Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Lindsey Graham does outrage well, but it would be nice to see him actually go to work on this.

It's a moot point.

An early version of the next NIE says with "mderate-to-high confidence" that Iran put its waterboarding programme on the shelf, so everything is really jim dandy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Though you do your level best to ensure that no one could take this board seriously, it's not working, so perhaps you should try another schtick.

that you have your blog spin ready for the story doesn't mean it isn't absurd for one of the Dems to pretend like keeping this sort story "confidential" has any value to them at all.

as to who brings "schtick" to this board, let me assure you this board would miss me far more than it would miss you. you could be replaced by a carefully programmed web spider.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Though I just defended Pelosi, mostly out of annoyance, I think congressional oversight of intelligence affairs is f*cked up as discussed in this post by Marty Lederman:

• The Government Institution Most in Need of Comprehensive Reform
  
  No, not the Office of Legal Counsel. The intelligence oversight apparatus. Yes, a large part of the problem is the particular Democrats who happen to be among the "Gang of Eight" and "Gang of Four." (To get a good sense of why the Senate Intelligence Committee will not get to the bottom of the latest scandal, just take a look at this lackluster performance by Jay Rockefeller yesterday on Face the Nation.) But even if we had the very best Dems on the Committee, there would still be virtually nothing they could do to address possible unlawful, or even just unwise, conduct by the intelligence agencies. (But cf. this post by Michael Froomkin on the Speech and Debate Clause.)
  
  The pattern is by now very familiar. Whenever the Administration begins to do something of dubious legality, it:
  
  1. sends to Congress messengers who the Intel committees trust -- solemn, serious, professionals, often uniformed military officers
  
  2. to inform a very select, small number of legislators of the conduct -- legislators who have developed close and trusted relationships with the intel officials briefing them and who are, quite understandably, loathe to undermine such relationships, which do, after all, facilitate trust, access, and oversight itself
  
  3. and to provide such briefings after the conduct has commenced
  
  4. in a highly classified setting
  
  5. putting the conduct in its best possible light -- in particular, making sure to insist that it has prevented terrorist attacks
  
  6. while assuring the legislators that it has been vetted by the lawyers and is legal
  
  7. without showing the legislators the legal analysis supporting the conduct
  
  8. without disclosing the legal arguments that cut the other way
  
  9. without informing the legislators of any policy-based or legal dissent within the executive branch
  
  10. while warning the legislators that they may not legally breathe a word of it to anyone -- certainly not to staff, or their fellow legislators, nor to experts outside Congress who might be able to better assess the legality and efficacy of the conduct
  
  11. and while insisting that the legislators cannot second-guess the need for classification and secrecy, even in cases -- such as with respect to OLC opinions concerning what techniques are lawful and which are not, and with respect to conduct that has been revealed to the enemy already -- where there is no legitimate justification for the classification.
  
  The reaction from the Intel Commmittees is, alas, predictable: Muted, furtive and internal (i.e., entirely ineffective) protest, at best. More often than not, acquiescence and encouragement.

He goes on to suggest reforms.

This is the 911 Commission's recommendations regarding Congressional oversight of Intelligence.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Though you do your level best to ensure that no one could take this board seriously, it's not working, so perhaps you should try another schtick.

In fairness, Hank's the least of the reasons this board is not taken seriously.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In fairness, Hank's the least of the reasons this board is not taken seriously.

no sebby, if not for me this board would be a clearinghouse of ideas, a place open minded people can come to discuss the day's events and be convinced by insights from those with whom they have initially disagreed. if only i would leave Ty would build that temple on the hill!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no sebby, if not for me this board would be a clearinghouse of ideas, a place open minded people can come to discuss the day's events and be convinced by insights from those with whom they have initially disagreed. if only i would leave Ty would build that temple on the hill!

I'd rather talk about intelligence oversight, so I regret having taken your bait.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'd rather talk about intelligence oversight, so I regret having taken your bait.

are you the discussion director now? why is it "bait" whenever it is something against the Dems?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
are you the discussion director now? why is it "bait" whenever it is something against the Dems?

I would rather talk about the Pelosi thing you raised than about your stupid meta- schtick about the board. Back to Pelosi, then. Why do you think Democrats feel free to disregard national security classifications? Are you thinking of some other time that Pelosi disclosed classified material she received in that sort of briefing? 'Cause I'm not remembering that.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Seeth?

You did this on purpose.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would rather talk about the Pelosi thing you raised than about your stupid meta- schtick about the board. Back to Pelosi, then. Why do you think Democrats feel free to disregard national security classifications? Are you thinking of some other time that Pelosi disclosed classified material she received in that sort of briefing? 'Cause I'm not remembering that.

"Pelosi" as in the dems and their staff, tons of things over the past several years.

and beyond whether she discloses it, why do they mention it to congress? isn't the point so Congress can object when appropriate? did she take steps to raise the issue and try to reverse the practice?

the underlying point is that the Dems are completely full of shit on the issue because they accepted it until they could posture in public hearings. see?

can't fake indignation for the camera, how do you feel about waterboarding? who cares. I'm going to lunch.

Now, waterboarding out in public hearings how do you feel?

Barbarism! not something the united states should be involved in!

It shows the whole act is nothing more than posturing, and that the Dems don't put the country's interest above their desire to pander.

do you want to talk about that?


edit: and I'm sure it'll come out soon that she "was doing everything she could to stop it!" much like clinton and al queda.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Why do you think Democrats feel free to disregard national security classifications?

For that matter, why werent the editors of the NYT not arrested for sedition - if not treason - for all those front page stories chock-a-block with classified intel?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"Pelosi" as in the dems and their staff, tons of things over the past several years.

and beyond whether she discloses it, why do they mention it to congress? isn't the point so Congress can object when appropriate? did she take steps to raise the issue and try to reverse the practice?

the underlying point is that the Dems are completely full of shit on the issue because they accepted it until they could posture in public hearings. see?

can't fake indignation for the camera, how do you feel about waterboarding? who cares. I'm going to lunch.

Now, waterboarding out in public hearings how do you feel?

Barbarism! not something the united states should be involved in!

It shows the whole act is nothing more than posturing, and that the Dems don't put the country's interest above their desire to pander.

do you want to talk about that?


edit: and I'm sure it'll come out soon that she "was doing everything she could to stop it!" much like clinton and al queda.

counting this one

397-21

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
It shows the whole act is nothing more than posturing, and that the Dems don't put the country's interest above their desire to .

:td:

WSJ backs you up:

One certainly may hold as abhorrent the idea of aggressively interrogating any terrorists ever, either for fear of what they might do to our people, as John McCain does, or because one thinks this violates our values. What one may not do — at least not if one wants the system to function — is assent to such a policy in 2002 and then, when the policy is made public, put up the pretense that one is “shocked” and appalled to learn of it.

This is bad faith. Worse, it risks setting in motion the ruin or eventual criminal prosecution of CIA employees who in 2002 did what the Bush Administration, Congress and indeed the nation wanted them to do to protect the American people from another September 11.

It has been widely reported by now that waterboarding was used on only three individuals — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon; Abu Zebaydah, an Osama bin Laden confidante captured in Pakistan 2002 and described as a director of al-Qaeda operations; and a third unidentified person. If Speaker Pelosi and her colleagues want the handling of such terrorists conformed to what they call “our values,” then she should define that and put it in an explicit piece of legislation. Then let the Members vote yea or nay, in public, on the record.

But don’t sign off on such a sensitive policy at a moment when the nation’s “values” support it, then later feign revulsion when you can’t take the heat from the loudest in your political constituency. There was a time when politics at least assumed more backbone than that.

Amen and pass the potatoes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
:td:

WSJ backs you up:



Amen and pass the potatoes.

FWIW, me, the dumb one, got to that position on my own, but I submit that any rationale thinking person would do the same so I'm not bragging.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"Pelosi" as in the dems and their staff, tons of things over the past several years.

I was asking for examples of Pelosi leaking classified stuff. You have none. 1-0.

and beyond whether she discloses it, why do they mention it to congress? isn't the point so Congress can object when appropriate? did she take steps to raise the issue and try to reverse the practice?

Oversight. They can't make things public. You and I and Marty Lederman seem to agree that this system is f*cked up.

I don't know what she did to change things, and neither do you.

the underlying point is that the Dems are completely full of shit on the issue because they accepted it until they could posture in public hearings. see?

Whoa, there, pardner. You just jumped from two or four Dems to the whole party. Yeah, that makes sense. And you haven't established yet that they accepted anything.