It’s Hard to Connect the Dots When You Don’t Know Where They Are
By Johnny Roosh
Yesterday President Obama released Bush administration memos on terrorist interrogation techniques in the interest of transparency and with a blatant disregard for national security.
Clearly, as unsavory as some of these techniques must be (I don’t want to know how sausage is made either) we have been kept safe here at home for some time since 9/11 and there have been several foiled attempts at savagery on the part of terrorists in Western nations – without a doubt in part due to our more aggressive attempts to gather, intercept intelligence and connect the dots to protect our interests – and save lives.
White House senior adviser David Axelrod says President Barack Obama spent about a month pondering whether to release Bush-era memos about CIA interrogation techniques, and considered it “a weighty decision.”
Whatever happened to when in doubt, keep your mouth shut – or in this case, keep the file cabinet locked. Whatta ya say Obammy that we err on the side of maintaining national security, not eroding it? Is that too much to ask?
What possible purpose could be served by advertising our most top-secret techniques for gleaning information that has probably saved lives?
A former top official in the administration of President George W. Bush called the publication of the memos “unbelievable.”
“It’s damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama’s action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are,” the official said. “We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary. … Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again — even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake.”
“I don’t believe Obama would intentionally endanger the nation, so it must be that he thinks either 1. the previous administration, including the CIA professionals who have defended this program, is lying about its importance and effectiveness, or 2. he believes we are no longer really at war and no longer face the kind of grave threat to our national security this program has protected against.”
This should come as no surprise to those of us who warned you that a man that “served” in public office for less than two years is not a suitable choice to lead this nation. But disregard the Incompetence Theory™ for now. Is it possible that Barack Obama holds his liberal agenda above all else, without regard for the consequences to our nation or it’s people?
Preposterous you say? Case in point: an $800 Billion stimulus package that will only raise our nation’s already untenable debt, devalue our dollar, and with no hope or precedent to show that such a plan has any hope of stimulating anything – save half our nation’s Hopey Changey dreams of a world without pain – or gain.
Not to mention the fact that our economy is showing signs of stabilization – and without any assistance from the not-yet-implemented “stimulus.”
And why release this now – are all other issues solved? Does Obama know that we are now somehow immune from attack?
Obama did not act on an arbitrary timeline. There was a deadline in a court case with the ACLU on Thursday. It had been extended, but the ACLU was not going to agree to another.
Ah, the ACLU. Well at least now we know who’s in charge.
Or, is this Barack Obtumor’s way of relieving the non-existent guilt of a nation not-sorry for having the audacity to protect it’s law-abiding citizens from being deep-fried in jet fuel in his or her 88th-floor office?
No, it’s a sophomoric President force-feeding an ever-angering nation a far-far-left (we warned you) agenda that flies in the face of his promise of Change®.
…and leaves us a little less safe than we were on Wednesday.
April 19th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
MON:
“The word subsequently, was in reference to “subsequently to enhanced interrogation techniques”.”
It is not altogether clear and that is an authors interpretation of comments by the Bush Admin, not a statement from the Bush Admin. More importantly from the same article
1. “The documents do not provide details on the results of the methods.”
2. “Hayden and others also questioned the purpose of continuing to examine the effectiveness of the CIA program”
If torturing AZ had revealed useful information, it would have been all over the documents and Hayden would be demanding its release.
April 19th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
From General Hayden’s interview with Chris Wallace
NOTE: When they refer to “techniques” they mean the enhanced interrogation techniques as described in the CIA memos.
WALLACE: Let me — let me get directly to this, because I think it is one of the key issues. Did these techniques work? In Friday’s Wall Street Journal, you and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote an article. And let’s put up what you said.
You wrote, “As late as 2006, fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of Al Qaida came from those interrogations.”
But the New York Times reports that all the information that Abu Zubaydah, the first one who went through all of these techniques — all of the information he gave up came before he was subjected to waterboarding, before he was slapped, before he was slammed against a wall. And it says after the harsher enhanced interrogation, he gave up nothing.
HAYDEN: I should correct you — before he was slammed against a false flexible wall with something wrapped around his neck so that he would not be injured.
In September 2006, President Bush gave a speech on the Abu Zubaydah case. He pointed out that he — Zubaydah gave us nominal information, probably more valuable than he thought. He clammed up. The decision was made to use techniques.
After that decision was made and the techniques were used, he gave up more valuable information, including the information that led to the arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh. After the New York Times story yesterday, I called a few friends to make sure my memory was correct, and I guess, to quote somebody from your profession, we stand by our story.
The critical information we got from Abu Zubaydah came after we began the EITs.
WALLACE: The AIT (ph)?
HAYDEN: The enhanced interrogation techniques.
WALLACE: Not before.
HAYDEN: No.
Hayden even spoke directly to you Dick_tic.
HAYDEN: The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work. The president’s speech, President Bush in September of ‘06, outlined how one detainee led to another, led to another, with the use of these techniques.
The honorable position you have to take if you want us not to do this — and believe me, if the nation says, “Don’t do it,” the CIA won’t do it. The honorable position has to be, “Even though these techniques worked, I don’t want you to do that.” That takes courage. The other sentence doesn’t.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/19/mccaskill_graham_fox_news_sunday_96064.html
April 19th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
A full moral argument considers that impact on all people, which equal weight given to the interests of each. Not to treat a loved one in the same way is a pretty good first test of morality, but it can be outweighed by the larger impact. But these are the obvious points for Ethics 101.
There is nothing defined as “moral argument”, much less a “full moral argument”, other than in theology, RickDFL. It doesn’t exist in ethics or in rhetoric. You don’t even know the proper terms to debate, but that doesn’t stop you from flaunting your ignorance.
Educate yourself. You could start with “Introduction to Ethics for Challenged Students”.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
MON:
“You’ve produced no such evidence.”
OK, Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Yezhov, Himmler, Kang Sheng, Comrade Duch, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein. Those societies you want to emulate? Want me to go on?
“fully half of the government’s knowledge about the structure and activities of Al Qaida came from those interrogations”
Of course, tortured people produce a great quantity of garbage information to stop the torture. During Stalin’s purges people would confess that every person they knew was a wrecker. Hayden is simply referring to the quantity of the leads, not their quality. It is a cheap and obvious bit a BS meant only for willing dupes like you.
“led to the arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh” Not is any sense of ‘led’ I am familiar with.
1. His ID and role were already know. “American officials had identified Mr. bin al-Shibh’s role in the attacks months before Mr. Zubaydah’s capture. A December 2001 federal grand jury indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, said that Mr. Moussaoui had received money from Mr. bin al-Shibh and that Mr. bin al-Shibh had shared an apartment with Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the plot.”
2. He was captured over a year and a half after Zubaydah’s torture. So it is unlikely the torture provided any useful information.
3. His location was learned directly from another source. According to Ron Suskind , “the Emir of Qatar passed along information to the CIA as to something that an Al Jazeera reporter had discovered as to the safehouse where KSM and bin al Shibh were hiding in Karachi slums.”
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609090002
If Hayden believes torture really did work, why does he want to prevent the release of the report detailing its results?
April 19th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
“There is nothing defined as “moral argument””
I suppose if you think that there is no point in arguing about morality of anything, then there is no point in arguing with about the morality of torture. I don’t find it surprising that a torture apologist will ultimately revel himself to not believe in moral arguments.
“other than in theology”
OK, How about, “therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
Or “…thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”, Leviticus 19:18
April 19th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
It’s called ‘ethics’, RickDFL. You can make an argument from a system of ethics. ‘Ethical’ is not a synonym for ‘moral’. Until you know the difference you should not attempt to engage people on the topics of ethics or morality.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:34 am
Terry:
“‘Ethical’ is not a synonym for ‘moral’.”
OK – Substitute ‘ethical’ for ‘moral’. The Golden Rule is the basis on any ethical argument.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:09 am
The Golden Rule is ‘a’ basis for ‘an’ ethical argument. It’s faults are many. If you are in a bar and a guy walks in looking for a fight, do you fight him? If an addict wants drugs do you give it to him? Should Prison guards set the prisoners free or should the prisoners stop trying to escape?
You have not made a case that the golden rule has any validity in this case.
Other commenters have specifically made the case that the Golden Rule does not apply in the case of the high value al qaida captives. Your response has been to try and change the subject. First you say enhanced interrogation is immoral. When you are presented with the ticking time bomb argument you say it doesn’t matter, enhanced interrogation is illegal. When confronted with the fact that the Bush memos specifically made a finding that enhanced interrogation is legal, you say it doesn’t work. When it is demonstrated to you to have been effective, you go back to ‘it’s immoral’.
You find yourself holding a strong opinion without the intellectual ability to defend that opinion. Backed into a corner you resort to name calling and baseless assertions of moral superiority — because you would not torture a criminal to save a thousand innocent people from being tortured. Or you would, but it would still be wrong and it would be right to punish you for doing so. Or something.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:49 am
Terry:
A Golden Rule argument requires you to consider the impact of an act on all affected people, giving equal weight to the preferences of all concerned. You refrain from fighting in a bar, not because the Golden Rule does not apply to the guy walking in, but because his preferences are outweighed by yours and the other patrons.
I don’t think Bush EIT/torture was effective, in fact, I think the reverse. While the Bush Admin did write memos that EIT was not torture and therefore illegal, those memos were not an accurate summary of the law nor were they even prepared in good faith. They were part of a criminal conspiracy to torture.
We ought to base the moral principals we teach and the laws we pass on likely real world cases. The ticking time bomb is not such a case. Because it is so never-gonna-happen out-of-the-ordinary we don’t know precisely how to deal with it morally or legally. I do know that any ethical or legal response would not involve secrecy or trying to avoid prosecution.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:18 am
A Golden Rule argument requires you to consider the impact of an act on all affected people, giving equal weight to the preferences of all concerned.
That’s your take on it. There is no hard-and-fast standard way of determining when the Golden Rule should be applied. Your version wouldn’t work if some of the people concerned were criminals, eg people whose preferences were not normative. It would be immoral to give equal weight to the preferences of a murderer and his victim.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:58 am
“That’s your take on it.”
Me. Socrates, Jesus, Hume, Kant, Mill, Rawls, Hare, ect.
“It would be immoral to give equal weight to the preferences of a murderer and his victim. ”
Why? Just because we count the interests of each person equally does not mean that after counting or weighing one person’s interests can not add up to more than another person’s. My dollar is equal to your dollar, but that does not mean my total of dollars equals your total. In the case of murder it is obvious that even giving equal weight to the interests of both, the interests on the victim clearly outweigh the interests on the killer. Whatever gain to the killer won’t outweigh the victim’s loss of life. In fact, the murderer usually applies the same moral logic you do. I don’t want X done to me, but I will do X to Smith because Smith’s interests don’t matter and I don’t have to count them.
But once again you are avoiding the central question. Torturers always say their victims deserve the torture (b/c they are unruly slaves, Trotskyite wreckers, enemies of the people, terrorists). But this is always just an excuse to treat people in an immoral way.
You enjoy torture because you are a degenerate. You enjoy the idea of other people suffering.