JayB

Constructing a self-serving fantasy caricature of primitive cultures in order to more effectively critique one's own might have been defensible in Rousseau's day, but that time has long since passed.

greCg3uMHSE

If I gave you a dollar for everyone that understands the significance of Conrad Black and Bre-X in that statement, you'd have almost enough for a big mack. Brayshaw, and Murray are likely contenders, but that's about it.

Somewhere with lots of granite and little or no lightning....

I suppose depending on your tastes, Enumclaw might offer at least one diversion not available at Whistler...

Yeah - Whistler pretty much crushes anything in NA in just about every category in my mind, but I can ski my legs to failure on killer terrain at Crystal for less money than I'd spend doing the same thing at Whistler, so for when the currency's at parity, Crystal's where I'd go if I lived locally. If you are flying in from somewhere else and staying for a few days, there's also no contest in terms of lodging, apres, etc.

Value-wise, Crystal at $58 doleros and 2H closer beats Whistler at Loonie-Dolero parity.

Drug enforcement officials are seeing a spike in a lucrative cottage industry: indoor marijuana crops. This year's National Drug Threat Assessment, released by the Justice Department in October, says "vigorous outdoor cannabis eradication efforts have caused many marijuana producers, particularly Caucasian groups, to relocate indoors." The "grow houses," as they're called, can be found in neighborhoods around the country, but they're becoming especially common in the Pacific Northwest — particularly in the suburbs of Seattle. Local police and federal investigators have raided at least 50 houses in the past two years alone. Authorities say they're just starting to get a handle on how widespread the practice is becoming... The marijuana is grown in the middle of some very respectable Seattle suburbs, such as Renton. DEA special agent Clark Leininger has spent many long hours on stakeouts in quiet cul de sacs outside split-level homes that might sell for more than $400,000. He says he often has good evidence that a house is stuffed with pot plants, but he holds off making arrests, so he can find the larger network. "Most of these people who are orchestrating these operations have multiple houses. Some investigators say the minimum is three, some say five. The largest number that I've run into is 12," Leininger says, referring to a case he investigated right there in Renton. Leininger says the growers prefer to own their houses, because it eliminates the risk of a nosy landlord. And he says growers — or their intermediaries — have little trouble getting the loans to buy the houses they need. He said the man who bought 12 houses was a typical case. "Many of the loans were zero-down, no-document loans," he says. "He did not have any employment, and if I remember correctly, he was able to purchase about $6 million worth of property — and he didn't have a job."" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16628918

Well put. Rare point of agreement duly noted.

Wow man. What a great adventure. Thanks so much for sharing it online.

Wait - I thought that they couldn't voice any objections because this was a *briefing*? Judging by the commentary issuing forth from the Democrats, this has always been a black and white issue, so by their own estimation this should have been a no brainer. The fact that it wasn't means that they are either incapable of making simple judgments regarding something that they've characterized as transparently evil and injurious to the national interest, or they are craven opportunists who are hoping to avoid responsibility for the decisions that they made. I vote for the latter of the two.

They were in a briefing not a hearing. The difference is substantial - at a briefing you listen. At a hearing you ask. They were clearly bound, gagged, and couldn't so much as blink to communicate their sentiments during the briefing: "Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

It's not about them stopping it, it's a matter of them having the integrity required to either defend the decisions that they made *not* to oppose waterboarding, or to castigate themselves for their failure to do so. I'd respect either much more than pretending that they aren't responsible for their decisions after they turned out to be unpopular with their base.

Yes. Final version: "In summary. Waterboarding - categorically immoral? No. Would the national interest be better served by outlawing it? Yes. Does it make any difference whether were talking about a few CIA operatives and a few individuals or hundreds of untrained national guardsmen and thousands of individuals? Not to me."

Uh, they weren't allowed to have the Prisoners lawyers speak, the Republicans blocked it. Oh, and the only member giving praise to Gitmo was the respected and influential representative FROM GUAM http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/30/at_hearing_guantanamo_wins_praise_and_criticism/ This is farce. You standby and cheer as the Democrats were systematically pushed out of the legislative process in the house, then blame them because they weren't a strong opposition party What the hell does this have to do with a Congressman evaluating the use of waterboarding by CIA operatives? Per your second point - it's not as though they had to have a quorum before speaking their mind. This wasn't a spending bill where they had to pick their battles and count their votes. They were in a closed hearing, where all they had to do was open their mouths. They didn't - so those present, which include Pelosi - are in absolutely in no position to claim the moral high ground after the fact.

I think that waterboarding or using comparable methods that involve pain, suffering, or fear on people who are known to be involved in terrorist networks that are intent on slaughtering as many civilians as the means available to them will allow them to is far less morally troubling than - say - ordering an airstrike on a building containing known terrorists who may have killed hundreds of people, which also contains people who are completely innocent of any such offense. I think that there are cases where you can make a moral argument for both in certain circumstances. I also think that you can make moral argument for executing people who have been proven guilty of certain offenses beyond any doubt whatsoever. However, I can't approve of the death penalty in practice for a number of practical reasons. I think that the practical reasons to outlaw torture/harsh interrogation as a matter of national policy are sufficient to outweigh any practical benefit that such practices may have, even in cases where I think it would be morally justifiable. I would like to get all of the various nations that have a stake in fighting terrorism to specify precisely which techniques are permissible for interrogating terrorists - and put a mechanism in place that insures that they have to live with the limitations that they espouse under all circumstances. In summary. Waterboarding - categorically immoral? No. Would the national interest be better served by outlawing it? Yes. Does it make any difference whether were talking about a few CIA operatives and a few individuals or hundreds of untrained national guardsmen and thousands of individuals? Not to me.

-B. Obama does betrayal of core values count as "moral" in your book? I've actually said before, that I think that the strategic damage done by Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Waterboarding - etc outweighs any tactical benefits that we could expect to obtain from the intelligence gained therein. Had the democrats involved in these hearings said the same thing at these hearings when they had the chance, there'd be no story.

This is ludicrous. You don't think a perception can change morally when you learn more information? You don't think it's moral to bite your tongue until such point as you have the means to effect a change? But isn't that what you were espousing of the Olympia protesters? Once the democrats have a hand in things, all is subtlety and nuance. We're talking about the morality of waterboarding here, not whether or not someone with a brain-dead spouse can be excused for seeking affection outside of marriage. The notion that there are nuances that would make waterboarding a categorical evil that's fatally undermined our system of government and moral standing in the world in 2005, but a regrettable necessity rife with tradeoffs and nuance in 2002 just doesn't fly. The only material aspect of the situation that changed is the extent to which it can be manipulated for political advantage. Is it moral to bite your tongue until you are in a position to effect change? Craven and opportunistic - yes. Moral - are you kidding? They were in a setting where they were at complete liberty to candidly put forth their misgivings, reservations, etc - in complete confidence, in an environment where the potential for adverse practical or political consequences was nonexistent - and they didn't. One can safely conclude that they had none, until such time as the practice became public, at which time they chose to feign shock and dismay instead of explaining why it was that they - at a minimum - voiced no objections to the policy when they given detailed briefings on the practices at 2002. With regards to the Olympia protesters, to steal a quote from elsewhere, "That's not right. It's not even wrong...."

"Abu Zubaida, the first of the "high-value" detainees in CIA custody, was subjected to harsh interrogation methods beginning in spring 2002 after he refused to cooperate with questioners, the officials said. CIA briefers gave the four intelligence committee members limited information about Abu Zubaida's detention in spring 2002, but offered a more detailed account of its interrogation practices in September of that year, said officials with direct knowledge of the briefings. The CIA provided another briefing the following month, and then about 28 additional briefings over five years, said three U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge of the meetings. During these sessions, the agency provided information about the techniques it was using as well as the information it collected." The article suggests that these briefings were specifically addressing interrogation techniques used by the CIA, not the Army. It's certainly not as though up to this point the discussions concerning the moral defensibility of waterboarding have been framed as though one can defend subjecting detainees to it provided that: -The people being subjected to it are sufficiently evil. -The people conducting the waterboarding are sufficiently well-trained. I certainly haven't heard either a Democratic congressman or voter come out and say "Waterboarding people who have engaged in or plotted attacks on American soil is regretable but necessary in some cases, while interrogating detainees who engage in the same acts in Iraq and Afghanistan is much more problematic and shouldn't be permissible under any circumstances." What I have heard is a mutli-year narrative in which democratic politicians have been excused from any responsibility whatsoever for the very same actions that their base has been excoriating both republicans and the administration for. The has all been predicated on the notion that somehow democrats were hapless naifs who had been led astray by malevolent figures in the administration. Here's a clear case when they had the same access to the same information, approved of the same measures, then disavowed all knowledge of and responsibility for their actions and judgments when it became politically expedient to do so. Certainly more information came out. Certainly the Democrats got a little more power to influence decision making. I think these are plausible reasons for changing one's stance and strategy, respectively. Political reasons - yes. Moral reasons - no.

You're missing the whole point, here, as you always have on this issue. This is not a partisan issue, it's a rule of law issue. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which we ratified into law and which has been tested by our Supreme Court, specifically and explicitly forbids waterboarding and all other forms of humiliation and inhumane treatment of detainees. Every time we waterboard...or kill or maim detainees (waterboarding is a smoke screen issue, hello), we throw our own laws out the window and take one more step towards totalitarianism. You are confusing ought with is. It ought not be a partisan issue, but it clearly is. One look at the special pleading and prevaricating on behalf of the Democrats present when these tactics were being presented: "...there was no objecting, no hand-wringing. The attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.' " Only after information about the practice began to leak in news accounts in 2005 -- by which time the CIA had already abandoned waterboarding -- did doubts about its legality among individual lawmakers evolve into more widespread dissent. The opposition reached a boiling point this past October, when Democratic lawmakers condemned the practice during Michael B. Mukasey's confirmation hearings for attorney general." Partisan opportunism masquerading as righteous indignation. True of both the Democrats on the hill and their apologists/fan-base here.

The article didn't mention any constraints whatsoever on voicing objections, reservations, etc during the meeting. They were free to raise objections and concerns during the meeting, no? The fact that with one exception, they chose not to do so is telling. Would you be rising to the defense of those present had it only been Republicans in the room during the briefing?

And you're not this guy... IndDymOgMxM Be Happy.

"In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01 In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk... With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

More on the topic here: http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/ten-things-to-know-about-freeze.html

Some of the routes on Lane Peak might be worth considering. Access via the Narada Falls lot. Big Pic: http://cascadeclimbers.com/plab/showphoto.php?photo=9804&size=big&cat=&si=lane