Positive Liberty

I will post the answers to my questions as they come in.

Here are some from an anarcho-capitalist blogger.

Some answers from insufficiently advanced.

Blargh Blog has answers here, and adds “I wrote another post about your 10 Questions post, which is less in keeping with the respectful tone that you requested, though some might say that you were asking for it.” Well, that’s always helpful and conducive to conversation, eh?

Reader Alan Scott answers:

Well, actually, nine answers and one “could you restate the question”. But
here’s a response to your questions:

1) When the war itself is justified. pre-emptive is just a tactic.

2) We might be “justified” quite often. But that doesn’t make it a good Idea. In practice, our stepping in to remove dictators only tends to make things worse for everyone involved. Positive revolutionary change must come from within a society to be effective.

3) Yes. While it’s foolish to suppose that Islamic terrorists represent no threat whatsoever, it’s clear that terrorism is being used as scapegoat to boost the power of certain politicians and avoid dealing with other, more significant problems that our nation faces.

4) Try to stop it via diplomatic means if convenient, but otherwise allow it to continue. Right now, the greatest threat to Iran is internal reform and revolution, and I couldn’t be happier that Iran is spending its resources to develop weapons that can’t effectively be used on one’s own people.

5) No. The United States has no business giving military aid to any country that commits itself to the level of segregation seen in Israel. Isreal, in the 21st century, still has anti-miscegenation laws enforced. The US should not be supporting such a nation, and “enemy of my enemy” notions need to be put aside.

6) No.

7) No.

8) By comparable do you mean equal? Then no. But infringements of religious sensitivities and personal sensibilities, like torture, are both forms of personal degredation and violation. They differ in degree of violation (and corresponding degree of permissibility). Importantly, though, infringements of religious sensitivities are also violating and intsulting to those who hold similar religious beliefs, but are not, and have never been enemies or terrorist. In fact, such actions could resonably be construed as state-sanctioned religious favoritism, and therefore a violation of the first ammendment.

9) I don’t understand what you mean by this question. Sorry.

10) Not specifically, However, it’s clear that the administration either (a) mislead congress and the American people regarding the intelligence, or (b) handled it with extreme incompetence. I’m not sure which I find more troubling, and in either case, I think that the administration has a lot to answer for.

Liberty And Reason has answers here.

Greg Prince’s Blog has answers, but you have to scroll down to get them, because the permalink doesn’t seem to work.

Gene Berkman of Renaissance Books in Riverside, California (an excellent libertarian bookshop which I highly recommend) answers:

1) When is pre-emptive war justified?

Under international law, a state can engage in a pre-emptive attack only when it is clear that it is about to be attacked - troops massed on the border, or missiles aimed, and one or more declarations or statemtents from the threatening power that an attack is about to be launched. Under this standard, of course, Iraq would have been justified pre-emptively attacking US military targets in early 2003, because President Bush had made clear his intention to launch an attack on Iraq

(2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?

If a dictator orders an attack on the United States, then, in the course of responding to that attack, the US may be justified in regime change.

(3) Do you agree with the position…that Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration to increase its authority?

Islamic terrorism is a threat, but it has also been hyped by the Bush administration to justify its attack on the secular socialist dictatorship in Iraq, and to justify limits on the freedoms of Americans, few of whom are Islamic terrorists

(4) Precisely what (if anything) do you propose the United States do about the Iranian nuclear weapons program?

I’m not sure what we can do militarily, since our troops are bogged down in Iraq; the Iraqi government, run by Shi’ites will not let us use Iraq as a base to attack Iran. Diplomatically we also have problems, because nobody can believe anything the President of the United States says in international affairs.

(5) Do you believe that the United States should defend Israel, either militarily, by the sale of arms, or in other ways (please specify)?

We can make Israel more secure possibly by decreasing, rather than increasing military tensions in the Middle East (see the Stephen Zunes column at www.atimes.com for January 11, 2006.

Or we could, as Paul Craig Roberts has suggested, invite all the Israeli Jews to move to the U.S., where the US military can protect them within our borders, without making more enemies in the Middle East.

(6) Can you name a specific case in which an American dissenter, not actually affiliated with a terrorist organization, has been jailed or otherwise deprived of civil rights under the PATRIOT Act?

There have been cases, such as the Oregon lawyer falsely charged with aiding the Madrid bombers, where in fact American citizens who were not guilty were charged under the Patriot Act or similar anti-terror laws.

(7) Do you believe that we ought to remove American troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences to Iraqis?

Many war supporters in 2003 promised that our troops would be in and out of Iraq in 30 days. The goal of the war - to remove Iraq’s WMD threat has been accomplished. Why exactly are we still there? In any case, since American troops kill innocent Iraqis, and at the same time provide a issue to aid the recruitment of the “insurgents” (as Bush calls them) it looks like the Iraqi people would be better off with our troops out of the country.

(8) With regard to interrogation or incarceration: do you believe that infringements of religious sensitivities (e.g., mistreating the Koran) or personal sensibilities (e.g., making men wear women’s underwear on their heads) ought to be regarded as comparable with physical torture?

Neither of these are comparable to physical torture. They are both assaults on human dignity by an administration that has shown a complete disregard for the dignity of the individual

(9) What, if any, legal consequences do you believe flow from a declaration of war?

Our military has the right to engage in combat against the military of the declared enemy. Our intelligence agencies have the right to spy on the military, political and intelligence operatives of the declared enemy.

A declaration of war does not give the President the power to rule as a military dictator. The Founders made the President commander-in-chief in order to safeguard civilian control of the military and to prevent a military dictatorship.

I don’t know how relevant this question is, since the Congress has not passed a declaration of war. There is no constitutional basis for an “authorization of force” so it is not at all clear what the legal consequences of the current situation are.

(10) Do you believe that the Bush Administration purposely manipulated intelligence information in order to persuade the Congress to authorize military intervention in Iraq?

Yes, and the evidence is overwhelming in this case.

Reader James Feldman writes,

I think you misunderstood question 8 (Matt didn’t word them too carefully, did he?). The examples you are using involved the National Guard. What I believe Matt is asking is about whether the regular Army and Air Force should be involved in domestic affairs. Posse Comitatus currently prevents this, but in the wake of Katrina, the Bush administration has proposed changing the law to permit activity by the regular Army and Air Force in domestic affairs. These same rules also affect the domestic use of the NSA, which is funded and commanded through the US Army.

Reader Abel writes,

First, let me lead off that I would tend to categorize myself as an anti-war libertarian. I did not want to get involved in Iraq and wasn’t even sure that a full-scale war in Afghanistan was the best course of action (the latter position probably puts me in a more anti-war position than most anti-war libertarians). I also take issue with your proposal of refering to libertarians who support the wars in Afghanistan and (more particularly) Iraq as “pro-victory.” You may not be “pro-war” in the sense that you seek it out, but anti-war libertarians could no more accurately be described as anti-victory, or pro-defeat, as even the most pacifist among them are unlikely to hope for the fruition of terrorists’ goals. That said, my answers:

1) When, if ever, is preemptive war is justified?

I would consider a preemptive war justified if it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the nation to be invaded (or the government thereof) was preparing a war-scale assault on the United States.

I would consider military operations within another country aimed at terrorists within that country justified if it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorists were preparing a significant assault on the United States or its citizens abroad. (I know that “significant” is a vague term. I can imagine a principled argument that the military is justified in taking out terrorists if they are preparing any assault on a U.S. citizen. But practically speaking, military action in a foreign country may create additional dangers to U.S. citizens–not to mention innocent foreigners–so such things would have to be taken into account.)

2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?

Similar answer to the above. The dictator must be posing a significant threat to the life, liberty or property of U.S. citizens. I would be far more ready to off a dictator than to invade and occupy “his” country, though. I (similar to yourself, I imagine) have no concern or remorse for the ill end of dictators. It’s just that they seem to have an annoying habit of wrapping up the fate of their innocent masses with themselves.

3) Do you agree with the position—recently quoted approvingly on this blog by Dr. Kuznicki—that Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration to increase its authority?

(Note: I haven’t read the article that you link two) This is actually two questions. First, is Islamic terrorism a serious threat? Probably less of one than traffic accidents and domestic homicide. It certainly doesn’t stand a chance of toppling the U.S., or ending civilization as many conservatives seem to think. That doesn’t mean it’s a problem that ought not to be dealt with. However, I would contend that like many maladies in the U.S., it is largely one of the government’s making. I do not believe that sans U.S. foreign policy of the past several decades Islamic terrorists would have the will to attack us. Now that the problem has come to a head I’m not certain that a radical reversal of U.S. behavior abroad will end the problem. But I am certain that intensifying the trends of the past will exacerbate it.

Second, is it a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration? Yes and no. There seems to be no policy undertaken by the administration that it doesn’t support based on “the lessons of 9/11.” Is it all a plot to rule the U.S. a la Stalin and Hitler? No. Is it cynical opportunism? Probably to some extent. Is it heartfelt and earnest? Probably to a greater extent, but that’s small comfort. I would rather be oppressed by an opportunist than a true believer. I have a better chance of disincentivizing the opportunist. The true believer is likely to oppress me no matter what I offer or threaten, and regardless of any change in external circumstances.

4) Precisely what (if anything) do you propose the United States do about the Iranian nuclear weapons program?

I doubt that a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat to the U.S. I find fears of Iran (or any established government) passing nukes to terrorists somewhat far-fetched. That said, I also wouldn’t consider nukes in the hands of the Iranian government a positive development. I would not favor invasion, and would also not likely favor targetted strikes on their facilities (though I can imagine scenarios in which I would favor the latter). I would favor diplomacy and (though I’m sure it’s a libertarian cliche) revoking our sanctions and dampening their incentives to do anything rash.

5) Do you believe that the United States should defend Israel, either militarily, by the sale of arms, or in other ways (please specify)?

Having lived in Israel, I have a little background on this. I see no principled problem selling arms to the Israelies. I’m not a fan of giving them buckets of money for their military (I think the figure was something like $6 billion annually when I lived there; I’ve no idea what it is now). Israel is not a defenseless group of refugees. With only a few million citizens its economy absolutely smokes its far larger neighbors, and its military is second to none in the immediate vicinity. Refusing to prop it up further would probably force Israel to deal more humanely and humbly with its Palestinian population, which I would consider a positive development.

6) Can you name a specific case in which an American dissenter, not actually affiliated with a terrorist organization, has been jailed or otherwise deprived of civil rights under the PATRIOT Act?

I cannot. I’m not sure if that’s because there have been no such cases or because I don’t spend my time researching it, and I’m not sure which is the more likely reason. Regardless, the PATRIOT Act makes me uncomfortable in that until we have barbarians beating down the gates, I will always consider my own government to be a greater threat to my liberty (and possibly life) than any foreign government or terrorist. (This is not because my government is less moral or freedom loving than foreign governments or terrorists. It’s just because I don’t usually fall under the jurisdiction of foreign governments and terrorists.)

7) Do you believe that we ought to remove American troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences to Iraqis?

Tough one, though I will note that we invaded regardless of the consequences to Iraqis. As I recall the Iraqis were of considerably less importance to the war’s justification before the weapons failed to materialize. (The Iraqi citizens always seemed to me to be the trump card: Saddam’s dangerous, he is affiliated with terrorists, he has WMD which he will likely hand over to them, and even if none of that is true, he’s really mean to his citizens.)

The honest answer is, now that we’re there I honestly have no idea what the best course of action is. I imagine it lies somewhere between immediate withdrawal and “stay the course.” Generally, I would say the sooner we leave, the better, as I consider our presence there an exacerbating influence on the dangers of Islamic terrorism.

I will note that this question is a bit self-serving to those in favor of the war. I considered the war a fool’s errand from the get-go (even though I was pretty sure Saddam had the weapons). Now that there is significant evidence that I was right, it’s a bit much for supporters of the war to ask me for a solution to the problem. I never told anyone I knew how to fight a war or build a nation effectively. I just said I had a good idea when we shouldn’t do either.

8) With regard to interrogation or incarceration: do you believe that infringements of religious sensitivities (e.g., mistreating the Koran) or personal sensibilities (e.g., making men wear women’s underwear on their heads) ought to be regarded as comparable with physical torture?

Of course not. But on practical grounds (and some moral) I still don’t think they should be practiced.

9) What, if any, legal consequences do you believe flow from a declaration of war?

I’m not sure whose consequences you’re talking about (consequences to U.S. citizens, enemy soldiers/combatants, foreign innocents, etc.). However, I will admit that even if I did I doubt I would have a full and coherent answer to your question.

10) Do you believe that the Bush Administration purposely manipulated intelligence information in order to persuade the Congress to authorize military intervention in Iraq?

No: I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding manipulation. I think the most likely scenario is that they had confirmatory bias (as I believe all people, myself included, do to one extent or another). Exhibit A, B, and C are evidence in the case for invading, so they are taken as credible. Exhibits X, Y, and Z are evidence for the other side, so they are not. It’s not a stretch to imagine that such behavior from the administration steered the intelligence community (consciously or otherwise) to gear their behavior toward giving the boss what he wanted. I also believe the Bush administration is probably less open to considering opposing views than most past administrations. This probably exacerbated the vicious cycle.

non-ecumenical ramblings has responses here.

Reader Jason Ward writes some answers to Welch’s original questions,

I don’t know of any person who’s “Pro war”. I think we’re mostly mature enough to admit that war is horrible, that people, civilian and military alike, are affected in ways that most of us can never comprehend and that the horrors of war are things that no person should ever have to see. The world, however, isn’t what it ought to be, and sometimes we have to fight to change it. The fighting is terrible, but some things are worth fighting for.

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

Yes, in a carefully monitored program, reviewed regularly by lawmakers and judicial and/or executive authorities. There are some scenarios in which our intelligence agencies may come into information leading them to someone suspected in being involved in terrorist activities and acquiring a warrant before wiretapping may simply take too long. It’s impossible to know in advance if a terrorist plans to attack tomorrow or in 6 months, and sometimes the need to know is clearly immediate. While I realize the prospect that you might be wiretapped is a bit unsettling, it’s not as unsettling as the prospect that you might find yourself with a flaming 747 parked in your lap tomorrow morning at work. Further, while I reiterate that I understand the unsettling aspects of being potentially wiretapped let’s not exaggerate what this is. We’re not talking about pre-emptive arrests or Guantanamo Bay-like detentions without filed charges. I recognize that some percentage of non-terrorist people will be listened to from time to time, but as the oft-repeated argument goes, if you’re not doing anything wrong you’re not going to suffer any consequences.

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

No. For an American Citizen, I believe that due process of law must ALWAYS be observed. If you have enough information to justify detaining said person, I would think it reasonable that you therefore have enough information to Charge said person with a crime.

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

Ummm…recreationally? I admit ignorance here-beyond the sport, what the hell is waterboarding?

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

I suppose that if a journalist is committing treasonous acts, then yes, he should be investigated and charged like any other person would be. I don’t think simple disagreements on policy constitute treason, however, nor do I even think that criticizing the government’s policies openly before our enemies is particularly treasonous. If it does anything at all, it illustrates publicly and before the whole world that we’re not kidding when discuss the various concepts involved in having a society based in the ideals of Liberty, including the right of citizens to publicly criticize the government without fear of incrimination or flat-out murder as they would be in many other countries, including the countries of our terrorist enemies.

My understanding of the Sedition laws is summarized in the following, quoted paragraph, and I have not cross referenced the actual laws for veracity, so if this is incorrect I apologize.

“The Alien and Sedition Acts consisted of a total of 4 laws. 1) The first, the Alien Enemies Law, vested the president with extraordinary wartime powers. On his own authority, he could detain or deport citizens of nations with which the United states was at war and who behaved in a manner he thought suspicious. However, since wartime did not occur for as long as this bill existed, it was not able to be put into use at any time. 2) A second act, the Alien Law, empowered the president to expel any foreigner from the United States simply by executive decree. 3) The third act, and the most blatantly political one, the Naturalization Law, doubled the probationary period for which foreigners had to wait before applying for full U. S. citizenship, from 7 to 14 years. (4?) The Sedition Law made it the equivalent of criminal libel to criticize the U. S. government.”

To begin with, I see only 3 acts described here, but it’s late and perhaps I’m not reading as well as I ought. For part 1, the only trouble I see is that the last bit concerning the President’s power to detain or deport citizens of nations with which we were at war if they “behaved in a manner he though suspicious” seems to be very vague. I’ve never been a fan of vague legislation. What constitutes suspicious behavior? I might think that eating Tasty-O’s is pretty damn suspicious (I mean really, what the hell do these people think in order to eat that crap?), but should I eject someone from the country because of it? Probably not. I’d prefer a re-wording of that last bit to offer some clearer examples. For part 2, I see no problem with this at all. Frankly, I wish we had this in effect now, coupled with a president with enough balls to decree that all illegal aliens should be deported immediately and all police and military on the continent charged with expelling such people immediately. For part 3, I agree that it sucks for the honest people just trying to escape some other miserable nation, but at least for those people coming from countries we’re at war with, I could see increasing the time required for them to prove their own loyalty to the US. I’m not sure how effective it would be, but I don’t see how it could hurt. If my guess that the last sentence is part 4 is correct, I’d say that law shouldn’t exist. The right to criticize the government without fear of becoming a criminal is, I believe, essential to the continued freedom of any people and nation.

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

Sure, why not? We’re not at war with North Korea but I’d have no qualms about the CIA putting a few rounds through Kim Jong Il’s head, hopefully followed immediately by all his top advisors, lieutenants and other assorted cohorts.

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

Why would anti-terrorism cops be working on non-terrorist cases? In a world where we’ve got half the middle east gunning for us I’d think that an anti-terrorism cop would have plenty to keep his calendar filled without worrying about non-terrorism related problems. That’s what we have police and sheriffs for, if I’m not mistaken.

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

Suspected but not charged? No, obviously. With such a power you could declare anyone you like to be a suspected terrorist and seize their property. I could see this being an obvious and easily abused power.

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

Depends on the crimes. I’d have no problem with the US Military being tasked with enforcing the borders, including the use of lethal force on drug and weapons traffickers, human smugglers, etc.

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

I think a state ID card/Driver’s license is fine and the federal Social Security Card is enough. However, I’m not a security expert and I don’t know the specifics of how such a policy might help prevent terrorists from moving about. In any case where American Liberty would be sacrificed for a little safety, though, I’d reject that sacrifice.

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

I don’t think I’d endorse keeping them from the eyes of Congress or the president, but I’m sure that some information is probably best left out of the eyes of the public, if for no other reason than to keep the enemy from getting their hands on it. However, if I can get an all-access pass to Area 51 they can do whatever they want ;) (OK, OK, so I was kidding…mostly.) In all seriousness, though, I wouldn’t want to focus too much power in the hands of the president alone, any more than I’d want too much in the hands of congress. The Founders implemented Separation of Powers for a reason, or at least I like to think so. The often-repeated adage that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” has yet to be disproved, so far as I am aware.

Reader Francis answers both sets of questions:

1) Should the National Security Agency or CIA have the ability to monitor domestic phone calls or e-mails without obtaining judicial approval?

No. I’m not a big fan of retroactive warrants but I’d allow it so long as there is a credible showing that the information obtained prior to the application is destroyed if the warrant is denied.

2) Should the government have the ability to hold an American citizen without charge, indefinitely, without access to a lawyer, if he is believed to be part of a terrorist cell?

Never.

3) Can you imagine a situation in which the government would be justified in waterboarding an American citizen?

Justified is a word with complex meanings. I believe, without evidence, that the US was way too quick to torture at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc., because I think that the kind of people who are making the torture decisions are not skilled interrogators. If, in the extremely rare case where a skilled interrogator believes that an American citizen has critical information which can be obtained only by waterboarding, I understand and accept that the torture will occur. But I think that such a circumstance would be extremely rare.

4) Are there American journalists who should be investigated for possible treason? Should Sedition laws be re-introduced?

Being a journalist does not exempt you from committing treason any more than holding a bar card. But publishing leaks is, except in the rarest of situations, not treason. Sedition laws should not be re-introduced; criticism of our govt is essential to the preservation of our way of life.

5) Should the CIA be able to legally assassinate people in countries with which the U.S. is not at war?

Legally, no. But I expect that it will happen from time to time.

6) Should anti-terrorism cops be given every single law-enforcement tool available in non-terrorist cases?

All cops should work according to the same rules, ie those found in the constitution and applicable statutes.

7) Should law enforcement be able to seize the property of a suspected (though not charged) American terrorist, and then sell it?

No. See the 5th Amendment due process clause.

8) Should the U.S. military be tasked with enforcing domestic crime?

No. The military exists to break things, not catch criminals. If we need more federal cops, then the FBI should grow.

9) Should there be a national I.D. card, and should it be made available to law enforcement on demand?

No. I think it’s important for cops to know that they exist to serve us. Being forced to identify yourself teaches the opposite lesson.

10) Should a higher percentage of national security-related activities and documents be made classified, and kept from the eyes of the Congress, the courts, and the public?

No. Much more should be disclosed.

As to your 10.

1) When, if ever, is preemptive war is justified?

When an imminent threat exists.

2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?

There is more than one way to “remove” foreign leaders. The Marcos govt fell under significant economic pressure, without invasion. To justify the use of force, there needs to be an imminent threat. (Note: nuclear weapons can give some elasticity to the idea of imminence, but only some.)

3) Do you agree with the position—recently quoted approvingly on this blog by Dr. Kuznicki—that Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration to increase its authority?

If Islamic terrorism were a serious threat, we’d be seeing a lot more terrorist attacks. Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem, largely due to the fact that it is repressing the civil rights of hundreds of millions of women and inhibiting the economic development of hundreds of millions of men and women. But fundamentalism and terrorism are different things.

4) Precisely what (if anything) do you propose the United States do about the Iranian nuclear weapons program?

dunno. If the Russians and Chinese are willing to come on board for economic isolation, then sanctions may work. But we have burned so much international credibility that I think we need to let someone else take the lead.

5) Do you believe that the United States should defend Israel, either militarily, by the sale of arms, or in other ways (please specify)?

Yes. International security agreements have proven to be a remarkably successful tool in preventing agression. see, eg, NATO.

6) Can you name a specific case in which an American dissenter, not actually affiliated with a terrorist organization, has been jailed or otherwise deprived of civil rights under the PATRIOT Act?

No, but my ignorance doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

7) Do you believe that we ought to remove American troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences to Iraqis?

Immediately, no. But I think we could systematically and steadily disengage, which could include re-positioning assets in Kuwait.

8) With regard to interrogation or incarceration: do you believe that infringements of religious sensitivities (e.g., mistreating the Koran) or personal sensibilities (e.g., making men wear women’s underwear on their heads) ought to be regarded as comparable with physical torture?

Comparable in what way? Humiliation and torture both violate inherent personal dignity, make a mockery of US values, expose our troops to greater risk of retaliation, and are both frequently likely useless or even counterproductive. So both should be illegal and the soldiers convicted of engaging or ordering either should be punished. As torture inflicts greater harm, the prison sentences should be longer.

9) What, if any, legal consequences do you believe flow from a declaration of war?

The President has the power and the responsibility, as the Commander-in-Chief under Article II, to use the military to achieve victory against the enemy named in the declaration.

10) Do you believe that the Bush Administration purposely manipulated intelligence information in order to persuade the Congress to authorize military intervention in Iraq?

Yup.

Independent Country has some answers here.

Charles Featherstone has some naswers here.

Answers from A Day of Cyn.

Trackback URI |