Rhetorical question
Dec. 7th, 2007 05:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumSo, torture mongers and apologists explain that torture (according to the sources they choose to believe) works.
They also say that because it works, and it saves lives, we need to use it.
We are also told that it is only used when the case is so strong that it justifies the moral quandaries of little things like breaking the law and violating the norms of the civilised world and the principles we used to hold countries like the USSR and PRC accountable for, because such things were evil.
It is further explained that because such careful decisions are made those who engage in torture can always depend on the courts to vindicate them. They will just explain that it was needful, they were certain the guy had the info, he gave it up, and lives were saved.
The, inevitable, result, so they say, is the jury will acquit.
Given all of those things; one wonders why the CIA felt it had to destroy the evidence, and committ a completely different crime, not one against people but against the rule of law.
They also say that because it works, and it saves lives, we need to use it.
We are also told that it is only used when the case is so strong that it justifies the moral quandaries of little things like breaking the law and violating the norms of the civilised world and the principles we used to hold countries like the USSR and PRC accountable for, because such things were evil.
It is further explained that because such careful decisions are made those who engage in torture can always depend on the courts to vindicate them. They will just explain that it was needful, they were certain the guy had the info, he gave it up, and lives were saved.
The, inevitable, result, so they say, is the jury will acquit.
Given all of those things; one wonders why the CIA felt it had to destroy the evidence, and committ a completely different crime, not one against people but against the rule of law.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-19 07:19 pm (UTC)It would be acceptable for Novak to claim it was accidental (but it requires we accept that Novak is too stupid to realize the CIA can't say "don't reveal her name because she's a NOC") but it's not acceptable for Rove or Libby to use that claim. They knew she worked at the CIA; they could have determined she was not covert before leaking her name.
(I'm omitting Armitage from this because he claims it was a slip. However, I've also heard it said that, golly gee, Armitage just *happened* to want to talk to Novak, something he never did, and just *happened* to let that crucial fact slip at just that right time. Armitage has a spook background; put that together, and this "accident" seems awfully well planned.)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-19 07:25 pm (UTC)"They could have determined..."
means
"They could have determined whether she was or not, and decided not to leak the name if they found she was (or couldn't tell, for sure, that she wasn't)"
They had a choice; the choice was obvious and part of their responsibilities. Even if they could truthfully say that they didn't know she was covert, they can't deny that they had a responsibility to determine if they were leaking classified information before doing so.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-19 10:57 pm (UTC)1: It's the heart of the matter. When someone alleges Plame wasn't covert they are saying the entire investigation was as empty of value as "Troopergate".
2: That allegation (that Plame wasn't covert) also says the CIA knowingly initiated a false claim of her covertness when they petitioned the DoJ to investigate.
3: Which means they are alleging perjury on the part of a whole lot of people, in order to... who knows. But it requires a conspiracy to get such a thing done.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-12-19 11:39 pm (UTC)See, I was making a mild nitpick of the response to the claim, not the claim itself. It seemed obvious at the time :-).