So Dick Cheney kept saying that if only certain CIA reports were released, it would confirm how important the use of torture (excuse me, "enhanced interrogation techniques") is. They have now been released in terribly redacted form. They are the reason why AG Holder has done his duty and appointed a prosecutor. Just take a look. This is our government? The government of a free people? Go to about page 44 where they discuss the waterboarding and use of a power drill. The next dozen pages are totally blacked out. But you can guess how much worse it must be. The redactions, as usual, must be assumed to protect embarrassing information, not just sensitive information. These are crimes. Indeed, they are high crimes and misdemeanors, but those perpretrators have since left office.
Each time new documents are released I assume that I won't be shocked. Haven't I seen it all? No, you haven't. You really haven't. There is a report about a CIA officer who smoked cigars to cover up the "stench" of the interrogation room. You can guess why it might stink after endless hours of interrogation and no bathroom breaks.
And of course, these are the sanitized documents prepared by the CIA. They are unlikely, after all, to be the whole truth. You can safely assume that the information they claim to have gleaned is overstated and the level of abuse is understated, perhaps severely so in both cases.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Behold: Your Government
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 8:33 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
This is all about covering up 9/11...and what Cheney knew about it.
"This is all about covering up 9/11...and what Cheney knew about it."
There is enough to bash these guys with without making up lunatic conspiracy theories.
It will all come out. There is at least one of the criminals that will write a book about this in about 30 years.
The Naval Institute Press (NOT a left wing publisher) published a book in the 1990s about how the CI lying A started the Korean War.
A couple of years later, the NIP published a book where black operations in Vietnam were described in detail.
If you decide to read these books,
please, make note that the only successful CI lying A operation in both wars was starting the wars. The rest of the billions of dollars and the thousands of lives were total 100 per cent waste.
1
I'm not even going to try to argue with your logic that because the CIA has kept secrets about bad things in the past, then your accusation about 9/11 being an inside job must therefore also be true.
OK, how many people would have to be in on this conspiracy to pull it off? Depending on which version of the lunatic fringe you come from, it would be somewhere between hundreds and thousands.
The probability that a dozen people can keep a secret like you are proposing is practically zero - forget about 100 people keeping a secret or a 1000. Someone would have sold their story by now if half of what you suggest were true.
Another big tip off to me that the "9/11 was an inside job" folks are nuts is that there are dozens of different but equally preposterous versions of how it was pulled off and why.
If you were a terrorist and you really hate Americans, why wouldn't you fly into the nuclear power plant and kill about 20 million of us over the years and destroy the eastern seaboard? Why would you opt to kill a couple of thousand instead of 20 million if you were a radical hater of the western infidel? When the CIA had Khalid Sheikh Mohamme at Gitmo, they made him think he was handed over to Saudi intelligence agency. The CIA used one of their Saudi operatives to question him...he came into ask questions via torture and KSM said, what are you doing, I'll tell you what you want to know. He then gave up 3 names of the Saudi royal family whom he said knew about 9/11 before it happened. Those 3 people were all dead within 90 days of that interrogation. There is an awfully big body of evidence through relationship that makes this a possibility. How many people have to keep secrets all over the world while the banks rape us all? Do you actually believe Kennedy was killed by one shooter? Do you believe a government that tells you, you can protect yourself from chemical warfare with duct tape? Do you believe a government that use to tell us when we were in school, that in order to protect yourself from a nuclear attack, hide under your desk...made of wood to protect you from a fire ball? To completely dis-miss deep rooted suspicions about anything close to Dick Cheney is to be somewhat foolish, as it is to believe everything...but nothing should surprise any of us when it comes to these people.
Flying into an American nuclear power plant would be quite unlikely to release a significant amount of radioactive material. I realize that sounds wrong, but the engineering safety measures at American nuclear power plants are really quite extraordinary.
While that is very true about the construction of these plants, flying an airplane, full of fule into a noise dive at 60o to 700 miles per hour into the reactor and / or containment structures, is going to do a lot of damage and will most likely cause a leak of radio active material...even for a short time, will be very damaging. Robert Kennedy Jr. has done a lot of research on the subject and there is a documentary about it...his complaint...the lack of any real security at the plant.
Anonymous 12:41. I don't believe everything. That is why I don't believe you. You're just upset because I don't believe your rather thin theory about 9/11 being an inside job based on a lot of random stuff about who interrogated who and how etc. What a load of nonsense.
As for your assumption about what it is obvious for a terrorist to do, I think you are particularly off base there. Terrorism is fundamentally a means of political communication through violence. High profile, low protection, targets are the rule for a reason - as are methods that have a high probability of "success" which may not be simply a raw body count. They want to dominate the news cycle for as long as they can. If they can do that with killing one famous person or 30 or 3000 not so famous people great. But the kind of attack on a nuclear plant you are talking about - as our resident physics PhD pointed out - is not likely to have the results you assume would both be likely and the ultimate goal of terrorists.
RBR, to assume that I am upset with you because you do not subscribe to potential elements of the events of 9/11 being circumspect, is to assume you have a much greater importance in my life than you do, not upset at all and as you often do, you miss the point. ..."lot of random stuff about who interrogated who and how etc. What a load of nonsense." The interrogation 'stuff as you call it, is not random and has been well documented and is currently under a great deal of scrutiny by the justice department. I would have thought that the lies about WMDs would have been nonsense to, but come to pass, they were lies. You are the perfect example of why smart people are the easiest to fool...because you will dismiss it as nonsense even after living through a long list of lies and bullshit from the powers that be...now that is nonsense, and did I tell you, the world is flat.
I hope there is plenty enough that we know for certain to be shocked and dismayed about, and that we can agree is horrific.
I suspect, Anonymous, that you have read some of the right evidence the wrong way. It may well turn out to be true that some high placed Saudis and others knew more about terrorist plans than they should have. It may even be true that more warnings were given to the Administration through back channels than we will ever know.
But to think that Dick Cheney would have worked to make the 9/11 attacks happen makes no sense to me, given what we know about Dick Cheney. He's a true believer in this Islamofascism nonsense. I know it's sometimes easier and more comforting, even, to suspect malevolence than ignorance and stupidity, but don't discount the latter two. Also, IF 9/11 was supposed to be a kind of Reichstag fire, the political capitalization was carried out in a very half-assed manner, far too half-assed for someone who supposedly planned 9/11.
Anonymous, your comment of 12:41 was barely coherent in terms of providing a link between any of these actors and the actions you attribute to them. How could I help but "miss the point?"
Anonymous may or may not be correct. But I think I have proven myself on this blog to NOT be a wack job. And I am a person of education . . . foreign policy eduication. And because I know what we've done in the past in may foreign countries by our government, it makes me a bit less trusting of my own government. And I do think there is enough circumstantial evidence out there to suggest that one should be suspicious of the offical storyline behind the events of 9/11 as well as a few other events of the past.
But the real point of LTG's post is to discuss CIA blck ops. The CIA has always pushed the rules. This time, as I have said before, they weren't able to keep it under wraps.
The truth is coming out, some things will never be fully solved. But I fully support Holder's actions. Sunshine strengthens and purifies. And I am glad that Obama is saying that he has an "independant" attorney general. It's about time!
Well, I wouldn't be so sanguine about Holder's independence. Holder is a genuine hero for ordering this investigation, but not for the reason that he defied Obama at all. I am pretty sure he agreed with Obama beforehand to be the fall guy for this so that, if it causes political harm the President's agenda, it can be jettisoned safely.
RBR...the point is, being open to all possibilities, no matter how far out they may seem to you. You don't have to subscribe and believe it, just understand that if it came out, it shouldn't be shocking, my point is, be aware and open, being dismissive and obtuse is unbecoming of you. Disagree, certainly, but there are a lot of facts that point to something terribly wrong. I listed several instances where the government has lied to the public and stated ridiculous things like using duct tape for chemical weapons protection. You never address actual events of history tht I mentioned, that are documented that would one to doubt a lot about our government in its current and past condition.
Let me ask you this about 9/11: Do you believe that the FBI office in Phoenix exposed the potential threat 3 months before it happened? There was actionable intel on a potential attack. Clinton also told them about the threat before he left office...all ignored...like you are now. They lie about WMDs, get us in a war and then try to link al Queda to Iraq...much of Cheney's doing. You said we have enough to bash this guy with, evidently not or he would be in jail. In my civics class, it was treason to give up state secrets, outing spy operatives like Valerie Plame. Bin Laden offered the CIA, to assassinate Saddam Hussain (sp) twice, and they said no...why? RBR..all I am saying is, this stuff is so dirty and we have been seeing so much behind the curtain lately, how do you not have a sliver of a doubt about the possiblity?
Also, LTG, as far as half assed, you are correct, but these people think they are the chosen ones...they only answer to God...Cheney is one of those...he works and is guided by the favor of a higher source...it doesn't matter what we think or do, he can do whatever he wants...the C street scandal has brought this to light about that mentality. And Cheney dislikes Islam so much, he moves Haliburton HQ to Dubai...really? Clearly the most liberal state in the region, but is officially an Islamic country. And Cheney / Bush after 9/11 want to hire an Islamic security company to provide security for the port of NYC? What does it take to arouse suspicion in you folks?
I agree with USWest that the official storyline regarding 9/11 is probably to some extent inaccurate and incomplete. If nothing else, the powerful usually manage to whitewash their own incompetence.
But no risk-benefit calculation that even remotely favors staging the events of 9/11 makes any sense to me at this point. Nor can I yet reconcile the notion that the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz-led neo-con clique--which so badly botched the ensuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere--somehow managed to plan and execute an operation as effective as 9/11.
They didn't have to plan it or be involved in planning it, to know about it.
Anonymous and USWest make the important point that Cheney et al. have demonstrated a willingness to lie and commit criminal acts to get their way. But I believe even those folks can see the huge moral gap between all the charges enumerated in previous comments--e.g., instituting torture, misleading us about WMDs, outing Valerie Plame--and the monstrous events of 9/11.
Side note: You might want to doublecheck your facts regarding the port authority issue, Anonymous. I think you will find all that was mostly just about the power of petrodollars. At any rate it is not your best argument :-)
Good point, Anonymous. It is much easier to accept that they knew something and failed to act. But I think in general we should not assume conspiracy where incompetence is sufficient explanation. Despite their retroactive attempts to sound more responsible, I think the basic truth is that no senior policymakers (neither in the Clinton nor Bush administrations) really believed anything like 9/11 could happen. Kind of like Pearl Harbor. (Unless I am starting another debate with that one...!)
My view of all this failure to forewarn, take steps stuff (this agent or that office "knew" and was ignored etc) is that it is very similar to the kinds of things surrounding the Dec 7th, 1941 attacks. There were similar complaints in France about the surprise with which French military and government officials reacted to the German invasion of Belgium and the Netherlands.
There are explanations for how a large bureaucracy can mess up on this kind of thing without getting into some kind of theory about it all being master minded by a super criminal figure.
Ha!, re: Pear Harbor. ...and it happened, no debate needed!
When the President sits for 6 minutes in a school room while the country is under attack in the state where the pilots of 9/11 trained, where his brother is the Gov...that just all seems weird to me. And the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon...I saw no pictures of seats, engines, tail wings et. al...have you ever seen a plane crash with no visible debris of plane wreckage? Perhaps some of you have seen better pictures that show these items, but I have not. I just see a lot of reason for reasonable doubt on the events of that day day, no matter how unreasonable they may appear to be.
Dr. S...re: your 9:37 post, point taken, thanks, I would agree.
The fact that even on this blog, folks were pounded their chest because they were right about the fact that the Bush administration used the Homeland Sec. color coded alert system to strike fear into the county at political opportune times, is enough to cast doubt that these people will terrorize us and to think otherwise seems strange to me. So why RBR are you so forgiving of the "large bureaucracy "with so much past history and recent history, that shows you these people will do untold pre-meditated criminal activities to conduct their brand of business? We were led to war that has killed perhaps a million civilians on pre-meditated lies and control of events. You seem to think everything they did was just out of their stupidity? These people are and were not stupid...look what they accomplished while we all just watched...and yes, they are criminals in my estimation.
"Ha!, re: Pear Harbor. ...and it happened, no debate needed!"
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that because Pearl Harbor was attacked, it proves that FDR knew in advance and allowed it to happen to further some sort of political agenda?
RE: the large bureaucracy... I wouldn't say I'm "forgiving." Rather I'd say that I don't look at bureaucratic outcomes and automatically assume they must be caused by nefarious motives by particular individuals within that bureaucracy.
If you want to say that Bush and Cheney lied to get political support for the war in Iraq, I'm with you. That's well documented and many people pointed out their demonstrable lies at the time. But when you go from there to some sort of 9/11 was an inside job type argument, you lose me completely. The logic and evidence simply isn't there.
I'll conclude with what should be obvious. Just because we know Cheney is a liar and a criminal does not make it true that every accusation leveled against him is valid.
"You seem to think everything they did was just out of their stupidity."
One more clarification. People don't have to be either stupid or evil in order for their collective actions to produce really awful outcomes. Examples of individuals - acting in good faith - cooperating with each other (or failing to cooperate with each other) to produce rotten outcomes that none of them wanted are too myriad to list here.
I can vouch for the wonder behind what appears to be government incompetence. It's often very hard to tell what is plotted and planned and what is an unintended externality. It's hard to tell the idealists apart from the idealogs. Some have a vision of where they want the country to go. And they are building policies and making decisions to try and fulfill that vision. That also means that they ignore what is inconvenient. That is what we had under Bush Jr. Then there are pragmatists who also have a vision, but know they will have to make big compromises. They want to solve existing problems. And their vision is linked to the problem solving. I see that with the Obama administration.
We know that the Bushies had vision and they had desired outcomes. They were willing to make a lot of compromises and to ignore a lot of inconvenient truths to get there. I don't think they expected many of the results they got. Then they had to whitewash or find ways to justify it all so as to protect themselves. And as the problems got deeper, the whitewash got worse: justice department rubber stamping torture, setting up questionable legal procedures, the whole Bush doctrine, etc. And then there are just coincidences that fit in so well, they look plotted.
I see this it all day long in my work, albeit on a much smaller, less consequential scale. And I have to stop and remind myself every day that what I am seeing is not always what was intended and isn't always done on purpose.And what I am being told is not usually the truth. My boyfriend was amazed the other day when his bosses told him that if it weren't for him, the place we work at wouldn't run. "If that's true," he said, "then why don't I feel like I have any control over what happens here?" He calls much of government work a "war of attrition" brought on by cluster fucks. And he is correct. It's about who can stick with the shit the longest and motivations are rarely transparent. And in my work, I know that I am lied to 60% of the time. People are unpredictable and unreliable.
In government you never really know what will result from a set of decisions. There are just too many moving parts to account for all of them. And you don't realize that what you did here has messed up something else over there. Take my post on the HVCC as an example. And then there is the human side. People just get fed up and they do silly things.
I can see a scenario where one day, after 15 pieces of bad news, after spending 12 hours in negotiations at the UN trying to get something done, and after feeling like he is checked and balanced into paralysis, Bush pops off and says something like, "Godd%^* it! I could just wipe that a-hole Hussen off the map!" And 6 intel guys appear the next day along with the SecDef and the VP (who all feel just as frustrated) with a plan on how to do that. And by now, you're so pissed, and you want something, anything to happen to break the inertia, that you take it. And once you do that, you have to follow it through. And it spins out of control.
That said, all of the people around you are supposed to be there to prevent you from acting out of emotion. But that doesn't always work.
Oh, and can I add that adage about hindsight? So many things look so calculated when you re-tell the tale. And as the tale is retold, mythologies pile up and soon we accepte those as truth. A lie repeated often enough . . .
All of that said, I am still suspicious because the truth is always stranger than fiction.
I think we've talked this one full circle, and it was lively and enjoyable...thanks.
Thank you for your many comments, Anonymous! I know that we can pounce on comments rather aggressively around here, perhaps too much so sometimes. Nevertheless I hope you will feel welcome to comment on future threads. I can get stuck in a rut in my political thinking, and it really helps to hear fresh perspectives that challenge my assumptions. Even if I still disagree :-)
"All of that said, I am still suspicious because the truth is always stranger than fiction."
Totally off topic, but that reminds me of a couple of quotes... Niels Bohr, perhaps my favorite physicist, once remarked to fellow physicist Pauli, "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
He also said something that would make a great retort to the practitioners of fiery, straight-talking, populist rhetoric like Limbaugh and Beck: "Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think."
Well, if we are posting quotes...here is a favorite of mine:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
John Kenneth Galbraith
There is, by the way, some evidence that FDR was warned about Pearl Harbor. I suspect the warning was received something like this, "You've got to be kidding me. Nobody would be that stupid to make a surprise attack and give us that propaganda advantage." The consensus appears to be that an attack was expected, if at all, on the Philippines, after a declaration of war.
The Bushies and Neo-Cons also had a world view re: foreign policy in which states are the only relevant actors. The idea that a non-state actor like Al Qaeda could be a serious threat all by themselves was inconceivable to the Condy Rices and Don Rumsfelds of the world. That was the problem facing analysts like Richard Clark. There he was saying Al Qaeda is a threat and about to attack, and the White House response was to basically say "so what."
RE: FDR and Pearl Harbor. There were dozens of warnings about Pearl Harbor both immediately before the attack and years prior to it most were ignored (except for the threat of sabotage to which they over reacted for some reason). That doesn't mean that FDR sat in his office, got a report saying the attack would happen in 24 hours and decided to do nothing because he thought it would be a good political tool. I don't think you meant to argue that LTG, right?
I wonder why Bush et al didn't say "so what" when someone said, he, Iraq has WMDs.
I don't think Anony or LTG were saying that. But someone might say, "I din't think so." and then shove it aside, especially if they believe that non-state actors don't matter. There is such a thing as taking advantage of negligence. And that is not an exuse for not taking the threat more seriously.
"I wonder why Bush et al didn't say "so what" when someone said, he, Iraq has WMDs."
They should have actually. But as for why they didn't, I think the answer is because they are so obsessed with rival states as threats that someone saying Iraq has WMDs fit with their text book image of what an international threat.
No, I didn't mean to suggest that FDR had very specific intelligence about Pearl Harbor. Nor do I think he acted with deliberate indifference to broad threats in hopes of getting a political tool. Makes no sense: the surprise attack would have been a big deal whether or not the fleet knew about it to defend itself.
I do suspect that the Bush administration had more intel than they let on about the 9/11 attacks. But they disregarded it as implausible because they were rookies, despite serious warnings from a few that this was not going to be something like the USS Cole or the Kenya embassy bombings that are bad but not 9/11 scary.
LTG, there are people who believe exactly that about FDR though. Using much of the same kinds of tortured logic and circumstantial "evidence" as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (and French conspiracy theorists talking about the German invasion of 1940), they try to blame the tragedy on some kind of omnipotent and omniscient malevalence on the part of some hated (by the conspiracy theorist) political leader (Gamelin and Daladier, FDR, Bush and Cheney).
Psychologists have done some research about these people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Psychological_originsThe fact that pscychological origins can be identified that have nothing to do with the particular conspiracy theory being advanced is interesting in itself. The part I find the most interesting is that conspiracy theorists find some small comfort in ascribing the cause of great and seemingly chaotic events or tragedies to some secret cabal of humans. It - indirectly - gives control over the universe to human beings.
Some people, not so ordained with degrees, have done research on folks like RBR. You find many of them today, scattered amongst the political landscape, they are bullies basically, invalidating any point of view or potential point of view that they do not agree with..i.e., if you don't see things the way I do, if you do not live the way I do, then you are a wack job or some other mentally distressed individual and you are therefore, invalid. Sir, you are the Dick Cheney of this blog. And here is another Wikipedia description for folks like you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole
Good day.
Anonymous 6:25. Please don't generalize. I just think YOU are a whack job.
Then let me be specific, I think YOU are a narcissistic, pseudo intellectual, myopic, pathological hypocrite.
"they try to blame the tragedy on some kind of omnipotent and omniscient malevalence on the part of some hated (by the conspiracy theorist) political leader "
Better that than blaming God, eh?
"Better that than blaming God, eh?"
I'm sure religious people would not see it as a similar process but speaking as an atheist, I think the through processes from some people come from a similar logic/world view. Acknowledging that some things just happen for no particular reason or without a plan is just too disturbing.
Why are we feeding the troll?
Maybe we're all a little hungry...
"The part I find the most interesting is that conspiracy theorists find some small comfort in ascribing the cause of great and seemingly chaotic events or tragedies to some secret cabal of humans."
Um, correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't 9/11 caused by a cabal of humans? And the German invasion of France was caused by humans? And Pearl Harbour was caused by humans?...
Or are only the 'good guys' humans these days?
My biases about what terrorism is and how we should view the war on terror are showing in that quotation...
I think we should regard terrorism as weather. We'll never stop it. We can take steps to mitigate its effects but we can't declare a "war on terror" any more than we can declare a "war on hurricanes." So it's not so much which people I think are human so much as which actions I'm focussing on.
Oh, one other thing that's been bugging me since I last read this thread, which I feel I need to comment upon since no-one else has: Bell Curve's "why are we feeding the troll?" comment.
Bell Curve - I'm going to assume that you're talking about Anonymous, as opposed to any of the blog authors. Which means I have to ask - why are you calling Anonymous a troll? Yes, his views are a little off from the mainstream, but if everyone always dismissed non-mainstream views, then the world would still be flat, with the sun revolving around it. He certainly hasn't been expressing himself in a rabid whack job sort of way, in fact he's been very civil, asking why it is people don't have doubts (as opposed to screaming at them to believe what he believes), and the only times he has gotten personal were directly in response to RbR's personal attacks on Anonymous, i.e. in self-defence, which I happen to think is perfectly reasonable.
Hell, he even said "I think we've talked this one full circle, and it was lively and enjoyable...thanks." - that is not the tone of a troll!
I considered that possibility that Bell Curve was referring to the anonymous blogger as a "troll" but I honestly could not parse that comment with any certainty. My best guess is that it was a Simpsons reference of some sort that I failed to recognize.
I hope you're right Dr.S! Bell Curve (/LTG - you responded, did you get it?) - what's the reference we've missed...? I'm more up on Family Guy references at the moment, although most of those are 'giddity' :-)
Bell Curve can to speak for himself but I think he meant "troll" in the e-jargon sense of the word - that is someone who posts controversial comments on other people's blogs and effectively hijacks threads. "Feeding the troll" is when people respond to the aforementioned controversial statement.
I am absolutely certain that Bell Curve was referring to the conspiracy theorist as the troll. That's how I took it and how I responded. RBR is 100% correct in the use of the term.
I think Pombat is correct to point out the troll thing. I do not think Anonymous is a troll, no did Anonymous act as a troll. In fact, I think that the tone in the response to Anonymous were rather uncivil and knee jerky. In fact, I know Anonymous isn't a troll because he is a friend of mine. And I know that Anonymous is a well read, very smart person. We need to be open to other ideas. This blog can get rather insular at times.
Be careful who you attack. YOu maybe insulting one of our friends.
RbR - thanks for the entirely unnecessary explanation of the term troll. I would've thought from my comment objecting to Bell Curve having used troll to describe Anonymous that it would've been clear to everyone on here that I both understood and objected to it.
LTG - yes, I gathered you agreed that Anonymous was a troll.
RbR, LTG, Bell Curve - why, exactly, do you three think Anonymous is a troll, whereas USWest, Dr.S and myself all see him as a perfectly reasonable commenter?
This is what is called a reasonable difference of opinion.
And that is what is called a complete cop-out LTG.
Calling someone a troll is not merely an opinion, it's an insult, as you should well know. It's also inaccurate in this instance, because 'troll' encompasses several behaviours that Anonymous did not exhibit.
But I'm still curious, and would love for you to enlighten me - why do you think that Anonymous is a troll (as opposed to simply a decent commenter expressing a reasonable difference of opinion)?
The only way to win is... not to play.
Ahhh, the usual passive-aggressive 'walk away from the thread because I don't have an answer' tactic. Fair enough, at least you admitted to it this time.
Post a Comment