Captain's Quarters -

Sometimes, less news is more news.

As to the NY Times, they're stuck on their agenda; the same way Larry Craig is stuck on his behaviors that leads him into the toilet. For sex.

By the way, I don't even think, any longer, in terms of "one-on-one. When it comes to the terrorists. Local information? Better to know how to obtain this; than to allow American troops to be sitting ducks. (In Vietnam, our drafted soldiers were told to FEAR ten year olds! Because the Viet Cong paid $75, which was a fortune to the locals, for any American led astray. The usual gambit? "Please come and see my beautiful sister.") Yeah, ya gotta train the troops!

You think the arabs don't have tricks? Give me a break.

The overall affect of being in Irak, is the same as the one that President Polk faced; when Zachary Taylor was the general in charge of going after Santana. In Meh-hee-co. Ulysses S. Grant, who served there, wrote later; that he wasn't proud. Still? Polk got Texas TO California, in territory gained. While Spain lost a lot more than just stuff "above the Rio Grande.")

Then, today, I just finished reading a link to an article about "how" Israel "did it." Penetrating deep into Syria; to destroy chemical and nuc-Lu-lar factories.

Here's the skinny. Israel BLANKETED a "time out" all over syria, and including parts of Lebanon. As well as a piece of northern Israel, as well. Which it had to then use computer equipment; to get an "eye into" it's own territory. While blinding all forms of syrian defenses.

SOmetimes, people really get confused. They think you can "pinpoint" a military operation. When you CAN'T. That's why the best thinking is done "OUTSIDE THE BOX."

The NY Times isn't even thinking, anymore. Or it would spot its own erosions. And, what happened when the affirmative action crowd took over key positions in government. And, beyond. (Wel, "beyond," just means people who lose their jobs, because they're damned stupid. Or too inefficient for company profits.)

While IN government? Geez. We've produced GAS BAGS on both sides of the aisle.

And, there are some whopping problems until we deal with this. In other words? This business of gaining votes by pandering to the extremes, on the left, and the right ... have led to an electorate ... that when it votes; curses both parties.

That's why congress is split at the crack. Gas bags aren't about to discover how to lead, anytime soon.

So we're stuck.

But at least what led to the first Bush presidency; and then the second .... where the primaries were played with ... Are now totally out of control!

Imagine the Bonkeys committing this early to "early elections." While the whole system thrives on collecting money from "donors." You think its hard? No harder than the Red Cross collecting free blood.

People are generous.

But, boy, talk about losers. Unable to focus. WHen they own mircophones and printing presses.

It sure makes ya wonder. (Because when you've got stinky leadership you tend to falter at pleasing customers. Even when you export "customer service" to India. Or the Philippeans.) Here's what I mean: The money saved isn't worth it.

And, the NY Times trying to inflict wounds on our military hasn't even gotten close.

Are we any closer, though, pricking those over-inflated gas bags, yet? Whose got a needle, handy?

(Sarcasm)
CIA against President Bush?

Naaaaahhhh? Really?
(End Sarcasm)

You might as well include the State Department and the Democrats in Congress.

I wonder what role Saudi $$$ has played in all this?

They are known to buy members of the State Department, but there is no reason to doubt that they could not spread their money around to other departments.

Certainly the Saudis have gotten their money's worth from their State Department flacks - look at Joe Wilson for a stirling example of that.

What a bunch of crap, Ed.

The WH met the requirements placed on them by once again redefining the meaning of words; while they technically may have not 'tortured' they performed and still perform many actions which are torture by anyone else's definition then John Yoo's.

I would remind you that the NYT is under no compunction whatsoever to refrain from printing anything they wish; and they have shown admirable restraint in the past from doing so. You really should be railing at those who are leaking from within the administration ran by the people you elected; they are the ones who have signed affirmative oaths not to engage in such activities, not the publishers of newspapers.

Anyone who doubts this story only had to watch Dana Perino desperately trying to spin it yesterday during the WH presser. Remember that promise from Bush that we weren't going to keep prisoners in secret prisons in other countries? Oops, wrong.

Oh, on a related note, why wasn't John Rockefeller prosecuted for his admission he discussed our war plans for Iraq with the Syrians in the run up to the conflict???

Cyclops:

If it is ok for the NYT to published government secrets why is not ok for the White House to reveal the name of CIA employee who is trying to undermine US Policy? After all, the employee works for the President and he has ultimately authority to release classified information while the NYT is using government property that they illegally hold for its own political agenda.

Well, that's the gas bags in congress, for ya, essucht. John Rockefeller, born to a family that thinks it "runs things." Isn't about to meet reality, any time soon.

Guess it's one dude at a time? And, Larry Craig is "stalling."

Again, if the mess was just on the Bonkey's side of the floor, there would be no problem.

But Larry Craig points to the mess within the GOP, itself. Where there's no meaningful leadership.

Will this affect the nomination process for 2008?

Probably too early to tell.

If both parties pick lame nominees, I expect a few things "could" happen.

Even in the worst case scenario, where Hillary suddenly SWEARS IN as Rodham, you'd be surprised.

Nixon got sworn in. And, never had a good day.

He was never given credit for anything. (Yet he did cancel the draft! Which put the military on a learning curve.) It's been learning lots of stuff, ever since. Including ball polishers like Wesley Clark getting "stars" ... while he can't muster ordinary citizens to even show him a modicum of respect. SURPRISE! We. Are. Free. People!

But, I've digressed.

The NY Times isn't gonna clue you in on how we're gonna solve this problem.

My guess is, though, that some solutions are at hand, just by the way things are currently shaping up.

IF Hillary "bags" the presidency? Ya know what? She's see what LBJ saw. Which was a power base eroding in front of his eyes.

LBJ didn't tackle a second term.

And, when Americans get really, really angry ... as you can see them splitting the powers in DC, right down the middle of the swamp ...

What's being cried out for is LEADERSHIP.

I'm glad Abraham Lincoln made it! And, left behind a record that YES, YOU CAN LEAD. Even in DC. With all those politico's looking for their pork.

As to John Rockefeller? I think the punishment will go to the "dandies" who consider themselves our "press."

Sort'a like the way Larry Craig behaves in public toilets. Sort'a like the way The New Republic ditched dealing with its Beauchamp fiasco's. The way silence really erodes. But you don't see the mischief. Until the sink hole arrives.

Jerry:

As I said earlier, the members of the Exec. branch specifically swore oaths not to reveal the name of CIA members. The president does have the right to declassify material, but he didn't declassify the material; they illegally leaked the material. Declassification isn't an instant process produced by the wave of a hand.

The NYT didn't do anything illegal, as it isn't against the law for them to print things which are given to them by gov't sources. The publishers and editors of that paper swore no oath to conceal such information whatsoever, and in fact have a vested interest in the opposite - there are many reasons for gov't secrecy, and in this case it was to protect the rear end of the Exec. branch, who wanted to continue to torture with impunity.

Once a document is given to a newspaper, that document isn't government property any longer, sorry to have to inform you. You are going after the wrong people here.

It is not a proud moment for you conservatives when you decided to embrace torture.

And then you torture logic to deny that our government is no different than any totalitarian state when we arrest someone suspected of having information.

You say, "It isn't the government policy that is the story; it isn't the outright lies that President Bush puts forward; the real story is the NY Times."

I used to think there was something I had in common with conservatives: a belief in freedom, goodness, and the rule a law.

No I wonder what you conservatives would NOT excuse your Republican government doing.

Cyclops:

You have it upside down here. The President of United States is the ultimate declassification authority because things are classified under executive order not an act of Congress. If the President decides for any reason to reveal that information it is within his authority to do so. Since your side has always claimed that the White House ordered the so-called outing of Valerie Plame then no law was broken as long as it was authorized by someone who can declassify that information. I believe the Vice President also has declassification authority. In reality, the real leaker was Richard Armitage who was given immunity from prosecution.

Now you claim that the NYT "owned" the stolen data given to it by a source. This fails the laugh test. Tell me, if you unknowingly receive a stolen car does it become your property? If you knowingly receive the stolen car you have broken the law and can go to jail. You cannot legally take possession of stolen property. In this case the property is intellectual property owned by the United States Government. It was stolen by an employee of NSA or other intelligence organization and given to the NYT. The publication of this data may be protected by the First Amendment but their receipt, possession and use of stolen government intellectual property is illegal and should be prosecuted.

As to John Rockefeller? I think the punishment will go to the "dandies" who consider themselves our "press."

The issue is that ignoring treason here is only going to encourage more of it.

The partisan advantage that the Democrats and their media have gotten out of it is obvious, and obviously there is no price to be paid.

Jerry,

Your contention that there is no process whatsoever for declassification shows that, other then repeating buzz-words and phrases, you don't understand how the declassification process works in the slightest. I understand that many on the right-wing are quite authoritarian; but the president isn't the equivalent of a king, allowed to break the laws whenever he chooses.

Second, I cannot for the life of me figure out where you got the idea that memos, documents, or anything written by the WH - who are public servants, I should remind you, and work for the people of America - falls under Intellectual Property law in the slightest. I work in IP law. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about whatsoever.

You can't receive a stolen car knowingly, b/c it is against the law to do so. There is no equivalent law towards leaked governmental documents. I would specifically challenge you to point out the law or statute upon which you rest your argument; but I think we both know you won't produce anything.

Cycloptichorn says:

"The NYT didn't do anything illegal, as it isn't against the law for them to print things which are given to them by gov't sources. "

Actually, the question of the legality of the press printing classified or secret materials is open to interpretation. A case could be made that the NYT is in violation of the Espionage Act, depending on how one interprets the folllowing:

Whoever, when the United States is at war... or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which
the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of the war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause
of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both.

As for my knowledge of the classification system goes I actually work in the IC so I guess I do something about it. Yes, when we declassify things we typically go through and remove certain things or certify that the data no longer requires classification. However, the President can effectively do what he wants. I suspect you are too young to remember when President Johnson revealed the existence of the SR-71. It was not only classified it was Black Program. However, LBJ, since he was President, decided it was in the national interest, i.e., his interest to show that we were moving forward in defense technology in face of charges from Senator Goldwater to the contrary. I guess in your mind LPJ should have prosecuted for not going through procedures. The difference between us is that I know the system works and you don't.

You want the citation from the US Code?

Here, then, is what the relevant provision of the Espionage Act, now codified at Section 793(e) of Title 18, U.S. Code, says:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it [is guilty of a crime].
I guess I do know more about the handling of classified material then you do? Have a nice day.

Snippets of con logic:

If only the Times would stop printing the news about our government's rendition and torture of detainees, the problem would go away.

The Democrats shut up and rubberstamped the authorization of the TSP, therefore the WH was right, and we should all ignore its obvious unconstitutionality.

The Times articles on the Yoo memos, the Swift program, TSP, and now the "new" torture memos may be accurate, but they should still be ignored, because they don't, by themselves, prove that the worst conduct happened in every instance - therefore the Times cannot be trusted.

The eight (or so) different programs that were initiated by the administration in violation of law, in secret, which they denied, and which were subsequently discovered to in fact exist, do not constitute a pattern.

Kevin,

I think the reason you haven't seen the DoJ go after anyone under that 'interpretation' should be good enough proof for you that this 'interpretation' wouldn't hold up for a single second in court.

I don't even need to look any farther then the first sentence, actually; surely you are aware that the US is not officially at war.

I understand that it is tempting to think such a law could be used to stem the flow of classified material to the press, but as I said above: you don't need special or esoteric laws to punish those who have swore oaths not to reveal said information. You merely have to be willing to police your own house, something which Bush has failed at in spectacular fashion.

I would take the opinions of those who seek to uphold laws against the newspapers here a little more seriously, if there was a single iota of outrage directed towards the administration - who casually breaks laws with frequency. To the detriment of our country as a whole. Yet, I don't see a lot of that coming from those who want to see editors hung up by the toes. It robs legitimacy from one's argument.

continued:

If it's classified, its legality cannot be questioned.

If you question the legality of a classified program, you are the problem and the legality issue is moot.

Jerry,

Yes, it was illegal for LBJ to do what he did. Presidents are not omnipotent and there are ramifications to their actions which may not be clear to them at the time.

You are correct that presidents often break the law and get away with it, b/c it's not worth the effort to try and go after them. But that doesn't give them the moral right to break the law. You know as well as anyone - per your description of your profession - that Bush or any other president cannot legally declassify information with the wave of a hand. So my original point stands unchecked. Bush had no right to reveal Plame's identity in the fashion in which they did and is morally and ethically responsible for doing so.

Per the espionage act, you sure haven't seen too many people prosecuted under it. Once again, I think this is because even a mediocre lawyer would get the DoJ laughed right out of court for attempting to do so.

Color me skeptical about anything written by the same guy who still claims that in Iraq weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - were all found but the media decided to let it go unreported. Clearly the left doesn't have a monopoly on batty conspiracy theorists.

Cycloptichorn says:

"I think the reason you haven't seen the DoJ go after anyone under that 'interpretation' should be good enough proof for you that this 'interpretation' wouldn't hold up for a single second in court.

I don't even need to look any farther then the first sentence, actually; surely you are aware that the US is not officially at war."

You need to go back and re-read what I posted (toward the end of the citation):

...any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act

"...which rightly focuses on disclosure as the antidote to big and incompetent government."
- Captain Ed

Have truer words ever been spoken?

jerry,

Dude, you're arguing with a brick wall. When somebody can say (write?) with a straight face that it's illegal for the president to declassify information that is classified under his purview... Well, what can you say?

Correction to my last post.

I read "any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act" as "any country with which the United States is at war by word or act". The "word or act" phrase does not describe the state of the war, but the actions of the accused.

The Espionage Act does explicitly state that the US must be at war with another country for the provisions of the Espionage Act to apply. At least, that's how I read it.

My apologies, cycloptichorn. I stand corrected.

Kevin -- Let me see if I understand your argument. It is OK for the US government to torture prisoners, but it is treasonous for the NYTs to report that we are doing so.

That is the most morally bankrupt position I've ever read. Are you saying that Solzhenitsyn should have been tried for treason for writing the The Gulag Archipelago?

Captain Ed's position, that it is OK for the government to "explore" this issue legally seems wrongheaded to me. We spent most of the last century exploring this sort of thing and came up with the Geneva Conventions. It would be as if my son wrote a paper detailing how to blow up his school and argued that it was OK because he was just "exploring" the idea.

And, just because a weak Democratic congress didn't have the guts to stand up to wiretapping doesn't make it right. That's another argument that most parents don't let their kids get away with ("Well, Johnny did it too...").

Teresa says:

"Kevin -- Let me see if I understand your argument. It is OK for the US government to torture prisoners, but it is treasonous for the NYTs to report that we are doing so.

That is the most morally bankrupt position I've ever read. Are you saying that Solzhenitsyn should have been tried for treason for writing the The Gulag Archipelago?"

What an asinine statement. Please point out where I said that it was OK for the US government to torture prisoners? You can't, because I didn't.

Comparing the US to the Soviet Union is utterly ridiculous. The Times has printed, on more than one occasion, classified information that has had the effect of compromising legal government efforts to combat islamic terrorism (e.g. monitoring of the SWIFT transaction database, NSA intercepts of telephone calls and e-mail messages between people inside the United States and people overseas). How does that equate to Solzhenitsyn's case?

By the way: You know nothing about me, or my morality. Don't accuse me of being morally bankrupt; it's a weak, ad-hominem attack, and has no place in this forum.

I don't understand Teresa's argument.

Apparently the Department of Justice should not do its job and instead give the White House legal advice based on the editorial line of the New York Times, or Teresa's sensibilities, or a magic 8-ball, or who knows.

It's interesting how the discussion immediately devolves into the Leftist claiming the moral high ground because anything they disagree with is "torture," "tantamount to torture," or support for "torture." I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that discussing the propriety of media disclosures that harm the war effort required taking any kind of stance on torture at all. This is typical bad Leftist logic - use a narrow topic to make broad conclusions. The New York Times was right to publish this leaked memo, ergo it is right for the media to publish any kind of classified information they get, regardless of the actual circumstances. That seems rather untenable to me, but hey, I don't possess the mental flexibility necessary for the leaps and twists of logic that regularly go into Teresa-style reasoning.

Teresa,

Now you've done it! You've compared Uncle Sam to the cuh-cuh-cuh-communists. Henceforth nothing you say can ever be taken seriously.

And no one has to ever address the curious moral and legal juxtaposition of

It is OK for the US government to torture prisoners, but it is treasonous for the NYTs to report that we are doing so.

And if they do, they are aiding abetting the underlying crime (the disclosure, of course - not the torture)

Since no one but Teresa has claimed the existence of such an argument, why would it be necessary to address it?

Comparing the US to the Soviet Union is utterly ridiculous. The Times has printed, on more than one occasion, classified information

Your point is obviously valid, but I think there is some serious irony here you might have missed...

The NYT famously flacked for the Soviet Union, to the extent of loudly (and effectively) denying the Soviet's crimes against humanity - they even won an award for their "reporting" which they still proudly trumpet.

Of course this was not just journalistic incompetence, but purposeful deception, as the NYT's star Soviet reporter put it, "you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

So while Stalin and was a man the NYT would cover up for in good conscience, apparently Bush is a man that they have to take down, no matter the cost in lives, American or otherwise.

Torture?

WHy not send enemy combatants to the citizens in Pelosi's district, they are skilled at the art of establishing trust through superior torture techniques.

Plus, the totrures will receive an cost-free orgasms for their efforts.

Posted by essucht | October 5, 2007 3:08 PM

"Your point is obviously valid, but I think there is some serious irony here you might have missed...

The NYT famously flacked for the Soviet Union, to the extent of loudly (and effectively) denying the Soviet's crimes against humanity - they even won an award for their "reporting" which they still proudly trumpet."

You know, good old Walter "What Ukrainian Famine?" Duranty never even popped into my head.

Good point.

Chaos says, "I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that discussing the propriety of media disclosures that harm the war effort required taking any kind of stance on torture at all."

-----------------------

It is your LACK of stance on the issue and the immediate tactic of attacking the messenger rather than addressing the underlying issue that is telling.

Kevin-- Actually torturing people and holding them in secret prisons is more damaging to American interests abroad than the NYT reporting that we do so. Blaming the Times for telling the truth is like saying it is OK to steal a car as long as no one tells on you. Or, worse, that the person who tells on you is more morally culpable than you are.

Chaos, I'd say many folks are studiously avoiding having to make that argument. But the fact that they dismiss the allegation and any proof that the former is occurring (or alternatively, many just make excuses for the fact of it), and spend their vitriol entirely on the latter, shows you what would happen in their world. We'd steer clear of any evidence that our government is breaking the law, even when it is made public knowledge, and imprison those blow the whistle on security grounds.

Syn:

cost-free orgasms

I think you're projecting.

essucht-- The NYT famously flacked for the Soviet Union, to the extent of loudly (and effectively) denying the Soviet's crimes against humanity - they even won an award for their "reporting" which they still proudly trumpet.

-------------------------

OK, so if the Washington Times or the Weekly Standard reported that the US was torturing people, then you would be outraged by this.

Forgive me for thinking that the real reason to be upset was Bush ignoring the rule of law and undermining US interests in the world rather than the NYTs checkered history. Thank you for helping get all our priorities in order.

Posted by Teresa | October 5, 2007 3:11 PM

"Kevin-- Actually torturing people and holding them in secret prisons is more damaging to American interests abroad than the NYT reporting that we do so. Blaming the Times for telling the truth is like saying it is OK to steal a car as long as no one tells on you. Or, worse, that the person who tells on you is more morally culpable than you are."

Again. Please point out where I said that it was OK for the US government to torture prisoners? You can't, because I didn't.

Since you evidently did not read my last post, or you have comprehension issues, I'll make it simple. I did not chide the NYTs for printing the alleged torture memos. I called them out for revealing details of classified legal programs designed to counter terrorist activities. Learn to read.

The NYT has a great schtick giong - leak out stuff to demoralize and confuse our side, never be held accountable and sledom if ever apologize.
By relying on the historical illiteracy of the lefties and keeping their sheep all stirred up, they can string this out until we get really hurt, when they will adopt an Alfre E Newman look and ask, "What, me worry?"

Kevin -- Again. Please point out where I said that it was OK for the US government to torture prisoners? You can't, because I didn't.

Since you evidently did not read my last post, or you have comprehension issues, I'll make it simple. I did not chide the NYTs for printing the alleged torture memos. I called them out for revealing details of classified legal programs designed to counter terrorist activities. Learn to read.
----------------------------------

OK, you're right. You did not specifically say torture was okay. But my impression is that what you call "classified legal programs designed to counter terrorist activities" is what the rest of us call torture. And that you are objecting to the NYTs reporting what most of the legal community would say is the Bush administration attempting to justify something which is clearly illegal.

Is that right?

Forgive me for thinking that the real reason to be upset was Bush ignoring the rule of law and undermining US interests in the world rather than the NYTs checkered history. Thank you for helping get all our priorities in order.

In a discussion of how the NYT is enabling America's enemies for domestic ideological advantage you are surprised and annoyed the NYT's past record of enabling America's enemies for domestic ideological advantage is brought up? Wow.

You know, good old Walter "What Ukrainian Famine?" Duranty never even popped into my head.

It is amazing what the MSM got away with before the rise of the blogosphere.

And people wonder why Rather thought he could get away with the TANG fakes...

esucht -- In a discussion of how the NYT is enabling America's enemies for domestic ideological advantage you are surprised and annoyed the NYT's past record of enabling America's enemies for domestic ideological advantage is brought up? Wow.
------------------------------------------

No, I've learned not to be surprised at how the Republicans avoid issues of right and wrong by attacking the messenger.

Reporting that the government is doing something illegal is a good thing no matter what newspaper does it. Because then people can do something about it. Torture is was "enables America's enemies" by ceding the high ground to them.

Note, please, that the White House does not deny these memoes exist. Does it not give you any pause that Republican appointees to the DOJ -- Bush appointees -- think that what the administration is doing is wrong and immoral?

I think some of you here need to recall that the DoJ most certainly did not review the law or make opinions for the president.

Specifically, the memos defining and authorizing torturous acts were written in secret. The vast majority of DoJ lawyers were not allowed to see them, b/c they would have completely disagreed with the legal reasoning behind them, and correctly so, as it is absurd in the extremy.

Witness Comey: 'You will all be ashamed when this gets revealed.' And he's right. If you have a position which you proudly support and think is built upon solid legal reasoning, you don't hide it and keep your own DoJ from seeing the decision.

Teams of lawyers didn't review these opinions to see if they were constitutional and sound. Addington, Yoo, Gonzales and McNulty did. Not exactly a foundation for saying 'the DoJ' approved of the memos and techniques described; Bush's top political appointees did, hid it from the career appointees, and pushed aside anyone who found out and disagreed with them.

Personally I think everyone should calm down about the leaked so called "torture" memos until we know what they say and can read them in their full context. Given the Times history and the way the "Narrative" drives their facts, color me skeptical that they say what the Times is alleging.

The fact is that all of these programs that the Times likes to reveal have been disclosed to the relevant Democrats at the time they were created and they didn’t say shit. If they were illegal or unconstitutional, the Democrats would have screamed bloody murder at the time and they would be holding impeachment hearings right now. The fact that they only squawk after they are leaked by the press speaks volumes about the accuracy of the Times story and the Democrats honesty. It’s almost as if there is a political agenda here. The fact that they are not holding impeachment hearings is another indication that the programs are not illegal or unconstitutional. This is just one great game of political blood lust that unfortunately has worked very well in crippling the Bush administration and perpetuating a whole series a great lies that are now accepted as conventional wisdom. While the Democrats win politically, America looses and that will affect all Americans for generations to come.

Tim,

According to members of the Intel committee, they were not shown the memos in question.

When they originally learned about the warrantless wiretapping, in 2002 or so, members of the committee weren't allowed legally to talk about it with anyone who didn't have a high clearance - not even members of their own staff. It's a little disingenuous to claim that they kept their mouths shut, when they were legally bound to do so by oaths they had duly swore.

Guess I'm just a barbarian; can't muster up concern for "niceties" of interrogation. The jihadis have been oh so careful of our troops, haven't they?

Heaven forbid there is another attack on continental US; wonder how the Teresas of the world would feel in the aftermath if it was discovered that the perpetrators had been in our custody prior to the attack but we were unable to uncover the plan of attack.

A pox upon Frank Church and the dimwits who follow blindly behind him. Yes, that's the ticket, a kinder, gentler method of interrogation. The Jihadis must roll on the floor with laughter when they see this nonsense in our media.

Posted by Teresa | October 5, 2007 3:30 PM

"OK, you're right. You did not specifically say torture was okay. But my impression is that what you call "classified legal programs designed to counter terrorist activities" is what the rest of us call torture. And that you are objecting to the NYTs reporting what most of the legal community would say is the Bush administration attempting to justify something which is clearly illegal.

Is that right?"

This is almost beyond parody. The classified legal programs I cited have NOTHING to do with torture, but are geared toward monitoring financial transactions and enemy communications, respectively. Do some basic research, please, before you embarrass yourself further. I am objecting to the NYT reporting on classified programs that are not illegal, and serve a useful purpose in the WOT.

So no, you were not "right".

Kevin,

Thanks for the response earlier. But I must say, in your post above this one, when you said:

"This is almost beyond parody. The classified legal programs I cited have NOTHING to do with torture, but are geared toward monitoring financial transactions and enemy communications, respectively."

You forgot the words 'illegally.' Illegally doing so. Exigent circumstances do not allow for breaking of the law without consequences.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 5, 2007 4:40 PM

Kevin,

Thanks for the response earlier. But I must say, in your post above this one, when you said:

"This is almost beyond parody. The classified legal programs I cited have NOTHING to do with torture, but are geared toward monitoring financial transactions and enemy communications, respectively."

You forgot the words 'illegally.' Illegally doing so. Exigent circumstances do not allow for breaking of the law without consequences.

I didn't forget to add the words "illegally", as those programs were not, and are not, illegal.

Kevin,

You must not be aware of a law referred to as 'FISA.' It is relevant to the NYT articles in question, it has the force of law, and it prevents the very activities discussed within the article.

Wiretapping of Americans without judicial review was and remains illegal; the Bush administration is engaging in lawbreaking in doing so. There's not even a question that this is true. The only argument made is that the activity shouldn't be illegal. I don't have a problem with people who want to advance that argument, but it has no legal standing whatsoever.

Kevin -- This is almost beyond parody. The classified legal programs I cited have NOTHING to do with torture, but are geared toward monitoring financial transactions and enemy communications, respectively. Do some basic research, please, before you embarrass yourself further. I am objecting to the NYT reporting on classified programs that are not illegal, and serve a useful purpose in the WOT.
-------------------------------------

Okay, Kevin, we'll the topic at hand per the Captain's post was the article on torture in the NYT. I'm sorry if I thought that you might actually be addressing the subject that the rest of us were instead of bringing up old issues. I won't make that mistake again.

Poodlemom -- Heaven forbid there is another attack on continental US; wonder how the Teresas of the world would feel in the aftermath if it was discovered that the perpetrators had been in our custody prior to the attack but we were unable to uncover the plan of attack.
-----------------

Believe it or not, "24" is just a TV show Poodlemom. General Petraeus addressed this issue very well I think:

"Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk”; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.

We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect."
http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/05/12/general-petreaus-writes-letter-condemning-torture/

Democrats are having a tough week:

Dem Dartmouth debate where all three leading Dems agreed they're willing to continue the war until 2013!
http://ipol-2008.blogspot.com/2007/09/transcript-of-dartmouth-debate.html

Pelosi on The View (ouch, that looked like it hurt)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YCBQYXdJUCA

and even the base in general is coming out of the woodwork realizing that they've been played:

“It's almost as if all Rockefeller's talk prior to the 2006 elections about wanting to uncover the facts had more to do with the elections than any actual interest in accountability. It's almost as if the Senator assumes we've all forgotten. Maybe we have. Has a single reporter asked him where in the world, these nine months later, Phase II is, or why in the world it has been phased out?”

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_071003_senate_intel_committ.htm

OUCH, I mean, that guy's a full on far left leader, and he's saying the exact same thing Sean Hannity said years ago when he talked about The Rockefeller Memo
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513709/posts
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102206,00.html

If anyone doubts for a fraction of a second that the 19% of Democrats who actively, openly, and strongly want the US to lose in Iraq are not seeking exactly that....well, then I suggest first they check out the Fox poll that shows it (a poll that's far more balanced than anything you get from the NYT, NBC, ABC, or CBS), and when done, get off your ass, go to the library, and check out CODE PINK's book, STOP THE NEXT WAR NOW, or Carville's book, HAD ENOUGH? These (and entire shelves more) are actual blueprints for politicizing the war in Iraq, deliberately misleading people, and all as means to the end: seizing political power to push a left-leaning quasi socialist agenda. Hey, call me paranoid, but until you've read em, it's not even name-calling. It's just kneejerk reaction from the few partisans still in denial of the FACT that the Democratic Party has now lied several fold more than W ever did.

Guess I'm just a barbarian; can't muster up concern for "niceties" of interrogation. The jihadis have been oh so careful of our troops, haven't they?

Poodlemom,

Guess you can just call me a barbarian too. This is an enemy that cuts the faces of Iraqis off with piano wire. That is when they're not cutting the fingers off of other Iraqis for smoking.Lets not even discuss what they do to captured Americans (military or civilian) before they kill them. Given the nature of the enemy I could care less whether they are waterboarded or worse. Especially if that saves a one or maybe a thousand American lives.

As for the credibility of The New "Duranty" Times don't make me laugh.

Lily, the only reason Al Queda tortures Americans is because we've denied captured Al Queda in Gitmo air conditioning. Such torture is responded to in kind.

[/sarcasm off]

Lily, the only reason Al Queda tortures Americans is because we've denied captured Al Queda in Gitmo air conditioning. Such torture is responded to in kind.

And don't forget the cruel denial of the the burka issue of Jihad Illustrated.

Cycloptichorn:

The NSA wiretapping was ruled illegal by judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. That ruling was subsequently overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

No, I've learned not to be surprised at how the Republicans avoid issues of right and wrong by attacking the messenger.

Why are you dodging the issue? Can't take the heat I guess.

But then again, the Left has never been strong on principle. If it takes down Bush a notch - and leads to the deaths of hundreds of people - treason is a-ok, because it gets them ever closer to the prize...

I still remember when members of the Left were terrified at the notion of the evvviiillll CIA taking down an elected president. Now they rejoice at the idea of their compatriots in the federal bureaucracy (with a help from the MSM) violating law, oath, and duty to score political points.

Teresa et al you call it torture... service men and women endure it everyday especially our special forces...

It's called training...

Kevin,

You are in fact incorrect. Judge Taylor - quite correctly - ruled that the NSA wiretaps were illegal in several different respects. The 6th circuit appeals court did not find her ruling incorrect in the slightest:

"The 6th Circuit did not rule on the legality of the program, simply finding that the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were spied on and that the courts couldn't give them adequate remedy."

There is overwhelming evidence that the FISA courts and laws are being circumvented by the administration. What's more, the Bush administration isn't even denying it! Their argument is that the president's wartime powers supersede the law; which is a crappy argument that won't hold up in court, as you know. Arguments that laws shouldn't be laws are not convincing arguments whatsoever for breaking them.

The fact is that the Bush admin has, knowingly and willingly, been breaking the law since at least 2002 and probably in 2001 as well. They have used every trick, including installing the president's personal lawyer as head of the DoJ, to stall the investigations looking into their criminal activities as long as possible. They have denied the DoJ from investigating the program. There is no cogent argument that the Bush admin isn't breaking the law; they are simply brazening it out, knowing that they won't get caught before they are out of office. It's a heinous crime and should be treated as such, and I fully expect the next several years to be full of trials for those involved.

theblacksheepwaright says, "Teresa et al you call it torture... service men and women endure it everyday especially our special forces...

It's called training..."

---------------------------

Are you saying General Petreaus is a liar when he says that torture is wrong and doesn't work?

Forgive me, but I'll take his word on the subject over your's any day of the week.

Essucht says, "...Now they rejoice at the idea of their compatriots in the federal bureaucracy (with a help from the MSM) violating law, oath, and duty to score political points."

-----------------

No, we weep at the sight of George Bush violating law, oath, and duty for no reason at all. And we weep because we know that he is diminishing our standing in the world as people who stand for justice.

It's called training..."

I believe at least some of our troops undergo waterboarding as part of their training. If its good enough for US troops its good enough for Kahlid Sheik Mohammed. People on the left should also educate themselves on just what's involved in the training of members of the US armed forces.Try reading what men go through in order to become Navy SEALS.That's why the government can truthfully say the US does not engage in torture.

I heard a few days ago that the Dim Congressmen have a bill proceeding at this time to provide a SHIELD for journalists who protect their anonymous sources for leaks.

This in effect makes the Journalists and their editors the ARBITORS of CLASSIFIED MATERIAL.

Seeing as how they are the ones who got 250 of our covert spies slaughtered a few years ago, for the sake of OPEN RECORDS, for which NONE of them saw any accountability, I'm not impressed with this side-stepping of the Constitution.

Typical Dim Stalinism.

Posted by Teresa | October 5, 2007 6:15 PM

No, we weep at the sight of George Bush violating law, oath, and duty for no reason at all. And we weep because we know that he is diminishing our standing in the world as people who stand for justice.

We also weep. That Liberals and Conservatives belong to the same nation, that Liberals belong to the nation founded by our Founding Fathers, such as George Washington, Paul Revere, James Otis...

Samuel Adams - The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Samuel Adams:
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections.
- Samuel Adams
Patrick Henry - Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

************

Stalin once said, "America is like a healthy body, and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we (communists) can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

Your disingenuousness isn't very convincing, Teresa.

You would subject this nation to Stalinist Marxist dictatorship, or Islamofascism, or a power brokered alliance of the two, before you would turn our resources loose to defend this nation that has been given to us at so great a price.

I don't want you and I to be citizens of the same nation.

I want this nation to be of the type of government our Founding Fathers established, and it seems you have no tolerance for that.

Yeah, Theresa. How dare you insist that the government of America be a limited one, in which the law rules supreme over all other concerns. It's ridiculous that you would say that citizens should expect their leaders to be held accountable for their actions, or that they should endeavor to actually guarantee certain rights and liberties! Railing against oppressive rulers never had a thing to do with the formation of our country, obviously.

It's amazing what you stalinist, marxist, commie, pinko islaamic fascist dhimmocrats will spout off.

Posted by Cycloptichorn | October 5, 2007 1:02 PM I would remind you that the NYT is under no compunction whatsoever to refrain from printing anything they wish; and they have shown admirable restraint in the past from doing so. You really should be railing at those who are leaking from within the administration ran by the people you elected; they are the ones who have signed affirmative oaths not to engage in such activities, not the publishers of newspapers.

NO COMPUNCTION ON THE NYT AT ALL?

Very interesting, the NYT is a law upto themselves, and the Arbitor of our Constitution and Government????????

Let's have a vote and see if most Americans don't agree that the NYT is indeed guilty of TREASON.

You want to have it all legal and above board, don't you? A NATIONAL VOTE is in order.

I find it amusing when someone on the left starts talking about limited government.

Technically, what the NYT is doing isn't illegal. It isn't illegal to pass on classified information. But it is illegal to leak it. Whoever is leaking classified documents needs to go to jail for a long time.

If I were Bush I would refuse to talk to Times' reporters, and would forbid anyone in my cabinet from doing so as well. And I would mercilessly hunt down the leakers - the CIA seems to have forgotten who's at the top of the chain of command.

I'd like to know who the dickens went over the head of the Constitution and made TERESA and her small circle of political cohorts the ARBITOR of the definitions of TORTURE AND TREASON and whether the NYT can commit TREASON, CONSPIRACY TO UNDERMINE OUR TROOPS, SLANDER AND DEFAMATION against our troops and government while we are at war against a proven DEADLY enemy.

Rose, maybe you ought to capitalize more words. That way people would understand just how serious you are about this topic.

Eric,

"

I find it amusing when someone on the left starts talking about limited government.

Technically, what the NYT is doing isn't illegal. It isn't illegal to pass on classified information. But it is illegal to leak it. Whoever is leaking classified documents needs to go to jail for a long time.

If I were Bush I would refuse to talk to Times' reporters, and would forbid anyone in my cabinet from doing so as well. And I would mercilessly hunt down the leakers - the CIA seems to have forgotten who's at the top of the chain of command."

I completely and totally agree. 100%. And I'm sure Bush has looked for the leakers. I suspect that there are too many of them to count. We've all read reports about the factional nature of the Exec. branch for the last several years. Every time Bush has to make a decision, one side's Ox gets gored... and the rate of incidence suggests that various members of Pres. Bush's administration respect him no more than you or I.

Rose says, "You would subject this nation to Stalinist Marxist dictatorship, or Islamofascism, or a power brokered alliance of the two, before you would turn our resources loose to defend this nation that has been given to us at so great a price.

I don't want you and I to be citizens of the same nation.

I want this nation to be of the type of government our Founding Fathers established, and it seems you have no tolerance for that."
-----------------------------

That is one of the singly most idiotic things I have ever read. Try reading the bill of rights & the constitution sometime Rose. It was written specifically to provide for freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government, freedom of the press, the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.... all the things that you are so willing to throw away. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves to see what you just wrote.

General Petreaus and every ranking member of the armed forces disagrees with you. The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Every sane, thinking human being in this country disagrees with you.

Read the quote from Patrick Henry again. He says, "No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."

An adherence to JUSTICE, Rose, means adhering to the constitution which forbids torture. Our fundamental principles, Rose, are outlined in the Bill of Rights. READ THEM. UNDERSTAND THEM. They are what seperates us and makes us better than the evil we face.

Posted by Eric | October 5, 2007 8:27 PM

******************

I still think if you asked Americans to vote on it, they'd consider the NYT guilty of Treason regarding the leaking of classified documents they've done since 9/11.

Just from the code on Treason, aiding and materially abetting, and encouraging our enemies who are fighting with our troops, most of us would definitely vote GUILTY.

And if the Liberals succeed in bringing the battle home to our streets, the American people will vote Guilty in some very material ways the Liberals won't be nearly as comfortable with, in their own neighborhoods.

Have you heard about the response for the man who cut down the Mexico flag from that bar a few days ago???

The Liberals may feel comfortable taking him to court - but they aren't going to feel comfortable walking him to the court down American streets.

Well, Teresa, then go back and explain the conviction of Benedict Arnold for Treason, and that George Washington had soldiers whipped for cursing.
Explain why Nathan Hale knew when he was hanged for Treason by the British, and accepted it as the just punishment for his wilfull behavior.

Most of the stuff YOU call TORTURE wouldn't pass muster to our Founding Fathers because of the life they daily lived, it wouldn't pass as ptorture even 60 years ago, because of the average lives of Americans. And it wouldn't be called torture in the homelands of our enemies TODAY, because it is NOTHING AT ALL compared to their current daily lives, either.

But if you think that our Founding Fathers let such niceties AS YOUR "VALUES" dictate the way they fought the Revolution, we would be today slaves of some dictatorship, today.

Obviously, you Liberals intend us to be the slaves of a STALINIST dictatorship.

It is unbelieveable that you intend to strip this nation of ANY means of defending the citizens of this nation.

No! I've totally had it with Liberals and do not want to be citizens of a nation where any Liberal has ANY political power at all. As far as I am concerned, the List speaks for itself - Liberal = Treason, and all of the Liberal posts on this thread shows a drastic inconsideration for the sake of America, and the safety of her citizens and the effectualness of the troops to fight this war.

I have no doubt whatsoever that under the rules of engagement of the Revolution, our troops wouldn't hesitate to know what to do with ENEMY SYMPATHIZERS.

Every time Bush has to make a decision, one side's Ox gets gored... and the rate of incidence suggests that various members of Pres. Bush's administration respect him no more than you or I.

**********

It was stupid of Bush to not do a cleanse like Clinton did. He should have gotten rid of every career Liberal in his entire administration and every dept under his auspices. Stupid of him to leave mole rats in their tenured positions, since Clinton didn't see fit to have to obey those same regulations.

Rose says, "Well, Teresa, then go back and explain the conviction of Benedict Arnold for Treason"
--------------------------
Benedict Arnold died an old man in his bed in London, Rose. He wasn't waterboarded by General Washington.

His cohort in crime, Major John André, adjutant general of the British army was court martialed and hung.

And no one has a problem with that Rose. It has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing here. No one says that prisoners should not be tried and even subjected to the death penalty. But a fair trial under the rule of law is what Arnold and Andre recieved. Then they got their just punishment.

Patrick's principles are NOT YOURS. And Pat rick is perfectly willing to use ALL THE NECESSARY FORCE IT TAKES to insure FREEDOM. YOU are not.

Patrick Henry - Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Patrick Henry - Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

The things YOU call "corrupt", he would call "the DOWNRIGHT FORCE that is vital to win the NECESSARY BATTLES". What YOU call "JUST", HE would call "CHAINS OF SLAVERY".

Samuel Adams - If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Sorry... should have said a fair trial is what Andre recieved and what Arnold would have recieved had he not escaped.

RE: Teresa (October 5, 2007 6:12 PM)

"Forgive me, but I'll take his [General Petraeus] word on the subject [torture] over your's any day of the week."

At least here's one Democrat who trusts and supports Petraeus. It's good to know you'll back his efforts, which would of course include his timeline recommendations, in the Iraq theater.

If only we could convince the "Betray Us" constituency to follow your lead...

We all know where Benedict Arnold died, but we also know he was convicted in absentia in America. We know he wasn't "waterboarded" or anything else in America because he was gone before they discovered what he'd done, and they never had their hands on him.

But few know what he did that got that conviction of Treason.

Look it up. Because by THOSE STANDARDS, George Washington would no doubt convict 75% of the Dim Party of Treason, today. Especially MoveOn, Code Pink, Algore, Hanoi John, Hanoi Jane - and most likely, even John McCain, under George Washington's standards - the Clintons, Harry Reid, McDermott and company, Nancy Pelosy, Toady Chappaquiddick, Jack Murtha, and a few more.
You really wouldn't like what he thinks of the "freedom of Speech" to burn American flags, fly flags of other nations above or in replacement of American flags, and the desecration of war memorials.

And you sure wouldn't like what THEY called "cruel and unusual" in punishment.

Not at all. Because your definitions just wouldn't make the grade at all.

Our Founding Fathers would laugh you out of the building, and most likely, all the way down to the local jail.

Samuel Adams - The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.

Rose,

HERE'S another QUOTE by patrick HENRY you might eNjOy,

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them."

Rose -- If you do some research, you'll find that the Founding Fathers were actually pretty darn nice to British prisoners of war during the Revolutionary War:

"Three other aspects were different than those normally seen in modern warfare. The first is that letters were permitted, and sometimes even encouraged. Prisoners could buy or exchange for food and clothing, including any money sent by their families. The second was the use of "Parole" by both sides. This would allow prisoners some freedom, in exchange for their promise not to resume the war. The last is that prisoners were encouraged to enlist in the army of the other side. Over the course of the war, as much as a quarter of each army had actually seen service on the other side." (http://www.myrevolutionarywar.com/campaigns/prisonerofwar.htm)

It has to be said that the British treated our prisoners pretty badly and that a lot of Americans died in British custody from poor conditions. But there is zero evidence of George Washington torturing prisoners of war.

No one is suggesting that we not fight hard on the field of battle. We are saying that from its inception, this country has had a high standard for its treatment of prisoners. That is the reason why so many Germans and Japanese voluntarily surrendered in WWII. They knew they would be treated decently.

Cycloptichorn says:

You are in fact incorrect. Judge Taylor - quite correctly - ruled that the NSA wiretaps were illegal in several different respects. The 6th circuit appeals court did not find her ruling incorrect in the slightest:

"The 6th Circuit did not rule on the legality of the program, simply finding that the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were spied on and that the courts couldn't give them adequate remedy."

The appellate court overturned the verdict because the plaintiff's rights were not materially violated. Therefore, her ruling was absolutely incorrect. In as much, the program remains legal.

Washington also did not have much of a problem for a state religious tax that went to a denomination of your choosing.

So?

The freedoms that he fought for have morphed into something else today.

Did he fight for a Constitutional right to kill an unborn child?

Did he fight for a Constitutional right of those not born or naturalized in the United States to be found under the Constitution's umbrella?

No, so, stop using him to make your invalid point.

Disregard the last sentence of my last post.

Hey Teresa,Cycloptichorn,Dale

You liberals have been crying about all the
war crimes and laws that Bush has broken for years.

You get control of Congress on a stop the war/impeach Bush ticket.

We have more troops than ever in Iraq,we have turned a corner and starting to see political and
security progress.

Reid/Pelosi say first thing after 06 that there will be "no impeachment".

Please let me repeat this for you.

"NO IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BUSH"

So either your liberal heroes are complicit in all of these "major crimes" by the Bush Administration or you and your "reality based"
liberal friends are being stirred up to stay angry,involved,send in money,and vote for the same
democrats that voted for the Iraq war,approved NSA wiretapping,and the prisoner interrogation methods you cry about so much.

What a bunch of ignorant sheep.

Does anyone see the irony of anarchists on the left bitching that the USA isn't civilized enough?

These guys who walk around with pictures of Che Guavera on their brown t-shirts? Might as well be a pix of Charles Manson.

Here's the fact: leftist anarchists see this as a big game. They don't believe in our standards of justice; they just know they can arouse animal outrage by screaming hypocrisy. These bolsheviks who are trying to take over the once-great democrat party will commit far more brutal crimes against humanity if they achieve a critical mass.

As we can see the Leftists devolve immediately into proclamations that disagreement with them means you're an authoritarian or totalitarian and start throwing out platitudes about liberty that they clearly do not respect. Placing your opinions as the sole gateway to moral righteousness and secular success is itself inherently totalitarian - as is the siege mentality so vociferously expressed by people like Teresa and Cycloptichorn.

The totalitarian cannot allow for there to be any opinions that are morally valid save his because he can brook no dissent, his authority comes from being right all the time and being the ONLY one who is EVER right. The feeling of being under siege in a Manichean conflict is also necessary.

This is why Teresa and Cycloptichorn argue from positions that have a foundation of facts that are not actually facts. They are opinions presented as fact because the intent of Teresa and Cycloptichorn is not persuade or enlighten, it is to silence dissent by making it morally reprehensible.

You cannot disagree with them because doing so automatically makes you a supporter of "torture," whose definition has become so amorphous that it basically means whatever Teresa wants it to. You cannot disagree with them because doing so automatically makes you a supporter of a police state, whether or not the wiretap program is actually illegal.

It's how soft fascists, which is what Teresa and Cycloptichorn are, act when they aren't in power. Demonization and manufactured self-righteous moral indignation. We know how they will act if they are - media and business regulation, higher taxes, gun control, surrender of sovereignty to some kind of amorphous world body (possibly even just "world opinion") all the typical totalitarian trappings. Like most totalitarians, they are never silent about their aims.

"Anything coming from the New York Times should be taken with a large grain of salt."

Too bad many did not take this advice when absorbing the tales spun by Judith Miller.

It is amazing to me the lengths that modern day conservatives will go to defend Big Government, Secret Government. and placing the word torture in quotes ("torture").

The question is: what does our Government do in our name to people it captures?

1. Why won't Bush answer this without resorting to Thomist-like scruples, dissemblance, and "plausible deniability" assertions?

and

2. Why don't you conservatives care? I know that you love freedom and liberty. That is what this debate is all about. If your local police force thought that you were going to "harm your neighbor" could they expose you to cold? deprive you of sleep? Waterboard you? Pretend to assinate you?

Why don't conservatives want to know what their Government, Our Government, is doing in their/our name?

If Senator Clinton wins the Prseidency, will you have a similar "don't ask/don't tell" towards the Foreign Policy of the USA?

More ridiculous appeal to patriotism. Stop substituting your opinion for the standard of "proud American" and otherwise as fact please.

Teresa

You are at the mall, you see a man slash a pregnant woman pushing a baby stroller with a 9 inch fillet knife, he then turns and heads toward you. The police officer rushing up pulls out his Taser. Whereas the use of "harsh" interrogations are for the explicit purpose of gaining information to prevent the loss of life and the use of Tssers to illicit this information is forbidden as torture; Do you verbally chastise the police officer for his intended use of the Taser? Do you step in front of the officer and take the knife? Since the Taser is torture...morally wrong...do you die for your belief?
If you stop the officer with his Taser and the slasher kills someone else are you an "accomplice to murder?

If we strip all tools, this may aid and abet the forces that demand,"convert or die." The high moral ground the protected Mossaoui(sp)and his computer may have led to 9/11 and the wars the have followed.

Lovely shades of gray are a killer in a black and white world.

What is wrong with you conservatives? When Hilary Clinton is president I bet you will get your conscience back.

1. Why do you always put "harsh" in quotes? If Bush is correct to use what you designate as "so-called 'torture'" and "so-called 'harsh interrogations'", then why doesn't the president tell us what we do to people we "rendition" so we can all enjoy what our government does?

2. Why does Bush claim that the United States doesn't torture?

3. Does John McCain owe the Viet Namese an apology for critiquing their "harsh interrogation" policies?

Cpnahab

You need to learn how to think. Weapons used on innocent people are indeed weapons of torture; when they are used in self-defense, as in your example, they are used legitimately.

But nobody would argue that the police could come to any of our houses and start tasering us, shooting us, beating us, because they heard a report that a. we might someday commit a crime; or b. we knew information about someone who did.

There is no gray area when your government tortures people on your behalf.

When Ronald Reagan won his landslide re-election in 1984, there would have been no conservative or Republican who proposed torturing suspects. We have slid morally down a path that no decent people travel.

"...why doesn't the president tell us what we do to people we "rendition" so we can all enjoy what our government does?"

Why indeed.

Why do all the people need to be told all of our operational techniques in the first place?

Seems pretty dumb to do so.

There is a whole sea of difference between "need to know" and "desire to know." Seems too many Americans cannot distinguish the difference.

As a matter of conscience, I have no qualms about effective non-lethal interrogation techniques, most of which do not even approach torture. But, at the same time, I believe one should not broadcast to an enemy or potential foe the limits of what we are willing to do.

If one has never played high-stakes poker with their own money, one cannot understand the costly importance that showing one's hand upon having the cards dealt does to not enhance one's possibilities for winning the game. Rookies do it all the time, directly or through tells and other non-verbals.

Telling the American people the full panoply of interrogation and rendition techniques and means assumes, incorrectly, that what they are told will be safely ensconced away and kept from an enemy or potential foe. The American people have no operational "need to know." They do have an overwhelming "desire to know." An enemy or potential foe has all sorts of operational "needs to know" as well as an overwhelming "desire to know." Why show our hand? Why make it easier on them and more difficult for us? Can't win poker games, can't win wars either, by doing so.

coldwarrior415 is at least honest. A careful reading of his column shows that he does not understand the difference between our United States and Castro's Cuba. To wit:

1. We need to know what our government is doing in our name because we elect the government. The government represents us.

2. And while Coldwarrior415 is a brave man who has "no trouble" with torture done in his name and is probably quite brave in general where the suffering of others is concerned,

3. for those of us who believe in God and the Rule of Law, who believe that our Government has no power outside of those powers in we invest in it through our Constitution and our Laws and through our elections,

4. the use of torture, even when we put it in quotes, is abhorrent as is the whole notion of a Secret Government that can do what it wants to whomever it wants to as long as it cloaks its actions under the File marked "National Security:Not To Be Seen or Known by the American People".

tomjproudamerican,

You assume too much, and falsely as well.

I understand fully the difference between Castro's Cuba and the United States. How many free and open electiuons have they had in Havana lately? How many prisons in the US are full of dissenters? How many in Cuba? More? Less? Castrtro does use torture...I have interviewed many who have escaperd and spent a good deal of time with a number of high-level defectors from Castro's own staff who brought along evidence to support their contentions.

Torture is abhorent, no argument there at all, none. I have stated many times that I am opposed to torture both as an operational tool and also as a matter of humanity. Torture simply does not work.

Fear, however, not torture, is a very effective tool. Take away the fear and another operational tool is lost. Telling an enemy that in no way will they ever be tortured or subject to harsh conditions is just plain foolish. Not telling them is a better tack.

Since 9/11 we have made great strides in our intelligence gathering by simple things...binding wounds, providing state of the art medical treatment, providing nutritious food, making the captee feel like a real human being for the first time in their lives...that sort of thing. But,m there were and are a small select group of hard core who do not respond well to kindness. They do, however, respond to fear, to the fear of the unknown, to confronting their own imaginations and fears. And the threat of torture, not torture itself, has an operational force multiplier that works well. It is not so much the actual use of torture that is important, it is their belief that they may be tortured, based upon their upbringing, their experience, their frame of reference, their own beliefs and operational standards...and when after all, they are not actually tortured...their fundamental belief system has been breached and exploiting that breach is something a good experienced interrogator can jump on and run with to great advantage.

Funny thing, once most of the so called hard core starts talking, even about the most seemingly mundane thing, they by and large decide that in for a dime might as well be in for a dollar and at times we cannot get them to stop talking.

But, arriving at the moment of breach, that is where fear and thier own fear of torture, not torture itself, comes into play.

We have Constitutionally granted our Government with a number of capabilities that are not spelled out distinctly in the Constitution. Such are and have been upheld by the Courts, and are in practice daily. Some are benign, some are less so.

But that does in no way mean they are unConstitutional and out of the perview of the American people.

I, by the way, have a very strong belief in God and in the Rule of Law. I also do not have an immediate kneejerk reaction that everything the government does is bad. I served that government for almost all my adult life. In essence I was part and parcel to that government over the years. Worked with so very many professional and dedicated Believers in God and the Rule of law that makes me content for the most part that they who are still guardians and are working hard to succeed in our overall well-being. Since leaving government and entering the private sector I have found far far more who are not Beleivers in God and nor the Rule of Law abundant all around. Go figure.

For those that have taken the "toture" definition into previously undiscovered literary territory: Let's see, arm in the wood chipper, compared to the "humiliation" of being on a dog leash held by *GASP* a female...
I have a very difficult time with the definition.

Oh and by the way, those of you that persist in the ridiculousness of making the above meet a poor interpretation of torture in accordance with that laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: I find your efforts degrading, coersive and torturous; in complete violation of the same Human Rights Declaration. Embrace that...

People in the DOS and the CIA undermining the unelected but selected president...? Naaaaaaawwww

Traitors and saboteurs, everywhere. The CIA. The State Department. The Democratic Party. Federal Judges. Retired US Army Generals. Active-Duty Armed Forces who disagree with you. Justice Department lawyers who dissent. The Media. Scientists at NASA. Any kind of protester. Human-rights groups. Academia.

Gosh! what a list! It's amazing! Like, practically every imaginable professional category in our country is full of traitors and saboteurs! You'd better do something about it! Just like Chairman Mao did!

........
The scary thing about the sarcasm below is that, except for the last line, it would sound perfectly sincere for you people.
There's a profile for people who inexplicably make, or believe they have made/found/discovered, enemies of the entire known universe. It's called paranoid megalomania. It usually rationalizes wildly antisocial behavior.

Shame on you, Captain Ed, for perpetuating this trash. The Bush Administration has encoutered remarkably broad opposition because it's a bunch of dishonest, incompetent lunatics, not because the CIA has sided with Al-Quieda. That you could even entertain the possibility of #2: refer back to paranoid megalomania.

You, Baxter, I am not a liberal and not one of my replies on this website belie that assetion.