Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Not a big fan of investigating previous administrations in general, but I think I draw the line at threatening people's families no matter how dispicable the prisoner is. At what point do you Bush admin defenders draw the line? At anything?

 

[ScottM]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

I think Holder/Obama's plan to even investigate actions condoned or approved of by a prior administration sends a pretty stark message to the counter-terrorism crew: Cover your own ***, in case the next administration tries to throw you under the bus. This is especially true since MOC of both parties were apprised of these very same actions, and didn't raise a finger in dissent. Moreover, those who wrap themselves in the Constitution and "American Values" while they abhor the conduct of "rogue operatives" conveniently ignore the fact the CIA is still killing Pakistanis on a near-daily basis. Yeah, it's a pretty ***** dirty business dealing with people intent on killing you. And sometimes, the Sunshine and Lollipops approach doesn't work.

 

[Rover]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

I think Holder/Obama's plan to even investigate actions condoned or approved of by a prior administration sends a pretty stark message to the counter-terrorism crew: Cover your own ***, in case the next administration tries to throw you under the bus. This is especially true since MOC of both parties were apprised of these very same actions, and didn't raise a finger in dissent. Moreover, those who wrap themselves in the Constitution and "American Values" while they abhor the conduct of "rogue operatives" conveniently ignore the fact the CIA is still killing Pakistanis on a near-daily basis. Yeah, it's a pretty ***** dirty business dealing with people intent on killing you. And sometimes, the Sunshine and Lollipops approach doesn't work.

I'm all for killing the bad guys. However, I'll ask again - is there anything you don't condone, and if so, what?

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

I think Holder/Obama's plan to even investigate actions condoned or approved of by a prior administration sends a pretty stark message to the counter-terrorism crew: Cover your own ***, in case the next administration tries to throw you under the bus. This is especially true since MOC of both parties were apprised of these very same actions, and didn't raise a finger in dissent. Moreover, those who wrap themselves in the Constitution and "American Values" while they abhor the conduct of "rogue operatives" conveniently ignore the fact the CIA is still killing Pakistanis on a near-daily basis. Yeah, it's a pretty ***** dirty business dealing with people intent on killing you. And sometimes, the Sunshine and Lollipops approach doesn't work.

For the record, I wouldn't prosecute operatives unless they really really went nutty on prisoners beyond any approved directive.

Change the law then. I have less problem with the CIA attempting to assassinate Al Qaeda operatives than I do with an approved policy of torture that violates the Geneva Convention and the Constitution and has a horrible record of producing reliable information. If were going to compromise our "moral position" and give the zealots a rallying cry to take to the arab street to recruit, i'd prefer its one that works.

And the Democrats were quite complicit in this. I'm not a member of that party and consider their lack of much needed "opposition" to things like the Patriot Act and the Iraq War pretty ****ing. At the same time, this was the Executive Branch's baby and while I see the value in moving on, its more from a political real politik perspective I can't say I'm terribly upset this is being investigated.

 

[ScottM]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Change the law then. I have less problem with the CIA attempting to assassinate Al Qaeda operatives than I do with an approved policy of torture that violates the Geneva Convention and the Constitution and has a horrible record of producing reliable information. If were going to compromise our "moral position" and give the zealots a rallying cry to take to the arab street to recruit, i'd prefer its one that works.

We don't have a "moral position". If we had a "moral position", whatever the hell that is, we'd probably stop sending drones into Pakistan and wiping out civilians, including children and women, along with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Instead we'd send hit squads for more precise kills, or at least farm that work out. Moreover, if the tactics and processes complained of now were approved of previously, why should they be reviewed to placate later political agendas? I'd hate to think that the new rendition policy of the O-man, as well as bringing a cross-agency team of interrogators under the purview of the NSC would be second guessed for political reasons by another President. God forbid the O-man have to give sworn testimony about why he ordered certain actions to protect the nation.

Edit: I think my biggest concern is that operatives operating under a discrete set of rules may be subject to later prosecution or censure for following those rules if the political winds change. I have no problems prosecuting those who violate the law or the rules, as has been done, but I am more concerned about dragging "innocent" personnel into a politically motivated process.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

I would say the early morning hours of 9/11/01 was a ticking time bomb and not some "fanciful creation of Hollywood".

Do you know what kind of factors would have to line up where torturing an individual is the only conceivable way to stop that event from occurring?

And I assume you would then be fine with authorizing torture of American citizens to prevent another Oklahoma City?

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

We don't have a "moral position". If we had a "moral position", whatever the hell that is, we'd probably stop sending drones into Pakistan and wiping out civilians, including children and women, along with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Instead we'd send hit squads for more precise kills, or at least farm that work out. Moreover, if the tactics and processes complained of now were approved of previously, why should they be reviewed to placate later political agendas? I'd hate to think that the new rendition policy of the O-man, as well as bringing a cross-agency team of interrogators under the purview of the NSC would be second guessed for political reasons by another President. God forbid the O-man have to give sworn testimony about why he ordered certain actions to protect the nation.

Edit: I think my biggest concern is that operatives operating under a discrete set of rules may be subject to later prosecution or censure for following those rules if the political winds change. I have no problems prosecuting those who violate the law or the rules, as has been done, but I am more concerned about dragging "innocent" personnel into a politically motivated process.

Note the "moral position" in quotation marks, I'm not buying into the idea that our actions have to be pure as driven snow. However, we imho, do more damage to our position in the world by authorizing state sanctioned torture in secret cells all over the world than we do with battlefield orders. No one has suggested prosecuting the Bush Administration for its actions in Pakistan save maybe some far left hippies or European Social Democrats. Battlefield actions have always, rightly, been subject to a different level of scrutiny. Torture is too far removed from the tactical concerns of war to be given that deference. I think both Bush and Obama weighed or are currently weighing the poor actions are "allies" in Pakistan presented us with and went with the path of least resistance. Not approving state sanctioned torture=/=fighting Islamic radicalism with flowers and speeches.

Yes thats the greatest cause for apprehension, the Banana Republic like investigation of all the administration's past actions. But you seem to be approving a blank check to do whatever is necessary or whatever a President authorizes as necessary to protect the nation. There are certain things that should be questioned and reviewed no matter whether the previous administration believed they were operating to secure national security. Japanese Internment and the Roosevelt administration is example numero uno.

And I'm in agreement with you on low level operatives. If they stayed with a reasonable distance of the guidelines handed down I know following orders didn't wash at Nuremburg, but were not at that level yet.

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Not a big fan of investigating previous administrations in general, but I think I draw the line at threatening people's families no matter how dispicable the prisoner is.

If some terrorist scumbag talks because he thinks we are going to wipe out his entire family, I am all for it.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

If you're going to torture a suspect by threatening to murder his family, why stop there? Why not actually murder his family? Seriously -- if averting disaster is so important that we should relax our moral standards, why not?

 

[joecct]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

If you're going to torture a suspect by threatening to murder his family, why stop there? Why not actually murder his family? Seriously -- if averting disaster is so important that we should relax our moral standards, why not?

Compare and contrast this to the Pacific Theater in WWII vis a vis treatment of POW's (or lack thereof) by both sides.

Since our guys don't seem to come back when they get captured by the Taliban, to expect a "higher standard" by our guys in the field seems to be a bit farfetched.

 

[Slap Shot]

....to expect a "higher standard" by our guys in the field seems to be a bit farfetched.

What's next, rape and pillage? Oh, only if they do it first? Right, gotcha.

 

[joecct]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

What's next, rape and pillage? Oh, only if they do it first? Right, gotcha.

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

Compare and contrast this to the Pacific Theater

So every atrocity raises the high water mark and nothing below should subsequently count?

The argument put forward by the Cheney apologists, repeatedly, is that both torture and a presumption of guilt -- both direct dismissals of what separates us from our enemies -- are acceptable under these circumstances, since they are supposedly a greater existential threat than any we have ever faced.

I think that's ridiculous on its face, but understanding that many on the other side are trying to defend it, the question then is a matter of where you draw the line. Boil a baby alive to avert a 24 fantasy? Why not? Not to mention the terrorists and Islamic radicals certainly consider themselves to be under an existential threat, so what they do is justified under the same code.

Plato blew this argument out of the water in his debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus in the beginning of Republic 2500 years ago (just after Athens had gone through a far worse existential crisis, to boot). Ethics is not a rheostat.

 

[rufus]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

If some terrorist scumbag talks because he thinks we are going to wipe out his entire family, I am all for it.

And if he's just some poor goat-herder handed over to US custody for a bounty?

 

[rufus]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

I would say the early morning hours of 9/11/01 was a ticking time bomb and not some "fanciful creation of Hollywood".

Too bad all this stuff happened years after that day.

 

[joecct]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

So every atrocity raises the high water mark and nothing below should subsequently count?

The argument put forward by the Cheney apologists, repeatedly, is that both torture and a presumption of guilt -- both direct dismissals of what separates us from our enemies -- are acceptable under these circumstances, since they are supposedly a greater existential threat than any we have ever faced.

I think that's ridiculous on its face, but understanding that many on the other side are trying to defend it, the question then is a matter of where you draw the line. Boil a baby alive to avert a 24 fantasy? Why not? Not to mention the terrorists and Islamic radicals certainly consider themselves to be under an existential threat, so what they do is justified under the same code.

Plato blew this argument out of the water in his debate between Socrates and Thrasymachus in the beginning of Republic 2500 years ago (just after Athens had gone through a far worse existential crisis, to boot). Ethics is not a rheostat.

Ah your Ivy education trumps my Tech ed. Missed that class, if it was even offered.

But war is not a moral act. If the enemy is trying to kill me or my family, I am not going to be nice.

Look, I've never worn the suit, but I wonder if once the bullets start flying, doesn't survival becomes #1 and you to anything to survive?? That is at the individual level. What happens at the nation-state level? How far does a nation-state go to ensure its survival? At some point do you toss the ethical handbook and go for survival?? In other words, does the end justifies the means when survivial is at stake????

Lots of questions and probably a doctoral thesis or two in there for somebody who is interested. And it can't be answered in a 30 second sound bite.

 

[rufus]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

For the record, I wouldn't prosecute operatives unless they really really went nutty on prisoners beyond any approved directive.

.

For both you and ScottM. These acts did go beyond what was approved. The CIA admits this.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

A guy I went to school with was on that PanAm flight, so I have no problems letting the Scots know what I think of their actions.

I totally understand the feelings.

Even so, its safe to say the vast majority of Scots had little say in the matter. Boycotting IMO is an inappropriate response...as would be people holding me in some way responsible for US foriegn policy on my next trip overseas.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

But war is not a moral act. If the enemy is trying to kill me or my family, I am not going to be nice.

Look, I've never worn the suit, but I wonder if once the bullets start flying, doesn't survival becomes #1 and you to anything to survive?? That is at the individual level. What happens at the nation-state level? How far does a nation-state go to ensure its survival? At some point do you toss the ethical handbook and go for survival?? In other words, does the end justifies the means when survivial is at stake????

Lots of questions and probably a doctoral thesis or two in there for somebody who is interested. And it can't be answered in a 30 second sound bite.

That's why you're an excellent man to have a discussion about these things with. Too many just go for the quick zinger that reinforces their black-and-white viewpoint (to say nothing of the Ignorables who rely on juvenile ad hom).

The last 400 years of the development of international law have been wrestling with questions of what moral responsibilities carry over into war. The gist is that both individuals and states have rights of self-preservation, but those rights can't be used to justify just anything, and the simple assertion that the right is in play isn't enough -- you have to meet some standards. Without some sort of overarching framework to guide our actions there's really nothing to distinguish any group of us from any other, and at that point is simply degenerates into vae victis. That is why governments, laws, moral codes and religions were invented in the first place.

Any anyway, it was only the SUNY Ithaca Ivy...

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation

The last 400 years of the development of international law have been wrestling with questions of what moral responsibilities carry over into war. The gist is that both individuals and states have rights of self-preservation, but those rights can't be used to justify just anything, and the simple assertion that the right is in play isn't enough -- you have to meet some standards. Without some sort of overarching framework to guide our actions there's really nothing to distinguish any group of us from any other, and at that point is simply degenerates into vae victis. That is why governments, laws, moral codes and religions were invented in the first place.

But that international law also says that if the other side doesn't play by the rules you are no longer held to the same standard.

Obviously there is a line that cannot be crossed, but that line is different for everyone. The biggest problem you get into is when you try to fight a war like a police action. When you tie the hands of the military with unnecessary rules of engagement and limit its ability to collect intel all you are doing is dragging out the conflict and eventually causing more death.

Out military and intel operations are by no means perfect, but they are the best in the world at what they do and 99.9% of the time they do it completely within legal means. The best part is on the occassions where they do go over the line the military puts its own on trial and isn't afraid to send them to prision.