Forums | MacLife

The Spy Who Came In From the Cold

::bows::
::lightsabre is an XBox::

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

I didn't say anything about torture.
There is a difference between harsh treatment and torture.

Harsh treatment can establish who is in control, and can also be used for good cop/bad cop type of extraction (which does work).

And for the record - we have gathered intelligence that has panned out from the detainees.

Not all of it has, but some of it has.

I get a few dozen secret messages daily from CIA antiterrorism and foreign intelliegence services. What's your source?

Actually, security forces have captured a number of high-ranking AQ agents...one might assume this was on the basis of intelligence from detainees.

Unfortunately, there's a veil (wall?) of secrecy around all the intelligence gathering, so we, nor anyone that could be trusted (Congress' Gang of Eight, etc), don't seem to know:  how often valuable intelligence is gained from detainees, nor how often a detainee has NO intelligence, nor how often detainees are killed while being questioned.

JakeTheTall wrote:

[Actually, security forces have captured a number of high-ranking AQ agents...one might assume this was on the basis of intelligence from detainees.

Unfortunately, there's a veil (wall?) of secrecy around all the intelligence gathering, so we, nor anyone that could be trusted (Congress' Gang of Eight, etc), don't seem to know:  how often valuable intelligence is gained from detainees, nor how often a detainee has NO intelligence, nor how often detainees are killed while being questioned.

Actually, someone else might assume "this was on the basis of intelligence from detainees."

The messages I get tell what the source is, where that source came from, and what the reliability of the source is estimated to be.

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallie's right. Torture is a crap shoot. If you get good intel by using it, it's mostly because of luck.

Tallie is always right.

Correct.

As usual.

:: kowtows ::

Bush to Supreme Court:  You're no good.  You're too dumb.  This is out of your league.  NY Times

It would be "wholly imprudent" for the Supreme Court to hear Jose Padilla's challenge to his military detention as an enemy combatant, the Bush administration told the court in urging the justices to dismiss Mr. Padilla's case as moot now that the government plans to try him on terrorism charges in a civilian court.

In a brief filed late Friday, the administration argued that Mr. Padilla's indictment last month by a federal grand jury has given him the "very relief" he sought when he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Any Supreme Court decision now on his petition, which a federal appeals court rejected in September, "will have no practical effect" on Mr. Padilla, the brief said....

The doubletalk and continous shifting of the charges and non-charges continues from the White House.

Do current Supreme Court Justices have whatever is the highest possible 'national security clearance'?

Cuz it looks like they're gonna be needing it if any of these 'Patriotic' cases get heard. A very large ball has just landed in John Roberts' court.

Would any such hearings be open to public scrutiny? Or the 'free' press? Or, a closed session with somebody like Woodward/Miller et al 'reporting'.

My impression is that Alito is inclined to grant leeway in police power. Will his confirmation hearings include questioning on issues like this?

'wholly imprudent' sounds like 'jury tampering' to me.

Disturbing and worrisome on the face of it.

Darks day for democracy indeed if they get away with this.

drifting in my own thread:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051219/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

US forces in Iraq release  "Dr. Anthrax".  No reason given.

resedit wrote:

And for the record - we have gathered intelligence that has panned out from the detainees.

Not all of it has, but some of it has.

...and even when it didn't 'pan out' ("Iraq is training Al-Qaeda members on how to use biological weapons!") the administration just kept pushing that "intelligence" anyway!

Poll on impeachment  --- >>  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904

Talking Points Memo

Several readers have pointed my attention to the ruling that came down yesterday in the 4th Circuit barring the government from transferring Jose Padilla from military to civilian law enforcement custody. It's a harsh rebuke of the administration's legal tactics. And what caught my eye is that the author of the ruling is J. Michael Luttig, the darling of conservative jurisprudence and a top candidate for the Supreme Court.

As Jerry Markon puts it in the Washington Post, "In issuing its denial, the court cited the government's changing rationale for Padilla's detention, questioning why it used one set of arguments before federal judges deciding whether it was legal for the military to hold Padilla and another set before the Miami grand jury."

Reading over the reportage of what happened yesterday, it seems clear that Luttig and the other two members of the panel were less perturbed about civil liberties issues per se (Luttig wrote the decision that allowed the government to hold Padilla indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant') than the administration's cynical willingness to jump from legal argument to legal argument, from one set of facts to another, as the needs of the moment dictate.