Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I'm not following this story (and I'm willing to believe that just about any politician -- D or R -- is grandstanding at any given point in time), but how does the secret letter Jane Harman sent to the CIA when she was in the so-called Gang of 4 (objecting to the interrogation techniques that she was briefed on) fit into your theory?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801664_pf.html

ty says we can't rely on what isn't proven. what did her letter say?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why didn't Pelosi send it? And why only one?

Fuck if I know, other than the fact that Harman was the D in the Gang at the time, not Nancy. And I have no idea what else she did.

But not too many people have the patience to keep being ignored. At one of my old firms, we had a policy regarding staff compensation get changed in a way that may of the alleged owners of the place viewed as unfair to the staff. Needless to say, when our objections to the change were ignored or disregarded, we didn't keep sending emails, and it would probably had been a violation of our fiduciary duties to rabble rouse about it. So, we dropped it until the next time the powers-that-be needed something from us.

(Didn't work then, either, but they did change the happy hours to include all employees.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since I don't think the Democrats are doing enough on torture, out of fear of being painted as weak on terrorists, I'm not seeing the grandstanding here. The basic problem is not that Democrats don't think torture is wrong but are pretending that it is for political gain. It's that they think torture is wrong but are not doing enough to stop it for fear of political losses.

Some would say that's a distinction without a difference.

That's also not saying much. I think even Republicans agree torture is wrong, but an unfortunate necessity.

BTW, I'm surprised you haven't whacked Hank with the GOP's cynical exploitation of this debate to whip up its base. I mean, the sins here are pretty evenly distributed from what I see of the debate.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ty says we can't rely on what isn't proven. what did her letter say?

You're dodging the question. A Democratic House member in the Gang of 4 at the time of a briefing objected at the time to the interrogation techniques described -- how does that fit in your theory?

(And I don't know what the letter says -- the news story I linked to said that the letter is confidential, but described it as objecting to the techniques. Do you know what was said in the briefings, or are you relying on news reports, too?)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, I think to his credit, Ty views torture as a real substantive issue, which it is. Politically, however, it is being used for leverage, which robs it of any credibility in the national discourse. I think his moral outrage is real. I just don't think the politicians using the issue for gain have any real moral outrage.

He has a point. Torture is something we ought to debate, for obvious reasons. the problem is, as you've cited, the people bringing that debate are not serious about it and everyone knows it.

How is torture being used for leverage? In another context, Hank would telling everyone that the American people are scared of terrorists and support torture.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why didn't Pelosi send it? And why only one?

According to that Post article, no one was being waterboarded yet when Pelosi was brief. The CIA was still developing its "procedures."

If you're asking why Jay Rockefeller didn't do something, it's because he's useless.

Looking at that Post article, I marvel at the way that Porter Goss's self-serving utterances get transformed into facts as they migrate from his mouth to the WSJ editorial page to Hank's posts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How is torture being used for leverage? In another context, Hank would telling everyone that the American people are scared of terrorists and support torture.

You answered your own question. There are many contexts. And in one, the Democrats think the torture issue can be used to demonize the GOP.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
According to that Post article, no one was being waterboarded yet when Pelosi was brief. The CIA was still developing its "procedures."

If you're asking why Jay Rockefeller didn't do something, it's because he's useless.

Looking at that Post article, I marvel at the way that Porter Goss's self-serving utterances get transformed into facts as they migrate from his mouth to the WSJ editorial page to Hank's posts.

What's the record of her follow-up with the CIA to determine what those "procedures" would ultimately involve?

That's rhetorical.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Some would say that's a distinction without a difference.

Except that they turn on contradictory assumptions about empirical reality. Other than that, they're just the same.

BTW, I'm surprised you haven't whacked Hank with the GOP's cynical exploitation of this debate to whip up its base. I mean, the sins here are pretty evenly distributed from what I see of the debate.

Not all of the GOP. McCain is a pleasant exception. But Giuliani and Romney, to name two, seem to have concluded that the way to win the primary is to outflank everyone else on their willingness to be bad-ass motherfuckers. Either this is exploitation or a true reflection of who they are -- I'm not sure which is worse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You answered your own question. There are many contexts. And in one, the Democrats think the torture issue can be used to demonize the GOP.

So in your world, a bunch of Democratic politicians don't believe that torture is wrong but do believe that lots of voters believe that and will give the Democrats more political power if they just point out that the Republicans like torture. Presumably in this world, the Republicans also understand that voters are against torture, and are running scared at the notion that people will find out they're for water-boarding.

Not the world I live in. In my world, the Democrats are agree that torture is wrong, so they're not making an issue of it in the primaries because it's not a way to distinguish themselves from one another. But they're also not doing much to keep the issue in front of the rest of the public out of fear that it will hurt them. They've decided that GOP filibusters and the presidential veto will prevent them from changing the law before the next election, and their best chance to change things is to take back the White House -- by running on other issues.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You're dodging the question. A Democratic House member in the Gang of 4 at the time of a briefing objected at the time to the interrogation techniques described -- how does that fit in your theory?

(And I don't know what the letter says -- the news story I linked to said that the letter is confidential, but described it as objecting to the techniques. Do you know what was said in the briefings, or are you relying on news reports, too?)

couple things:

first, unless "Gang of 4" is a term you have learned long ago, you shouldn't use it that way. it intimidates me into thinking you know way more than i posssibly could, so i figure why bother. OTOH if you just plucked it from the article, you should introduce the term to your reader.

second, she could have objected to any number of things that in no way object to the practice. the rest of your guys were silent but we have to assume her letter was some ringing denouncement? no thanks.

third, this issue is critical to the debate Ty wants to have. Ty wants to talk about "congressional oversight." I bet he is going to propose giving congress some real teeth!

But to me an intial question is what will congress do with whatever authority is does get, and when we now look at what it does with the authority it has now we know it simply misuses that authority to attempt political hatchetjobs with no real concern for whether it is helping or harming the country. I believe everyone agrees that is what's going on, Ty abstaining.

so now we can frame the question ty wants to talk about:

Should we give congress strong new oversight authority where it has been using its present authority solely for political gain, and with disregard for whether it harms the country?

Have at it everyone!

I say no, because it seems to me congress' current authority is sufficient to misuse its oversight for political gain with disregard for whether it harms the country. Our system is working!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
to the WSJ editorial page to Hank's posts.

sorry, no. i don't read anything political. although in a "it takes one to know one fight," I realize I'm in trouble if you start accusing me of getting my talking points from opinions and blogs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
couple things:

first, unless "Gang of 4" is a term you have learned long ago, you shouldn't use it that way. it intimidates me into thinking you know way more than i posssibly could, so i figure why bother. OTOH if you just plucked it from the article, you should introduce the term to your reader.

second, she could have objected to any number of things that in no way object to the practice. the rest of your guys were silent but we have to assume her letter was some ringing denouncement? no thanks.

third, this issue is critical to the debate Ty wants to have. Ty wants to talk about "congressional oversight." I bet he is going to propose giving congress some real teeth!

But to me an intial question is what will congress do with whatever authority is does get, and when we now look at what it does with the authority it has now we know it simply misuses that authority to attempt political hatchetjobs with no real concern for whether it is helping or harming the country. I believe everyone agrees that is what's going on, Ty abstaining.

so now we can frame the question ty wants to talk about:

Should we give congress strong new oversight authority where it has been using its present authority solely for political gain, and with disregard for whether it harms the country?

Have at it everyone!

I say no, because it seems to me congress' current authority is sufficient to misuse its oversight for political gain with disregard for whether it harms the country. Our system is working!

Someone needs to oversee the CIA et al. Do you think it should be the executive branch, without any legislative involvement, or do you think it should be both branches -- and, hey, let's throw the judiciary in there as well. I vote the latter. Because unchecked power tends to produce bad results, and I don't see any systemic reason why the executive branch would fail to misuse the oversight powers in the way that you think Congress will. It's happened before.

And if you're interested in specific proposals, just read the post from Marty Lederman that I quoted from and linked to. He worked at OLC and knows more about this stuff than you and I.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
first, unless "Gang of 4" is a term you have learned long ago, you shouldn't use it that way. it intimidates me into thinking you know way more than i posssibly could, so i figure why bother. OTOH if you just plucked it from the article, you should introduce the term to your reader.

Sorry. It's a delightful flashback to the days when I worked for Ambassador Duke in Peking.

And since everyone was talking about the briefings and who was there, and who said or failed to say what, I assumed that people were familiar with the term, which has been used in each of the few articles I've read about this issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
sorry, no. i don't read anything political. although in a "it takes one to know one fight," I realize I'm in trouble if you start accusing me of getting my talking points from opinions and blogs.

You dope, you started this conversation with a post quoting a WSJ editorial, which is what I was referring to.