act of exceptional recklessness --- torture is an exceptionally reckless act.
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014 1:02:33 PM UTC-6, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-releasing-the-feinstein-report-in-the-middle-of-a-war-would-be-reckless/2014/12/08/e1dd1268-7f15-11e4-8882-03cf08410beb_story.html?wpisrc=nl-headlines&wpmm=1 > Releasing the Feinstein report is an act of exceptional recklessness > > *W*ith the release of the Feinstein report on CIA interrogations > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/feinstein-cia-searched-intelligence-committee-computers/2014/03/11/982cbc2c-a923-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html>of > > high-value terrorists a decade ago, let’s consider the situation of > intelligence personnel who have been involved, not in that program but in > drone strikes against terrorists, conducted in a variety of countries > around the world. > > They have four sources of direction and protection: Their strikes are > authorized by the president, briefed to Congress, deemed lawful by the > attorney general and determined useful by the CIA director. > > Michael Gerson is a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice > weekly in The Post. *View Archive* > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/michael-gerson> > > Yet people in the drone program > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-drone-debate-in-one-faq/>know > > that co-workers involved in enhanced interrogation had these assurances as > well. And the drone program has some distinctive characteristics. Instead > of employing waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation, the > targets are killed (sometimes with collateral damage to the innocent). > President Obama dramatically expanded the use of drones, increasing the > proportion of attacks that are “signature strikes” — meaning those > authorizing attacks don’t know the identities of the targets, just their > likely value. > > Some may argue a subtle moral distinction between harshly interrogating a > terrorist and blowing his limbs apart. But international human rights > groups and legal authorities generally look down on both. The main > difference? One is Obama’s favorite program. A few years from now, a new > president and new congressional leaders may take a different view. > > At the CIA, these concerns are not hypothetical. “I know the Predator > program > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/20/when-drones-fall-from-the-sky/>intimately,” > > a former senior intelligence officer told me. “There have been hundreds and > hundreds of Predator shots, the most carefully targeted in the history of > warfare, but not 100 percent right. What if the next president, [say] Rand > Paul or Elizabeth Warren, comes after people involved in this program?” > > “If you have to worry about a new administration coming along 10 years > down the road,” the intelligence officer told me, “making villains out of > agency officials following the exact letter of the law, it is sobering. We > think about that all the time.” > > This is the scrutiny that comes only with success. For many, the 9/11 > attacks are becoming as historically and emotionally distant as Pearl > Harbor. But if the United States had the equivalent of a 9/11 attack each > year, the range of acceptable responses would expand. V-E Day, after all, > partially resulted from the firebombing of Dresden. V-J Day encompassed > Hiroshima. Both involved tickertape parades and incinerated children. > > > > The U.S. response in the war against terrorism has been dramatically more > selective and focused on combatants. Even so, the CIA is often forced to > operate at the edge of the United States’ acceptable response — currently > with drone strikes and a variety of activities to degrade and dismantle > the Islamic State > <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/03/us-iraq-crisis-islamicstate-obama-idUSKBN0GY19920140903>. > > The avoidance of “boots on the ground > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/13/obama-says-he-will-not-send-troops-to-iraq/>” > > in the Middle East has placed an additional burden on intelligence services > to work with (often flawed) allies, target enemies and strike from afar. > Political leaders, once again, urge intelligence officials to do what is > necessary. > > > > So the Feinstein report comes in the middle of a war, targeting many > Americans who are still engaged in it. It is an act of exceptional > congressional recklessness. Democratic senators on the Intelligence > Committee interviewed none of the key figures in the program, yet fought > for months to make it easier to identify the targets of their report. > “Those personnel,” said (soon to be former) Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), “if > they have that worry, can be given some legitimate security.” This is > clearly what some committee members intended: exposure and a bodyguard. > > Sen. Dianne Feinstein > <http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=db84e844-01bb-4eb6-b318-31486374a895> > > (D-Calif.), the outgoing chair of the committee, was thought to be more > responsible. But her legacy is a massive dump of intelligence details > useful to the enemy in a time of war. And she knows the likely results. > Secretary > of State John Kerry expressed the concerns of allies > <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/05/kerry-cautions-feinstein-on-timing-cia-report/> > > about increased violence. A National Intelligence Council report > <http://news.yahoo.com/a-warning-on--torture-report--release-233244652.html> > warned of threats to embassies, installations and individuals, and explored > how partners would react to the disclosure. > > So why has Feinstein donned her Guy Fawkes > <http://www.britannia.com/history/g-fawkes.html>mask? Tension with the > CIA? Simple stubbornness? The main reason, I suspect, is different. > Democrats who approved of enhanced interrogation at the time (such as > Feinstein) must now construct an elaborate fantasy world in which they were > not knowledgeable and supportive. They postulate a new reality in which > they were innocent and deceived — requiring a conspiracy from three former > CIA directors, three former deputy directors and hundreds of others. > > Occam would indicate a different answer: guilt, hypocrisy and betrayal. > > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdmhxMml0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MTgxNDkzODY-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaHRobGwyBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQxODE0OTM4Ng--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
