Comments on: The Challenge That Went Unanswered

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 23 May 2009 12:22:31 +0000

kroner: Perhaps you've forgotten that right after 9-11, most Americans were expecting a "second wave" attack at any moment. The anthrax attacks in October, just one month after the 9-11 attacks, sent all of America into a panic that we were getting a bio-terrorism second wave attack.

I can well understand the attitude of the Bushies that we didn't have time to "build a rapport" with captured terrorists, especially since they're religious fanatics who might never establish a rapport. And that we had to find out ASAP what else the enemy was planning. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told interrogators about a plot targeting the West Coast. Would you have preferred that the attack take place while FBI interrogators are still trying to "establish a rapport"?

We'll never know if the FBI could have found out as much without waterboarding as with it.

But now the onus is on YOU.

Now that waterboarding has been banned, the onus is on YOU to keep America safe without it.

God help you if you fail.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Sat, 23 May 2009 12:13:13 +0000

kroner: "....the reputation of the country, which is precisely what fuels terrorist movements."

This is a liberal canard, with NO EVIDENCE. Again you seem to think that terrorists attack us because of our flaws, not because of our virtues. That's flat wrong.

What was wrong with the reputation of America in the 1990s, when we had the first WTC bombing (1993), the Khobar Towers bombing (1996), and the U.S.S. Cole bombing (2000)? The 9-11 plotters were plotting for most of a year; what was wrong with our reputation then?

I've read Osama bin Laden's declaration of jihad against America; have you? There's nothing in it about America's reputation. Even Israel got only a minor mention. Rather, his main gripe was the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia (his native land) after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Osama wanted to kick America out of the Middle East entirely.

But why did we station U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia? Because Saddam had conquered Kuwait, a sovereign member of the United Nations, and therefore entitled to United Nations protection. (I notice how liberals tout the U.N. all the time, only up to the point when it requires military force to enforce U.N. resolutions--then they scuttle away from it.)

Honestly, I don't know where you're getting your ideas. These radical Islamists believe they're in a WAR against America--a jihad. And wars are fought for geopolitical reasons. The Islamists are nostalgic for the Middle Ages, when the Islamic Empire stretched as far as Andalusia (now Spain). And they want to restore it.

By: barker13

barker13 — Sat, 23 May 2009 10:50:40 +0000

Re: Kroner; 10:40 AM --

"Whether [waterboarding and other EIT's] were effective at getting information is only a small part of discussion over whether they were good policy."

That's YOUR opinion. (*SHRUG*)

My opinion... while of course there are multiple questions to consider, "effectiveness" is a KEY question.

Again... it deeply troubles me that you and people like you would support suppressing and obscuring key bits of evidence that would help the public to make an informed judgment concerning their support or opposition to such techniques.

I don't know, Kroner... my "default position" is always openness and honesty; let the chips fall where they may. What you're supporting is manipulative in a profoundly undemocratic way. (*SIGH*)

"To show that torture was effective, it would have to be shown that it was more effective than conventional interrogation methods..."

We can debate "effectiveness" till the cows come home - and again, I'm for allowing people to see the evidence backing each case regardless of which "side" benefits - but you're deliberately leaving out the issue of TIMELINESS.

(*SHRUG*)

Listen... Kroner... I get it; you won't change your mind no matter what the evidence shows. Perhaps if Obama did a 180 you'd do likewise, but absent that, your mind is made up and the last thing you want is for evidence to come to light which might weaken "your side's" position.

"The only information we have on the subject is the opinions of the experts, but overwhelmingly the opinion of the experts, including our expert interrogators in the FBI, is that coercive techniques are less effective than our usual program, unless what you're going for are false confessions."

See...? There ya go again. (*SIGH*) Your version of reality just doesn't jibe with... er... actual reality.

We've gone over this before. (*HEADACHE*) Tenet... Scheuer... even Obama's National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said in a memo, "High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods [i.e. waterboarding and other EIT's] were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

(Remember, Kroner...? It was in all the papers a few weeks back...) (*SNORT*)

Here's the deal: I'm not willing to misstate reality in order to try and make a point. To put this as... er... delicately and... er... diplomatically as possible... apparently you are. (*SIGH*)

BILL

By: barker13

barker13 — Sat, 23 May 2009 10:24:43 +0000

Re: Kroner; 10:21 AM --

"barker13: I absolutely agree with you that Cheney is not the VP anymore."

That's good! Baby step, Kroner... baby steps! (*WINK*)

"...Obama has the right not to comply with Cheney..."

Yes, yes... no one denies his lawful authority. The point is that it's pretty clear his misusing his authority for partisan political gain. (*SHRUG*)

Again, Kroner... one more time... Cheney was at least intellectually consistent in wanting NONE of the info released. Obama, on the other hand, seems to be playing politics with the info.

"I mean, if I somehow had a say over what got declassified and the administration decided to declassify Cheney's memos I certainly wouldn't stop them."

Well that's good... (*SNORT*)... but Obama's apparent ill-intentions aren't negated by your theoretical good intentions. The point is, Obama is NOT "playing fair" with transparency, he's politicizing intelligence classification for partisan purposes. (Or at least that's how it looks.)

"All I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense to criticize the administration for not always doing what Cheney wants..."

(*GUFFAW*)

Kroner. Why waste my time or even your own building easily torn apart strawman arguments? We're talking a SPECIFIC request, not Obama "surrendering the presidency" to Cheney. Com'on... you're better than this. (*SIGH*)

"I'll concede that my fear of the public being unable to treat this issue rationally..."

Translation: If "your side" has to "win by hook or crook" so be it. (*PURSED LIPS*)

Kroner. Your position is dishonorable. I'm supporting getting at the truth, regardless of whether the truth "helps" or "hurts" one "side" or the other. You're coming at this from the angle of supporting a partisan agenda and to hell with the evidence.

(*SIGH*) Depressing. Very depressing.

BILL

By: kroner

kroner — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:02:33 +0000

No, you’re right. As long as Obama is in charge of making the determination of what memos are released, we can only hope that he’s making his best judgments based on national security, but we can’t know for certain that politics has no influence — just like with every other president. The administration will always claim that the motivations are security and its critics will always claim that the motivations are political. The administration’s best course to assuage those accusations would be to release a lot more information than it has, and it may still do so, but there’s no way to completely erase them. Obama seems perfectly happy to say it was a huge mistake and we’ll never do it again and move on. However Cheney and friends are still pushing the idea that it was not a mistake, and people on the left are still pushing that it was not just a mistake a but a very serious crime. If either of those sides wants the kind of accounting they’re looking for, then they’re going to need a way to insure politics is out of the equation of uncovering information. I think the only way to do that would be to put someone impartial in charge which is the idea behind an investigation.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Fri, 22 May 2009 16:06:54 +0000

I thought liberals wanted a truth commission….so why not declassify the memos Cheney asks for? If you’re right about coercive interrogations not producing valuable intelligence then you should have nothing to fear. Perhaps the memos will also show what other interrogation technqiues were used (and did not work). The POTUS can easily declassify these memos. It’s clear he doesn’t want any evidence that may be favorable to the opposing argument. That’s hardly a more “open” administration.

By: kroner

kroner — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:40:03 +0000

sinz54: Although I'm willing to argue with you that the fact that these techniques are "icky" is not something that should be brushed aside. Whether they were effective at getting information is only a small part of discussion over whether they were good policy. Their "ickiness" was extremely harmful to the reputation of the country, which is precisely what fuels terrorist movements.

But that's not what I happened to be talking about in my previous posts here. I was speaking purely about the calculus of getting the most useful information out of detainees. To show that torture was effective, it would have to be shown that it was more effective than conventional interrogation methods would have been and not less so. (Keep in mind that this is either/or. You can't waterboard someone and then build a rapport, and these detainees were tortured before the FBI interrogators had sufficient opportunity to use traditional methods.) As I said before, that's very difficult to prove in any specific case, since we can't know what could've been. The only information we have on the subject is the opinions of the experts, but overwhelmingly the opinion of the experts, including our expert interrogators in the FBI, is that coercive techniques are less effective than our usual program, unless what you're going for are false confessions.

That means the onus is on Cheney and his crew to prove that torture didn't just water down the intelligence we could've been getting, in addition to soiling the reputation of the United States. But I'm not sure how that's possible since as I've argued, merely showing that torture produced some information is not enough to show its superiority.

By: kroner

kroner — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:21:33 +0000

barker13: I absolutely agree with you that Cheney is not the VP anymore. That’s precisely why he doesn’t get to pick. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Obama has the right not to comply with Cheney on this, which is why it doesn’t make sense to attack him for it.I mean, if I somehow had a say over what got declassified and the administration decided to declassify Cheney’s memos I certainly wouldn’t stop them. All I’m saying is that it doesn’t make sense to criticize the administration for not always doing what Cheney wants, especially when it looks to be a purely political calculation that won’t move the substantive debate forward (in my opinion). I’ll concede that my fear of the public being unable to treat this issue rationally probably shouldn’t color the debate over declassifying information.

By: barker13

barker13 — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:09:17 +0000

Re: Kroner; 8:04 PM --

"Here's the main reason I'm unenthusiastic about the administration complying with Cheney's request."

Because doing so with lay the evidence on the table and (I'm guessing) such evidence would show that Cheney's right...???

(*SNORT*)

"We already know basically what the memos will say."

We do...??? OK. For the sake of argument let's say we do. Then by all means let's add SPECIFICS to the "basics" so that we can place the info in context.

(*SHRUG*)

"They'll list information that was gathered through torture, some of which it could be argued potentially saved American lives."

Umm... yeah. And once the EVIDENCE is revealed the ARGUMENTS can be considered from an evidentiary standpoint.

Kroner... let Cheney - heck, let Obama - both make their best cases based upon the evidence. We're the jury. You and me! I want to see the evidence so I can weigh it in line with Cheney's position vs. Obama's position. Why you're apparently reluctant to open up this evidence to "jury" consideration I simply can't fathom. (Unless of course you fear the evidence will hurt the position you personally identify with in terms of which policies you support and which you oppose REGARDLESS of evidence of effectiveness or lack there of.)

"[Cheney's] not asking for the memos to be released to make a well reasoned argument, he's asking for them to sow confusion into the public debate, and it would probably be effective."

So you say... but to me it sounds like partisanship speaking, not a desire to get at the truth. It seems to me you've made up your mind and your position is basically, "don't show me the facts and don't let anyone else examine the evidence either."

Kroner. I really hate to say all this. You seem like one of the more reasonable posters here. Still... if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

(*SHRUG*)

BILL

By: barker13

barker13 — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:54:10 +0000

Re: Kroner; 4:51 PM --

"I'm also sure that there must be boxes and boxes of classified memos, so the fact that Cheney can cherry pick a couple..."

(*SIGH*) (*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

One more frigg'n time...

Today is May 22, 2009. Obama is President. Bush isn't. Nor is Cheney VP. The new guy's name is Biden. That's B*I*D*E*N. Biden.

OBAMA... PRESIDENT Obama... would be the one doing the declassifying.

Kroner... earth to Kroner... the only one with the power to "cherry pick" would be PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Are you with me...???

(*SNORT*)

Kroner... indeed all of you reading this... put partisanship aside for just a moment. If I'm coming on a bit strong here please forgive me, but it's so damned frustrating to have to deal with a mentality that seemingly doesn't recognize that Bush and Cheney are out of office and that Obama is President and thus talk of Cheney "cherry picking" is simply... OFF THE WALL!

BILL