I think I'm reading what I'm writing. Are you?
I said that the information that was released on torture was not new information. I said" The information about the torture used by US forces and The CIA in the interrogation of prisoners is not new. It was mentioned in a New Yorker article in 2005 and in this article, whose link I'm providing below. The details of The New Yorker Article are provided in that." Check for details.
Not only were the details of what tortures being used described, but also on whom they were being used, as long as the claim that they were being effective. If the Bush administration had actually wished to prevent the Loose Lips Sink Ships scenario, they would not have allowed that information out, would they, since knowing whom we had captive immediately let enemies know what information was at risk. If you plan on information at risk not being lost, you are hardly a wise commander, are you?
You may well notice, however, that these principles didn't stop the President and Vice President from Blowing the cover of Valerie Plame, who was in charge of much of the espionage on weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, for us in the middle east. This may well have crippled our incoming flow of intelligence on Iran and who knows what all other important conflict areas. This was, apparently, for momentary political gain and petty partisan revenge. There are specific intelligence blogs, and blogs focusing on counterinsurgency that try to politically neutral, as they should, since their mandate is policy not politics.
I have made reference to one or two over the past year, but I won't repeat them here. I'm afraid that you'd find them tainted by my mention of them and might not be if you stumbled across them on your own. On one occasion I made a point of referencing a journal that had a point of view that disagreed with me but still had a well written and fascinating article on weapons sales, drugs, the spread of gangs and other such things. Nobody followed up, probably because I'd made the reference. Check for yourself.
Beg your pardon, guys, but the Bush administration was always floating reports about how astute torture or investigative work was going to lead to the conviction of X or y, or had headed of this or that thing, but they never came through with the details that would actually produce the convictions, just like they never came through with those weapons of mass destruction or the mobile laboratories or the airplanes that had been sent to Iran for safety. Their entire administration was one long series of promises like that.
Remember when they said that the United States didn't torture Prisoners?
Richard Cheney and Scooter Rumsfeld are simply at it again, with more, larger and stickier lies for your consuming pleasure. Eat your fill, but please don't try to talk me into picking up a spoon too. It was never to my taste.
And if you actually read those memos, by the way, you realize that there are very strict limits as to the number of times these things are supposed to be done, and that they are all suppose to be done under direct supervision of Psychologists. I think that doing these things in excess of 25 times within a limited period of time falls into the realm of torture for anybody, let alone the more than 100 times that some folks were exposed to.
That behavior, the behavior that ordered that sort of questioning, is the real criminal activity. That to me is treason, and I think it did enormous damage to the United States in wartime. If I believed in the death penalty, and I do not, it's orders like this that would merit it, especially knowing that the information gotten from such interrogations is unlikely to be useful. Even with cross-checks, the possibilities for human error put the reliability of such information as much less that good as other than an indulgence in sadism.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven
[This message has been edited by Ron (04-26-2009 11:26 AM).]