FBI Coerced Confession Deemed "Classified" 456
Steve Bergstein is one of several who have blogged about a recent court ruling that reads like most any bestselling crime novel. Apparently, when the court originally posted their decision (complete with backstory) it detailed how a coerced confession was obtained by the FBI from Abdallah Higazy in relation to the 9/11 attacks. The details, however, were later removed and deemed "classified". "As I read the opinion I realized it was a 44 page epic, too long for me to print out. I blogged about the opinion while I read it online and then posted the blog as I ate lunch. Then something strange happened: a few minutes after I posted the blog, the opinion vanished from the Court of Appeals website! [...] The next day, the Court of Appeals reissued the Higazy opinion. With a redaction. The court simply omitted from the revised decision facts about how the FBI agent extracted the false confession from Higazy. For some reason, this information is classified."
Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Intentionally allowing the bad guys to go free. (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of "law enforcement" actually makes us LESS safe than simply doing nothing at all. Is the FBI *really* staffed by living, thinking humans? How could they possibly do this kind of thing and not be incredibly ashamed of themselves!?
If its hot, get it local... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is a web page, and you have the full Acrobat, then use the web capture facility to get a copy of it and store it away.
The web is wonderful. But it has more opportunities to be "corrected" than the Soviet Union did during the Stalin's purges of the 30s and 40s.
Yours,
Jordan
Scary and stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you rely on a confession extracted by force anyway? At least I know I'd say/admit to anything to just stop having my fingernails pulled out with pliers or whatever.
Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, this story is appalling, for several reasons: 1. Some information gets classified, that probably shouldn't be, and the fact that 2. The horse is out of the barn and shows that data, once posted, is impossible to recall, and then they further heighten interest in it by classifying it and raising a stink about it. Their actions have almost ensured world-wide dissemination.
What is worse is that their reaction to this will mostly likely make reasonable public access to information, rulings, testimony, almost impossible to get to.
On a side note, and dealing with my subject line: Guys, you can't have it both ways. Reading /. and listening to Air America, George Bush is either an evil genius able to mastermind these great conspiracies, or, he's dumb as a rock. How about not inserting him into the situation at all. It would serve not to marginalize the discussion and keep blame where it needs to be, the beureaucrats that make these decisions.
Confession - the Mother of Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why a confession should never be trusted on its own — without other evidence. Nor is it really trusted on its own by the courts in free countries, such as ours — as evidenced by this very case.
They may have coerced an admission from him, that it was his device, but without details on where he got it, and how he used it, that admission is quite worthless even if he were scared for his family's life enough to not backpaddle from the addmission in court... I'm quite proud, that he was not sufficiently scared, though...
And, finally, we only know the details of the coercion from one side. The FBI agent, according to the article, merely "did not contest" the fact of coercion. That's not an admission of guilt by any measure...
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what you meant to ask was, "When is the U.S. government going to start classifying and redacting stories of what happens to American soldiers caught alive by Islamists?"
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
If my "stuff that makes us look bad" you mean "stuff that shows we *are* bad".
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that American soldiers can be tortured or killed is not sufficient cause to threaten to torture and kill the families of terrorism *suspects*.
And of course in this case, the FBI had to admit that this guy was innocent all along.
Or perhaps you think that the people who do torture or kill our soldiers will see how we are mistreating our own prisoners and be moved to change their behavior?
Re:Ha! (Score:2, Insightful)
In Defense of Bush (sorta) (Score:5, Insightful)
Had there been no secretive FBI, no secretive CIA, no emphasis on the Federal power from the get go, none of this could have happened. Everyone looks at Bush / Cheney as if he were the mastermind of some vast conspiracy, when the practical matter is that we have had almost 75 years of a massive federal government on a wartime footing, just waiting for the next enemy to arrive. These agents don't need orders to torture people or to kill perceived enemies. They have been waiting to do this their whole lives. They need orders NOT TO, and they really need to be not employed at all.
Instead, what the left wing is arguing for is a banana republic type of government - rule by personality, when instead, the best lesson to learn is that the government is the problem, and the solution to ensure our freedom is to deconstruct the government from the get go. If we could only put the "good guy" in charge of the police state, everything will be ok. Except that, we will still have a police state.
Look at the facts. What Democrats opposed passage of the full 9/11 commission recommendations - essentially turn the USA into a police state. What Democrat has offered to repeal USA PATRIOT? What Democrat has volunteered to narrow the scope of CIA and FBI? There will be more Federal terror, not less, before this unfortunate behavior winds its course. We have to learn to discipline ourselves as voters - that, every time we panic and ask our government to protect us - we are really just empowering a bunch of thugs to enslave us.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is entirely the point. If you talk to any member of the JAG corps about torture they will tell you that the reason the US did not permit its troops to torture others is that it is the only way that the US could protect its own troops.
Of course there are always enemies that do not respect the rules of war, that is why the Nurenberg trials were held.
Te Abu Graihb photographs and more importantly the conspicuous decision not to hold anyone in the chain of command accountable for them has demonstrated that the US does torture. And as a result US servicemen who are captured by Jihadis can expect to be treated as brutally as the Abu Graihb photographs.
More importantly the US has conceeded the moral case in the war on terror. It is the same mistake made by the British at the start of the IRA terrorist campaign. Internment without trial did nothing to stop the violence and the future leadership of the IRA emerged from the internees. Gerry Adams wrote his famous series of monographs under the name 'Brownie' which developed the Ballot-Bomb strategy.
As a result many US politicians who should have known better supported the IRA even as they were murdering civilians in the UK. People like Rudy Giuliani were attending IRA fundraisers right up to 9/11. Giuliani even gave Gerry Adams a 'humanitarian award' on behalf of NYC and expressed the hope that he would force Clinton to speak to Adams even without the renunciation of violence that Clinton demanded. A few months later Adams and Co blew up a shopping mall.
In the days after 9/11 everything changed. It was no longer hip to support the IRA. Rudy attended a NORAID fundraiser immediately after 9/11 but only after the IRA agreed the money would go to the 9/11 victims. After that US funding for NORAID disappeared entirely and the IRA finally accepted the demands that they had long resisted to disarm.
The reason the IRA had to pack it in was precisely because they had finaly lost the moral case that had been carelessly handed to them in the opening years of the troubles.
The model that HMG followed in defeating the IRA was to copy the West German authorities strategy for dealling with the Baader-Meinhof gang. The Germans refused to treat the RAF as political prisoners, they were always treated as common criminals.
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheney, on the other hand, is widely well regarded as an evil mastermind. An absolute genius of our generation. Unfortunately, he seems to be bent on destroying american democracy.
Re:In Defense of Bush (sorta) (Score:5, Insightful)
The machine is not broken, the Constitution remains to this day a framework that is viable, and valid. It is the men in government that torture its meanings, and pervert the rule of law. So, YES, Bush does need bashing, impeached, and a couple of other things. It is directly under his rule that a 'war' was invented, the war on terror, so that he could press the powers of wartime to further oppress the American public. I do not post AC, and I urge anyone that is disturbed by the way things have been going in American politics and government lately to stand and be counted. There is but one candidate for 2008 that dares utter the word Constitution, never mind abide by it.
You sir, you shall not defend Bush, for doing so is to say it's okay what he has done, and what has been done to My rights in his name. I say it is NOT right. I protest, both what he has done and what you are NOW doing to my rights by being passive and accepting and nearly forgiving him. The captain sinks with the ship, and if you think Bush deserves to slip away in a life raft, you are very mistaken.
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers.
Precisly why government secrecy is bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is *no* reason for secrecy within our government. There are *no* reasons for classified material at all. Not any more.
We live in a unipolar world. We are the "strong". There isn't any more reason for us to play cloak and dagger, all we have to do is sit back, have proper, up-front security measures, utilize common sense public surveillance (i.e. patrol officers in problem areas, surveillance inside airports, monitoring of known "bad guy" websites), and we'll be safe.
I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why any of the secrecy provisions pushed forth by the Bush administration contribute to our security.
For that matter, I don't believe that any of the other CIA/FBI "black ops" contribute either. Rendition might make some warhawks in the executive branch feel good, but it is nonsensical that it helps to protect our nation. Better XRAY machines, and locks on cockpit doors protect our nations. Paying our troops more money protects our nation, as would federal marshalls on planes, and a whole bunch of other measures.
But taking our suspected enemies to Libya and beating the crap out of them? What does that accomplish?
Re:In Defense of Bush (sorta) (Score:3, Insightful)
Now where is all this outrage? Where did all those concerned with reigning in federal government go? The answer is apparently, that they really don't mind a federal government that strong-arms its population - they merely mind if it isn't being used to forward their social agenda.
As far as this being a problem of the left - look one step further: if the population hadn't rewarded the republicans for their war on everyone in two elections, and if the population hadn't been cowed into silence when the "patriot" faction demanded that intelligent discourse was treason then we wouldn't have this problem. The administration was aided and abetted by a population that wanted war and revenge and wanted dissenters punished. And it got exactly what it deserved.
Re:Scary and stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideally, we are. In reality, thinking that we're the good guys is a lot easier and more profitable than living up to the expectation.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it isn't as bad as what the Islamics do, I don't think that the US government holding that behavior up as something to do it'self is a good thing. We are supposed to be FIGHTING this behavior, not emulating it.
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, you've fallen into his trap.
You see while GW is pretty much incapable of mustering the intelligence of the average 9th grader he does excel at one aspect of business and politics. He delegates extremely well. Not only that, but when the person he delegates something to messes up, he takes the blame and protects his people, thus insulating his delegation from public scrutiny.
In every situation, he makes no decisions. He brings in an expert to do that. You want evil genius? Hired. But if said evil genius is not there speaking into his ear, when you talk to GW you get the ninth grader.
I hope that explains it for you, because this is waaaay off topic.
Re:Here are the two opinions. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Defense of Bush (sorta) (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish I were at home right now and had access to my copy of The Road to Serfdom, because that's what this discussion has compelled me to want to re-read, for this is the form in which American fascism (as opposed to the German fascism discussed therein) will appear; we are not there yet, but unless we elect representatives willing to decrease the powers our government can wield, and unless we change for the better those fundamental aspects of government which the Constitution does not specify, then no matter what action is taken with respect to George W. Bush, the subsequent executives and executive actions are likely to be much worse.
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)
Having read the unredacted opinion, I don't see anything that's even remotely classified information. All I see is an FBI agent making veiled threats against his family and making some bold claims about egyptian security forces which are probably taken out of thin air. And how they force him into one "confession", then making him invent more and more fantastic stories before finally using his changing statements against him. There's a long list of nations covering up their interrogation methods, I just didn't know the US aspired to be one of them.
They made a good guy hurt (Score:2, Insightful)
Having been in New York on 9/11, I could personally give a shit what happens to Al Quaeda collaborators. Nothing is bad enough for them. Being an American, however, I know that threating the life of an innocent guy (or even a guy we think is guilty) is a major fuck-up on our part. Say it with me- Torture does not elicit useful evidence. Torture makes enemies out of friends. Torture accomplishes the aims of the terrorists.
You're trollin', it's true, but it can't be said often enough. The FBI fucked up, put American lives in danger. The only way to fix FBI fuckups is to know about them. The more the FBI hides from us, the worse it works, and the better off the bad guys are.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course there are always enemies that do not respect the rules of war, that is why the Nurenberg trials were held.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:2, Insightful)
Um...what?
Name the last enemy we've fought against that *didn't* torture prisoners.
No, no, no, before anyone starts blathering about what I'm not saying, I am *not* saying "They tortured ours so we can torture theirs." I'm saying that that idea you expressed right there, that we refrain from torture because it's the "only way" we can protect our own troops, is utter nonsense.
If our troops got captured in central America, they got tortured. If they got captured in the Gulf War, they got tortured. If they got captured in Vietnam, oh boy did they get tortured. If they got shot down over the Soviet Union, they got tortured. If they got captured in Korea, they got tortured. If they got captured in the Pacific, they got tortured. They occasionally got tortured even by the Germans, and even more typical [usatoday.com] treatment of American POWs would be considered "torture" today:
So, seriously, who are these people out there who think highly enough of our signature on the G.C. to not torture our soldiers? Only the people that we *wouldn't be fighting in the first place*.
And as a result US servicemen who are captured by Jihadis can expect to be treated as brutally as the Abu Graihb photographs.
Riiiight. Because US servicement captured by Jihadis would have been treated in full accord with the Geneva convention, were it not for Abu Ghraib. That's why US airmen shot down over Iraq in the first Gulf War were treated humanely, and didn't have the shit beat out of them by Hussein's thugs. That's why Daniel Pearl was treated to tea and cupcakes when he was taken prisoner: he didn't have anything to do with Abu Ghraib.
Oh, wait...
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how I see it anyway.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:2, Insightful)
"We witness a passing phase of eternity. Important things happen but some people never notice. Accidents intervene. You are not present at episodes. You depend on reports. And people shutter their minds. What good are reports? History in a news account? Preselected at an editorial conference, digested and excreted by prejudice? Accounts you need seldom come from those who make history. Diaries, memoirs and autobiographies are subjective forms of special pleading. Archives are crammed with such suspect stuff."
Certainly, it's difficult for 'something corrective' to be done about this. That isn't what I'm suggesting. I was stating my discontent with such phenomena in general. Of course there isn't a whole lot I can do about it, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend to like it. It saddens me to see even part of the nasty things that have come about from the selfishness of those in power. As for me, I'm just another blabbering face in the crowd shouting my opinions as if they really mattered (gotta love ego).
There were some very good points made regarding the way the FBI already was before Bush became involved and encouraged/empowered them to become even more invasive. I'd quote more Dune/Herbert stuff at you guys but frankly, there's too much that could be applied here (so I won't burden your poor eyes, my comrades).
What fucking retard modded this insightful? (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? REALLY?
So all those troops on location in hot zones that will get massacred just don't matter anymore?
God, could you be any more wrong...
Re:For those who have had no counter-terrorism exp (Score:2, Insightful)
How the hell did this get to +4 informative? I would have thought you were trolling or being sar-car-stic about the Saudia Arabia comment but then you go and say, factually, correctly, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 (which it didn't) and very simplistically that Pakistan is not our ally(sic). Lets be charitable and suggest you should have emoted to make this clear. Just in case (and I pray to god I've got this wrong) you meant that straight, it would show a breath-taking lack of understanding of the pro-American stance Saudi Arabia the nation takes (and for whom Bin Laden is a massive dissident) and a breath-taking lack of understanding of the same point in Pakistan. Do you think that Bhutto went back for non-democratic reasons or that those 140 people died because the people doing the bombing were not trying to fuck up the democratic imperative? These are complex countries with complex dynamics and the proportion of people in them who represent the extremists are very low.
'Joking' (great joke - are you here all week?) about dropping a nuke on anyone is just stupid. But you know that right because you were only kidding. Right? Right???!
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for anyone actually involved, no—but they certainly lost us a lot of sympathy (not to mention respect) from the rest of the world where our own people are concerned.
Dan Aris
Torture doesn't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what 24 doesn't tell you: You don't know who you have. If you did, you wouldn't need to interrogate them, because you'd already pretty much know everything about them. Or at the very least, you'd know the broad strokes and just want to fill in the details. However, as demonstrated during the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, even when you know who you have and want to get some more details about past operations, torture is misguided. According to congressional hearings on the matter, it is thought that most of his confessions were nothing but attempts to get through the interrogation and protect his family. This is the second thing that 24 doesn't tell you: torture elicits probably results in more disinformation than regular interrogation techniques. Why? Because the interrogators are being told what they want to hear. Combined with the drive to show success, confirmation bias and a whole host of other human failings, this can send investigators on a far more dangerous goose chase than a detainee just telling random stories.
What really pisses me off is that the US military knew all this and this codified in their interrogation handbook: torture doesn't work, so there's no point in attempting it. But some criminally inept politicians - all without a day of military or covert experience - decided that they knew better and created new rules from scratch. The end result? Nothing but our loss of the moral high ground. Oh, and a whole bunch of information that is most likely wrong.
Congrats, US leaders: you managed to completely hose one of our main advantages in the "war" on terror. Sadly, the next crop (Hillary or Guliani, most likely) will be just as bad. Why? Because the majority of the voters buy into the 24 approach to terror. Which means we get the leaders we deserve.
Re:For those who have had no counter-terrorism exp (Score:2, Insightful)
Saudi Arabia was - and today is - the source of more than 95 percent of all funding and volunteers for al-Qaeda.
Pakistan has played us for decades, getting effective pardons for building nuclear bombs and our continual looking the other way as they basically dangle the odd al-Qaeda sacrificial lamb in front of us.
And, as you well know, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11.
Facts are just that. Facts.
Torturing people also doesn't work. Another fact.
Now, I don't wish to digress further - the main question was torture and it's effectiveness in revealing Truth.
If by Truth you mean, will a tortured person tell you what they think you want to hear? Sure.
But that will usually not be the truth.
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:2, Insightful)
damn right this post's anonymous!
Yet more extremism (Score:1, Insightful)
Human Rights Court (Score:3, Insightful)
"Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life."
And the American Convention on Human Rights: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/oasinstr/zoas3con.htm [umn.edu]
"Every person has the right to be compensated in accordance with the law in the event he has been sentenced by a final judgment through a miscarriage of justice."
And thus might come under the jursidiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:1, Insightful)
>
> That's very odd. A polygraph cuff is just helping to take your blood pressure, and it doesn't hurt. If you set it to the point of pain it wouldn't do any good.
>
> It's not like the thing responds to perceived lies with more pressure, or that the reactions it's measuring are painful. That would completely throw off what little good the polygraph is actually able to do.
>
> So I have no idea why the guy would say that, unless he's not operating the polygraph properly and has no conception of how it's supposed to be used.
Two options:
Templeton was full of FAIL. I hope the interrogator was damn sure the subject was untrained against polygraph technology before saying something that whacked-out. Otherwise, the interrogator just proved to the subject that the interrogator had been bluffing throughout the whole interrogation up to that point. Advantage goes to subject.
The only non-FAIL interpretation is that perhaps Templeton's motivation was to see whether or not the subject would burst out laughing at a statement so preposterous, thereby proving that the subject was more knowledgeable about polygraphs than he'd been letting on... Advantage goes to interrogator if subject is poorly trained in keeping a poker face and says "Dude, polygraphs don't work that way, wtf r u tryin 2 pull?". Risk is that the advantage goes massively to the subject if subject can keep a straight face in view of the interrogator's failed bluff.
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the appeal court decision to send the case (previous dismissed on summary judgment) back to court for trial?
Not the case of Higazy being accused of criminal activity... that was dismissed long ago. THIS case is him suing the FBI agent and others for violating his constitutional rights. Maybe you missed that?
The only portion redacted is Higazy's claim of how the polygraph questioning went, accusing Templeton of making threats against his family. The appeals court decision specifically mentions more fact finding is needed, and remands the case back to the lower court. At least to my untrained (IANAL) eye, that sure seems like the opposite of a hurdle going to trial or litigation!
Have we made enough of an utter farce of our court system (and country) yet?
Probably not in this case.
Clearly the hotel staff made an error, insisting the radio was found in Higazy's room, when in fact it months later it became clear it belonged to a pilot staying in another room nearby. After this came to light, the hotel staff admitted a number of errors in handling the "evidence", only afterward of course.
Higazy sued, and the hotel settled. Though we aren't privy to the details of the settlement, it's pretty safe to assume Higazy got some form of restitution with which he was satisfied. To me, that looks like the opposite of the court system being an utter farce.
When Higazy was first detained, he had been staying in a corner room right next to where the planes struck the world trade center, and to the FBI's best knowledge, a radio which certainly could have been used as a beacon was reportedly found in his room. The FBI has no reason to suspect the information about who owned the radio was false. Neither did the judge, who still issued an opinion that the government's case was very weak, and scheduled another hearing. Given the circumstantial evidence, it's hard to imagine how the court or FBI should have handled anything differently up to that point.
About the only thing that really is an utter farce would be the "lie detector". Templeton is accused of coercing Higazy by threatening his family. This has not been proven, and even from the redacted text, it seems nobody else was present and it's Higazy's word against Templeton's. Initially Higazy lost the case at summary judgment, but now the appeals court has ruled that at least part of that case needs more proceedings.
The court opinions are also quite critical of the government for obtaining a false confession. Much of the appeals court decision is about who is responsible... if their misconduct is ultimately to be blamed for Higazy being improperly detained, or if someone else along the chain is responsible. It's a lengthy read, and it's clear the court is concerned.
You are quite right though, this whole thing IS appalling.
I must respectfully disagree.
Certainly the FBI obtaining a false confession is appalling, especially since Templeton is likely to get away with it (by whatever means he actually used).
The hotel's mishandling of the radio is also pretty bad. They have paid the price for their mistakes. The court system made that possible.
Redacting the Higazy's specific account of the session is questionable. However, it is still clear the FBI obtained a false confession. The accusation that coercion of the threat against Higazy's family is still quite clear. The court system is allowing Higazy to pursue this further.
Otherwise, the court system seems to have worked quite well. Given the circumstances, the court decided to hold him and schedule another hearing. At the next hearing, the FBI presented a confession and conflicting stories, and did not disclose any coercive measures. Given the evidence provided, how else should the court have acted? Wouldn't it be an "utter farse" to release a man who was in
Re:In Defense of Bush (sorta) (Score:3, Insightful)
Name any one of the ten amendments that is not regularly broken.
Or perhaps you mean that there are checks and balances?
I might note that most of Bush's appointments, which are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate, are unconfirmed. That's a sign of a dictatorship.
I might also note that the CIA appeared to capture the US presidency in the Reagan/Carter election, after a disenchantment with Carter for shaking up the CIA. It was the week before the election, when most candidates are off campaigning like crazy, and Carter was running the Iranian hostage rescue mission, and Bush was nowhere to be found, and the mission failed due to mysterious breakdowns that were later explained. (Just as this pdf was mysteriously classified.)
I contend that it would be a grave mistake to assume that the Constitution is valid. Instead, I suggest that the proper view would be to consider that the government is in power, and that the Constitution will be followed where it is convenient to be followed. But don't risk too much on that supposition.
As for rebelling against authority, I take the viewpoint that if God lets us be placed under an authority, even a bad one, then rebelling against the authority is also rebelling against God. Better not do it -- better just accept the trials that will come. This is the same viewpoint as Christians who willingly went to Auschwitz, as the price of their Christian faith and (in some cases) dual Jewish heritage, saying "Let us go to suffer for our people."
Well, the time may soon be coming. Whether it comes from Islamists or from my own authority is not so important.
St. Malachy [bibleprobe.com] named the popes, through Benedict ("The glory of the olive": to understand, the Benedictines are called the Olivine order." After that, he said "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End." "
Anyhow, I consider that we may well be living in a dictatorship -- but I am not so alarmed at that, as I am alarmed at the fact that we follow every silly false god that presents itself, in mass stampede. To me, the former is just a symptom. The latter is the terrible disease that causes that symptom, and many others.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:2, Insightful)
The United States assumed territorial control over Guantánamo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area.
1903...before Vietnam, before Gulf...hell, before WWII.
Don't fool yourself into thinking the US is any better than any other country. The only difference I see is that while middle eastern countries rely on old (and babaric) techniques of torture, the US military has honed its skills to a point of excruciation that you have not even the slightest idea of. Ask a woman, she might know, at least for a few hours...now extend that for months and years and you just scratch the surface of the mental and physical abuse that is performed and the hands of US military personnel in the name of Justice. Until Guantánamo Bay is well and truly closed never to be populated by an American "justice fighter" I will consider America as the top most contravening Geneva convention and humans rights abusers this planet has ever seen. The mere fact that a US person ignores the perils of such a place is tantamount to assistance. I will take no lectures, thoughts or beliefs or even believe in the American dream or future until such a shameful place no longer exists.
Going of topic now...stop here if you want to...
Americans should, and are, rightfully ashamed of their current president, I know I am of my prime ministers of the last countless years.
In fact the whole world security is just a shameful mess right now. Iran building nukes, US building more nukes and a Star Wars programme. UK building more nuke filled submarines, Russia building nukes and starting to fly reconnaissance flights again. Middle east in absolute turmoil, China in crisis, India in an almost nuclear deal of the centure (we build nukes but do not sign the non-disclosure). Oil and Gas running out, companies dragging their heals on alternatives, free speech being impeded. Oh God, I am gonna stop before I want to kill myself.
A whole mess...all because the UN has become a joke and dialog is no longer considered useful.
end of off-topic, end of rant.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so far so good.
Then comes 9/11 and they find this thing and someone wants to question him.
So far so good.
They threaten his family with bad stuff, nudge nudge, wink wink, unless he confesses.
It's later broken up as the real pilot tells about the transponder.
So far so good.
Guy goes to sue, and has the right to.
So far so good.
Government claims the suit cannot go foreward because the details are classified due to national security.
Distasteful in the extreme, but so far so good, as (true) national security should outweigh a lawsuit.
So far so good.
Whew! I'm glad they don't do that in the US. What the hell country was this?
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:4, Insightful)
In that culture it is worse.
Killing a person might begin a blood feud with their relatives. But pissing on the Koran is starting a feud with a whole religion.
Debating normative ethics with people who fly airplanes into buildings is pointless. But understanding the basis on which they form ethical judgements is essential if you are going to defeat them.
Re:Ha! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Only classified to protect ne'er-do-wells"? No, I'm sure that some stuff is classified by people who think they're "protecting the country" or some such. Doesn't mean that giving the government a power to censor information, is a good idea. From MK-ULTRA [wikipedia.org] to Abu Gharab [wikipedia.org], the evidence is quite clear that the U.S. government can't be trusted to do the right thing when it is not under scrutiny.
No, I'm not suggesting that I be allowed to oversee the feds' classification of information. I'm suggesting that the feds shouldn't be permitted to classify information in the first place. (Other than perhaps that relating directly to military maneuvers and deployments during time of declared legitimate war.) There is a good reason that no power to classify information is found in the Constitution. We all - you know, "we the people" - are supposed to oversee the actions of our government, and we can't do that when it hides its actions.
Does that entail some extra risk from "enemies" learning about us? Yes. Freedom ain't risk-free. But when we can prevent our government from doing stupid and brutal things, we're less likely to make enemies in the first place.
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Insightful)
...right?
Re:Confession - the Mother of Evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
And maybe it would have. But you know what? If we, as a society, truly believe that it is better for a guilty man to go free than to imprison an innocent one, maybe that's the price we have to pay.
24, Gunsmoke, and torture (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you can have perfect moral clarity and know there is a ticking time bomb when you're part of a TV audience that saw the bad guy setting the bomb, but in reality you don't get to see the bomb--people are being tortured to see if there is a bomb, to see if this guy knows a guy who knows if there's a bomb, and so on...reality lacks the perfect god-like clarity that the neocons think they have.
When you're dealing with someone who thinks that they have this moral clarity that only exists in fictional scenarios, you're dealing with someone very stupid, very arrogant, with a power fetish, or any combination of the three. Opposition to torture is grounded not just in the idea that torture is wrong, but in the recognition that we're fallible, our knowledge is limited, and basically that people can't be trusted with that level of power. This grounding humility is what is lacking in the neocons. They may be humble in other ways, praying to God and so forth, but they believe so strongly in their own vision that they feel that normal morality doesn't apply.
This isn't strictly confined to the neocons--some leftists have tortured for the Marxist/Stalinist/whatever cause, no doubt, but they are long gone. The neocons may not have a monopoly on hubris, but they're the problem we're dealing with today.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:3, Insightful)