home

Mainstreaming Torture: Newsweek Writes A 24 Episode

Via Digby, Newsweek hires Stuart Taylor, with an assist from longtime Newsweek Beltway blowhard Evan Thomas, to write an episode of 24:

The issue of torture is more complicated than it seems. . . . Waterboarding—simulating drowning by pouring water over the suspect's mouth and nostrils—is a brutal interrogation method. But by some (disputed) accounts, it was CIA waterboarding that got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to talk. It is a liberal shibboleth that torture doesn't work—that suspects will say anything, including lies, to stop the pain. But the reality is perhaps less clear.

(Emphasis supplied.) The question I have is simply this - who told Newsweek, Taylor and Thomas that torture works? Sounds like a breach of national security. Maybe we should get Jack Bauer to torture them until they reveal their sources.

Speaking for me only

< Will Obama Provide Clintonism Redux? | Golden Globes Red Carpet >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Short run and long run (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Lora on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:06:54 PM EST
    Torture probably does work, sometimes, in the short run.  But then so does flipping a coin.

    In the long run it's like trying to beat the house.  And it's WRONG.

    If we continue (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:51:59 PM EST
    to let them frame this issue as being a question of whether or not torture "works", we are doomed. You are correct that the only relevant issue is that it is WRONG -- VERY WRONG. It took centuries of human rights struggles for common people to win the right not to be physically tortured by powerful people. Somewhere, Western Civilization decided we aren't going that way. The only people who disagree are those who believe they will never be tortured. I will never read Newsweek again. This dialog has to stop, and if we don't want to turn back the clock two or three centuries just to check and make sure that our ancestors were right, then all we have to do is let this evil conversation continue as if it has merit.

    Parent
    Were the people (1.00 / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:11:05 PM EST
    who had to choose between burning to death inside the WTC towers or jumping to their death tortured?

    Parent
    I think the idea is that we're supposed to be (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:15:50 PM EST
    better than the terrorists. Apparently, you don't agree.

    Parent
    I think our government is supposed (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    to do what is necessary to insure that our citizens don't have to make such decisions.

    If that means we waterboard, so be it.

    Parent

    Or. . .not (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:27:03 PM EST
    The law is paramount, not your unelected torture bureaucrats.

    Parent
    If the law does not provide protection for (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:56:31 PM EST
    the citizens, what use is it?

    And wasn't it Anthony who, upon his arrival in Egypt, "I am the law and have 10 Legions to make it legal."

    Look, I understand all of your reasoned arguments made from the safety of a chair in front of a computer, but we are not dealing with people who will say, "Ah, good point, I surrender."

    And if you want to make the argument about "What profits a man to gain the world if he loses his soul," please do so. My response is simple, I'll take the chance that we won't lose our freedom in the process. I know we will if we let the terrorists win.

    Parent

    you are fixated on the idea (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:02:47 PM EST
    that waterboarding offers protection for your life.
    First of all, that is a very dubious proposition on its face---more than laughable.
    Beyond that, it's just bizarre? Why waterboarding?
    There's no evidence supporting your position.
    If you want more protection, then by your reasoning we should be doing a LOT more torturing.
    You're very confused about this issue.

    Parent
    No. I do not. You overstate my position. (1.00 / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:28:23 PM EST
    I think it is a technique that we should have at our disposal to be used in our defense when necessar

    Parent
    Why are you equating protection with torture? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 07:04:55 AM EST
    This is the problem.  Torture is not required in order to protect citizens.  

    I have heard this argument from people I care about and respect -- even members of my family.  We need to get away from this way of arguing the issue.  It is not a black and white issue.  By that I mean that it's not an assumption (a black and white issue) that we need to torture in order to protect our country.  We can refuse to torture and still protect.  

    At one time, expert opinions about whether or not "torture works" seemed to be a good thing to use in arguments against torture.  But now it seems to be causing a big side issue that distracts us from the heart of the matter.  IMHO, what we need to be discussing is whether or not this country is willing to resort to torture, ever.  And the answer should be no because this issue was decided long ago for America.

    No, we do not want to use torture.  Civilized nations don't want to use torture.  That's why we have the Geneva Convention and that's why we have denounced and tried others for torture.  Until the laws, both international and domestic are changed, torture remains illegal.  Whether or not "it works" is immaterial and a deliberate distraction.

    Parent

    That doesn't work (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    And the answer should be no because this issue was decided long ago for America.

    That argument could have been used in 1860 regarding slavery.

    And again, waterboarding is not torture. What it does is induce the gag reflex and convince the prisoner that they are drowning. Once removed the prisoner has suffered no physical or mental harm.

    And just in case you are unaware, the terrorist organizations we face have not signed the GC.

    Parent

    This entire comment (none / 0) (#84)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    makes no sense to me and contains all kinds of dodges and inaccuracies.  Waterboarding causes no harm?  Good God.  

    Parent
    Plainer - I wrote (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:36:03 PM EST
    Once removed the prisoner has suffered no physical or mental harm.

    The induced gag reflex and fear of death by drowning produces no physical harm. The fear of death probably exists during the act.

    Parent

    Sorry the law has defined waterboarding as torture (none / 0) (#86)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    Parrtially suffocating (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:50:20 PM EST
    a person and inducing them to believe they're drowning causes "no physical or mental harm"?!

    Are you really that much of an idiot, or are you just unthinkingly following the script?

    Parent

    Singapore is very, very safe (none / 0) (#57)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:35:31 AM EST
    Free?  Not so much.  I'll gladly give up the illusion of security for the reality of liberty.

    Parent
    You have that right (1.00 / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:56:38 AM EST
    You don't have the right to force others to go undefended based on your, speaking frankly, rather juvenile and, I would guess, untested view.

    Parent
    Nor do you have the right (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:04:23 AM EST
    to approve torture to others based on your juvenile and fearful view.

    The truth is it is just as unlikely your life and wellbeing will be preserved by the torture of some poor soul as I will be "tested".

    What utter nonsense you spout.

    Parent

    Please try to focus (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:38:09 PM EST
    My point is that waterboarding is not torture.

    But even if you were right, and you are not, I have the right to my belief and my position.

    Parent

    whatever (none / 0) (#98)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    You're right about one thing.  You have the right to spout your nonsense.

    Parent
    The reason people (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:36:38 PM EST
    making your argument lost the debate two centuries ago is because you are overlooking some facts about the practicality of a policy of torture. Two points are important. They may represent a fundamental difference in moral reasoning between you and I.

    1. We are morally superior to our attackers only if we behave in a morally superior way.

    2. Whenever a practice such as torture is allowed, there is no practical way to control when and where it is used. Its use will spread to situations where the balance of rights to which you allude are nowhere near the case. It will become routine.


    Parent
    well.... (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:38:21 PM EST
    Addressing your last first.

    By all accounts waterboarding was tightly controlled and effective. I have not opined that it be done otherwise. If you want to claim a slippery slope, be my guest, but I see no reason to agree.

    I understand your point re morally superior.

    But is it morally correct to fail to protect those we are bound to protect by not doing all that is  possible?

    I say that it is not correct. You evidently disagree. And yes, that makes us as different as day and night.

    Parent

    Whoa nellie (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:40:40 PM EST
    So the standard is doing EVERYTHING possible to protect Americans?
    You might want to rethink that position.
    Scratch that.. RE-thinking these issues it not an option for you.

    Parent
    The subject has (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    been waterboarding.

    (Just in case you haven't been reading.)

    Parent

    Unfortunatellly, I have been reading. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    You let slip the remark that EVERYTHING should be done to protect citizens of this country.
    Obviously, you didn't mean to show your weak, puling heart to the readers, but you did.
    What is so  bizarre is your fixation on waterboarding. You keep on asserting that waterboarding in particular is necessary, but you haven't remotely begun to formulate an argument.
    All you did is fling dead bodies and show that fear rules you.
    Pathetic.

    Parent
    The thead and the (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:39:12 PM EST
    subject has been waterboarding...

    Take your psycho babble somewhere else.

    Parent

    You can't even understand what (none / 0) (#104)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    you wrote ten minutes ago.
    You've written over 200 comments on torture at this blog, and you have not established one fact, one criterion, or made one argument for your notions. You've insulted everyone; you've repeatedly resorted to emotionalism, and you've lied and distorted numerous points.
    Just stop.

    Parent
    By All Accounts Effective? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    You overstate. Cheney and Bush said it was effective and some of their co-conspirators as well. These are the same people who lied about WMD in Iraq, so why would you believe them now?  Especially when they have every reason to lie - they are not going to say, we waterboarded, but it didn't work.  If it did work, why did they stop with 3? The only defense they have left is to claim that it worked.

    But that is a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiney. Intelligence professionals who have reviewed the evidence dispute that the waterboarding worked. So it is not by all accounts. Only by the account of those who are grasping for a defense.

    So where does that leave you? You favor immoral, illegal methods of dubious effectiveness, and you would not use moral, legal methods that are proven to work. Because that is the other issue. We know what works, and what works is gaining the confidence of your suspect and getting the suspect to talk. You can do one or the other, but you can't do both, for obvious reasons.

    Parent

    wondering (none / 0) (#83)
    by DXP on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:14:07 PM EST
    if you think "Americans" are one monolithic block to be protected. Does not blatant torture and illegal imprisonment put our military people at greater risk? Which "Americans" are to be protected? At who's expense?

    Parent
    I have seen nothing (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    believable that says that our using waterboarding provides any additional threat from the terrorists.

    They DO NOT believe in or have they signed the GC.

    Parent

    Ends Justifiy the means Jim? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 07:51:56 AM EST
    interesting. Bin Ladin has beaten you. You are already dancing to his tune. Congratulations.

    Parent
    Unworthy of my time (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Realleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    I'll post to you once.  Anyone who spews racist hate (as you do on your blog) and refers to Obama as "Hussein" or "H" is unworthy of my time.  

    Parent
    It is my blog (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:45:36 PM EST
    If you don't want to read it, walk on by.

    I use Obama here because it is Jeralyn's blog and I always respect a home owner's desires.

    BTW - Did you notice that he has decided to use this full name for swearing in?

    It was simply an election issue that he used quote well.

    As for racist hate, I invite you to come by and show it.

    I do this because you can't.

    Parent

    Jim's our local rep (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:08:21 PM EST
    from the "Ah thank he's a Arab" Joe-the-Plumber-reporting-from-the M.E quarter.

    Still proving that they may be dumb, but they know how to stay on the same page at all times.

    Parent

    Jondee (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    Thank you for proving again that you cannot debate and when you recognize your failure you go for the personal attack.

    What would I do without you? What would I do?

    ;-)

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    right Jim; constantly refering to Obama as "Hussein" definatly proves you have firm command of the higher ground at all times.

    Parent
    Racist hate speech (none / 0) (#106)
    by Realleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:07:56 PM EST
    I won't respond to this man anymore, who refers to President-Elect Obama as "Hussein" as an obvious
    epithet intended to connect Obama with Saddam Hussein.  Anyway, I call the following quote racist hate:

    I think he harbors bitterness...Bitterness against whites because he feels whites were the reason his father abandoned him. I mean he has no criticism for him leaving. More bitterness against whites because he feels that they gave him things he deserved, but still they demanded something in return. Note that he has never belonged to or served anything that was not useful to him in a personal sense.


    Parent
    Citation (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Realleft on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    Sorry for not providing the citation.  That is this talkleft posters comments about President-Elect Obama on his blog on Nov. 5, the day after the election.  

    http://tallcotton-ppjakajim.blogspot.com/2008/11/deconstructing-obama.html

    Parent

    ERRATA (none / 0) (#20)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:29:26 PM EST
    Obviously, the word "don't" should be stricken from my last sentence. I wonder if anyone would make such mistakes under torture?

    This dialog has to stop, and if we <strike>don't</strike> want to turn back the clock two or three centuries just to check and make sure that our ancestors were right, then all we have to do is let this evil conversation continue as if it has merit.


    Parent
    Yes! is is the whole point of evolving societies. (none / 0) (#46)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:57:08 AM EST
    Revolting (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    "But by some (disputed) accounts, it was CIA waterboarding that got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to talk."

    In these (disputed) accounts (whatever the hell that means), what is is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed talked about, and what good did it do?

    What information do these (disputed) accounts say he revealed while he was being suffocated?

    Here's the problem...IMO (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:52:49 PM EST
    Everything works....sometimes: beating your children DOES quiet them down; executing a prisoner DOES deter him from committing further crimes; bombing an entire city DOES get a couple of bad guys, etc, etc, etc.

    Now, as a naturalized citizen, I can tell you that The United States of America is not another "country;" it is the receptacle for all the hopes and aspirations of freedom loving people everywhere. It has developed into a Metaphor for all that is good, fair, and decent. And it is a symbol that burns in the hearts of millions of  the less fortunate worldwide that there is a place on this earth where freedom, and a brighter future, actually exists.

    We simply cannot let the aberration that the current mutants occupying positions of power have taken us down to continue another day. You can listen to the smartest, most experienced, and most effective interrogators our democracies have produced (there are much smarter and better techniques than torture) ......or you can listen to Dick Cheney, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo, Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and/or Paul Wolfowitz.

    Note to Pres.-Elect Obama: It really is as simple as that.


    well, I am glad that everyone loves us so much... (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:06:52 PM EST
    Is that why they didn't self police their radicals for the first WTC attacks and then the ones on 9/11? The ones captured coming across the border south of Vancouver, BC? The ones that kill the people at the El Al terminal at LAX? The attack on the USS Cole??

    Sure seems a strange way to love us. But hey what does this natural born citizen who gave 10 years of his life in service to this country know? (Sarcasm alert)

    Parent

    Look.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    One can't counter every item that I knew would be hurled back at me in such a short space, even as I was writing my words. Obviously, it was somewhat idealized, and from a time when such thoughts weren't automatically flamed.

    When we snuck out of Stalingrad at the end of WW2, we didn't pray to God to save our lives; we prayed to somehow get our asses to America.

    And btw; 7 years, two tours in Nam, with a student deferment, no less.

    A little poetic license, with the obligatory snark blowback, would be appreciated.

    Parent

    I honor and thank you for your service. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:15:47 PM EST
    That must have been a horrific experience at Stalingrad, especially as a child.

    My central point remains. If the "world" loves us, why doesn't the "world" step up and do something?

    The answer is, of course that the "world" doesn't love us. Nations have national interests. People have self interest. It serves no good for us to pretend that if we react in a certain way that any of that will change.

    If we find that waterboarding is sometimes necessary our failure to use it will not stop the first terrorist, nor will it protect anyone who falls into the terrorists clutches. Not using it might make some of us feel good, but wars are not won by feeling good.

    Parent

    We are loved and hated as a nation (none / 0) (#47)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 04:25:59 AM EST
    because we do great things and loathsome things both.  It depends on the country and on what we want, and if we think things are friendly.  We both build or topple other people's democracies depending on our needs.  As a nation, we have come to value freedom while we also have a horrific history of slavery.

    Our military is deployed and occupying more countries than any nation at anytime in the past 5 thousand years. That is not the markings of a nation of peace. This wins us friends and foes.  It's the cost of doing business.  As a people, we tend to be naive, but we are capable of both great good and great evil and will remain so as long we we believe we are "chosen" and justify any action as "necessary". We are strong at the moment because we converted to oil ad assured our access to it while also occupying the last untapped continent filled with abundant natural resources.  is will, of course, change.  While we are the richest and give away lots, we give away the least amount of our treasure per person than any other industrialized nation and our gifts tend to nearly always be military, or have military strings attached. We are rarely provoked or attacked, but find ample reasons to involve ourselves in the disputes of others when we deem it in our best national interest to do so.  Usually, when we are attacked, it is in response to someting we have done like set up an embargo to drain the life out of an enemy or occupy a militant country and prop up the dictators in the name of stability - a hallmark of our actions in the Middle East thus far, as well as Indonesia and Central America.  The argument of the open use of torture over the hidden use of torture by America is just the latest in the tension between this dilema.

    Yes. We are a hope to the world.  A hope that good people can argue whether to commit evil or not and flinch at the answers.  But, let's not dress ourselves up in a costume.  We are often the better of two evils, the least of two monsters.  We can do more.  But only if we choose to be that hope.  It is when we choose to be more that we are at our best, our strongest, and live real hope not only for ourselves, but for any who would wish to share in the dream - which are many, many more than those who would do harm.

    Parent

    This contest (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:48:45 PM EST
    is part of what is wrong with public debate. Military service is not a prerequisite for moral reasoning, and certainly not a prerequisite for political speech in United States. To claim one's opinion is correct based on military service is the flipside of ad hominem argument. Your service is appreciated and honored, but it is irrelevant to the point under discussion.

    Parent
    And so was the "naturalized" (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:23:45 PM EST
    citizen bit about knowing how much the world loves us. The implication being that a natural born would not know that.

    And sooner or later to waterboard or not to waterbaord may directly affect those in the military. If you want them to fight a war short some, perhaps necessary, information then have the decency to explain that to them.

    Parent

    If you want our servicemen tortured (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:28:48 PM EST
    then advertising that we waterboard is an excellent way to achieve that goal.
    Apparently you value your security as a civilian more than keeping our soldiers safe.


    Parent
    I have not seen any (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:40:42 PM EST
    believable information that our failure to use waterboarding if necessary will protect our military one iota.

    We are not fighting a "nation state" who has signed the GC.

    Parent

    I would not have (none / 0) (#33)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35:05 PM EST
    had them fight this war, and many of them would agree. I would gladly explain to any of them why torture would not be used to produce information for them. I think many, if not most, would agree. These arguments don't hold up. Torture is wrong, and the debate has been over for a long time. The "effectiveness" or the alleged importance of the products of torture are irrelevant.

    Parent
    I go back (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:46:53 PM EST
    to my base point that waterboarding is not torture.

    By claiming that it is you seek to position yourself on some moral "high ground."

    As for what those who have served would or would not want done on their behalf I do not think you know. I also think they would take innocent civilians into consideration.

    Of course all unproven claims welcome in the Internet.

    Parent

    If you're through flinging the (none / 0) (#40)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:56:52 PM EST
    dead bodies from the towers in our faces, have a good night. Maybe some rest will return some decency to you, if not good judgment.
    This topic always elicits depraved and totally baseless comments from you.

    Parent
    I look forward to the video (none / 0) (#41)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:59:41 PM EST
    of you getting waterboarded, to prove that it is not torture.
    Ta-ta.

    Parent
    Good morning (1.00 / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    Perhaps we can arrange for you to have a copy in Blu-Ray.

    Why am I not surprised at you losing it? Not a terrorist, of course.

    Parent

    Yes, I do seek (none / 0) (#42)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:17:15 AM EST
    the moral high ground. Although it may appear lightweight and unimportant to you in comparison to military acumen and decision making in the "heat of battle", that is the story of civilization. I do not see all moral decisions and choices as being best weighed in terms their instrumentality in battle. There has to be something at home worth defending. There are many fronts in the growth and development of human civilization, and the battlefield is only one of them. I might even hazard to say the military is not the most hazardous of those fronts.

    Parent
    Civilization is not advanced (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:03:03 AM EST
    by letting people being killed by someone who is uncivilized.

    I find your claim sophomoric at best. You are not making a speech in the Senate.

    Parent

    I had intended (none / 0) (#118)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:40:06 PM EST
    to let this rest as agreeing to disagree, and I in fact stated that our differences might be attributable to differences in moral reasoning. There are different moral theories. Nonetheless, you seem intent on issuing petty insults to me, rather than making detailed arguments, so my conversation with you is finished.

    Parent
    I don't have your experience as a soldier (none / 0) (#48)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:00:44 AM EST
    but everytime, since the Vietnam War, I hear of a soldier being wounded or dying, I ache in my heart and often cry.  But, I must say to you, you DO NOT KNOW WHAT TORTURE IS.  Experiencing waterboarding in training when it will be over and never to happen again is nothing compared to having it used as an interrogation technique.

    I know torture.  I know why people use it.  Out of fear. For gain.  For control and power. To feel like you have some control over events you do not.  To make people do things and say things they ordinarily would not. Not for heroics.  Not for that scrap of information that, when all is said and done, must be compared to hundreds of strands of other random information gained without the use of torture to be viable.

    All arguments over the ethics and necessity of torture are academic without including the victims.  Ask them how efficacious it was. I was five years old.  Old enough to talk, old enough to act, so I guess, old enough to be pressured.  Those who choose to turture will always have a handy urgent reason for its use - to save a nation, to save a soul, to save the world, to save lives, to save God, to save....I know the face of a torturer, the voice, the sweat, the transformation into monster that the torturer undergoes along with the tortured, the techniques, subtle to horrific. Water, fire, metal, dark, light, sound - these can all be used for delivering great pain and agony, for invoking uncontrollable fear and terror in another.  There is no such thing as benign torture or a benign reason to use torture.  Eventually, inevitably, the reason for the use of torture becomes soley one - because one can with whatever one has at hand.  The only thing necessary is the capacity within the torturer to commit such acts.

    As a soldier, I remind you that the Geneva Conventions and the standards of what constitutes torture, including waterboarding, as well as the banning of these to protect civilian and soldier alike, were not just created by politicians or generals in the field, but by the very victims of this abhorrent abuse themselves - civilian and military prisoners-of-war.  It was their chance to have their say, to express their will, to guide a world lost to meaness and madness back onto the path of morality.

    Parent

    Please try to focus (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    My point has been the use of waterboarding when deemed necessary and under tight control.

    Also remember that the terrorist organizations have not signed the GC.

    Parent

    you don't need to sign it (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    to be protected by it.

    Parent
    The claim is (2.00 / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    that our use of waterboarding imperils our soldiers when captured. It might if the other side had signed the GC. The terrorists have not.

    As to who is a POW you need to read the GC Article 4:

    Article 4

    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    (c) That of carrying arms openly;

    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

    1. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

    2. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

    3. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

    4. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

    B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

    1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

    2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

    C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

    What these people are, are terrorists. When they declare a state of war against us and attack us they become guerrillas. Historically the fate of captured guerrillas has been execution.

    Parent

    I am focused. You are not dissembling. (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:04:12 PM EST
    You are doing everything possible to NOT look at the issue of torture and instead stay fixated on a misguided notion that fear is a desireable basis upon which to decide morality.  That is neither focused nor an honest approach to the issue.

    You are simply saying that if you are afraid, you then have the right to commit any act you so choose to alleviate your fear.  

    I think those that are questioning your claim are being far more willing to accept the complexity of the issues. That you want to simplify your argument in order to hide its inherent fallibility and call that being focused is further indication of your unwillingness to debate, explore peoples's varied opinions, and offer meaningful alternative options, or barring that, better ways to convey your origianl claims.

    Parent

    Clairvoyant too! (none / 0) (#44)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 01:34:34 AM EST
    I used the adjective "naturalized" to give a somewhat different view of America, one that is, by definition, different than those of many native born. Today's "graduates" can't find America on a map, let alone understand what it stands for.
    *******************************
    "And so was the "naturalized" citizen bit (bit?) about knowing how much the world loves us. The implication being that a natural born would not know that
    "
    ******************************
    Maybe nuanced discussion is just too complicated for you. Did I say "THE world loves us?" MANY in the world do love us, or at least the ideals we stand for. And, unfortunately, some hate us, and unfortunately again, for good reason.

    Many of our finest public servants, including many military officers, have concluded torture is not in our best interest. You are certainly free to disagree. It's an argument that can't be won. It's like the argument about the death penalty for convicted felons. You cannot convince an advocate for the death penalty with facts, logic, and reason, such as the fact that every civilized country in the world has abolished it, and I have no interest in trying to convince you that torture is not in the best interest for America.

    If "General" George Washington, by signing the Constitution, felt that "cruel and unusual punishment" was not worthy of our great nation, who am I to argue?  

    He was pretty good about "not getting into foreign entanglements" too.

    Parent

    Love the insult (2.00 / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:29:41 AM EST
    Do you also do windows?

    naturalized "bit" - an act, performance, or routine: She's doing the Camille bit, pretending to be near collapse.

    If "naturalized" was not important to your point, why did you bring it up?

    As for foreign entanglements, if we had not become entangled in WWII then I doubt you would be here. So I suggest that we should understand that while success is getting what we want, happiness is what we get.

    And you again overstate. It isn't torture that you have to convince me is bad. It is that waterboarding is torture. No one has yet done so.

    Parent

    I didn't take "naturalized" that way... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sallywally on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    obviously it supports the view that was being expressed by this poster. It wasn't a slam against "natural born," although that appellation sounded like a slam against naturalized citizens to me.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:21:24 AM EST
    I didn't take it as a slam against anyone, but a claim that mostly restated that the world loves us/hates us based on who is President. I believe that point is incorrect and immature. Nations have "interests." People have "interests." I like the policeman who lets me go with a warning for speeding. I dislike the one who gives me a ticket.

    And "bit" refers to.... as an act, as a comic bit..

    an act, performance, or routine: She's doing the Camille bit, pretending to be near collapse.


    Parent
    It is shameful (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:03:57 AM EST
    that we live in a country that has discourse on the usefulness of torture in the pages its most popular magazines.  

    I hope one day Taylor and Thomas wake up and ask "What have I done?"  

    And it is amazing that Jack effing Goldsmith can be approached in "the spirit of non-partisanship."

    The objective of an interrogation... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by pmj6 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:08:36 AM EST
    ...is not to "get people to talk". It is to get them to tell you the truth. It is to induce their willing cooperation. Torture is no way to get there.

    I certainly hope this is not a harbinger of the Obama administration policies on torture...

    Well the good part about being tortured (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Faust on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:41:03 AM EST
    by Jack Bauer is that all relevant information is typically extracted in less than 5 minutes. So...you know...it doesn't hurt for very long. Unless of course it's Jack Bauer that's being tortured. In which case...it never works.

    There's a bizzare metaphor of American Exceptionalism in there somewhere.

    Jack Bauer is a fictional character. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    "24" is a TV series.

    Parent
    Oh Ok thanks for clearing that up for me (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Faust on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:08:58 AM EST
    I thought it was reality and that torture is actually effective.

    Parent
    Glad to help those in need. (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    No. The purpose is to get information (2.00 / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:59:40 AM EST
    Hopefully willingly, but more likely not. All information requires vetting and even false information can  be helpful.

    I think I heard Cheney name the three (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:57:21 PM EST
    that we waterboarded. He was one of them...

    If you were told what he gave up all that would happen is that you deny that it was useful, so I think we can save some time there.

    And no, I do not think waterboarding is torture and yes, we will just have to agree to disagree. I can't help it if you won't see the correctness of my arguments.

    Your view is not shared by the law. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:59:23 PM EST
    That is the problem with your argument.
    You don't get to decide what is torture and what is not.

    Parent
    I never said I did (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:07:40 PM EST
    And neither do you.

    So there.

    Parent

    You're making no sense. (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    I've read your drivel on this topic before. No need to go over the breadth of your error again.

    Parent
    I see that you don't unerstand. (1.00 / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:16:35 PM EST
    My point was that neither you or me will have any say in the matter if another occasion arises in which it is deemed necessary for water boarding to be used.

    So our views only matter to ourselves and how we posture ourselves in the matter.

    Parent

    Thank you for clarifying (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:19:58 PM EST
    that you don't understand the issue at all.
    My point is that you have no authority for arbitrarily deciding that waterboarding is not torture. The law very clearly says that it is.
    Your errors compound from your initial premise.

    Parent
    No, there are, at least, two issues. (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:04:38 PM EST
    One is that you think waterboarding is torture.

    I do not.

    One is that you think torture is illegal.

    I agree.

    One is that I think our government has a moral imperative to do what is necessary to protect us. I think we all have a moral imperative to protect each other.

    I do not know your position.

    Parent

    Waterboarding is torture under (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:07:07 PM EST
    the law. Give it up.

    Parent
    We are not the French (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:49:48 PM EST
    and the WOT is not the French fighting in Algier.

    And waterboarding is not torture.

    ta ta and good night dear DA!

    Parent

    Good morning, DA (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:32:48 AM EST
    Of course different foes and different wars require different tactics.

    And where have I gave approval for wide and unsupervised use of waterboarding? I haven't and you know I haven't.

    And I care not one whit about what the Japanese thought. If you want to play ancient history and today vs then find someone else.

    Now, get us another 2000 or so words to show us you know how to Google.

    Parent

    How you can be so wrong is a (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:41:53 AM EST
    mystery

    The point isn't what the Japanese thought, it's the fact that if you think waterboarding isn't torture, then the Japanese we convicted and sentenced for that activity should be exonerated by your standards, unless you think that waterboarding is bad only when it's used by others on our soldiers and citizens.

    I think the Japanese did other things that also got them in trouble. Perhaps you can give us a few thousand words?

    You make a false dichotomy argument. The Japanese routinely did torture, behead, starve, etc. in addition to the waterboarding you refer to.

    They were wrong and lost. We are right, but God help us if we lose and Sharia law is installed.

    Parent

    We lose and Sharia law (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    is installed.

    Talk about the epitome of simple-minded, non-reality based, either/or propositions.

    But, such is the (non) mentality that the Texas pinhead surfed to 2 terms on.

    Wheres the historic evidence of Sharia Law ever threatening to make inroads in the U.S?

    Parent

    Look at what is happening (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    in England and parts of Europe.

    Look at religion being taught in public schools in the US.  

    The school is named for the Muslim general who conquered Spain in the eighth century. It shares a building with a mosque and the headquarters of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota. The cafeteria serves Halal food. Arabic is a required subject. There is a break for midday prayers.

    On Fridays, many students join with Muslim teachers and attend religious services in the school's gym. T

    Link

    A San Diego public school has become part of a national debate over religion in schools ever since a substitute teacher publicly condemned an Arabic language program that gives Muslim students time for prayer during school hours.
    Carver Elementary in Oak Park added Arabic to its curriculum in September when it suddenly absorbed more than 100 students from a defunct charter school that had served mostly Somali Muslims.

    Link

    JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The big issue, separation of church and state in America's state schools, of course, but there isn't going to be a separation of mosque and state at one public college in Minnesota. The school is going to install a special sink or several for Muslims to wash their feet, and taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill. BIG STORY correspondent Douglas Kennedy has the details. Douglas?

    DOUGLAS KENNEDY, BIG STORY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah John this sink is for a pre-prayer wash and the school says it's to keep their students safe. Critics are calling it a double standard.

    Link

    Wanna take your comment back?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    You claim they were punished for waterboarding.

    I claim they were punished for waterboarding and other acts.

    Now, IF they had waterboarded and done nothing else?
    I really don't know, but my guess is we would have got'em any way. Paybacks are hell and they lost.

    And I see you are channeling again.

    Parent

    Yes paybacks are hell and (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    the losers suffer badly.

    Something the Left as a group needs to consider as they fail to face challenge of the radical Muslims.

    And yes, it was such a firebrand of a post.

    I guess he will start redoing NAFTA while he is there.

    I gotta cool down.

    heh

    Parent

    Yeah, the comment was so hot... (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:33:33 AM EST
    Sarcasm is lost when the reader aint smart enough to figure it out.

    Now, go Google "aint" and get further off subject.

    That is why I banned you. You had, and continue to have, this belief that you can make off subject comments. To give you another example, I could post that the sky was blue during Obama's meeting with X and you would come back that it was not during the night... Perfectly correct and perfectly off subject.

    And I understand you can't grasp that concept!

    As for having to approve, yes, I do. Why? Because of spam, porno ads and just plain trash that shows up.

    And since I am a one person operation, I can't keep on top of what's there so I have to moderate.

    Parent

    You are incorrect. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:42:07 PM EST
    I can't help it if you can't see the fallacy of your argument.

    Parent
    Waterboarding has always been torture (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 08:06:28 AM EST
    We prosectued waterboarders during  the Spanish American War, we prosecuted waterboarders after WWII, We prosecuted waterboarders during Vietnam. I am seeing a pattern here,  Jim.

    Defining deviancy down? What do conservatives and what do you stand for?

    Do you regret Nuremburg? What would Justice Jackson say? OR for that matter George Washington?

    Why do you hate our American values and traditions? Heretofore we did not torture. What do these people have in common: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Japanese under Tojo? They all used torture, including waterboarding. They are all viewed as immoral and evil for it. They also all lost. They are losers.

    What you advocate is a violation of US law and international law that we helped create it.

    Parent

    Typical L argument from Molly. (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:44:15 AM EST
    First you define something as torture and then you accuse all who disagree with your definition as being for torture.

    I do hope you do better in court.

    Parent

    I didn't define it as torture (none / 0) (#85)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:37:16 PM EST
    the law did. Don't blame me.

    Parent
    for the fact you are pro torture (none / 0) (#87)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    To Be Fair (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    ppj is more a BushCo puppet than pro torture per se.. If Bush said that children under six should be kept in cages ppj would be arguing that children have no rights and need to be caged.

    The luxurious life of a Bushlicker is exclusive of thought.

    Parent

    That's some dark humor there, BTD (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    but you got a chuckle out of me.

    Torture also provided enough (none / 0) (#2)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 07:29:06 PM EST
    misinformation to grease the skids for the Iraq war.
    And really, KSM is the anti poster child for torture advocates. The US captured him after 9/11.
    Sure he talked. What did he say that was of use?


    Well, of course it works (none / 0) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 08:59:23 PM EST
    ...........sometimes.

    The CIA director named (none / 0) (#19)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:28:30 PM EST
    the 3 Al Qaeda detainees that waterboarding had been used on. He said this in testimony before Congress. The US Attorney General said, a year ago, that there were circumstances in which waterboarding would be illegal and other situation in which waterboarding may be legal.

    the 3 detainees (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:49:26 AM EST
    "the" three.  They're saying only three?  Of all the so-called enemy combatants.

    As if.


    Parent

    Who told Newsweek? Probably Obama aides. (none / 0) (#49)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:16:57 AM EST
    Since Obama is leaning towards relocating Gitmo to an undisclosed location, and renaming the indefinite detention of enemy combatants into the "preemptive detainment of enemy combatants", I'm thinking he may want to hold on to the "torture is not always torture when the President does it" clauses as well once he takes office.

    Getting a message out now into the general public that there is a softer, better way to torture so they believe it before he has to say it will go a long way towards helping people feel change is afoot and that America is returning to a kinder, gentlier industrialized military corporation.

    My point remains (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:47:55 AM EST
    that it is morally wrong for you to not do what is necessary to protect those that you are supposed to correct.

    We are our brother's keeper.

    I note again that you make these high sound words while typing on a keyboard in reasonable comfort.

    And you vastly overstate. The context of the conversation is the war on terror, not a robbery of a wuickiMart.

    the human being tortured... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:51:20 AM EST
    ...is also my brother.  

    Parent
    And if your brother (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    is trying to kill your sister then your brother has lost the protection of the law.

    Parent
    As I said, (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    you have right to spout your sanctimonious nonsense.

    Parent
    huh?? (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 06:07:55 PM EST
    you assume a great deal and that is why (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:15:15 PM EST
    your arguments are so thin.

    You assume there is only one way to protect others.  You assume torture will afford protection.  You assume those who are tortured are in possession of information.  You assume there is no other way to get information.  You assume the Geneva Convention only apply when all parties agree.

    You assume words are high sounding rather than high thinking and thoughful.  You assume I sit in comfort.  You assume you are correct.

    If your intention was to make a claims that was to go unchallenged, perhaps you could say that at the very beginning.  If you want to discuss ideas and isues, perhaps you can begin to listen and be respectful.

    Parent

    you assume a great deal and that is why (none / 0) (#111)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:13:44 PM EST
    your arguments are so thin.

    You assume there is only one way to protect others.  You assume torture will afford protection.  You assume those who are tortured are in possession of information.  You assume there is no other way to get information.  You assume the Geneva Convention only apply when all parties agree.

    You assume words are high sounding rather than high thinking and thoughful.  You assume I sit in comfort.  You assume you are correct.

    If your intention was to amke a claims that was to go unchallenged, perhaps you could say that at the very beginning.  If you want to discuss ideas and isues, perhaps you can begin to listen and be respectful.

    Parent

    you assume a great deal and that is why (none / 0) (#112)
    by VicfromOregon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 09:14:29 PM EST
    your arguments are so thin.

    You assume there is only one way to protect others.  You assume torture will afford protection.  You assume those who are tortured are in possession of information.  You assume there is no other way to get information.  You assume the Geneva Convention only apply when all parties agree.

    You assume words are high sounding rather than high thinking and thoughful.  You assume I sit in comfort.  You assume you are correct.

    If your intention was to amke a claims that was to go unchallenged, perhaps you could say that at the very beginning.  If you want to discuss ideas and isues, perhaps you can begin to listen and be respectful.

    Parent

    You can say that again!! (none / 0) (#114)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 10:05:40 PM EST
    great comment.

    Parent
    Too clever and true too! (none / 0) (#121)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    I wish we could learn more (none / 0) (#108)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    about the so-called Black Sites and put an end to them as well. I'm just afraid all the focus on Gitmo is going to blind people to the fact that Bush and Cheney have a network of torture programs going on with other countries. It isn't just Gitmo. And it has tarnished our national character.

    "moral superiority" (none / 0) (#120)
    by diogenes on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    The philosopher Jesus of Nazareth suggested that we should turn the other cheek.  Some morally superior people believe that there is no such thing as a just war and that if attacked that people should allow the attackers to march straight through.  The pacifist way.  
    People define moral superiority to fit their own standards and use it as an arguing ploy. Claiming moral superiority as the reason to not torture (but to be able to fight wars) is self-justifying.

    New low point for Newsweak (none / 0) (#123)
    by hogsupreme on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 07:23:17 AM EST
    This was the single most offensive piece I have seen in Newsweek in approximately 35 years of faithful reading.  

    To address the central question of "does torture work" that Taylor and Thomas want us to answer affirmatively, I call to the stand Evan Thomas, from Newsweek on Sept. 20, 2006:

    ---
    In recent interviews with NEWSWEEK reporters, U.S. intelligence officers say they have little--if any--evidence that useful intelligence has been obtained using techniques generally understood to be torture. It is clear, for instance, that Al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. His interrogators even threatened, à la Jack Bauer, to go after his family. (KSM reportedly shrugged off the threat to his family--he would meet them in heaven, he said.) KSM did reveal some names and plots. But they haven't panned out as all that threatening: one such plot was a plan by an Al Qaeda operative to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge--with a blow torch. Intelligence officials could never be sure if KSM was holding back on more serious threats, or just didn't know of any.
    ---

    It is extremely telling that in this latest torture piece, and when Sarah Palin was talking about running the Senate and Henry Paulson was asking for unlimited powers, Jon Meacham and Newsweek never discussed any higher principles.  Nothing about the Constitution and how in all three cases essential tenets of democracy were being challenged.  Palin was merely termed "mediocre"; Paulson was positively lauded as "King Henry"; and here we get Evan Thomas, Tough Guy, telling us it's a jungle out there and Obama needs to get in touch with his inner Dick Cheney.  

    It's hard to escape the notion that the Newsweek leadership has essentially jettisoned the U.S. Constitution as the guiding document of this nation.  I guess sounding like Jack Bauer brings in more bucks.  How sad.  


    Thanks (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 08:02:06 AM EST
    I used this for my latest post.

    Parent