What happens to a conspiracy revealed?

[David Morris]

This is a good answer, and the right question to ask:

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/politics/dianne-feinstein-cia-031214

But the offenses against the Constitution here are not isolated merely to
the clear violation of separation of powers that plainly occurred. That's
bad enough. But the deeper offense against the Constitution is found in
what the Senate and the CIA are fighting over. The whole hooley is about
torture, and it is about public accountability, and it is -- or should be
-- about identifying what precisely was done in our names for the purpose
of shaming the people responsible for it so permanently and profoundly that
they are disqualified from public life for the rest of their days.
------------
*The dueling claims exposed bitterness and distrust that have soared to new
levels as the committee nears completion of a 6,000-page report that is
expected to serve as a scathing historical record of the agency's use of
waterboarding and other brutal interrogation methods on terrorism suspects
held at secret CIA prisons overseas after the attacks of Sept. 11,
2001. Displaying flashes of anger during her floor speech, Feinstein said
her committee would soon deliver the report to the White House and push for
declassification of a document that lays bare "the horrible details of the
CIA program that never, never, never should have existed."*
----------
[...]
The point is the report and the point is torture and the point is the
absolute right of the American people to know the full history of what was
done in our name. Every horrible bit of it. Keeping that report secret is
nothing more than allowing the cancer with which the Avignon Presidency
infected the government to further metastasize, and to cover the asses of
the criminals who committed the crimes. What this controversy needs is
another Otis Pike, another Dan Schorr. What it needs, seriously, is its own
Edward Snowden.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> how would you suggest we deal with these people? Has the government,
> particularly Cheney and Co., taken advantage of the situation to marshall a
> brutal, illegal and rather unsubtle political strategy? Of course. But
> dudes like Awlaki are still there, and some of them won't be playing nice.
>
> I'm all for proper oversight. I doubt these decisions are made lightly.
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Monte Davis wrote:
>
> > Luc Herman & Steven Weisenburger, _Gravity's Rainbow, Domination &
> Freedom_, p. 197:
> >
> > . "It's eminently fair," says Roger Mexico to Jessica Swanlake early in
> the novel. "Everyone's equal. Same chances of getting hit. Equal in the
> eyes of the rocket." Roger is riffing on the phrase "equal in the eyes of
> the law," signifying on how the rocket has become the law, sovereign unto
> itself.
>
>  I had written  this earlier: The largest consequence of conspiracies
> revealed and ignored is the replacement of law with violence and the
> replacement of original accountable individual language with ideological
> propaganda, self congratulation, passive acquiecence or social pleasantries.
>
> This Weisenburger quote has me further considering this issue of language
> and violence particularly in light of the way the individualized
> programmable robot bombers have become an actuality in the drone. Wow. The
> language that is deployed here is Orwellian, but the principle has been
> used by Nazis Romans and many others. The most effective violence is
> violence that goes unchallenged and gets internalized  in the minds of the
> population as 'safety' and is seen as  only relevant to distant anonymous
> shady dangerous people from an unpopular group.
>  Law is no longer seen as the product of Jeffersonian ideas about the
> consent of the governed but the internal imperial deliberations of a benign
> but angry God.
>
> > The idea of this, as Pynchon well understood in 1973, involves other
> magnitudes of in­quiry. The questions at stake are not only legal and moral
> but ontological, in­volving an order of quasi-beings, or programmable
> (even, decision-making) robots, to do Their killing. Thus also at stake are
> matters of political theol­ogy, entailing what if anything a sovereign
> power may not do, a question of just whom executive authority may count as
> having reached a degree-zero of humanity, a rightsless condition warranting
> enslavement or killing. The mat­ters at stake are also theological, as new
> practices of utterly inescapable and seemingly random "death from above"
> tend to signify. The Calvinist Jona­than Edwards, who famously sermonized
> on "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (1741), understood quite well the
> holy terror of such a death.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:31 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Sure, countries have their reasons. Why judge them? If British
> intelligence thinks they've spotted an al Qaeda cell in my neighborhood,
> and accidentally drops a bomb on my house, why judge them? Hey, it was a
> judgment call. Average people around the world have good reasons for doing
> what they do. Why judge them for murder, for rape, for torturing babies?
> They have their reasons. Who are we to judge? Law is a ridiculous
> imposition of some people's morality on someone else. Why even bother with
> it?
> >
> > Laura
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rich
> > Sent: Mar 10, 2014 3:05 PM
> > To: kelber
> > Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org"
> > Subject: Re: What happens to a conspiracy revealed?
> >
> > when you know they have been or are actively engaged in planning
> terrorist operations like Awalaki? i have no problem with that frankly.
> russians have been doing it so has iran iraq, the UK, Israel, etc. thats
> what cover ops is about. is it moral? can we judge what countries do in
> moral terms? i'm not so sure
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:47 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> > It is all out in the open. See: Jeremy Scahill's book (or documentary
> version) Dirty Wars. That was my original point: it doesn't change anything
> when these clandestine activities are aired.
> >
> > So, Rich, when the US perceives someone's rhetoric as a threat, it's OK
> to go into whatever country houses them and murder them, collateral damage
> be damned? I assume then, that this response is also OK for Russia, for
> Iran, for North Korea, etc.?
> >
> > Laura
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rich
> > Sent: Mar 10, 2014 2:33 PM
> > To: Monte Davis
> > Cc: kelber
> > Subject: Re: What happens to a conspiracy revealed?
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20140312/3f14074f/attachment.html>