tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post2584705627632225748..comments2023-06-19T04:16:51.117-07:00Comments on buggieboy: Speaking of "Patriots"J.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09027687985747914971noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-26953711382953685592008-07-02T08:46:00.000-07:002008-07-02T08:46:00.000-07:00Here's an article with some relevance...July 2, 20...Here's an article with some relevance...<BR/><BR/>July 2, 2008<BR/><A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html" REL="nofollow">CHINA INSPIRED INTERROGATIONS AT GUANTANAMO</A><BR/>By Scott Shane<BR/><BR/>[ article includes links for pdf documents ]<BR/><BR/><BR/>Publius,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the kinds words... high praise coming from you.<BR/><BR/><BR/>bg,<BR/><BR/>Well OK, you think about it -- and I hope we can continue this conversation -- but I'm going to add some comments...<BR/><BR/>I get what you say about this stuff being somewhat outside the operational concerns of troops in the field etc -- that's why units have Staff Judge Advocates, who, as I understand it, are trained in the Law of War. I also understand that LoW issues aren't that high in the day-to-day concerns of a staff JA. The picture I get is they do a lot of stuff analogous to what lawyers do in corporations, PLUS act as the local "district attorney" and "public defender". That's a hell of a job description if you think about it.<BR/><BR/>OTOH, JAG corps has a hierarchy just like the rest of the military, and that includes a considerable amount of institutional expertise on Law-of-War issues. <BR/><BR/>The Geneva Order issued from the White House to the VP and SecDef among other cabinet-level officials. It went down the chain of command from there. You seem to have some direct awareness of the order, and for the order to have effect, it would obviously have to be communicated all the way down the line to anyone dealing with detentions or interrogations.<BR/><BR/>At every step of the way, everyone involved in communicating that order had a military duty to do so clearly, and everyone on the receiving end had a military duty to understand it clearly. That doesn't require everyone involved in the process to do an analysis like the one I've been elaborating here, but it does require somebody in the chain to do it at some point in order to give the folks on the front lines practical guidance consistent with the order.<BR/><BR/>So my problem with all of that is simple: there isn't any way to develop practical guidance consistent with the order because the order fails to state any definite object. What it boils down to is "we will obey Geneva except when we violate it" or "we will treat detainees humanely except when we treat them inhumanely."<BR/><BR/>That's not any sort of an order, it's fraudulent BS being used as an alibi for war crimes, and anyone who actually attempted to figure out what that order requires in practical terms could not possibly conclude that it was anything else. <BR/><BR/>It follows that in practical terms, nobody much bothered trying. The specific procedures were approved at the highest levels, and the order was issued as a magical incantation to bless them with the appearance of legitimacy. In short, the order was itself intended to provide cover for committing war crimes against prisoners. That's equally true of the PMO and the two AUMF's, it just isn't so transparently obvious in those documents as it is in the Geneva Order, which is nonsensical on it's face.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-24867410149876443672008-07-01T13:39:00.000-07:002008-07-01T13:39:00.000-07:00Well Publius, you're still your usual quotable sel...Well Publius, you're still your usual quotable self.<BR/><BR/>8-)<BR/><BR/>Some sad Army news today, a veteran known more for his portrayal of an Air Force general and other officers died a couple of days ago.<BR/><BR/>RIP, Don S. Davis, Captain of the US Army.<BR/><BR/>And commanding officer of StarGate SG 1.<BR/><BR/>..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-83195842680094254342008-06-30T20:58:00.000-07:002008-06-30T20:58:00.000-07:00"Publius, if you are still in the Meade area, we n..."Publius, if you are still in the Meade area, we need to play some golf some day and swap stories, it sounds like we have some shared experiences."<BR/><BR/>Bg, I regret to so inform you, but I'm now in Hilton Head, SC, and I avoid the D.C. area like the plague. I was around Meade a couple of times last summer and hooked up with some old reprobates who still work for a living; we met at the Golden Flame, a place I've been going to off and on for more than 30 years. Also played a round of golf at Meade. I understand both courses will close soon, to be replaced by two new ones.<BR/><BR/>I don't like D.C. I don't like the traffic and I don't like what's going on in the government. While I was there last year, it was suggested that I might want to re-up with the boys; I declined. And, then in the past month, I've gotten two calls from old friends. One guy wanted me to move to D.C. to do something. No. The other guy, California-based, and a guy I'll do anything for, might want me to travel there occasionally to represent him. That I'll do, although I hope he doesn't need me. <BR/><BR/>I would like to hook up with you, Bg. We do have a lot in common and I think you're on the right track. If you get to South Carolina, look me up.<BR/><BR/>Basil, I've been remiss in not sending some good words in your direction. You've made some posts on Intel-dump, and your latest here is excellent. Good to see you're still out there, old friend.<BR/><BR/>Charly, you are outdoing yourself on this thread. The link to Lieber is wonderful. I hadn't seen that in years. You are a great researcher and an invaluable asset. Thank you very much for your diligence and dedication.<BR/><BR/>Bg, the Lieber Code has been around forever (obviously). You won't see it at the War College or anywhere else in the military. I had to find it in a library years ago; now it's on the Internet. There is some amazing history about our military out there, but you won't get it from "official" sources. Lieber tells you there is nothing new under the sun. Lieber tells you just how long our military has grappled with these issues and how seriously our military has taken them. And how it's generally always striven to do the right thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-19148888373540449232008-06-30T16:09:00.000-07:002008-06-30T16:09:00.000-07:00Charley,I can tell you this for certain. In 14 yea...Charley,<BR/><BR/>I can tell you this for certain. In 14 years, I've never seen any of these definitions or really had this level of dialogue about it (maybe that is what they teach at the War College). Let me digest and I will give you my take.<BR/><BR/>Of note, my War College statement is important, because no Company Grade officer or NCO gets this training. And in this type of fight, guess who makes a majority of the decisions on day to day stuff?<BR/><BR/>MTFbghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08514579328273641457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-57205007537714015452008-06-30T09:16:00.000-07:002008-06-30T09:16:00.000-07:00One further note:My own analysis of this point is ...One further note:<BR/><BR/>My own analysis of this point is essentially linguistic, and begins with two premises:<BR/><BR/>1. It is a fundamental breach of military duty to either issue or obey an unlawful order.<BR/><BR/>2. It is a fundamental breach of military discipline to act on an order which you do not understand. <BR/><BR/><BR/>The first is clear. The second simply observes that you can't do a thing unless you know what it is you're supposed to do; and if you don't understand an order, you're supposed to ask for a clarification. <BR/><BR/>For example, if you're ordered to attack some particular target, but the identification of it is ambiguous, it might be the case you would make your best guess if you knew the attack was expected in support of further operations which couldn't be delayed or recalled; but in that case, you are acting on the part of the order you do understand in the belief the risk of attacking the wrong target is out-weighed by the risks of not attacking at all; in an alternative, the intent of the attack might be diversionary, leading you to suppose the precise target didn't matter.<BR/><BR/>What I'm driving at here is how you as a serving officer analyze that order in practical terms, and I'm especially interested in any disagreement or elaboration you might have regarding those two premises.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-56001182871667026502008-06-30T09:08:00.000-07:002008-06-30T09:08:00.000-07:00bg,OK, that agrees with my basic analysis, except ...bg,<BR/><BR/>OK, that agrees with my basic analysis, except for one detail: "military necessity" is the caveat-- <BR/><BR/>Geneva expresses the rule(s); "military necessity" expresses the exception(s); and while it is possible to disagree about specific provisions of Geneva, the Army has an established understanding of Geneva which is clearly stated in the FM on the Laws of War, and that view can be assumed in this context.<BR/><BR/>So the question goes to "military necessity", which is a term of art dating back to the <A HREF="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/liebercode.htm" REL="nofollow">Lieber Code</A> (General Orders No. 100, US War Department, 1863.04.24), arts. 14-16:<BR/><BR/>"14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.<BR/><BR/>"15. Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to the hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the Army, and of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.<BR/><BR/>"16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy; and, in general, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace unnecessarily difficult."<BR/><BR/><BR/>The DoD online dictionary gives a concise modern definition:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/m/03423.html" REL="nofollow">military necessity</A><BR/><BR/>"(DOD, NATO) The principle whereby a belligerent has the right to apply any measures which are required to bring about the successful conclusion of a military operation and which are not forbidden by the laws of war."<BR/><BR/>So with that additional context, I want to ask again: what is your understanding of the Geneva Order?<BR/><BR/>[ Aside:<BR/><BR/>Lieber is a figure who deserves to be better remembered. He was a first-rate legal scholar during the 19th century who taught at the U of South Carolina and Columbia and wrote many influential books on the law. He was also a Prussian from Berlin who served as a volunteer in the infantry under Blucher during the Waterloo campaign, where his regiment was in the thick of the worst fighting at Ligny. He got through the major battles OK but was severely wounded in the subsequent mop-up operations. He later fought in the Greek War of Independence. He also wrote an account of his experiences at Waterloo that's well worth reading...<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=0sQiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA151" REL="nofollow">PERSONAL REMINISCES OF THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO</A> by Francis Lieber ]Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-74314941124068070812008-06-30T09:04:00.000-07:002008-06-30T09:04:00.000-07:00BG said:"At the time, the precedent was set that r...BG said:<BR/>"At the time, the precedent was set that religious extremists, insurgents, etc, were not uniformed combatants and did not take part in the Geneva Conventions, therefore, those rules did not apply."<BR/><BR/>This is not exactly true since the Khat fueled shitheads we found in Somalia met your description. Lt. Gen. Johnston's lawyer came up with a different conclusion on their status. In short, we did not warehouse them....Different strokes, different folks, We had enough willing HUMINT sources to do the job.Fasteddiezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10431990022248470187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-37019187935913376122008-06-30T04:35:00.000-07:002008-06-30T04:35:00.000-07:00"My question is simple: what does that order mean ..."My question is simple: what does that order mean to you?"<BR/><BR/>I see two things that stand out:<BR/><BR/>Define military necessity. That makes it sound like the military can decide when it is important to take an action (and what is or is not appropriate). This, in my mind, is dangerous because we (the military) tend to think everything is a military necessity. Every time we rolled someone up, there was always that "24" feeling where we had to get information from the detainee know, or someone could be killed tomorrow. This is no excuse, but as a military leader, there is an overwhelming urge to do whatever it takes to protect the lives of the service members you are charged to protect. I've known commanders who say "damn the consequences" as long as those consequences do not result in the death of any of his men. <BR/><BR/>IAW Geneva Conventions: This the caveat, and almost like the subliminal license to do what needs to be done. The job of an Army (or any military) lawyer is to advise the commander what is legal or ethical. The unspoken job is to find a way to help legally justify what the commander wants to do. At the time, the precedent was set that religious extremists, insurgents, etc, were not uniformed combatants and did not take part in the Geneva Conventions, therefore, those rules did not apply.<BR/><BR/>That is how I took that order when I received it.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08514579328273641457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-11808112912887677732008-06-29T20:52:00.000-07:002008-06-29T20:52:00.000-07:00Well Basil, I did mention my agreement with Barbar...Well Basil, I did mention my agreement with Barbara Lee and Russ Feingold on the merits, and they haven't exactly minced words.<BR/><BR/>But democracy is fundamentally a decision-making process, and regardless of the pros or cons on any particular issue, it seems clear the most basic problem we have is simply that the process itself isn't functioning well. Do I suppose electing Obama will instantly restore optimum performance?<BR/><BR/>Nope --- I'm just a old programmer who knows spaghetti-code when I see it... and I know the cure for it too.<BR/><BR/>We have real work to do, and given the last 4,000 years of history, I'm not making any big bets on perfection any time soon. But you can't solve a problem that you don't understand, can't understand anything if you won't even try or don't have the skills, and it's hard to imagine how anyone can be confused about the corruption and incompetence of the Bush administration and the Republicans after six and half years of idiotic lying BS and demented murderous crimes. Confusion, dishonesty, and delusions are not a solution for anything.<BR/><BR/>I believe Obama is a good man who is genuinely open to reason, and that trumps every issue, because what matters the most is to restore the integrity of the process. The choice in the coming elections is a choice between two-worlds -- the demented neo-fascist loony-bin of Republican war criminals were stewing in right now, or one where something better is possible.<BR/><BR/>It's a no-brainer.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-72039753576775805202008-06-29T19:45:00.000-07:002008-06-29T19:45:00.000-07:00bg,Well that's nice, but meanwhile, I have a quest...bg,<BR/><BR/>Well that's nice, but meanwhile, I have a question for you. On 2002.02.07 Bush issues the following order:<BR/><BR/>"I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."<BR/><BR/>http://www.pegc.us/archive/White_House/bush_memo_20020207_ed.pdf<BR/><BR/>That order remains in effect today. <BR/><BR/>My question is simple: what does that order mean to you?Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-80335781716238340202008-06-29T19:29:00.000-07:002008-06-29T19:29:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-57939974665334653082008-06-29T17:53:00.000-07:002008-06-29T17:53:00.000-07:00Charley, Publius and Basil,I appreciate the commen...Charley, Publius and Basil,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the comments from all. I will take time to digest them. I have near daily experience with some of the aspects of the new legislation in regards to SIGINT, and I have second hand knowledge of workings with FISA. For what it is worth, my personal experiences with both have, without exception, appeared both prudent measures and reasonably restrictive (but not so much to prevent us from doing our job).<BR/><BR/>But I intend to study both issues to a greater extent from the inside, just for myself (so I can better do my job as the rules apply to me), and so I can make my own judgement based on as much information as possible.<BR/><BR/>Publius, if you are still in the Meade area, we need to play some golf some day and swap stories, it sounds like we have some shared experiences.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08514579328273641457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-46832634480863679002008-06-29T13:38:00.000-07:002008-06-29T13:38:00.000-07:00Publius:I know exactly what these people are tryin...Publius:<BR/><BR/><B>I know exactly what these people are trying to accomplish through this big, contentious program. And I'm sympathetic. I want them to be able to provide the early warning, but I want them to do it legally. And, IMO, the president's "trust me" isn't sufficient.<BR/><BR/>Oversight is needed. And, by default, it almost has to be the courts. I trust neither the executive nor the legislative branch. Why? Well, because ISTM politicians have gone beyond the pale in their stewardship and safeguarding of certain necessary secret intelligence operations.</B><BR/><BR/>Well now, isn't that a fine pickle we're in then, relying upon the last leg of this tripartite republic of ours, the courts. And what happens when that last leg goes bad?<BR/><BR/>What happens when SCJ Kennedy sides with the 4 conservatives and claims like Scalia did with the recent ruling on the Gitmo prisoners, that American lives trump upholding the right of Habeas Corpus or 4th amendment to the Constitution?<BR/><BR/>How can I not hold my nose when I go to vote for Obama and other Democrats when he and they will not stand unequivocally in support of the 4th? They want my money to support them, but will I get decent Constitutional government for it?<BR/><BR/>To me, this election is more about our system of government and law as it is about anything else. I don't want to see November degrade into a contest between TweedleDum ( McCain ) and Tweedle ( Obama ). That sort of decision should not come to exist, ultimately, between supporting our Constitutional government and enduring the whims of individuals in our government.<BR/><BR/>I know, Charles, what you will say, but rest assured, I will vote for Obama or whoever the Dems. put up.<BR/><BR/>But goddammit, I'm gonna raise a rancid stink about what I feel is an anti-American stance on FISA.<BR/><BR/>And here it is, the 4th, when we hear tons of slick syrupy platitudes each year about how great the USA is and the amazing experiment in democracy.<BR/><BR/>But it's time to see what will really happen in this country when our rubber tire politicians hit the hard road of reality.<BR/><BR/>There is quite the buzz among the left about this issue. Glenn Greenwald and Keith Olbermann are duking it out, and John Dean will have a special time to discuss this on CountDown this Monday night.<BR/><BR/>And as I've said before, I'd love to see our host JD set his legal butt down here to offer his thoughts.<BR/><BR/>....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-81121121358279644702008-06-29T09:02:00.000-07:002008-06-29T09:02:00.000-07:00A new article with some relevance to the discussio...A new article with some relevance to the discussion...<BR/><BR/>The New Yorker --<BR/><BR/>July 7, 2008 issue<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh" REL="nofollow">PREPARING THE BATTLEFIELD</A><BR/><BR/>The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.<BR/><BR/>by Seymour M. HershCharles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-11500588525985147582008-06-28T20:56:00.000-07:002008-06-28T20:56:00.000-07:00I think that's pretty much right Publius -- and th...I think that's pretty much right Publius -- and there was zero real oversight when the Republicans were in control of Congress. They literally shut it down on this stuff; everything was done behind a screen and the Democrats were excluded from most of the real stuff. They keep saying "we briefed them," but I've read too many of the briefs these people write.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-64785375444713758052008-06-28T19:49:00.000-07:002008-06-28T19:49:00.000-07:00"Does any one not agree that there is some need fo..."Does any one not agree that there is some need for secrecy in the government? For example, sources, methods for gathering intelligence on foreign threats."<BR/><BR/>Well, sure, Bg, no question about it. I spent a lot of years where my neighbors didn't know what I did for a living, and where my family, albeit sort of witting, didn't know where I traveled and what I did. I had no problem with that. I understood why we had the rules. But, with a few exceptions early in my career—back when we weren't so well versed in these things—I never broke the law or violated the Constitution. I broke the laws of several other countries, but, then, that was my job.<BR/><BR/>I supported the need for oversight principally because I believed one had to be pretty stupid or arrogant not to think that some double-checking might be valuable; it also turned out that oversight wasn't all that onerous. The fact was that although some overzealous overseers in some agencies sometimes went overboard, the laws weren't all that bad. We were able to do what we had to do. Legally.<BR/><BR/>FISA. I've worked with FISA. Didn't find it all that difficult. But the times have changed. You know the difference between a cop and a spook? The cop cleans up after the crime. The spook's job is to provide early warning in the hopes that the crime never occurs. I'm not a cop. I know exactly what these people are trying to accomplish through this big, contentious program. And I'm sympathetic. I want them to be able to provide the early warning, but I want them to do it legally. And, IMO, the president's "trust me" isn't sufficient.<BR/><BR/>Oversight is needed. And, by default, it almost has to be the courts. I trust neither the executive nor the legislative branch. Why? Well, because ISTM politicians have gone beyond the pale in their stewardship and safeguarding of certain necessary secret intelligence operations. Bg, in response to a posting of yours on IntelDump, I opined that the DIRNSA couldn't be trusted. I firmly believe that, just as I believe neither the DNI nor the DCIA can be trusted. The unfortunate reality is that these generals and admirals have all become political animals, and they pass information on to their superiors, other political animals.<BR/><BR/>Go a couple of levels down in any intelligence agency, and I will assure you that the random case officer, analyst or manager couldn't care less whether you like girls, boys or sheep. That's not their department. With rare exceptions, they really are about people attempting to harm the U.S.<BR/><BR/>Congress? Well, I share the outrage about the Addington/Yoo show, but, although I'd like to see both of these guys in jail, I understand where they're coming from. You know the old saying, "it takes one to know one"? Well, ISTM that Addington and Yoo are just operating in accordance with that: they know those congress critters whom they're disrespecting are every bit as bad as they are. Executive branch misusing intelligence information? Sure. But watch the legislative branch some time. <BR/><BR/>No one I know in the intelligence community trusts either the executive or the legislature to refrain from using legitimately secret information for political purposes. Unfortunately, the reporting chain is through the executive, which means they essentially get the first cut at abuse. But don't ever think that the Congress would do anything different if they got the first cut.<BR/><BR/>This is the pass to which our nation has come. The reality is that the courts are the slim reed upon which our freedoms rest. This is why we have "judicial activism": nobody else in the system operates from good faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-34249282703057577292008-06-28T14:42:00.000-07:002008-06-28T14:42:00.000-07:00Well there obviously a need for secrecy in some th...Well there obviously a need for secrecy in some things, but that doesn't include violations of law.<BR/><BR/>And it most certainly doesn't apply to the law itself.<BR/><BR/>As for oversight, it's been completely dysfunctional under Bush, and FISA is among the worst examples. I wouldn't assume that Congress has been fully briefed even now, and it's been very well established that they were operating this program in direct violation of a criminal statute.<BR/><BR/>Have you watched the Addington hearing bg?? <BR/><BR/>These people have nothing but contempt for congress and the people of the United States.<BR/><BR/>Do you know what the word "implement" means in regard to an orders or regulations?<BR/><BR/>What would you say to a subordinate who answered "I know what I mean by it, sir, but I don't know what you mean by it"?<BR/><BR/>That's one example from the Addington / Yoo hearing. Did you listen to it?<BR/><BR/>Here are links for the video and audio...<BR/><BR/>House Judiciary Committee--<BR/><BR/>Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties<BR/><BR/>June 26, 2008 HEARING ON "FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO GUANTANAMO BAY: ADMINISTRATION LAWYERS AND ADMINISTRATION INTERROGATION RULES"<BR/><BR/>* <A HREF="http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=27021" REL="nofollow">KPFA audio HERE</A><BR/><BR/>* C-Span video (2:50:49):<BR/><BR/>rtsp://video1.c-span.org/project/ter/ter062608_gitmo.rm<BR/><BR/><BR/>* <A HREF="http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Addington080626.pdf" REL="nofollow">Documents submitted for the record by David S. Addington</A>Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-11057591983855813872008-06-28T12:50:00.000-07:002008-06-28T12:50:00.000-07:00Basil brought up the FISA legislation, which bring...Basil brought up the FISA legislation, which brings me to a question I would like to pose to the group. (I asked it on the Intel Dump site, but got no takers).<BR/><BR/>1. Does any one not agree that there is some need for secrecy in the government? For example, sources, methods for gathering intelligence on foreign threats.<BR/><BR/>2. Assuming we agree that there is need for some form of secrecy, what is the best way of having sufficient oversight? <BR/><BR/>I suggested that the best way is to read-on congressional oversight committees, which is how I believe we do it. Is this enough, not enough, effective or ineffective?bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08514579328273641457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-6091941768748270662008-06-28T11:27:00.000-07:002008-06-28T11:27:00.000-07:00PS:Sen. Russ Feingold represents Wisconsin, not Mi...PS:<BR/><BR/>Sen. Russ Feingold represents Wisconsin, not Michigan.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-1888825523161323832008-06-28T11:21:00.000-07:002008-06-28T11:21:00.000-07:00Basil,I actually consider FISA kind of a non-issue...Basil,<BR/><BR/>I actually consider FISA kind of a non-issue at this point.<BR/><BR/>Two things are obvious:<BR/><BR/>* There is no possibility of enacting a reasonable law with Bush in office.<BR/><BR/>* The Bush gang doesn't care what the law says in any case. How anyone could watch the Addington hearing and still doubt that is beyond me. <BR/><BR/>So while I oppose the pending bill for reasons which have been stated by the bills opponents such as Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Sen. Russ Fiengold (D-MI), I also consider it moot for all practical purposes. In big picture terms, the Republican Party and the Bush administration represent a criminal organization which is essentially waging a war on human civilization in the same sense that the Nazis and Soviets did. What happens next will be determined by the elections. If things go well, next year we will have a Democratic administration with solid Democratic majorities in both houses, and it's even possible that they'll have more than 60 seats in the Senate, in which case the Republicans won't even be able to filibuster a bill. In that event it will be possible to repeal the Bush-era legislation wholesale, and IMO that's exactly what they should do, starting with both AUMFs.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, the struggle will continue in whatever setting emerges from the elections, and there is no alternative to fighting the Republicans: they are criminals, and that is all that they are. What it all boils down to is that we will either be in a position to prosecute Bush and Cheney for their crimes, or we won't, in which case the goal will remain what it is now -- to reach a point where we can.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-49880523629823037382008-06-28T06:47:00.000-07:002008-06-28T06:47:00.000-07:00This is so much like the old gang is back again.Ch...This is so much like the old gang is back again.<BR/><BR/>Charles, since you seem to be hanging around, or JD, I'd love to hear your opinions on the FISA bill in the Senate.<BR/><BR/>I am, umm, <I>disappointed</I>, that this thing made its way from the House and that both Clinton and Obama have not come out against it as strongly as I'd like to see them to, like Dodd, Kerry, Feingold and others have.<BR/><BR/>I have followed this matter closely, especially in the blogosphere, but I still don't know what the hell is going on, or what the political strategy is.<BR/><BR/>John Dean will be talking about this Monday on Olbermann's CountDown, maybe that will clear it up.<BR/><BR/>And the bill has been pushed back to July 8th, after the holiday recess, appropriately enough as we celebrate the birth of our nation and the Constitution that governs it.<BR/><BR/>That might give us concerned citizens the opportunity to remind these so-called guardians of the Constitution of their sworn duty.<BR/><BR/>It is more than a bit depressing that we seem to be losing the battle to "solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion".<BR/><BR/>Your thoughts, please?<BR/><BR/>..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-81852156103554051072008-06-27T21:32:00.000-07:002008-06-27T21:32:00.000-07:00Well that's nice, I've always liked you to bg, but...Well that's nice, I've always liked you to bg, but if you get that much about me, you might try to get that my passion is driven by my understanding, not the other way around, and from where I sit, it look an awful lot like the situation is reversed on your side of this debate.<BR/><BR/>Rah rah and spin just ain't ever going to cut it with me. I keep asking, I keep raising issues, and I keep getting ignored and written off behind a smoke screen of excuses and rhetoric. It's not about personalities to me, it's about issues -- and nobody on your side of this debate ever wants to talk about anything but BS and CYA.<BR/><BR/>What are the objectives bg?<BR/><BR/>How many times do I have to ask before I get a straight answer?Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-81540565213884525232008-06-27T14:17:00.000-07:002008-06-27T14:17:00.000-07:00You know Charley, I really just can't help myself ...You know Charley, I really just can't help myself from liking you.<BR/><BR/>I may not agree with everything you say, but I do like the unabashed style in which you say it. I truly respect your passion.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08514579328273641457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-69841145223059179562008-06-27T06:20:00.000-07:002008-06-27T06:20:00.000-07:00bg,Prejudiced??Six and half years of investigation...bg,<BR/><BR/>Prejudiced??<BR/><BR/>Six and half years of investigation isn't prejudice. Facts are facts.<BR/><BR/>Bigoted??<BR/><BR/>AS IF it were 'bigoted' to disapprove of murder, rape, or armed robbery. War crimes are worse than murders, but don't take my word for it -- read Justice Jackson's opening statement for the prosecution at Nuremberg.<BR/><BR/>You might also note that disapproving of someone's predatory crimes against others is not precisely the same as thinking they're inferior because of their race, religion, or class. <BR/><BR/>In point of fact bg, it was just the kindest thing I could say under the circumstances. So now you try to insinuate that I'm behaving like a Nazi for stating facts about the Bush administration's war crimes and neo-fascism.<BR/><BR/>I repeat: WHAT A CROCK.Charles Gittingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14669296162762355112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7610233.post-19286991289046103612008-06-27T04:33:00.000-07:002008-06-27T04:33:00.000-07:00Publius, you misread my comment. I usually don't ...Publius, you misread my comment. I usually don't defend this kind of stuff, but...<BR/><BR/>"I am too invested..."<BR/><BR/>that was the argument made against me that I was defending against. I actually don't feel like I have anything invested in GWOT, etc. It is simply the word I live in, the world which I constantly question.<BR/><BR/>About your classified comment, when I refer to "other reliable information", I am not talking about classified info. Classified reporting is often little more than rumor put down on paper (digits now a days). Every piece of classified info must be looked at extremely skeptically, and every assessment based on classified has to be doubly scrutinized.<BR/><BR/>The other info I refer to is ground truth assessments from people who are there, who work the problem every day. While these assessments can be deemed reliable, they are not without their own bias. I am aware of that. <BR/><BR/>"What a crock"<BR/><BR/>Charley, a "crock" is the black and white, prejudiced and politically bigoted world you live in. I am surprised you don't argue for legislation requiring all Republicans to wear a Yellow "WC" to forever label them as war criminals for their association with the war criminal political party.bghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08514579328273641457noreply@blogger.com