Tortured Explanation
As usual, Glenn Greenwald purposely distorts my position, this time on the torture memos, making it seem as if I opposed their release, when in fact--as Swampland readers know--I favored the release and vehemently opposed, on numerous occasions, the CIA's various "enhanced interrogation" practices. What I did do that seems to have piqued Greenwald's ire is to report an obvious truth: this is going to hurt the morale and perhaps the efficacy of the clandestine service, which performs in extra-legal situations around the world. Greenwald finds the phrase "extra-legal" Orwellian. Perhaps...or maybe it's just a way to describe what spies do: they lie about who they are in order to steal information that can affect national security.
Now, there's probably an interesting public debate to be had about the clandestine service lurking beneath Greenwald's distortion. Toward the end of his life, my mentor Daniel Patrick Moynihan was beginning to doubt the efficacy of all sorts of secrecy, given the fabulously inept record the CIA had put together during its 60 year existence--and the clearly illegal capers, like the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro by the mafia, that some of the geniuses at Langley spawned. But, ultimately, I disagreed with Moynihan's position. There is a real need for a carefully-operated, proportionate clandestine service. If we can, for example, place an agent in Osama Bin Laden's or Beitullah Mehsud's inner circle, that would certainly be worthwhile...or to make this truly "extra-legal," what about placing US informants within Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate?That would be illegal, according to Pakistani law, most certainly. I'm in favor of it, without caveat. Or to take another example: If the pirates were holding Captain Phillips on Somali soil, instead of asea, and the Navy SEALs staged the same operation, it would been, well, illegal--no Somali visas, unauthorized use of violence in a (somewhat) sovereign nation; murder, one could argue. (Same is true for Jimmy Carter's pathetic, half-hearted attempt to save the US hostages in Iran in 1979). In wartime and in espionage, legality has its limits. My question for Greenwald is: do you believe that there should be any US clandestine service at all? And, on a more personal note, you do realize that one can believe in clandestine operations (and the NSA program now legal under FISA reform, for the matter) and still be absolutely opposed to torture, as practiced by the CIA?
Actually, I will concede one thing to Greenwald: I've been opposed to prosecuting the Bush miscreants--for political reasons, mostly. The President has put an awful lot of important domestic and foreign business on the table and this whole issue of what went on under Bush, and is no longer happening now, is a diversion from getting the important stuff done. I still believe there should be no prosecutions for CIA operators who requested a legal judgment and received one that I consider to be disgraceful and illegal, under international law. But I do believe the man who issued that judgment, Jay Bybee, lacks the moral stature to sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and should be impeached. His tenure there isn't part of the past; it affects our present and future--and it should end as quickly as possible.
Harman: It is being reported that Jane Harman was caught on an NSA wiretap, offering to try to obtain easier treatment of two Jewish-American lobbyists who had been caught in a minor espionage case in return for support (from AIPAC, presumably) for appointment as chair of the House Intelligence Committee. I'm not sure that's illegal--sounds like the sort of horse-trading that goes on all time, but--if true--it is disgraceful. (And it would be nice to know the name of the "Israeli agent" who was her correspondent.) I've been an admirer of Harman's. I think she has been a smart and valuable member of Congress, one of the most knowledgeable Democrats when it comes to intelligence matters. But you don't horse-trade in an espionage case. Period.
More on Harman: The always excellent Laura Rozen has a wild twist in the Harman case--was the anti-Harman leak a plot by Republicans and former CIA officials to turn attention away from the CIA torture story? Possibly. The fact that, according to the Washington Post, Harman was one of the few Intelligence Committee members opposed to water-boarding may have also added to the motivation for taking her out now. Harman's office has denied calling the Department of Justice on behalf of the Aipac miscreants--but she hasn't denied the wiretapped conversation.
-
1
Now I guess we know why Obama didn't vote against FISA. He is on a blood revenge of all the democrats who opposed him in the primary. I simply love it!
-
2
Joe,
It would appear that your argument deliberate fails to differentiate between breaking another country's laws and breaking our own. The whole exercise behind the OLC memo's was to make our own treaty obligations disappear. If the CIA ought not be accountable to any authority but themselves then why do they have a legal depertment in the fisrt place?
.
But your already on record with your belief that Congress can't direct the Executive branch anyway, so your latest spinning isn't too surprising. -
3
As usual, Glenn Greenwald purposely distorts my position, this time on the torture memos, making it seem as if I opposed their release,
actually, Greenwald described your position accurately...
Time's Joe Klein purports to list all the dangers for Obama in alienating the CIA as he has: morale will drop; they'll all retire at the time he needs them most for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Obama is sparking a "potential rebellion in the clandestine service." Klein then unleashes this deeply Orwellian observation (h/t CRust1): "This is an extremely serious claim in the intelligence culture, where some operators are asked to behave extra-legally for the greater good of the nation."
-
4
It would appear that your argument deliberate fails to differentiate between breaking another country's laws and breaking our own.
BINGO! The whole point of the torture memo issue whether the torturers should be prosecuted under US law. Joe endorses the torture by framing it with the (relatively) innocuous sounding "some operators are asked to behave extra-legally for the greater good of the nation".
_
Lets face it "asked to behave extra-legally for the greater good of the nation" is the "Nuremburg defense"... and Greenwald properly called JK for revealing his authoritarian/krypto-fascist instincts. -
5
Nice strawman, Mr. Klein, very carefully constructed.
.
The fact remains that Representative Hoekstra pawned you and you were caught. Let it go. I don't think you've quoted Hoekstra since (not that anyone can tell) and that is to your credit. -
6
Would someone be good enough to explain for me the distinction between "extra-legal" and good old fashion "illegal"?
-
7
Paul Dirks--You think Greenwald favors breaking another country's laws, but not ours? Really?
And for those trying to twist this back to an argument about prosecuting CIA staffers,I'm not buying. I'm opposed. What I'm trying to do here is broaden the argument, see what the actual limits are. From the comments above, I infer that all of you are in favor of having a clandestine service. Is that right? If so, what should the limits be?
-
8
Ironically, with a little imagination, it probably would be easy to come up with a scenario where violating a US statute could be justified for the greater good. But that's why we have juries.
.
I actually agree that the people who commisioned and authored the memo's bear the lions share of culpability but I'm very concerned about the mental health of the interrogators themselves. Once again, there are few hard and fast rules of human nature but there's one that comes with a guarantee. If you give someone unlimited power and zero accounabilty, the worst possible outcome is guaranteed. -
9
"As usual, Glenn Greenwald purposely distorts my position, this time on the torture memos, making it seem as if I opposed their release."
.
Joe-maybe you can point to Glenn's contention that you opposed the memo's release.
.
I did a search of the article and he takes you to task rightly so about you listing all the dangers to Obama:
.
Time's Joe Klein purports to list all the dangers for Obama in alienating the CIA as he has: morale will drop; they'll all retire at the time he needs them most for Afghanistan and Pakistan; Obama is sparking a "potential rebellion in the clandestine service." Klein then unleashes this deeply Orwellian observation (h/t CRust1): "This is an extremely serious claim in the intelligence culture, where some operators are asked to behave extra-legally for the greater good of the nation."
.
That's what government crimes are called in the eyes of our press corps: they're just acting "extra-legally" -- and not just "extra-legally," but "for the greater good of the nation." You should try that at home. Go rob a bank and when the police try to arrest you, just tell them: "I was just making an extra-legal withdrawal; what's the problem"? That's also how the media (and Democrats) constantly talked about Bush's illegal spying on Americans. What he did was never a "crime" or even "illegal" (even though the law criminalizes the very conduct he got caught engaging in with prison terms and fines); at worst, it was: "he was engaged in eavesdropping in circumvention of the FISA framework." That works, too, if you want to rob a bank: "I was just making a withdrawal in circumvention of the banking regulatory framework."
.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/17/prosecutions/index.html -
10
"If so, what should the limits be?"
.
You first. Do they have "007" status? -
11
Bush and his gang of war criminals get a free pass through life. It is only the rest of us mere mortals who are obligated to follow the law.
-
12
You think Greenwald favors breaking another country's laws, but not ours? Really?
_
absolutely. I suggest you actually read what Greenwald has written with regard to FISA; specifically his support for the original FISA bill allows for the government to monitor "foreign to foreign" communication, despite the fact that such eves-dropping is illegal in most countries (especially when its the government being spied on). -
13
We're talking about torture here, Joe. It's our laws against torture that Greenwald was talking about.
-
Our espionage overseas is not related to our breaking US laws. I think Paul Dirks is right. And I don't care if Greenwald thinks we should never break foreign laws, that's not this discussion.
-
What do we want? Well, I want us to abide by US law, and prosecute lawbreakers. Simple enough. I'm a law-and-order Democrat. The limits as defined in US law should be observed. If the laws are out of date, update them. There's literally no limit to what Congress will pass if you say it in the same breath as the phrase "national security." I'm not even debating the merits of the laws yet; just live up to them. No one here disagrees that it'd be delightful to put a mole in AQ's inner circle.
-
Thanks for engaging here in the comment threads-- very, very much appreciated. -
14
"What I'm trying to do here is broaden the argument, see what the actual limits are. From the comments above, I infer that all of you are in favor of having a clandestine service. Is that right? If so, what should the limits be?"
.
Joe-What difference does it make if you/we can go back and change the limits when they get caught violating them? Because that's what you are missing when you attempt to get away with your not buying prosecution. The limits were already in place. -
15
a diversion from getting the important stuff done
.
Ooh, yes, what a delightful stroll in the park TORTURE PROSECUTIONS would be, tra-la! We've heard so many bad things about our country in the last eight years, I think we could all use an escape from the horror of it all, and just waste our time on some TORTURE PROSECUTIONS, like it was going to the movies. Let the important stuff wait whilst we distract ourselves with the whimsical spectacle of TORTURE PROSECUTIONS. Rome had its bread & circuses; why can't we have our TORTURE PROSECUTIONS, Mr. Klein? -
16
Joe,
.
I don't think you're going to win this argument with this group. They (and I) think the process has gotten out of control. Without SOME accountability, this is just going to happen again and, from a moral or ethical standpoint, there's no argument you could make that I would find compelling.
.
And that includes breaking the law to protect MY children. There's a higher code than that that I feel I have to answer to. -
17
You think Greenwald favors breaking another country's laws, but not ours?
.
I'm willing to let him speak for himself. Certainly there has been a long history of Congress and the President together via statute, determining what the CIA can and can't do. None of these discussions involve foreign laws. You don't honestly think that anyone beleives the CIA shows sharp concern over the laws of Libya except when an agent (or mole) needs to be bailed out of a bind?
.
Kidnappings in Italy are a different sort of problem.
.
Suggesting that if you think the torturers should be prosecuted then that means that we can't allow accumulating parking tickets in Barcelona, is a significantly worse misdirection than anything Glenn's thrown at you. -
18
The fact that we, as a nation, are still discussing whether or not to prosecute torture and should we prosecute the torturers, or the lawyers who said it was okay, or the executives who got the lawyers to say it was okay is just...I don't have a word for my exasperation. Torture is illegal not just according to US law, but International Law. There is no justification for torture. I'm sorry, but those CIA people should have resigned. Hasn't anyone seen The Reader? She was not a monster, but she was still responsible for the murder of innocents. She was just doing her job. And she went to prison for it. They (CIA, lawyers, everyone up to the President) belong in prison for the same reason.
-
19
I dont think anyone is against countries having spy networks; i would think its a given every country is spying on every other country to some degree, and when your country gets caught you say "oops" as diplomatically as possible and try to move on. But what on earth does torture have to do with spy networks; theres a world of difference between gathering information by spying and gathering information by inflicting harm on another human being by use of torture.
And thats the big elephant in the room that nobody with a big rep wants to tackle; how is what the white house is now saying not any different from what the germans were saying after WWII (just following orders.)? If the germans declared waterboarding legal in 1939, would that have made it not a crime? I think Obama is great, but i think his own legal conscience is going to force him to do something to make the situation make moral sense.
-
20
my mentor Daniel Patrick Moynihan
.
Not very effective, I guess.
.
There is a real need for a carefully-operated, proportionate clandestine service.
.
And I would be in favor of creating one.
.
But you don't horse-trade in an espionage case
.
So now you're Tom Clancy. This post is an encyclopedia of suckage. -
21
Well, Joe, it looks like Nancy Pelosi had better judgment about removing Harman as chair of the Intelligence Committee than you did. Don't you think it is time to apologize for the execrable piece where you supported Harman and attacked Pelosi as the personification of "flutterable uncertainty?" Because it wasn't Nancy Pelosi who was caught on tape saying, "This conservation doesn't exist," was it? It's time to admit that Jane Harman looks like an idiot and Nancy Pelosi looks like a patriot. Use better judgment next time than going out and doing Jane Harman's bidding, please.
-
22
Joe, that's an unfair shot at Carter. If you'd done even a little reading on the subject you would know that.
.
I guess if you could go back in time and invent a helo that was both capable of being stored below the deck of an aircraft carrier AND refuling mid air AND THEN you took said helicopter and protected it from sand storms, then yes with this magic helicopter Carter's actions would look " pathetic, half-hearted". But absent this piece of technology that didnt exist, what was the man to do? -
23
I am also offended at Harman's denial where she admits to being a stooge and says that some members of AIPAC found her "well qualified" to chair the House Intelligence committee. As if they were the American Bar Association opining on the qualifications of a judge rather than an unregistered agent of a foreign government. It is galling at this time, that after the Freeman debacle, that Harman is trying to mainstream the idea that AIPAC is entitled to weigh in on the qualifications of candidates for our government.
-
24
What I'm trying to do here is broaden the argument, see what the actual limits are. From the comments above, I infer that all of you are in favor of having a clandestine service. Is that right? If so, what should the limits be?
.
Well I think we can all start with a consensus that American laws should be respected. And like Moynihan, I believe that the CIA's history of incompetence suggests it would benefit from more transparency and public scrutiny. That's not a moral argument; it's actually simpler than that. It's a fact that people tend to do their jobs better when they're monitored and rebuked when they mess up. Kind of like journalists who write blogs.
.
But give us a specific example and we might be able to come back with more detailed responses.
.
Would someone be good enough to explain for me the distinction between "extra-legal" and good old fashion "illegal"?
.
P-NNTO, if you want to read an intelligent and short but incredibly difficult book that looks into this very question check out Italian Philosopher Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Agamben
.
And I would be in favor of creating one.
.
Friar Tuck, LOL. -
25
Amy Davidson in the New Yorker put it well:
.
If you are not going to prosecute people who got clearance from lawyers to commit crimes, and you are not going to prosecute the lawyers, then what, exactly, keeps any lawyer in any White House from telling anyone they can do anything?
.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/04/close-read-tales-from-the-dark-side.html
.
The answer from our beloved Beltway, apparently, is: Nothing.
- TIME Holiday movies: Previewing this year's hot tickets | http://su.pr/1WatHR - 1 hour ago
- TIME Recovering from your Thanksgiving feast? Check out a brief history of leftovers | http://su.pr/ASE9QC - 2 hours ago
- TIME Check out a brief history of Black Friday | http://su.pr/22pmlE - 4 hours ago
Most Popular »
- UPDATE: Guess Who Came To Dinner?
- Time to panic again! Or, on second thought ...
- Blizzard: 'Who Knows' When Diablo III Will Ship
- Happy Thanksgiving From The AppleGeeks
- Checkout Line Conundrums: Should You Get the Extended Warranty? What about the Store's Credit Card?
- A Self-Inflicted Expectation Gap
- FLO TV Personal TV: Being a Couch Potato Has Never Been Easier
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Fantastic Mr. Fox: Wes Anderson Talks Puppetry Perfection
- The 00's: A Decade from Hell
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- In Italy, A Sex Scandal to Rival Berlusconi's
- Obama's First Year Policies Need Time to Settle In
- How to Get Smarter, One Breath at a Time
- A Brief History of Black Friday
- Workers of the World vs. China Inc.
- The Gospel of Glee: Is It Anti-Christian?
- Satyam Computer Fraud Grows to $2.5 Billion
- A Brief History of Pie
Quotes of the Day »
RSS