Matthew Yglesias is an Idiot: I Have Proof!!!

See Here Umm...Matty, has the thought occurred to you that we might want to mete out worse punishments/interrogation methods for hardcore terrorists than we would for some random street thug?!?

That's just my first thought.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Yglesias and waterboarding

Well, your link is broken. But his argument is baloney anyway.  His argument is, essentially, that if waterboarding is so great, why don't we use it on every gangbanger that walks through the jailhouse door?  The reason is, for your typical gangbanger, there is no danger that if we dont' extract important information, thousands of innocent Americans will die.

Let's go wih your strawman

Let's go wih your strawman anyway...

For every waterboarding the Bush adminsitartion had done on tens or hundreds of suspects, you have saved what, (potentially)1000 lives. OK. I will buy that argument. Waterboadring is SO EFFICIENT! "We" must have saved what hundreds of thousands of lives. Great. But if you do the same on your scores(read: millions) of gangbangers and suspects in America, you can potentially save even more American lives, and you can see the proof of those figures in open statistics not muddied by fuzzy claims of averting an imminent disaster by the likes of Cheney. IF you still have doubts on the efficacy of torture in extracting the information you need, ask China! Enjoy.

 

This is not the argument you want to make

Very few people want to waterboard. The people who are for it say that in situations of great peril and emergency, it's something we should consider doing, and it's disingenuous to claim that therefore, we should do it anytime we can have something to gain.

The argument you want to make is to ask what waterboarding was used for. And it's looking like the Bush administration waterboarded to support its case for invading Iraq, not because American lives were in imminent danger.

Exactly!

 

Exactly!

 

And it also seems like they tortured to extract the information they already knew about! How sadistic? Doesn't surprise anyone given Abu Ghraib. Maybe they are just doing research on the efficiency of waterboarding. It seems they concluded that it doesn't work for the things they supposedly employed it for (reinforcing their past research!) On the whole, operation successful, patient dead.

 In saving the world scenario, waterboarding like other torture techniques can certainly give misleading clues leading to more trouble. I doubt any advanced scientific team of reseachers would employ it as a go-to-technique in the said scenario.

Information from captured al queda operatives(who don't commit suicide before capture)  is hardly reliable/useful, they operate in cells and a need-to-know-basis like  other Guirella organization. In such cases I doubt if torture ever worked as claimed by the ever reliable source of inside information; Cheney. Now if Cheney is waterboarded, that might "work" though!

actually, i'm pro-torture. I just don't want it legalized.

anyone who has the balls to save that many lives by doing such an awful thing, should live by their principles and be prepared to hang.

waterboarding

First, only three people have been waterboarded.  Three.  Not "tens or hundreds".

Second, nobody said waterboarding is the "go-to method" for extracting information.  It is a method of last resort.

Third, nobody is making any claims as to efficiency.

Fourth, what type of critical information will your typical gangbanger have that will be necessary to save potentially millions of American lives?

Actually I just saw Jon Stewart's interview with Cliff May on the issue of torture, and, honestly, Yglesias just cribbed from Stewart's show.  Stewart tried to make the same ridiculous claim too ("if waterboarding is so great, why not waterboard everyone?").

torture

 

26,000 people held without trial in America's secret prisons all over the world; in many cases kidnapped from their homes or handed over for reward by rivals and enemies without a shred of evidence — and then tortured.

And you wonder why there is resentment, derision, and hatred for America amongst their sons and daughters and mothers and fathers and uncles and aunts and nephews and cousins?

Get a grip.

If you have any doubts, waterboarding is torture too.

Malcolm Nance, a Navy SEAL who has performed and undergone waterboarding, explains clearly why it is torture, and he would know better than you. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15844677

Here is another account of waterboarding, obviously torture. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/23/what-waterboarding-f.html

The results just don't warrant using it being used in anything but an imminent crises and only on people that are known to have up to date information we need.

Then the results don't warrant it being used, ever.

It has never been used the way you imagine. It cannot be used the way you imagine. If you have to torture someone 183 times to extract even a false confession, then you cannot get details of an imminent threat in time to do anything about it.

The point of waterboard torture is to extract false confessions. That's why the Chinese used it. That's what our own SERE school understands it to be for. That's what the Bush administration used it for. http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/of_course_false_confessions_were_the_point/

When you advocate torture for any reason, you advocate torture for false confessions, because that's all that torture is good for. You objectively hate America. Please leave.

Brilliant

You objectively hate America. Please leave.

Stunning analysis. I hang on every word. "You disagree, so you must leave". The liberal mindset exposed.

True torture was reading your post. Ick.

Or rather

 

my post minus the last two sentences, I would wrongly assume.

Hiya, Cahnman.

http://thenextright.com/cahnman/the-most-emotionally-satisfying-thing-i-did-all-day

We still salute you, Cahnman. Your words are worthy of deep respect and consideration.

I'm not sure if you're serious...

...although if you are I'm back in the State (REPUBLIC) of Texas and, in the words of 43, I'm here to stay!!!

Cahmann, chemjeff, shut up

Apologetics for crimes against humanity are not welcome. Your bullshit hypothetical torture will never fucking happen, but you will legitimize torture in the mind of fuzzy-thinking amoral "moderates" who are approximately as stupid as you.

The only kind of torture that actually occurs is that of amoral governments seeking false confessions from prisoners in order to justify further repression of both foreigners and their own citizens.

When you pretend that there's ever a kind of torture worth considering, you do nothing except provide moral cover for the only kind of torture that actually occurs.

So get off the internet, you inhuman trolls, go watch TV and never speak to anyone ever again. Your hatred of human rights is corrosive and undeserving of debate.

More brilliant analysis

So get off the internet, you inhuman trolls, go watch TV and never speak to anyone ever again. Your hatred of human rights is corrosive and undeserving of debate.

Ah, more of the liberal mindset. Agree with me or leave.

Hey lastrain, if you are looking for validation, you may try Kos. They're more into the mutual masterbation over there.

conservative mind

 

My political views maybe liberal, but the 'attitude' you rather refer to was molded  in the fires of RedState.

Since you mentioned Kos. Here's how the 'conservative mind' looks like:

Bowers:

"It must be really scary to be a conservative. To be one, you must live in constant fear of terrorists nuking the United States, of gay people on the verge of convincing you that you really enjoy sodomy, of Spanish becoming the official language of the United States next week, of every African-American voting seven or eight times in the next election, of radical Islam suddenly becoming the latest hip thing among kids across the country, of perpetual lesbian orgies in girls bathrooms in high schools across America, of liberals forcing everyone to become a vegan, of Christians being rounded up into concentration camps, and of Democrats outlawing private property if they were to ever take power again."

They do live in a state of fear, and what's more, they want everyone else to join them hiding under their bed, in their pool of urine.

Oh, they'll talk tough. They'll bluster and pound their chests like the neanderthals they are.

But inside, they are scared little children, terrified of the world, of people not like them, of change.

And they can't fathom any other way to live.

 

Wow you nailed it!

This Bowers dude is uncanny!

Its like he's in my skin! Kind of creepy.

It must have taken him several minutes to take all those conservative streotypes and project them into illogical and false conclusions and scribble it down on a bar napkin.

If I were you, I would read and memorize every word he writes. Every word. You are onto something big here.

Lonestar's mind

 

The context of Bowers quote on the conervative mind makes sense,

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6616

unlike Lonestar's rants about liberal mindset based on my and your comments. It's a cheap trick to pick an insult and call the whole argument an ad hom.

 

Republican stereotypes

I'm not sure which is worse, that people like Bowers spew such nonsense or that people like Remains accept it uncritically.

We accept for what they are:

 

Stereotypicals. LOL. At least Bowers could back that up with an example.

 

it's frustration

It's not agree with him or leave. It's frustration that objective proof can't convince you people. Realize that the only people advocating torture are those that took part in it.

All the armed services, FBI, has said it's torture and that it doesn't work. The memos can't convince you of that fact. Nothing can convince you because you're caught up in defending the people in your party who did it.

You don't have objective proof

of shit. Dennis Blair , you know, Director of National Intelligence,(Obama's guy) said waterboading worked. So it must work if Obama's guy said it did, right skayne? You've never disagreed with this administration before.

I'm against the Monday morning quarterbacking. The US had just been attacked. More attacks were planned and we had people who had that info. And they gave it up.

Now for Obama to stand there and say "I could have gotten the information through conventional methods"  is offensive.

You choose what info suits you

You like to cherry pick what he said. He also said it lost far more than it gained. Pointing to one time it worked doesn't make up for the far more numerous times it illicited bad intel that wasted time and resources. You haven't looked at the memos detailing the program.

You've ignored the memos from all the armed services when they were asked about trying to start this progam and said it's torture, and it doesn't work. You ignore the fact that the FBI head ordered his men not to take part any further in the interrogations when the CIA started torturing.

You ignore Ali Soufan, the interrogator who got the info from Zabaida using conventional methods, and wrote in the New York times that nothing useful came from torture.

You ignore that all, becuase you're to caught up defending your party.

the cia inspector general said the same fucking thing

last administration.

and part of the reason, in 2002-2003, was to provide links between Al Qaeda and Hussein, links that the CIA kept protesting did not exist, and were not likely to exist.

This has been well chronicled.

Blair said that waterboarding worked, without being able to look at any of the videotapes, because they were destroyed.

Waterboarding continues to be a warcrime, and when you endorse warcrimes, well, it ain't Governor GoodHair's treason, but it sure is malignant. Because when you say that torture is fine, then it becomes AOkay to torture 70+ year old women, as occurred during the Bush Administration simply for trying to get on a plane. (torture in this case defined as sleep deprivation induced by the use of loud music). And the FBI would not have reported this as anything 'wrong' because the president had ordered that such did not constitute prisoner abuse.

So the TSA was proud to employ torture on the elderly Dutch woman, simply because she tried to get on a plane.

As I have said

there needs to be an investigation. I'm not going to make any judgements based on parts of four memos.

I am curious as to why Obama keeps flipflopping on the investigation, why he redacted so much of the memos, why he is against releasing the balance of those memos, but is for releasing photos to the world. What did Nancy Pelosi and the dems know? When did they know it? Will they be prosecuted?

We have due process in this country. Until the all the facts are out, its all just speculation as to what happened, who knew, and what the legal situation is.

more than enough

There's more than enough to go on that this stuff was bogus. Like how the torture of KSM broke up a plot to attack the Library Tower in LA.

Except KSM was captured a year after whitehouse statements say the plot was broken up. Why the fiction if torture worked?

Rahm and Obama view the investigation as a distraction

from more important goals.

That said, this is one of the Department of Justice's top priorities, along with asserting that it's independent from the White House. (which is why you hear conflicting things. Obama doesn't want an investigation, because he doesn't want to be seen as leading a witchhunt. But Rahm's stacked the deck (either wittingly or unwittingly) so that Obama will be forced, by the DoJ, to appoint an independent/special prosecutor)

He released what he needed to for the court case. The balance of these memos is a few names of interrogators. There are other memos and things that are currently public domain, if you're interested.

Pelosi, as part of her rankingness on the intelligence committee, was briefed on the interrogation procedures. HOWEVER, the minority party leader was not. This is a DIRECT violation of law.

I don't know how much criminality one can/will put on the Democrats nor the Republicans in Congress. When Bush's staff won't even appear for a subpoena, it makes it incredibly difficult to extract accurate information. However, I do believe that there may be some cupidity and immorality here, that should be judged at the ballot box. ;-)

 

It's not just speculation to talk about what is out in the public domain. What is out in the public domain are what we call facts. They may not be all the facts, but the picture that they paint is pretty durn ugly.

What cheney wants to be released is an entirely different set of memos, that he penned himself. apparently these are going to assert (probably without proof) that torture works. this from the man who pioneered the torture, in order to gain information on links between al qaeda and Iraq (again, this is not me saying this. this is someone's distillation of a variety of memos on the subject, that they were privy to as a member of the bush admin)

And germane to the goals of

And germane to the goals of this site, I can't for the life of me understand why many in the GOP are willing to die on this hill.  Yes, they'll grumble about excessive Bush spending, but along comes an issue that strikes to the soul of who we are as a nation, as a law-abiding people, and they go all-in with the most egregious excesses of the Bush administration.  Amazing.

They probably think it's safe to take up Dick Cheney's cause because polls say a majority of Americans don't believe this should even be investigated.  The question posed was not about prosecution, mind you, but just "should we investigate?"  I'm saddened and terrified for us that we as a people are unwilling to understand and confront what was done in our name. 

But I don't see how we can avoid responsibility for an investigation under the Geneva Conventions.  If we are so cowardly as to do that, I don't doubt that others will do it for us; they have the responsibility and capacity to do so under the treaty we signed.  Spain's interest in getting to the bottom of this is understandable.  As one of the (few) members of the "Coalition of the Willing" they may now be wondering whether Spanish citizens died because they relied on false confessions extracted by the Bush administration to link Al-Qaeda to Iraq (as some of the evidence seems to indicate).

Question for the torture apologists:  now that the world knows we sanctioned methods designed to extract false confessions, and has no reason to think we won't go back to that given that we don't have the fortitude to even investigate, how much credibility do you think foreign governments will give our intelligence if we ask them to join us in military actions based on that intelligence? 

There are many more considerations in adopting a 'legal' torture program than Dick Cheney would have you believe.  I'll save more for a post, but efficacy is far from the only aspect worth considering.

GOP die on the hill?

But I don't see how we can avoid responsibility for an investigation under the Geneva Conventions.  If we are so cowardly as to do that, I don't doubt that others will do it for us; they have the responsibility and capacity to do so under the treaty we signed.

 

Don't you mean Obama? He's the one who said prosecutions are up to Eric Holder.  He punted! Democrats control the White House, the Senate, and the House. If anyone is going to "die on the hill for this issue" its Team Obama. They can't even get their talking points in line.

What about the Truth Commission?

Who the hell is running the show these days? Dick Cheney?

rofl.

Obama knows that the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice is very crucial to the Rule of Law in this country.

He's rightly giving Holder free reign.

However, his spin control is going to be "I don't want to investigate, but we must investigate"

and yeah, it's weirdly convoluted, but that's obama. His grammar is like that -- paragraph long sentences with parentheticals that acknowledge all of what America is thinking.

His message, most of the time, is "I understand you, and I share your concerns ... now here's what we're going to do about it"

At this point, the message is "let the Department of Justice do its damn job"

 

Personally, from a constitutional standpoint, I find the whole thing disturbing. I want the Legislature to be doing the investigation, as this was an egregious overreach of the Executive. I think that Obama and the Executive as a whole have a fundamental conflict of interest here -- they want to protect the CIA from ... problems and loss of morale.

Points well taken, Lonestar

I was mostly responding to the original post and commenters who seemed to be of the 'nothing to see here, just keep walking' mindset.  I'm glad to hear you're not among them.

You're right that this is now the responsibility of the current administration.  I've been disappointed in Obama's rhetoric but see no evidence he is trying to obstruct a Justice investigation.  And you're right that it's Eric Holder's job to investigate and proceed with prosecutions if warranted.  If he does, whether he gets convictions will be up to a jury.

But you can't deny that some here and some in the GOP do not want an investigation and they parrot Dick Cheney's one defense to argue against it.  They want to look only at whether lives were saved (as if we can ever know that with certainty) and ignore all the other implications of the Bush program.

I've said here before that I'm one of John McCain's constituents and that if he continues with the claim that people shouldn't be held accountable if warranted, I'll hold him responsible in 2010.  Same for Jon Kyl.  Same for Harry Mitchell (a Dem, my congressman).

Are many in the GOP supporting a Truth Commission?  I'm only aware of Sens. Feingold and Levin saying much about it.

go back to kos.

Wexler's ready to roll out something in da House, and that's a whole lot more likely to pass than the Senate.

I don't think you'll find many

in the GOP in favor of a Truth Commission. But I sense some backpedaling from Dems on the idea as well. Pelosi has certainly colled to the idea, either under pressure from Obama aor perhaps worried that too much "truth" may come ou t where she personally is concerned.

I hate the name "Truth Commission" . Has a certain . . .Soviet Union ring to it. How about a "congressional investigation"?

it's actually drawn from south africa

and implies "no prosecutions" ;-)

yeah, I think Pelosi and company are getting a lot of pushback from Obama -- which I really don't personally care for.

n/t

n/t

Hey you did your rant on

Hey you did your rant on "torture" and told everyone who disagreed with you to log off.

I'm simply using your words to demonstrate your bias. I'm sure facts are frustrating to someone like you. The "yell, yell louder, insult" method of persuasion doesn't sell well with me.

You, on the other hand are taking some drivel someone else wrote and projecting it on me. Its your MO, but don't expect respect for intellectual argument.

those who are willing to sacrifice

liberty for security deserve neither.

It's been you, and your whimpering, fleabitten, mangy party that decided we needed to exclude people from the Statue of Liberty, board up Independence Hall, and do countless other offenses to both our architecture and our freedom (mostly in the form of TSA, which still does absolutely nothing about screening packages that go on planes).

I'm sorry, but it's you, and your ilk, that think that 9-11 changed everything. The rest of us just added another possible death to the contingency list, and got on with life.

The War on Terror is an illusion, a myth.

Did the russian war on terror succeed? HELL NO!

The only way to win the war on terror is either to cripple our freedoms (banning dynamite and guns, among other things) or to create the economic and social conditions to minimize the amount of criminal behavior.

This has been well documented, as have been the French War of Terror, and others.

and this concludes your history for the day.

Apparently there are those who are willing to sacrifice

due process for a lynch mob.

By the way, you are projecting a lot of beliefs on me that i don't hold.

no, i want my damn due process ;-)

i'm well aware of where that leads, if we don't have it.

I may still be out for blood, but .. not vengeance. truly, i want justice to be done.

excuse the rant, and assume that I was using the plural you, not a personal attack. ;-)

Got it

Almost ruined my weekend . . .

you ain't that softskinned are ya?

we play with teeth around here! ;-)

Seriously, I want to see all the facts... but what I've seen so far is pretty damning.

 

Here's a question for you -- given that we boo at other countries when they torture people, be they our citizens or not, be they terrorists or not (see china) -- do you believe that torture should be legal?

If so, how much do you think that undermines our moral credibility?

If not, what are the appropriate consequences for someone caught employing torture to gain information?

I was kidding about the weekend

Do I beleive torture should be legal?-no  But we need a clear definition of torture.

How much do you I think it undermines our moral credibility?-It dims our "shining beacon on a hill" vision that we like to project. So yes, it undermines our moral credibility. But I also think that in the eyes of our enemey- radical islam-not willing to use it makes us weaker and more vulnerable in their view. Of course most of us can't envision strapping on a c4 belt and walking into a mall and blowingourselves up either.

Consequences? - If you are caught doing something illeagal, you pay the price.

waterboarding, at a minimum, is torture.

Reagan's DoJ prosecuted some putzes in Texas who decided to use it on prisoners in their jail.

So there's case law to back up the legislative laws and our international treaties.

 

I can certainly sympathize with wanting a "clear definition of torture" ... I'd just rather we stayed way the hell away from needing a clear definition of torture. I hope that makes sense. I've seen no evidence to say that "harsh" interrogation methods work better than "tea and crumpets"... and tea and crumpets produce more cross-referential data (aka you can crosscheck with other prisoners) and less "I spilled my guts, lies and truth alike".

 

You're probably right in that it makes us seem weaker. But judging by Gallup's own polling, it also makes us seem more morally justified, in the eyes of radical islam when we don't torture. (I know this is an odd finding!)

 

Yes, but what kind of consequences should a torturer suffer? Killing? Life in prison? 10-20?

Well first of all let me ask

Well first of all let me ask you a question:

Do you think a lawyer who wrote a legal opinion that the administration then used to justify waterboarding should  be held accountable in this case?

In answer to your question: death-no. Life in prison-probably, depending on the circumstances.

 

yes, as far as I've read

the memos specifically referenced waterboarding as something unlikely to cause "permanent injury or death."

I'd be speaking a different tune if it looked like a relatively milquetoast opinion had been spun by the CIA to allow things that the lawyers had not intended.

At a minimum, Bybee, who sits on the 9th circuit court (which is responsible for dealing with many of the cases in question), should be impeached.

As they weren't the direct torturers, I'm somewhat at a loss to find some sort of case law to stand on... ;-) We may be breaking new ground if prosecutions are indeed done. Which is not a good thing! (i smell partisanship and much bickering).

But from what I understand (and I know I don't have the full picture, so I reserve the right to do a 180 if more compelling evidence is released for a different perspective), I think that the OLC folks should be disbarred from practicing law, and subject to criminal proceedings.

The bonus to treating the lawyers as the problem, is that Zubadaiyah, and anyone else tortured, can have a few, targeted folks to sue. These folks will in no way endanger our national security (as might have happened had the decision been made to simply prosecute the interrogators).

Of course, just today someone noticed that the FBI was claiming that Bush issued a signing statement allowing torture. Which means that our previous president should be held somewhat culpable. I doubt this will ever actually happen... (although I'd dearly love to see Cheney get life in prison).

 

Are you opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, or merely feel that it would be unjustified/too pricey in this case?

BTW

I'm not against the death penalty. It would really depend on the circumstances and this is a hypathetical exercise. But, first reaction no-at least not in this case.

absolutely

"Do you think a lawyer who wrote a legal opinion that the administration then used to justify waterboarding should  be held accountable in this case?"

 

There are precedent cases, International Treaties and a little thing called the United States Constitution that all weigh in heavily against torture. It is the job of the lawyers to research their opinions before presenting them, especially in such significant circumstances.

If it can be shown that the administration cherry-picked the opinions they wanted, then the blame also shifts onto them. We're talking about torturing prisoners, not something more perfunctory like whether it's ok to let a lobbyist spend the night at the White House.

This is a good question

This is a good question and very difficult to answer without more information coming out.  I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, so I'm so far from an expert on the matter!

If it becomes clear that they were pressured from above to craft the opinion that would clear waterboarding, regardless of existing case law, and political fealty rather than competent legal analysis was the underpinning of the opinion, then it seems the attorney has at least ethical problems and perhaps disbarment should be pursued.  We already know the administration  destroyed evidence of a differing opinion that the techniques constituted torture.  The White House ignored and then ordered a stop to legal opinions from all four branches of the military, all of which had expressed doubts about the legality of the methods.  The Army's was especially prescient, because it stated the possibility that Army personnel who may become involved in the program could be prosecuted under the Code of Military Justice.  How right they were -- the only people thus far held accountable are a few low-ranking reservists and their commander. 

Some may depend on who the lawyer was representing -- the White House or the DoJ?  If the DoJ, they were representing the American people and I think some case could be made that they failed to competently represent their client.  Disbarment would be a possibility if only ethical violations can be established.  For Bybee, that may also mean impeachment. 

I'd also like to see professional licensing boards consider the actions of medical personnel present during the procedures.  There could be ethical violations there too, but we can't know without an investigation.  If warranted, revocation of a professional license would be in order , at a minimum.

 

Just being devils advocate here

I seem to remember some people had leaked the name of Valerie Plame,a CIA agent, to the press in retribution for her husband contradicting the Bush administration. It ruined her career. The name had been leaked by none other than Darth Vador himself, Dick Cheney. Or Karl Rove. There was blood in the water. It was, plain and simple:TREASON. Treason by the Vice President of the United States!

Except then a funny thing happened. The special prosecutor , Patrick Fitzgerald, found out early on that it was not Dick Cheney  or Karl Rove that had leaked the name. It was a sad sack named Richard Armitage who had inavertanly leaked the name during an interview with Robert Novak.The investigation plowed forward, and turned up nothing. But, Scooter Libby, who worked in Cheney's office, ended up going to jail for lying to the feds.

The Plames turned out to be a rather unsavory couple.

So, I'll just wait for the facts on this one.

we have a pretty impressive collection of facts...

you did see the timeline I've posted.

what concerns me is not that -- it's whether we're seeing a fair picture, or just half the story...

I'm well willing to eat my own flamewar if it turns out that we didn't torture people. that would make my week.

Fair enough

But to get the facts we must have an investigation.  You said you don't oppose that so I'll just move on to convincing the 62% of Americans who do.   (How depressing!)

Wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald is available for this one? 

Research2000 is reading 50+% for some sort of investigation

and around 22% against. Various people want an Indie Panel versus a Criminal investigation... but I am willing to accept either, so long as things are changed so this won't happen again.