Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Nubclear]

Correct me if Im wrong, but the declassification seems to simply confirm what we already knew from the leaks?

[Pekka]

Here's one thing to consider though.. I think an interesting question is, how many of those tortured wrongly in this war, from the side of suspected terrorists, gain freedom again and radicalize themselves after the fact, adn actually become new terrorist leaders? I would imagine this be extremely likely.

SO what you have is a situation that you use 'coerced interrogation', also known as let my dogs chew on your balls and you don't get to see red cross ever, and it might turn out that the suspect is actually innocent of any activity or even connections. Then you have a situation, where you might want to keep that person, because it's a risk to let them go. They could become nightmares, worst enemies, very easily.

So some action might actually radicalize potential people, potential leaders and coordinators. Or wouldn't you want to get back at the entity that kidnapped you and tortured you for years for no reason at all? Assuming you are innocent that is? No way it's going down as lost accepted. It's payback time and we all know it.

So this is dangerous route and strategy should be revised accordingly to neutralize future threats as well as combatting the current ones simultaniously.

And on the argument O'Reilly put out so well, if your child is in the hand of terrorists, how far would you allow measures to go.. well... if we think about it, getting kidnapped by terrorists is extremely likely. So on probability, you would increase your child to be tortured and mistreated if you would allow torture, because now terrorists still might try to kidnap the children, and now you also have other people that can do that, so.. I'd say changes of getting your child into a bad situation are lower if just.. let the terrorists do the torturing thing. That is of course if we let probability win over emotion.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Pekka
So some action might actually radicalize potential people, potential leaders and coordinators

Such as the collapse of your country into civil war and disrepair?

[Pekka]

If you mean that by torturing own citizens might lead into civil war, yes, absolutely possible. I mean, it has happened before. More than once.

In the States? Unlikely. But I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about torturing the suspected enemy. I talk suspected because they are in interrogation phase, so we don't know if they are guilty or not, some are, some are not. So I was talking about foreign nationalities. When they get back home, they might become new terrorist leaders in their respective countries.

[Flubber]

hmmm

If the linked document is actually the document, I am surprised at how , much of it is warmed over generalities, very easy conclusions and total pap.

But thats probably the most they can get ALL of the intelligence groups to agree upon and if they actually had any specifics, they would probably have about half of the groups dissenting

[Kuciwalker]

If the linked document is actually the document, I am surprised at how , much of it is warmed over generalities, very easy conclusions and total pap.

Why? This is government.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
The actual NIE report now declassified for all to read


Why again is the NYT publishing classified info when it is clearly against the law?

Because this information carries no national security value while being newsworthy.

Bravo Times.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

So as the elected representatives of the United States the NYT's has full understanding of what is and is not worthy of classification. Good to know.

Remind me to vote for them next election.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Correct me if Im wrong, but the declassification seems to simply confirm what we already knew from the leaks?

I make no comment on the content and leave that to the readers.

I simply want to understand why the NYT flagrantly violates law.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So as the elected representatives of the United States the NYT's has full understanding of what is and is not worthy of classification. Good to know.

Remind me to vote for them next election.

I remember back in my college days, working at the Library in the University. One day I picked up a disertation from 1924 on sea power. I opened it up, and the front page stated that the diseration had been classfied by the Department of War. The rest of the pages were blank. Unless someone has officially declassified it, it would technically be against the law to publish that full disertation. That of course, is moronic, as there are no plausible reasons, except avoiding embarrassment, for that 1924 disertation to be classfied.

Classification is simply the government saying "the public should not know." The reasons why they think the public should not know are varied. Sometimes they are sound security reasons, and sometimes, its just government protecting its ass from embarrassment or inconvinient truths.

So NO, I have no problems if a free and indepedent press every so often outs these incovinient little secrets the government likes to keep. It benefits Liberty, even if at the expense of the current regime.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I simply want to understand why the NYT flagrantly violates law.

Yup, the Law is never wrong. NEVER. Only our wisely elected representatives have the forethought to change it.

That is why I was so appaled that that criminal Rosa Parks got a whole day to celebrate her. I mean, SHE BROKE THE LAW!!! Mercy me....

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap




I remember back in my college days, working at the Library in the University. One day I picked up a disertation from 1924 on sea power. I opened it up, and the front page stated that the diseration had been classfied by the Department of War. The rest of the pages were blank. Unless someone has officially declassified it, it would technically be against the law to publish that full disertation. That of course, is moronic, as there are no plausible reasons, except avoiding embarrassment, for that 1924 disertation to be classfied.

It helps to understand the executive order before traveling down paths of the inane.

Sec. 3.3. Automatic Declassification.
(a) Subject to paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section, on December 31, 2006, all classified records that (1) are more than 25 years old and (2) have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code, shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. Subsequently, all classified records shall be automatically declassified on December 31 of the year that is 25 years from the date of its original classification, except as provided in paragraphs (b)-(e) of this section.

If you want I'll be happy to provide exception b through e but bear in mind they are rather trivial and/or fully expected.

Classification is simply the government saying "the public should not know." The reasons why they think the public should not know are varied. Sometimes they are sound security reasons, and sometimes, its just government protecting its ass from embarrassment or inconvinient truths.

Which is why the elected government is entrusted with these matter not the unelected press. In this particular matter obviously the president saw fit to say this was a matter not worthy of classification, but that is his call not the press regardless of applicability.

That being said lets see what the president said regarding the declassification

I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.
Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe. The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason: They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.

You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience. We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.

You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.

This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war.

Now, you know what's interesting about the NIE -- it was a intelligence report done last April. As I understand, the conclusions -- the evidence on the conclusions reached was stopped being gathered on February -- at the end of February. And here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it's on the front page of your newspapers. Isn't that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.

I talked to John Negroponte today, the DNI. You know, I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak, because it means that it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts. Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I'm talking about. But once again, there's a leak out of our government, coming right down the stretch in this campaign, -- to create confusion in the minds of the American people, in my judgment, is why they leaked it.

And so we're going to -- I told the DNI to declassify this document. You can read it for yourself. We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy. And so John Negroponte, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible. He'll declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself. And he'll do so in such a way that we'll be able to protect sources and methods that our intelligence community uses. And then everybody can draw their own conclusions about what the report says.

Gee another leak and whoops it might impede the ability for cover your ass types in intelligence to give honest assessments.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Because this information carries no national security value while being newsworthy.

Bravo Times.

As for your claim of newsworthy that is a much overinflated claim at best.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Which is why the elected government is entrusted with these matter not the unelected press. In this particular matter obviously the president saw fit to say this was a matter not worthy of classification, but that is his call not the press regardless of applicability.

You are great at missing the point, aren't you?

We have a free press for a reason, to ensure that no one controls information in a manner dangerous to democracy. The press has every right to publish pieces that they feel have value while not endangering the common good.

The government has every right to go after the NYT if they feel they have a case, and would have the ability to win in court. Let them try.

That being said lets see what the president said regarding the declassification

Why would I give a **** what that ignorant ass thinks?

Gee another leak and whoops it might impede the ability for cover your ass types in intelligence to give honest assessments.

Bull.

If intelligence is doing their job right, then having their assesments being fully public would be menaingless. If anything else is true, the problem is not with the press, but with intelliegence agents who shade the truth to cover their ass and politicians willing to sacrfice the truth for their own careers.

[GePap]

Yup, that NYT has a nefarious history of blatantly disregarding the law on classification. Like this time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_papers

What good came of that blatant law breaking!