A UK USA tiff based on a satirical recipe by a food writer.

[Malacasta]

So a Janitor in the UK was tortured in several countries, including Guantanamo, Cuba, for 7 or 8 years apparently for visiting a website which had a satirical recipe for a nuclear bomb

First transform the gas into a liquid by subjecting it to pressure. You can use a bicycle pump for this. Then make a simple home centrifuge. Fill a standard-size bucket one-quarter full of liquid uranium hexafluoride. Attach a six-foot rope to the bucket handle. Now swing the rope (and attached bucket) around your head as fast as possible. Keep this up for about 45 minutes. Slow down gradually, and very gently put the bucket on the floor. The U-235, which is lighter, will have risen to the top, where it can be skimmed off like cream. Repeat this step until you have the required 10 pounds of uranium. (Safety note: Don't put all your enriched uranium hexafluoride in one bucket. Use at least two or three buckets and keep them in separate corners of the room. This will prevent the premature build-up of a critical mass.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...uantanamo.html
This is leading to some diplomatic problems for Obama, who appears to be doing a brilliant job of standing by most of Bush's more controversial decisions.

Here is the original author of the article responding to the Daily Mail article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090309/ehrenreich
Note: Ehrenreich states that she's never been a food writer, so the topic of this thread is carrying the Daily Mail error.

[Graeblyn]

The main thing that I find disturbing about this, at this point, is that the UK feels forced to handle its handling of this case in whatever way the USA dictates, as the US has said if the UK doesn't do with this man whatever the US tells the UK to do, that the US will withold intelligence vital to the security of UK residents (including me, I suppose). The government and judiciary in the UK are (understandably) frightened enough of this prospect that they have bent over backwards to make the US happy, so far.

I am deeply disturbed by all of this. I suppose one could argue that as long as no Americans are put in harms way, who cares if the US witholds intelligence vital to the security of people abroad, all to prevent embarrassment to itself? Even if this wasn't a morally repugnant position, there are countless Americans living or travelling abroad.

[Gaviani]

Just for us naive hacks, could you explain, Graeblyn, what inherent duty United States intelligence agencies have to preserve the lives, liberty, or property of non-Americans?

You seemed to imply believing that was morally repugnant. I'd like to know how I'm an immoral monster (today).

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Gaviani
Just for us naive hacks, could you explain, Graeblyn, what inherent duty United States intelligence agencies have to preserve the lives, liberty, or property of non-Americans?

You seemed to imply believing that was morally repugnant. I'd like to know how I'm an immoral monster (today).

You might want to ask me something based on what I actually said, rather than some imaginary position I don't hold. But since you brought it up, under NATO, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked, including the UK. There are also several other defense agreements and treaties in place between the two countries. I imagine it would be fairly uncontroversial to argue that the US has a duty to live up to agreements it makes. But again, nobody to my knowledge, and certainly not me, is talking about the US having a duty to be coming in and preserving the lives of UK residents, or any country.

Perhaps I should be more clear.

The United States is threatening, if the UK doesn't handle the investigation into the British government's involvement into this scandal in the manner the US wants it to, to withold intelligence in the possible future event the US has information vital to the security of the United Kingdom. The US provides a great deal of the information the UK depends upon for its national security, so it is unlikely the UK would be aware of all the threats against it that the US would be.

Failing to warn a country that its citizens are in mortal peril, simply because they allowed a court case to embarrass a former President's administration is immoral in my opinion. If you fail to see why a reasonable person might find this immoral, I'm not sure what I could say, as it is fairly obvious we aren't operating from the same moral compass if you can defend such behavior.

I will reiterate, however, that if you think you can preserve the lives, liberty, or property of Americans without ever intervening in threats against foreign countries you are quite wrong. There are Americans living and travelling abroad all the time. There are American companies with significant assets abroad. There are American companies who have NO assets abroad, but still highly dependant on foreign supply chains. The US government itself is highly interdependent on many other countries and there governments for any number of activities designed to protect Americans (one example is the global missile shield initiatives such as the trident missiles the US has in the UK, or the missile defense facility being built in Poland). Even if there is nothing wrong with keeping the knowledge to itself that scores of foreigners will die if some other government doesn't act, it is still a foolish thing for the US to do, out of self-interest if nothing else. To threaten to do so to protect an extremely foolish American administration, that isn't even in office anymore, is just mind boggling.

I must say, however, though I think the threat is immoral, I think it is just a threat. It is too bad the UK buckled under to American pressure, as I really believe if the UK had called the American bluff, it would have been pretty clear it was just that... a bluff. Call me naive if you want, but the US and the UK are too interconnected for the US to withold intelligence sharing. I also can't really bring myself to believe that America would do something like this, on the morality grounds you apparently don't share.

[Gaviani]

This was your original statement:

I suppose one could argue that as long as no Americans are put in harms way, who cares if the US witholds intelligence vital to the security of people abroad, all to prevent embarrassment to itself? Even if this wasn't a morally repugnant position, there are countless Americans living or travelling abroad.

The clause "even if this wasn't a morally repugnant position" indicates (on an ordinary reading) that the position that if no Americans (or, by implication, American interests) are put in harm's way, one could state that United States intelligence/defense agencies do not have a duty to intervene with Some Random Bad Thing happens. In fact, that would be my exact position - that, absent an American interest (and one whose defense is worth more than the cost of defending it), American agencies - be they police, intelligence, military, or some hybrid of the three - have no duty (or even prerogative) to act.

So.

Your original statement was that it was "morally repugnant" to (ostensibly) believe that an American body ought act to defend itself, America has no right to withhold intelligence that could:

1) Damage its own intelligence agenices while
2) Saving no American lives/interests.

Rather than construct your post into what I imagine your position to be (from this one statement and one supporting clause), I'll graciously give you the opportunity to answer the following questions (before I tear what I imagine your position is asunder).

Is this your position?

If so, why is this morally repugnant?

If not, could you make some intelligible construction out of your original post?

First n.b.: do not try to change the subject by stating your thesis was really that Americans can't protect American interests through interdicting abroad. I think we've all learned that post-9/11. I'm referencing your statement that it is "morally repugnant" to believe that American intelligence agencies have the right/prerogative to withhold information absent such a compelling interest. No squirming.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Gaviani
[B]This was your original statement:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose one could argue that as long as no Americans are put in harms way, who cares if the US witholds intelligence vital to the security of people abroad, all to prevent embarrassment to itself? Even if this wasn't a morally repugnant position, there are countless Americans living or travelling abroad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your original statement was that it was "morally repugnant" to (ostensibly) believe that an American body ought act to defend itself, America has no right to withhold intelligence that could:

1) Damage its own intelligence agenices while
2) Saving no American lives/interests.

Except, it wasn't 1 or 2 above I take exception to. I said "all to prevent embarrasment to itself"

I said nothing about it being immoral to withold information that could damage intelligence agencies while saving no American lives. I don't conceed that allowing a court to review evidence that the UK government was complicit with the US in torture would damage US intelligence agencies, as I don't see it as a function of intelligence agencies to engage in torture.

P.S. Somehow, in trying to quote and respond to your post, formatting has become rather messed up. I have tried to fix that, but it still isn't pretty. Sorry for that.