Tortured Logic

As Daniel Schorr indicates, it is absurd that the current dialogue regarding torture is focused on whether and when it is OK instead of what Pelosi knew and when she knew it.

I should probably start out with the basics and define torture. Especially since ambiguity over what is and is not torture is abused by armchair nationalists to cloud the debate.

"torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Art I, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Or if you prefer U.S. law:

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

18 U.S.C. §2340. The definitions are substantially similar in the act that constitutes torture is the infliction of severe suffering, though the U.N. treaty requires a particular goal in mind they both define torture as the act of a government. So clearly, any argument based around the ambiguity inherent in the word "suffering" designed to imply that imprisonment qualifies as torture is disingenuous at best. Any reasonable person would agree that water boarding fits under this definition as torture. The argument that the presence of a doctor during waterboarding changes it into something other than torture because the victim is less likely to die cuts decency to the quick. The blatant disregard for both the legal definition of torture and the suffering of the victim lays bare that anyone making such an argument has no respect for those the argument is being made to.

One might raise the argument that such legal protections only extend to uniformed soldiers captured on the battlefield. This ignores the clear intention of the above convention which indicates that it is the goal of the person performing the torture that makes the act illegal, not the identity of the tortured subject. It's simple common sense to say that if we have the jurisdiction to hold a person then they are under the jurisdiction and protection of our laws regardless of whether we find it convenient. Further, though the United States Supreme Court has not decided this narrow issue yet, it has decided a line of cases that a rational person would think extends to cover this situation (a rational person being one who has not set out with the goal of achieving an end result where torture is justified). In a line of cases from Ex parte Milligan to Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court has held that even the detainees at Guantanamo Bay fall under the protection of U.S. law and that they can not be deprived of fundamental rights like Habeas corpus. Also, that Congress and the President, even working together cannot simply declare certain people and places to be without those protections.

Though it is yet to be determined if the prohibitions against torture apply to non-uniformed foreign national enemy combatants captured in a foreign country, we have frequently tried to make a clear argument on this blog that the protections of the law should apply to these people. I have tried to make this argument by making the implication that any innocent American citizen could be taken to Gitmo. Of course, any time someone implies that the government could wrongfully imprison an innocent person the notion is labeled as X-Files type conspiracy lunacy. Which is why I have tried to be careful and point to situations that show how easy it is to be mistakenly labeled as a terrorist. Where the no-fly list includes the names of innocent people, or where police label nuns and peace activists, that they admit are innocent of any crime, as terrorists.

If you combine the fact of how easy it is to become labeled a terrorist or an enemy combatant with the fact of how difficult it has been for those in Gitmo to even contest that label, even when they have been found innocent by their own government, you see that torture is being used on people merely for being accused of being a terrorist, having not been found guilty in any court, merely because there is the possibility that they may have some information that could be obtained through torture that could not be obtained as quickly through more conventional interrogation. Even when good old fashioned investigation still works. I am not so foolish as to believe that everyone in Gitmo is an innocent victim of circumstance or that there aren't dangerous terrorists being held there that can never be released without representing a serious threat to the American people. I am just worried about the labels being used and logic being applied to justify locking people up for an indefinite period of time punishing them without the accusations against them(and their accusers) seeing the light of day and I am particularly uneasy about the U.S. torturing anyone, especially in such suspicious circumstances.

Still Cheney is making the political talk show rounds insisting that torture produced valuable intelligence that saved lives. This argument is being picked up and repeated as if anything Cheney says about intelligence to the media can be trusted after the fiasco that was the run up to Iraq and the Valerie Plame scandal. It has even been revealed recently that torture was even used to produce some of that bad intelligence that Colin Powell presented to the U.N. security council.

This is exactly the worst case scenario that comes to mind whenever there is mention of torture. There was no ticking time bomb and the poor sap being tortured didn't know anything and only gave the people committing the torture what they wanted to hear in order to end the torture. That bad information was relied on to put us in an unnecessary war and thousands of people have died. Yet the idea that torture produces effective intelligence continues to be tossed around like it is a valid argument. Even if torture produces good intelligence some of the time, the risk that bad information will be relied on because it is what is politically expedient at the time is far too great a risk for us as a nation to be throwing our morality to the wind.

Even if torture works it is still morally wrong. Unfortunately I don't have any arguments here, just a bald assertion of a moral absolute.

I could argue that Alberto Gonzales was clearly wrong at his confirmation hearing when he said we can never be like our enemy's. Or I could parrot the refrain that being seen as abandoning our collective principles encourages extremist anti-Americanism. Or I could point to the damage this does to our international relations. Friendly nations wonder why we have fallen from being Regan's shining beacon of freedom on a hill, and antagonistic nations like Russia and Iran point to our abuses when we criticize them for kangaroo trials or oppressive measures. I could point to truly oppressive regimes across the globe that now simply label as terrorists those they wish to abuse. However all those are pragmatic reasons, and I don't think that is the best foundation for a moral absolute. I know torture is always wrong because I have human compassion. And you know it too.

All that is beside the point. Torture is illegal and water boarding is torture. The only reason I can think of that the MSM has allowed itself to be hijacked by Cheney again is that Obama has decided that the people who committed acts of torture under color of law will not be prosecuted. So that ends that story. Only vague questions of conspiracy remain and the question still appears to be open as to whether those that wrote the torture memos and the members of Congress and the Executive branch who were complicit in authorizing torture will face any kind of consequences.

It is vitally important that we zealously prosecute everyone responsible for the use of torture from the interrogators and their commanders and guards at the camp that knew it was happening to those that wrote the memos and everyone in power who knew it was happening and did nothing to stop it. even if that means throwing half of Congress in prison. This is important for a couple of reasons. First, a full and complete prosecution of everyone responsible will correct many of the above mentioned pragmatic reasons that torture is wrong. Clearly extremists will continue to hate America for irrational reasons. However, by taking pains to correct our misdeeds we will show to friends and enemies internationally and future leaders of America that we are a nation committed to the rule of law and that we can bravely face our own misdeeds and see justice done.

The next reason is that only a full prosecution of everyone that could possibly be complicit is the only way to actually see justice done in this situation. Where the government at all levels and in multiple branches participates in enacting a broad policy that is illegal and immoral and actually produces negative consequences simply rooting out a sacrificial lamb like "Scooter" Libby only perpetuates the sense that those in power who are ultimately responsible for the crime are beyond justice. A full prosecution is also important to avoid domestic political wrangling. If we put Cheney on trial Pelosi needs to go on trial as well. So does every member of Congress that was briefed on the use of torture and everyone in the various agencies that used them, both political appointees and career agents. I am not saying that we need to imprison half the government and military, but in the interests of justice there needs to be a full and impartial investigation that brings charges against those who appear to be guilty of serious crimes against U.S. law.

I understand Obama's order that the interrogators not be prosecuted. Spies and agents in the field are not legal experts and have to be able to rely on the orders of their superiors. Unquestioning reliance on the command structure is vital to successful military operations. Still, there is a point where the guy who has boots on the ground knows something is wrong. That an order is wrong. It is that person's responsibility to say "no." I know it is a hard and cold and frankly unrealistic rule but that is the very same thing we say to accused former Nazi prison camp guards as they are extradited and prosecuted for simply guarding the camp. (No I didn't just fall prey to Godwin's Law)

I further understand Obama's decision not to prosecute the interrogators because doing so would turn our agents in the field into political paws by using them as a sacrificial lamb. An agent in the field has to be able not only to rely on his orders but also to believe that he can effectively carry out his mission even when there is an election coming. They need to know that they won't be hung out to dry just to appease the public when the party in power changes.

Because prosecuting the interrogators is off the table and it is highly unlikely that Congress will enact legislation that could put their own members in prison, and because there is a current sentiment that we need to move on with current troubles and not be concerned with the egregious acts of the prior administration it is highly unlikely that we will see any kind of full and non-partisan investigation that results in justice being done. The most we will see is someone like John Yoo getting a slap on the wrist. I am still too cynical to believe even that will happen.

The Indian Nuclear Deal: Counterintuitive Counterintelligence Complications

MTS Systems, an advanced components engineering firm has plead guilty to helping sell components for weapons systems to two companies that are directly involved in the weapons components of the Indian government's nuclear program. As typical of the ramifications of the 14th Amendment, the corporation itself has been allowed to plead guilty to falsifying documents, as though it was an abstract organization that was pushing people to lie to avoid export licensing requirements. Apparently, the human element, though failed, is not to be held accountable.

The story is complicated by "Co-conspirator A," an unnamed diplomatic official in the Indian Mission in Washington, D.C. This official tie is involved through a Singaporean businessman, who is facing 5 years in jail as a result of his role in the twisted scandal. I'm sure there's a lesson about race and fairness to be found there, but is not integrally important to the story.

Sure, the U.S. counterintelligence is kind of a joke and many countries are always stealing our knowledge and intellectual property, but then again, how easy is it to keep an idea under lock and key? This will only further serve to strengthen opposition to the deal in the U.S., although that might not matter at this point.

Ka-Blammo!

Why would we blow up our own satelite that we had put in orbit recently?
Why would the military deny they were blowing up a spy satelite to protect its secrets?
Why hasn't anyone mentioned Missile Defense until the exercise was over?

In deference to the prior post about not being conspiracy minded I want to say that I believe that the military has our best interest at heart with everything they do. Every soldier I have ever known has an intense sense of duty to American civilians, the American people, and to America itself.

Perhaps I am too cynical but these were all thoughts I had within 30 seconds of hearing the first news blurb on the malfunction of the satelite. I just think this kind of situation generates wild speculation from the people and requires acknowledgement of the most obvious assumptions and honest discussion from a legitimate representative of the military. That would at least begin building a trust among the more cynical American citizens like myself.

Now for a serious question; how many of our tax dollars were waisted in this fiasco?

The Lunar Eclipse Of Blood

Tonight across the northern hemisphere the glorious light of the full moon was briefly occluded by the umbra of the earth. Red light, like the menstrual blood of a celestial goddess, flowed down on us and bedlam broke loose. For two hours, in two cities, the only sound the two authors of this post heard were the sirens of first responders scrambling madly to the next emergency. Wondering to themselves if this were really a Wednesday night. Then silence. The snow no longer reflecting the red power of that celestial orb. The darkness had passed and all that remains is the bright, familiar face of the moon. Her light, no longer simply taken for granted, but ignored as useless. - Th'Dave

It's not often that there happens to be a full lunar eclipse. Somewhat less often, a superpower escalates a potentially dangerous situation involving more sophisticated weapons and a new generation of warfare. In case you were outside enjoying the eclipse and weren't glued to the TV, at 9:30 PM Central Standard Time, right about the time white rabbit peaked, the Lake Erie, an American Aegis-class destroyer shot down that satellite, despite warnings from Russia and China about escalating a new race to weaponize and control space. Not really space, mind you, rather those behind this weapons test with a very small tolerance for error would like to move strategic thinking into the orbits around our beloved Mother Earth. I don't watch TV, but the article above seems pretty media polished, so expect the mainstream news media to pick up this wonderfully nationalistic gem of a story in short order.

As an American citizen and a veteran, I understand the rationale behind developing weaponry and doctrine for future conflicts, but nothing happens in a vacuum. When the Chinese Military shot down an aging weather satellite and didn't announce it, the world was supposed to be incensed that there was an ulterior motive behind it, and more it seemingly was reflective of cold war thinking. However, other than press conference, the differences seem superficial. If nothing else, the rest of the world could easily interpret the move as standard 'tit for tat' testing, reminiscent of the Cold War. News at 7!

Perhaps the worst part of this entire episode, is that the military has demonstrated its ability to intercept objects moving just about a hair's breadth above the earth's atmosphere, moving at 17,000 miles per hour. Which are the operational requirements of the missile defense system, so also look to say that we should invest more in this pointless weaponizing of space against terrestrial threats. But those tens of seconds are very hard to replicate.

Surely, the apocalypse is nigh! (I hate arguing for him, but it would seem that Bill was taken out of context here.) - TheRedKap

The Wisconsin Crazy

This is a unique type of crazy, the type that chooses to antagonize authority figures. I think the worst part of the whole tragedy is that he seems at least marginally more competent than our intelligence services.

The Walk of Shame

The old media continues to refer to this story in the terms most favorible to the Bush administration. I (and some former intellegence experts) want to point out some misconceptions that seem to be floating around. First, FISA already gives the president authority to listen to the phone conversations of any terrorism suspect. Its a legal, judge approved warrant, and the backlog is a myth. Second, if the warrentless wiretapping provision expires tomorrow, the wiretapps that are already in place under that law, get to stay in place for up to a year.

If President Bush already has everything he says he needs to protect us then what is in this bill he isn't talking about, and why would he want it passed? At the very least what Bush, the cowards in the Senate, and the business community want is a policy statement that it OK for a company to break the law and violate the rights of innocent American citizens as long as someone in the government asks. I may have misunderstood but I thought the reason Fred Thompson wanted Nixon impeached was because Nixon thought the President was above the law.

Unintelligible Intelligence

Somewhere, deep in the labyrinthine catacombs that are the U.S. Intelligence Community, someone doing some red force thinking had a sudden, horrible revelation: women who appear pregnant have the perfect cargo carrying capacity that is seemingly above search. Who really wants to grope a pregnant woman to see if she really is with child? Combined with the fact that organizations have used women in the past to serve as suicide bombers, and the threat, perhaps borne of someone's dissatisfaction with their childhood, was solidified, at least in someone's mind. Thus, the word was spread all across the land, pregnant women are a threat and should be treated as hostile. As with most of the warnings since 9/11, this, too, springs forth from the fearmongering tendencies of the mainstream media. The way to be sure of this is the final paragraph of the aforelinked article, italics added for emphasis:

Authorities say there is "no specific, credible intelligence" that says terrorists are planning to use women and suicide bombers to attack, but the warning was sent to agencies across the country in the wake of recent attacks overseas.

There is no factual substance to this claim, and thus should not be regarded as credible. But, before I go into some of the threats as seen by the U.S. intelligence community, here is an article from Fox News' Mike Baker, who tries to crawl into Osama bin Laden's head and do some red force thinking of his own, and ultimately revealing his own prejudices. I can only hope that those who get paid to do this type of analysis work aren't as simplistic and biased. I like the line where he tries to take credit for being the first to use the complexity of snowflakes in a metaphor for unconventional threats.

This same intelligence community has also recently thought, or perhaps hoped, that bin Laden is dead, judging from a lack of temporal context from his last two videos. Also, the organization whose Director for Analysis went before the House Armed Services Committee and, making a political statement, said that Iran still possesses the technological and industrial infrastructure necessary to acquire a nuclear weapon. A community which exports its fearmongering to those who are notionally our allies, in order to adjust foreign policies, the most recent example of this being India. Mike McConnell, who as the National Director of Intelligence serves as the leader for the community, for instance, frames the threat posed by a newly re-invigorated Russia in terms of control over sources of energy. For an example of how the community is acting beyond the boundaries of the United States, one need only remember the extraordinary rendition program, or for a more timely example, the apparent assassination by car bomb of Hezbollah leader Imad Mughnieh in Damascus. Considering his position on the FBI's Top Ten Most Wanted List, it is not hard to imagine the U.S. Intelligence Community having taken an active interest in Mr. Mughnieh's health.


In conclusion, it would appear that the public product is half cocked fear mongering. Thus, Bush admonishing House lawmakers to approve expanded surveillance powers for this intelligence community is fundamentally flawed. Considering that they can't use the tools they already have to produce anything of any value, any expansion of said powers should be laughed out of the Congress. Also, considering the role of intelligence in the run up to the War in Iraq, the new intelligence offered to the IAEA and the international community.

For some additional flavor, mix in a look at how Defense Secretary Robert Gates' long involvement with the U.S. intelligence community and how it is influencing his strategy in the War on Terror and satellite sleuths seeking secrets.

Pure Rage: This Should Wake You Up

They're taking away health care services from veterans in northwestern Wisconsin!

A former French intelligence officer runs off his mouth in the commentary section of the WSJ. (Try to find it through the Google, as WSJ hasn't abandoned their pay-per service yet.).

And to answer Dan Froomkin, the rage is right here. The W administration seemingly has taken years off of my life by keeping me from sleeping restfully and making me develop stomach problems. He covers a lot of rage in his column yesterday, I'm just going to go ahead and put a link on the sidebar to his column.

When Intelligence isn't Spin, Spinsters React

Since the publication on a National Intelligence Estimate about Iran and its nuclear weapon, the Bush administration, by many accounts, seems to be in full strategic retreat. However, as Dan Froomkin from washingtonpost.com reported, W has already started covering his own liability. Since he has had a few more months than the rest of the country to prepare for the release of the NIE, you can be sure that he has already appropriately adjusted his warmongering. Here is a look at how the NIE was produced.

Surprisingly, the news media is still listening to Norman Podhoretz and John Bolton about anything, and specifically in this case, intelligence. Here is a report that relies upon their opinions, yet doesn't point out the problem with citing them as experts. Norman Podhoretz, for instance, made a career of out of being a neoconservative pundit before the heyday of neoconservatism. One of his earliest and best-known works is a racist diatribe about how he hated black people. But, more relevant to the current discussion is his complete lack of experience in the intelligence community. While he may be retired now, he was an original signatory of the "Project for the New American Century," the ideological framework for W's administration and foreign policy, meaning that he is deeply invested in making sure that history has a favorable impression of the administration. John Bolton, for his part, is also intensely involved in the Project. He has made a career for being a diplomat or wandering mouth for conservative presidents. Bolton also has no experience in working in the intelligence community, but does have something of a reputation for cooking intelligence for political purposes. Since the intelligence community is notionally no longer under the thumb of the neoconservatives that make up the decision-making in the W administration, these two old warriors are now resorting to ad hominem attacks on what appears to be dissident voices within the federal bureaucracy. "But I (Norman Podhoretz) entertain an even darker suspicion. It is the intelligence community, which has for so many years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W Bush, is doing it again." Behold, the evolution of spin, now those who pushed the intelligence community to supply, what can most graciously be called, misleading intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, accuse those who are career intelligence officials of politicizing their work.

The Pentagon, for its part, has dispatched the uniformed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, to Israel to speak with their Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, and their intelligence analysts. During the whirlwind 24 hour visit, Adm. Mullen will probably explain the constitution and the fact that the President doesn't really need the support of the American people to expand the war to Iran, something that would be hard to understand for those who live in a free, demoratic society.

Reps. Peter Hoekstra (MI 2nd) and Jane Harman (CA 36th) published an op-ed today in the Wall Street Journal questioning the quality of the intelligence organization that they were notionally in charge of overseeing as Ranking Members and Chairpersons of the House Intelligence Committee. Defending the mischaracterizations of intelligence on the part of the W administration, "..., intelligence is in many ways an art, not an exact science." In summation, the entire piece reads like an apology for delivery the wrong intelligence, although they also go into a little ad homineming against the intelligence analysts who produced the report (the confidence remark).