JayB

"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

Looks like I'd better stock up on the polycarbonate bottles before the hysteria makes its way south of the border.

Amanuensis?

One insoluble mystery is what prompted the adoption of the new nom de spray.

Appending a suffix to "Hayek" and using it as an adjective in one of your posts = blown cover.

Yeah - looks like Bachelor is a tough nut to crack for discounts. Heard rumblings about discount tickets available at Costco and Gi Joes last year, but not coming up with much this year. $66 bones per day for Bachelor beats paying about the same for man-made groomers on the East Coast, but is still kind of painful.

If they wanted to really go green and reduce the "capita" portion of the resource consumption equations, collectivizing agriculture is clearly the way to go. It has no equal in that regard. Just ask the Ukrainians, Chinese, and North Koreans. KK Found! He's talking out of Jay_B's ass! Clearly. I'm looking forward to the seeing all of the data that support a contrary conclusion.

If they wanted to really go green and reduce the "capita" portion of the resource consumption equations, collectivizing agriculture is clearly the way to go. It has no equal in that regard. Just ask the Ukrainians, Chinese, and North Koreans.

Please explain how multiple progeny benefit the environment. Average age of resident in Colorado City, AZ = 14 I eagerly await your snide, dismissive, non sequitar reply. Seems like you'd have to evaluate that in terms of something like: Total Consumption = Resource Use Per Person * Number of Persons. The polygamists doubtless do well on the resource use per-person front, but probably not so well on the number of persons front. For those who are truly sincere in their convictions and their desire to save the earth from the impending climate catastrophe, the implications are clear: they can maximize their impact on both fronts by killing themselves before they have a chance to reproduce.

I'm astonished that you haven't seized upon the opportunity to pontificate on behalf of a set of C.A.F.E. standards that would limit the scope of the damage that these selfish life choices inflict on the planet. Couples Average Fidelity Expectations? Counseling Against Familial Egress? Individuals have shown that they have little or no capacity to govern their relationships in a manner that minimizes CO2 emissions, ergo the case is clear that the said behaviors need to be subject to the appropriate international regulatory framework.

Climate heroes for sure, but bush-leaguers compared to the folks living in Colorado City, AZ and Bountiful, BC.

I'm eagerly awaiting the prospect of activists festooning couples emerging from divorce court proceedings with "I'm Changing the Climate!!!" stickers on account of the excess C02 emissions that their selfish lifestyle choices are leading to, and the effects that the said choices will have on every other living occupant of the planet. "Environmentalists who are thinking of getting a divorce may want to reconsider, a new study at Michigan State University finds. Households in which a divorce occurs have a greater negative impact on the environment in terms of efficient use of resources than the households of married couples, according to research that will be published this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The reason is simple — it's all about efficiency, says Jianguo Liu, lead author of the study who has the Rachel Carson chair in ecological sustainability at the university's department of fisheries and wildlife. "In the divorced households, the number of people is smaller than in married households," Liu told ABCNEWS.com. "The resource efficiency used per person is much lower than in married households." Link

Will be staying near Bachelor for the holidays, and was wondering if there were any local outfits that sold tickets for less than you'll pay at the base, etc. Many thanks,

Hahahaha.

Lest anyone think I exaggerate... "Well, that's a completely different discussion, and not the one that's been going on here. No, Blake's attitude is to hold his gear choices out as the 'right' ones, and denigrate anyone who chooses otherwise, rather than just say, 'look, this has been my experience'. FF went right along with this arrogance by making fun of those customers for choosing competing products that they simply don't offer, as if that choices were somehow 'illegitimate' or 'for fashion only' (as if that's a problem). I argued that the ultra light sweaters are a viable, logical, and versatile choice for backcountry users such as myself as well as urban users. My viewpoint is that, if you want to run a successful business, listen, don't preach to your customers. Eric8 chimes in with nothing but some fuckhead spray. And somehow I'm the tool?"

Not to mention the fact that FEATHERED FUCKING FRIENDS DOESN'T MAKE A SVELTE-YET-STYLISH DOWN SWEATER THAT'S EQUALLY AT HOME ON DOWNTOWN SIDEWALKS OR HIGH IN THE MOUNTAINS!!!! THE ARROGANCE!!! THE AUDACITY TO PRESUME THAT *THEY* KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT DOWN CLOTHING AFTER A SCANT ~30 YEARS IN THE BUSINESS!! I WAS A CHIEF TECHNICAL OFFICER - WHY WON'T THEY LIIIIIIIISTEN!!!! IF ONLY THEY WOULD LIIIIIISTEN TO *ME*? WHY HAVEN'T THEY DISPATCHED AN INTERN TO MY PHINNEY RIDGE HQ, LIKE YESTERDAY, WITH A SKETCHPAD, CAMCORDER, AND AN OFFER FOR AN EQUITY STAKE IN EXCHANGE FOR MY COUNSEL!!!!!! HEAR THAT BLAKE? CHIEF TECHNICAL OFFICER!!! AND WHERE IN THE *FUCK* IS THAT GORDITA'S BURRITO!!!

lbxBFb3A5ak

Exhibit A: "Florida's Pension Fund Holds Same `Suspect' Debt as Frozen Pool By David Evans Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Florida's pension fund owns more than $1 billion of the same downgraded and defaulted debt that sparked a run on a state investment pool for local governments and forced officials to freeze withdrawals. The State Board of Administration, manager of $37 billion in short-term assets, including the pool, also oversees the $138 billion Florida Retirement System. The board purchased $3.3 billion of debt whose top ratings were reduced following the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News through an open records request. Like the hundreds of school districts and towns unable to access $14 billion frozen in the Local Government Investment Pool, Florida's 1.1 million current and retired state workers rely on the board's management to boost returns on the funds that pay their pensions. That has left them vulnerable to the same potential for losses. A state-created home insurer and the treasury are also at risk. ``These were highly inappropriate investments for taxpayers' money,'' said Joseph Mason, a finance professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia. ``This is the tip of the iceberg for pension funds. We know the paper is sitting there. There are substantial subprime-related losses that haven't shown up yet.'" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEWz6lIRbqE4&refer=home

Good background info: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9033348