Torture Memos [Archive] - Page 2

ShivaX

05-23-2009, 03:05 PM

Love your neighbor? Sure. Non-violence? Not always. It just isn't that simple, unfortunately, despite the Quakers. :D

Actually Jesus did pretty much say non-violence at all times.

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

That says that if someone slaps you across the face, you give them the other cheek to slap. If they steal from you, give them more and don't ask for what they took back.

Is it a realistic stance for the most part? Probably not, but its what the man taught.

Johan

05-23-2009, 04:22 PM

Actually Jesus did pretty much say non-violence at all times.

This is a much more difficult issue than a simple post or two, or even a simple verse or two.

13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer.

Pacifism is not a universal teaching of God's word, whether Old or New Testament. It's just not supportable, in totality. God does sanction some forms of violence.

...its what the man taught.

It's a principle, but in its application, as a principle, is more complicated than "don't exert violence, ever." As I said, he used violent means himself, when God's temple was being violated. He didn't politely ask people to leave, and then turn the other cheek when they didn't. He tossed them. Out.

Theology doesn't have nice, neat wrapping paper around it, unfortunately. Christians who believe the Bible teaches 100% non-violence are pretty simplistic in their understanding of the Bible.

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the present administration is not a theocratic one, and doesn't care what the Bible says about this as regards torture and EIT policies. In fact, I'm pretty sure the issue is just in the ballpark for some here whose agenda includes mockery of the faithful, whomever those folks may be.

Jackel

05-23-2009, 07:18 PM

Actually Jesus did pretty much say non-violence at all times.

That says that if someone slaps you across the face, you give them the other cheek to slap. If they steal from you, give them more and don't ask for what they took back.

Is it a realistic stance for the most part? Probably not, but its what the man taught.

It is very easy to cherry pick one quote from the bible to suit your intents and purposes. So I don't think you can reliably say that Jesus did say non-violence all the time.

It is why so many christian denominations have differing beliefs on different areas. The same thing happens with Islam, explaining how radicals & extremists in all faiths are able to justify their claims in the eyes of god.

mister slim

05-23-2009, 08:57 PM

I do like the quote that implies resisting Obama is resisting God.

National Kato

05-24-2009, 03:58 PM

Is it better than Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter?

Hmm...haven't seen that one yet. But I'm thinking Waterboard Jesus might be a nice one, seeing as how Jesus was some sort of angry bouncer. ;)

mister slim

05-24-2009, 04:40 PM

Hmm...haven't seen that one yet. But I'm thinking Waterboard Jesus might be a nice one, seeing as how Jesus was some sort of angry bouncer. ;)

"Son, you tell me what I want, or I keep 'baptizing' you till you talk."

alienmastermind

05-25-2009, 01:20 PM

Where does the idea that faith in Jesus presupposes complete non-violence come from? That's a confusing theological position to me.

* When Jesus got ANGRY (and I mean PISSED), he assaulted the money-lenders in the temple, tossing their tables and chucking them out, on their asses.

He also said 'when a man strikes you on the cheek, present the other also', stating that you shouldn't hit back.

* When Jesus met a soldier, he didn't tell him to stop killing people. He told him not to take bribes.

He also pointed out that judging people based on their professions was probably the wrong thing to do. And judging people's holiness or wickedness was the province of God the Father. When Jesus met a mob of people about to stone a woman to death for infidelity, he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

So, of course, they nailed the poor man to a hunk of wood during an eclipse. The rest, we all know, is history.

Love your neighbor? Sure. Non-violence? Not always. It just isn't that simple, unfortunately, despite the Quakers. :D

Let this, then be the law above all others, Love thy neighbor as you love thyself.

Are you suggesting you like to be beaten, Johan? You kinky little minx, you.

Seriously, though, not many people know what the second covenant is, or why it's important that Jesus came to Earth to refine the covenant between God and man, to wash away Original Sin, and allow man to have closeness once more to the Almighty.

People have such simplistic views of faith and Christianity, as if Christians are a monolithic blob, walking in lockstep with each other. That's silly.

Also, this thread should have been titled "Torture Meme-oes." Everyone likes an oreo cookie.

That wasn't funny. I don't know what that was. But, not funny. Maybe a little bit racist. But not, you know, ha-ha, funny. Try again.

Edit: Also, you're pulling scripture from Romans, which is not written by Jesus, or quoting Jesus. It's letters to Roman christians from Paul, encouraging them even though they live in one of the most decadent and wicked (their definition) cities in the known world, they can rely on the truth of Christ's message of hope to see them through.

Here's something on violence from Psalms. Which seems to support me, but unless you know that Psalms are like prayers to God, rather than God's word, wise sayings...Much like Proverbs....you would believe this to be the word of God to Man himself. Which it's not. It's Man's inspired word about God.

Psalm 11:5 (New International Version)

5 The LORD examines the righteous,
but the wicked [a] and those who love violence
his soul hates.

Also, this is from the Old Testament, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

From Proverbs, by the by, 'Do not envy a violent man, or choose any of his ways'.

'Blows and wounds cleanse away evil, and beatings purge the inmost being.'
So, you see, these Proverbs (Not holy Scripture, necessarily, just good advice...fortune cookie type stuff) can conflict with one another as well.

Christianity is deep, but Christ would not have man hit another man. He drove the money lenders out. Which word means 'Hit' 'Beat' or 'Struck'?

From Matthew 21
12 Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'[e] but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'[f]"

It's also talked about here:

Mark 11
15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[c]? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'[d]"

He turns tables over, driving them out. He could drive demons out of a man by gesturing, but for some reason mere people wouldn't heed his authority without him hitting them first?

Hm.

Luke says one thing: 'He began to drive out the people who were selling'

John glosses over it and calls it 'teaching at the temple'. Likely, because to him, simply sending people away from the temple wasn't a 'miracle'.

People bring a lot to the Bible that just isn't there, Johan.

Johan

05-25-2009, 07:00 PM

Just for you, alien. Just. For. You. (http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/05/25/c0298303-9b71-47b8-a8ae-61f05fd30aeb)

:D

BlackPete

05-25-2009, 08:39 PM

Not worth creating a new thread for this, but thought it'd be interesting:

Former Senior Interrogator: Cheney was wrong. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/whats-not-said-is-more-im_b_207151.html)

He further stated, "It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so." That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn't say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.

So much for Cheney making America safer...

The former vice president is confusing harshness with effectiveness. An effective interrogation is one that yields useful, accurate intelligence, not one that is harsh. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of interrogations, the goal of which is not to coerce information from a prisoner, but to convince a prisoner to cooperate.

So much for saying that torture "worked"....

ShivaX

05-26-2009, 12:24 AM

Just for you, alien. Just. For. You. (http://townhall.com/cartoons/2009/05/25/c0298303-9b71-47b8-a8ae-61f05fd30aeb)

:D

See the thing I don't get is we have the right saying "Obama is endangering us all by changing our terror policies" while at the same time also saying "His policies are just like Bush's!"

So... yeah.

I imagine the two camps are Bush supporters (ie Cheney) and the Bush haters (ie most everyone else), but its still strange to see. Then again theres a pretty large group thats going to lambast him no matter what he says or does because he has a (D) in front of his name and those guys will probably switch positions depending on what group they're talking to.

National Kato

05-26-2009, 02:17 PM

Hey, we have a volunteer! (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/montana.gitmo.west/index.html)

ShivaX

05-26-2009, 02:22 PM

Hey, we have a volunteer! (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/montana.gitmo.west/index.html)

"Housing potential terrorists in Montana is not good for our state," Max Baucus, the state's senior Democratic senator, wrote to Smith. "These people stop at nothing. Their primary goal in life, and death, is to destroy America."

Honestly Montana is a great place to keep these guys. A huge empty state full of white people and miltiamen types. Its not like they'll escape and blend into the populace and be able to hit a major city easily. They're 1000 miles from anything worth hitting and have to traverse mountains and near desert conditions to even attempt it.

And we keep far scarier dudes in prisons in the US anyway. Like the brain eating dude. Seriously these guys have nothing on a dude that calmly discusses taking a bite out of someones brain.

Heres where Hardin is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Big_Horn_County_Montana_Incorporated_and_Unincorpo rated_areas_Hardin_Highlighted.svg/800px-Big_Horn_County_Montana_Incorporated_and_Unincorpo rated_areas_Hardin_Highlighted.svg.png
Theres literally shit all in Eastern Montana through the Dakotas.

National Kato

05-26-2009, 02:24 PM

ShivaX

05-26-2009, 02:29 PM

I understand the NIMBY reaction: the prison is near both City Hall and a school. But if a brand new prison can hold child rapists, murderers, and other extremely violent offenders who, just like these terrorists, do not value human life, why not?

If one was to escape? Do you really think he'd find a friendly face in Montana?!

I guess they could run into some McVeigh types and team up to overthrow the government or something. Well right up until they started praying to Allah and the homegrowns realized that the terrorist didn't just have a bitchin tan.

05-26-2009, 02:33 PM

There is one difference between a terrorist and a brain-eater: nobody's likely to try to bust the brain-eater out of prison. Terrorists are more likely to work together both inside (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/07/terrorism) and outside (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060206/yemen_alqaeda_060206/20060206?hub=World) the prison to foment escape. And while perhaps we might engage in racial profiling and presume that Montana is a difficult place for escaped terrorists to blend in, there is free travel in the United States: anyone with $200 who was able to steal a car and order from a drive-thru would be able to get from Hardin to Los Angeles in a couple of days without running much risk of interception.

The "11 blocks from the school" thing does strike me as a little weird. Unless we're talking an extremely well-organized breakout, I doubt he'll have his suicide vest ready. And these guys are presumably more likely to be planners than operatives anyway.

ShivaX

05-26-2009, 02:42 PM

Well presumably we'd bring a significant military or federal police force to keep things under control. I mean I can drive to Leavenworth, but I'd be hard pressed to break anyone out of it.

Ink Asylum

05-26-2009, 02:53 PM

Does anyone really think terrorists are capable of breaking out of a Supermax prison? Even with outside help? Here's a peek inside one. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-tamms-27feb27,0,1641824.story)

Conditions are harsh—and meant to be. For at least 23 hours a day, prisoners sit in solitary confinement in 7-by-12-foot cells. There is no mess hall—meals are shoved through a chuckhole in cell doors. Contact with the outside world is sharply restricted. For a rare visit from relatives or friends, inmates are strip-searched, chained to a concrete stool and separated from visitors by a thick glass wall.

They aren't going to pull a Shawshank Redemption on us. After all, we already have terrorists in Supermax prisons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052102009.html) and none have escaped, nor have any terrorist buddies tried to stage a rescue.

Thirty-three international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda, reside in a single federal prison in Florence, Colo., with little public notice.

Detained in the supermax facility in Colorado are Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Ahmed Ressam, of the Dec. 31, 1999, Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.

Why would any terrorists on the outside even attempt a rescue? It's not like they have trouble recruting. Nor does Al-Qaeda seem to be crippled without the masterminds we've got locked away. Even if we captured Osama and threw him into a solitary confinement cell on US soil they'd just leave him to rot or be a martyr and some Al-Qaeda lieutenant would take over and plan some more suicide bombings on soft targets, not attempt some daring, unprecedented prison break.

National Kato

05-26-2009, 03:07 PM

Agreed, Ink. Every time I hear people complain about holding them within the U.S. I wonder how little respect they have for our corrections officers and law enforcement personnel. This would be good for jobs and likely help save that town.

05-26-2009, 03:09 PM

Why would any terrorists on the outside even attempt a rescue?
I don't know. Why do terrorists stage escape attempts for affiliates at other prisons? They helped four captives at Bagram (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/international/asia/04escape.html) escape a few years ago, so while it might be "daring," it's not "unprecedented".

Ink Asylum

05-26-2009, 03:15 PM

Unprecedented refers to breaking someone out of a Supermax prison, not a recently built detention center in a war zone. There is a world of difference between attempting a rescue in Afghanistan, where the terrorists are supported by large segments of the population, have numerous bases, know the lay of the land, have better access to weapons and support structure, and a US presence limited largely to military bases; and in the heartland of America, not to mention the disparity between the security of the Afghan prison compared to a Supermax facility. Here's how they apparently escaped:

According to military officials familiar with the episode, the suspects are believed to have picked the lock on their cell, changed out of their bright orange uniforms and made their way through a heavily guarded military base under the cover of night. They then crawled over a faulty wall where a getaway vehicle was apparently waiting for them, the officials said.

So when I say "unprecedented" it's like saying that it would be unprecedented for a US President to be kidnapped by Al Qaeda, even though they kidnap people all the time. I agree I could have been more specific what I was referring to with that word.

Doogie2K

05-26-2009, 10:01 PM

They're 1000 miles from anything worth hitting and have to traverse mountains and near desert conditions to even attempt it.

Theres literally shit all in Eastern Montana through the Dakotas.

It's also about 600 miles from Calgary, and if the territory in eastern Montana is like the territory in southern Alberta, it ain't that bad.

Which is not to say that Calgary is a priority target, per se, but it's a large urban centre (1M people) with plenty of wealthy businesses and tourist attractions that might attract some attention if hit.

National Kato

05-27-2009, 08:43 AM

General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, interviewed by Radio Free Europe this past Sunday (http://www.rferl.org/content/transcript_RFERL_Interviews_US_Central_Command_Chi ef_General_David_Petraeus/1738626.html), supports closing of Guantanamo and a return to interrogation methods that are in line with Geneva Conventions.

RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

With respect to Guantanamo, I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the attorney general the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward.

But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.I wonder if the right wing will now attack Gen. Petraeus for being out of touch with what is necessary to protect U.S. troops? He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to fighting terrorism...right?

National Kato

05-27-2009, 12:39 PM

WLS-AM 890's Erich 'Mancow' Muller used to consider waterboarding merely 'water dropped on someone's face.' That is, until he volunteered to try it out himself.

qUkj9pjx3H0

“The average person can take this for 14 seconds,” Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, “He’s going to wiggle, he’s going to scream, he’s going to wish he never did this.”

With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.
Turns out the stunt wasn’t so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.
On MSNBC, he explained his experience (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/keith-olbermann-talks-erich-mancow-muller)in more detail:

Muller: You said something incorrectly and I think everyone has. They compare it to drowning. Now I drowned as a kid and I had to be revived and I've also been white water rafting, if you've ever had that sensation of being caught under water. This is worse. Okay, this isn't gulping for air. This is...your brain is shut off. This is water at the back of your skull, a gallon of water poured down my nose, I had a Marine do it, and I mean it was goodnight Irene, game over.

[.....]

Look, I've seen the video. You've shown the video. The sprinkling of the water. Big deal. They said what was your psychological state. I was laughing at it. I was willing to prove and ready to prove that this was a joke and I was wrong. It was horrific. It was instantaneous and look I felt the effects for two days. I had chest pains. I told my wife, look I have two little kids-- we prayed. I said dear god help me. I had chest pains I was so stressed out by this.
His summary? "Absolutely torture. Absolutely. That's drowning," and that he would've said anything, confessed to anything, to make it stop. After only 6 seconds. And he only received the 'Lite' version.

Sean Hannity and other doubters? Your turn.

Ink Asylum

05-27-2009, 12:57 PM

Later in the Olbermann interview Mancow says that Hannity, who he is friends with, called him up and told him, "It's still not torture."

National Kato

05-27-2009, 01:00 PM

The offer from Olbermann to pay $1,000 for each second Hannity can take being waterboarded has been withdrawn now that Muller stepped up.
Olbermann: This is where I normally remind Sean Hannity that it is so many days since I took him up on his offer to be waterboarded for charity, without any reply from him. But with today’s development the point is moot.

"Mancow" Muller had the guts to put his mouth where his mouth was, and the guts to admit he was dead wrong. As you saw, he not only said waterboarding is torture but that is is drowning and that he would have admitted to anything to make it stop.

So the offer to the cowardish Hannity...a thousand dollars a second he lasted on the waterboard....is withdrawn. And to Mr. Muller, whose station’s publicity person contacted us yesterday saying she’d heard I’d offered ten thousand dollars to anybody who would do what he did…

You got it.

Ten thousand dollars to the military-families charity of the man who did the waterboarding, the group is called Veterans Of Valor.

Mr. Muller will join us on this news hour next week. As to Mr. Hannity… you are now unnecessary.

Telefrog

05-27-2009, 01:05 PM

Later in the Olbermann interview Mancow says that Hannity, who he is friends with, called him up and told him, "It's still not torture."

Of course it isn't. To ideologically blinded people, nothing will ever be considered "torture" as long as it is directed at THE ENEMY.

Shrinn

05-27-2009, 02:57 PM

Honestly, it doesn't look that bad. But to see his reaction from it. It's scary.

Ravenlock

05-27-2009, 04:58 PM

One of the most interesting things to me about the interview with him on Olbermann's show is that Olbermann asks him, straight up (though I'm paraphrasing), "Why did you need to DO this to know it's so bad?" And he really didn't have much of an answer, other than that maybe the name doesn't properly imply the horror of the event.

Which is simultaneously a bit of a cop-out - plenty of people TOLD you how awful it is, you chose not to believe any of them (just as plenty of people are still choosing not to believe any of them) - but also a strong statement in support of the idea that we absolutely need to apply the torture label to techniques that merit it. Not doing so leads precisely to the sort of rationalization that led him to think this was no big deal right up until the point where the partial drowning started.

05-27-2009, 05:10 PM

but also a strong statement in support of the idea that we absolutely need to apply the torture label to techniques that merit it. Not doing so leads precisely to the sort of rationalization that led him to think this was no big deal right up until the point where the partial drowning started.
True, although it also weighs in favor of preserving your credibility on the issue. Keith Olbermann constantly talks about waterboarding being torture, but he also claimed that the United States had been conquered by a fascist dictatorship in 2001 -- only an idiot or a loon would regard him as anything like a reliable source. The issue isn't so much ideological blindness, I think, as the fact that so many Americans have developed (fairly or unfairly) a deep and profound distrust of Democrats. Thus, even when Democrats say something that is true, many people assume they must be lying.

Obviously, Republicans have fostered a similar level of distrust with their opponents. But I dislike when people claim this is mere "ideological blindness", because while it does involve a degree of irrationality, it's not quite as pigheaded as it sounds: neither side routinely deals fairly, and as a result people tend to assume they're lying. This is problematic when the truth is on your side.

Ravenlock

05-27-2009, 05:37 PM

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't think Keith Olbermann is someone I'd go to in order to get the "straight scoop" on something. He sometimes makes valid points (as do many people whose credibility could be called into question - I've agreed with Hannity on rare instances) and occasionally even makes them eloquently, but he also crosses into hyperbole on a regular basis.

I don't think, though, that you can point to him and call some sort of equivalency between the "sides" of irrational argument in U.S. media. On the right, there's O'Reilly, and Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin, and Anne Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and Quinn & Rose, and Michael Savage, and this guy Mancow... they've made an industry (and an incredibly profitable one) out of distorting reality to partisan ends and they've been doing it for decades. On the left... well, right now, there's Olbermann, and I guess Michael Moore when he crawls out every couple of years. I'll happily grant you that they're playing the same distasteful game, but they're also playing catch-up by about 90 miles.

In short, I guess I'm saying that this:

Obviously, Republicans have fostered a similar level of distrust with their opponents.

strikes me as understatement in the extreme. The seeming legions of people who follow the aforementioned individuals [Limbaugh, Hannity, et al] as though telling the truth is actually something they do on a regular basis (and I work with several of these followers) depresses me to. no. end.

05-27-2009, 11:56 PM

I don't think, though, that you can point to him and call some sort of equivalency between the "sides" of irrational argument in U.S. media. On the right, there's O'Reilly, and Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin, and Anne Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and Quinn & Rose, and Michael Savage, and this guy Mancow... they've made an industry (and an incredibly profitable one) out of distorting reality to partisan ends and they've been doing it for decades.
Honestly, if you lump Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin together, I kind of start questioning your credibility. The left likes to view every rightie with a microphone as the same, but it's hardly true.

On the left... well, right now, there's Olbermann, and I guess Michael Moore when he crawls out every couple of years.
And James Carville, Paul Begala, Paul Krugman, Dahlia Lithwick, Emily Bazelon, Kos, Maureen Dowd, David Brock, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Atrios... I have more examples if you'd like.

The seeming legions of people who follow the aforementioned individuals [Limbaugh, Hannity, et al] as though telling the truth is actually something they do on a regular basis (and I work with several of these followers) depresses me to. no. end.
Like you say, all of these people we've listed often say true things, and I'm willing to believe they all honestly believe what they're saying is always true. All people are sometimes mistaken, and some people are mistaken a whole heck of a lot of the time. And it sure is depressing when others listen to the words of a person you believe to be regularly mistaken as if it were Gospel. But I think one of the worst mistakes people make is when they claim that, for some inexplicable reason, being frequently mistaken is much more common on the right than the left. You guys have your fair share of raving loons, too, and either you don't realize it (which is concerning) or you're inclined to excuse it (which is understandable, but not wonderful).

Ravenlock

05-28-2009, 12:32 AM

Honestly, if you lump Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin together, I kind of start questioning your credibility. The left likes to view every rightie with a microphone as the same, but it's hardly true.

That's fair, I'll grant you that. No, they're not the same. My apologies for grouping them too closely together.

And James Carville, Paul Begala, Paul Krugman, Dahlia Lithwick, Emily Bazelon, Kos, Maureen Dowd, David Brock, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Atrios... I have more examples if you'd like.

*Shrug* Several of those names I frankly don't know (which may simply be because I'm not in fact a committed member of "the left", or may be because they aren't actually that widely known or listened to), and most of them that I do know don't have nearly the influence that it seems from my perspective the mouthpieces of the right have.

The day Paul Begala, James Carville or Paul Krugman is the keynote speaker at... well, whatever the left's version of CPAC (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/limbaugh.speech.cpac/index.html) is, and then has the head of the DNC apologize (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/) for criticizing his agenda and methods, then we can talk. I'm sorry, but in terms of the influence these folks have, and have had, on the party and its members, I don't think there's any comparison at all.

Like you say, all of these people we've listed often say true things, and I'm willing to believe they all honestly believe what they're saying is always true.

Well, there's a difference between us. I'm not willing to believe they all "honestly believe" what they're saying is "always true". I don't even think some of them believe it's mostly true. I've listened to the radio shows of Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and Michael Savage. Did it most days for over a month in 2007 just out of curiosity while I was looking for work. I believe they are out to profit from playing on the emotions and misplaced trust of their audience, end of story. The number of times they would blatantly contradict themselves or the accepted facts from one day to the next - or hell, from one CALL to the next - simply in order to string along a conversation or stir up some outrage over something was sickening to me. It was utterly transparent. Rush doesn't care whether something is true or not when he says it, he cares whether it will play.

They're talented entertainers - and when cornered about their misrepresentation of facts they will happily fall back on that as a defense - but by and large they are using that talent for their own benefit only, not in some noble pursuit of truth.

All people are sometimes mistaken, and some people are mistaken a whole heck of a lot of the time. And it sure is depressing when others listen to the words of a person you believe to be regularly mistaken as if it were Gospel. But I think one of the worst mistakes people make is when they claim that, for some inexplicable reason, being frequently mistaken is much more common on the right than the left. You guys have your fair share of raving loons, too, and either you don't realize it (which is concerning) or you're inclined to excuse it (which is understandable, but not wonderful).

I do not think or claim that being frequently mistaken is much more common on the right than the left. But the evidence I have seen leads me to believe that (in the realm of media - in politics both sides seem equally guilty) being deliberately misleading for profit and personal gain, or simply not caring what the truth is when there are ratings to be had, is.

All of which strays rather widely from the original topic of conversation, which was Mancow's reversal on his waterboarding position, and I apologize for going off on a tangent. I've never listened to his show and don't have a whole lot to say on his motives or his interview beyond what I already did.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 06:19 AM

And James Carville, Paul Begala, Paul Krugman, Dahlia Lithwick, Emily Bazelon, Kos, Maureen Dowd, David Brock, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Atrios... I have more examples if you'd like.

Wow. You balk at comparing Michelle Malkin to Ann Coulter but then you turn around and put Paul Krugman down as a lefty counterpart to the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Mancow?

05-28-2009, 09:27 AM

The day Paul Begala, James Carville or Paul Krugman is the keynote speaker at... well, whatever the left's version of CPAC (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/28/limbaugh.speech.cpac/index.html) is
Does having Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore speak at the YearlyKos/Netroots Nation convention in 2008 count?
and then has the head of the DNC apologize (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/02/gop.steele.limbaugh/) for criticizing his agenda and methods, then we can talk.
When you show me a prominent Democratic elected official criticizing any of the netroots, then we can debate whether his or her subsequent apology is equivalent to Steele's apology. But I can't find any examples of prominent Democrats ever criticizing any of these people. It's odd to cite that as somehow proving Democrats are less beholden to these folks than Republicans are to their loonies.

Wow. You balk at comparing Michelle Malkin to Ann Coulter but then you turn around and put Paul Krugman down as a lefty counterpart to the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Mancow?
Who's biased, you or me? Maybe both. But let's look at a recent example (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/11/too-rosy-for-even-a-nobel-prize-winner/):
Harvard economics Professor Greg Mankiw thinks that Mr. Obama's growth forecasts are overly optimistic and that the federal deficit will be a lot larger than Mr. Obama thinks. He was chastised by Princeton's Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, who on his New York Times blog claims that Mankiw can only make the predictions that he does because of "more than a bit of deliberate obtuseness." He titled his post on Mankiw, "Roots of Evil."
Hmm. A famous, talented, and widely respected (albeit conservative) economist disagrees with the President's predictions. In response, Krugman calls him evil and deliberately obtuse. Does that sound more like Ann Coulter or Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

National Kato

05-28-2009, 09:37 AM

In response, Krugman calls him evil and deliberately obtuse. Does that sound more like Ann Coulter or Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

Krugman's been very, very vocal about his disagreement with Obama's economic plans. So much so that he was on the cover of Newsweek (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/28/newsweeks-krugman-cover-s_n_180343.html), titled 'The Loyal Opposition of Paul Krugman (http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393)' under the cover heading 'Obama Is Wrong.' Politico calls him (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20592.html) 'the Left's new anti-Obama.' I doubt his calling Mankiw's ideas 'evil' is due to his lockstep support of Obama.

Not exactly the same as the echo chamber talking heads on the Right, Ox. Not the best example.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 10:00 AM

Hmm. A famous, talented, and widely respected (albeit conservative) economist disagrees with the President's predictions. In response, Krugman calls him evil and deliberately obtuse. Does that sound more like Ann Coulter or Daniel Patrick Moynihan?

Here's the actual blog post: (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/roots-of-evil-wonkish/)

Roots of evil (wonkish)

As Brad DeLong says, sigh. Greg Mankiw challenges the administration’s prediction of relatively fast growth a few years from now on the basis that real GDP may have a unit root — that is, there’s no tendency for bad years to be offset by good years later.

I always thought the unit root thing involved a bit of deliberate obtuseness — it involved pretending that you didn’t know the difference between, say, low GDP growth due to a productivity slowdown like the one that happened from 1973 to 1995, on one side, and low GDP growth due to a severe recession. For one thing is very clear: variables that measure the use of resources, like unemployment or capacity utilization, do NOT have unit roots: when unemployment is high, it tends to fall. And together with Okun’s law, this says that yes, it is right to expect high growth in future if the economy is depressed now.

But to invoke the unit root thing to disparage growth forecasts now involves more than a bit of deliberate obtuseness. How can you fail to acknowledge that there’s huge slack capacity in the economy right now? And yes, we can expect fast growth if and when that capacity comes back into use.

Yeah, that sounds like Ann Coulter, all right.

Krugman dismisses a wonkish argument as obtuse and his "Roots of Evil" title is referring to "unit roots," not to Mankiw. So if I were to use the common adage "money is the root of all evil" in a debate I'd be calling my opponent "evil"? As an offensive comment I guess it ranks up there with "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Though it reminds me more of the Family Guy gag about the British:

Englishman: I say, Jeremy, isn't that Reginald B. Stifworth, the young upstart chap who's been touting the merits of a united European commonwealth?
Jeremy: Why yes, I daresay it is.
Englishman: Oh, let's get him.
(They drive up.)
Englishman: Oh Reginald... I disagree!
(drives off)

So a play on words and calling someone "deliberately obtuse" bring someone to Ann Coulter levels? But Michelle Malkin isn't?

05-28-2009, 10:05 AM

Krugman's been very, very vocal about his disagreement with Obama's economic plans.
Sure. And Kos has been very vocal about his disagreement with Obama's detention plans.

I'm not accusing either of them of being slavishly dedicated to Obama's policies, whatever they might be. I'm accusing them of being unreasonably and offensively accusatory and uncharitable toward their ideological opponents.

Rush Limbaugh frequently criticized Bush over any number of issues. Heck, he slammed Bush before he was even elected because he hated the "compassionate conservative" label, he was ambivalent about NCLB and despised Medicare Part D. Heck, he slammed Bush for being just as bad as Al Gore (http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/06/04/20020604_093817_flash71.htm). Does that mean Rush Limbaugh is not really that bad? Or does it simply mean that "partisan loon" is not quite the same thing as "uncritical follower of your party's President"?

National Kato

05-28-2009, 10:07 AM

Sorry, Ox, Krugman's still not on par with Malkin and Coulter. I've never seen him be vicious in his choice of words.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 10:10 AM

What, Kato, "deliberately obtuse" isn't vicious enough for you?

05-28-2009, 10:22 AM

Krugman dismisses a wonkish argument as obtuse and his "Roots of Evil" title is referring to "unit roots," not to Mankiw.
That's a generous reading. I suppose you also think this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=3) isn't really accusing everyone who supports smaller government of doing it because he hates black people.

And Kato, if you've never seen Krugman use a vicious choice of words, you clearly haven't read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp) column. He says the "modern right-wing political machine" places "routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate," and that the Republican Party is a "a truly vicious political movement" that "punish[es]... injured children". Bear in mind that by "punishing injured children," he is referring to the Republican opposition to the expansion of SCHIP.

But hey, don't take my word for it: after all, I'm a stupid, dishonest racist. Instead, listen to David Okrent (http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393/page/3), ombudsman for the New York Times:
"Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Krugman says that Okrent "caved" to the criticism of conservative ideologues who were out to get him. ("I tried to be an honest broker," says Okrent. "But when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance.")
I try to understand why people think the way they do, even if I disagree with them. But I honestly cannot understand why liberals think Paul Krugman is not a vile human being, no matter how many medals he might win.

Ravenlock

05-28-2009, 10:28 AM

Does having Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore speak at the YearlyKos/Netroots Nation convention in 2008 count?

...Um, it's interesting, I guess, but I don't see how it's a parallel. I didn't know anything about this, so I went and read about it over at Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1824631,00.html); it sounds like Pelosi and Gore showed up for a Q&A session in which she initially was responding to some criticisms about not being rabidly anti-Bush enough, and was then shoring up support for climate change policy, at which point she brought in Gore. Politicians showing up at political events hoping to drum up support, which they do all the time with all sorts of groups, seems rather pedestrian and pretty far removed (to me, at least) from having a radio entertainer speak for an hour and a half at CPAC and then draw obsequious kowtowing from the head of the RNC.

When you show me a prominent Democratic elected official criticizing any of the netroots, then we can debate whether his or her subsequent apology is equivalent to Steele's apology. But I can't find any examples of prominent Democrats ever criticizing any of these people. It's odd to cite that as somehow proving Democrats are less beholden to these folks than Republicans are to their loonies.

Does MoveOn count? Honestly I'm not familiar with what "any of the netroots" entails, but I can link you right now to pre-presidential Obama calling out MoveOn's slander of General Petraeus (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-criticizes-moveon.org-in-patriotism-speech-2008-06-30.html), and another example from 2004 of John Kerry criticizing them for their ad about Bush (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0818-03.htm). I can't find anything about an apology to MoveOn from Obama or Kerry afterwards.

Seriously, that you can view what happened with the CPAC thing as anything less than ludicrous is really weird to me. Rush Limbaugh was presented by the media, and then by CPAC, as the effective head of the conservative movement and the Republican party - which is absurd. The ACTUAL head of the RNC stated the obvious truth that this was not the case, and suggested that maybe Rush was making things worse and not better by undermining from the sidelines. And then Steele had to apologize for that to Rush. That is almost as insane as Whittington apologizing to Cheney for being shot by him.

You didn't reply to the rest of my post about the actual motives of Rush, Hannity, etc, so I assume that either means you don't disagree or prefer not to discuss it, either of which is fine.

Upon reflection, though, I do want to say that I probably picked the wrong thing to respond to last night. When you said Olbermann's credibility is weak on waterboarding, my response probably should have been "so what?"

I didn't form my opinion that waterboarding is a horrible practice and should be labeled torture after hearing an ex-sports commentator say that it's true, I formed it after hearing people who have actually gone through it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html), both in peacetime and in wartime (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his), and who have suffered other forms of torture (http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200/page/1) say that it's true. (That last link has no byline on page 1, but it's written by McCain.) There's no lack of credible people who have strongly asserted for a long time now the horror of waterboarding as a torture technique. What Olbermann had or hadn't said about it is irrelevant.

National Kato

05-28-2009, 10:30 AM

And Kato, if you've never seen Krugman use a vicious choice of words, you clearly haven't read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/opinion/12krugman.html?hp) column.

Maybe the focus on 'vicious' words is subjective enough to muddle my point. I just don't think Krugman is even closely on the same level as Coulter.

Back on topic, I also agree with Ravenlock that Olbermann's credibility shouldn't matter one whit in the discussion of waterboarding. It's torture and I can't for the life of me understand why some people insist it isn't without having experienced it.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 10:39 AM

I try to understand why people think the way they do, even if I disagree with them. But I honestly cannot understand why liberals think Paul Krugman is not a vile human being, no matter how many medals he might win.

I guess I'm just as stunned that you would object more to comparing Michelle Malkin, someone who wrote a book titled "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild," to Coulter than you do comparing Krugman to her.

National Kato

05-28-2009, 10:54 AM

I think I now understand why Obama wants to keep some of the torture photos out of the public eye. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090528/ts_nm/us_iraq_abughraib_rape)

Photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse which U.S. President Barack Obama does not want released include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on Thursday.
"The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Others are said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

The photographs relate to 400 alleged cases of abuse carried out at Abu Ghraib and six other prisons between 2001 and 2005.

Additional info. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html)

05-28-2009, 11:18 AM

Seriously, that you can view what happened with the CPAC thing as anything less than ludicrous is really weird to me. Rush Limbaugh was presented by the media, and then by CPAC, as the effective head of the conservative movement and the Republican party - which is absurd.
I'm not sure a keynote speaker is the same thing as the head of the organization -- for example, when Rudy Giuliani was the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention in 2008, it was after he had gotten 2% in every Presidential primary that year. Nor would it be accurate to say that Barack Obama was the head of the Democrats in 2004, when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. And CPAC is basically the equivalent of the Netnoots Nation convention -- an unofficial convention for ideologues at which elected officials make appearances to rally the base. Frankly, Limbaugh, as a committed partisan, made more sense to deliver a speech there than Bush did, precisely because Limbaugh was not the leader of the party but a rabble-rouser.

Do I think it's ridiculous that Limbaugh gets as much respect as he does? Yes. Do I think Limbaugh himself is ridiculous? Yes. Do I think being a keynote speaker at CPAC is a good example of this ridiculousness? No.

The ACTUAL head of the RNC stated the obvious truth that this was not the case, and suggested that maybe Rush was making things worse and not better by undermining from the sidelines. And then Steele had to apologize for that to Rush.
Actually, Steele apologized for denigrating Limbaugh as a mere "entertainer" and saying his show was "incendiary" and "ugly". I think the incendiary and ugly comments were fair, but the entertainer comment was not: for better or worse, Limbaugh is a prominent political pundit, commentator, and thinker, and dismissing his influence as mere entertainment is simply inaccurate. And certainly calling his show "ugly" and "incendiary" is insulting. True, but not a good idea to say to someone supposedly on your side and who is very popular.

Upon reflection, though, I do want to say that I probably picked the wrong thing to respond to last night. When you said Olbermann's credibility is weak on waterboarding, my response probably should have been "so what?"

I didn't form my opinion that waterboarding is a horrible practice and should be labeled torture after hearing an ex-sports commentator say that it's true, I formed it after hearing people who have actually gone through it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html), both in peacetime and in wartime (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his), and who have suffered other forms of torture (http://www.newsweek.com/id/51200/page/1) say that it's true. (That last link has no byline on page 1, but it's written by McCain.) There's no lack of credible people who have strongly asserted for a long time now the horror of waterboarding as a torture technique. What Olbermann had or hadn't said about it is irrelevant.
That's great. But the question isn't, "Is waterboarding torture?" The question was, "Why do so many people believe waterboarding isn't torture?" And the reason is as stated: by far the most prominent people calling it torture are deemed, fairly or unfairly, to be inveterate liars. If Keith Olbermann or Rush Limbaugh said the sky was blue, there are a lot of people who would reflexively disagree. This is partly the doubters' fault -- reflexive disagreement is not admirable -- but also partly the speakers' fault. Both of them have debased their credibility over time, so we shouldn't be surprised if people disagree with them even when other corroborating evidence exists. Not everybody pays as much attention to the news as you do.

Michelle Malkin, someone who wrote a book titled "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild,"
I haven't read the book, but my understanding is that it claims that certain specific liberals are unhinged, not that the entire corpus of the American left is insane. It backs that argument with examples. Surely you agree that some people on the left are unhinged?

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 11:38 AM

That's great. But the question isn't, "Is waterboarding torture?" The question was, "Why do so many people believe waterboarding isn't torture?" And the reason is as stated: by far the most prominent people calling it torture are deemed, fairly or unfairly, to be inveterate liars.

More prominent than Barack Obama? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/apr/30/obama-torture)

Nor is it only liberals or Democrats that have said it:

John McCain (http://www.librarygrape.com/2009/04/mccain-unequivocally-says-that.html)
Richard Armitage (http://www.truthout.org/041609K)
Tom Ridge (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,323968,00.html)
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/22932.html)

So not only are waterboard defenders ignoring the left they reflexively disagree with, but also those on the right that they just cover their ears and ignore.

I haven't read the book, but my understanding is that it claims that certain specific liberals are unhinged, not that the entire corpus of the American left is insane. It backs that argument with examples. Surely you agree that some people on the left are unhinged?

Here's Amazon's editorial review:

From Publishers Weekly
The spewing of vitriol, epithets and wild conspiracy theories suggest a collective nervous breakdown among liberals, according to conservative commentator Malkin who, in her latest book, makes no distinction between moderate and extreme liberals; everyone left of right is a nut who suffers from PEST-Post Election Selection Trauma. This syndrome, she explains, is democratic (small d), affecting stuffed-donkey clutching college students and seasoned congressmen and journalists whose overweening diatribes and hand-wringing Malkin has seized to illustrate an emotionally charged and irrational hatred of everything conservative. Malkin scoured blogs, speeches, media commentaries and even transcripts from Oprah for material, though she misses the boat in a number of instances, most notably in her obliviousness to sarcasm and irony, and she overextends her analytical prowess by offering shallow, shoddy critiques of theater, literature and modern art. Malkin uses extremist bloggers and airheaded celebrities as exemplars of the left, cherry picking the most egregiously tasteless examples of ill-conceived commentary or inflammatory behavior to bolster her case that liberals, as a whole, have gone off their rockers. Right-wingers looking for affirmation will enjoy.

So someone who has read it is saying she does exactly that, uses the most extreme liberals to tar the entire Left. Wouldn't you say that is much more like Ann Coulter than anything Krugman has written?

National Kato

05-28-2009, 11:50 AM

05-28-2009, 11:56 AM

So not only are waterboard defenders ignoring the left they reflexively disagree with, but also those on the right that they just cover their ears and ignore.
True.

So someone who has read it is saying she does exactly that, uses the most extreme liberals to tar the entire Left. Wouldn't you say that is much more like Ann Coulter than anything Krugman has written?
I'll say it's much closer to Ann Coulter than I thought. Perhaps I'll consider picking it up to see for myself. I don't agree there's much gap between Coulter and Krugman, but Malkin is not looking dramatically better than them.

EDIT: One question, though: the President says that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, and all Democrats routinely accuse the GOP of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans. How is this different from what Malkin does? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious. I imagine it's at least as insulting to me to be told I'm part of the Glenn Beck crowd as it is for me to accuse you of being with DailyKos.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 12:08 PM

I'll say it's much closer to Ann Coulter than I thought. Perhaps I'll consider picking it up to see for myself. I don't agree there's much gap between Coulter and Krugman, but Malkin is not looking dramatically better than them.

Wow. Really? Not much gap?

Go ahead, pick your topic and find me any quote from Krugman on the same topic that is in any way similar. (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter)

I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist"

These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA? This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest.

There are a lot of bad Republicans; there are no good Democrats.

The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'

I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.

It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 12:16 PM

EDIT: One question, though: the President says that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party, and all Democrats routinely accuse the GOP of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans. How is this different from what Malkin does? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious. I imagine it's at least as insulting to me to be told I'm part of the Glenn Beck crowd as it is for me to accuse you of being with DailyKos.

It's not unfair to say that about either side. It helps to actually have evidence, though, to back up the accusation. In my view the current GOP's actions are much closer to what Limbaugh dictates than Obama and the Democrats are to what DailyKos dictates. This is supported by the numerous high-profile Republicans like Michael Steele that have walked back their anti-Limbaugh statements or completely apologized for them. As someone pointed out before, when was the last time an executive or congressional Democrat apologized to Kos? Or any other high profile liberal? As I recall, the House actually passed a resolution condemning MoveOn for their "General Betrayus" ad. When was the last time they did that for Rush Limbaugh or any prominent person or group on the right?

Also, I wouldn't be insulted if you accused me of being with DailyKos. I subscribe to the site, have read it since before the 2004 elections, have posted diaries there, and have met Kos himself.

alienmastermind

05-28-2009, 12:31 PM

I just want to state for the record that the kinds of things Ann Coulter says are usually think-tank factoids bent to her own intentions. Basically the 'shock-jock' kind of rhetoric that the above example shows.

But when you have a guy you're supposed to respect and listen to as a leader of the Republican Party, like Newt Gingrich, saying things like the next nominee for the Supreme Court is 'stupid and a bigot' based upon a sentence taken FAR out of context (knowingly, I might add), you get the sense that these kinds of mendacities are gonna be par for the course.

05-28-2009, 12:49 PM

It's not unfair to say that about either side. It helps to actually have evidence, though, to back up the accusation.
Wait. If it's not unfair, why does Malkin saying it put her in the same category as Coulter?

I think I've fundamentally misunderstood why people dislike Limbaugh and Coulter. I thought it was because they made unfair and insulting aspersions on their political opponents, often taking the most extreme examples of the other side and ascribing the same views to everyone. Clearly, I misunderstood the objection.

EDIT: I'm sorry for the constant edits, but I don't think the criticism of the MoveOn "General Betrayus" ad is really comparable to Steele's criticism of Limbaugh. Obama and Kerry have distanced themselves from MoveOn.org, but neither used terminology like "ugly" to describe them in toto. There was specific criticism of a specific instance in which MoveOn stepped over the line, not a wholesale trashing. And all prominent Democrats initially refused (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/Story?id=3581727&page=2) to criticize MoveOn directly, bowing only when overwhelming public pressure forced them to. When the Senate voted to condemn "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus" 11 days later, all of the Democratic Presidential candidates opposed it (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21moveon.html) (although they were willing to criticize MoveOn.org obliquely by voting for a different resolution). I'm not sure you really want to use that as a "Profile in Courage."

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 01:07 PM

Wait. If it's not unfair, why does Malkin saying it put her in the same category as Coulter?

I never said THAT was why Malkin is in the same category as Coulter. The initial comparison was about "distorting reality to partisan ends," Not "accus[ing] the GOP [or Democrats] of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans."

I think I've fundamentally misunderstood why people dislike Limbaugh and Coulter. I thought it was because they made unfair and insulting aspersions on their political opponents, often taking the most extreme examples of the other side and ascribing the same views to everyone. Clearly, I misunderstood the objection.

It's because they do all that, and they do it in the most offensive, extreme way possible. Like in all those quotes I posted about Coulter, and many more. Yes, people on the left distort, too, but the personalities Ravenlock brought up (O'Reilly, and Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and Michelle Malkin, and Anne Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and Quinn & Rose, and Michael Savage, and this guy Mancow) do it to a much greater degree and with much more venom than those on your list (James Carville, Paul Begala, Paul Krugman, Dahlia Lithwick, Emily Bazelon, Kos, Maureen Dowd, David Brock, Bob Herbert, Josh Marshall, Atrios).

You clearly disagree, though, and consider those two groups to be equals.

05-28-2009, 01:24 PM

I never said THAT was why Malkin is in the same category as Coulter. The initial comparison was about "distorting reality to partisan ends," Not "accus[ing] the GOP [or Democrats] of marching to the orders of their most extreme partisans."
Oh. Sorry. So Coulter = Malkin = Krugman = Pelosi = Bush, right? All of them have been credibly accused of distorting reality to partisan ends.

You clearly disagree, though, and consider those two groups to be equals.
Actually, I kind of think all the lefties I mentioned are far more venomous and prone to spounting falsity even than Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. But I realize I'm probably subconsciously biased. So I'm willing to say our side is just as bad.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 01:31 PM

Oh. Sorry. So Coulter = Malkin = Krugman = Pelosi = Bush, right? All of them have been credibly accused of distorting reality to partisan ends.

To varying degrees and frequency, yes. Personally, based on what I've seen and read, I believe Coulter, Malkin, and Bush have done so more than Pelosi, and Krugman less than any of the others. You clearly disagree.

Actually, I kind of think all the lefties I mentioned are far more venomous and prone to spounting falsity even than Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. But I realize I'm probably subconsciously biased. So I'm willing to say our side is just as bad.

Wow. All of them? Josh Marshall is more venomous and prone to spouting falsity than Glenn Beck? Paul Begala is worse than Rush Limbaugh?

BlackPete

05-28-2009, 01:47 PM

Actually, I kind of think all the lefties I mentioned are far more venomous and prone to spounting falsity even than Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. But I realize I'm probably subconsciously biased. So I'm willing to say our side is just as bad.

That's quite a cognitive disconnect, but one that's understandable because otherwise it wouldn't be complimentary for your 'team'.

I think democrats are sleazy, but republicans might as well be aliens from all the craziness they spout.

For example, I can't think of any leftist troll that's on the same scale as Ann Coulter's more graphic abortion remarks.

alienmastermind

05-28-2009, 01:50 PM

I think citing here would be a good compromise.

Rush has said: "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." --on the 2006 Ohio Senate primary race involving then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is white

Begala has said: "Again and again, I've seen Bush turn a blind eye as his henchmen have leveled zealous attacks against his political enemies - assaults which the president himself has sometimes directly encouraged." -- If true, then, it's mean-spirited, but not just ginning up a response.

Coulter has said: "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Krugman: " . . . it’s important to understand that just as denials that climate change is happening are junk science, predictions of economic disaster if we try to do anything about climate change are junk economics."

Okay...to be fair, I don't have Lexis-Nexus at work, just Google, and came up with these right away. Let's just get a list going, guys.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 02:49 PM

For example, I can't think of any leftist troll that's on the same scale as Ann Coulter's more graphic abortion remarks.

I can, but they're running small-time blogs or posting comments, not being broadcast on national tv or radio.

BlackPete

05-28-2009, 04:10 PM

I can, but they're running small-time blogs or posting comments, not being broadcast on national tv or radio.

Well... allow me to nuance it then: Any leftist troll that anyone has actually heard of. ;)

BlackPete

05-28-2009, 04:13 PM

I think citing here would be a good compromise.

Rush is wayyyyy too easy. This is what I turned up after a 15 second Google:

"I mean, let's face it, we didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

-Rush Limbaugh

"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

-Rush Limbaugh, to a black caller.

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

-Rush Limbaugh

"Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

-Rush Limbaugh

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

-Rush Limbaugh

"[Blacks] are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"

-Rush Limbaugh

"[Colin Powell] is just mad at me because I'm the one person in the country who had the guts to explain his endorsement of Obama," Limbaugh responded. "It was purely and solely based on race."

-Rush Limbaugh

I don't think I could have the stomach to google Ann either (ew, even that came out wrong), so I'll pass.

Doogie2K

05-28-2009, 04:26 PM

05-28-2009, 04:29 PM

How about official John Edwards campaign blogger Amanda Marcotte? She said this:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
Which, apart from being disrespectful and a little icky (neither of which are stoning offenses), does clearly seem to indicate she believes Catholic = misogynist. Is that graphic enough to qualify?

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 07:49 PM

05-28-2009, 08:28 PM

She was "official John Edwards campaign blogger" for all of two weeks before being let go for comments like that. Otherwise she's just someone running their own blog. Is she somehow supposed to be comparable to Ann Coulter, who gets invited again and again onto national news programs as a supposedly serious political commenter?
And who was fired immediately after making the first of her wildly outrageous comments in National Review? I'm not sure how the GOP is supposed to prevent CNN from interviewing her.

I fully recognize there are foul and vicious voices on the left. Hell, if you want to read something really disrespectful and icky from the left check out The Rude Pundit. (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/) They are just not the dominant voices like so many are on the right.
I think the problem here is that you don't have as much familiarity with the voices on the right. Beck and Coulter are nowhere near as prominent within the movement as they are to outsiders. This is kind of understandable: Ramesh Ponnuru and Glenn Reynolds are nowhere near as offensive, and so they don't get much airtime on programs like "When Rightwingers Attack." I agree it's highly regrettable that these folks are the public face of the movement to so many. I'm not sure how to correct it.

Ink Asylum

05-28-2009, 09:47 PM

I think the problem here is that you don't have as much familiarity with the voices on the right. Beck and Coulter are nowhere near as prominent within the movement as they are to outsiders. This is kind of understandable: Ramesh Ponnuru and Glenn Reynolds are nowhere near as offensive, and so they don't get much airtime on programs like "When Rightwingers Attack." I agree it's highly regrettable that these folks are the public face of the movement to so many. I'm not sure how to correct it.

I have plenty of familiarity with voices on the right. It's pointless to bring them up in this conversation, though, if they're just writing snarky blog posts and not in the national spotlight or holding political power. I never dismissed the entire right movement as bereft of intelligent, cogent, and respectful voices, just the most influential and politically powerful among them.

So if Beck, Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly aren't prominent within the movement who's watching/listening to/reading them? Democrats?

Ravenlock

05-29-2009, 07:31 AM

I love that we've had exactly one post on the actual subject of the thread in amongst almost two pages of partisan bickering. No one has any thoughts on the fact that photos are being withheld, not necessarily to cover asses, but because they're straight-up too graphic to show?

And now no-one is responding to you, either. ;)

...And even though I'm the one to hit the quote button, I don't frankly know what to say about it. It's an incredibly uncomfortable thing to think about, even as someone who has a pretty firm position on the issue: it is better to be straightforward about the horrible things we did and apologize for them, rather than let them hide in the dark, because someone will always eventually shine a light on them. Better us than someone else.

But goddamn that is some ugly stuff we'll be shining a light on. :( And of course, to some extent, it's already too late, because clearly it's already something we've known about and hidden. Which means the question now will be about who knew it, and when, and what they did or didn't do about it, which is a distraction IMO from the appropriate focus of Holy Shit, What Did We Do and Let's Never Ever Do It Again.

BlackPete

05-29-2009, 07:48 AM

And who was fired immediately after making the first of her wildly outrageous comments in National Review? I'm not sure how the GOP is supposed to prevent CNN from interviewing her.

You won't see people talking about the "terrorist fist jab" FOX lady precisely because she was fired for making that comment.

I think the problem here is that you don't have as much familiarity with the voices on the right. Beck and Coulter are nowhere near as prominent within the movement as they are to outsiders. This is kind of understandable: Ramesh Ponnuru and Glenn Reynolds are nowhere near as offensive, and so they don't get much airtime on programs like "When Rightwingers Attack." I agree it's highly regrettable that these folks are the public face of the movement to so many. I'm not sure how to correct it.

This is indeed the crux of the problem. They are way too high profile, and they keep getting invited to events that will make them even more high profile. Of course it'd also help if certain GOP leaders didn't apologize to Rush right after softly denouncing him -- THAT is what cemented their support of him in my eyes.

National Kato

05-29-2009, 07:53 AM

No one has any thoughts on the fact that photos are being withheld, not necessarily to cover asses, but because they're straight-up too graphic to show?

Well, you know I do since I've been posting updates. Ultimately, I'm torn: I think sunshine can be the best disinfectant, so a part of me wants everything to be released so we can know what was done, who authorized it, and make the world understand it's going to be different from here on out.

On the other hand, raping a prisoner of war with a phosphorescent tube? With a truncheon? Male guards raping men and women? I'm not so sure we need more than those vetted descriptions to impress the point.

Telefrog

05-29-2009, 07:53 AM

But goddamn that is some ugly stuff we'll be shining a light on. :( And of course, to some extent, it's already too late, because clearly it's already something we've known about and hidden. Which means the question now will be about who knew it, and when, and what they did or didn't do about it, which is a distraction IMO from the appropriate focus of Holy Shit, What Did We Do and Let's Never Ever Do It Again.

Naw. It must've been okay. President Bush said so (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/george.bush.speech/index.html).

Bush told a southwestern Michigan audience of nearly 2,500 -- the largest he has addressed in the United States since leaving the White House in January -- that, after the September 11 attacks, "I vowed to take whatever steps that were necessary to protect you."

In his speech, Bush did not specifically refer to the high-profile debate over President Obama's decision to halt the use of harsh interrogation techniques. Bush also didn't mention Cheney, his former vice president, by name.

Instead, he described how he proceeded after the capture of terrorism suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in March 2003.

"The first thing you do is ask what's legal?" Bush said. "What do the lawyers say is possible? I made the decision, within the law, to get information so I can say to myself, 'I've done what it takes to do my duty to protect the American people.' I can tell you that the information we got saved lives."

Awesome stuff. I mean, if the lawyers (no offense, Ox :p) says it's possible, then why not, right?

Ravenlock

05-29-2009, 07:57 AM

...To return briefly to the other part of the conversation (though I feel like Ox and I did pretty much wrap up what we had to say to each other, and pretty amicably, which I appreciated)... this resonates with me a surprising amount:

I agree it's highly regrettable that these folks are the public face of the movement to so many. I'm not sure how to correct it.

I have plenty of familiarity with voices on the right. It's pointless to bring them up in this conversation, though, if they're just writing snarky blog posts and not in the national spotlight or holding political power. I never dismissed the entire right movement as bereft of intelligent, cogent, and respectful voices, just the most influential and politically powerful among them.

Ox, it begins to sound to me as though your reaction to these folks is almost exactly the same reaction I have as a Christian to folks like Pat Robertson, or James Dobson, or the late Jerry Falwell: they don't speak for me, I'm embarrassed to have other people associating them with me, and I wish they weren't public voices in what other people view as "my group".

Of course, on your side of things (if my assumption is correct), the problem is doubled somewhat, because the ostensible reason folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc came into the public sphere in the first place was on the rallying cry of "Conservatives have no voice in the media! WE will be the voice of conservatism!", and obviously they got a lot of followers that way, even if you're not one of them. As I mentioned before, a lot of the self-identified "conservatives" I know do genuinely appear to agree with and follow these clowns.

On the religious side of things, I have a dear friend who's a Lutheran pastor, and his general response seems to be "it's not our problem", but that isn't true. It is our problem. No matter how much I may disagree with him, Pat Robertson is speaking for me until *I* make it clear that he isn't.

The only way I know of to fix it is disassociation. It's largely the reason I don't subscribe to a denomination anymore. Limbaugh has been adopted as a chosen voice of conservatism and Republicans. Sorry, but to drag it out one more time, he wasn't the wildly successful keynote speaker of CPAC because nobody likes him. And every Republican politician I see aside from Ron Paul is happy to be buddy-buddy with these guys (and obsequious if they somehow offend them), because that's where they believe their votes are coming from.

Anyhow, that all got kind of rambling. I think I better understand your position now, and if I'm right I empathize with it a little more. But these distasteful voices have become deeply tied with the public view of conservatism and the Republican party, and it does not seem to have been without the consent of conservatives and Republicans that this has happened. If that is going to change, it needs to change from within.

Ink Asylum

05-29-2009, 08:20 AM

The only way I know of to fix it is disassociation. It's largely the reason I don't subscribe to a denomination anymore. Limbaugh has been adopted as a chosen voice of conservatism and Republicans. Sorry, but to drag it out one more time, he wasn't the wildly successful keynote speaker of CPAC because nobody likes him. And every Republican politician I see aside from Ron Paul is happy to be buddy-buddy with these guys (and obsequious if they somehow offend them), because that's where they believe their votes are coming from.

Well said.

Ox, you claim these people are not prominent within the movement, but if CPAC isn't indicative of the conservative movement, what is? The only keynote speakers at CPAC this year that were not elected officials were Rush, Ann Coulter, and actor Robert Davi. 2008 had a more reasonable non-elected list, but 2007 had Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter again, Michelle Malkin, and Laura Ingraham. 2006 again featured Ann Coulter.

You can't blame liberals or Democrats for elevating people like Limbaugh and Coulter within the conservative movement, both public and private.

Ink Asylum

05-29-2009, 08:40 AM

It's not an exagerration, we successfully interrogated an Al Qaeda operative with cookies. (http://www.eandppub.com/2009/05/no-torture-neededcookies-did-the-job.html)

Reporter Bobby Ghosh writes, “The most successful interrogation of an al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or ‘walling’ and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.”

Former interrogator/member of the FBI Ali Soufan, who testified to Congress last month, tells TIME: “He was a diabetic ... We had showed him respect, and we had done this nice thing for him .... So he started talking to us instead of giving us lectures.”

05-29-2009, 09:12 AM

Ox, you claim these people are not prominent within the movement, but if CPAC isn't indicative of the conservative movement, what is?
Actually, I said they weren't as prominent within the movement as other, more reasonable people. I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to exclude everyone who doesn't rigidly agree with me on style or substance -- mainly because that would leave me and my Sims trying to form a party.

Now, I'll walk back what I said and agree that Limbaugh is obviously very influential (Hannity, Coulter, etc. much less so). Lots of people listen to him, and while plenty of them disagree with him from time to time, the very fact that he's popular and on the air constantly means his particular vision of conservatism reaches a lot of people and requires a response. And, to an extent, that's a good thing: I don't disagree with Limbaugh substantively nearly as much as I disagree with him stylistically.

I do disagree, however, when you claim that the vicious people on the left are not as influential or powerful as the ones on the right. Are you seriously suggesting that Dowd, Herbert, and Krugman wield little influence or power from the New York Times editorial page? That DailyKos, which sometimes gets 2.5 million pages views in a single day (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/222251/757), is dramatically less influential than Rush Limbaugh, who gets a weekly rating of 13.5 million, or Ann Coulter, whose most popular book sold around 400,000 (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2009/03/12/ann-coulters-book-sales-head-south?tid=true) copies? Maybe none of these folks are individually quite as influential as Limbaugh, but it's hardly a night-and-day comparison like you make it out to be.

Ink Asylum

05-29-2009, 09:28 AM

I do disagree, however, when you claim that the vicious people on the left are not as influential or powerful as the ones on the right. Are you seriously suggesting that Dowd, Herbert, and Krugman wield little influence or power from the New York Times editorial page? That DailyKos, which sometimes gets 2.5 million pages views in a single day (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/222251/757), is dramatically less influential than Rush Limbaugh, who gets a weekly rating of 13.5 million, or Ann Coulter, whose most popular book sold around 400,000 (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2009/03/12/ann-coulters-book-sales-head-south?tid=true) copies? Maybe none of these folks are individually quite as influential as Limbaugh, but it's hardly a night-and-day comparison like you make it out to be.

They have some influence, but not nearly as much as the names from the right. There is simply no comparison on the Left to Rush Limbaugh. Page views are a very different measurement than radio ratings, for starters. 2.5 million views does not equal 2.5 million readers, far from it. I personally count for a dozen or so page views at Kos every day. Kos runs a successful community but is not the influence juggernaut in the party that Limbaugh is. If he were, you can bet Obama and the Congressional leadership would be acting very differently right now. You'll never hear Joe Biden personally praise Kos, as Cheney praised Limbaugh over Powell.

As for the others, Coulter's books have been selling less and less over time, but that's partly because the Republican party has been shrinking. Yet she continues being invited to speak to the conservative movement, and as a frequent guest on conservative shows. The other names are media personalities, most of which (Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly) have more mainstream exposure and influence than NYT columnists. Krugman sure doesn't seem to be influencing the Adminisration or Congress, which is why he seems so frustrated these days.

And then again, we're back to your belief that the voices on the left (Krugman, Dowd, Herbert, Kos, etc.) are as vicious as those on the right (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Malkin, Beck, etc.), something I, and others, strongly disagree with.

Shrinn

05-29-2009, 11:35 AM

I love that we've had exactly one post on the actual subject of the thread in amongst almost two pages of partisan bickering. No one has any thoughts on the fact that photos are being withheld, not necessarily to cover asses, but because they're straight-up too graphic to show?

Shit's scary. I can't believe it actually happened. I don't know if we need pictures of this shit. I don't know if I want to see pictures of this. In my eyes, those descriptions are enough. I don't need graphical evidence. I just need the people who did it punished and some sort of promise that we'll stop that shit as much as possible. It is a disgusting thing.

It's not an exagerration, we successfully interrogated an Al Qaeda operative with cookies. (http://www.eandppub.com/2009/05/no-torture-neededcookies-did-the-job.html)

Cookies are delicious. Freshly baked cookies could make me talk.

National Kato

06-02-2009, 01:05 PM

More info (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69213.html) that possibly sheds light on why Obama is fighting to keep additional detainee abuse photos from being released:

President Barack Obama reversed his decision to release detainee abuse photos from Iraq and Afghanistan after Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki warned that Iraq would erupt into violence and that Iraqis would demand that U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq a year earlier than planned, two U.S. military officers, a senior defense official and a State Department official have told McClatchy.The official said Maliki warned that releasing the photos would lead to more violence that could delay the scheduled U.S. withdrawal from cities by June 30 and that Iraqis wouldn't make a distinction between old and new photos. The public outrage and increase in violence could lead Iraqis to demand a referendum on the security agreement and refuse to permit U.S. forces to stay until the end of 2011.

Maliki said, "Baghdad will burn" if the photos are released, said a second U.S. military official.
[emph. mine]

Now Maliki may just be over-protective, but he obviously doesn't want anything to interfere with the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Doogie2K

06-03-2009, 02:43 PM

More info (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69213.html) that possibly sheds light on why Obama is fighting to keep additional detainee abuse photos from being released:

[quote snip]

Now Maliki may just be over-protective, but he obviously doesn't want anything to interfere with the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Considering how the Muslim world lost its shit over a couple of cartoons a few years ago, I think those fears are well-founded.

DylonCorp

06-03-2009, 05:31 PM

Considering how the Muslim world lost its shit over a couple of cartoons a few years ago, I think those fears are well-founded.

And now you know why Cheney is demanding they be released. He knows what's in them, he knows that, to protect our nation and our soldiers, they can't be released, so he can essentially make Pres. Obama look more like... Cheney.

Ink Asylum

06-09-2009, 09:40 AM

Well, it was nice knowing you guys. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has transported a Guantanamo Bay detainee into New York City, my home, for trial. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/ahmed-ghailani-first-gitm_n_212977.html) It's only a matter of time now before Al Qaeda launches a daring prison break, buy a nuke from the Russian mob, and hold downtown Manhattan for ransom, eventually destroying it when Spider-Man botches an infiltration into their secret base in an abandoned subway tunnel.

National Kato

06-09-2009, 09:49 AM

Even more importantly, Ink, is whether this case will be successful. If it is, then we might have a better chance of closing Gitmo once and for all. Let's hope the case against Ghailani is a good one.

Doogie2K

06-10-2009, 07:17 PM

ShivaX

06-10-2009, 10:43 PM

Isn't that the setup for The Sum of All Fears? Tom Clancy strikes again.

Well theres a nuke in both of them, but thats about it.

Doogie2K

06-11-2009, 02:16 PM

Well theres a nuke in both of them, but thats about it.

Humour fail. :(

National Kato

06-17-2009, 09:07 AM

Seems even more of the Bush/Cheney reasons for torture are being debunked (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-new-torture-details-rev):

In addition to revealing some new details of what was done to the prisoners, this newly-revealed testimony refutes one of the Bush administration‘s still-used justifications for their torture program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures. And he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States.

RICHARD CHENEY, FMR. U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: The information we‘ve collected from the detainees, from people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, has probably been some of the most valuable intelligence we‘ve had in the last five years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MADDOW: The claim from the Bush administration has been that by torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, they got actionable intelligence that saved American lives. Well, in these new less redacted transcripts, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed describes a very different scenario. During his 2007 hearing at Guantanamo, in very broken English he says, quote, “I make up stories, just location, Osama bin Laden, where is he? I don‘t know. Then he torture me. Then I said, ‘Yes, he‘s in this area.‘”

In other words, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed says he lied when he was tortured. “I make up stories.” He says he‘s giving up bad information. He gave up wrong information while being tortured.

And that puts a much different torque on the folks, prominently members of the Cheney family, who are still using the supposed utility of what we learned by torturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in their public defense of the torture program.

BlackPete

06-17-2009, 12:42 PM

Who were the people who said that the CIA interrogators were professionals and knew what they were doing, and the use of torture would NOT gain false intel...?

I said it before and I'll said it again: Torture not only doesn't help, it makes matters WORSE because false intel will cause the authorities to go on wild geese chases that just costs money and time.

06-17-2009, 01:20 PM

Seems even more of the Bush/Cheney reasons for torture are being debunked (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-show-new-torture-details-rev):
Um, can we at least agree that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's self-serving testimony at his Gitmo detention hearing is not exactly compelling evidence?

I mean, if you think torture gives false intel, what does self-serving testimony at a detention hearing qualify as?

Ravenlock

06-17-2009, 01:39 PM

06-17-2009, 02:01 PM

Sure, but aren't you kind of just chasing your tail in a circle at that point? If you're going to label his detention hearing testimony "not exactly compelling evidence" (and I pretty much agree), wouldn't it be pretty dumb to lend any more credence to what he said when undergoing something that essentially encourages lying?
You've assumed what you set out to prove: that torture "essentially encourages lying." If I were to concede that, then no evidence would be necessary or desired, would it?

But since there are plenty of people who apparently think torture intel is (in this case, was) reliable against all evidence and testimony to the contrary, including our former Vice President, I do think those folks have a logical conundrum to tackle explaining why we should listen to them then, but not him now.
I'm neutral on torture's efficacy, but I can try to address the conundrum. One must be aware that a torturee would be inclined to say anything to end the torture, but that doesn't necessarily mean the situation cannot be structured to elicit truthful information. Let me change the scenario slightly, however, to a more quotidian example that still has relevance to the torture case.

Let's say I'm a cop interviewing a criminal suspect. I want to elicit information about the crime, and I am willing to use the threat of judicial execution to elicit this information.* If I say, "Confess, or you get the gas chamber," I'm likely to get a confession regardless of whether he's guilty and that may be untrue in many particulars even if he is guilty. Instead, if I am pursuing the truth, I will ask more directed questions part or all of which can be corroborated. So, for example, I might ask, "How did you kill him?" When he tells me he killed the victim with a gun, I will check the medical report to see if the murder weapon was a gun or a knife. If the answer to that question was true, I move on to, "Where is the murder weapon now?" If the answer was false, I know he is lying and either he is innocent or lying for some other reason.

Now, if you conceive 'torture' as 'Bunsen burner on the genitals while you fire questions,' that sort of interrogation probably has a low success rate. But a more sophisticated use of torture would be intermittent to reduce resistance, willpower, and desire to mislead. The questioning and torture would never be coincident, and indeed there would be significant effort to ensure the suspect did not draw a direct connection between his answers and the presence or absence of the compulsion. Instead, it would be used in the same way skilled police use the torture of threatened execution: the punishment is inevitable regardless of what you say. But the fear and stress you experience anticipating it lowers your will to lie to us. Combined with other techniques, that could be highly effective indeed, and in a way that obviously would not suggest that his self-serving testimony would be reliable.

*This is technically torture under the Convention Against Torture.

Ravenlock

06-17-2009, 02:19 PM

You've assumed what you set out to prove: that torture "essentially encourages lying."

I didn't set out to prove that. I believe that is self-evident. In fact, it appears, so do you:

One must be aware that a torturee would be inclined to say anything to end the torture...

That is a re-worded version of "torture encourages lying." [EDIT: It's just as true in the lengthy, maybe-better-results-producing method you laid out, too - made clear by having to compensate for it by trying to reinforce over time that lying won't make the torture stop. So in that version, essentially, torture encourages lying and then you have to torture MORE in the hopes of reversing that trend.]

I'm not going to dismiss the rest of your post, since I agree that the method you laid out would be more likely to produce effective results than the "Bunsen burner on the genitals while you fire questions" method. ;) Though I don't know that I agree that systematic and "random" torture application necessarily "reduces desire to mislead", and it should also be noted that you dedicated half your scenario to the practice of using leading questions and misdirection, not torture. I'm not sure it's logical or supported by anyone's experience that I've ever read to say that if a suspect believes it doesn't matter what he says, that will somehow lead him to tell the truth.

Regardless, though, in the case of KSM, the question is whether we believe HIS testimony, not that of some hypothetical suspect under particular meticulous conditions. The scenario posited by those who claim torture worked in his case was essentially "we waterboarded him and he immediately gave us a wealth of valuable information" - a claim that does not imply any lengthy breaking down of resistance or carefully balanced psychological interplay.

So I still find it very inconsistent to claim that his immediately surrendered information after waterboarding should have been believed (and that we should now believe it had tremendous value, even when other people close to the events claim it did not, and that all intel of value from him was collected before torture), but that we should not now believe his claim that it was all a bunch of lies.

06-17-2009, 02:38 PM

I didn't set out to prove that. I believe that is self-evident. In fact, it appears, so do you
You're overly simplistic. I might be willing to say anything to end torture, but if the scenario is set up so that I believe lying will extend the torture, then the torture is definitely not encouraging lying.

I'm not sure it's logical or supported by anyone's experience that I've ever read to say that if a suspect believes it doesn't matter what he says, that will somehow lead him to tell the truth.
You're conceiving it as if a man of sound mind sat down and tried to calculate his own best interests. The whole point of psychological degradation is to eliminate the person's ability to calculate his own best interests. Think of it this way: imagine being so blind drunk you don't even realize you're speaking to interrogators. That might very well lead you to speak more truthfully than you would otherwise. Lying and reticence require a degree of higher mental function. Eliminate that higher mental function, and the lower function of telling the truth comes to the fore.

Regardless, though, in the case of KSM, the question is whether we believe HIS testimony, not that of some hypothetical suspect under particular meticulous conditions. The scenario posited by those who claim torture worked in his case was essentially "we waterboarded him and he immediately gave us a wealth of valuable information" - a claim that does not imply any lengthy breaking down of resistance or carefully balanced psychological interplay.

So I still find it very inconsistent to claim that his immediately surrendered information after waterboarding should have been believed (and that we should now believe it had tremendous value, even when other people close to the events claim it did not, and that all intel of value from him was collected before torture), but that we should not now believe his claim that it was all a bunch of lies.
Even that can be defended. KSM is not a stupid man. He was well aware that, if he lied and was caught lying, he would be tortured again. So he had a strong, rational incentive to tell the truth -- or at least not to be caught lying.

Now, KSM has no fear of punishment. But he can strike at his enemies and advance his cause by undermining the effectiveness of torture. So he has a strong, rational incentive to say that torture doesn't work. In both cases, he's acting rationally according to his own interests. But whereas before he at least wanted not to be caught in a lie -- and if the questions were framed appropriately, that would likely have implied telling the truth -- while now the answer he wishes to give is irrespective of its truth or falsity.

Ravenlock

06-17-2009, 03:14 PM

I agree with your last paragraph - certainly at this point KSM has no incentive to say anything other than what he's saying. Of course, that does not mean it is false, it just means he would say it whether it was true or not.

I'm not sure whether I agree that he had significant or sufficient incentive to tell the truth under torture (over the incentive to lie, trying to make it stop) such that his testimony in that circumstance was worth believing, but I do think that the people who claim torture was successful have plenty of motive to lie. The amount of confirmed positive intel from torture at any point since 9/11 seems either "slim" or "nonexistent" depending on who you ask. In the case of Zubaida, you had one of his former interrogators outright saying "nope, it didn't work, we got nothing from it", while Cheney & Co continued to claim it had been invaluable.

In short, as I've said, I'm skeptical over anything KSM says in any circumstance. But in the case of whether waterboarding produced information meriting its use (especially in contrast to the time and money it may have wasted following up on false leads, as I talked about waaaay back on page 1), I'm just as skeptical of the torturers.

I would need to read more about the efficacy of torture under very controlled circumstances to really be able to refute or agree with some of the other things you've said, so I won't try to pursue that any further. Almost every informed perspective on torture as an interrogation technique I have ever read concluded by saying that just isn't a reliable enough way of getting information to justify using it (and I'll be honest and say I personally probably wouldn't say it was worth it either way), but I'd be willing to read logical arguments to the contrary.

For now, though, I'm off tomorrow morning to shepherd a bunch of kids with heart disease around in the rain at a YMCA camp for 4 days, so I've got to go pack and figure out what I need to buy. ;) Might check in later tonight to see if the thread has new stuff. Thanks as always for the exchange.

06-17-2009, 04:04 PM

In short, as I've said, I'm skeptical over anything KSM says in any circumstance. But in the case of whether waterboarding produced information meriting its use (especially in contrast to the time and money it may have wasted following up on false leads, as I talked about waaaay back on page 1), I'm just as skeptical of the torturers.
Fine, I'm just pointing out we shouldn't cite KSM himself for that basis. That was my main point.

I would need to read more about the efficacy of torture under very controlled circumstances to really be able to refute or agree with some of the other things you've said, so I won't try to pursue that any further. Almost every informed perspective on torture as an interrogation technique I have ever read concluded by saying that just isn't a reliable enough way of getting information to justify using it (and I'll be honest and say I personally probably wouldn't say it was worth it either way), but I'd be willing to read logical arguments to the contrary.
Unfortunately, specific examples of efficacious torture (if any exist) are classified, so any pro-torture advocate labors under a handicap. However, I can point you to this (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30335592/). I agree that the efficacy argument and the moral argument are separate issues, and please do not take my stance on one of them to be indicative of my stance on the other.