nerdgirl

I don't know the context in which this comment is being made. I don't understand. (My lack of inderstanding not yours.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That sounds a lot closer to the overall message of Judge Sotomayer's speech than much of the discussion revolving around a 32-word selectively culled excerpt has reflected thus far. You mean when she suggests that jurists ought to selectively choose which of their own prejudices to impose upon their decisions? She doesn't do that. That's the point. The rest of the story. There is no "ought to" or "should" other than being vigilant to recognize that one's own experience, whethr upper-class black or lower-class white, will have some baring one's perspective. Need to recognize that in order to reach the Finch ideal. And a lot more. She's tousling -- uses words like "wonder" and "continuously pondering" -- with complex ideas. It's not a 15-second sound bite, as much as some would like to reduce it to that. And, in some ways, she does address that as well: "However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care." Not sure I agree with the 2nd sentence ... think it's stubborness much, much more often than an inherant limitation of ability. But I see the 1st & 3rd play out too often, imo. She suggests something a lot closer to your recollection of the Atticus Finch ideal than much of the discussion revolving around a 32-word selectively culled excerpt. Please see the large excerpt in the OP or the full speech. Then that sounds like you want a judge like Judge Sotomayer: "I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

For discussion of one example of her part of an appellate decision *not* to make new policy or legislate from the bench please see my comments on Maloney v Cuomo. In that decision, the appelate court decided to look to the settled law at the time, acknowledging that the case may need to go to the SCOTUS to reconcile Presser v. Illinois, with District of Columbia v. Heller. As a non-lawyer, that sounds pretty reasonable. The per curium position, of which Judge Sotomayor was a part, was non-activist. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

She didn't say "law must celebrate diversity." She said something closer to it being "appropriate in other settings" and recognizing that pretending differences don't exist, including pretending residual racism & sexism doesn't still exist, does not benefit the legal process, i.e., acknowledging the need to be vigilent. That sounds a lot closer to the overall message of Judge Sotomayer's speech than much of the discussion revolving around a 32-word selectively culled excerpt has reflected thus far. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the summary. Can you recommend a short (

When I was in college, Robbie Conal did a poster of then-Gov Pete Wilson with mickey mouse ears. La Raza at my undergrad did volunteer work representing low-wage workers on claims for unpaid wages and unsafe working conditions. They represented not only Latin American and Mexican but also Asians, blacks, and lower class whites. They were involved in a successful claims against a number of downtown LA sweatshops in the garment district, including a couple of wrongful death suits for which the owners were found liable. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Why? Isn’t that an example of States rights? States getting to decide for themselves what laws they want, and what they deem reasonable laws? From the CNSNews.com article: “The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights. “The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’” A number of States have tried, thus far with mixed results, to restrict incorporation of the Ninth Amendment, particularly w/r/t a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body. Lots of folks have argued that States should be able to limit that right. I don’t want to have *any* of the basic Constitutional rights limited. Any. Don’t trade one for another. A little more on the case, Maloney v. Cuomo, than was written about in the CNSNews.com article. One summary and analysis: “Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion [i.e., group opinion, not any single individual’s opinion - nerdgirl] in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year [Fall 2009 - nerdgirl]. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was ‘settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose’ on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.’ [I don’t know Plesser v Illinois … may be an interesting example of expansion of 2nd amendment rights from what the SCOTUS decided in 1886 to 2008 Heller decision … & that’s not a bad thing, imo – nerdgirl] And while acknowledging the possibility that ‘Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,’ the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it ‘directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’ Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.” That seems to suggest that the appellate decision chose *not* to make new policy or legislate from the bench. Rather they chose to look to the settled law at the time, acknowledging that the case may need to go to the SCOTUS to reconcile Presser v. Illinois, with District of Columbia v. Heller. As a non-lawyer, that sounds pretty reasonable. The per curium, of which Judge Sotomayor was a part, position was anti-activist. Another summary (written, at times, in a biting acerbic tone … a long-lost Speakers Corner cousin, eh? ): “Sotomayor sat on a 2nd Circuit panel that issued a ruling in Maloney v. Cuomo that touched on a number of sensitive issues. Because it’s a per curiam opinion (which is sort of like a group project) it’s unclear how much of it can be attributed to Sotomayor. “Mr. Maloney was Long Island resident with a dark secret: he owned a set of nunchucks. And, apparently in fit of anti-ninja zeal, New York had outlawed nunchucks. Mr. Maloney was arrested and charged with possession of nunchucks. The nunchucks were destroyed. (I don’t know why they were destroyed—but I guessing they got tired of the new guys on the squad trying to play Ninja Turtles and hurting themselves.) “It didn’t end there. Mr. Maloney had another dark secret: he was a lawyer. [he may have an even darker secret … see below – nerdgirl] A crime-fighting, nunchuck toting lawyer. Or, maybe he just owned a pair of nunchucks. I don’t know. The point is, he sued, claiming that New Yorks nunchucks ban violated his second amendment right to bear arms. “This is a tough case for the conservatives—because it involves three cherished conservative principles. The right to bear arms, federalism, and nunchucks. On one hand, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. On the other hand, an 1886 case clearly stated that this applied only to Federal actions. Of course, a lot has changed since 1886—particularly when it comes to incorporating the 14th amendment against the states. So there’s some wiggle room in there if you want it. “The judges determined that they were bound by the 1886 ruling that explicitly said the 2nd amendment did not apply to the states unless the Supreme Court revisited the issue. Since a ninth circuit case came to an opposite conclusion, this case or one similar to it is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.” Mr. Maloney’s site on the court battle, which interestingly is hosted by NYU, with which he is affiliated in an unspecified way – my guess is he’s working on a PhD in law, i.e., his darker secret – he’s an academic. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

When I heard those 32 words the first time, I cringed. Did the mental substitution of “white upper class male” for “Latina woman” … … it’s . I also wondered what was the context … or more precisely was it being quoted out of context? h/t to [nerd137] for providing the link to the full speech. All 3,930 words of it. More from Judge Sotomayer’s speech: “We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.”“The statistics [which Judge Sotomayer cites in the speech, im-ever-ho are more indicting of residual racism than anything Judge Sotomayor has said/had quoted out of context - nerdgirl] I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. [i.e., here's the genesis of the topic and intellectual dsicussion that eventually leads to "the 32-word" quote - nerdgirl] “Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. “For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.[i.e., she's talking about an issue that was part of scholarly legal discussion at the time.-nerdgirl] “Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then ‘as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically’ but instead of ‘acting intuitively.’ “While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.” Anybody seen the quote I highlighted in blue above before? Or heard discussion of that part of the speech? That’s completely contradictory to the assertions of racism based on a selectively excerpted 32-words. “That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects.” “Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.” Now there’s wisdom, imo. Instead of arrogantly pretending, she’s acknowledging a need to check one’s one assumptions. Not defensive about it. Acknowledging and working. Should not be novel … but perhaps is a novel perspective too often. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sharing - with explicit permission – something from a dz.commer who prefers to maintain anonymity: Think there are comments that range from valid to wise in there. The ones specific to the vegetable aisle and a 3-way resonate less for me personally than the more general ones on love & dynamics of working at a good relationship with an SO, whether it be about a 3-way, who gets to control the remote, or finances. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for all the comments. Had not initially expected the plurality to see any kind/arrangement of a 3-way as a problem. Sometimes it’s neat to get unexpected responses.

“nerdgirl@....” is one of my email aliases on my primary mail server. When I got to my current employer, I was surprised that no one had claimed it given the high number of hardcore geeks around. But that high geek population also corresponds to an overall population ~80% male, so nerdgirl wouldn’t make much sense for most of the guys. I don’t have a bar alias. If someone/thing needs an identified that I recognize, i.e., the waiting list at a restaurant, “Esmerelda” is my usual ‘alias.’ (They don’t really need my name, just need something we both share as a marker/indicator.) When I was in grad school, the gym had a sign-up sheet for stairmasters, ellipticals, etc. To me, that was another example of not really needing my name, so an alias would work. I used to work my way through the alphabet with themes: Greek Goddesses, scientists, writers, constellations, countries. Most of the time, no one cared; a guy did ask me one time if my name really was “Tunisia.” It was a silly lil’ game that I played for fun. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Only if you can video. [Seriously not me, at least afaik, ... & if it was, I wouldn't be advertising it on the internet. Sorry to dissapoint the 2 or 3 of ya.] Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

After dinner with a few close female friends (from outside the skydiving community) last weekend, one of them asked for input (essentially advice) on an ongoing discussion with her boyfriend. He asked if she would be willing to have a 3-way with another woman. She’s game to try … but she wants him to be willing to take part in a 3-way with another man too. They’re both in their mid-thirties. They’ve been living together for a few years and dating for about five years. So what do you think? Reasonable request? Outrageous? Curious what others might have suggested, especially the guys. /Marg … sitting in National airport, waiting to go home… Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur heartily. The Ninth is among my most favorite amendments. Privacy includes, imo, what things you keep in your house, where you keep, and extends to what you keep on/do with your body. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Most seismic estimates seem to be putting the yield at 2-8kT. The Russian estimates (10-20kt) are way whacked … & they stubbornly seem to be sticking to them. Using the Nevada Test Site “underground explosions of announced yield” data for correlation, Monday’s yield corresponds to ~1.6 kT. AFAIK, the DPRK has chosen a plutonium-based design. Last June, the Yongbyon water cooling tower was blown up. Without the cooling tower, the DPRK can’t produce more Pu. (They can rebuild the tower, but they haven’t.) Estimates of DPRK plutonium produced range from 7kg (low-end) to 40kg (high-end). US estimates are ~30kgs. Sig Hecker (formely LANL now Stanford), who’s been to the DPRK’s nuclear facilities, estimated 35 kg. A Pu-based nuclear device requires 4 to 8 kg. The October 2009 test fizzled. The yield of this one appears to be small. By comparison, the first test of a US Pu-based nuclear device, Trinity, had a yield of 20kt. Why can’t the North Koreans get at least 10kT? What’s so screwed up there? … (okay, maybe that latter question is more rhetorical.) Most folks estimate the DPRK to have enough Pu for 4 to 8 tests/devices. Play out one scenario: they’re using up their deterrent capability. Given the more recent down-estimates of the yield of this recent test, a couple technical security folks have tossed around the idea that this was large conventional explosive. Conventional explosives can create 1-8 kt yields, albeit that’s a lot. I don’t think so … but it plays to the regime’s brinkmanship behavior, and it does push the metaphorical buttons of some. The Xenon & Krypton cloud (two long-lived atomic tracers) should be reaching monitoring stations outside of DPRK soon, if not already. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have a link for that? Specifically for long range ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead capability? I think you may have aggregated two different things that isn't the case. I also suspect you’re not the only one. And if it was purely academic, it might not matter … but since the consequences do matter and the implications for USG policy matter, it does matter. Missiles: The DPRK has not demonstrated LRBM capabilities. Do they want them? Yes. Want does not equal have. As always, don’t trust me. VCJS GEN Cartwright’s (USMC) comments w/r/t DPRK’s most recent failed rocket test: “they failed.” W/r/t proliferation (selling around the world) “Would you buy from some body who failed three times in a row and never been successful.” (~43min in CSPAN video on 2010 Defense budget.) DRPK has had the Nodong (short-range) and TD-2 idea for years. It’s not recent. Nuclear test: An underground nuclear test does not equal device does not equal device capable of being carried by a missile and detonated remotely. The first US device looked like a something from a Hollywood caricature of something from a 1950s Hollywood sci-fi flic: the gadget. The 2nd and 3rd nuclear devices were delivered by airplane. Developing a nuclear device capable of being delivered by LRBM is not as simple as a gravity bomb dropped from the bomb bay of a B29. All of that is not to say that *concern* -- really, really serious concern -- is not appropriate. Hyperbole or incorrect information doesn’t serve useful purpose, imo (unless one’s arguing for intentional political propaganda, at which the DPRK excels.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Aaah yes, the ‘make Mearsheimer look like a wimp approach.’ *Really* offensive realism. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m marginally surprised that it took *this* long for them to do another “test.” They told us they were going to do it after the early April TD-2 rocket failure. The DPRK excels at brinkmanship. Setting up an underground nuclear test isn’t an instantaneous endeavor … but the fact that it took this long is a lot more interesting to me speculatively. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I thought this was cute and cool response from SecDef Gates. Gates Hails Soldier Snapped in Pink Boxer Shorts “Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Thursday praised an Army soldier in eastern Afghanistan who drew media attention this month after rushing to defend his post from attack while wearing pink boxer shorts and flip-flops, Reuters reported. Any soldier who goes into battle against the Taliban in pink boxers and flip-flops has a special kind of courage. I can only wonder about the impact on the Taliban. Just imagine seeing that: a guy in pink boxers and flip-flops has you in his cross-hairs. What an incredible innovation in psychological warfare. “Army Specialist Zachary Boyd, 19, of Fort Worth, Texas, rushed from his sleeping quarters on May 11 to join fellow platoon members at a base in Afghanistan's Kunar Province after the unit came under fire from Taliban positions. “A news photographer was on hand to record the image of Boyd standing at a makeshift rampart in helmet, body armor, red T-shirt and boxers emblazoned with the message: ‘I love NY.’” Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In Congressional hearings, former DCI Hayden indicated that he officially prohibited the use of waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques by the CIA interrogations in February 2006, well before the Obama administration: “It [waterboarding] is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute.” It was not viewed as a "necessary tool" by DCI Hayden during the Bush administration. Hayden was the same CIA Director who declassified and released the CIA’s “Family Jewels.” There’s also purportedly a classified Executive Order from President Bush prohibiting use of waterboarding and enhanced interrogation methods. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I think the term High Inquisitor is what they prefer. Not to be confused with the Grand Inquisitor. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Obviously I don't have access to CIA studies, as they are and should remain secret. There are quite a few unclassified CIA, FOIA'd CIA studies, and other declassified CIA & IC studies available. As well as CIA funded studies. So yes, you, me, & everyone else on the internet, do have access to many CIA studies ... whether one extends the effort to track down primary documents is another issue. Four memos from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel were declassified; to which one are you referring? I know that waterboarding has been studied; it’s been found to not be effective. I asked for studies supporting your claim (quoted above). Human intelligence (HUMINT) gathering is not same as interrogation. In late 2001, the CIA did not have significant capabilities in interrogation; they largely coordinated with the FBI, who did/does have significant experience. (From an interagency rivalry perspective, it’s notable that the CIA went to the DOJ/FBI rather than to the DIA or military intelligence agencies.) One can also argue as to the extent of the CIA's HUMINT capabilities in the Muslim world (as opposed to residual "Fulda Gap" mentality and the unreformed Soviet specialists), but that's a different discussion. Some examples of studies: From 2006, the DNI’s Intelligence Science Board (ISB) review, which includes members from the CIA (i.e., ITIC) “Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art: Foundations for the Future,” concluded: “(1) pain does not elicit intelligence known to prevent greater harm; (2) the use of pain is counterproductive both in a tactical and strategic sense; (3) chemical and biological methods are unreliable; (4) research tends to indicate that ‘educing’ information without the use of harsh interrogation is more valuable.” The ISB also noted, what one might call the ‘Jack Bauer’ effect: “A major stumbling block to the study of interrogation, and especially to the conduct of interrogation in field operations, has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the discipline.” “Most observers, even those within professional circles, have unfortunately been influenced by the media’s colorful (and artificial) view of interrogation as almost always involving hostility and the employment of force — be it physical or psychological — by the interrogator against the hapless, often slow-witted subject.” (p. 95) At the other end of the historical spectrum, there are a large number of studies: “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions from Air Force Prisoners of War” Bull N Y Acad Med. 1957; “The Methods of Interrogation and Indoctrination Used by the Communist State Police,” Bull N Y Acad Med. 1957 (pdf available freely); “Effects of Communist indoctrination attempts: Some comments based on an Air Force prisoner-of-war Study,” 1959 (PM me if you want a pdf for personal or educational use). It’s not that aren’t available studies; it’s just that the studies don’t seem to support the claim that ““The CIA has ... a graduated set of techniques with waterboarding up at/near the top.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Would you identify some of the "crucial results"? The most crucial results from KSM were obtained off his laptop. After waterboarding KSM confessed to everything from a plot to assassinate former President Carter to a plot to kill Pope John Paul II to the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Some of the things he claimed to have been responsible would have required him to be in multiple places at the same time. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also compares himself to President George Washington – I doubt that is what you mean by "crucial results." W/r/t the 2nd detainee who the CIA confirmed was waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah, the crucial results gained from Abu Zubaydah, the leading piece that is mentioned – the identity of Ramzi bin al Shibh – was already known (FBI agent Dennis Lormel told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002, i.e., a month before Abu Zubaydah was even apprehended) and was confirmed through traditional interrogation methods employed by the FBI before the CIA contractors arrived. The 3rd terrorist on whom the former CIA Director acknowledged “enhanced interrogation” techniques were used including waterboarding, Abd al Rahim al Nashiri, made up a long list of al Qa’eda plots and attacks so his captors would stop torturing him, even telling interrogators that Osama bin Laden had a nuclear bomb. Al Nashiri, in all likelihood, had very useful information. What was lost & how many opportunities were wasted because ‘enhanced interrogation’ methods were used? When the signal to noise ratio becomes so low, it ceases to be effective for anything other than distracting US investigatory efforts. Information obtained through torture by third-party states has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thus far every supposed example offered by Mr. Cheney, et al., e.g., interdicting the planned attack on Los Angeles library tower, has proven to not be true. Not being part of the Obama administration, my experienced speculation is it's due to (1) lawyers, (2) the arduous declassification process, and (3) ongoing litigation. At this point I do agree that what we have largely is Mr Cheney and former DCI Hayden making, thus far unsupported general assertions, i.e., "just saying it didn't work." On the other side there are transcripts of evidence release by the DoD, DoD reports (led by active duty general officers), statements of experienced operators and the testimony under oath of individuals who interrogated successfully radical Islamists, false information generated through torture that led to bad intelligence being passed along to US policy makers (e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi), historical examples of waterboarding producing false confessions, 60+ years of experience on what does work (e.g., the traditional interogation methods), etc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying