It seems clear that he did know considerably earlier. As I touched on in my previous piece Cheney was in constant contact with the CIA.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/12/here-on-national-torture-day-john.html
My guess is that he had pressured the agency into adopting these practices. Cheney, is truly ice cold. I mean I'd be curious to run a biopsy on him to see if he truly is in our species. He truly believes that we are in a constant immient danger of a terrorist attack-he has been particularly obsessed with the idea of a biological weapon attack-and thinks that the threat is too immient. to worry about any niceties like a Constitution. This is as much as the CIA torture report, perhaps the Cheney torture report.
This is someone, after all, who used to imagine in the 80s that we had suffered a nuclear attack at the hands of the Soviets and actually would game what the new government after the attack would look like. The one thing he felt was unnecessary was a Congress. In his heart of hearts he's a kind of warped Unitarist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
I do think that this report offers us a real opportunity at an important national discussion. For those who simply say it shows how evil America is or our leaders our, at least we're asking these questions and looking at ourselves. How many other governments around the world would do this? In saying 'a national discussion' I mean just that where we don;t know how and where it might end.
It seems to me that there's a Rightist, a Leftist, and a Centrist view of the torture report. Take this Huff Po paragraph:
"Rather than wrestling with the morality of the agency’s torture program or the operation's damaging effect on the U.S.’ international credibility, Senate investigators instead weighed whether the agency's tactics were effective. Through narrative examinations of 20 separate detainee cases, the panel attempted to make the case that the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding did not yield valuable intelligence."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/senate-cia-report_n_6270138.html
I seem to detect a little disapproval here: 'Rather than wrestling with the morality'-ie, what the author thinks they should have done? Whether or not the two authors of the piece feel this way, there are many lefties who feel this way. For them the only question that matters is: Was there torture? If so, then it's evil, period. Whether or not it was effective or not is grotesque to even ask. Note then that despite their desire for 'wrestling with the morality of it' they don't really need to do it themselves-they already know it was evil. I mean if you believe there was torture and you don't think it's relevant the question of the ends it was used for there really is nothing to wrestle over.
On the Right the whole focus is just that we were under attack, we were under threat, and therefore how can you even ask whether it's legitimate? The signature Right wing view here is clearly Cheney himself. He actually argued that there is even a 1 percent chance of an attack anything was justified.
Between these two categorical views-neither of which require any wrestling whatsoever; one side simply keeps dogmatically replying 'torture is wrong' and the other side declaring 'We were under attack and we had to prevent another terrorist attack' there is I think a Center view.
You admit that national security and prohibition of torture and civil rights are invaluable but how do you choose between them? In all honesty while the torture of Abu Zubaydah sounds horrific, he did some very horrific things himself. If he was the mastermind behind 9/11 is torturing him so outrageous? I mean without offering an answer, you have to admit that when you look at it this way morally speaking it's not such a slam dunk anymore.
I mean the idea of torture is abhorred by us, but in reality, it is not abhorred by many of Bin Laden's operatives to say nothing of ISIS today. So I don't agree that the Senate report was wrong to ask also it it works.
UPDATE: Just the same, even if you can justify it this way even in the case of Zubayadah-if there is any case of a unsympathetic victim of torture, he'd be it, even hardboiled CIA officers broke down and cried seeing him after the torture.
UPDATE 2.0: I see now that I myself am somewhat misinformed about Mr. Zubayadah-he certainly has been found not to be the 'mastermind of 9/11' and just what his role was in 9/11 is subject to great controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah
I apologize for my error which only underscores the whole problem with how Cheney and friends handled things after 9/11-many of these 'enemy combatants; or suspects were innocent which is truly a terrible thing.
The Centrist view I think means looking at both the morality of it but also questions whether it works. The idea that the means are simply irrelevant is wrongheaded. For those hyper Marxist types at Firedoglake, even a saint like Trotsky argued that 'The ends flow from the means.'
P.S. Anyway, when people ask how the President didn't know the full details the CIA was doing until 2006, the follow up should be to ask when Dick Cheney, the Vice President knew? My guess is he was never out of the loop.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/12/here-on-national-torture-day-john.html
My guess is that he had pressured the agency into adopting these practices. Cheney, is truly ice cold. I mean I'd be curious to run a biopsy on him to see if he truly is in our species. He truly believes that we are in a constant immient danger of a terrorist attack-he has been particularly obsessed with the idea of a biological weapon attack-and thinks that the threat is too immient. to worry about any niceties like a Constitution. This is as much as the CIA torture report, perhaps the Cheney torture report.
This is someone, after all, who used to imagine in the 80s that we had suffered a nuclear attack at the hands of the Soviets and actually would game what the new government after the attack would look like. The one thing he felt was unnecessary was a Congress. In his heart of hearts he's a kind of warped Unitarist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
I do think that this report offers us a real opportunity at an important national discussion. For those who simply say it shows how evil America is or our leaders our, at least we're asking these questions and looking at ourselves. How many other governments around the world would do this? In saying 'a national discussion' I mean just that where we don;t know how and where it might end.
It seems to me that there's a Rightist, a Leftist, and a Centrist view of the torture report. Take this Huff Po paragraph:
"Rather than wrestling with the morality of the agency’s torture program or the operation's damaging effect on the U.S.’ international credibility, Senate investigators instead weighed whether the agency's tactics were effective. Through narrative examinations of 20 separate detainee cases, the panel attempted to make the case that the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding did not yield valuable intelligence."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/senate-cia-report_n_6270138.html
I seem to detect a little disapproval here: 'Rather than wrestling with the morality'-ie, what the author thinks they should have done? Whether or not the two authors of the piece feel this way, there are many lefties who feel this way. For them the only question that matters is: Was there torture? If so, then it's evil, period. Whether or not it was effective or not is grotesque to even ask. Note then that despite their desire for 'wrestling with the morality of it' they don't really need to do it themselves-they already know it was evil. I mean if you believe there was torture and you don't think it's relevant the question of the ends it was used for there really is nothing to wrestle over.
On the Right the whole focus is just that we were under attack, we were under threat, and therefore how can you even ask whether it's legitimate? The signature Right wing view here is clearly Cheney himself. He actually argued that there is even a 1 percent chance of an attack anything was justified.
Between these two categorical views-neither of which require any wrestling whatsoever; one side simply keeps dogmatically replying 'torture is wrong' and the other side declaring 'We were under attack and we had to prevent another terrorist attack' there is I think a Center view.
You admit that national security and prohibition of torture and civil rights are invaluable but how do you choose between them? In all honesty while the torture of Abu Zubaydah sounds horrific, he did some very horrific things himself. If he was the mastermind behind 9/11 is torturing him so outrageous? I mean without offering an answer, you have to admit that when you look at it this way morally speaking it's not such a slam dunk anymore.
I mean the idea of torture is abhorred by us, but in reality, it is not abhorred by many of Bin Laden's operatives to say nothing of ISIS today. So I don't agree that the Senate report was wrong to ask also it it works.
UPDATE: Just the same, even if you can justify it this way even in the case of Zubayadah-if there is any case of a unsympathetic victim of torture, he'd be it, even hardboiled CIA officers broke down and cried seeing him after the torture.
UPDATE 2.0: I see now that I myself am somewhat misinformed about Mr. Zubayadah-he certainly has been found not to be the 'mastermind of 9/11' and just what his role was in 9/11 is subject to great controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah
I apologize for my error which only underscores the whole problem with how Cheney and friends handled things after 9/11-many of these 'enemy combatants; or suspects were innocent which is truly a terrible thing.
The Centrist view I think means looking at both the morality of it but also questions whether it works. The idea that the means are simply irrelevant is wrongheaded. For those hyper Marxist types at Firedoglake, even a saint like Trotsky argued that 'The ends flow from the means.'
P.S. Anyway, when people ask how the President didn't know the full details the CIA was doing until 2006, the follow up should be to ask when Dick Cheney, the Vice President knew? My guess is he was never out of the loop.
No comments:
Post a Comment