« Against Procrastination | Main | What Garance Doesn't Get About Voters »
July 21, 2007
On Executive Orderizing And Badgers Green and Blue
By Deborah Newell Tornello
a.k.a. litbrit
The White House announced Friday afternoon that it plans to resume having the C.I.A. interrogate suspects in secret overseas prisons. From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, July 20 — After months of behind the scenes wrangling, the White House said Friday that it had given the Central Intelligence Agency approval to resume its use of some harsh interrogation methods in questioning terrorism suspects in secret prisons overseas.
With the new authorization, administration officials said the C.I.A. could now proceed with an interrogation program that has been in limbo since the Supreme Court ruled last year that all prisoners in American captivity be treated in accordance with Geneva Convention prohibitions against humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees.
An executive order signed by President Bush allows the C.I.A. to use some interrogation methods banned for military interrogators but that the Justice Department has determined do not violate the Geneva strictures.
The above-referenced executive order is described in the Chicago Tribune as "prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment":
WASHINGTON - President Bush signed an executive order Friday prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment, including humiliation or denigration of religious beliefs, in the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects.
The White House declined to say whether the CIA currently has a detention and interrogation program, but said that if it did it must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the executive order. The order targets captured al-Qaida terrorists who have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders.
"Last September, the president explained how the CIA's program had disrupted attacks and saved lives, and that it must continue on a sound legal footing," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
Notice the language Mr. Snow uses: the CIA's program. There is no mention of paramilitary and para-CIA hires being constrained thusly. While their official CIA counterparts must toe the legal line, private contractors could, if they were so inclined, waterboard, chill, starve, and humiliate to their hearts' content without technically running afoul of Bush's latest executive order. What does this mean? Well, figure that as many as--and perhaps more than--half of the Agency's operatives are actually private contractors, and, well, you do the math.
In an Op-ed piece for the Washington Post, author, Fullbright scholar, and intelligence insider Dr. R.J. Hillhouse explains:
Over the past five years (some say almost a decade), there has been a revolution in the intelligence community toward wide-scale outsourcing. Private companies now perform key intelligence-agency functions, to the tune, I'm told, of more than $42 billion a year. Intelligence professionals tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) -- the heart, brains and soul of the CIA -- has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
These firms recruit spies, create non-official cover identities and control the movements of CIA case officers. They also provide case officers and watch officers at crisis centers and regional desk officers who control clandestine operations worldwide. As the Los Angeles Times first reported last October, more than half the workforce in two key CIA stations in the fight against terrorism -- Baghdad and Islamabad, Pakistan -- is made up of industrial contractors, or "green badgers," in CIA parlance.
Intelligence insiders say that entire branches of the NCS have been outsourced to private industry. These branches are still managed by U.S. government employees ("blue badgers") who are accountable to the agency's chain of command. But beneath them, insiders say, is a supervisory structure that's controlled entirely by contractors; in some cases, green badgers are managing green badgers from other corporations.
(For further truth-is-stranger-than-fiction reading about intelligence outsourcing, visit Dr. Hillhouse's excellent, fascinating blog The Spy Who Billed Me.)
In comments following the Shakesville cross-posting of a comprehensive essay on the FDA I wrote last month, a reader challenged my statements about defense giant Lockheed Martin:
I'm not quite certain why you have put Lockheed Martin on the side of the devil...Lockheed provides things like payroll services and book-keeping services there. I'm also not aware of any such services for Guantanamo.
To which I replied:
Lockheed Martin provided trained interrogators for Guantanamo; they were known as 97 Echoes (the article explains why). Nowhere have I stated that Lockheed Martin is on the side of the devil. I simply relayed the facts I'd found while researching the post.
(H/T Lisa in Baltimore)
July 21, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Some in Congress tried to make torture illegal (in US law) and were unable to get the votes, so it will continue until a new President stops it. The public isn't strongly enough against the practices to drive Congress to outlaw them.
(This calls to mind other prison problems that Ezra occasionally posts about. While torture is a very important issue in its broad implications, in its more immediate consequences it's far less important than the terrible conditions that occur on a much larger scale in US prisons. Far more people are subject to rape and abuse for ordinary criminal offense than are waterboarded or otherwise abused. Just a reminder.)
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 3:09:36 PM
I think it's more that there is a substantial minority of the US who are actively pro-torture (also anti-muslim, and probably a lot of other right-wing authoritarian characteristics) and those people are reliable Republican primary voters. So it's not that "the public" isn't strongly against the practice, it's that "a significant portion of the public who votes Republican" is consciously pro-torture.
And thanks to our massively disproportionate electoral structure, there are far more Republicans in power than there ought to be given the number of people they actually represent, and we have a Republican President at least in part for similar reasons.
Sanpete's note concerning prison conditions is well taken, or at least it would be if Sanpete hadn't earlier so ferociously argued that sleep deprivation and stress positions weren't torture because some Israelis said so. One suspects it's just another variation of Sanpete's concern trolling (e.g., if you're not spending your time on issue B which is similar to issue A, then you're not really serious about issue A and you're just using it to score points, aintcha? aintcha?)
And of course, the same people who are anti-torture are generally anti-prison-rape, and the same people who are pro-torture are generally indifferent shading to pro on prison rape and abuse. But that would screw with the "both sides are just the same" devils-advocate-superiority.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 21, 2007 3:41:07 PM
Sanpete's note concerning prison conditions is well taken, or at least it would be if Sanpete hadn't earlier so ferociously argued that sleep deprivation and stress positions weren't torture because some Israelis said so
First, I never argued such a thing. What I argued was that reasonable people disagree about what torture is and, separately, that your claim that the experts are uniformly agreed that torture is ineffective is flatly false.
Second, even if I had made the ridiculous argument you attribute to me, it wouldn't make my point here any less valid.
But that would screw with the "both sides are just the same" devils-advocate-superiority.
Paper, you have a deeply intellectually dishonest way of dealing with disagreement, as I've just illustrated. If you want to be honest with yourself and others in your arguments, you need to be far more careful to correctly represent the views you argue against. I've never argued both sides are just the same. What I have argued you regularly ignore in favor of the straw men you can more easily deal with. That accomplishes nothing other than to give you a false sense of security in your views.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 3:56:34 PM
TAPPED (The American Prospect) blog is a cowardly excuse for a blog. Those pussies have apparantly banned my comments because they can't disprove them. If anyone here values freedom of expression, post comments on TAPPED and tell them what pussies they are for banning someone they can't disprove. I have heard the "blog is like someone's house" analogy in that you can ban anyone you want as you can tell anyone in your house to leave, but there is a difference between banning someone for being a dick and banning someone for consistently saying things that they don't want to hear yet can't disprove because they're the facts, like them or not. I've said the truth about 9/11 being a false flag operation many times on many blogs and have yet to be banned by anyone but TAPPED. I know a lot of people like to pretend that 9/11 happened the way the official myth has it, but nevertheless they haven't banned me. And a big blog like TAPPED? That even has its own magazine in print? Utterly gutless. Those cowards are either willingly or unknowingly part of the cover-up, helping out the mass murderers who have the blood of 3,000 Americans on their hands. No wonder their blog's motto is "Liberal Intelligence". They must be the liberal wing of the intelligence community. Fucking accessories-after-the-fact to mass murder. Cowardly pieces of shit who ban people instead of trying to debate because they can't defend the indefensible. Fuck TAPPED.
Posted by: Realist | Jul 21, 2007 4:18:03 PM
Fucking accessories-after-the-fact to mass murder. Cowardly pieces of shit who ban people instead of trying to debate because they can't defend the indefensible. Fuck TAPPED.
If that's how you express yourself there, that may have something to do with it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 21, 2007 4:29:12 PM
there is a difference between banning someone for being a dick and banning someone for consistently saying things that they don't want to hearPerhaps, but off-topic yammering clearly fits into the "being a dick" category.
Posted by: KCinDC | Jul 21, 2007 9:31:05 PM
your claim that the experts are uniformly agreed that torture is ineffective is flatly false.
So which experts are pro-torture?
Posted by: dan | Jul 22, 2007 1:30:11 PM
What I argued was that reasonable people disagree about what torture is
Your argument is that every disagreement occurs between "reasonable" people rather than actually stating that you feel some stance is actually unreasonable.
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 22, 2007 2:04:27 PM
Sanpete, why are you even participating on this thread, anyway? You don't give a damn about torture or torture policy, or the use of torture in the first place. Did you just chime in to remind us what "reasonable" people pro-torture Republicans are?
Posted by: Tyro | Jul 22, 2007 2:06:12 PM
Tyro, you're full of shit. If you have evidence for your personal slanders, which you substitute for rational argument, give it. Otherwise, cram it.
Dan, torture is reportedly (according to human rights monitors) still practiced in Israel, where we can infer that those who administer it and their bosses find it effective. Israel, unfortunately, has much experience with this. The well known Israeli Supreme Court decision that is widely thought to have banned torture actually acknowledges that it can be useful and allows it in some cases. There are also former interrogators from British Intelligence who claim that as a result on the ban on physical coercion their ability to get useful information from IRA members was greatly reduced. There are obviously also experts within the US intelligence agencies who believe torture is effective, as they continue to use it. None of this implies these experts are correct, but the unanimity often claimed about this is an illusion.
Your argument is that every disagreement occurs between "reasonable" people rather than actually stating that you feel some stance is actually unreasonable.
No, my argument elsewhere (I haven't said such a thing here) has been that with regard to broad controversies the rule of thumb is that there are reasonable people and arguments on both sides. Possibly you believe otherwise, that only your side of each argument involves reasonable people and arguments. Nothing would surprise me less.
In regard to torture, there are two issues that there has been reasonable disagreement about in this country: what counts as torture, and whether torture is ever justified. That you may feel with all the conviction of a religious zealot that there is only one reasonable and moral view doesn't make it so. You would have to actually deal with the arguments, some of which I'm pretty sure you don't even know, given your proclivities. Moral certainty isn't the same as evidence, no more here than in religion.
My own view, expressed here several times, is that Bush is wrong both about what torture is and when physical coercion would be permissible.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 22, 2007 2:36:36 PM
Sanpete, I don't respect your arguments because you don't make them consistently. Your schtick is "Sanpete is inherently superior because Sanpete can find a counterargument for anything, and if you take one argument down, Sanpete will simply claim that wasn't the argument he was making."
*That* is intellectually dishonest. I've seen you get taken down here time and time again, and your main tactic is to claim that the argument you were making either isn't what you actually believe, but isn't it interesting, or (more often) that it wasn't the argument you were making. The only thing that I can discern from your contributions here (or anywhere) is that (1) you love to argue for the sake of arguing (particularly in your own inimitable tap-dancing, ball-moving style) , and (2) you don't seem to believe in anything except your inherent superiority because you don't believe in anything.
You're basically an amoral nihilist, near as I can tell. I think that the best evidence is your continued citation of self-interested Israeli authorities as "reasonable" authority for whether or not sleep deprivation and stress positions are torture and whether or not that activity is justified. Given that, I have no idea what you base your claimed assessment of the Bush administration, since the Bush administration's definitions of torture ant the necessity thereof is *just* as self-interested as the Israelis' or the Pakistanis' or the Egyptians' or pretty much any government that tortures. After all, the definition of torture is one that is in the eye of the inquisitor, and the necessity is defined by the same inquisitor, and *they* believe they're reasonable people, so they must be.
Posted by: paperwight | Jul 22, 2007 3:17:47 PM
More fact-free fantasy and hand-waving from you, paper, in plain contradiction to the facts even in this thread. I have no beliefs, you say, but did I not just clearly state them (again)? This is typical of you. But it never sinks in, even when it's as plain as it is here. You need some serious self-examination.
I haven't cited the Israelis as "reasonable" authorities, as you put it, but in fact they're as likely to be reasonable as others in the interrogation business. The plain fact remains that, contrary to your past assertions, not all experts agree about the effectiveness of torture, not even close. Don't blame me for your false belief. Deal with it.
The rest of what you say is too mixed up to make sense of.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 22, 2007 4:00:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.