(P) It's been 21 years since economic sanctions started killing Iraqis in 1990.
18 years since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
13 years since the 1998 African embassy bombings.
11 years since the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.
10 years since the 2001 World Trade Center and Pentagon bombings and the invasion of Afghanistan.
8 years since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
5 years since Saddam Hussein was killed in 2006.
And now, the White House is set to report the death of Osama bin Laden.
If we don't bring our troops home now from foreign military occupations, we'll be doing this forever.
Forever.
Well, as long as empires last.
Which tends to be shorter than forever.
Showing posts with label intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligence. Show all posts
5/02/2011
8/28/2009
the disgustingness continues
(P) This week, the ACLU put up another document that the government has belatedly released regarding the criminal (er, heroic, terrorist-stopping, manly, beer-drinking) acts of the senior officials of the Bush Administration.
As the document bureaucratically explains:
What I think is going to surprise a lot of people as more and more of the details trickle out is how cold and calculated everything is. One of the features of a large organization is that bureaucracy involves lots of decision-makers, and in order to disseminate information among the various groups, there is lots of information sent back and forth. The nature of this process thus can almost hilariously contrast with the particular subject matter at hand. Our nation's leaders discussed war crimes, treaty violations, and felonies as if they were discussing where to build a new highway interchange or quarterly projections for GDP growth.
This process is precisely why transparency, openness, 'sunshine', is a core element of good governance. Decision-makers have to know at the time of their decisions that their deliberations will become public, that there will be social and legal consequences for blatantly improper courses of action.
The PDF for this document from 2004 sent to the Office of Legal Counsel from the Central Intelligence Agency can be downloaded here. It's been clear for awhile that this is no group of 'bad apples' or 'rogue agents' or other nonsense. The dedicated staff at the CIA, NSA, DIA, INR, etc, etc, who are monitoring my blog, your email, your mom's phone conversations, your dad's credit history, your neighbor's political contributions, your kid's internet postings, your grandma's participation in peace groups, etc, etc, are not the people who designed these policies. And to a great extent, it's the bureaucracy itself, the countless professional civil servants, who are able to apply the brakes internally, to slow down inappropriate, counterproductive, illegal programs.
But that only stops so much. When a group of our leaders is committed to ignoring the law, there is only one group of people that can stand up to them, and that is us, We the People. Seven years after we first started this particular bit of horrific, counterproductive, illicit behavior, we have yet to stop it completely, let alone hold the architects accountable for their creation.
But hey, at least we've been able to arrest millions of other Americans over the past seven years for grave allegations like shoplifting, prostitution, and marijuana possession. It's good we've got our 'tough on crime' priorities in order.
As the document bureaucratically explains:
Note: This paper provides further background information and details on High Value Detainee (HVD) interrogation techniques to support documents CIA has previously provided the Department of Justice.
This paper focuses strictly on the topic of combined uses of interrogation techniques.
What I think is going to surprise a lot of people as more and more of the details trickle out is how cold and calculated everything is. One of the features of a large organization is that bureaucracy involves lots of decision-makers, and in order to disseminate information among the various groups, there is lots of information sent back and forth. The nature of this process thus can almost hilariously contrast with the particular subject matter at hand. Our nation's leaders discussed war crimes, treaty violations, and felonies as if they were discussing where to build a new highway interchange or quarterly projections for GDP growth.
This process is precisely why transparency, openness, 'sunshine', is a core element of good governance. Decision-makers have to know at the time of their decisions that their deliberations will become public, that there will be social and legal consequences for blatantly improper courses of action.
The PDF for this document from 2004 sent to the Office of Legal Counsel from the Central Intelligence Agency can be downloaded here. It's been clear for awhile that this is no group of 'bad apples' or 'rogue agents' or other nonsense. The dedicated staff at the CIA, NSA, DIA, INR, etc, etc, who are monitoring my blog, your email, your mom's phone conversations, your dad's credit history, your neighbor's political contributions, your kid's internet postings, your grandma's participation in peace groups, etc, etc, are not the people who designed these policies. And to a great extent, it's the bureaucracy itself, the countless professional civil servants, who are able to apply the brakes internally, to slow down inappropriate, counterproductive, illegal programs.
But that only stops so much. When a group of our leaders is committed to ignoring the law, there is only one group of people that can stand up to them, and that is us, We the People. Seven years after we first started this particular bit of horrific, counterproductive, illicit behavior, we have yet to stop it completely, let alone hold the architects accountable for their creation.
But hey, at least we've been able to arrest millions of other Americans over the past seven years for grave allegations like shoplifting, prostitution, and marijuana possession. It's good we've got our 'tough on crime' priorities in order.
8/04/2009
unsanitizing torture
(P) I personally tend to be more discrete and diplomatic in my communication, but I wanted to highlight somebody being a little more direct in telling it like it is. The notion that our prison policies have been anything but immoral, illegal, and counterproductive is pretty funny.
Some articles have a way of just lettin' it all hang out, leaving little to the imagination. The graphic alone makes reading this story worth it.
I would normally give a warning that this is mature content, but this is what our government is doing in our name to real human beings. How can conduct be so horrific we should shelter our kids from it, but at the same time, not be worth investigating and prosecuting? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Of the millions of Americans who have been arrested in the last few years, few have committed crimes even remotely as disgusting or an as large a scale as the senior officials of the Bush Administration.
For your reading pleasure, Whores on Terror by Allan Uthman.
A snippet:
Some articles have a way of just lettin' it all hang out, leaving little to the imagination. The graphic alone makes reading this story worth it.
I would normally give a warning that this is mature content, but this is what our government is doing in our name to real human beings. How can conduct be so horrific we should shelter our kids from it, but at the same time, not be worth investigating and prosecuting? That's a rhetorical question, of course. Of the millions of Americans who have been arrested in the last few years, few have committed crimes even remotely as disgusting or an as large a scale as the senior officials of the Bush Administration.
For your reading pleasure, Whores on Terror by Allan Uthman.
A snippet:
I don’t want to come off as minimizing the horror of controlled drowning. It’s just that there’s something about forcible anal rape that brings the torture issue into sharp focus. Just once, I’d like to hear one of these American Enterprise Institute psychos, the ones that always trot out to defend the Neocons’ freakish obsessions, have to defend shoving a flashlight up a guy’s ass. I want to hear Frank Gaffney or Jonah Goldberg tell me why I shouldn’t be fucking mortified that raping prisoners was considered within tolerable interrogation practices by my country. I want Glenn Beck to justify butt-raping a suspect.
4/18/2007
an open letter to senator bond
(P) Dear Senator Bond,
In 1998 your office was kind enough to take some time to meet with me when I was in DC with the NYLC. I still have the books a staffer gave me. I appreciate that understanding that you are in Washington to serve your constituants, even someone just in high school. There are times, of course, when there are legitimate differences of opinion on how to approach legislation. There are also times, however, when a clear choice exists between crass partisanship and acting in the best interests of your constituants.
This is one of those times. As the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, you have a uniquely important voice in the discussion surrounding the intelligence funding legislation. You are not in Washington to serve a President or a party; above all, you are there to serve those of us back here in Missouri. I urge you to reconsider your stance on the legislation and lead your colleagues to reconsider, as well. It may not be easy, but it is a fairly simple choice. As taxpayers and citizens, we have a right to the best intelligence we can get, uncompromised by unauthorized leaks, and we have a right to know what orders are given to our intelligence professionals, even if that transparency and accountability may cause embarrassment for the highest officials in our government.
Stop the filibuster.
Respectfully Yours,
Nathaniel Dempsey
St. Louis, MO
In 1998 your office was kind enough to take some time to meet with me when I was in DC with the NYLC. I still have the books a staffer gave me. I appreciate that understanding that you are in Washington to serve your constituants, even someone just in high school. There are times, of course, when there are legitimate differences of opinion on how to approach legislation. There are also times, however, when a clear choice exists between crass partisanship and acting in the best interests of your constituants.
This is one of those times. As the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, you have a uniquely important voice in the discussion surrounding the intelligence funding legislation. You are not in Washington to serve a President or a party; above all, you are there to serve those of us back here in Missouri. I urge you to reconsider your stance on the legislation and lead your colleagues to reconsider, as well. It may not be easy, but it is a fairly simple choice. As taxpayers and citizens, we have a right to the best intelligence we can get, uncompromised by unauthorized leaks, and we have a right to know what orders are given to our intelligence professionals, even if that transparency and accountability may cause embarrassment for the highest officials in our government.
Stop the filibuster.
Respectfully Yours,
Nathaniel Dempsey
St. Louis, MO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)