Legal question

[sgeeeee]

. . .
On "spying on Americans", is it appropriate to have the NSA monitor the communications of suspected terrorists?  Given the potential urgency in each of these situations is it also appropriate to have a mechanism where, in certain instances, the monitoring can start with the judicial review to follow?  In the specific instance that currently has everyone hyperventilating, the administration did consult Congress as well as a panel of judges.  All of which are now Shocked! Shocked! that this was going on.

. . .

Again, suspected by who? There is a legal procedure in place for the Administration to use to spy on Americans. They can even spy first and ask for permission later. The court set up to hear these cases has traditionally approved almost every single request. What's wrong with using the system that exists and that recent Presidents have used? And as for the consultation that happened prior to doing this . . . listen to news reports other than FOX news. There seems to be plenty of indication that the consultation did not really address this spying.

 

[retire@40]

Ah yes, but who will assure that our essential liberties are protected?

First, there is never any assurance in life. But as far as we can help it, we the people as a whole will keep the system in balance. Not the far left, not the far right, but the mainstream folks.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

How about a prarie dog look at it?

How many people have in fact been tried and convicted of terrorist related activities since 9/11? I may have slept through a news flash, but I think the answer is 'none'.

How many terrorist cells have been broken up or major planned attacks prevented? I heard a lot of propaganda saying many have been, but details were withheld to protect national security. Uh...sorry, but if anything big was actually done it would have been trumpeted from the highest towers for months on end. I doubt the claims with no backup information.

I know a few have been charged and as far as I know, all have had charges dropped because the govt would have had to allow 'top secret' information to be leaked in the trial if they had proceeded.

A lot of people have been imprisoned. Maybe some of them have been treated badly. Maybe some have been 'tortured' by various definitions.

So where are the convictions?

Where have we gotten the good information that led to successful anti terrorist actions? We're wiretapping, grabbing people as 'material witnesses', abusing the patriot act on a regular basis, actively teaching the police how to use loopholes in the various legal acts, etc.

While everything I said in the last paragraph is up for debate, I dont think the main point is.

Where are the results?

And yes, its been proven time and again that any 'torture' methods result in the tortured eventually revealing all sorts of information that may or may not be true, as the tortured simply will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear or whatever will stop the torture. Its worthless as an interrogation tool. The stuff you see on tv where the hero kicks the crap out of the bad guy who quickly spits out the information the hero needs to save the world just doesnt happen in real life.

As far as civil liberties being protected by the 'mainstream folks', I have no faith in that at all. At this time we have far weaker civil rights than we did 5 years ago, its just that most people dont know that yet. Hopefully its stemmed, stopped and perhaps reversed, but I doubt it.

You live in a society where the police can ask you to "produce your papers" without your comission of a crime, and where you can be arrested and detailed indefinitely with no probable cause of a crime being committed.

 

[azanon]

What's sad is I actually sympathized with Saddam today; he's making some very good points. (see CNN article on today's trial or wherever you read your news).

We lied, lied, and lied some more. Its reminiscent of my former christain days... he who has no sin throw the first stone.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

I'm bad at debate, so I'll throw a "me too" behind what SG and th"()" have said in this thread.

Re: what azanon said, Saddam isn't the one I'm worried about. Many of our "allies" and probably all or our enemies feel the same way. America isn't trustworthy (and neither is our mass media).

 

[HFWR]

I doubt many in Iraq received a fair trial during Saddam's reign...

 

[azanon]

what azanon said, Saddam isn't the one I'm worried about. Many of our "allies" and probably all or our enemies feel the same way. America isn't trustworthy (and neither is our mass media).

I thought it was implied that's what i'm worried about too.  Of course I'm not worried about Saddam himself.  But i'm sure what he's saying about us is being printed in everyone's newspapers all across the world.   Our nose is getting verbally bloodied, and once again the world is being reminded of our behavior in all of this.

I'm reminded of so-called "technicalities" where arrested individuals are freed due to massive blunders of the arresting authority.

 

[Gone4Good]

Lots of stuff here.  I can't get to it all but will give some of it a try:

First you need to ask a more serious question.  Will torture produce important, factual information?

No, the first question is "define torture".  I deliberately used the word "stress" in my original post because somewhere along a continuum stress becomes torture. Not all stress is torture (if you disagree on this point then we probably have no common ground on which to discuss this issue).  Is any amount of stress appropriate?  If so, how much is too much?  This is an important debate to have because stress is useful as an interrogation tool?  The critics aren't really interested in this debate because it forces them to take a position on the specifics. Instead they choose to label just about everything, even pretty standard interrogation techniques like sleep deprivation, as torture.  It is all well and good to be "against torture" and I'm sure they feel morally superior for their stand "against torture" but life is more complicated than that.   

This administration lied to us about WMDs. 

I love this one.  Let's see.  A short list of people and institutions who are on the record saying they believed Iraq had WMD before the invasion:
1) The current President
2) The former President
3) CIA director George Tenet told GWB the WMD case was a "slam dunk"
4) Tony Blair and the SSI
5) UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission)
6) Jacques Chirac

Basically everyone who had access to intelligence on the subject came to the same conclusion.  But don't let the actual historic record get in the way though, Bush said Iraq had WMD and they didn't.  There is only one possible way that could happen . . . Bush Lied!!

What's wrong with using the system that exists and that recent Presidents have used? 

There has only been one president since 9/11.  In many instances the old way of doing things was not up to the job.  It is not clear to me whether or not this was one of those cases - I don't have enough information to judge and I humbly submit that neither do you.    I think there ought to be hearings, and I suspect there will be.

But there are two questions here, only one of which people are talking about.  The most important question is why did the President feel the need to circumvent the old system?  Did the old rules materially limit our intelligence services from doing their job?  If there is a satisfactory answer to that question, the second question of whether the President overstepped his legal authority seems less relevant.  If there is not a satisfactory answer to the first question, then there should be hell to pay.   

Where are the results?

Well, one could argue that since 9/11 there have been many terrorist attacks around the world, including in Spain and London.  None here though (fingers crossed).  It might be just good luck on our part.  It might also have something to do with an aggressive, proactive, policy against terrorism complete with all the dirty little things that no one likes to hear, or talk about.

You worry that you haven't heard about all the successes and therefore conclude there haven't been any.  How many national security successes are you actually aware of?  Care to list them?  I guess we haven't had that many in the nation's history then.

 

[Nords]

How many people have in fact been tried and convicted of terrorist related activities since 9/11?  I may have slept through a news flash, but I think the answer is 'none'.

How many terrorist cells have been broken up or major planned attacks prevented?  I heard a lot of propaganda saying many have been, but details were withheld to protect national security.  Uh...sorry, but if anything big was actually done it would have been trumpeted from the highest towers for months on end.  I doubt the claims with no backup information.

I'm sorry, even if we had a need to know we don't have the clearance. 

The information's being held in a secure location for our own good.  As soon as someone gets Bin Laden and what's-his-name then we'll be able to handle knowing about it.  Or maybe not-- they might have to go after the next generation too...

No, the first question is "define torture". I deliberately used the word "stress" in my original post because somewhere along a continuum stress becomes torture. Not all stress is torture (if you disagree on this point then we probably have no common ground on which to discuss this issue). Is any amount of stress appropriate? If so, how much is too much? This is an important debate to have because stress is useful as an interrogation tool? The critics aren't really interested in this debate because it forces them to take a position on the specifics. Instead they choose to label just about everything, even pretty standard interrogation techniques like sleep deprivation, as torture. It is all well and good to be "against torture" and I'm sure they feel morally superior for their stand "against torture" but life is more complicated than that.

Another part of the problem is that the military runs a SERE school teaching survival, evasion, resistance, & escape tactics to POW/MIA candidates like special warfare operators & aviators. Part of the curriculum there includes "training" that's at least as severely stressful as anything done at Abu Ghraib.

I can see the SERE instructors huddled around the photographs now-- "Hey, why didn't we think of that?!?", "Ooooh, let's try this one next!", "I wonder if she'd like to work here after her court-martial?", and "Who's requisitioning the dogs and the deep-cycle marine batteries?"

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Another part of the problem is that the military runs a SERE school teaching survival, evasion, resistance, & escape tactics to POW/MIA candidates like special warfare operators & aviators.  Part of the curriculum there includes "training" that's at least as severely stressful as anything done at Abu Ghraib.

I can see the SERE instructors huddled around the photographs now-- "Hey, why didn't we think of that?!?", "Ooooh, let's try this one next!", "I wonder if she'd like to work here after her court-martial?", and "Who's requisitioning the dogs and the deep-cycle marine batteries?"

Excellent point! This never occurred to me.

JG

 

[HFWR]

I expect the executive branch to use our blood and our treasure carefully and thoughtfully. Same with civil liberties; better have a damned good reason...

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I expect the executive branch to use our blood and our treasure carefully and thoughtfully. Same with civil liberties; better have a damned good reason...

If only this were the case.

JG

 

[sgeeeee]

Lots of stuff here.  I can't get to it all but will give some of it a try:

No, the first question is "define torture". 

This is a non-issue. There are plenty of working and legal definitions of torture. Choose any one you want. It does not change the debate. All it does is misdirect attention from the fact that this country is engaged in illegal activities related to questioning suspects.

I love this one. Let's see. A short list of people and institutions who are on the record saying they believed Iraq had WMD before the invasion:
1) The current President
2) The former President
3) CIA director George Tenet told GWB the WMD case was a "slam dunk"
4) Tony Blair and the SSI
5) UNSCOM (United Nations Special Commission)
6) Jacques Chirac

Basically everyone who had access to intelligence on the subject came to the same conclusion. But don't let the actual historic record get in the way though, Bush said Iraq had WMD and they didn't. There is only one possible way that could happen . . . Bush Lied!!

I love this one too. The administration spends months spinning a story that turns out to be a complete lie. Lots of people believed them. Now the right tries to say, "But we already fooled all of you on this lie once. It's not fair to blame us for it now. You should never have fallen for our BS from the beginning." The slam dunk statement is part of the lie. When Tenet was asked a direct question about the credibility of the case, rather than say something with a clear meaning, he chose to use the "slam dunk" statement. Now we know what a republican means when he says, "it's a slam dunk." He means, "we're lying through our teethe." I'm not sure what you are using to put UNSCOM and Chirac on that list. It would definately take a FOX News interpretation of their statements to make a claim that they believed this.




. . .

The most important question is why did the President feel the need to circumvent the old system?

I don't think that's an important question at all. If he broke the law, he broke the law. His reasons for breaking the law are irrelevant. You seem to imply that if the President decides the law doesn't work for him, it's okay if he breaks it. Better think about that one. Would you want Clinton to have that same right?

You worry that you haven't heard about all the successes and therefore conclude there haven't been any. How many national security successes are you actually aware of? Care to list them? I guess we haven't had that many in the nation's history then.

There are plenty of national security successes that we eventually do hear about. Go to the Spy Museum in Washington DC. They have a whole exhibit devoted to them. Things like the Cuban missele crises are on that list. If you are willing to read non-mainstream political sources, you can read about more recent ones related to spy satellite intercepts. There are a couple of recent books by ex-CIA agents that can add more to that list. But your point has some merit. If you don't have the security access to be in on intelligence briefings, you may not hear the whole story for a couple of decades. But you seem to think that as long as the President tells you these things were important that we should all turn the other way and let him destroy our civil liberties.

 

[BigMoneyJim]

Re: terror investigations and effective tools prior to 9/11: I just got through reading selected portions and the executive summary of The 9/11 Commission Report. I was expecting to find admonitions of the administration's handling of intelligence, but from what I've read I can't really fault their actions over previous administrations, any other government agency (including Congress) or public sector interests (watchdog groups, private security agencies, etc.).

However, it is clear that there was enough information at hand across the various agencies to put 2+2 together and further disrupt the operation or even prevent it. The problem was coordination and focus, and it was a failure to adapt rather than any given agency's fault that kept someone from adding it up and following through on time. The failure to communicate and connect led to the failure to pursue leads with a sense of urgency prior to 9/10. Therefore I conclude we don't necessarily need to erode our rights for our own "protection".

 

[REWahoo]

Another part of the problem is that the military runs a SERE school teaching survival, evasion, resistance, & escape tactics to POW/MIA candidates like special warfare operators & aviators. Part of the curriculum there includes "training" that's at least as severely stressful as anything done at Abu Ghraib.

Absolutely true.

That was a really "interesting" school. Doesn't sound very demanding...no homework, no papers to write, very few classes to attend. But the food left something to be desired and the facilities were a bit primitive. On the other hand, the instructors were absolutely superb. They could (and did) bring tears to the eyes of the entire student body.

 

[JPatrick]

Absolutely true.

That was a really "interesting" school.  Doesn't sound very demanding...no homework, no papers to write, very few classes to attend.  But the food left something to be desired and the facilities were a bit primitive.   On the other hand, the instructors were absolutely superb.   They could (and did) bring tears to the eyes of the entire student body. 

I'm guessing you wouldn't repeat ( on a public forum)  the most interesting of the E & E stories would ya.

 

[REWahoo]

I'm guessing you wouldn't repeat ( on a public forum) the most interesting of the E & E stories would ya.

But I will say it was no surprise to me or any of my classmates that there were zero (zip, nada) applicants for the post-graduate curriculum....

 

[Eagle43]

Who said torture doesn't work?

Nords and other military please correct me if I'm wrong.  Was it not common knowledge that it's only a matter of when, not if you would break under torture?  Was that taught at survival school?  You might lie, but your interrogator would soon discover that, and here we go again. 

I just wish we had done some of this questioning and wiretapping BEFORE 9/11, not after. 

OTOH:  GWB is in a mess.  If he had recourse to go to a court or to the Congress and did not do so, he's going to find that this will not go away.  I believe he has immense fears of another 9/11 and doesn't want it to happen on his watch.  So, he's doing all he can.  If he checked with his legal people, and they told him he could do this, and if Clinton and others did the same, it's going to be prime time tv.  Sit back and watch. 

 

[REWahoo]

Who said torture doesn't work?

Nords and other military please correct me if I'm wrong. Was it not common knowledge that it's only a matter or when, not if you would break under torture? Was that taught at survival school? You might lie, but your interregator would soon discover that, and here we go again.

Correct. Those of you old enough to remember the return of the POW's from Vietnam, there was no discussion of who broke and who didn't. Everyone talks sooner or later.

BTW, anyone remember the guys who flashed the "Hawaiian Good Luck Sign" in those propaganda photos? What a gutsy move.

 

[Nords]

Who said torture doesn't work?

Nords and other military please correct me if I'm wrong. Was it not common knowledge that it's only a matter or when, not if you would break under torture? Was that taught at survival school? You might lie, but your interregator would soon discover that, and here we go again.

Sure, Stockdale & Lawrence both used to promulgate the "price of the day" for confessions. I'm not sure why McCain thinks torture doesn't work. Part of it was that McCain had quite the problem with authority and stood out among his fellow POWs for his flagrant disregard for intimidation. Maybe it's because part of the problem was that the North Vietnamese didn't have the knowledge or the experience to know when they were being lied to-- the interrogators lacked extensive study of topics like Disney, LooneyTunes, and the Three Stooges. But in a few decades, when it's declassified, we'll find that torture during GWII worked exceedingly well.

I'm guessing you wouldn't repeat ( on a public forum) the most interesting of the E & E stories would ya.

Most of SERE's purpose is to eliminate an aversion to bug-eating-- capably demonstrated by Rudy during the first season of "Survivor" and no longer considered as sensational as it used to be.

It also develops mental confidence. During the first SERE "escape" many of the students would be completely concealed in the brush. Their guards, with no idea where their escapees were, would yell the equivalent of "We see you in there, come out with your hands up or we'll punish you even worse!" Amateur POWs would start popping up out of the brush like rabbits. It's a good analogy-- when O'Grady was shot down over Bosnia he specifically credited this training to his ability to hide like a scared bunny.

Here's another story. Barney, a midshipman who desperately wanted to be a Marine, had a chance to buff up his record by attending SERE during the late '70s. When he was subjected to interrogation he refused to answer, of course, but his interrogator didn't pay much attention and kept talking. As he rambled he pulled a pipe out of his pocket, leisurely filled it with tobacco, tamped it down, lit it with a wooden match, got it going-- the whole entire epicurean smoker's routine. Then the guards suddenly strapped this mid to a bench, clamped his nostrils shut, and used the pipe (with appropriate tubing) to blow smoke directly into his lungs as his only source of "air". He was revived a couple times and readily agreed to cooperate.

Some of you may remember that this was when smoking was still common in public buildings. Back at school that fall, on the first day of classes, one of his professors pulled a pipe out of his pocket and started to fill it with tobacco. Barney was observed to be quite upset, and when the prof actually lit the pipe Barney bolted right out of the classroom. It took a couple months' counseling for him to get back to "normal".

And you guys think life on a submarine is tough. When I added up the "cost" of SERE school, carrier duty, and shipmates lost to aviation training accidents I decided that nuclear power was a much better deal than flight pay.

BTW, anyone remember the guys who flashed the "Hawaiian Good Luck Sign" in those propaganda photos?  What a gutsy move.

Paul Galanti demonstrated innovative scratching with his middle finger in one of their films-- great guy & wonderful leader. He was one of the most optimistic, upbeat, and cheerful people I've ever met.

 

[JohnP]

Maybe those of us growing up in the '40s and '50s got a little of the propaganda of the times, but...  In those days, the difference between the US and the 'bad guys' was that the US didn't do the bad things they did.  Then, it was crystal clear, at least in our immature minds. 

The bad guys tortured our people

The bad guys spyed on every aspect of their citizens lives

The bad guys had gulags across Eastern Europe and Asia

The bad guys had kangaroo courts - defendants had no rights

We had transparent government based on written laws

We had inalienable rights

Now you can fill in your own list of the characteristics of the '40s and '50s bad guys that we apparently have identified as this administration's approach. 

the bottom line is:

Torture is unAmerican, or at least it was to us in the '50s

Spying on Americans is inconceivable to me without a legal process

JMHO
JohnP

 

[REWahoo]

Maybe those of us growing up in the '40s and '50s got a little of the propaganda of the times, but... In those days, the difference between the US and the 'bad guys' was that the US didn't do the bad things they did. Then, it was crystal clear, at least in our immature minds.

As a member of that same generation, I suspect we were not privy to the same level of "in-depth reporting" nor did we have the multiple levels of communication we have today. The media was more friendly to the "needs" of government (think JFK/Marylin Monroe vs. Clinton/Monica). Secrets were easier to keep.

I truly do not believe we were nearly as bad as the Evil Empire, but I'm equally convinced we were very, very far from squeaky clean.

As a good friend is fond of saying, "Things are rarely as bad as we fear or as good as we hope".

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . I'm not sure why McCain thinks torture doesn't work.  . . .

Probably because it doesn't and he's seen the briefs and knows it to be true.  I've been in strategic planning meetings and inteligence briefings for both the Army and the Navy on several occassions over the past 3 decades.  I've worked on projects for various agencies that collect inteligence via covert means.  Sure, you assume that everyone talks.  But you also assume that everyone lies.  Much of what you get from high stress questioning is false, and separating the true from the false is nearly impossible.  The harder you press for specific details, the more likely you hear what the prisoner thinks you want to hear. 

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re. "the harder you press for specific details, the more you hear
what the prisoner wants you to hear", this didn't work with
either of my wives . The more I pressed for specific details,
the more P.O.ed they became and the more confused I got.
(Mars -Venus?) An aside siince this is a blatant hijack. I was purusing
a book in a resale shop "100 most asked questions on male-
female relations" or something like that. Written by a PHD
advice columnist. Well, what to my wondering eyes should appear
but a chapter on how millions of women expect men to know what they want/need to be happy/satisfied/secure, without ever being told.
Like, "If you really loved me you would just know!" Having lots of experience with females (some good, some traumatic) I read on.....

The author opined that this is nonsense. Men are not women
and these women should be happy that the husband or SO
cares enough to ask for specifics in order to better please the female.
So, I am not really an unromantic lout after all. I've just been
thrust in a BIZARRO WORLD filled with wacky women. And,
what does this have to do with torture you ask? Consult any husband. Therein lies the answer. BTW, the author of the book was
female, and no, I did not buy it so I could say "Hey, Look at this.
I've been right all along!". Me saying "I've been right all along" is like
GWD saying "Everyone thought there were WMDs." No one wants to hear it anymore.

JG

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .this didn't work with
either of my wives  .   The more I pressed for specific details,
the more P.O.ed they became and  the more confused I got. . . .

This is an excellent example of what I was saying. Two wives going through the ultimate torture (being married to JG) never produced anything but confusion.

And thanks for the set-up, John.