waterboard someone?'. Do you see why pandering to the likes of you is fatal for Obama. As well as others?

How about if it were you who were the target of a plot? Would you have someone waterboarded to save your life?

[lurking]

If you wouldn't waterboard someone to save your life, you are pathetic, Leo. Your son would, I'll bet.

[lurking]

I bet he'd even shoot someone to save his life. Care to bet on it?

[lurking]

Leo, now you've really lost it. Combat, by definition, is suffering the fear of imminent death, and inflicting that same fear on your opponent.

I went round and round with a bunch of precious birds in their gilded cages at Belgravia Dispatch about this. They, and you, tie themselves into knots when the subject of combat comes up. Heh, I also told them the surge was going to work and that the Anbar Awakening was for real. May of 2007. You could look it up.

[lurking]

PATHETIC

[verner]

It would probably shoot us just for the hell of it,if it knew we wouldn't shoot back...

[anduril]

Does waterboarding meet the legal definition of torture?

I think its been established pretty firmly that, as practiced by the US in SERE school, the answer is no.

And you're suggesting that at the SERE school they waterboard people 6x/day for a month? Never been there, but color me skeptical. This is why I made my modest effort at reframing the terms of the debate (on the Troop Withdrawals thread), as a preferable alternative to make believe debating.

[Cecil Turner]

Fear of imminent death is torture.

Silly argument: that's exactly why they tell the "torture victim" that it won't kill him.

Interestingly, they don't bother with that part at SERE . . . guess you're just supposed to figure it out. (Which is another great example of how things are different when lawyers run operations.)

[anduril]

Again, I've never been there, but I think it's VERY SAFE TO SAY, that had KSM been subjected to "waterboarding ... as practiced by the US in SERE school" we never would have got any actionable intelligence out of him.

[Sue]

Oh, good god. When the UN gets serious about those that practice real torture, I'll pay attention to their definition. They could start with their own UN troops raping children. But that might not meet the definition of torture because they aren't raping them to extract information from them. Just for their own sick pleasure.

[lurking]

anduril, would have someone waterboarded to save your life?

[narciso]

Ah Greg Djerian, I'd almost burned that name out of my memory. He was afflicted
with the Continental version of BDS, worse
than bird or swine flu, sometime around 2005, at the Sullivan level, call out the Hazmat suits. Actually the KSM case shows how truly inpervious to conventional techniques he was, and why those techniques
were the only one who could secure his cooperation. All is for naught, thanks to Mayer, and Danner, and a whole host of others they'll train a generation that can withstand the toughest interrogation. Anyone think an ISI or Mukharabat room is
actually more gentle, or 'shocks the conscience less'

[lurking]

I meant would you have someone waterboarded to save your own life? This is PATHETIC. And I mean that quite literally; I feel sorry for those who wouldn't. The pathos of such an existence. Shocking, and absurd.

Would you throw a deck chair to save your own life? Heh.

[lurking]

There's 'fear of imminent death' for you. Allah raining deck chairs on you from the sky.

[Tom]

I wonder how many times US military forces and the CIA have waterboarded captured enemy soldiers, terrorists, foreign intel agents, etc over the past 200+ years and no one knows about it? Does anyone think its never happened before until the evil fascist regime led by Bush and Cheney were in power? Just curious.

[lurking]

Well, I expect there is video somewhere available soon of the passengers on the Italian cruise liner heaving deck chairs at pirates, but in a way I hope nothing shows up. I'm getting vast pleasure out of imagining the scene. We don't need no stinkin' Uzis.

[Sue]

I wonder why those opposed are so intent on the "it didn't work" meme? Would it matter to them if it did work? Are you for "torture" if it works?

[Tom]

So what is Leo posting that Lurking is responding to? I was under the impression that contrarian views were not deleted on this blog. Much better to riducule them IMO.

[Ranger]

From the Memos:

You have informed us that the waterboard may be approved for use with a given detainee only during, at most, one single 30-day period, and that during that period, the waterboard technique may be used on no more than five days. We further understand that in any 24-hour period, interrogators may use no more than two "sessions" of the waterboard on the subject - and that no session may last more than two hours. Moreover, during any session, the number of individual applications of water lasting 10 seconds or longer may not exceed six. The maximum length of any application of water is 40 seconds (you have informed us that this maximum has rarely been reached). Finally the total cumulative time of all applications of whatever length in a 24-hour period may not exceed 12 minutes.

So, the restrictions are, only one 30 day use, but, during that 30 days, no more than 5 actual days of waterboarding.

And, during those 5 days, not more than two sessions a day.

And during those two sessions, no individual application of more than 40 seconds (which, by the way, is the exact same time limit for an applicaiton of water in SERE school).

Waterboarding was selected as a technique specificly because we have done it to over 25,000 US servicemembers, and extensive studies have shown it has no long term physical or psycological effects on the subject.

[lurking]

Tom, that's a powerful point I've tried to disseminate. Given its effectiveness and lack of scars, waterboarding is going to be used in combat, by those who've just inflicted the fear of imminent death on their enemy, and had it inflicted on them, and whose buddies are in danger of imminent death, UNLESS it is well known that there is a mechanism for using it when necessary. It should be regulated, monitored medically and only used when there are no other options.

SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE.

[anduril]

anduril, would have someone waterboarded to save your life?

I hope it would depend on what my life was endangered for and possibly who was being subjected to the waterboarding.

[Tom]

Sounds like a Yes answer from Anduril.

[lurking]

Bah, humbug, anduril. Pathetic.

[Sue]

Tom,

Typepad is cranky. Our dear leader pretty much leaves us alone to either make fools of ourselves, stand on the mountain top or somewhere in between. If the post isn't showing for you give it a refresh or two and it should pop up. Or maybe not. Depending on Typepad's PMS level for the day.

[anduril]

Dueling OLC memos? Per TM, Try to Remember:

Back at the ranch, Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, per the OLC memo (p. 121 of 124 here).

I don't have the energy to keep looking, but I believe somewhere that TM worked it out to 6x/daily for a month--that may have been with reference to KSM. As it is, the OLC memo, as quoted by TM above, states that the guidelines were exceeded almost exponentially.

[cathyf]

When did SERE school begin using waterboarding?

I wonder how the practice in SERE school has influenced its use in hazing? For example, I wonder what the ratio is between our soldiers waterboarding captured enemy troops, and our soldiers waterboarding each other? (One can certainly argue that the latter scenario is hundreds of thousands times more available than the former.)

[lurking]

anduril, it worked and the lives of real Americans were saved.

[anduril]

So it's a dialogue--they talk to each other! Obama Talks To Teleprompter -- Speed Up!

[anduril]

I thought it was a "Depends" answer. Besides, these comments are utterly beside the point I've consistently been making since last night. clarice understood it, so what's the problem with narciso, TM and lurking? Oh, and Ranger?

[Tom]

Anduril

Waterboarded "83 times" refers to the numbers of total pours. A session consists of multiple pours.

[ben]

"Fear of imminent death is torture."

Semanticleo well illustrates how ridiculous the whole issue is. He has his own definition, and if moonbats have their way anybody can define torture and prosecute everyone else for alleged transgressions. All uncharged trial lawyers will have a field day. But the fact that the legal opinions were clear that waterboarding did not constitute torture is hard to circumvent, the only solution is to prosecute those that issued the opinions. That can of worms will consume the Administration for years, maybe to our benefit as it will undoubtedly interfere with other items of the socialist agenda.

[Tom]

cathyf

At least as early as 1991. That is when a LTC friend of mine in the Special Forces went thru SERE school. I imagine they have been using it for as long as the school has existed, which goes back to the 1950s.

[anduril]

OK, I'll bite--how many pours in a session? How many sessions for KSM? Do you recall your post that I'm recalling, about the 6x/daily for a month?

Anyway, it's still utterly beside the point. This is what I said on the other thread:

The reason I posted as I did above [linking to Deal Hudson who defends torture to gather information] was to get beyond word games and to get to the heart of the moral issues. ... My point is, call it whatever the hell you want to call it, the question is, Is it morally justified? If you think it is, or if you think it's not, provide your analysis--whatever your position may be, don't just toss around legal definitions because I have no interest in legal definitions per se. The reasoning behind the legal definition, maybe.

WTF is so hard to understand in that?

[clarice]

I wonder why those opposed are so intent on the "it didn't work" meme? Would it matter to them if it did work? Are you for "torture" if it works?

I don't. They are trying to persuade people that this was wrong and since what was right involved a balancing act between doing something we wouldn't normally do even though it might not be "torture" in any real sense and saving many lives, the opponents of the procedure want to load the argument in their favor.

[jean]

The lives of innocents are more important than the discomfort of a terrorist.It would be immoral not to waterboard

[ben]

"or forcing prisoners to play Russian Roulette while others are wagering?"

Semanticleo is watching too many re-runs of Deerhunter....and probably thought (and thinks) it is fine for the VC to do this to the fascist US troops.

[anduril]

Thanks, clarice, and that's precisely why Hudson, and I, want to focus on purpose and motivation of everyone concerned: torturor, torturee, who's being defended, who's the agrressor, etc.

[MayBee]

I don't. They are trying to persuade people that this was wrong and since what was right involved a balancing act between doing something we wouldn't normally do even though it might not be "torture" in any real sense and saving many lives, the opponents of the procedure want to load the argument in their favor.

Yes.
And if it is known not to have worked, Bush would have done it only because he is
a)too stupid not to know it doesn't work
and
b)too sadistic to care

If you make it "common knowledge" that it doesn't work, everyone involved becomes someone who tortures humans for fun, and therefore a criminal.

[clarice]

You're welcome, anduril. I find that often in these quick posting environs it is perfectly easy for people to misunderstand eachother and try not to take disagreements as personal affronts so much as miscomprehensions.

[anduril]

83 pours/6 per session = just about 14 sessions. Still appears to exceed the guidelines: not more than two sessions a day, five days in a month = ten sessions per month.

But still totally beside my point.

[narciso]

Depends isn't a good enough rule, Anduril, ask the people at Abu Ghraib, Passaro at Bagram, those in charge at Gitmo, who will be punished for supervising the Quahtani interrogation

[anduril]

Point taken, but I really thought I went to extraordinary lengths to be clear.

[Tom]

Anduril,

The OLC memos say that only two sessions were allowed in a 24 hour span. Each session could last up to 2 hours. The number of pours lasting 10 seconds or longer were limited to 6 per session, or 12 per day. That means Zubaydah likely underwent 7 total sessions.

[ben]

It sounds like Anduril has a new interpretation of "torture". Waterboarding might be ok but not if you repeat it too many times, in which it may become torture. Or it may be ok in training servicemen but not against terrorists. Akin to one serving of creamed beef on toast (SOS) a week is ok, but 7 times a week is torture.

[clarice]

I think you are misreading what he said ben--perhaps if you went back and read the Hudson piece he linked to you'll agree.

The number of times waterboarded is not the essence of his argument, In fact, it's irrelevant and I think probably based on error.

He is I think explaining why how you treat people like these detainees cannot be examined in a vacuum. Moral choices involve balancing your treatment of them with the need for fast accurate information from them to save the innocents they mean to kill and maim and the society they want to destroy.
If they has no time sensitive information or it did not involve harm to others you could treat them sweetly, wiping their behinds like Soufran says he did AZ's and giving them ice chips in the thought that the good cop techniques would get you want you wanted. But these were not that case.

[clarice]

***If they haVE no time sensitive information or it[the info in their possession] did not involve *******

[PeterUK]

" "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes"

Ooops.Looks like hermaphrodites are fair game,better take to the hill Septic.

[anduril]

TM, ordinarily I would gladly defer to your math--even when the math is as simple as this. But wouldn't that work out to 7 days in the month, thus exceeding the 5 day limit? I did (83pours/12 per day--divided into 2 sessions of 6 pours) and came up with your 7 = 7 days, not sessions. Since the limit is 12 per day, that means those 83 had to be distributed over 7 days, right?

But I have to insist, again, that this is not my concern. My concern is that whatever policy we have, whether we allow or disallow torture (however defined), be soundly reasoned. That means soundly reasoned on a moral basis, because the concern about torture is a moral concern. People who just want to talk definitions are avoiding the real issues.

[Dave]

Henceforth all waterboarding will be conducted using salt water in the back seat of an Oldsmobile Delmont 88, so it will be OK.

[Danube of Thought]

"I wonder what the ratio is between our soldiers waterboarding captured enemy troops..."

Cathyf, I would be astonished if there have been any instances of our soldiers waterboarding captured combatants in recent decades. The Army Field Manual has long prohibited any such activity quite clearly. The whole business of enhanced interrogation is strictly a CIA operation. Professional military men receive no training in it at all.

[anduril]

Well put, clarice.

[verner]

That would mean KSM got 2xs what Steve Harrigan got daily. And please watch his youtube. Harrigan said that it was horrible for the 20 seconds that it happened, but that after it was over, the recovery time was amazingly rapid.

I would imagine that after a few days, KSM figured they would not let it go to the point of endangering his life, so a lot of the anxiety left. He probably trained himself to relax, and just waited until it ended.

[Tom]

Anduril,

First off, I'm not TM, even though we share the same name.

If your concern are morals, then what is the morally superior action? Doing something that may be personally repugnant to you but you do it anyway because the ends justifies the means, especially if it saves innocents lives? Or...refusing to do something repugnant to you because technically it may be against the rules and you know that even if innocent people die because you failed to act, you're protected from blame because you can always claim you were just following the rules?

The bottom line is that morality is an individual value. I know for me personally, I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that my waterboarding saved the lives of innocent people versus knowing I let innocent people die because I played it safe and followed the rules. BTW Al Qaeda assumes most Americans are of the latter type, which is why they assume in the end they will eventually defeat us.

[Cecil Turner]

Since the limit is 12 per day, that means those 83 had to be distributed over 7 days, right?

No. Per the guidelines (as written) the limit is for pours of 10" duration or more. Extremely short duration pours would not count toward the total, and KSM says he was waterboarded five times. There is no need to expand the days to meet the (questionable) datapoint.

People who just want to talk definitions are avoiding the real issues.

As far as I'm concerned, the only issue is legalities. Moral qualms about waterboarding KSM? No. The only gripe I have about his treatment is that we're obviously done questioning him, and we haven't hanged (hung?) him yet. Grossly inefficient.

That means soundly reasoned on a moral basis, because the concern about torture is a moral concern.

If you keep the quotes off "torture," then it isn't soundly reasoned. Because if that crap is "torture," the word has no meaning.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Tom: They were waterboarding at SERE school long before 1991.

Here is Ollie North on Glenn Beck 4/22/2009:

Glenn. In 1965, I went through SERE school -- survival, escape, resistance and evasion -- in Nevada. We were all waterboarded, all stuffed to the hot boxes for hours, left to stand naked in -- that maybe a word, picture you don't need at this point in my life.

[anduril]

Tom, how do you demonstrate that morality is an "individual value"? And if it is, what quarrel to do you have with someone whose "individual value" differs from your "individual value"? If you go ahead and impose your "individual value," aren't you saying that might makes right?

[narciso]

Like I'm not a violent person, ask Clarice I'm kind of mild except with my debating style, however, if faced with someone like KSM I don't know what I would do, frankly.
Waterboarding would be at the bottom of my list of possible countermeasures,The issue is criminality, that's what will stay the
interrogator's hand. Abu Zubeydah, probably pulled the 'rain man act' on the FBI, but
Kirialogos didn't buy that performance and neither did Keith Martinez. And they got
results, that what matters in the end.

[anduril]

Cecil, what I'm asking of you and others is to address WHY you have no moral qualms re KSM, for example. Is it simply, I'm stronger so tough shit, or is there more to it? If that's all there is to it, how are we better than KSM? He thinks he's doing it for Allah.

[Tom]

@Sara,

I was answering cathyf's question. I know its been used at the SERE school for a long time. I was just giving a concrete example of someone I knew of personally who underwent the procedure.

[matt]

The morality of some torture can be argued according to the "just war" theory as well. If a terrorist leader is captured, what is the potential damage to society if their actions cause the deaths of innocents. 1? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Where does one draw a line? What is the morality of allowing a prisoner suspected of prior knowledge of terrorist acts to go unquestioned to the fullest extent possible?

What are the legal bases for human rights protection for those who have repeatedly violated the human rights of civilians or military when engaged in terrorist acts such as planning suicide bombings or IED detonations?

The distance from "love one another" to being a patsy for thugs and murderers is great. Society has evolved since the Roman age, but harsh treatment has always had it's place. Surprisingly, I don't believe there is any specific condemnation in the Bible, which would seem to be the operative working document cited by the Left ( which is a frickin hoot since so many are non believers).

So what are the ethical roots for the discussion? How can a liberal support late term abortion and repudiate waterboarding? What is the logical path forward?

[ben]

"I think you are misreading what he said ben--perhaps if you went back and read the Hudson piece he linked to you'll agree."

Sorry, Clarice, I don't agree at all. Treatment was not created in a vacuum. This was not a case of "rounding up the usual suspects" and trying to extract information on the come. The terrorism activities and events had or were already happening and those charged with trying to get vital information did not have the luxury of looking at it in hindsight. Anduril is trying to establish a new standard of parsing and nitpicking and second guessing that is completely inconsistent with the urgency and the magnitude of the threat we faced. Anduril was not there, he has no basis to formulate an opinion on whether the information could be obtained by being "nice" or by "10 or by 15" waterboarding sessions.

[Sue]

I don't. They are trying to persuade people that this was wrong and since what was right involved a balancing act between doing something we wouldn't normally do even though it might not be "torture" in any real sense and saving many lives, the opponents of the procedure want to load the argument in their favor.

Posted by: clarice | April 27, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Exactly. They are trying to win the political war not the moral war.

This is what John McCain advocated when he came out against Bush/Cheney and using enhanced interrogation techniques. It was up to the president to make that call but make it knowing it was illegal and suffer the consequences.

I was thinking at lunch while they showed Pelosi trying to explain what she knew and when she knew it that I might trade Bush/Cheney for Pelosi's head. If she could be brought down with Bush/Cheney only suffering political capital, it might be a good trade off. I don't think they will have criminal charges brought against them.

[Cecil Turner]

Cecil, what I'm asking of you and others is to address WHY you have no moral qualms re KSM, for example.

Because I don't care for folks who engage in mass murder-type war crimes. And I think we quite properly ought to make an example of them, to deter their fellow travelers. Which is why I think giving them a (war) criminal's death is a critical part of the process.

And having them go through SERE school first, well, it doesn't even register as a blip. Why should it?

[Tom]

Anduril,

Unless you have a different definition of morality than I do, I define it as the ability to distinguish between ethical and unethical behavior. Some refer to that as knowing the difference between right and wrong. Saving lives is ethical behavior in my book.

BTW do you think the shepherd should care what the sheep think when it comes to how he decides the best way to protect them against the wolf?

[Sue]

Cecil, what I'm asking of you and others is to address WHY you have no moral qualms re KSM, for example.

I don't consider it torture. But beyond that I don't really have any empathy for people who want to kill for the sake of killing. Which is why I support the death penalty. Or late term abortion, as I like to call it.

[anduril]

So, then, that's just your personal view--you personally "don't care for folks who engage in mass murder-type war crimes" but that's your personal thing and you don't think what they do is objectively wrong. It's not your bag, so to speak, and when people do things that aren't your bag you want to "make an example of them." That's just YOUR thing. I'm not being flip--I think it's good for people to articulate all the way down to the most basic level.

[verner]

"Cecil, what I'm asking of you and others is to address WHY you have no moral qualms re KSM,"

I deeply resent that you little shit.

I am a mother, and a professional nurse, and I will put my life up against yours ANY F-ING DAY OF THE WEEK. How dare you imply that I'm not moral just because I refuse to buy your politically motivated junk.

So go spread that garbage somewhere else. We've read these arguments ad nauseum-and refuted them.

[narciso]

Why, because he planned the death of 3,000 men, woman and children. A. Zubeydah was the human resource manager for AQ, so he'd be a good scheduler, according to Posner, he had Saudi princes and the head of the Pakistani air force on his rolodex. Al Nashiri, the " Admiral" of AQ's navy, given up by the UAE, which we rewarded with the Dubai Ports snub. How'd that work out.

[verner]

Narciso, every single one of the regular posters has responded to these freaks 2500 times. If they want to know anyone's position, all they need to do is search the archive.

They are simply trying to harass.

PATHETIC.

Pistolas?

[MayBee]

How is our military any better than KSM? They think they are killing for the country.

[Sue]

OT, but the Daily Beast has a Joe Wilson authored thread. I refuse to register there. Even on the outside event Wilson is reading the comments.

[ben]

Anduril your feeling of moral superiority is misplaced here. And it is certainly misplaced when it comes to the people charged with the difficult job of keeping us safe within the legal constraints imposed upon them.

[clarice]

Like my literary namesake, I have always believed one must do something to prevent the Silence of the Lambs. Were these people in my hands when they were in the hands of the interrogators I'd have done exactly what they did and would not have a care then or now about it.

It is another question though when I hear people talking about how they or the president (McCain's most idiotic posturing of all time) should act and take their chances on prosecution later. We owe it to those who do such things on our behalf that we have the decency to be grateful and to forebear from further besetting them for the "crime" of protecting us.PHEH what idiocy!!

[anduril]

Sue:

1. I'm trying to get beyond definitions. The article I linked to is by someone who believes that even actions that most people would agree are "torture" may be justifiable in order to elicit information--depending on a variety of factors. But he, and I, believe it's important for someone in the chain of command, and really for any normal human being, to be able to articulate what those factors are. Maybe not in full detail, but to have a general understanding of the basis for our actions.

2. Like you I oppose abortion and can justify capital punishment--depending on a variety of factors. I recently proposed on this forum that we have a commission to examine the opinions of those judges who legalized abortion and I compared abortion to torture--quite seriously and literally.

3. However, I'm not willing to torture or inflict capital punishment on people just because I "lack empathy" for them. Again, reasons, motives, purposes all matter and we do need to articulate the basis for our decisions if we are to avoid the slippery slope. I suggest to you that it is precisely that inability to adequately articulate a moral basis that got us to the slippery slope that led to abortion.

[anduril]

verner, mother and professional nurse, have a nice day!

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Is it simply, I'm stronger so tough shit, or is there more to it? If that's all there is to it, how are we better than KSM? He thinks he's doing it for Allah.

First of all, for me, I don't believe pouring alittle water on someone under controlled circumstances is all that bad. When public demos of waterboarding are done for entertainment (see numerous YouTubes on the subject), how does it become torture when used to get information from declared enemies who have already proved they are capable of the worst imaginable atrocities?

Second, I'm a hell of a lot better than KSM because I wouldn't plot to kill thousands, nor would I condone cutting off someone's head because they practiced some other religion, nor would I condone beatings or stonings of women, nor would I encourage homicide bombers and the use of the mentally challenged or young children as homicide bombers. That's just for starters.

This is a phony issue ginned up by the left as far as I'm concerned and has nothing to do with sensibilities to torture and everything to do with the Bush is evil meme.

Our first duty is to protect America, not worry how some effetes are going to get their knickers in twist.

And I'll ask again, why is it necessarily a bad thing to have the ends justify the means? If your child runs out into oncoming traffic and you grab him/her in the knick of time and throw the child to the curb out of the line of an oncoming car, should you be prosecuted for child abuse because the child got bruised in the process of saving its life. What if the child landed hard and broke an arm? Would the ends (the child's death by being hit by the car), be a defense against doing nothing because you were afraid your only action to avoid the child being hit might injure and/or scare the child in the process?

[anduril]

KSM kills for Allah, our boys kill for country. Seems a wash. I realize I'm flirting with Godwin's Law here, but... Well, forget it.

[Sue]

However, I'm not willing to torture or inflict capital punishment on people just because I "lack empathy" for them.

Me either. However, capital punishment is administered after they have been found guilty and again, I don't believe torture was administered on any of the detainees. Torture was used by our enemies, though. Maybe the argument should be what is the proper response by the US government to those that actually practice torture? And while we're at it, let's see how much plausible deniability Clinton can muster by examining his renditions program.

[Sue]

KSM kills for Allah, our boys kill for country. Seems a wash. I realize I'm flirting with Godwin's Law here, but... Well, forget it.

Posted by: anduril | April 27, 2009 at 02:33 PM

Well, you just jumped the shark...

[ben]

"But he, and I, believe it's important for someone in the chain of command, and really for any normal human being, to be able to articulate what those factors are."

This is a bunch of BS because you have absolutely no idea if its even applicable to this case. You throw out these nice sounding, trite and hackneyed generalities, but how does that statement actually apply to the matter at hand? Do you actually know if there was any break in the chain of command?? Do you know if there was any failure to "articulate" anything? This is all pseudo-intellectual crap with a political purpose.

[ben]

"KSM kills for Allah, our boys kill for country."

Ah Anduril shows his true colors. There is moral equivalency. Terrorists fly planes loaded with passengers into buildings on our soil, our "boys" go to Afghanistan which had been taken over by the perpetrators and he thinks there is moral equivalency. We need to go no further on this.

[Topsecretk9]

Stupid Joe Wilson is asking Cheney have Scooter Libby papers declassified...which I think is great cuz maybe we could finally have that piece of paper Fitzgerald couldn't even get fro the CIA that says Plame was covert.

[narciso]

Thanks, Sue, I don't quite regard Anduril yet, in the same way as Semantic, TCO, Nick,
or Steve MG. That may change over time. I do get focused on certain topics, with or without coffee, specially when there's so much garbage trying to make us guilty, for the hard won gains that are being sacrificed.