Saturday, April 25, 2009

Porter Goss Speaks Out


Be sure to read Porter Goss in the Washington Post today:

"Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have."

Nancy Pelosi is lying when she says she didn't know. She knew. We knew she knew when she said she didn't know. She's a buffoon. (She's the same buffoon that Obama left in charge of the Porkulus bill.)

Goss is absolutely correct in pointing out the long term detrimental consequences of this mess. We will pay. Obama may have scored some political points with his base, but the payback will be hell. Too doomsday for you? Just go back to those days right after 9/11, when the smoke was still in the air, and all those people were asking how we did not know something like this was coming. All the blame that was placed for not being informed. Goss again:

"The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost. "


8 comments:

tbogg said...

Goss is absolutely correct in pointing out the long term detrimental consequences of this mess.Which mess would that be? The mess that America tortures people? Or the mess that we're no longer hiding from the rest of the world?

Anonymous said...

I find it strange that you defenders of torture seem to think that the enemy that we face was somehow unaware of our methods. If they did not know - which is a dubious proposition at best - Abu Ghraib made them fully aware of the extent to which we were willing to "take the gloves off" in our GWOT. Do you honestly believe that after the prosecution of a few grunts that all was forgiven and forgotten by our enemies? Those who would harm us were given a powerful recruiting tool by our government's actions. The world saw what we did. The world saw a few low level soldiers take the blame. The world is thoroughly familiar with this most common of governmental cover-ups. It may have satisfied your Bush - adoring conservative minds that all was once again as it should be, but I can assure you that no one else was buying into the fraud.

The only new truth revealed by these "torture memos" is that the acts were authorized and encouraged from the highest offices of power(surprise!surprise!). You conservatives flew your flags and sported your stickers and demanded in a self-righteous fury that we "support the troops!!!!", until the Bush government sacrificed a few of those troops to cover their own crimes. Not surprisingly Bush vowed a full investigation of those abuses that never occured. Now when these memos show that it was not a "few bad apples" in uniform who were perpetrating the abuses for some twisted sense of pleasure but - like countless times in the past - orders from on high you deny that abuses even happened! The mental contortions it takes to be a modern "conservative" are a wonder to behold.

Bonus question: How many regimes have admitted to advocating torture? You only get one guess.

yukio ngaby said...

More cowardly and Anonymous ignorance... Yay!

The aftermath of Abu Ghraib was damage control as Congress called for blood. Regretable and hardly noble, but those are hallmarks of politics.

These memos go over, in detail, what are the absolute legal limits the American government is willing to do. Do you seriously believe that's what Abu Ghraib revealed? All it revealed was what the the US was willing to do which, as I recall, was to humiliate the prisoners and use sleep deprivation.

Anonymous: "Those who would harm us were given a powerful recruiting tool by our government's actions. The world saw what we did."

Are you using "the world" as a synonym for "those who would harm us?" Do you think terrorism started with Abu Ghraib? Do you even remember 9/11? Do you remember the attack on the U.S.S Cole? The attack on WTC in 1993? The bombing of US embassies in Africa? All of these (and there are more) happened before Abu Ghraib, and all but one happened before Bush.

These terrorists don't need any more reasons to hate us. How much more hateful can you get? And when does it stop mattering? They're not going to ever love us or tolerate us. What they need to do is fear us and know that they cannot destroy us.

And worrying about recruiting propaganda needs pretty low on the list of priorities. Obama and the Left seem to believe that making nice, apologizing, and cutting US ties with Israel will make these terrorists suddenly like us. Nonsense.

Besides, the releasing of the memos was a move about domestic politics. Obama is compromising our national security to discredit the GOP which is resisting his idiotic budget, energy, and socialized medicine proposals.Why do you think no Dem. members of Congress are taking any heat? Why do you think this happened after unified House GOP rejection of his "stimulus" bill? Do you think it would've happened if they had bent over to Obama's demands? Unlikely.

Do you know what the definition of "regime" is? The number is too high to count, however the vast majority of regimes that advocated torture in this century is on the left end of the political spectrum-- China, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc.

G.R. said...

Yukio,

Thank you for having the tolerance and patience I don't have. I admire your ability to come up with an answer to such ignorance.

I just wish I could be like our friend Anonymous who lives in a world of Make Believe, but unfortunately my innocence was lost from being in the military during the Carter Administration.

What a horrible time that was, when Carter's philosophy was to not anger the world. What did that get us? Every little two-bit despot hovering like buzzards over what they thought was a weak and dying United States.

The world is a dangerous place, and any sign of kindness is unfortunately taken as a sign of weakness.

When I walk out of a super market, or any other store, during daylight hours or at night, I walk in a manner that shows I'm ready and capable to fight off an attack. It may not stop one, but it may get someone who is half-heartedly thinking about attacking me to think twice.

After Carter came Reagan. Call him a cowboy if you wish, but he promised to bomb Iran if they didn't let the hostages go. Iran knew that Reagan would and released the hostages the very moment he became president.

And if you want living proof what good old fashion bombing the shit out a terrorist will do, ask Libyan leader Mouammar Kadhafi. It works

even more anonymous said...

First, I must ask: Yukio Ngaby, why does "Anonymous" bother you so much? Whatever "name" that I use will do nothing to increase your knowledge of who I am. Whatever you mean by the term "cowardly" is beyond me and not worth addressing in any depth.

You say that the aftermath of Abu Ghraaib was damage control. What a quaint name for putting all of the world on notice that this country no longer even paid lip service to being a nation of laws. You are right in one regard though yukio: Abu Ghraib was nowhere near the first time that we had given others cause to hate our cruelty and hypocrisy. Curiously, all of the events that you mention are things that were done to us. Do you think that those who do battle against us have no grievances against us? Do you believe that Abu Ghraib was the first and only time that we had ever caused harm to others? Do you even acknowledge that what happened at Abu Ghraib was a crime?

"As a senior interrogator in Iraq, I conducted more than three hundred interrogations and monitored more than one thousand. I heard numerous foreign fighters state that the reason they came to Iraq to fight was because of the torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. Our policy of torture and abuse is Al-Qaeda’s number one recruiting tool. These same insurgents have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of our troops in Iraq, not to mention Iraqi civilians. Torture and abuse are counterproductive in the long term and, ultimately, cost us more lives than they save," - former senior military interrogator Matthew Alexander.

link(http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21354)

As for the "torture memos" "go(ing) over, in detail, what are the absolute legal limits the American government is willing to do.": what a laughable assertion. There have been US laws that have stood for many decades that clearly define the legal limits of our behavior in war time. This country is also signatory to the Geneva Conventions. I am sure you have heard of those. The force of federal and international law makes it plain for all what the legal limits are. These "torture memos" seek to justify going beyond those legal limits at the president's discretion. I hate to break it to you: Democracies don't work that way.

Finally, for your cheering section in the gallery: If I read one more of you claim military service gives you some special, unimpeachable authority on this matter and that I live in some fairy tale world of unicorns and jesus, I think that I will puke. Did the military teach you anything about defending this country? What that means is defending the laws of this country - for without those laws of which the constitution is the template - this nation would not exist in its present form. As a bonus, I will give you brilliant military minds some words that may reach you where I have failed:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."
- some guy named Ronald Reagan (any of you guys know him?)

link:(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1079/is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/)

Good night...

yukio ngaby said...

even more anonymous: "First, I must ask: Yukio Ngaby, why does 'Anonymous' bother you so much? Whatever 'name' that I use will do nothing to increase your knowledge of who I am. Whatever you mean by the term 'cowardly' is beyond me and not worth addressing in any depth."

First, I feel pretty bad about writing such a long comment on someone else's blog (sorry Pat), but I feel that I shoud respond.

I have no interest in finding out your name or anything about you. I don't care. But when someone intentionally trolls onto a blog simply to pick fights (and that is different than leaving a contrary viewpoint in a comment) and then doesn't even have the courage to leave a name... Well, what isn't cowardly about that? You're just throwing a brick from a mob and then pretending that you're some brave protester. Actually, it's nothing more than graffiti.

Secondly, you're wrong... leaving a name does increase my knowledge of who you are. If you're a regular viewer of the blog, you can go through the comments on this blog, read what I have written, have a reasonable understanding of my views. You can see consistency or self-contradiction. Anonymous is nothing. You hide your inconsistencies from perusal, believing that it increases your comments' credibility. This indicates to me a lack of courage in your own words. And this is not cowardly... how?

Your arguments come from the perspective of what government should be. You think it should be moral in itself. That is ridiculous personification. You talk about government with little understanding that it is not an entity in itself, but a process which derives entities. As a process it is subject to natural (or inevitable) laws that allow it to either function or fail. That is where you should begin your search for good govt, not with your "moral outrage" nonsense.

I doubt that you could clearly articulate your "morals" nor tell me where they come from, yet you suggest that your morals should be the basis for everyone affected by the US govt. Yeah, right...

You, anonymous, suggest that cruelty and hypocrisy are distinctly American traits. Nonsense. Certainly the US is the biggest target as the sole superpower, and as such, it is subjected to the various biternesses, jealousies, and resentments of other countries. Like you, they dwell on the negative aspects, assign them as the US's primary attributes, and then coddle hatred. And this the Unites States' fault?

Is Abu Ghraib a crime? That's the question isn't it? You seem to be under the impression that the world is a black/white, right/wrong place.

Living in the US, brought up on Hollywood films and TV it's easy to have that impression. But in fact the world is complicated and full of hard decisions. How many Iraqi civilians and American soldiers will you allow to be murdered before you humiliate these killers in Ghraib? How many American civilians do you allow to be killed before you waterboard someone in Gitmo?

These are uncomfortable questions that remain unasked in your comments. Instead the issue is simply used as a pretense for you to display "moral" outrage and exhibit a false "moral" superiority.

still anonymous: "There have been US laws that have stood for many decades that clearly define the legal limits of our behavior in war time."

Okay... What are they? Recite them to me so that I know you understand them. You seem to believe that these laws are from WWII movies, and that they are written in stone. Do you expect people to not break them if the only other option is failure (death) and loss?

Have you ever heard of the Phoenix Project in Vietnam? As the nature of warfare changes, so does the rules of warfare. The nature of this new (for the US) kind of conflict does not allow for the niceties that weren't followed all that well to begin with.

As the US's experience with violence and warfare perpetrated against civilian populations by loosely organized civilian butchers increase, the US is forced to reevaluate its conduct. Other countries have had to face these tough questions in the recent past (failure to do so meant death and collapse), and the US has had to face such questions several generations ago. Simply because you don't want that to be the case makes no difference. The need remains.

The Geneva Conventions do not apply to terrorists. They apply to people fighting in uniform during a conventional war. And "international law?" Are you talking about that farsical vaudeville act in The Hague? Is that where you believe the US should derive moral and legal authoity?

anonymous: "These "torture memos" seek to justify going beyond those legal limits at the president's discretion. I hate to break it to you: Democracies don't work that way."

The memos seek to present a legal framework to justify harsh interrogation methods. What does that have to do with democracies? What is a democracy? Do you even know? You think you do, clearly, but you demonstrate no knowledge, only more parroted "moral outrage."

By the way Athenian democracy commited terrible atrocities during the Peloponnesian War, including the wholesale slaughter at Mytilene, with the full consent of the voting constituency. Democracy in action then. Democracy in itself does not guarantee morality. It is foolish an uniformed to belive this... but then democracy seems to simply be a "go to" word for you.

Your comments are full of naivety and unoriginal "moral" outrage, but lack any moral basis or even grounding in reality. You accuse others of living in "some fairy tale world of unicorns and jesus" but you demonstrate ZERO understanding of reality and merely take your talking points from fictional media and moveon.org without any real understanding. That makes me want to "puke"-- not really, it's just just a little repetitive.

Again, I apologize for the length of this comment.

respectfully anonymous said...

Geez yukio, you make a lot of assumptions about me based on nothing more than a few blog comments. I will attempt to address some of them...

First, I am most definitely not here trolling or even attempting to pick a fight. I am commenting. I thought that was what the "post a comment" link was for. I am merely expressing my own opinion in an attempt to debate the premiere issue of the moment. As I said before and I repeat: leaving a "name" tells you nothing of me beyond my taste in screen names. If I called myself "Reagan is a Saint" would that change the content of what I posted? No, it would not. Tell me how my leaving a different (contrary to you) point of view in the comments section of a blog is "throwing a brick from a mob"? To be honest, I only came across this blog because it was on memeorandum and I was curious about the blogger's views because she lives in my area. I would also assume that she appreciates the traffic. That is the point of blogging, after all: getting your viewpoints out to a wider audience. How does my participation here upset that particular reality?

You seem to believe that those with opposing views should not post comments here: but what is the point in having a public political blog that is linked by a blog aggregator if you want to maintain some strange notion of ideological segregation?

You say that you don't care if I leave a "name" and then go on to cite several reasons why my not leaving a name makes me some type of malcontent. Strange...I won't deny that I am new to this blog but I came here with a sincere desire for open and honest debate of serious political issues. I think that I have been at least as respectful of everyone here as they have of me. I will honor your inferred wishes, however, and quit this blog. Apparently I don't "belong" here.

However before I go and for one last time I will address your political contentions and some of the personal assumptions that you made about me in the course of making those claims:

You say that my arguments "come from...what government should be". I beg to differ. If you read my comments you will see again and again that I use both the words of government officials - Republican government officials - and historical facts of US and International Law to illustrate my points. I have advanced no personal feelings beyond my belief that this nation should follows its own laws and international laws that it is signatory to.

Your doubts about my beliefs and my ability to enunciate them would - in my opinion - fall under the heading of "picking a fight". What other purpose could it serve to question my motives when my views are reasonably and respectfully expressed?

Is Abu Ghraib a crime? You wrote a lot but you did not answer. Why even address the question then? What is your point? Is murder a crime? Or is the world just too gray to know for sure? Law makes what happened at Abu Ghraib a crime, not my purported naivete. Is that a fact that you find yourself unable to acknowledge? You seem to be of the opinion that I must prove myself to you - my beliefs, my knowledge of the things I write, my motivations. What an incredibly arrogant position to take. I respect the opinions that you and the others have advanced and accept them in good faith. I think that it is telling that you are unable to do the same.

I will cut this short, for the circle is closing: The LAW should be our only concern in this matter. If you disagree with those laws that address this particular issue then I would suggest that you rouse your like-minded brethren and organize to change them as provided for in the laws of this nation.

However, as the laws now stands and as our history in confronting these issues have shown, waterboarding is torture.

For those who wish to know:

1) DROP BY DROP:
FORGETTING THE HISTORY OF
WATER TORTURE IN U.S. COURTS

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf

2)TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C
CHAPTER 113C—TORTURE

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

3)Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Finally, to the owner of this blog, I sincerely apologize if my presence here has upset your sense of decorum. It has never been my intention to do more than engage in honest debate with the politically aware. I will subject your blog to no further disruptions. Thank you and good night.

yukio ngaby said...

To respectfully anonymous:

Actually, I said that I don't care WHO YOU ARE, not if you didn't leave a name or not. You asked why anonymity bothered me, I replied with two reasons. You simply restate your argument and claim thet you are right while not addressing anything that I said.

You claim that you are not trolling. Fair enough. I withdraw that portion of my comment.

I have NEVER suggested that those who disagree need not comment. And I would NEVER do so, MOST ESPECIALLY on a blog that I do not run. But, if you post a comment you should not be surprised by a reply from others.

And if you post comments that contain confrontational language such as "may have satisfied your Bush - adoring conservative minds" & "You conservatives flew your flags and sported your stickers and demanded in a self-righteous fury" & "mental contortions it takes to be a modern 'conservative' are a wonder to behold" & "I hate to break it to you: Democracies don't work that way" & generally lecturing people on what military service means (suggesting they are wholly ignorant of it), & "I will give you brilliant military minds some words that may reach you where I have failed," then I would suggest you gird yourself for a likewise sharp response.

That sort of chiding and accusatory language does not suggest a "sincere desire for open and honest debate of serious political issues." If that is truly the desire, then you need to argue the issue and justify your position with evidence and tenets, and not mere moralizing mixed with belittling language.

respectfully anonymous: "You seem to be of the opinion that I must prove myself to you - my beliefs, my knowledge of the things I write, my motivations. What an incredibly arrogant position to take. I respect the opinions that you and the others have advanced and accept them in good faith. I think that it is telling that you are unable to do the same."

I've been accused of arrogance before. It's not new to me. Usually it happens in person when I am alone on an issue. However, expecting you to prove your knowledge and justify your beliefs is how debate works. I see no reason to respect an unjustified opinion. I do not expect anyone to respect my opinion simply because it is merely mine and I believe it. Respect, if it has any real meaning, is earned.

respectfully anonymous: "You [presumably yukio ngaby] seem to believe that those with opposing views should not post comments here: but what is the point in having a public political blog that is linked by a blog aggregator if you want to maintain some strange notion of ideological segregation?"

I do not have that belief personally, nor have I expressed that in any comment. You posted. I responded. You used chiding and belittling language, I aggressively called you on points. The worst you can say is that I speculated on your sincerity and questioned your knowledge and knowledge base-- provoking you to provide justification for your opinions. Again, common strategies of debate.

respectfully anonymous: "I will honor your inferred wishes, however, and quit this blog. Apparently I don't 'belong' here."

That was not implied in any way. On the contrary, up to this point, I find these sort of debates rather enjoyable. If you wish to never return, don't lay the blame on me.

However, in all sincerity, I encourage you to return and comment again. Not to change your mind, as that's extremely unlikely in a comment board on a blog, but perhaps for you to practice how to crouch your arguments in rhetorical (as in pertaining to rhetoric) evidence rather than personal assumptions and opinions.