Should torture be Top Secret?

[Huntster]

Who's law where the contracters under?

The contracting agency, and/or the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which I have already cited and linked for your review (which you have clearly still not done).

Where they being say investigated in Iraq and those eastern european countries where the secret prisons where? They where not in the US, and not US military personel.

Read the law I've cited and linked, please.

Who investigates them?

Depends on the offending agency.

Who prosecutes them?

Depends on the offending agency.

 

[Huntster]

Why else is the prison in Guantonimo?

The government (me, too) don't want these terrorists brought to U.S. soil for obvious reasons, and Gitmo is obviously a more secure environment than places like Mazar-e-Sharif.

It was an attempt to put it in legal limbo.

Non-uniformed guerrilla combatants were already in legal limbo.

Even in the 1960's we didn't hear anti-Vietnam war propagandists demand that DoD bring Vietcong to the states for trial under U.S. Constitutional law.

Quote:
The Abu Graib scandal involved Army personnel, Army courts martial, and DoD policy review. DoD contractors are subject to Army contracts, which are governed by Army and DoD policy. There is now focus on CIA practices.

Ah it wasn't torture anyway, it never got to the extent of pain equivelent to organ failure right?

That is a legal question that was in some question. That's why there have been modifications to the UCMJ as well as U.S. law.

Quote:
Please read the law I cited and linked instead of repeating mantra, propaganda, or pure BS. The definition is there. I even highlighted it for you.

You are clearly exhibiting behavior which demonstrates your inability to rise above propaganda. Here's a clue; read the law, not the National Enquirer's report on the law.

And never listen to the administration for their views on it, it is not like just because they repeatedly try to argue for their right to torture, and make the definition of torture so extreem that most activities are not covered.

Correct. You never listen. You repeat the same, old, lame lines of trash.

Of course I must be makeing all of their arguements about such things up right?

Since you fail to back up your statements with evidence, I'm forced to say yes.

 

[Huntster]

If you are making such techniques top secret, this kind of exposure is what you are trying to prevent.

To the enemy (including political enemies like yourself), you're damned right. Making intelligence interrogation an open public policy is a recipe for disaster. That's why Congress closes the door on most Intelligence Committee discussion.

Quote:
Correct; "who not get locked up."

Please provide some evidence that any whistleblowers at all involved in the torture scandal or propaganda effort have been legally prosecuted at all.

And with many of them they where certainly trying to get them locked up. They don't want the public to know what they are doing when they ignore laws.

I'm still waiting for the evidence I asked for.

 

[Huntster]

PT is the typical ignoramous who does not know the difference between classified information, privileged information, for official use only information, and "top secret" information.

How can one have a rational conversation on the topic, when the foaming mouth at the other end doesn't know the simple elements of the discussion at hand? It would be like discussing the basic methods of neurosurgery with me.

Pointless.

My hope is that such a person (or others reading the silly exchange) might consider learning something instead of repeating propaganda.

It certainly appears pointless, but I'm hopeful................

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, thanks I would never have guessed that when the administration had people advocating their right to torture on their behalf they never ment it.

 

[Huntster]

Wow, thanks I would never have guessed that when the administration had people advocating their right to torture on their behalf they never ment it.

While it appears that your common practice is to "guess" at things, I believe you're correct:

I would never have guessed that......

 

[Nova Land]

In reply to varwoche's question about how incidents of abuse would come to light if the new policy of classifying these details as Top Secret were to go into effect, Hunster made the following reply:

The same way Abu Graib came to light:

Beginning in 2003, numerous accounts of abuse and torture of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) occurred. The acts were committed by personnel of the 372nd Military Police Company, CIA officers, and contractors involved in the occupation of Iraq such as CACI International.

An internal investigation by the United States Army commenced in January 2004, and reports of the abuse, as well as graphic pictures showing American military personnel in the act of abusing prisoners, came to public attention in April 2004, when a 60 Minutes II news report (April 28) and an article by Seymour M. Hersh in The New Yorker magazine (posted online on April 30 and published days later in the May 10 issue) reported the story...

Whistleblowers.

The source you are quoting appears to be wikipedia. Wikipedia is a good site to go to start an investigation into something you are curious about, since it outlines what people commonly believe about a topic and often provides links to some of the sources they've used. But you should still take the time to look up the story and see if wikipedia got it right.

In this case, wikipedia is correct that the army investigation began in 2004. What they omit from this entry, but you could have found if you'd looked more carefully, is that this happened after investigative reporters had already uncovered numerous stories of torture and abuse of prisoners -- stories of abuse which administration apologists had been trying for months to blow off as left-wing propaganda.

For instance, according to the American Journalism Review (hat tip to Darth Rotor for posting that link over in the thread "Iraqi Police Charged With Torture"):

In December 2002, the Washingon Post did a front page story on prisoner abuse at secret CIA detention centers.
In March 2003[, The Nation did a cover story about the torture of prisoners in US custody
In May 2003, the New York Times did a front page story about mistreatment of prisoners in US custody.
In August 2003, the LA Times did a story about 4 soldiers being charged with beating POWs.
In November 2003, the AP distributed a major story about mistreatment of prisoners in US custody.

So the fact that the army began an investigation of what was going on at Abu Ghraib in January 2004 looks to me like an example of the importance of a free press, rather than its irrelevance, in helping to make sure these kinds of crimes get brought to light and investigated.

You are correct when you give credit for scandals such as Abu Ghraib coming to light to whistleblowers -- the whistleblowers who talked to investigative reporters as well as the later ones who talked to army investigators. Credit should also go to the reporters who wrote these stories up, and to the newspapers and other media which broadcast these stories.

All of which would have been illegal if the proposed policy of classifying this information as Top Secret had been in effect at that time.

 

[Nova Land]

... if torture is official U.S. policy (as is outright alleged or implied by more than one poster on this thread), than there is no rogue torture. It's policy.

No. It is perfectly possible for torture to be official US policy and for torture to be the result of rogue actions. The one does not exclude the other. Indeed, the one probably goes hand-in-hand with the other: if a country uses torture on prisoners at the behest of the government, then individuals who work in the prisons are less likely to see anything wrong with abusing prisoners and more likely to commit abuse on their own than if the country drew a clear line against such behavior.

Therefore I want policies in place which will prevent both kinds of torture -- that which is officially sanctioned, and that which is not -- from occurring. And I want policies in place which help assure that if torture does occur it will be brought to light and dealt with.

If torture does occur, then it is appropriate to determine whether it was official policy or rogue activity. But that's a separate matter. In regard to the matter at hand -- should the government be permitted to classify details of how prisoners are treated as Top Secret? -- it is irrelevant whether torture was or was not official policy. What matters is that torture is not a Top Secret.

 

[Nova Land]

A policy which prevents prisoners from talking about such mistreatment or which prevents the media from investigating and reporting on such mistreatment is a Torturer Protection Act. Such a policy is wrong. And it is wrong whether the US government has an official policy of torture or not.

That is your opinion. I disagree.

With which of those statements do you disagree?

The problem with a blanket statement of "I disagree" directed at an entire paragraph is that it leaves it unclear whether you disagree with the entire paragraph or only with one portion of it. Let me run through the opinions expressed in that paragraph so that you can specify which of my opinions it is that you are disagreeing with.

1-a. I expressed the opinion that a policy which prevents prisoners from talking about mistreatment makes it harder for incidents of mistreatment to be brought to light, and thus acts as a shield for torturers. Do you disagree?

1-b. I expressed the opinion that a policy which prevents the media from investigating and reporting on mistreatment makes it harder for incidents of mistreatment to be brought to light, and thus acts as a shield for torturers. Do you disagree?

2. I expressed the opinion that a policy which shields torturers is wrong. Do you disagree?

3. I expressed the opinion that a policy which shields torturers is wrong regardless of whether the torture is official policy or not. Do you disagree? If so, are you saying (a) that it's okay to shield torturers if the torture is officially sanctioned, but not if it's rogue activity; (b) that it's okay to shield torturers if the torture is rogue activity, but not if it's officially sanctioned; or (c) that it's okay to shield torturerers regardless of whether the torture is done officially or unofficially?

I have extreme difficulty believing you disagree with me on statements # 2 and # 3, so I would like to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

 

[Huntster]

....In this case, wikipedia is correct that the army investigation began in 2004. What they omit from this entry, but you could have found if you'd looked more carefully, is that this happened after investigative reporters had already uncovered numerous stories of torture and abuse of prisoners -- stories of abuse which administration apologists had been trying for months to blow off as left-wing propaganda.

For instance, according to the American Journalism Review (hat tip to Darth Rotor for posting that link over in the thread "Iraqi Police Charged With Torture"):

In December 2002, the Washingon Post did a front page story on prisoner abuse at secret CIA detention centers.
In March 2003[, The Nation did a cover story about the torture of prisoners in US custody
In May 2003, the New York Times did a front page story about mistreatment of prisoners in US custody.
In August 2003, the LA Times did a story about 4 soldiers being charged with beating POWs.
In November 2003, the AP distributed a major story about mistreatment of prisoners in US custody.

So the fact that the army began an investigation of what was going on at Abu Ghraib in January 2004 looks to me like an example of the importance of a free press, rather than its irrelevance, in helping to make sure these kinds of crimes get brought to light and investigated.

You are correct when you give credit for scandals such as Abu Ghraib coming to light to whistleblowers -- the whistleblowers who talked to investigative reporters as well as the later ones who talked to army investigators.....

I am well aware of how these stories got outed to the U.S. media, and I posted such when I wrote that whistleblowers were the key. Also, I wanted to outline for people such as ponderingturtle how internal review works with agencies that deal with classified information.

Credit should also go to the reporters who wrote these stories up, and to the newspapers and other media which broadcast these stories.

That is free enterprise at work. Any news scoop is a coveted prize with the news media, and Abu Ghraib was a special prize. That's why whistleblowing regarding official action is so effective.

All of which would have been illegal if the proposed policy of classifying this information as Top Secret had been in effect at that time.

If leaked to the news media, yes. It is not illegal if leaked to the appropriate entity.

 

[Huntster]

No. It is perfectly possible for torture to be official US policy and for torture to be the result of rogue actions. The one does not exclude the other. Indeed, the one probably goes hand-in-hand with the other: if a country uses torture on prisoners at the behest of the government, then individuals who work in the prisons are less likely to see anything wrong with abusing prisoners and more likely to commit abuse on their own than if the country drew a clear line against such behavior.

If they violate policy, they're breaking the law. Period.

If not, it's policy.

And torture perpetrated by any agent of the U.S. government is illegal. Period.

Therefore I want policies in place which will prevent both kinds of torture -- that which is officially sanctioned, and that which is not -- from occurring. And I want policies in place which help assure that if torture does occur it will be brought to light and dealt with.

Your wishes have been granted, and my links and citations clearly show that.

....In regard to the matter at hand -- should the government be permitted to classify details of how prisoners are treated as Top Secret? -- it is irrelevant whether torture was or was not official policy. What matters is that torture is not a Top Secret.

As you can see here, there are three levels of classified information. All three prohibit the release of information to the media:

2. CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Classified information shall be classified at one of the following three levels: Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret. Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify classified information. If there is reasonable doubt about the need to classify information, it shall be safeguarded as if it were classified pending a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days. If there is reasonable doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be safeguarded at the higher level of classification pending a determination by an original classification authority, who shall make this determination within thirty (30) days.
2.1 CONFIDENTIAL
Confidential shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.
2.2 SECRET
Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
2.3 TOP SECRET
Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

What you may not know about are disclosure statements that U.S. personnel are required to sign and are legally subject to when given designated security clearances, as well as the training that goes along with such clearances. Protocol for information exchange and dissemination are a part of that training. All these protocols are subject to administrative as well as Congressional review and oversight in various committees and subcommittees.

You may find it distressing if you are personally not in the loop, and the Washington Post is in a similar position, but the law is the law, and there are protocols to protect it and oversee it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In August 2003, the LA Times did a story about 4 soldiers being charged with beating POWs.

Note, the soldiers were CHARGED. The internal system was finding the cock ups, and reacting to failures to adhere to policy.

So the fact that the army began an investigation of what was going on at Abu Ghraib in January 2004 looks to me like an example of the importance of a free press, rather than its irrelevance, in helping to make sure these kinds of crimes get brought to light and investigated.

From my post in the older thread, I disagree with you that the press deserves any credit.

Oct. 13-Nov. 6 2003 : A team of military police and legal and medical experts reviews the prison system in Iraq; it concludes that there are possible manpower, training and human rights problems that should be addressed immediately.

• Jan. 13 2004: A Member of the 800th Military Police Brigade tells superiors about prison abuses, and Pentagon officials are informed. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is told a day or so later. Shortly afterward, Rumsfeld tells Bush

Between times, some fact finding had to go on. As I noted, the story and pics were released by the accused as part of their defense strategy.

Your other links were good stuff, thanks. Now, can you show me the error rate? Number of prisoners held, number of interactions, and the number that resulted in chargeable behavior?

DR

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Quote:
A policy which prevents prisoners from talking about such mistreatment or which prevents the media from investigating and reporting on such mistreatment is a Torturer Protection Act. Such a policy is wrong. And it is wrong whether the US government has an official policy of torture or not.

Quote:

That is your opinion. I disagree.

With which of those statements do you disagree?

The problem with a blanket statement of "I disagree" directed at an entire paragraph is that it leaves it unclear whether you disagree with the entire paragraph or only with one portion of it. Let me run through the opinions expressed in that paragraph so that you can specify which of my opinions it is that you are disagreeing with.

1-a. I expressed the opinion that a policy which prevents prisoners from talking about mistreatment makes it harder for incidents of mistreatment to be brought to light, and thus acts as a shield for torturers. Do you disagree?

Nope. I simply disagree that anybody is seeking "a policy which prevents prisoners from talking about mistreatment." The policy seeks to limit who those prisoners can talk to, there are reasons given for why that policy is sought, those reasons have merit, Congress will consider it, Congress might act, and Congress might not.

1-b. I expressed the opinion that a policy which prevents the media from investigating and reporting on mistreatment makes it harder for incidents of mistreatment to be brought to light, and thus acts as a shield for torturers. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree with that statement, but I strenuously disagree with further media fun and games regarding captive combatant guerrillas.

2. I expressed the opinion that a policy which shields torturers is wrong. Do you disagree?

Not in the least.

3. I expressed the opinion that a policy which shields torturers is wrong regardless of whether the torture is official policy or not. Do you disagree?

Nope. Again, I only wish (and the administration is only requesting) that information on interrogation methods used be classified and disseminated on a legally limited basis so that the enemy doesn't know what these methods are.

I have extreme difficulty believing you disagree with me on statements # 2 and # 3, so I would like to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

Does that help?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/25406prs20060502.html

…Army documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union today reveal that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez ordered interrogators to “go to the outer limits” to get information from detainees. The documents also show that senior government officials were aware of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.
….
Among the documents released today by the ACLU is a May 19, 2004 Defense Intelligence Agency document implicating Sanchez in potentially abusive interrogation techniques. In the document, an officer in charge of a team of interrogators stated that there was a 35-page order spelling out the rules of engagement that interrogators were supposed to follow, and that they were encouraged to “go to the outer limits to get information from the detainees by people who wanted the information.” When asked to whom the officer was referring, the officer answered “LTG Sanchez.” The officer stated that the expectation coming from “Headquarters” was to break the detainees.

The ACLU also released an Information Paper entitled “Allegations of Detainee Abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan” dated April 2, 2004, two weeks before the world saw the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The paper outlined the status of 62 investigations of detainee abuse and detainee deaths. Cases include assaults, punching, kicking and beatings, mock executions, sexual assault of a female detainee, threatening to kill an Iraqi child to “send a message to other Iraqis,” stripping detainees, beating them and shocking them with a blasting device, throwing rocks at handcuffed Iraqi children, choking detainees with knots of their scarves and interrogations at gunpoint.
The ACLU said the document makes clear that while President Bush and other officials assured the world that what occurred at Abu Ghraib was the work of “a few bad apples,” the government knew that abuse was happening in numerous facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the 62 cases being investigated at the time, at least 26 involved detainee deaths. Some of the cases had already gone through a court-martial proceeding. The abuses went beyond Abu Ghraib, and touched Camp Cropper, Camp Bucca and other detention centers in Mosul, Samarra, Baghdad, Tikrit, as well as Orgun-E in Afghanistan.
…
Among the more than 9,000 pages of Defense Department documents made public by the ACLU today are several investigations detailing cruel and degrading treatment and killings. The investigations include:
An investigation into the death of a detainee at Forward Operating Base Rifles near Al Asad, Iraq established probable cause to believe that several soldiers assaulted a detainee and committed negligent homicide, and conspired to cover up the death. The detainee died when a soldier lifted him up from the floor by placing a baton under his chin, fracturing his hyoid bone. It appears that the soldiers received written letters of reprimand and counseling. The full document is online at www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD049269.pdf
A heavily redacted e-mail dated May 25, 2004 shows that a presumed officer or civilian government official was told of three reports of abuse of detainees described as “probably true/valid.” One detainee was “in such poor physical shape from obvious beatings that [name redacted] asked the MP’s to note his condition before he proceeded with interrogation.” Another detainee was “in such bad shape … that he was laying down in his own feces.” These cases seem to have occurred in Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper. The full document is online at www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DODDIA000208.pdf
An investigation shows a doctor cleared a detainee for further interrogations, despite claims he had been beaten and shocked with a taser. The medic confirmed that the detainee’s injuries were consistent with his allegations, stating, “Everything he described he had on his body.” Yet, the medic cleared him for further interrogation, giving him Tylenol for the pain. There is no indication that the medic reported this abuse. The full document is online at www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD052120.pdf

 

[thaiboxerken]

David, what the heck do you think introducing facts will do to this discussion? If you're not careful, someone might realize the truth.

 

[Dancing David]

David, what the heck do you think introducing facts will do to this discussion? If you're not careful, someone might realize the truth.

Alleged facts in an alleged discussion, about an alleged truth that might allegedly be top secret.

 

[Huntster]

…Army documents released by the American Civil Liberties Union today reveal that Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez ordered interrogators to “go to the outer limits” to get information from detainees.

"To the outer limits" means precisely that. "To", and not beyond. No crime there.

The documents also show that senior government officials were aware of abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke.

We already know that, and an Army internal investigation had already begun.

Among the documents released today by the ACLU is a May 19, 2004 Defense Intelligence Agency document implicating Sanchez in potentially abusive interrogation techniques.

"Potentially abusive"? Is that a crime? What law covers "potentially abusive"?

In the document, an officer in charge of a team of interrogators stated that there was a 35-page order spelling out the rules of engagement that interrogators were supposed to follow, and that they were encouraged to “go to the outer limits to get information from the detainees by people who wanted the information.”

Yes?....................

The ACLU also released an Information Paper entitled “Allegations of Detainee Abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan” dated April 2, 2004, two weeks before the world saw the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib prison. The paper outlined the status of 62 investigations of detainee abuse and detainee deaths. Cases include assaults, punching, kicking and beatings, mock executions, sexual assault of a female detainee, threatening to kill an Iraqi child to “send a message to other Iraqis,” stripping detainees, beating them and shocking them with a blasting device, throwing rocks at handcuffed Iraqi children, choking detainees with knots of their scarves and interrogations at gunpoint.
The ACLU said the document makes clear that while President Bush and other officials assured the world that what occurred at Abu Ghraib was the work of “a few bad apples,” the government knew that abuse was happening in numerous facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the 62 cases being investigated at the time, at least 26 involved detainee deaths. Some of the cases had already gone through a court-martial proceeding. The abuses went beyond Abu Ghraib, and touched Camp Cropper, Camp Bucca and other detention centers in Mosul, Samarra, Baghdad, Tikrit, as well as Orgun-E in Afghanistan.

Yes?........................

Among the more than 9,000 pages of Defense Department documents made public by the ACLU today are several investigations detailing cruel and degrading treatment and killings.

Yes. The investigations are properly addressing any crimes committed.

The investigations include:
An investigation into the death of a detainee at Forward Operating Base Rifles near Al Asad, Iraq established probable cause to believe that several soldiers assaulted a detainee and committed negligent homicide, and conspired to cover up the death. The detainee died when a soldier lifted him up from the floor by placing a baton under his chin, fracturing his hyoid bone. It appears that the soldiers received written letters of reprimand and counseling. The full document is online at http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasea.../DOD049269.pdf

Yes. The investigations are properly addressing any crimes committed.

A heavily redacted e-mail dated May 25, 2004 shows that a presumed officer or civilian government official was told of three reports of abuse of detainees described as “probably true/valid.” One detainee was “in such poor physical shape from obvious beatings that [name redacted] asked the MP’s to note his condition before he proceeded with interrogation.” Another detainee was “in such bad shape … that he was laying down in his own feces.” These cases seem to have occurred in Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper. The full document is online at http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasea...DDIA000208.pdf

Yes. The investigations are properly addressing any crimes committed.

An investigation shows a doctor cleared a detainee for further interrogations, despite claims he had been beaten and shocked with a taser. The medic confirmed that the detainee’s injuries were consistent with his allegations, stating, “Everything he described he had on his body.” Yet, the medic cleared him for further interrogation, giving him Tylenol for the pain. There is no indication that the medic reported this abuse.

Yes. The investigations are properly addressing any crimes committed.

CID is on it. Crimes are being investigated and prosecuted.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree Hunster, this is what might constitute evidence that there may have been abuse of prisoners. And it is two years old to boot, I am much more concerned about the alleged statement that it might have been a decisions made at ahigh level to use such tactics as shocking , beating and chocking. But we won't know for about ten years. i am very glad we don't have the secrecy laws that , say, the United Kingdom has. I am much more concerned about the extraordinary rendidtion policy and what might have transpired at the hands of CIA contractors or 'friendly nations', much more than I am about military torture.

As I said we won't know for quite a while, hopefully someone isn't pulling an Ollie North and fawn hall and trying to shred everything. But given the multuiple copies in a bureaucracy i hope not.

 

[Huntster]

.....I am much more concerned about the alleged statement that it might have been a decisions made at ahigh level to use such tactics as shocking , beating and chocking....

That is clearly not the case. The higher levels are very good at documenting themselves in a non-criminal way. If lower ranking personnel went over the line, they screwed up. Very few did, and it was other lower ranking personnel who blew the whistle, and got CID and JAG involved.

But we won't know for about ten years.

Welcome to the world of government, and especially DoD.

I am much more concerned about the extraordinary rendidtion policy and what might have transpired at the hands of CIA contractors or 'friendly nations', much more than I am about military torture.

The CIA is a different critter altogether. Their activities aren't subject to military justice, and they are (obviously) in an organization which is naturally (and obviously) governed by as much secrecy as possible.

However, there are protocols which govern crime. Some of that even gets spilled into the public record.

As I said we won't know for quite a while, hopefully someone isn't pulling an Ollie North and fawn hall and trying to shred everything. But given the multuiple copies in a bureaucracy i hope not.

We are ass deep in a war with non-national terrorists as well as in the middle of the occupation of a budding civil war. Information has been used by enemies as political weapons. In such an environment, the classification of information is a no-brainer. If the administration did not do so would would be clear incompetence.

 

[Nova Land]

I'm away from home as I type this, and will have very little computer access until I get back home in about a week and a half. There were some points rasied earlier this week in this thread which I was interested in responding to but I didn't have time to post about before taking off, so I e-mailed myself unfunished drafts for those posts and am hastily finishing them off to post now while I've got the opportunity. Apologies for the rushed nature and for any incoherence.

I hope to be able to visit a public library at least a few days this coming week, so may be able to glance in and take note of what other people have posted during my absence, but after this quick flurry I probably won't have another chance to contribute any substantive comments or replies in this thread until I get back home.