APA- Traitorous Wimps Who Want the Terrorists To Win
They won’t condone abuse or torture:
The American Psychological Association ruled Sunday that psychologists can no longer be associated with several interrogation techniques that have been used against terrorism detainees at U.S. facilities because the methods are immoral, psychologically damaging and counterproductive in eliciting useful information.
Psychologists who witness interrogators using mock executions, simulated drowning, sexual and religious humiliation, stress positions or sleep deprivation are required to intervene to stop such abuse, to report the activities to superiors and to report the involvement of any other psychologists in such activities to the association. It could then strip those professionals of their membership.
On the heels of the APA deciding to make the Baby Jesus cry by no longer diagnosing homosexuality as a sin disorder, I think it is safe to conclude that all psychologists are French.
APA- APPEASEMENT PLEASES ALLAH!
*** Update ***
More traitorous ‘experts’:
The world these experts see today is one that continues to grow more threatening. Fully 91 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percentage points since February. Eighty-four percent do not believe the United States is winning the war on terror, an increase of 9 percentage points from six months ago. More than 80 percent expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade, a result that is more or less unchanged from one year ago.
On the positive side, many of the key agencies charged with ensuring the United States’ national security appear to be getting better at their job. Six of nine agencies, including the Departments of State and Defense, scored above average on the experts’ scale of 0 to 10. One year ago, only one agency scored above average. The National Security Agency fared the best, with an average ranking of 6.6. Many of the policies that these agencies pursue, however, did not fare as well. Nearly every foreign policy of the U.S. government—from domestic surveillance activities and the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. energy policies and efforts in the Middle East peace process—was sharply criticized by the experts. More than 6 in 10 experts, for instance, believe U.S. energy policies are negatively affecting the country’s national security. The experts were similarly critical of the cia’s rendition of terrorist suspects to countries known to torture prisoners and the Pentagon’s policy of trying detainees before military tribunals.
Clearly we need to round up some of these experts before all is truly lost.
APA- Traitorous Wimps Who Want the Terrorists To WinPost + Comments (26)
Screw The War As We Saw It- WHAT ABOUT BEAUCHAMP?
As predicted, the usual suspects completely ignored the op-ed by the 82nd Airborne NCO’s in the NY Times, but are having another link orgy regarding Beauchamp.
Well, that is not completely true. Hot Air had this to say about the op-ed:
Oh well. The Times had to make amends to the left for that O’Hanlon and Pollack op-ed in time for the big Iraq debate next month. And now they have.
And BlackFive weighed in with a lengthy piece that stated that while what they experienced may be true for their region, LOTS OF OTHER SOLDIERS EXPERIENCE SOMETHING ELSE and regardless, people have been wrong before and victory is right around the corner and these NCO’s don’t see the big picture.
Other than that, though… crickets.
And what does this big expose on Beauchamp rely on? Why, exactly the kind of things they are accusing the TNR of- take it away, Instaputz:
Some words that jump out in Richard Miniter’s “reporting” on TNR:
Perhaps because McGee worked on the business side of the magazine on the first floor and not with the editors and writers on the second, Foer didn’t consider him a genuine insider—and therefore gave him the company line. But McGee believes that Foer was speaking his mind. …
What appears to be his home phone number—the only Foer listed in D.C.—has been “temporarily disconnected.”
Perhaps a cone of silence has descended. A longtime New Republic editor told me that she was not sure that she was allowed to discuss the Beauchamp affair…
In the days after the party, Elspeth Reeve received the sympathetic attention of editors and fact-checkers at The New Republic’s offices. They did not blame her for escorting a fabricator into the magazine’s inner sanctum, who hoodwinked them and body-slammed the magazine’s reputation, according to McGee. Apparently, they did not ask what responsibility she might bear. …
Reeve is not talking to the press, most likely on orders from editor Franklin Foer or the magazine’s attorneys. Yet it is possible to reconstruct what she knew about Beauchamp. …
Indeed, it appears that Beauchamp’s relationship with Reeve shifted into high gear around the time he was first published in the magazine….
It appears Beauchamp had little interest in Reeve until she was in a position to help him. “I knew he was engaged twice before he was with me, but not with Elspeth [his college friend and now wife]. … Last summer, we were together in my room and he told me about her and made fun of her.”…
Beauchamp appears to repeating this behavior. Even though he has access to free phones on base to call the United States, he is not offering an explanation to the press—just as he didn’t offer one to Priscilla….
Etc., etc., etc. There are a host of other problems with this piece, in addition to the fact that it’s almost purely speculative.
It appears to me that the vast majority of the “respected” right-wing bloggers may be full of shit and completely capable of ignoring anything that they don’t like.
Related news- Sadly, No! fixes the internet (NSFW).
Screw The War As We Saw It- WHAT ABOUT BEAUCHAMP?Post + Comments (55)
The Rogue President
Maybe this explains why the Democrats didn’t get into a protracted political battle with the President over wiretapping- it doesn’t matter anyway:
At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence.”
Talking Points notes: “That’s the important thing to remember: the White House considers the legislation “just advisory,” so it doesn’t much matter whether or not lawmakers gave up too much authority to the president. He’s going to do what he wants to do.”
I think a better way of stating it was put in the comments here the other day:
As I’ve said elsewhere, alas, I don’t you understand the highly legitimate nature of what Bush is doing here.
He’s operating on The Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want, and so he’s doing whatever the fuck he wants.
Laws are for little people. And the Clenis.
The War, As They Saw It
In a fascinating and extremely well-written piece in the NY Times, a bunch of grunts got together and discuss the situation on the ground. Some selected excerpts:
To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.
***Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
***At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
While these guys are in the 82nd Airborne, you can see that what they write is sure to infuriate the patriots in the 101st Chairborne. I wonder if they are going to have the nerve to ratchet up the smear machine against these guys. They have their names. Do they have the balls? I am betting that since they don’t, they will choose route #2- ignore the op-ed completely.
At any rate, read the whole piece. Compare what they have written to the one written by “war critics” O’Hanlon and Pollack a few weeks ago. Which sounds more accurate?
More On Wiretapping
Thanks to many who responded to my request, particularly to commenter LITBMueller for this highly informed comment.
Starting off, Marty Lederman has explained the limitations of the six-month “sunset” clause much better than I did a few days ago:
Although section 6(c) provides that the operative provisions of the Act “shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,” i.e., on February 1, 2008, there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:
AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT.—Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).
Thus, “acquisitions” authorized by Attorney General Gonzales will be permissible for one year, even if that period extends beyond the ostensible February 1, 2008 sunset date. I think it’s fair to assume that the Attorney General will authorize a system of such acquisitions on or close to February 1, 2008, which will mean that the warrantless surveillance can continue until . . . February 1, 2009, or twelve days after the next President is sworn in.
Next I asked who can and cannot be wiretapped? LITBMueller explained that “acquisitions” means more than just wiretaps:
[W]e’re talking about the government either obtaining phone records of past calls, or plugging into the system to listen as a call is made (more traditional wiretapping, but different in that this is with the compliance of the phone co., and not using a “bug” or listening device).Plus, note that the bill refers broadly to “communications” – that leaves open the possibility of intercepting incoming, outgoing, or stored emails, faxes, and other data transmissions.
This post by Anonymous Liberal explains well how the bill expands the list of acceptable surveillance methods:
[T]he bill significantly narrowed FISA’s definition of “electronic surveillance.” Here’s what the amendment says:Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.
Thanks to this carve out, many–if not most–intercepted communications between someone in the U.S. and someone in another country (even if that person is a U.S. citizen) are no longer considered “electronic surveillance.”
[…] Furthermore, the bill passed by Congress did not amend FISA’s criminal and civil liability provisions, which, like the exclusivity provision, are still tied to the definition of “electronic surveillance.” For instance, section 1809 of FISA makes it is a felony to “engage[] in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” All of the other punitive provisions are similarly worded.Therefore, as long as the government is engaged in “surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States,” it cannot possibly run afoul of FISA’s criminal or civil liability provisions, even if it totally disregards all of the procedures and oversight requirements spelled out in the bill. There’s no penalty for non-compliance.
As I understand it, the most profound change in this bill comes from redefining a huge category of communications – anything involving someone “reasonably believed to be located outside the United States” – away from FISA jurisdiction. Marty Lederman has hosted a debate concerning whether the law opens up far more than that:
I’ve been arguing that the main problem with 105B is that it is touted as a check on the broad scope of section 105A, but in fact its safeguards are toothless. The Washington Post and others have, by contrast, suggested that 105B actually authorizes new forms of NSA searches, over and above those authorized by the very broad new section 105A.
[…] [A]s commenters such as Just an Observer, Anonymous Liberal and others have noted, even if I am right, there are at least two other possible important questions raised by 105B:First, does 105B authorize types of “acquisitions” of information other than “contents” of communications, in a way that would previously have been prohibited by statutes other than FISA, such as the Communications Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Pen Register Act? Its broad language (“Notwithstanding any other law . . . “) might be read to suggest as much. In other words, perhaps the evisceration of FISA is the least of it.
Second, even if 105B doesn’t authorize any activity that was previously prohibited, the compulsory service provisions do appear to vastly increase the ability of the NSA to enlist the service of many private parties to obtain information that once would have been difficult or impossible for NSA to acquire, thereby dramatically increasing the breadth of NSA surveillance as a practical matter.
Depending on how one reads the law ISPs, schools, telcoms and any other data carrier may have just become involuntary operatives in the government’s war on whoever it feels like wiretapping. Or maybe not. Lederman again (formatting mine):
More fundamentally, the fact that no one, not even those on the relevant congressional committees, appears to truly understand whether and to what extent 105B does either of these things, and what the exact relationship is between 105A and 105B, is perhaps the biggest problem of all with this legislation: Congress quite simply does not have any sense of what it has authorized — and therefore, of course, neither does the public.
Fortunately we can rest assured that this administration would never take advantage of legal ambiguity.
***
Regarding my next question, who approves?, the law clearly gives joint power over day-to-day management to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. The question of oversight, however, is more interesting. LITBMueller summarizes in his comment:
This, and other language, shows that the bill only require the DNI & AG to “reasonably believe” that the person who will be listened in on is outside the US.
[…] The highlighted language essentially makes the Senate’s participation in oversight completely optional, at the discretion of Administration officials. They don’t have to certify anything to Congress. And, anything they declare themselves to be an emergency, they can do the certification post hoc.The certification then goes to the FISA court for review. And, remember, the belief that the subject is outside of the US only needs to “reasonable.” “Reasonableness” is a term of art in the law: if the government is held to a “reasonableness” standard, then it wins 9.95 times out out of 10. So, don’t expect the FISA court to question the government’s determination of reasonableness.
As far as I can tell nobody directly supervises the government’s activities. Rather AG Gonzales, under oath, writes up the methods that he plans to use and submits that to FISC for approval. Thank god Alberto Gonzales would never, ever perjure himself.
Now imagine that FISA improbably turns down a certification for failing to meet the astonishingly generous “reasonableness” standard. What happens then? Orin Kerr:
[U]nder Sec. 6(d), it will remain in effect pending appeal even if the FISA court strikes down the program as “clearly erroneous,” the FISA Court of Review agrees with the FISA court, and the case ultimately goes up to the Supreme Court. If you figure the time it would likely take for a certification to be made and the legality to be addressed all the way up to the Supreme Court, this pretty much means that no matter what the courts think the monitoring will go on until close to the end of the Bush Administration.
In sum, as near as I can tell, the administration essentially has a broad surveillance power that cannot be practically revoked. It allows the government to listen in on communications involving anybody speaking to someone who even might be a foreigner, and even that standard depends on the honesty of a serial perjurer. Even if said perjurer manages to submit an application so improbably awful that the FISA court says no, the wiretap can go on until the Supreme Court issues an opinion that says otherwise, which probably won’t happen until the president has already left office. Better, that only summarizes the clearly written parts of the bill. Depending on your interpretation the mysterious section 105b could make the foregoing seem minor.
I am having a hard time seeing how this bill is any different from allowing the Bush government to listen to any conversation, anywhere, without the smallest legal hazard.
Imagine for example that Gonzales decides to listen in on Nancy Pelosi’s office. Even if Gonzales doesn’t lie (who could tell if he does?) or submit a cleverly vague application, the FISA court lacks the power to stop a Pelosi tap. Rather, listening would go on until the Supreme Court eventually rules on the matter. The DoJ, of course, is responsible for pursuing the case through appeals and up to the Supreme court. I bet that they fast-track it. In the best case scenario the Supreme Court rules some time next year that Gonzales should stop listening to Pelosi’s phone calls. What happens then? Sorry, my bad. We’ll stop now.
And that is where things will remain until 2009. Imagining that a useful revision will clear a filibuster is higher fantasy than John’s elf sword. Science not yet invented numbers that can describe the Dems’ chances of overriding a veto.
Unless somebody can convince me that I (and many others) have the story completely wrong, the current Democratic leadership is dead to me. If I’m still blogging in 2009 my top priority will be to remove Pelosi and Reid from their leadership positions and hang this albatross around any Dems who voted for it. It should not sound overly idealistic to say that we can do better than this.
***Update***
Marty Lederman again:
Obviously, what happened is that the Democratic leadership decided not to insist that Democrats could vote only to allow warrantless foreign-to-foreign surveillance. Presumably, the Democrats could have simply voted in favor of the Democratic bill, giving the Administration what it professed to need, and sent that bill to the President for his veto. But the leadership chose not to instruct their caucus to do so. And no one has yet quite uncovered the story of why Speaker Pelosi and crew did not simply insist on that course of action.
Not. Leadership. Material.
***Update 2***
A New article from Risen and Lichtblau illustrates how Congressional Dems are freaking out about the new powers they just gave the government. It is a sign of the Democrats’ frantic retreat on this issue that their primary defense has become the idea that they rushed the bill and threw in a bunch of bogus new powers through some sort of proofreading error. I’m not kidding.
It is possible that some of the changes were the unintended consequences of the rushed legislative process just before this month’s congressional recess, rather than a purposeful effort by the administration to enhance its ability to spy on Americans.
“We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.
Leaving aside how surprisingly common criminal incompetence has become as a line of defense (cough, Gonzales), that line of reasoning just won’t fly. Democrats spent months negotiating and drafting a perfectly sensible compromise. The only reason they had to redraft the bill was because the Bushies dropped a pile of bullshit demands on them at the eleventh hour and the Dem leadership lacked the spine to do anything but pass the crap practically verbatim. They got rolled. Everybody down to the once-a-week TV consumer knows it; consequently it will shock me if this lame pseudo-defense survives the weekend.
Just In Case You Were Insufficiently Depressed
About the sad state of affairs in this country and what now passes as patriotism, head on over to Q and O and get a load of what Jon Henke has been dealing with lately. Jon linked to this outrageous video allegedly showing homegrown patriots executing illegal immigrants (the folks at Orcinus have been covering this in great detail). Jon writes:
Assuming the video is real…
He wanted to be free and live a better life where that was possible…so he was shot.
The shooter and everybody involved should be imprisoned for life. The United States would be far better off with millions of illegal immigrants living freely in our country….and one less of each of the people behind this video.
You would think the response, assuming the video is true, would be one of unanimous disgust and outrage. You would, alas, be wrong. Jon had to do a follow-up:
Last night, I wrote a post pointing to what appeared to be a video of border vigilantes shooting an illegal immigrant. Two comments to that post deserve to be exposed to sunlight…
1. “Look, America is our home. Our house, if you will. If someone breaks into my home at night, I’l shooting them. […] But when they show from the absolute start that they have no regard for our laws, I don’t want them here, and sicne the government is doing almost nothing to stop their entry, I would forward the idea that Paco and Jose will stop trying to break into our house once they hear about how Jose’s 2 brothers got shot trying the same trick last week…”
2. “That said, a few more of these may be a very effective deterrent against illegal immigration.”
There is no excuse and no defense for this, and it is not welcome in our comments.
Jon, of course, has it completely right, but the fact that these folks are out there and actually think they are patriots is still entirely too depressing for me to say much more.
Just In Case You Were Insufficiently DepressedPost + Comments (46)