![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
One note Charlie
What They Said
I'm sorry to be throwing so much about torture at you all. I assume those who keep reading are in agreement with me. Think of it as reference material for when someone says something stupid like "torture works," or begins to blather about ticking bombs, buried babies, etc. I do this so you don't have to. :)
Mind you, vast numbers of those who say such things are beyond reason. I made the effort of commenting to a horrid column in some New Jersey paper. By itself that was no big deal, were I able to just pull a fire, and forget.
But I will go back to see what the first pass of fools have to say. Oi...
It was worth it, not for the first pass (there were a number of people calling the authors on the crap they were pulling: Me, I took them to task for the cards they were palming), but for the new "insult" I was delivered.
I, you see, well I can't do it justice, a quotation is all that I can do: pecunium,
You were NEVER an Army Interrogator. You are a lefty lawyer. Another liberal liar outed.
A lefty-lawyer. That's sort of flattering.
A liberal... ouch, that stings. I mean, all I did was tout the rule of law, and the constition. I was saying things Reagan said. So, liberal. I guess I can bear it.
Liar... Typical. I disagreed with torture, ergo I can't have been in the Army, and certainly not an interrogator. It's not the first time I've gotten this; won't be the last.
Sadly, the reply is in moderation (I used links to support my response; I think they are worried about spam). I suspect it will be released, in the morning; unless they have 24 hour a day moderation. Seems to be my day to fail at being seen.
I'm sorry to be throwing so much about torture at you all. I assume those who keep reading are in agreement with me. Think of it as reference material for when someone says something stupid like "torture works," or begins to blather about ticking bombs, buried babies, etc. I do this so you don't have to. :)
Mind you, vast numbers of those who say such things are beyond reason. I made the effort of commenting to a horrid column in some New Jersey paper. By itself that was no big deal, were I able to just pull a fire, and forget.
But I will go back to see what the first pass of fools have to say. Oi...
It was worth it, not for the first pass (there were a number of people calling the authors on the crap they were pulling: Me, I took them to task for the cards they were palming), but for the new "insult" I was delivered.
I, you see, well I can't do it justice, a quotation is all that I can do: pecunium,
You were NEVER an Army Interrogator. You are a lefty lawyer. Another liberal liar outed.
A lefty-lawyer. That's sort of flattering.
A liberal... ouch, that stings. I mean, all I did was tout the rule of law, and the constition. I was saying things Reagan said. So, liberal. I guess I can bear it.
Liar... Typical. I disagreed with torture, ergo I can't have been in the Army, and certainly not an interrogator. It's not the first time I've gotten this; won't be the last.
Sadly, the reply is in moderation (I used links to support my response; I think they are worried about spam). I suspect it will be released, in the morning; unless they have 24 hour a day moderation. Seems to be my day to fail at being seen.
no subject
First... feeling your pain... big time!
But more on point, I think as time wears on, and we are confronted more and more with the various crimes of the previous administration (and I for one am beginning to rethink my position on the ex post facto defense for many of the front line people who might have been involved) we are going to see cognitive dissonance elevated to high art among the various defenders of the administration who spent a good part of the last eight years believing -- deeply and truly -- that these things couldn't possibly be true, or if they were, it was a rogue soldier or unit gone off the reservation and the bad guy probably had it comin' anyway...
This is a fight, we over at the mojowire (http://www.mojowire.blogspot.com) have been battling through for years now.
On a related side note... I will be very interested to see the DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility's report on Yoo's, Bybee's, and Gonzalez' professionalism in authoring such horribly thought out legal opinions for the White House...
I will only say this in a larger political-legal context: I believe this needs to be handled in a very careful way. I think it sets a dangerous precedence if an incoming administration can come in and decide that a bunch of actions of the previous administration were criminal and start hauling people up before The Man.
A guy who goes by the name Publius over at Obsidian Wings (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/) once made the wry observation that Constitutional Law cannot really be separated from the surrounding politics and that anyone who says different is selling something...
Did I mention that Jeb Bush has joined Mitt Romeny on a speaking/townhall meeting tour of early 2012 battleground states lately?
mojo sends
no subject
If I wasn't, if I am the professional I claim to be, then they have to look at themselves and admit they are in favor of horrible things.
That's a lot to accept.
But me, the charge hurts not at all. I know where I've been, what I've done, and why. I can live with that.
no subject
You, sir, are clearly a former Army interrogator. It's the way you talk about it. I can't explain better than that. You clearly know what you're talking about.
And I do in fact read what you write as material for dealing with fools like the one you ran into who can't tell the difference. At the very least, I am proud to be on the same side of this issue as you are. Every word you write against this horrific practice that we have been sold as a necessary evil does your service and your country proud, and I'm glad you keep writing about it. I also look forward to the day when you don't have to.
no subject
I know why he called me a lawyer. I was attacking the legal reasoning in that post. I didn't mention being an interrogator until someone else said those of us who wanted this crap looked into, and if (I should rather think when) the evidence mounted, prosecutions were saying it because we "hated" Bush, that I mentioned what I was, and why I wanted this.
But I was as legally analytical, and referential (since that column was defending the legal practice behind those memos), as I can be.
I can see why he was confused, but it's a foolish thing to call someone a liar, when one doesn't know.
no subject
I'm not sorry. Someone has to do it, and most of us can't. I'm sorry it's you putting your name and face and reputation up there and getting shit thrown at you, but I'm glad you're doing it all the same.
no subject
no subject
I laughed at the troll's charge against you. I've been reading arguments akin to yours from former military interrogators even before you took the subject up.
no subject
But all of that is as nothing to them. They know (or need to think) that torture works, and the good guys do it only when they have to, and the information it gets is useful, and saves the day (often at the last minute; which is what forces the good guy to use it).
They can't abide thinking the "good guys" use it indiscriminately, folks who aren't guilty might be the subject, and nothing comes of it.
For them, that way lies madness.
For me, that way lies anger, and wrath; shame and pity; rage and frustration.
On the flip side, it's probably helped my writing.
no subject
To encourage clients to seek legal counsel in myriad settings, the rules shield attorney-client communications regarding future acts, unless those acts clearly are intended to violate the law.
But to get away with this claim, these lawyers should have to be ignorant of so many laws, their only defence is incompetence. And incompetence of such a degree that it beggars belief that one of these lawyers is now an appeal-court judge.
The two guest columnists: they might not be part of a conspiracy, but they don't sound like competent lawyers.
It's not just statute law and ratified treaties: if torture isn't the compelling of self-incrimination, the the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution is worthless. And there was no need to dance the jurisdictional dance about Gitmo.
This isn't obscure, is it?
no subject
Most people think of the Fifth as something guilty peope do in courtrooms. They don't think it out (and the present argument as been much around the Eighth, Cruel, and Unusual. I've seen people try to say, "Lots of places used torture back then, so it wasn't unsusual and we can do it now, if we want". Scalia types of, "original intent" when it helps me sorts).
And yes, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, with privilege applying when the counsel is become part of a criminal conspiracy.
I don't think the writers are incompetent, I think they are letting party get before law; which is part of how we got here (that and people like Jonathan Alter, and David Brooks saying we needed to be as hard as possible; torture some people, make some death squads, commit some atrocities; so we could win this thing and prove what civilised sorts we are).
no subject
My answer to that has always been "isn't that the point? Isn't that one of the things that makes America America, that You're Better Than Al-Queda/the VC/the KPA/KGB,GRU,Commies?" Unlike you, Terry, I've never been in the military, but even I've managed to figure out that the best way to defend the higher ground is not "step 1: abandon it". Am I wrong? Also, isn't "inciting fear in order to impose your ideology/will on 'them'" - which is a fairly accurate description of these "enhanced interrogation techniques" - um, the definition of terror? Does that make us terrorists? Or is this another of those irregular verbs - "I use hardball interrogation; you torture; he is a terrorist"?
A lot of the people in the comments to the nj.com article are talking about "stacking bodies like cordwood" as a result of all those terrorist attacks we won't be able to stop using normal interrogation techniques. Apart from the massive unstated/unproven premise in the argument, without which it falls apart, and against which you are railing against every day (and thank you for that), how many people are we actually talking about? As I've said a number of times already, talk to me again when the 5-year average annual chance of dying in a terrorist attack becomes higher than the 5-year average monthly chance of dying crossing the street, which I do every day going to work and am not deathly afraid of. Whoever is afraid of another 10/30/4000 deaths in a society where 40 000 die annually in driving accidents (never mind the rest of real life) and is willing to make their country a "if the President says so, it's true" state to alleviate it, can move to a state where that exists. Might I suggest the Democratic People's Republic of Korea?
My challenge to Americans (and Canadians): Terrorism is deliberately inciting fear into people for ideological gain. Look at who's trying to keep you afraid, and what they're getting out of it. That's who's terrorizing you, and my guess is, that if you are really honest, the majority will be white guys in suits, not brown guys with IEDs.
no subject
What they, sort of, bury is the belief (which justifies) that only because extraordinary effort, have we been spared the dozens of attacks; each at least as terrible as That Tuesday, which the Evil Terr'ists, have been planning, organising, and finanlly foiled by the Freedom's Noble Torturers.
And I've spent all the effort I can there. Much more and I shall begin to foam at the mouth.