At stake here is whether or not the nation’s intelligence agency was caught in wholesale violations of the U.S. Constitution, while breaking several Federal criminal laws and blowing off a standing Executive Order, all in a Machiavellian bid to ferret out how it was Senate investigators had caught on to the evolving CIA cover story.
Udall says Brennan has declined to respond to subsequent questions about the CIA hacking escapade that targeted the Senate Committee. Instead, explains Udall, Brennan’s company lawyer, the acting CIA general counsel, has “filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice about the Committee staff’s actions to preserve the Panetta review documents.” According to Udall this is the same general counsel “who was involved in the 2005 decision to destroy the CIA’s interrogation videotapes.”
“Of the many examples of impeding congressional oversight documented in the study, none is more striking than the decision by CIA leaders to destroy videotapes of CIA interrogations out of a concern that Congress might discover evidence of misconduct and brutality,” wrote Maine Sen. Angus King “There is no excuse for this decision and those involved should no longer be associated with the CIA or the United states government.”
Like Udall, King finds the ever evolving CIA cover story problematic.
“In its official response to the study, the CIA contradicts many of its previous claims of unqualified effectiveness by arguing that it is now “unknowable” whether the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and further contends that its past assertions were “sincerely believed but inherently speculative,” writes King. “Yet in the long and unfortunate history of this program, no one in the CIA’s leadership expressed such an equivocal view of the techniques’ effectiveness. What was once certain is now ‘unknowable;’ this migration of rationales underlines for me the magnitude of the prior misrepresentations.”
For Maine Sen. Susan Collins the debate over the CIA’s EIT program’s effectiveness obscures the deeper issues raised by the existence of the CIA program in the first place.
It bears repeating that torture need not be ineffective to be wrong. The United States correctly answered the question of whether torture should be prohibited when our nation ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994. The prohibition against torture in both US law and international law is not based on an evaluation of efficacy at eliciting information. Rather, the prohibition was put in place because torture is immoral and contrary to our values.In June, a ranting essay by the blogger Ed Champion sparked a discussion on the misogyny and sexism that still pervade the literary sphere. And a reprise in September, in which Champion went after the novelist Porochista Khakpour on Twitter, put yet another spotlight on the way women writers are often perceived and criticized.
In other words, in 2014, we might have expected awareness of women writers and writers of color to be on the rise. And I still hope it is, on the whole. Yet there it was, that statement I heard surprisingly often: “There just aren’t many Asian American women writers.”
Several years ago, frustrated by similar remarks about authors of color, the writer and critic Roxane Gay compiled a list of them, aptly titled “We Are Many. We Are Everywhere.” Inspired by Gay’s list, I put out a call on Twitter for names of Asian American women writers. Within hours, I was deluged with suggestions. Even after I narrowed the focus to authors who had published a book of fiction — the type of speaker most venues seek — the list swelled into the hundreds.
* * *
At stake here is whether or not the nation’s intelligence agency was caught in wholesale violations of the U.S. Constitution, while breaking several Federal criminal laws and blowing off a standing Executive Order, all in a Machiavellian bid to ferret out how it was Senate investigators had caught on to the evolving CIA cover story.
Udall says Brennan has declined to respond to subsequent questions about the CIA hacking escapade that targeted the Senate Committee. Instead, explains Udall, Brennan’s company lawyer, the acting CIA general counsel, has “filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice about the Committee staff’s actions to preserve the Panetta review documents.” According to Udall this is the same general counsel “who was involved in the 2005 decision to destroy the CIA’s interrogation videotapes.”
“Of the many examples of impeding congressional oversight documented in the study, none is more striking than the decision by CIA leaders to destroy videotapes of CIA interrogations out of a concern that Congress might discover evidence of misconduct and brutality,” wrote Maine Sen. Angus King “There is no excuse for this decision and those involved should no longer be associated with the CIA or the United states government.”
Like Udall, King finds the ever evolving CIA cover story problematic.
“In its official response to the study, the CIA contradicts many of its previous claims of unqualified effectiveness by arguing that it is now “unknowable” whether the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and further contends that its past assertions were “sincerely believed but inherently speculative,” writes King. “Yet in the long and unfortunate history of this program, no one in the CIA’s leadership expressed such an equivocal view of the techniques’ effectiveness. What was once certain is now ‘unknowable;’ this migration of rationales underlines for me the magnitude of the prior misrepresentations.”
For Maine Sen. Susan Collins the debate over the CIA’s EIT program’s effectiveness obscures the deeper issues raised by the existence of the CIA program in the first place.
It bears repeating that torture need not be ineffective to be wrong. The United States correctly answered the question of whether torture should be prohibited when our nation ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994. The prohibition against torture in both US law and international law is not based on an evaluation of efficacy at eliciting information. Rather, the prohibition was put in place because torture is immoral and contrary to our values.In June, a ranting essay by the blogger Ed Champion sparked a discussion on the misogyny and sexism that still pervade the literary sphere. And a reprise in September, in which Champion went after the novelist Porochista Khakpour on Twitter, put yet another spotlight on the way women writers are often perceived and criticized.
In other words, in 2014, we might have expected awareness of women writers and writers of color to be on the rise. And I still hope it is, on the whole. Yet there it was, that statement I heard surprisingly often: “There just aren’t many Asian American women writers.”
Several years ago, frustrated by similar remarks about authors of color, the writer and critic Roxane Gay compiled a list of them, aptly titled “We Are Many. We Are Everywhere.” Inspired by Gay’s list, I put out a call on Twitter for names of Asian American women writers. Within hours, I was deluged with suggestions. Even after I narrowed the focus to authors who had published a book of fiction — the type of speaker most venues seek — the list swelled into the hundreds.
* * *
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
At stake here is whether or not the nation’s intelligence agency was caught in wholesale violations of the U.S. Constitution, while breaking several Federal criminal laws and blowing off a standing Executive Order, all in a Machiavellian bid to ferret out how it was Senate investigators had caught on to the evolving CIA cover story.
Udall says Brennan has declined to respond to subsequent questions about the CIA hacking escapade that targeted the Senate Committee. Instead, explains Udall, Brennan’s company lawyer, the acting CIA general counsel, has “filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice about the Committee staff’s actions to preserve the Panetta review documents.” According to Udall this is the same general counsel “who was involved in the 2005 decision to destroy the CIA’s interrogation videotapes.”
“Of the many examples of impeding congressional oversight documented in the study, none is more striking than the decision by CIA leaders to destroy videotapes of CIA interrogations out of a concern that Congress might discover evidence of misconduct and brutality,” wrote Maine Sen. Angus King “There is no excuse for this decision and those involved should no longer be associated with the CIA or the United states government.”
Like Udall, King finds the ever evolving CIA cover story problematic.
“In its official response to the study, the CIA contradicts many of its previous claims of unqualified effectiveness by arguing that it is now “unknowable” whether the use of enhanced interrogation techniques and further contends that its past assertions were “sincerely believed but inherently speculative,” writes King. “Yet in the long and unfortunate history of this program, no one in the CIA’s leadership expressed such an equivocal view of the techniques’ effectiveness. What was once certain is now ‘unknowable;’ this migration of rationales underlines for me the magnitude of the prior misrepresentations.”
For Maine Sen. Susan Collins the debate over the CIA’s EIT program’s effectiveness obscures the deeper issues raised by the existence of the CIA program in the first place.
It bears repeating that torture need not be ineffective to be wrong. The United States correctly answered the question of whether torture should be prohibited when our nation ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994. The prohibition against torture in both US law and international law is not based on an evaluation of efficacy at eliciting information. Rather, the prohibition was put in place because torture is immoral and contrary to our values.In June, a ranting essay by the blogger Ed Champion sparked a discussion on the misogyny and sexism that still pervade the literary sphere. And a reprise in September, in which Champion went after the novelist Porochista Khakpour on Twitter, put yet another spotlight on the way women writers are often perceived and criticized.
In other words, in 2014, we might have expected awareness of women writers and writers of color to be on the rise. And I still hope it is, on the whole. Yet there it was, that statement I heard surprisingly often: “There just aren’t many Asian American women writers.”
Several years ago, frustrated by similar remarks about authors of color, the writer and critic Roxane Gay compiled a list of them, aptly titled “We Are Many. We Are Everywhere.” Inspired by Gay’s list, I put out a call on Twitter for names of Asian American women writers. Within hours, I was deluged with suggestions. Even after I narrowed the focus to authors who had published a book of fiction — the type of speaker most venues seek — the list swelled into the hundreds.
* * *
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..