Happy New Year’s Eve to all of our blog family. We will be spending New Year’s Eve at home this year — preparing for our annual New Year’s party on January 1st. I will be toasting to everyone on our extended blog family.
Tonight Leslie and I will share our traditional bottle of Schramsberg Sparkling wine. This is my wedding anniversary. Thirteen years ago, Leslie and I eloped on New Year’s Eve after eight years years of dating. (There is an ongoing dispute over calculating the event, I insist that this is our 22nd anniversary but Leslie insists on not counting the eight years of dating). We always celebrate with a bottle of Schramsberg. This was the bottle I bought after we got hitched at Alexandria City Hall. I used my house school ring to seal the deal.
The kids made it to midnight and watched the painful display of Anderson Cooper trying to restrain Kathy Griffin. It turns out the Mayan Apocalypse merely predicted Griffin’s appearance on New Year’s Eve. This included her attempt to throw cash into the crowd – a moronic idea that had to be physically stopped by Anderson to avert a disaster. If this was Griffin’s idea of a joke, it came across as an unhinged, unfunny person trying to fill time. The kids insisted that we turn to NBC instead.
We are expecting 200 friends to share in Wasabi Bloody Marys) and our traditional soup: The Bowl of the Wife of Kit Carson Soup. I have smoked two turkeys to put into the soup. I also have enough Wasabi to light up Tokyo.
Everyone drive carefully and have fun. I will be giving a toast to our entire blog family tonight (and, of course, my marriage).
“Fact” from politicians. When did you drink the kool-aid? I’ve seen you rant often about lying politicians[righteously], is this some parallel universe where pols are noble and truthful. Or..do you “believe” them when their “facts” comport w/ your “beliefs?” Again, until you folks have read the book by the guy man who ran these interrogations we’re not dealing w/ the same info. And..didn’t some of these pols sign off on these interrogations? Or, are you going to quote the Nancy Pelosi/Professor Irwin Corey explanation on why she signed off on them? That’s a classic..remember it?
NickS,
What is one man’s analysis ot the whole, which includes position taking on a multitude of forces and factors when we compare the 6,000 pages of CIA documents anallyzed by Senate Int. comm. resources, et al.
No question. Why? Because of the documents and analysis was greater when done by Congress with our savviset intelligence oversight people chiefing the job Torture or not is essentialll a neutral question except to those who support it.
To call Senators for liars on this evaluation and public opinions is foolish I believe.
Congressional investigations, like those of commissions, are prone to major discrepancies, hiding of factss, polishing of tartnished reputations. etc.
So I would at least like to see a couple more books and articles before I decide to support this committee report. But the deniers ie senators. are not protecting, only the latest bit of CIA propaganda. Can’t upi smell the odor. Cooked propaganda. Time for a re-read of the propaganda series.
“And, as stated previously, I believe beyond a reasonable doubt, this produced critical intelligence.”
Belief.
“Instead, the CIA learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program.”
Fact.
HumpinDog and I just got a job offer from the nearby state prison to be guide dogs for two blind inmates. The Governor was gonna pardon the two inmates because they are difficult to take care of but then she heard of HumpinDog and our dogpac blind guy services and hired us instead. The Governor’s term is up. So, ring in the new year in a joint forty hours a week with no over time. I will report back as to how it is in there.
NickS,
Stop insulting, it weakens your capability to think and argue.
Further, Nick and others.
We, ie CIA, have known where bin Laden was since we, yes we, our private ex officio decision team (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush) decided we would need a reason to war on terrorism and war to get Iraq’s oil secured.
It gave us the Patriot Act, the first 181 law changes needed to persecute as needed the American people. And all of Congress voted aye after at best two hours to read the bill after distribution. There were two nays or abstentions.
CIA knew where bin Laden was when he was in the caves. That is why a standdown order was given to our hunt teams when we got too close to him.
The move to Pakistan had major reason in his kidney sickness so dialysis was needed, available there at a hospital, and eventually a kidney transplant from a relative (if we made humane decisions re donors.!).
Why have we not taken him earlier? He was OUR operative from before the first call for Al Qaeda, and we needed him to point to as the bogey man; and in turn his influence to convict Saddam falsely, as it turned out for WMDs and nuke ambitions.
Nebulous, dispersed missions, the great sin of 9/11 was put on his back, with the aid of Saudi Arabia in team recruitment for 9/11, and support here in the States..
SO FORGET THE SEARCH FOR BIN LADEN AS BEING AN INTELLIGENCE BREAKTHROUGH. WE KNEW WHERE HE WAS AND WHAT HE WAS PLANNING. OUR LOSSES? DID WE APPROVE THEM?
YOU DAMN RIGHT WE DID, EXPENDABLE PAWNS IN A GREAT WAR.
ASK ANY GENERAL WHAT HE DOES ROUTINELY. Commit men to certain death. LBJ knew that when he asked for and got the Bay of Tonkin incident. Read Daniel Ellsberg’s book for the true story on that one.
Ther all lied, full of contempt for the press, the public, and the Congress.
TORTURE? SAVE IT FOR OUR OWN TRAITORS. YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE.
Gene, How many times do I need to agree w/ you on the illegality, unreliability and immorality of torture?
Again, The book Hard Measures explains the parsed statement from the 3 esteemed US Senators. They got from the Sheik and others the fact that this unnamed man whom they knew about was the courier. It did tie in w/ prior intelligence and then was developed further subsequent intelligence. But what they got from the Sheik was the key. Now..Rodriquez has a vested interest[he really comes across as a bureaucrat] as do the Senators. But, if you read the book, and I read it skeptically, and then read other accounts, it all ties together. To think that any report coming from US Senators is pure is naive. And, we all know how emotional a topic this is w/ McCain. And, I DEEPLY respect that. Folks opposed to torture are afraid the fact that in this case it helped are rightly concerned it lends validation. Although I am a member of those opposed to torture, I am not fearful of the truth. And, as stated previously, I believe beyond a reasonable doubt, this produced critical intelligence. God rest our souls!
On the topic of eloping. HumpinDog elopes about twice a week, always with a different dog. Always comes back with his tail between his legs.
And what Tony said.
“(CNN) — On Wednesday, three senior U.S. senators sent Michael Lynton, the CEO of Sony Pictures, a letter about “Zero Dark Thirty,” the much-discussed new movie about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, which described the film as “grossly inaccurate and misleading.”
In the letter, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, D-California, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, and Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, expressed their “deep disappointment” in the movie’s depiction of CIA officers torturing prisoners, which “credits these detainees with providing critical lead information” about the courier who led the CIA to bin Laden’s hiding place in northern Pakistan.
The senators point out that the filmmakers of “Zero Dark Thirty” open the movie with the words that it is “based on first-hand accounts of actual events.” The film then goes on, the senators say, to give the clear implication “that the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques were effective in eliciting important information related to a courier for Usama Bin Laden.”
The senators write that this is not supported by the facts: “We have reviewed CIA records and know that this is incorrect.”
Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to sign off on the findings of its three-year study of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, during the course of which the committee’s staff reviewed more than 6 million pages of records about the program.
Based on the findings of that review, Sens. Feinstein and Levin had released a statement eight months ago that said, “The CIA did not first learn about the existence of the Usama Bin Laden courier from CIA detainees subjected to coercive interrogation techniques. Nor did the CIA discover the courier’s identity from detainees subjected to coercive techniques. … Instead, the CIA learned of the existence of the courier, his true name and location through means unrelated to the CIA detention and interrogation program.”
In their letter to Sony, the three senators write, “(W)ith the release of Zero Dark Thirty, the filmmakers and your production studio are perpetuating the myth that torture is effective. … We believe that you have an obligation to state that the role of torture in the hunt for Usama Bin Laden is not based on the facts.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/opinion/bergen-senators-torture-film/index.html
nick,
There is nothing emotional about hard science and legal fact nor is there anything emotional about wanting criminals who violate the Constitution and Federal law – no matter the outcome or their rationale for doing so – to be held accountable for their crimes. There is no mitigation that make torture okay or legal.
DonS, In regards to wanting to do something productive, why don’t you read up un the specifics of this interrogation. Not the scientific theoretical, not the moral or political, the actual facts on this case. I’ve read extensively and I know a lot about interrogations. I believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, these interrogations were critical in finding bin Laden. We probably agree on most everything else.
@ 3:05 – I “DON’T respond” – sorry for typo
Dyslexia notwithstanding: “Here’s my hope. The movie shows valuable intelligence was obtained but it left a black mark in our history. Because that’s the truth.” You said it; you endorsed the hope. It’s all yours, unless you don’t think that signals your approval.
And, DonS, I wrote in caps that nobody here has viewed the movie..it has NOT been released. Your condescension apparently masks dyslexia.
NickS,
I still believe that torture does not produce as A RULE reliable truthful and valuable intelligence.
We have not had a loyal and honest DCIA since its inception. They see only to their own advantages or at best the organization’s, which means greater independence from central control via WH.
An obvious CIA scandal is HW Bush using his time there to establish official contacts with DCIA in Saudi, his counterpart. He offered more than intelligence cooperation. He also established channels to the Royal Family via the bin Laden family head, and Mahfous the head of the private bank who took care of private royal money. He was a master user of other people and organizations.
This was before Carter, who kicked out HW Bush.
I am personally convinced that the CIA with JCS and and with both the candidates Reagan and Bush advice and consent were instigator of the failure in the rescue mission in the desert. Such a simple measure to have reserve helicopters and even Hercs in support. How do you get so many people out as were held as hostages. A mission intended to fail. The most effective politically.
See Bay of Pigs for further ex. The CIA and JCS had thought to put JFK in a corner, he said hell no to expanding it to include Ámerican forces when the exile forces failed.
Nick, I ain’t engaging in the “it would be helpful to me” game because I’m just not that interested in adding fuel to your particular current distraction. I don’t mean to be insulting. I just do respond to that sort of discussion or discussants. I’m might tend to get chary 😉
DonS, You could have been more succint in your condescension.
“Because that’s the truth”. Nick, that’s just downright provocative, unless you are talking about the tiny little truth encompassed in the universe defined by your interpretation of the movie you viewed.Allowing yourself a verbal escape hatch as it were, or cause for further verbalizing.
You sure seem to lack communication skills, as I think I’ve mentioned before in the context of incredible presumption. Certainly not an encouragement for me to engage.
From my point of view, the reason we make things illegal and punishable is because they work, but we believe it is wrong to allow gain in that manner.
Theft and fraud both work as a means of gaining wealth. Murder works as a means of gaining dominance or eliminating competition or commanding fear and obedience. Slavery works as a means of reducing labor cost. Unsafe workplaces work as a means of reducing production costs.
If some practice doesn’t “work,” we generally do not have to outlaw it.
We outlaw torture because we do not care if it works, it is a violation of human rights. Just like other things we have outlawed, like vigilante justice, there is the chance that the threat of punishment will occasionally deter action and thereby cause more harm than good, but we have collectively chosen to set a rule without exception and live with any negative consequences that occur because we believe the rule overall prevents more harm than it causes.
The excuse that torture can often produce valid intelligence is not in any way a reason to allow it, just like the excuse that summarily lynching a horse thief can often prevent future horse thievery is not a valid argument to dispense with evidence, defense and a trial.
We could simply imprison or execute everybody charged with a crime, and that would certainly cut down on crime. But we do not want to live in that world, so we demand proof of guilt. That demand means, as every lawyer knows, that some guilty people go free to commit new crimes and harm other people, but that harm, including deaths, rapes and thefts, is the unfortunate price we must pay to live in a world where guilt must be proven.
The same principle applies to torture. We may be pretty certain there is intelligence to be had from a suspect that would save lives and prevent harm. But we must work to obtain that intelligence by other means, or work to prevent catastrophe by other means, and if we fail, that is the unfortunate price we must pay to to live in a world where humans have rights and torture is not used.
All of us, men, women and children, must be soldiers in this sense, that we must endure the greater risk to our lives and property that is caused by letting the guilty go unpunished and commit further crimes and harm, in order to preserve our own human rights, Constitutional rights and liberty.
Darren, thank you so much. Kev Thompson is a treasure. In keeping with the occasion of a certain anniversary as well as the new year, here is Kev doing another one of Robert Burn’s memorable love songs. The occasion shown in the video is when Kev Thompson’s beautiful daughter got married about three years ago. My Love is Like a Red, Red Rose.
This one is especially for Jonathan and Leslie, as well as anyone else here who has loved deeply: