Pruning Shears

(Updated with today’s NYT CIA article)

I generally try to get my Thursday posts in the 750-800 word range.  I want Pruning Shears to have original content; going shorter than that would be getting closer to link aggregation, and there are already a lot of sites doing that, probably all of them better than I could. Going longer would likely try reader’s patience.  I think 3,500 word meditations are better suited for reading in a magazine while sitting on your couch (or in worst case scenarios are indulgent epics crying out for some ruthless editing).  There are virtually no space limits for posting online, but there are definite limits to what folks will keep reading.  If my own experience is any indication you’ll lose a lot of your audience by about the third “page down”.  Basically, I try to make the posts long enough to be worth spending some time with but not so long that you feel imposed on.  With all that said, here is one point I cut from Thursday’s post for space reasons.

The report on administration’s propaganda effort noted the following:

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

Let the record show the administration achieved this distinction at least once.

Phillippe Sands’ upcoming book looks like it will cover a lot of ground.  The torture regime was systematic and directed from the top:

Sands reveals that Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s lawyer Jim Haynes traveled to Guantanamo in 2002, witnessed an interrogation, and sent approval back to Washington.

I’m sure there will be more details along those lines.  Surprising but not surprising.  UPDATE: The former Attorney General’s department has also told Congress intelligence agents can use torture even when it is prohibited by international law.  I know a lot of those on the right scorn the concept of international law and consider agreements under it to be an abridgement of our sovereignty, but America does have a tradition of “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind”.  This is just the latest case where conservatives need to remind me what exactly they are trying to conserve.  (Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.)

Pruning Shears started with the goal of getting the candidates to discuss executive power in the 2008 election.  In just over six months that goal will be obsolete and I’ve been thinking of possible directions beyond that.  I don’t expect any of the candidates to be worse than the current President but I think they may all try to neglect the issue once in office.  Agitating for a roll back of recently-asserted claims might not involve the same level of activity as an ongoing expansion does, however.  What are some related areas?  Right now it looks like transparency might be a big one:

“What worries us is that time is passing – there are only 8 ½ more months until this administration leaves office and if nothing is done soon not only could the e-mails disappear for good, but the federal records that are commingled with the presidential records could get swept away and become inaccessible for the next 12 years.” 

Keeping access to the documents of this administration and the next one could be the best way to make sure the executive power grabs get exposed and stay exposed.  If you have any other new directions you’d like to suggest please let me know.