Trump's torture support could mean the end of GCHQ-NSA relationship If comments made on the campaign trail by Donald Trump were sincere, then today's British government will need to do some serious soul-searching very soon. Trump, who was today announced as the president-elect of the United States of America, has been controversially outspoken while seeking to be nominated as the Republican …
Am I the only one who thinks this might be a good thing?
One of the problems with having massive military superiority is that you never have to ask yourself if a particular course of action which involves killing someone, is something you would be willing to die for.
You mean the US still has any secrets to share after they've passed thru Hillary's server?
Are you referring to that thing that has now been investigated no less than TEN TIMES without finding anything that is legally actionable? Do you know Einstein's definition of insanity?
If you want unsafe, look at what happened at OPM - now THAT is putting people's lives at risk properly, because it handed whoever hacked that a nice, juicy target list of 2 million Americans who can be targeted because they have a clearance. If you are really looking for something to fix, that's worth it.
When the Attorney General is a rabid and unapologetic Clintonista, when James Comey of the FBI decides to rewrite the law so that intent becomes the deciding factor, as opposed to the actual law which makes what she did an absolute offence (nothing to do with the fact that he worked with Loretta Lynch in New York ho ho) the outcome under such corrupt people is a foregone conclusion - of COURSE she did nothing wrong.
If Hillary and her mobsters are so fragrantly innocent as you suppose, why did they rush to seek immunity agreements (which shamefully were granted) and why did some hide behind the 5th Amendment?
Incidentally, Comey took $6,000,000 in one year from Lockheed Martin, which - much to everyone's surprise (hollow laughter) became major donors to the Clinton 'Foundation' and then received very nice contracts approved by the State Department (prop. HRC)
Grow up!
If Hillary and her mobsters are so fragrantly innocent as you suppose, why did they rush to seek immunity agreements (which shamefully were granted) and why did some hide behind the 5th Amendment?
Because it's the law. If you live in a democracy (or rather, pretend it's one, but that's another discussion) you have to respect that law, and that cuts both ways. The law should protect you as well as require you to comply with it. If there is no legally actionable discovery after the same process has been repeated 10 times (which, by the way, amounts to hardcore harassment by any standard and was only possible because it's at congressional level), it is time to accept the verdict of that same court that should declare YOU innocent if there isn't enough evidence when YOU get investigated. You can't have the one without the other.
You have the same rights, rights that allowed the US citizens to pull a Brexit stunt on their own country (voting for a candidate they didn't think would get in anyway because the polls told them - which meant he DID get in, and now we get protests mainly from people with a guilty conscience - exactly like Brexit).
Indeed grow up. You made your bed, now you can lie in it. The UK cannot declare you idiots because they've basically committed the same self harm, but the rest of the world now knows that 47.5% of US citizens cannot be trusted with anything important. Not that we didn't know that already, but it's always sad to see it confirmed.
Now go and burn some crosses or whatever other pointless thing Trump voters do to pretend they matter.
Are you referring to that thing that has now been investigated no less than TEN TIMES without finding anything that is legally actionable?
Some of us believe that action was taken by the American people on November 8. Kind of like the British people taking their own action with the Brexit vote.
"...without finding anything that is legally actionable?2
Um, I used to work for a UK defence subcontractor and because we had some minor part to play in a system that had American components in, we were forced to abide by all their laws like the ITAR controls and a little something dreamt up by Senators Sarbanes and Oxley in the wake of the Exxon Valdez "Oops I seem to have accidentally deleted a few hundred emails" mishap.
If Exxon were in trouble for a coupe of thousand, what about Hillary's fifteen^H^H^ thirty^H^H^H FORTYFIVE thousand emails? And that's just the ones she has admitted to deleting, and doesn't take any account of the fact that she had classified email on a non-Controlled system, had access to AND KEPT emails she had no business being anywhere near and that she then tried to defend herself by declaring the emails weren't classified just because she said so.
But no, nothing legally actionable, nosirree...
I guess John will "get over it" once there is more balanced discussion on here, the voting and opinions are so partisan it deters genuine discussion of important world issues.
BTW it's not John, it is the will of the American people through democracy, get over it.
BTW it's not John, it is the will of the American people through democracy, get over it.
If you really want to nit-pick, it's the will of the small minority of the American people, and also the will of the minority of the voters who cast their ballot. After all, Clinton did win the popular vote while losing the electoral college vote. I know that this outcome reflects the unfathomable wisdom of the founding fathers and all that - but presumably in more than two centuries which passed since that time enough has changed to possibly justify another look at the electoral system.
However, none of this matters. Trump won, and I fully agree with you that America has got a president-elect it deserves.
>I know that this outcome reflects the unfathomable wisdom of the founding fathers and all that - but presumably in more than two centuries which passed since that time enough has changed to possibly justify another look at the electoral system.
These things take time - it took 125 years before Senators were elected by the American people - prior to that it was basically an all Tory House of Lords.
Indeed, have a look at the electoral system. Let's start with a look at a map by voting district, showing districts that voted Republican in red an Democratic in blue, not the one by state, but by individual voting district. The first thing that stands out is that it is very red in general, with blue areas clearly concentrated in large metropolitan areas, New York, LA, Chicago, and other large cities. If you threw a dart at the map, you wouldn't actually be likely to hit a blue area. In most places, the people apparently lean toward the conservative, rather than liberal. At the same time, the popular vote was very nearly a 50-50 split. It seems to me that the electoral college did exactly what it was designed to do by preventing a few areas of concentrated population from always deciding things for the entire rest of the nation.
Personally, I think Americans are so over the corrupt political elitists that they voted for Trump simply because he is not a professional politician and has never before held a public office. Notice that in spite of the Republican Party's best efforts to prevent Trump from becoming their candidate, Trump handily won the primaries. It was a slap in the face to all of the political elite, not just the Democrats.
Powernumpty,
Obviously, if it were a democracy, then the majority of the popular vote had elected Hillary. As we in the U.S. have a democratic Republic with an Electoral College, we are stuck with another candidate that came in second place. Second place with most people voting for third party candidates as a protest vote against Hillary.
Second place is hardly the will of anyone.
Ironically, those idiots that wanted to burn the whole place down to get rid of the old government, forgot to vote out that same Congress that has been intentionally obstructing the Obama administration for 8 years. So... they didn't fix squat and if tax cuts and regulation eliminations happen as expected, they'll be in a worse position than they were before.
Well that is the system you have accepted, if you don't believe in the system then you probably also believe many previous presidents were elected wrongly or is it just this one because of his party?
If it is wrong forget the political in fighting and get enough people of all persuasions behind a change in the electoral system.
What I find difficult to reconcile is the vehement opprobrium metered on this guy who has clearly used the system provided and even turned a profit (allegedly) from the campaign, now if that is not being a true enterprising American I'm not sure what is.
Actually, most sane people lost.Actually, you are missing the point.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.H L Mencken
It matters not one tittle whether Tweedle Dumb, or Tweedle Dumber won unless you happen to be Tweedle Dumb, or Tweedle Dumber.
Massive stroke is a definite possibility. Drumpf is well known for not taking anybody's advice about anything if he doesn't agree, and any doctor who tried to tell him to lose some weight, eat less, and get more exercise (golf doesn't count) would be wasting his time. Drumpf is a very self-indulgent man. Very fat, too. With skin that to me screams "not in the best of health".
I wonder how drumpf will like being a patient at Walter Reed?
get more exercise (golf doesn't count)WTF? I used to play golf at a 9 hole golf course ~20 years ago when I was much fitter. One time I played round twice and I was completely fucking shagged out! So was the retired US marine I played golf with and he played almost every day.
Actually, I've been wondering about "intelligence" since the Primaries started. Both were not, shall we say, the best of choices, and this campaign hasn't quite been down to the Tricky Dicky level.... but, I digress.
Enjoy the fallout shelter, I'm headed to my bunker for some peace and quiet. Last night the local neighborhood erupted with fireworks and what sounded very much like automatic weapons fire* when Trump hit the magic number of EC votes.
*I do know the difference betwixt fireworks and automatic weapons fire... I'm thinking it was a modified M-14. Definitely not a AK or an M16.
likely to receive push-back from the UK due to the nation's legal obligations, which are much more unlikely to be derogated from.
You are assuming that Teresa May would like to keep UK in the same conventions. What in particular did she do for this assumption to be warranted? In fact, UK may be out of said conventions even before the USA.
The aim of an intelligence sharing agreement is, obviously, to share intelligence. Diplomats and intelligence officers are the experts at averting their eyes and holding their noses. Their default position is "Ask no questions and you'll get told nothing embarrassing."
Until there is irrefutable proof of torture things will carry on much as usual. Social media and Wikileaks are not proof. Even if a serious investigation, say the Insight Team, alleges torture nothing will really affect the status quo. The only possible affect is that some legal cases are affected by "fruit of the poisoned tree."
Unless of course an inexperienced politician makes it plain, in public, on the record, that the USA now engages in torture. What chance of that?
Until there is irrefutable proof of torture
1963 is a long time ago. Where is the provenance...1963 is only a long time ago if you are a child. Avert your eyes and hold your nose all you want; you can even lie on the floor and kick and scream. There's plenty of provenance.
"1963 is only a long time ago if you are a child."
The year the Aston Martin DB5 was introduced. Many, many things have changed for better or worse. A document from 1963 can only be "proof" as to what was happening before the DB5. I hold no brief for the intelligence services. If that is the best you have I really don't need to avert my eyes or hold my nose.
Let me be clear, torture is abhorrent. We should be better than that. However there is an argument as to just what constitutes torture. I offer no threshold, I am not equipped with the legal, medical or moral intellectual tools to really make an informed decision on what is a fine and shifting line. It is a bit like "obscenity", I can't tell you what it is but I'll know it when I see it. Don't forget that Lady Chatterly's Lover was considered obscene until 1960.
A document from 1963 can only be "proof" as to what was happening before the DB5.Clearly, you didn't read the document(s) at the national Security Archive:
In March 1992 Cheney received an investigative report on "Improper Material in Spanish-Language Intelligence Training Manuals." Classified SECRET, the report noted that five of the seven manuals "contained language and statements in violation of legal, regulatory or policy prohibitions" and recommended they be recalled. The memo is stamped: "SECDEF HAS SEEN."I have heard an interview with Glen Carle, an ex-CIA operative who struggled with his conscience when ordered to torture a banker who his years of field experience told him the banker was the wrong target.The Archive also posted a declassified memorandum of conversation with a Southern Command officer, Major Victor Tise, who was responsible for assembling the Latin American manuals at School of the Americas for counterintelligence training in 1982. Tise stated that the manuals had been forwarded to DOD headquarters for clearance "and came back approved but UNCHANGED." (Emphasis in original)
You write "there is an argument as to just what constitutes torture" and I'm happy to argue with you while applying strong electric currents to your anus and genitalia. Guess who will win the argument ;-)
The article we are commenting seems to hint that the current administration put an effective stop to waterboarding. I believe it is fairly well known that waterboarding was common practice when Bush was in office. So 1963? I fail to see the relevance.
However, the embarrassing continued operation of the base at Guantanamo indicates that the last 8 years have been pretty much 'business as usual'.
So, vote for a candidate who is open about these things, or vote for the other saying the nice things we want to hear (only to ignore it once in office)?
"Torture and State Violence in the United States: A Short Documentary History"
Paperback – 3 Oct 2011
by Robert M. Pallitto (Editor)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Torture-State-Violence-United-States/dp/1421402491/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478774187&sr=1-19&keywords=torture+america
That was my immediate reaction to the headline. Obama, and before him Dubya and before him Bill Clinton tortured people routinely. The difference is that they publicly protested that they didn't approve of torture, while their employees were engaging in it behind the scenes. Trump has actually spoken about what previously was being done clandestinely. There is a pattern here: throughout the election campaign Trump has been lambasted for saying offensive things, which was apparently considered far worse than the truly appalling things Hillary Clinton and Obama have DONE.
Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; "extraordinary rendition"; you could, if you had the stomach for it, probably trace the tradition of American government torture right back to the waterboarding of Filipinos in the war of conquest 120 years ago, and some of the sickening things that they did to slaves and Native Americans.
As for the UK, please don't forget that it's only 12 years since Craig Murray was fired as ambassador to Uzbekistan because he insisted on telling the Foreign Office and Jack Straw that the government of Uzbekistan was regularly torturing people, and that much of the "intelligence" they gave to the British government was obtained that way. Straw and his senior underlings knew perfectly well, but they hated having an honest man come along and force them to admit it.
Of course, Trump is wrong in two respects. First and foremost, torture is NEVER justified. Second and also quite important, it usually yields very poor results, as real intelligence professionals know.
You are assuming that Teresa May would like to keep UK in the same conventions.
I'm pretty sure that derogating from international obligations that have been enshrined in UK law through an act of parliament requires assent from parliament, rather than unilateral action from the 'prime minister' (a figurehead with no real legal standing beyond being the leader of a single political party within the commons, if you read your history books), even through 'royal prerogative'.
If only we had some sort of legal test case to press home this point...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
