Thanks for correcting me on the Hague Conventions. And I wanted to thank you for doing a better job in answering his question.

If that response was intended for me, you misstate my position.

More accurately, I accuse him of doing NOTHING to prevent the 9/11 attacks and of many wrong-headed excesses afterward that did nothing to enhance our security while eroding our precious liberties at home and our standing in the world.

I don’t condone torture under ANY circumstances nor do I play semantic games in defining it.

Torture is immoral, illegal, and INEFFECTIVE as an information gathering tool.

Waterboarding is torture, plain and simple. We ourselves have defined it as such since the early 1900s.

We won WW2 & the Cold War without resorting to such tactics.

And can we please cease and desist from the sky is falling panic. Al Qaida in particular and Mid-Eastern extremism in particular is far from the greatest threat this country has faced.

Does any reasonable person really believe it poses a threat to the existence of the United States on a level comparable to the Soviets, the Nazis, the Confederacy or the Redcoats?

If we could defeat those threats without losing our moral bearing, without sacrificing the very meaning of what it is to be an American, surely we have the capacity to stand up to a handful of armed thugs the same way.

As far back as General Washington, BEFORE there even was a United States, it has been our policy to treat the captured enemy with humanity, both because we recognized it was in our best interest, and because it was RIGHT.

And I’ll stand by General Washington anytime.

Best to all & Happy Holidays.

Isn’t he guilty of the same crimes as those Japanese soldiers?

No.

Why or why not?

Because the Allied POWs were protected under the Hague Conventions, of which Japan had signed. Terrorists are not covered under the Hague or Geneva Conventions; these treaties only protect uniformed military personnel.

Are the Americans who performed the waterboarding of KSM as guilty as those Japanese soldiers?

No.

Why or why not?

Terrorists are not covered under the Hague or Geneva Conventions; these treaties only protect uniformed military personnel.

To a limited degree, you are correct. Japan never signed the treaties that covered prisioners of war. This was because in Japanese culture, it was considered dishonorable to be taken prisioner. You were expected to die in a suicide attack or kill yourself prior to that event. Save the last bullet for yourself. At that time, in Japanese eyes, prisoners had forfeited any right to consideration. In China, it was not uncommon to use Chinese prisoners for rifle and bayonet practice. This explains some of the reasons why prisioners were treated so brutally in general.

Some consider terrorists to be like pirates. Only in very recent history have pirates not been generally treated by hanging from the nearest yardarm or pole. Waterboarding would be a very mild tactic for extraction of information. Particullarly if they are allowed to live and are well cared for generally.

The general treatment of prisioners by the U.S. has historically been very good to outstanding. Far better than most, if not all of our enemies. In this light, we cannot be compared to those Japanese soldiers who were responsible for prisoners during the war. As it turned out, at least one general that I know of did what he could to prevent and stop mistreatment of prisioners, yet he was executed anyway. This is because in our military, we hold the highest officers responsible. Sometimes even when subordinates violate orders. In this case, it was thought that the responsible officer should have followed up and ensured that his orders were in fact being followed. The problem that he faced was that the idea of prisoners being treated in anyway that was humane was so foreign to the vast majority of Japanese soldiers that it would have been impossible to enforce restrictions unless he personally had been present. With thousands of prisoners, that was not a possiblity.

Isn’t he guilty of the same crimes as those Japanese soldiers? Why or why not?

Are the Americans who performed the waterboarding of KSM as guilty as those Japanese soldiers? Why or why not?

But if a gov’t employee reports on an illegal surveillance system, hence breaking the law, he is a traitor. Because… well, I guess because none of you think the 4th Amendment is important?

But when and if something bad happens, the same people who complain about an over zealous government…often as not complain that the state did not do enough to protect them.

The truth is there is a constant balancing act going on out there.

I do not advocate that the government should simply be trusted. Those officers who have abused the trust reposed in them should be punished, as should those who breach their oaths by leaking to the press which then reports methods to the enemy.

I suspect that officers who inappropriately disclose private conversations will do so whether those conversations are listened to pursuant to a court order or otherwise.

I also suspect that very few requests for warrants are turned down. The protection of a judge issuing a warrant is illusory. Better protection would come from a properly trained and monitored ethical force that understands the limitations upon the invasions of privacy of those being listened to and that understands that the powers they are exercising are exceptional, and are to be exercised prudently and professionally in the interests of the state.

Having someone overhear innocent private conversations is a breach of one’s liberty but it is not on the same scale as losing one’s life.

The point being that in many cases the information was at hand that would at least limit the disaster but was not acted upon.

The real key is how we reacted. It looks like our response was effective: We have not been hit directly again. (Exception: Our military on ground of our choice.)

I have bad news: We will be hit again. It is only a matter of time. Once again, the key will be in how we react.

“Are the opponents of the measures taken by the Bush admiistraton able to point to even one instance where an American citizen suffered actual damage or where the information obtained – to protect the country and the lives of innocent people from attack -was abused?”

Just two months ago two military intercept officers who worked at a National Security Agency center in Georgia disclosed to ABC News they eavesdropped on the phone conversations of hundreds of U.S. citizens overseas. The officers told how operators would pass around time codes of the calls journalists, soldiers and aid workers made to friends and family back home. The Navy linguist said the calls picked up phone sex and other obviously personal conversations. http://www.ccianet.org/artmanager/publish/news/New_Evidence_Of_Surveillance_Abuse.shtml

As for damage claims, all claims of damage have been dismissed based on the state’s secret act and the FISA legislation that provided retroactive immunity for telecomm companies. Therefore, we don’t know what abuses have taken place or what damage has been done because the secrecy of the program prevents anyone from even obtaining documents/evidence as part of discovery. Here is a link that notes a fraction of the multiple lawsuits filed over the NSA program that were eventually dismissed on these grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_challenges_to_NSA_warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States

Lastly, the real danger is the potential for abuse. You should educate yourself about the impetus for the original FISA legislation. It was enacted in 1978 in response to President Nixon’s abuse of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups. Nobody disputes the fact that Nixon abused his presidential powers and violated the 4th Amendment. That is the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights – our founders belief that our liberties needed to be protected against the abuse of federal powers based on the principle that power corrupts. It is amazing to me that the conservatives of today advocate that we should simply trust the government not to abuse its surveillance powers and not worry about liberties until someone can prove actual damages (despite the fact that it is impossible to prove damages if every claim is summarily dismissed). I’ll bet you all of the modern icons of conservatism (Goldwater, Reagan, Buckley) are rolling over in there graves at how quickly today’s conservatives abandon the principles of limited government power and checks and balances because they got scared into believing that the government needs vastly expanded powers to protect us against the terrorist.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, I wasn’t commenting about Tamm’s motives or tactics in pursuing his concerns about the NSA program. I’m commenting on AJ’s consistent claims that Bush’s NSA surveillance program adopted after 9-11 was never illegal or overreaching and any claims otherwise are pure conspiracy theory. I don’t care what you call the program, but the facts I noted above demonstrate that the DOJ concluded that part of the program was illegal and sufficiently dangerous that practically the entire DOJ and federal law enforcement leadership of our country were prepared to resign en masse over it. It also demonstrates that Bush has no regard for the rule of law given that he tried to get a drugged-up Ashcroft to sign off on it and was prepared to proceed with the program notwithstanding DOJ’s refusal to sign off on it until the threat of resignations forced him to back off. Can you imagine how freaked out you conservatives would be if you found out Clinton or Obama tried to get an illegal program signed off by a drugged up Attorney General? And sorry, you can claim that you know the nature of the NSA program at issue but it is only speculation given that the nature of the program has not been disclosed due to its secrecy.

The bottomline is that AJ’s claim that “The changes put in place after 9-11 by President Bush are now the law of the land” is flat wrong. Every time I mention the Comey/Ashcroft/hospital incident in response to Aj’s bogus claims about the NSA surveillance program he ignores it because he can’t explain it away. I guess as they say, ignorance is bliss!