Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 06:47:39 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker
wrote:

Once again. There was NO "bugging". IT WAS A CONFERENCE CALL.......get it?

It was a private conference call between a few participants not a
PUBLIC conference call. They han an expectation of privacy
If you set up a conference call between several family members to talk
about a private issue, would you think it was OK if it showed on the
internet?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes! If people are stupid enough to think that a phone call is secure,
that's their problem.


So what is all the uproar about NSA then?
You can't have it both ways.
At least nobody ever said NASA was tapping your phone and making the
transcripts public.

Personally I never considered phones secure. I saw transcripts of my
phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
tap.

Who were you calling?

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:49:03 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:54:12 -0500, BAR wrote:

Personally I never considered phones secure. I saw transcripts of my
phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
tap.

Who were you calling?

My girlfriend. They had our home phone tapped because my mother was on
Hoffa's legal team. Even if the tap was not egregious enough, how
about lawyer client privilege?

Awesome!

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:54:12 -0500, BAR wrote:

Personally I never considered phones secure. I saw transcripts of my
phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
tap.

Who were you calling?

My girlfriend. They had our home phone tapped because my mother was on
Hoffa's legal team. Even if the tap was not egregious enough, how
about lawyer client privilege?

I bet that sucked if sucked was talked about.

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:04:11 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:37:14 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No. We should go after him for criminal behavior. He's a criminal by
his
own
words.

That would require evidence and in a criminal trial the defendant has
the ability to subpoena just about anything to aid his defense


Yes, and your point? He needs to be charged first. The evidence doesn't
necessarily have to be in open court. There are many instances of closed
sessions when national security issues are at stake. Typically, the
judge
decides, which is what s/he is paid to do.


These things don't really get to court until all the discovery motions
are handled and you know Cheney would subpoena things the government
won't give him.
That is one reason it is hard to prosecute former administration
members for policy decisions. They know where all the bodies are
buried and some of them have opposition party arrows in their back.
Obama might pardon him, just to get his agenda back on track.
He really does not need the distraction of a partisan witch hunt when
his programs are stalled in congress.


It was not and should not be about "policy" decisions. Torture is torture
is
NOT a policy decision.

Certainly it is, just like a lot of other questionable things
governments do during wars.
Do I have to remind you of WWII, the "good" war?
If the US had lost that war the whole government would have been in
the Hague on war crimes charges.
Usually we just sacrifice some subordinate like Calley (in Vietnam)
but wars encourage atrocities by their very nature.
If there is another 9-11 size attack the American public will want
interrogation techniques like the last 10 minutes of Braveheart in the
hopes of preventing it from happening again.
Unfortunately for Cheney, he is more unpopular that Atta right now in
some circles.


Cheney is by almost any definition a criminal. He approved of torture, which
is against US and international law. Same with Rumsfeld.

WWII was about national survival and we did some terrible things, which
probably are unjustifiable. One of the worst was the Japanese internment
camps.

There are no "good" wars. There are wars that must be fought and those that
are opt-out.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:54:12 -0500, BAR wrote:

Personally I never considered phones secure. I saw transcripts of my
phone conversations when I was a teenager ... from an illegal RFK/DoJ
tap.

Who were you calling?

My girlfriend. They had our home phone tapped because my mother was on
Hoffa's legal team. Even if the tap was not egregious enough, how
about lawyer client privilege?


That must have been one heck of a conversation! :)

--
Nom=de=Plume

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:48:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It was not and should not be about "policy" decisions. Torture is
torture
is
NOT a policy decision.

Certainly it is, just like a lot of other questionable things
governments do during wars.
Do I have to remind you of WWII, the "good" war?
If the US had lost that war the whole government would have been in
the Hague on war crimes charges.
Usually we just sacrifice some subordinate like Calley (in Vietnam)
but wars encourage atrocities by their very nature.
If there is another 9-11 size attack the American public will want
interrogation techniques like the last 10 minutes of Braveheart in the
hopes of preventing it from happening again.
Unfortunately for Cheney, he is more unpopular that Atta right now in
some circles.


Cheney is by almost any definition a criminal. He approved of torture,
which
is against US and international law. Same with Rumsfeld.

WWII was about national survival and we did some terrible things, which
probably are unjustifiable. One of the worst was the Japanese internment
camps.

There are no "good" wars. There are wars that must be fought and those
that
are opt-out.


The "torture" we are talking about happened a few months after 9-11
and it was considered to be acceptable.
Did you ever watch "GI Jane". That was it.


It was never considered acceptable under US or international law.

I'm not going to base my philosophy of life or a legal argument on a movie.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:23:27 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 21:48:13 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

It was not and should not be about "policy" decisions. Torture is
torture
is
NOT a policy decision.

Certainly it is, just like a lot of other questionable things
governments do during wars.
Do I have to remind you of WWII, the "good" war?
If the US had lost that war the whole government would have been in
the Hague on war crimes charges.
Usually we just sacrifice some subordinate like Calley (in Vietnam)
but wars encourage atrocities by their very nature.
If there is another 9-11 size attack the American public will want
interrogation techniques like the last 10 minutes of Braveheart in the
hopes of preventing it from happening again.
Unfortunately for Cheney, he is more unpopular that Atta right now in
some circles.


Cheney is by almost any definition a criminal. He approved of torture,
which
is against US and international law. Same with Rumsfeld.

WWII was about national survival and we did some terrible things, which
probably are unjustifiable. One of the worst was the Japanese internment
camps.

There are no "good" wars. There are wars that must be fought and those
that
are opt-out.


The "torture" we are talking about happened a few months after 9-11
and it was considered to be acceptable.
Did you ever watch "GI Jane". That was it.


It was never considered acceptable under US or international law.

I'm not going to base my philosophy of life or a legal argument on a movie.

Why not? Worked pretty well for Ronny Raygun!

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:23:27 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The "torture" we are talking about happened a few months after 9-11
and it was considered to be acceptable.
Did you ever watch "GI Jane". That was it.


It was never considered acceptable under US or international law.

I'm not going to base my philosophy of life or a legal argument on a
movie.


The point is, that was a fairly accurate portrayal of the US special
ops training at the time. If they can do it to US trainees, it would
be assumed, in the field, that you could do it to the enemy.


No. That's completely wrong! Just because our troops are trained to
withstand torture doesn't mean we should torture others.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would MakeDick Cheney Proud
 

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:42:56 -0500, gfretwell wrote:


That is a nice living room discussion but people in combat situations
sometimes do not make those distinctions. I am not even sure that was
framed as "torture" in the training, just as an interrogation technique.
One of the guys I have known most of my life was in Force Recon
(Marines) That is why I know what Nov 10 is ;-) The trainers beat the
crap out of them in training and went out of their way to harden them to
death, pain and general misery. It is pretty hard to tell these guys,
splashing a little water in someone's face is torture.

*If* splashing a little water was all that happened. An estimated 100
detainees died during, or immediately after, interrogations. I don't
think splashing a little water could do that. Torture could.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...ured-to-death/

http://www.aclu.org/human-rights/us-...istan-and-iraq

Barack Obama's Idea of 'Government Transparency' Would Make Dick Cheney Proud
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:57:25 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The point is, that was a fairly accurate portrayal of the US special
ops training at the time. If they can do it to US trainees, it would
be assumed, in the field, that you could do it to the enemy.


No. That's completely wrong! Just because our troops are trained to
withstand torture doesn't mean we should torture others.


That is a nice living room discussion but people in combat situations
sometimes do not make those distinctions. I am not even sure that was
framed as "torture" in the training, just as an interrogation
technique.
One of the guys I have known most of my life was in Force Recon
(Marines) That is why I know what Nov 10 is ;-)
The trainers beat the crap out of them in training and went out of
their way to harden them to death, pain and general misery. It is
pretty hard to tell these guys, splashing a little water in someone's
face is torture.


This has nothing to do with "combat situations." This has to do with the CIA
and other similar organizations methodically torturing prisoners. It didn't
even have to do with getting intel. They already got the intel by using
standard interview techniques. Even the FBI would have none of it.

--
Nom=de=Plume