Norgeson asked a question "Who would want to get behind it?" So let me attempt 
to answer that question.
The person(s) who would want to get behind that are the idiots who believe 
Bush's lies, i.e. the brainwashed in the country.
They're also the ones who believe that we have a democracy, freedom of speech, 
and other wonderful ideals.

So toward that end, I established a new Blog yesterday. It's called "usa is a 
corporation now" and it is at

If there is anyone on this list who feels that the US is a democracy, check out 
this Blog. Others please pass it along to people you know who think that the US 
is a democracy that we are losing.

We can't lose what we never had; we have never had a democracy.


Arlene Johnson

-----Original Message-----
>From: norgesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Aug 5, 2006 3:19 PM
>Subject: [cia-drugs] Re: C.I.A. Worker Says Message on Torture Got Her Fired
>Message to All Army Interrogators 
>Hey guys, I read the latest Esquire magazine where an Army interrogator talked 
>about interrogation techniques they used. It was shocking, but not entirely 
>surprising. What Econo-Girl found surprising was that the interrogators were 
>being lied to by military attorneys.
>The Army interrogators were told that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to 
>the people they were questioning. Why? Because the Attorney General said so. 
>Now of course, no other U.S. Attorney General has ever held that opinion and 
>no court has ever agreed with him, but never mind. The non-attorney 
>interrogators were told that if anyone went to prison for what they were 
>doing, it would be the lawyers telling them it was OK.
>Come, now. You're sober, right? How could you possibly believe that? When has 
>a pencil-necked attorney ever stuck his head out? 
>Believe Econo-Girl when she tells you that if you did it, you will be nailed 
>for it. Wasn't Ollie North? Except you won't be getting a radio show out of 
>the deal. After all, you'll be a torturer. Who would want to get behind that?
>A little escape to the beach has done a lot to clarify things for Econo-Girl. 
>Most of the post that started this whole mess was about outlining the law to 
>non-attorneys who might be put in compromising legal positions. I saw it as a 
>way of empowering them to say 'no' to prison for themselves. In retrospect, 
>that's what got me fired. Not the sentence fragment that everyone is so 
>hysterical about. I was going to expose the legal lie.
>The Importance of Being Earnest 
>When Econo-Girl made the ill-fated decision to criticize torture she was being 
>a naive fool. After all, hadn't the DoD and the CIA both decided to adhere to 
>the Geneva Conventions? I really meant what I said, but apparantly they did 
>not. Hence, the termination of employment.
>Ah, well. What's done is done and there are no regrets, although a little 
>pain. At a certain point in one's spiritual development, beliefs and actions 
>must agree. That, in the end, is what happened. It was a process I didn't have 
>full control of. There was a lot of profit in compartmentalization, after all.
>Econo-Girl has the full support of many in the intelligence field. She knows 
>this because she is continually approached and thanked for her outspokeness. I 
>thank you in return. Your words of support have meant a lot to me.
>Refuting a Defense of Torture: Saving Lives 
>A couple of recurring arguements are made to defend the practice of torture, 
>one of which is that if it will save lives. Such a discussion often goes like 
>"So if some guy knows about an attack, and torture will get him to talk, it 
>will save lives. So torture is OK then."
>The fallacy of that point is it rarely is the case that the government knows 
>exactly who knows of an impending attack. How is it that you are going to know 
>the guy sitting in front of you has the information to save lives? These 
>terrorist cells practice compartmentalization of information, so only a few 
>will know enough details to tip off authorities. How could someone tell if 
>they have that guy in custody? Of course, they won't. 
>So what are the options then? An interrogator could torture every person who 
>hits the radar screen of suspicion. You know, just in case. And the whole time 
>tell himself that he is saving lives. Another option is to choose someone who 
>seems like a leader, and torture that guy until something good comes out. Of 
>course, such things tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies. 
>This entire point of view is supported by the belief that people tell the 
>truth under physical duress. How about that they will tell you anything to get 
>the pain to stop? That seems more likely.
>--- In, Arlene Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Re: [cia-drugs] C.I.A. Worker Says Message on Torture Got Her Fired 
>Ms. Axsmith is a patriot, not unlike me.
>Arlene Johnson
>--- In, "norgesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>C.I.A. Worker Says Message on Torture Got Her Fired 
>Christine Axsmith, keeper of a blog on a secret computer network used by 
>American intelligence agencies. 
>Published: July 22, 2006
>WASHINGTON, July 21 ? A contract employee working for the Central Intelligence 
>Agency said she had been fired recently for posting a message on a classified 
>computer server that said an interrogation technique used by the agency 
>against some terror suspects amounted to torture. 
>The employee, Christine Axsmith, kept the ?Covert Communications? blog on a 
>top-secret computer network used by American intelligence agencies. Ms. 
>Axsmith was fired on Monday after C.I.A. officials objected to a message that 
>criticized the interrogation technique called ?waterboarding,? a particularly 
>harsh practice that the C.I.A. is known to have used on Khalid Sheik Mohammed, 
>who is widely regarded as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. 
>The episode has opened a window into the new world of classified blogging: an 
>experimental effort being carried out in top-secret computer forums where 
>information and ideas are shared across the intelligence community. 
>Intelligence officials said that since last year, more than 1,000 blogs had 
>been set up on classified intelligence servers. 
>Ms. Axsmith, a computer security expert with a law degree, posted the message 
>this month, shortly after the Bush administration decided to grant some 
>protections of the Geneva Conventions to suspected terrorists in American 
>custody. She said that her message began, ?Waterboarding is torture, and 
>torture is wrong.?
>Ms. Axsmith?s firing was earlier reported on several blogs including 
> on Thursday, and in Friday?s Washington Post. 
>?I wanted an in-house discussion,? Ms. Axsmith said in an interview on 
>Thursday in her home in Washington. ?Something where I would be educating 
>people on the background of the Geneva Conventions.?
>Instead, Ms. Axsmith was fired by her employer, B.A.E. Systems, which has an 
>information technology contract with the C.I.A. 
>Ms. Axsmith said C.I.A. officials had confronted her and told her that the 
>agency?s senior leadership was angry about the blog, which was housed on 
>Intelink, the classified server maintained by the American intelligence 
>community to aid communication among its employees. 
>Besides losing her job, Ms. Axsmith also lost her top-secret security 
>clearance, which she had held since 1993 and used for previous work for the 
>State Department and National Counterterrorism Center.
>She said she feared that her career in the intelligence world was over. ?It 
>was like I was wiped out,? she said. 
>A spokesman for B.A.E. Systems, Bob Hastings, said privacy issues prohibited 
>him from commenting on Ms. Axsmith?s firing. But Mr. Hastings said that 
>company policy prohibited employees from using computers for non-official 
>Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that the blogs were intended to 
>?encourage collaboration? on business issues but that postings ?should relate 
>directly to the official business of the author and readers of the Web site.?
>The C.I.A. denies that it uses torture to extract information from prisoners, 
>although a 2004 report by the agency?s inspector general concluded that some 
>of its interrogation practices appeared to constitute cruel, inhuman and 
>degrading treatment. 
>In waterboarding, the interrogation technique that Ms. Axsmith criticized, a 
>prisoner is strapped to a board and then made to feel as if he is drowning.
>In March 2005, Porter J. Goss, who was then the C.I.A. director, described 
>waterboarding as a ?professional interrogation technique?; American military 
>pilots and commandos are known to have been subjected to it during highly 
>classified training regimes designed to prepare them to live in captivity. 
>The use of the practice, along with the agency?s detention of approximately 
>three dozen ?high value detainees? in secret jails, has made some C.I.A. 
>employees uneasy and has prompted a debate within the intelligence community. 
>Ms. Axsmith said she believed that the ?vast majority? of people working for 
>the C.I.A. were opposed to torture.
>And, she said that she believed that the classified blogs could be a critical 
>tool to allow C.I.A. employees ? who are often prohibited from discussing 
>their work even with other agency officials ? to vent frustrations. 
>?The blogs are a safety valve for people to discuss controversial topics,? she 
>said. ?It reduces the chances that people may leak to the press.? 
>In April, the C.I.A. fired Mary O. McCarthy, a longtime employee, for having 
>unauthorized contacts with the news media. 
>Though stripped of her security clearance, Ms. Axsmith still maintains her 
>public, unclassified blog: On that Web site on 
>Friday, there were several messages supporting her, including postings from 
>anonymous intelligence officials who said that they would miss her ?Covert 
>Communications? blog. 
>Ms. Axsmith acknowledges that the posting that got her fired was deliberately 
>provocative, and she said that if she had another chance she might have toned 
>down the language. 
>?I guess I?m just too much of a big mouth for that organization,? she said. 

Complete archives at

Please let us stay on topic and be civil. 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to