home

Dick Durbin Calls for DOJ Investigation Over CIA Tape Destruction

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:45:10 AM EST
Tags: detainees, CIA, Dick Durbin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has called for an investigation into the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes (background here):

Today U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) sent the attached letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking him to open an official investigation to determine whether the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes violates the law.

He wrote: "I urge you to investigate whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence fiom official proceedings violated the law. . . CIA Director Hayden asserts that the videotapes were destroyed 'in line with the law.' However, it is the Justice Department's role to determine whether the law was violated."

You can read his letter here (pdf). Also check out Marcy (Empty Wheel) and Marty Lederman at Balkanization on Michael Hayden's letter

< Huffpo vs. Huckabee, Round Three | Originally Signed Copy of Magna Carta on Sale >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dick Durbin Calls for DOJ Investigation Over CIA Tape Destruction | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    CIA Tape Destruction (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by wfwJack on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    "The President and Fredo said torture was OK. We were just following orders.  We just did what we needed to do."  It didn't work for the Nazis, the Japanese or others subject to war crimes tribunals. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime--torture is a crime, no matter what Kiefer Sutherland may get away with on 24.  So tough luck for those who did the dirty deeds, they should be identified and punished.

    Nope. No way. (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    However, it is the Justice Department's role to determine whether the law was violated.

    Actually I thought it was the JD to claim it was, then a Grand Jury to agree and then....

    Are you ready for this, Senator??

    Pay attention now....

    ......It is the duty of a JURYto decide if the law was violated.

    I wonder why a US Senator has to have that explained to him????

    Maybe he should stick to calling our troops Nazis..

    Since when are you one of "our troops"? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:26:39 PM EST


    Parent
    And while over at Emptywheel's place (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    do make a point of checking out the post on Sheldon Whitehouse's floor speech today.

    He got to sit down with the OLC opinions relative to the warrantless wiretapping, and he tells what he read.  In a declassified version, of course.  It ain't pretty.

    Now we'll see either some action (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    or Mukasey will pull off his rubber mask revealing himself to be Gonzo in disguise.

    Gonzo In Disguise (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 06:24:01 PM EST
    Will the Senate soon have buyers' remorse about Mukasey? The WP reports that he's just rejected a Specter/Leahy request for help investigating the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes matter.

    Laura Rozen

    Parent

    Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 06:31:10 PM EST
    He was nominated by Bush... and he did the shuffle on waterboarding for no other reason than to protect Bush (and a few others) from prosecution, so.........

    Parent
    Reminds me, whatever happened to Harriet Miers? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jerry on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    What's up with the Harriet Mier's contempt charges?  I assume that our gutless Senate is going to pretend they never threatened to bring those charges up, and that the Rethugs are going to pretend the whole thing never occurred.

    Why aren't we seeing bloggers raising hell about this?  Olbermann, Cafferty, ....

    Well, you see there is something (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    called executive privilege that keeps just standing there in the way of the imperial Congress....

    Has to do with rule of law... you know... that thing you probably think you believe in.

    Parent

    Help me here (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:42:25 PM EST
    called executive privilege that keeps just standing there in the way of the imperial Congress

    I can find the part in the Constitution where Congress makes the laws and the president has to enforce them, and where Congress has the authority for oversight of the Executive branch through the power of impeachment, but I can't find "executive privilege" or any legal definition of its limits and authority.  Can you direct my attention?

    Parent

    If you don't understand the (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:53:33 PM EST
    very real principles of "executive privilege" then your education has been sorely lacking.

    I suggest you go back to middle school.

    Or perhaps try Google.

    Parent

    I understand the real principles (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:30:55 PM EST
    And I understand that historically the first line of defense by a criminal president is to to claim executive privilege.

    Maybe there is a rube, somewhere on the planet, so removed from reality that he doesn't realize that George W. Bush is a liar and is hiding his criminal activities behind a claim of executive privilege.

    But that would be a pretty mean thing to say about rubes.

    Parent

    I didn't know George Washington was (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 09:19:34 AM EST
    a criminal president.

    In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents which were relating to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with England.

    And do you also lump Clinton into your definition of criminal??

    BTW - Do you also believe that your attorney must also be forced to reveal his conversations with you?

    How about your Doctor?? Wife??

    The attorney, doctor and wife do not fall directly under executive privilege but it goes back to the principle that a person should be able to have conversations, seek advice, postulate various situations without anyone else knowing about them.

    A President is no different.

    A President's decision to invoke EP may be believed by you that it means that he is a criminal. That is your right to exercise. You also have the right to be totally and continually wrong. An ability that you have certainly demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt.

    You know Repack, we have in our constitution
    something called "impeachment" and "elections."
    The Demos know that the former is not doable and that if they try it will cost them in the "elections."

    Parent

    Torture is torture (none / 0) (#4)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 12:47:38 PM EST
    There should not be an "inquiry". There should not be any discretion involved. There should be prompt and vigorous prosecutions.

    It was a crime in WWII.
    It was a crime in 1983 when a Texas sheriff did it.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

    It was a crime when Ferninad Marcos did it.

    It was a crime when Bush/Cheney did it.

    No one speaks up when the D-CIA refuses to declare it has been torture for over a century.

    That must be because it is just harmless fun to neocons.

    http://current.com/items/76347282_getting_waterboarded

    Invite the wife and kiddies...good CLEAN fun!

    Define torture. (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST


    Parent
    No problem (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 11:33:31 PM EST
    Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

    Parent
    Guess we cut'em loose.. (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 09:37:27 AM EST
    You wrote:

    Anything you would not want me to do to you is torture.

    Well, since no one wants to be held in custody, then the mere act of restraining the terrorists is torture... at least according to your definition.

    When we let them go shall we send you a couple to keep as house guests??

    Snarks aside, your definition reveals much. The Left wants to define all interrogation as "torture" for various reasons.

    They want to use "torture claims" as a means to attack Bush.

    They want to tie the process of the war on terror into as many knots as possible.

    They want to use the claims as an election issue.

    Some see it as a legal issue in which all captives are treated the same. Therefore the captives must be treated as if they were US citizens and be tried in US courts with all the rules, guidelines, etc.

    Others may see it as a moral issue.

    And many have a combination of the above.

    Parent

    Have some morality (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:41:20 AM EST
    Torture, according to international law, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a 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] In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may inflict torture on others for similar reasons; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors Murders.

    Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of effecting political re-education. In the 21st century, torture is widely considered to be a violation of human rights, and discouraged by article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In times of war signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention agree not to torture protected persons (POWs and enemy civilians) in armed conflicts.

    International legal prohibitions on torture derive from a philosophical consensus that torture and ill-treatment are repugnant, abhorrent, and immoral.[2] A further moral definition of torture proposes that the act of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain.[3] These international conventions and philosophical propositions not withstanding, organizations such as Amnesty International that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.


    Parent

    Amazing (1.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 10:43:51 AM EST
    Morality is always discussed as a one sided thing.

    Torture is immoral, yet the immoral acts of the terrorists must be tolerated in the name of "morality."

    I have stated time and again that I do not believe in torture. But I have also defined most of the things that I do not see as torture. Among them are threats, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes, inhibited rest (made to stand up,) etc., insults to sexual and cultural norms and yes, waterboarding.

    Note that, for the most part, the guards at Abu Ghraib did not exceed the definitions above, but they should not have done what they did. Interrogation should be done by trained people. And then only to the extent it is believed that the results will be worth the effort. The guards, as I wrote two years ago, should have been investigated, charged, tried and punished for their wanton actions.

    So the question becomes:

    If a captive known to be a member of a terrorist group is known to have information that "our" possession of will save human lives, especially American lives, is it "moral" to not take acts that will give us the information?

    And do not kid yourself. Trained interrogators have and can force truthful information from captives by using the tactics above both with and without waterboarding.

    In other words:

    How can you define any lack of action that you believe will save lives as being moral?

    If you drive by a house and see flames through the windows, is it moral for you to not stop and try to save those inside?? No. It is not moral.

    If you see a person walking through a parking lot and see a bunch of known thugs hiding and waiting for the person, is it "moral" to not take actions to prevent the attack?? No. It is not moral.

    You may claim that you are not the "person" seeing the fire, and the waiting thugs... and certainly not the interrogators knowing that "information" is life and death for others..

    But if you tie the the interrogators hands, aren't you partly responsible for the deaths and injuries of others?? And isn't that an immoral act??

    Are you ready to accept that?? And are you ready to place your self closer to harms way than living in "NM?"

    Think about it. The question has many shades of gray and is very situational, but so does life.



    Parent

    Jim, (none / 0) (#22)
    by syinco on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 01:05:24 PM EST
    Jim,

    The (first) question you pose is an interesting one. It seems unavoidable to then ask if any "action" that is an attempt to extract information is a morally right or defensible action. Since we're playing in the realm of the hypothetical - all other means of "interrogation" failing, would it be a moral action to shepherd the terrorist's (say two, notably non-"American") children in front of him, execute one, and threaten to execute the other as a desperate but reasoned attempt at coercion?  

    Is the answer absolute or situational? To not do so, could you then be held partly responsible for the deaths of yet others? Even excluding innocent [though non-"American"] parties from the hypothetical, you quickly descend into a choice between two evils - how those sorts of situations are evaluated morally is of course "gray" and highly debatable. Not that you're saying anything to the contrary.

    But I do think the question is more difficult than you suggest; both morally and legally. Practically no one (apart from your characterization of the "far Left") is saying that the interrogators' hands must be bound entirely. It inevitably becomes a question of at what point (at least legally) must we say stop?    

    More importantly, I don't think that your question is the question.  It is certainly a question, but perhaps the more pertinent question asks instead "... a member of a terrorist group might have information ...". That would seem to change the moral equation dramatically; to be honest, isn't that scenario really much more often the case when severe interrogation or torture is contemplated?  If so, shouldn't that question be more germane to a discussion of (legal and/or moral) bounds on interrogation/torture?    

    Parent

    syinco (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    Actually that is not the first question.

    The first question is simply this. Is it morally right to not take action that removes others from harm?

    This is not a hypothetical question, given that we have plenty of instances where people have avoided going into the burning house, where they have avoided becoming involved in a mugging, and in some cases, refusing to do as little as calling the police for fear of getting involved.

    If you say that it is morally right, then fine. Many will agree with you for a variety of reasons. Most devolve down to: "Well, if I become injured and die, who will take care of my family? And the answer, of course, is "No one knows." What we do know is that you have people right there in front of you who are in harms way. Your family is not.

    So the actions are not the lessor of two evils. The people in the burning building are being attacked by "nature." The people soon to be mugged are about to the the victims of an evil act. There is nothing immoral in taking actions to save them. To not do so makes you guilty of a sin of omission  
    and all sins are evil and immoral.

    So you must first define if the act is moral or immoral. A reasonable person can then recognize immediately that the acts of the guards at Abu Ghraib were immoral and deserved punishment because they were "casual" in nature and meant for the enjoyment of the guards. So it then follows that the actions of those who interrogate terrorists must always walk a narrow line and be carefully supervised.

    But if their actions are taken to obtain information that will save lives these actions are not immoral given that they are taken to save lives.

    At this point many claim, including you, that "two wrongs do not make a right." But in this case we do not have two wrongs.

    It is the immoral acts of the terrorists that has led us to this point, just as the immoral acts of the "muggers" led to them being attacked. You can posture all you want, but the fact is that if 9/11 had not happened, we would not have invaded Iraq.

    Said another way, it is the demands, acts, statements and plans of the radical moslems, mostly unrestrained by the Islamic nation states, that are immoral. Not our defense. And interrogating prisoners is part of that defense.

    It is the fact that the majority, in my opinion, of the far Left demands an equivalence between western civilization and the actions of the radical Moslems. To anyone who pays the least amount of attention to their stated goals and terrible actions know better, but the Left wants to simplify everything. War bad. Peace good.

    Two absolutely true statements but totally  inaccurate outside the abstract.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#31)
    by syinco on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 10:39:47 AM EST
    This is the question I was referring to:

    So the question becomes:

    If a captive known to be a member of a terrorist group is known to have information that "our" possession of will save human lives, especially American lives, is it "moral" to not take acts that will give us the information?

    Which looked to me like the first question. Maybe I count funny.

    But why quibble ...

    I'm not going to explain why the decision to rescue people from a burning building does not represent the same ethical dilemma of whether to severely interrogate/torture in an attempt to save lifes. I think you know better.  

    Unless you draw a line at some point that you won't cross, your argument boils down to 'the end justifies the means'. And given your recent foray into ethical nihilism, isn't that a dangerous position to take? Separately, I also don't find the 'they started it' argument very compelling as a justification for questionable actions.

    Moving on, because you say that you do not believe in torture, then it seems you do draw a line somewhere.  As long as we're on the same side of both of our 'lines', there's little debate.  The question becomes much more interesting academically, and disturbing in practice, when we're looking on the other side of those lines, or trying to decide where those lines should be.  

    With that in mind, it was part of my point that the hypothetical of dealing with terrorists we "know" have life-saving information should not, in my opinion, be the guiding case; rather, it should be dealing with terrorists that "might" have such information.  So I object to arguments that seem to use the equivalent of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario to legally justify certain means of severe interrogation, or any use of torture, or to morally justify such actions more broadly than that scenario.

    You chide the Left for oversimplifying.  Are you sure you're not doing the same?

    Parent

    Synico (2.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    Sorry, I thought your question was:

    The (first) question you pose is an interesting one. It seems unavoidable to then ask if any "action" that is an attempt to extract information is a morally right or defensible action

    Which I thought I answered that it was morally correct if you believed that the terrorist had the information, and if you believed people would suffer if you did not obtain the information.

    The burning building example is just an example, and meant to show that there are various levels, but in fact the question always becomes, what actions will I take to (try) and protect someone else. The mugger example merely expands it. The burning building would have a very limited legal exposure but perhaps a great deal of personal exposure. The mugger examples could be both personal and legal given  some of the nutso actions I have seen from DA's when someone intervenes to protect someone else's property and lives.

    So the question will always become, is my cause just??  If I put out the fire to let me rob the people inside, or run off the muggers so I may rob their intended victims, obviously my cause is not just.  The latter is often used by the Left when claiming that our actions are really "just about oil," etc.

    You also raise a question that really should not come into play when you write:

    So I object to arguments that seem to use the equivalent of the 'ticking time bomb' scenario to legally justify

    I am not using the "ticking time bomb" scenario. I am merely saying that the situation must be important enough and the information helpful enough to warrant aggressive interrogation. Remember I said that the guards, although many of the things they did was not torture, were wrong because they were done for the pleasure/ego of the guards.

    How that is controlled and graduated is a gray area. No ifs and no buts. And must be controlled and tightly supervised.

    And I would note that "legal" sounds wonderful on the floor of the UN or over a beer in a dorm room, but the real truth is that in warfare, "legal" becomes what the winner says it is and it is the winner who administers "justice." I think it is obvious that the terrorists pay absolutely no attention to "legal" and/or "justice."

    So yes, I do not believe in torture, but what many call "torture" is not, and if the "ticking bomb" scenario actually existed, would you want a President to not authorize whatever was necessary? To answer this question, let's take it out of the "personal."

    Let's say that the President has indisputable information that Iran has placed an nuclear weapon in NYC but has not installed the trigger. A key component is lacking, but we know that it is being fabricated someplace in Teharn, but we have no way of knowing where and the time to complete is unknown. The government of Iran disputes our requests for them to stop it or, at least, give us the NYC bomb's location. Iran denies our request.

    Would you agree that the President should authorize an attack with all available force?

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by syinco on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    Thanks - regarding questions, I see the misunderstanding.

    Though in answering mine, you say:

    Which I thought I answered that it was morally correct if you believed that the terrorist had the information, and if you believed people would suffer if you did not obtain the information.

    and later also say:

    So the question will always become, is my cause just??

    The problem here is that you are still basically saying 'the end justifies the means'.  Regardless of what means are used - and that's a problem.  That logic lets you cross right on over into torture and worse, as I tried to point out with my initial example.  

    You partly resolve that problem by elsewhere stating that you do not believe in torture.  Assuming that means you would only take the above arguments so far, stopping short of torture, then I think you begin to have a defensible - and debatable - position.

    As long as you maintain the premises that you 'know' the terrorist has information that 'will' save American lives if obtained, then what I think you essentially end up arguing is that you think it's a "better" (or less worse) course of action to severely interrogate someone (and presumably thereby inflict pain and duress) and save lives than it is to not inflict this pain and duress and have (our) people die. I don't think you can properly frame the argument without acknowledging that the harm done to the one with desired information must be part of the moral calculus. Well, you can do otherwise, but then you introduce other problems, such as who decides what is a just cause. You described that problem well the other day.

    But what happens when the above premises are no longer the case? How certain must one be before acting? How significant must the potential injury be to our interests to warrant action?  Does the degree of action taken vary as the degrees of certainty and potential injury vary? Who is assessing all of these variables? Are some assessments objective and others subjective?  

    Are we free to employ any methods of severe interrogation, stopping short of torture, because we think that someone may have information that possession of which may save American lives or otherwise benefit our interests? That seems to have been the thinking to date, and if that is indeed the case, that troubles me.

    You acknowledge that much of this falls into a gray area. I absolutely agree. I think there's much room for debate off the field, and on the field, if nothing else, we must have, as you say, tight controls and supervision. I think a certain degree of visibility (e.g. no destroyed videotapes) and full accountability is also necessary, as well as some clear definitions of what methods are and are not permitted (and items not stated are not automatically permitted) that is consistent with our international agreements, as well as under what circumstances.

    Sorry this is getting so long ...

    As for the Abu Ghraib guards, I won't get into it right now, but I will say that I think you oversimplify that scenario and that you might read "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo for an interesting perspective. Maybe a topic for another day/thread.

    You bring up a very specific hypothetical at the end of your post. In the case you suggest, I think the president would be derelict in his duty if he did not consider and possibly employ any or all military means that would prevent the detonation. I would also expect that he would opt for means that minimize collateral damage.

    Parent

    Synico (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:09:37 AM EST
    It's late but....

    The ends do, in many cases justify the means. Go to my example re the Pres and the nuke in NYC. Personalize it and put a burglar with a gun in your home threatening to kill you and rape you wife.

    And I hate to burst your bubble, but if torture would allow the Pres to not nuke Tehran by getting the required information, then it makes more sense to torture.

    You write:

    I don't think you can properly frame the argument without acknowledging that the harm done to the one with desired information must be part of the moral calculus

    Yes, that is true, but it is self inflicted harm because it could be avoided by him giving up the information. It is even further self inflicted because the terrorist made a personal decision to become a terrorist. And just because that decision is, in our minds, mostly irrational and almost impossible to understand doesn't remove the fact that he made it.

    Same with the burglar. That you shot and killed him was not your fault, but his. Your action was rational, necessary and thus moral.

    And yes, as I have noted, it is because of this that great care and great control must be exercised. You don't jump from sleep deprivation to waterboarding without some real sound reasons.  And I don't have the answers, but it appears that our use of the most aggressive interrogation technique, waterboarding, has been very limited.

    And perhaps if we had truly defined torture rather than just declaring it bad them we might have been more open about what we would/have/will/should do if necessary.

    In the final analysis though, I return to the fact that our cause is just. Although far from perfect, western civilization is better in all respects for all people than what is proposed by the radical Islamic terrorists. I think that we need to acknowledge that more, and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a needle, less.

    Simpler.  I don't think God is on our side. But I do think that we are more Godly than those who have attacked us.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#40)
    by syinco on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 08:50:48 AM EST
    Yes, the ends do justify the means in some cases.  What I mean when I object to such arguments is when the ends are used to justify the means without any additional scrutiny towards the means.

    You project too much. Why do you think you're bursting my bubble with a, yes, ticking time bomb scenario? Do you think I would say it doesn't make sense to torture? I think it would be a morally defensible action to take. I would hope that my President would have the courage, and the appropriate anguish over the decision, to contemplate it and, in this case, as difficult as it is to say, pursue it.

    But that says next to nothing about what is morally right in almost any other circumstance, and it certainly doesn't require that we must therefore have laws that allow torture, even in exigent circumstances.

    Again, I come back to the more realistic scenarios where you don't know that someone has the crucial information, or you don't know that the potential effect of any information that a person has. I reiterate that it is on this basis that I think we need to be having the 'torture debate' (or the severe interrogation debate).

    You say:

    but it is self inflicted harm because it could be avoided by him giving up the information.

    But in practice, how do you know, a priori, that he does in fact have 'the information'? Most of the time, you don't, and therefore your logic fails you, at least for most cases.

    It's still funny to me that after your posts the other day, you come back to "our cause is just". Just about everyone thinks their cause is just. Certainly the terrorists think their cause is just. But yes, provided some common ground, we can argue or agree upon what we mean by a just cause. And if you simplify 'our cause' to be defending American lives, sure, I think that's a just cause.

    Does that mean I think we should go and nuke Iran right now because they might one day be a threat to American lives? Absolutely not. Does it mean I think we should vigorously pursue terrorists who do threaten us? Yes. Does it mean that I think we should have gone to war in Iraq? That I think gets fuzzier, but personally, I think not (and let's not debate that here). A just cause doesn't give carte blanche; it requires careful scrutiny, often not just from within, and measured responses.

    Saying this:

    discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a needle, less.

    baffles me. We could hardly be talking about something less trifling or less worthy of actually resolving, in my opinion.

    As for this:

    But I do think that we are more Godly than those who have attacked us.

    I agree with the spirit of that sentiment, but that doesn't cause me to stop asking whether we're reasonably striving to not just be better but to be the best that we can be.

    Anyway, not sure if there's more to say. It there is, great; otherwise, thanks for the discussion.


    Parent

    synico (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    I didn't say the means should not be carefully examined. As I wrote:
    And yes, as I have noted, it is because of this that great care and great control must be exercised.

    As for projecting, my comment was a small attempt at humor when I indicated that I thought you would be shocked...oh well.. I won't quit my day job.

    I have tried to indicate I see the problems. Read again "great care and great control." I also noted you don't just go from sleep deprivation to waterboardimg. Each situation is unique. Each is supervised:

    "Each one of these steps, even though they're minor steps, like the intention shake, or the open-handed belly slap, each one of these had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations," Kiriakou told ABC News.

    Link

    And obviously if the terrorist willingly gives the information you wouldn't act against him unless and until you know that he is lying.  That doesn't mean that he wouldn't be questioned and checked and re-checked and re-questioned.

    But in practice, how do you know, a priori, that he does in fact have 'the information'?
    That goes back to who the terrorist is, when/where/how he was captured, etc. And, how he answers the first round of questions.

    And yes, I will grant you that this is an imprecise area and that mistakes will be made. Reminds me of surgery before X-rays, or more to the point, before MRI's amd CAT scans. You do the best you can do using skill, training, talent and experience.

    The just cause point is terribly important because unless you believe the cause is just, then there is no moral foundation.  And it doesn't matter if the terrorists also think their cause is just. We know that it is not, and we also know they have expanded to the point, and observing the lack of resistance in Europe and the political turmoil the Left is causing in the US and everywhere,  that they believe they can establish Shari law, and their interruption of it, on a world wide basis. (Yes, I believe that OBL meant what he said in his interview with Peter Arnett.)

    So the just cause is to protect and defend the values of western civilization and culture.  And that definitely puts America first. Among them is the belief that we do not attack unless we have been attacked.  The radical Moslem terrorists have done that and continue to do that. It is an asymmetrical war supported by some Islamic nation states for various reasons. To that extent it is quite like Vietnam. The major difference is that surrendering in Vietnam, at the behest of the Left and their politicians, mostly Demos, emboldened the Soviets, but not to the point that they felt they could attack. (Think MAD.) Also, it proved to the world that we would honor a treaty. Think SEATO. Thus NATO became very much a trip wire the Soviets wanted to avoid.

    A loss in the ME will strengthen the terrorists hand by demonstrating that those Moslems who oppose them are backing the losing side. This will greatly weaken the terrorists' internal enemies. We can not afford that.

    The "angels dancing" was merely to note that many of the claims and arguments of the Left are old ones, restated in a hot house atmosphere and ignore, for the most part, the realities of life.

    Me too re the discussion. We used to have these types quite a bit on TalkLeft, but it seems that they have become replaced with edger, squeaky and jondee type retorts, and more "political process" arguments that seem to come from KOS and BTD.

    Parent

    No one is buying, ppj. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    Except you. And like the crackhead on the corner, your only way out is to stop using your own product.

    But also like the crackhead on the corner, you're probably too far gone to grasp that.

    Parent

    Last bit (I think ... :) (none / 0) (#46)
    by syinco on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    I didn't say the means should not be carefully examined."

    "I have tried to indicate I see the problems."

    I hear you and I see that.

    I think we agree that there are some bright line rules for which only exceptional circumstances could possibly warrant any variance. And that we agree that there are at least some problematic areas with no clear answers. In some of those areas, with our somewhat differing beliefs and values, we will probably disagree on permissible methods vis-a-vis the degree of certainty of useful knowledge and value of such knowledge.

    I know those gray areas are still troubling to me, and that I don't have enough knowledge/experience to formulate firm answers in all cases. And I know that I want those that do have the power to decide the approach to think about it as I have tried to think about it, or to explain to me a better way. Sounds self-centered said in those words, but I think it's true of most of us.

    "The just cause point is terribly important because unless you believe the cause is just, then there is no moral foundation."

    Agreed, but said another way, from my perspective, the 'just cause' is a necessary - but not sufficient - condition.

    "Among them is the belief that we do not attack unless we have been attacked.", et. al.

    Want to bite, but will not ... not here, not at the moment, anyway. :)

    Parent

    from wikipedia actually (none / 0) (#18)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

    Parent
    Look it up. (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 09, 2007 at 09:00:19 PM EST
    In the TL archives from that last 100 times you pretended not to see it.

    Or in U.S. Code.

    Parent

    please put your links (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    in html format, use the link button on top of the comment box. Long links will result in comments being deleted as they skew the site.

    Parent
    This happened in 2005 and (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 01:16:22 PM EST
    Congress knew about in in 2006.  What took so to say anything.  Too lazy to do anything until the MSM jumps on it, I suppose.

    thread cleaned (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 06:44:21 PM EST
    of insults and hijacking. Please stay on topic.

    Dick Durbin Calls for DOJ Investigation Over CIA Tape Destruction | 34 comments (34 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment