If We're Going to Reveal More Memos. . . .

Khobar Towers and the USS Cole (0.00 / 0)

I'm not convinced protecting the US Military was a priority on those two. Well I'm not 100 percent on the Cole, but from what I understood about Khobar, Washington basically allowed the Saudis to stonewall the FBI.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 14:51:43 PM CDT

See that keyboard your tapin on (0.00 / 0)

Well it's connected to what is called a 'computer' with loads of useful information, now be careful and check those found, Now Use It!!!!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 16:01:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Prince Naif did stonewall the FBI (0.00 / 0)

in the Khobar Towers investigation and Washington DC did allow it to happen. That's not protecting American troops. On the other hand, there is simply not conclusive evidence on the Cole one way or the other. Would you actually be naive enough to think I didn't look? Needless to say, the Yemenis were downright hostile, much less cooperative.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 16:31:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

All excellent points... (0.00 / 0)

While I don't expect that any of these interrogation memos will ever be made public, I certainly hope that if they do, we see the rest of the information you mentioned.  I had no idea that these things were tracked, and I'm actually surprised they were, but this certainly helps paint a much fuller and more robust picture than the one Cheney is trying to sell us.  

---

by: Wolverine @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 14:53:34 PM CDT

We need to end the "Cheney Virus"...a virus that has mutated (0.00 / 0)

from the "Nixon Watergate Virus" through Iran-Contra to today. It seems to be resistant to the Church Commission formed to stop bad boys/policies in the FBI and CIA.

Definitely appreciate the MM's comments in this diary based on his service. But, Cheney is just using diversionary tactics to redirect the conversation from the use of torture against the Army Field Manual/Geneva convention to it ''saved American lives". The same load of manure that got us into Iraq in the first place.

Cheney, it matters not what those memos say. And neither does the latest she said-he said going on between Pelosi and the CIA.

Hopefully, we get back to basics with sane heads like Rep. Sestak and Sen. Whitehouse. Torture is illegal and redefining techniques does not make the techniques legal. Nor does it make it effective. It is also wrong morally and ethically. Decisions based on fear implemented by "contractors" is totally bad pollicy. So is the Nixon Doctrine: if the President does it, it is legal.

---

by: deMeme @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 16:04:40 PM CDT

Busting on D. Cheney.... (0.00 / 0)

OK, I'm not the smartest guy in the room regarding the "torture memos" and what the CIA can/can't reveal.  However, if I got my cable news junk straight, all Cheney is pressing for is proof from CIA memos and fact sheets showing that useful info was indeed gained from past interrogation techniques. To me, that's not an unreasonable request.  Think: if he's proved wrong, he's outa here; if correct, then we'll continue to cook up some other gruel against him and Bushco.

Maybe that's oversimplification on the current anti-Cheney thing.  It's hard to figure out WTF is actually happening by rotating cable news channels.  Reading the last couple of MajorMathews columns didn't help either.  Maybe drudgereport!?

Note to self: if "torture" causes the bad guys to get even worse, then we must've done a Hell-of-a-lot of "torture" prior to the Beirut Bombing, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and 9-11.    But wait....

---

by: E. Redding @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 16:46:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Note to self" (snort) (0.00 / 0)

That's pretty good.

"Note to self: if "torture" causes the bad guys to get even worse, then we must've done a Hell-of-a-lot of "torture" prior to the Beirut Bombing, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and 9-11."

No cigar.  Torturing folks ain't the only way to make them hate you (more).  Fucking around with and having a military presence in (taking sides with this or that faction)  in their countries will.  

As for Beirut, the (worshipped) Reagan -- after talking a lot of smack -- wisely made the decision to get out.  As Bill Maher paraphrased:   "... these people are fucking nuts!"  Wish others had been as wise as he down the road (and I'm no Reagan fan).  

This problem cannot end until we no longer covet M.E. oil more than U.S. lives, and it may be too late anyway.  (Kinda like the magical belated thinking that we can fix global warming.  Fat fracking chance, though warm and fuzzy.)

---

by: Fxston @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 17:10:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, cigar! (0.00 / 0)

Regarding your above, I don't "think" we had a lot of military presence in the ME prior to the 4 attacks I mentioned above.  Some, but just the sort we have all over the world (S. Kor, Germany, UK, etc.).  I think the burden of inhumanity goes to the fanatical Muslims who simply want to kill infidels, period.

Also, it's important to understand that the US was the primary party which discovered and initially produced the vast oil resources that are now available to ALL of the world.  Plus it made many ME locales (and people) very rich.  Bottom line: I don't think we're the bad guys in this scenario.

This problem cannot end until we no longer covet M.E. oil more than U.S. lives, and it may be too late anyway.

Unfortunately, t'will never happen.  We must use ME oil because we're too politically correct in finding our own within our boundaries.  And our thirst for it will never be diminished, as regards to our lifestyle.

Anyway, good comments by you.

---

by: E. Redding @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 18:26:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You all (0.00 / 0)

both had good points there. We simply cannot place everyone in the Middle East/South Asia that wants to fight us into one group. Nor can we deny that both the real and perceived results of our policies might, just might actually have something to do with them wanting to fight us. But at the same end, you can't go in the other direction either. The Wahhabis, AQ, SMB, etc. are some real SOBs that cannot be bargained with, reasoned with, nor negotiated with. They are the ones who really want to slay infidels.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri May 15, 2009 at 18:38:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Redding, regarding the Beirut bombing, and several others (0.00 / 0)

a large part of the current Iraqi government played a role in that as well.  I think the actions of our government over the last five decades have helped to perpetuate a lot of our current foreign policy problems.

"No U.S. soldier ever dies in vain because they're carrying out the missions of their commander in chief. And we honor all the service that they've provided." - Barack Obama

---

by: Chris LeJeune @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 15:38:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Foreign Policy.... (0.00 / 0)

I think the actions of our government over the last five decades have helped to perpetuate a lot of our current foreign policy problems.

That's true.  But we were just Americans being "American."  We did what we thought was right at the time.  Don't forget, we've done a LOT of good throughout the world.

I could really write a long paragraph on this one, but let's spare both of us for now!!

---

by: E. Redding @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 16:38:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well I think the (4.00 / 1)

main problem we have had was that alot of our policies were designed to fight the Evil Communist Empire(USSR) in the Cold War. Once we beat the USSR, we slipped into a sort of post Cold War malaize and didn't seem to realize that alot of our policies that made sense then suddenly didn't make alot of sense now. Well that and I think DC got more than a little cocky after we beat the Soviets. It seemingly took 9/11 to convince Washington that AQ and Co. mean business and I am still not convinced that AQ and Co. are taken as seriously as they should be.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 16:52:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Foreign Policy, ctd... (0.00 / 0)

Very good synopsis -- the Cold War and aftermath.  Yet, I still think that Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton kept the USA on top of the heap militarily, humanitarianly (is that a word?), and despite some blunders, we did well overall.  But this...

I am still not convinced that AQ and Co. are taken as seriously as they should be.  

I gotta think about that one.

Again, despite some blunders, I think we're doing as much as we can to combat AQ and gang.  We have more soldiers than anyone else in the world on the job, talking diplomacy, and we're spending a helluva lot of money (buying friends) on the project.

But you're right about this, whether you intended it or not: we're not taking fundamentalist insurgency (AQ?) seriously within our borders.  Here's a terrific site that you could spend hours in:
http://www.actforamerica.org/

Like the Brits and many other areas in Europe, we may be slowly integrating fanatical Muslims into our society due to "politically correct" acceptance of their demands.  You've read and heard about examples, I'm sure.  This is where they'll get us.  And as you say, we're not taking them seriously enough.

---

by: E. Redding @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 19:10:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TORTURE: (0.00 / 0)

BLACK EYE FOR THE RED WHITE AND BLUE

Interrogation used to be an art taught to the "best and brightest."  The CIA even has an interrogation manual called KUBARK, long on the internet (google it) showing how to classify "subjects" and get them to spill their guts.  Most of the methods are psychological and those with the most to tell, respond to psychological ploys much better than being beaten.

Really tough people will lie to you for years.  If nobody has noticed, we are fighting really tough people.  Intelligence is only "timely" for 48 hours or as soon as your enemy knows you have someone who can put them in danger.  They move, they hide, they cover their tracks.  This game is 4000 years old and will never end. >>>>>>Read More

Much more than a "Blackeye", Much Much More!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 07:37:51 AM CDT

Boehner didn't always defend CIA (0.00 / 0)

Boehner: "Either I don't have confidence in what they told me several months ago or I don't have confidence in what they're telling me today."

 

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 07:38:56 AM CDT

Iraqis shrug off concerns over photos of U.S. abuse (0.00 / 0)

While President Barack Obama argues that releasing photos of U.S. soldiers abusing detainees could incite violence against American troops abroad, a prominent Iraqi leader called for their publication and others cast doubt on the U.S. administration's warnings.

And why, you may ask, because the Blowback on the soldiers already occurred well before We Here Even Heard Or Saw, the loss of stature and in most cases the believability of what we say or do is already gone! That was just One of the Defeats of what one Must Do after Invading, "Winning Hearts and Minds!!"

"Nothing would happen," he said. "This is a very old issue, and we Iraqis have seen much worse than just photos."

This isn't about politics, nor is it only about Iraq and Afghanistan, though we owe much more than Apologies, this is about Who and What we really are as a Country!! Not just catch phrase words and condemnation of others, it's about our Soul and Standing on this Planet of Nations!!  

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 10:59:50 AM CDT

I'm not willing (4.00 / 1)

to give into the idea that we can make torture okay if we just twist the numbers in the right direction.  

Torture is wrong. Period.  It is illegal. Period.  Any order to use torture is an illegal order and military personnel are duty-bound to resist it. Period.

There's simply no debate.  The idea that our military has any sort of honor depends entirely on how we stand up on this issue.  We aren't talking about battlefield math that means we cannot contain collateral damage and therefore innocent non-combatants get hurt.  We are talking about torture.  It's called torture because it's torture, and therefore illegal.

---

by: ThurmanHart @ Sat May 16, 2009 at 18:21:05 PM CDT

More "torture" talk (0.00 / 0)

Don't get me wrong: I agree with your basic premise about torture.  But I disagree with your black/white view of it.  Here it goes....

Just what is "torture?"  Is yelling loudly at a captured enemy combatant who just attacked a Red Cross van called torture?  Is shooting your 9mm in the air in front of a captured bad guy to get his attention called torture?  Does one have to cause physical harm for torture to be achieved or does some light mental "stress" also account for "torture?"  Can torture be extended to civilians whose families may just have been killed by a stray American bomb (so-called collateral damage)?  I could go on.

I'm not trying to start an argument (I was told to watch my fucking tone) (ooops) but I'd simply like to impart the possibility that one's view of torture may be different from others' views.  I'm not sure that there are any formal, all-inclusive descriptions of acceptable handling methods, but if not, can't we agree that this whole issue is subjective and very gray?  And if this is all in the realm of possibility, can we then understand why the current political "torture" talk scenario, accusations, and witch hunting is so nebulous?

---

by: E. Redding @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 16:29:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The methods that were part of the "enhanced" program (0.00 / 0)

are not in the "grey" area.

The proof of that is that photos are being withheld, tapes of interrogations were destroyed, and nobody wants to deal with the details of the "program" publicly. Cheney's demand for memos to 'verify' that real intel was the product of the "enhanced" methods to justify their use puts another nail in the coffin of "it's illegal".  The more Cheney talks, the more you have to be aware that it was/is illegal and Cheney knows it. Even Liz Cheney saying that "enhanced" means, including extraordinary rendition, were not used to get WMD info to "justify" invading Iraq. And you can add another shovel of scheisse on top of that: The contractors did it.

Your examples aren't relevant. Give it up. If the Abu Ghraib guards were guilty, why aren't those who developed and authorized the program that went even further guilty?

Let us not forget Rummy in this discussion. Especially since you brought up 'collateral damage'.

http://man.style.com/gg/featur...

The Rummy who withheld a fleet of 'rescue' helicopters based in FL from NOLA after Katrina over a turf war until Gen Honore was brought on board.

---

by: deMeme @ Sun May 17, 2009 at 19:22:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Key word: "Subjective" (0.00 / 0)

First, I think your link, posted above, is broken.

About your message, I respect your views but I don't think you understood mine.  No point in fleshing this out any more.  And I believe you answered my question whether there are any formal, all-inclusive descriptions of acceptable handling methods: no.

---

by: E. Redding @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 17:01:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

there are good reasons to keep things secret besides having used torture.  But, on the whole, the honest need for secrecy was the first casualty of the Bush Administration.

---

by: ThurmanHart @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 20:56:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Definition of torture (0.00 / 0)

As noted in the UN Convention against Torture:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means 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.

Simply put, it is inflicting pain or suffering for the purpose of inflicting pain or suffering.  It is the purpose that defines torture.  Yelling at someone?  That's a stretch.  Blindfolding someone who is afraid of insects and telling him that he must be still or a poisonous insect will kill him instantly - that's another story, isn't it?  So I don't really think it is nebulous after all.  Being homesick because you are a prisoner is not torture.  Being told that your family is being raped and murdered is.

Nor do I think it is "witch hunting."  Witches do not exist, and searching for them is simply a process of defining a crime to fit the evidence.  That is most certainly not what is going on here.

---

by: ThurmanHart @ Mon May 18, 2009 at 20:54:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes and no.... (0.00 / 0)

Quick comment: The UN Convention against Torture fairly defines it, and has its place in The Hague, but my point has been that we shouldn't be litigating our own people when there are no definitive American "torture standards."  I wish there were.  But to prosecute those who simply passed on their professional views of what is legal (like water-boarding) without legal "definitive American torture standards" is almost scary.  Besides, I'm just agreeing with Obama -- good enuf 4 me!

---

by: E. Redding @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 16:55:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter (4.00 / 1)

who you agree with, or vice versa.  I honestly don't know why Obama's position on anything would change mine.

The problem with your statement is that there  is a "legal definitive American torture standard."  It's in any of half a dozen international treaties that we are signatories to - treaties that were duly signed and ratified.  Your argument just doesn't hold water.

---

by: ThurmanHart @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 20:23:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]