Terrorist Recruiting
In a long article in the National Review, Andy McCarthy--who has tirelessly defended virtually every Bush administration policy, including "enhanced interrogation techniques"--asserts that "American soldiers, American civilians, and other innocent people are going to die because Pres. Barack Obama wants to release photographs of prisoner abuse." His argument is pretty straight forward. He contends that the photos--which are the subject of a Second Circuit FOIA case--will be exploited by our enemies as propaganda and will further incite and radicalize the Muslim world.
Meanwhile, over at Fox News, Karl Rove is arguing that the release of the torture memos is going to increase terrorist recruiting because now jihadists know that we won't torture them:
To say that none of this makes any sense is an extreme understatement. There is absolutely no logic at work here. For starters, the Roves and McCarthys of the world have spent the better part of eight years arguing that it is silly to suggest that Bush's policies (the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, torture, etc.) could have the effect of radicalizing the Muslim world and helping al Qaeda recruit. After all, terrorists already hate us and don't need any further motivation.
Now that Obama is in charge, however, virtually every decision he makes is said to endanger American lives by helping terrorists recruit new members. The truly bizarre part, though, is that Obama's actions are merely reactions to existing and well-publicized Bush era policies. For McCarthy, for instance, the problem is releasing pictures of detainee abuse, not the abuse itself, as if word of mistreatment and abuse of detainees by the U.S. is some kind of closely held secret that the Muslim world hasn't heard about yet. It's okay as long as we don't film it, I guess. As for Rove's argument, I don't even think it's coherent enough to warrant a response.
I will say this, though, I'm happy that folks on the right have finally realized that winning the fight against terrorism requires more than just killing bad guys; it requires managing attitudes and perceptions and not further radicalizing the Muslim world. I guess that's a start.
Meanwhile, over at Fox News, Karl Rove is arguing that the release of the torture memos is going to increase terrorist recruiting because now jihadists know that we won't torture them:
ROVE: Taking, for example, the memoranda about the enhanced interrogation techniques and making them public has been a value to our enemy. It has served, frankly, I think, as a recruiting tool. They can now take these memoranda and go to prospective, you know, recruits and say, This is the worst that the enemy, the United States, would ever do to you, and they’ve even forsworn these things. We can help you, prepare you to deal with these things, but even the enemy is so weak they’re not going to use these techniques on you. And it’s given them a tool to make it more attractive to recruit people, and you know, this kind of thing is harmful to us over the long haul.So let's review the basic GOP position. Torture (sorry "enhanced interrogation") is good and saves lives. It does not incite or radicalize the Muslim world or help al Qaeda recruit. Releasing pictures of it, however, does do all of these things. Also, if we stop torturing people, this leads to an al Qaeda recruiting bonanza.
To say that none of this makes any sense is an extreme understatement. There is absolutely no logic at work here. For starters, the Roves and McCarthys of the world have spent the better part of eight years arguing that it is silly to suggest that Bush's policies (the invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, torture, etc.) could have the effect of radicalizing the Muslim world and helping al Qaeda recruit. After all, terrorists already hate us and don't need any further motivation.
Now that Obama is in charge, however, virtually every decision he makes is said to endanger American lives by helping terrorists recruit new members. The truly bizarre part, though, is that Obama's actions are merely reactions to existing and well-publicized Bush era policies. For McCarthy, for instance, the problem is releasing pictures of detainee abuse, not the abuse itself, as if word of mistreatment and abuse of detainees by the U.S. is some kind of closely held secret that the Muslim world hasn't heard about yet. It's okay as long as we don't film it, I guess. As for Rove's argument, I don't even think it's coherent enough to warrant a response.
I will say this, though, I'm happy that folks on the right have finally realized that winning the fight against terrorism requires more than just killing bad guys; it requires managing attitudes and perceptions and not further radicalizing the Muslim world. I guess that's a start.
posted by A.L. at 8:36 AM
30 Comments:
I think Cheney, Gingrich, Rove, et al are going for a Hail Mary. They are trying to establish the notion that we are more vulnerable to a terrorist attack because of various Obama policies.
I don't think there will be an attack (I've opined massively about the fact that 9/11 was an exploit of a now-closed vulnerability: cockpit access), but considering the state of the Republican party nowadays, their only hope is to win on national security grounds. They have absolutely nothing to contribute on the economy or healthcare. Specific topics like torture-effectiveness, memo or photo releases, and moving prisoners around, are merely the foundation for the main message: If we are attacked then it's Obama and the Democrats' fault.
It's quite remarkable to watch the emergence of torture as a substantial campaign plank of a national political party in the United States.
As an amateur historian of WWII I find endless parallels in the mindset of those who believe it requires "personal discipline" and "internal fortitude" to execute policies that are obviously repugnant because the national interest and various threats to the public order require it.
You said "It's okay as long as we don't film it, I guess."
Also, I think the summary of what were being told (by "some")is that it's not torture as long as you don't leave any scars.
If it's okay to string them up naked for days on end to find out about the "ticking time bomb" it must be okay, and pretty much the same rationale, to also do the "enhanced techniques" to the DFH found around the playground that we "know" just wants to sell drugs to kids.
So let's review the basic GOP position..."enhanced interrogation"...is good and saves lives. It does not incite or radicalize the Muslim world or help al Qaeda recruit.
I don't believe anyone, even Republicans, would say enhanced interrogation doesn't "incite or radicalize". What someone reasonable would say is that the secrecy of the enhanced interrogation keeps inciting or radicalizing from happening. Releasing the pictures, and outing those who believed they were doing their utmost to secure America, while we are at war, would very much "help al Qaeda recruit". In case anyone forgot, Al Qaeda is the enemy the U.S. is at war with. Helping the enemy is not usually a good way to win a war.
The rest of the post is based on the "strawman" I put in bold above.
I will say this, though, I'm happy that folks on the right have finally realized that winning the fight against terrorism requires more than just killing bad guys;...
There is more to it. But killing the bad guys you are at war with is the first job.
By the way, it appears Obama has taken the side of Rove and McCarthy (here and here).
It's a delicate move. Showing new pictures would probably start riots in the Muslim world, and understandably so. But they already know the torture happens, so how much worse are the pictures really? I think pretending torture doesn't exist, or isn't as bad as 'some people' claim, ultimately is worse.
I suspect the Roves and Cheneys of the world don't want pictures of 'it isn't torture' practices shown, because it would demonstrate to everybody that it IS torture. The "concern" about 'inciting the Muslim world'? I don't believe they seriously give a rat's ass about that - it's just a talking point to trash Obama. If they were concerned about that they wouldn't have behaved as they did for much of the past decade. "Bring 'em on" ring any bells?
The pictures will come out eventually, and I hope that Obama is trying to do it in a careful way (which is his style anyway) not merely to participate in the obfuscation.
Karl Rove is arguing that the release of the torture memos is going to increase terrorist recruiting because now jihadists know that we won't torture them
This is actually getting closer to the truth about how these guys really think. When they say torture worked and made us safer, we get into silly debates about whether or not it is 'effective' at getting useful intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks. It was never about that. It was about proving that we're the baddest m****rf*****rs there are. It was about breaking people who opposed us and making them betray everyone they knew and everything they cared about. Getting information from them voluntarily wasn't good enough. They had to be broken, just for the sake of doing it. It was about intimidation and pacification through fear. Torture is a weapon of terror and we used it as such, just like every regime that ever uses it.
All these guys (Cheney in particular it seems) are going to be doing their Col. Jessup imitations anytime their tactics or the idea behind them, that we could only win through violence and fear, are called into question.
But killing the bad guys you are at war with is the first job.In fact, it's not. As Gen. Petraeus & Co. have shown in Iraq. The first job is to stop making more enemies. If you create 2 for every 1 you kill (or torture), you're never going to win.
(Some might suggest that perpetual war is in the interest of some business and politicans).
Dread Scot:
It was about breaking people who opposed us and making them betray everyone they knew and everything they cared about.
Bull. It was about getting the scumbags who killed 3000 civilians on American soil to tell us any other acts of terrorism against America they were going to try.
DB Cooper:
In fact, it's not. As Gen. Petraeus & Co. have shown in Iraq.
Yeah, it is. What Petraeus did as well was convince those thinking of helping the terrorists not to. But he didn't stop the military from their primary job, killing the enemy.
If you create 2 for every 1 you kill (or torture), you're never going to win.
By your reckoning, we helped the German and Japanese governments to recruit more soldiers to their cause, right?
The idea that the job of the military is to "kill the enemy" is stupid even for SteveAR, and that's saying something. Let me just say that that isn't what officers are taught.
I think this move on Obama's part is all about domestic politics. If the pictures are released, it will just fuel the fire under the drive to prosecute those in the torture regime.
the 'ticking time bomb' premise has been shown to be false, so whats the argument? if i have to waterboard you 183 times then clock has more than wound down. this is indefensible. its like being a parent of a child and covering up the molestation of the child by another family member because of the 'pain' it would cause the family.
yes, i am comparing republicans to child molesters. and laughing. alot.
"It was about getting the scumbags who killed 3000 civilians on American soil to tell us any other acts of terrorism against America they were going to try. "
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, you damn fool.
I can't believe I am typing this but SteveAR is right when he says that Republicans are not arguing that torture does not incite or radicalize. Unfortunately, that is the high water mark of Steve's logic today. Let's consider for a moment why the pictures incite or radicalize and why we know they will do so. Is it perhaps because the pictures depict the world's self proclaimed moral and military leader engaging in acts that are cruel, barbaric and morally indefensible? Is is because we know that if we saw "our" people being treated in this way we would also be "incited"? Anybody want to guess what the crowd at a Palin rally would do if shown pictures of naked US marines being beaten, sexually abused and menaced with dogs? They would go apeshit because (and it is amazing that this needs to be said) these acts are indefensible for any purpose and in any circumstances. Are you really arguing that we need to commit vile acts to people (and keep them secret) in order to protect us from people who want to do vile acts to us? Do you not see the circularity of this? And don't give me any of that moral equivalence rubbish either - I'm not trying to equate 9/11 with an act of waterboarding. Perhaps I need to explain this in the stupid simplistic Bush-speak of good/bad dichotomy. We do not tell the difference between the "good guys" and "bad guys" by hat colour. We tell the difference by observing what people do.
prodigal:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, you damn fool.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubahdah had nothing to do with Iraq, you damn fool.
Bill Keane:
Are you really arguing that we need to commit vile acts to people (and keep them secret) in order to protect us from people who want to do vile acts to us?
I'm not saying that at all.
The Democrats who are calling for a prosecution of members of the Bush administration and in the government bureaucracy of the time, or for show trials in a kangaroo Congressional "hearing", are calling for these prosecutions to make political gains for themselves, not to seek justice. But the problem is not whether or not waterboarding is "torture" (and is something done to our own troops during training; is waterboarding "torture" then, and if it is, how can those who do call waterboarding "torture" not get it stopped?) or whether enhanced interrogation is effective or not; those items are irrelevant. The problem is, especially if enhanced interrogation is illegal (which hasn't been determined), who allowed it to happen? It wasn't just the Bush administration, but many members in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats; the co-equal branches of government in action. Yet, many of these same Democrats only want to hold the Bush administration responsible by making a false legal argument. And it's false because many of these same Democrats who are now trying to hold the Bush administration solely responsible for breaking the law have been exposed as hypocrites since they helped the Bush administration to break the law, if any law was actually broken. Truth be told, I don't believe Nancy Pelosi should be prosecuted for anything related to enhanced interrogations (not getting them stopped), just as I believe the Bush administration shouldn't be prosecuted, because I don't see where the law was broken. But if those who want the Bush administration to go down should demand the same of Pelosi and the Democrat big mouths who allowed it to happen.
These pictures are all part of the same thing. I would bet that Obama is now stopping the release of the pictures not only because they may put the troops in the field he commands in jeopardy unnecessarily, but because it increases the exposure of those powerful individuals in his own party. Look how Pelosi has been hammered for lying like she has. Obama would rather let a judge or a Justice force the release of the pictures so that he (Obama) can claim it wasn't he who put our troops in danger (and he would be right). Unfortunately, Obama screwed up by saying he would release them, then decided not to; it's a recurring pattern with him (think the closing of Gitmo), saying he will do something, then realizing later the problems of doing what he wants to do.
Is is because we know that if we saw "our" people being treated in this way we would also be "incited"?
That is a false argument. The networks and the government (in both the Bush and Obama administrations) make it a point to avoid showing again what happened on 9/11 for "fear" that the American people would do something against the Muslim community. Yet, even after 9/11, there wasn't wholesale violence perpetrated against Muslims in this country, and the government didn't set up "camps" as FDR did in rounding up Japanese-Americans in WWII. It seems to me the government and the leftists in the media (along with leftist "liberals" in general) have a deep lack of understanding of the American people, especially since these same leftists never mention the restraint of the American people after 9/11.
As far as when to release the pictures, how about a number of years (maybe a decade) after our war with Al Qaeda is over? But only if they are preceded by what happened on 9/11 to bring it into context.
Bill Keane:
We do not tell the difference between the "good guys" and "bad guys" by hat colour. We tell the difference by observing what people do.
But that is all I've seen from too many on the left. They want Democrats (the "good guys") to hold the Republican Bush administration (the "bad guys") solely responsible for "torture", but let the "good guys" who helped not be punished legally or politically; I know Greenwald isn't doing this since he's been critical of Democrats as well. However, many on the left, including Greenwald, don't see vermin like KSM or Abu Zubaydah as the enemy; instead, they see their fellow Americans as the enemy that needs to be destroyed. Obama, with his constant blaming of the Bush administration and Republicans for all the ills of the world (whether they were caused by the Bush administration and Republicans or not) has to be constantly reminded of his campaign promise to go after Al Qaeda since the U.S. is still at war with them and his responsibilities as commander in chief; fortunately, as with the case of these photos, he is doing that for the most part.
SteveAR,
You sure "see" a lot of things for which you can provide no actual evidence.
Such as: that "many on the left" don't "see" KSM or AZ as "the enemy". Really? Who, precisely, and when did they say this? Or is it, like so much you believe, based entirely on your fevered imagination?
Such as: people won't be as ready to prosecute Pelosi as members of Cheney's merry little torture squad. Who said that?
Such as: the prosecutions would be for political gain. You know, if the GOP had the brains of a gerbil, they'd purge their party of the lawless remnants of the Bush administration and lead this effort.
Do you check under your bed for evil, scheming Democrats before retiring?
Just wondering to what extent your delusions reach.
Meanwhile, I'd just like to see the rule of law regain its ascendancy in the USA. Not fake law, where lawyers create phony "opinions" to excuse blatant lawbreaking, but real, considered, just law, where people try to adhere to the spirit of the written law. That includes releasing public information to the public. Let the truth be told.
Thanks to Obama's Bush-like behavior, I've given money to the ACLU.
C2H50H:
Alright, I'll bite.
Such as: that "many on the left" don't "see" KSM or AZ as "the enemy".
Greenwald, frequently. There are too many references to list. He would call for the government to free KSM because of the so-called "torture" committed against the (not alleged) terrorist. He refers to the war against Al Qaeda as "fear-mongering". I've read enough of him to have seen it and documented it on my blog.
Such as: people won't be as ready to prosecute Pelosi as members of Cheney's merry little torture squad. Who said that?
A.L. in this comment gives Pelosi a complete pass. Emptywheel does, Greg Sargent does here and here. That's many. Remember, I also said others have been critical of Pelosi, including Greenwald, and Spencer Ackerman; I didn't lump all on the left one way or another.
Such as: the prosecutions would be for political gain. You know, if the GOP had the brains of a gerbil, they'd purge their party of the lawless remnants of the Bush administration and lead this effort.
It has yet to be determined if the Bush administration actually broke any laws. And if they did, then Democrats and Republicans were complicit, including Pelosi. I don't hear any real calls by the left to oust Pelosi of her House seat, stripped of any committees she would be on, or her being the Speaker of the House.
Meanwhile, I'd just like to see the rule of law regain its ascendancy in the USA. Not fake law, where lawyers create phony "opinions" to excuse blatant lawbreaking, but real, considered, just law, where people try to adhere to the spirit of the written law.
Believe it or not, conservatives want that too. They also understand that actual warfare is not a set of static rules that can be established as in a courtroom. This is a lesson Obama should have known long before he ran for his current office, and it's a hard lesson he's learning now as commander in chief.
Conservatives also understand that those Democrats who want these kangaroo show trials of the Bush administration know that these Democrats are guilty of the politicization of justice that Democrats accused the Bush administration of doing. Democrats doing so want their cake and eat it too.
Here's another problem the Democrats are just finding out. The CIA is one of the agencies, along with the military, charged with protecting America. When they fail, as they did on 9/11, and get called on it, they fight back. They did so against the Bush administration. Now that Democrats, including the Obama administration, are accusing them of "torture" (and trying to negate any effectiveness with the CIA's job to protect America), the CIA is now fighting the Democrats in the administration and Congress. It's a lesson Democrats, and the Obama administration, should have learned with what happened to the Bush administration.
SteveAR,
You've got an endless supply of bullshit, and I have only a little time, so I'm going to restrict myself here:
1. "too many to list" means you can't find any. One would do -- but there aren't any. I've read almost everything Glenn G. has written for years, and I've heard him call for "charge him or release him" -- which is, after all, only what our laws require.
Not "release".
2. Prosecute Pelosi? Remove her as Speaker immediately? Please. This displays a misunderstanding of our representative democracy that is so profound it's pointless to address beyond to say that, as citizens, we'll just have to wait another year and vote.
3. I'm not sure what the hell you think you are saying about how the CIA, when it fails, goes after the administration. So you think the CIA should be above getting called out for their errors?
4. If you are representative of what "conservatives understand", then they understand almost nothing.
I've been reading your comments for a couple of years now, with varying degrees of amusement and disbelief. I simply don't understand how you can make a fool of yourself on such a continual basis. Do yourself a favor, take a course in government, take a course in psychology. I'd suggest mathematics, but perhaps you shouldn't attempt too much too soon.
I'm out of here.
I liked Jesse Ventura's comment on the inefficacy of torture based on his own exposure during Sere training. He said if you let him waterboard Dick Cheney for an hour he could get him to confess to the Sharon Tate murder. That about says it all. Torture is immoral, illegal, and ineffective.
I say release the photos to shame the despicable right wingers who made it happen and reinforce to the American public why we must never fall for electing them again. The Muslim world knows this is not going to happen under current enlightened leadership.
C2H50H:
2. Prosecute Pelosi? Remove her as Speaker immediately? Please. This displays a misunderstanding of our representative democracy that is so profound it's pointless to address beyond to say that, as citizens, we'll just have to wait another year and vote.
So, I can add you to the list of those who will give Pelosi a pass. By the way, where in the Constitution or U.S. Code does it say members of Congress can't be prosecuted for crimes they may have committed or did commit?
3. I'm not sure what the hell you think you are saying about how the CIA, when it fails, goes after the administration. So you think the CIA should be above getting called out for their errors?
Funny how the CIA wasn't called on the carpet by Democrats for their errors in allowing Valerie Plame's covert status to be compromised.
No, I don't think the CIA is above getting called out. But look at it realistically; they are the only agency the U.S. government has that does what it does, and those in the CIA know it. When their jobs are threatened, they fight back. Even if their work isn't always up to snuff, they still are the only group to do their work. And their work includes being part of the defense of the nation. Being called liars, as Pelosi did today, when they are actually actively defending the nation, as they were in the shadow of 9/11, which Pelosi voted for in 2001, isn't something an entrenched bureaucracy that does something nobody else does will let sit.
By the way, you are wrong about Greenwald. He's said everything I said about him.
SteveAR,
No. I said nothing about excusing Pelosi for anything illegal she's done. I just think it's stupid and dishonest to insist on charging the bystander who doesn't try to prevent a mugging before charging the mugger.
If Greenwald has said what you said, provide a quote. Otherwise, I'll have to conclude, with profound regret, that you are, as usual, profoundly wrong, or just lying.
NSA, FBI, ONI, INSCOM, ISR (Air Force). All, to a greater or lesser extent, have operations and duties that overlap with the CIA.
Your ignorance is showing again.
C2H50H:
I just think it's stupid and dishonest to insist on charging the bystander who doesn't try to prevent a mugging before charging the mugger.
We aren't talking about a mugging, and Pelosi is no bystander. She's a member of Congress, a co-equal branch of the federal government. Add to it that she was ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee until 2003, then House Minority Leader until 2007. Being a bystander is not in the job description for these positions. For anyone who does want to take this all the way, Pelosi has to be taken down with everyone else. Anything less and those pushing to take this all the way are playing politics with the law, actually doing what the Bush administration was accused of doing.
NSA, FBI, ONI, INSCOM, ISR (Air Force). All, to a greater or lesser extent, have operations and duties that overlap with the CIA.
Obviously. But they don't do everything the CIA does or there wouldn't be a need for a CIA, now would there?
Wow that's a big dose of stupid you got there Stevie.
The Dems in Congress got steamrolled and lied to for years by the Bushies.
They reallt were pussies who voted to allow him to do all sorts of illegal stuff, such as warrantless wiretaps.
However, I believe Pelosi when she says she was lied to. Nothing that has come out so far disproves that. You Repthugs are just looking to tar everyone with your failings, but it doesn't matter anyway.
Let's investigate, let's find out who in the adimin broke which laws when and at whose instruction. Start with the torturers, move on to the people in charge, round up the lawyers that wrote the fake permission slips, and get on to Cheney and Bush...
If Pelosi gets thrown in the paddy wagon so be it. But let's make sure Rockerfeller get put in there first.
SteveAR,
Ah, yes, as a member of Congress, Pelosi could just order the Attorney General to bring charges. Oh, sure, he might assert that he serves at the pleasure of the president, but then she could have her military besiege the DoJ.
Seriously, I've seen this "co-equal branch" BS spouted by a lot of people who appear to have no concept of how the government of these United States works.
The most she could have done was go public, at which point she'd almost certainly been pilloried in the press, shut out of any information, and likely would no longer be in Congress, let alone Speaker. I don't say this to give her any credit, I merely point out that her self-interest did not lie with divulging the information.
With regard to what the CIA does that other agencies don't do: Apparently, according to you, they blackmail the government.
You are free, of course, to give us, from your deep wisdom and knowledge, the things the CIA does that nobody else can do.
Joe Blow:
Wow that's a big dose of stupid you got there Stevie.
We'll see.
The Dems in Congress got steamrolled and lied to for years by the Bushies.
They reallt were pussies who voted to allow him to do all sorts of illegal stuff, such as warrantless wiretaps.
However, I believe Pelosi when she says she was lied to.
Assuming the latter statement is true (and I take anything Pelosi says with a grain of salt), then it says a couple of things. It says the Democrats in Congress are gullible and easily fooled (after all, they were "fooled" in this case and with Iraq). It also says the Democrats are exactly how you describe them as, "pussies". But, the U.S. is at war, a war almost all of these same Democrats authorized in 2001, with a vicious enemy of terrorists. Now we have a bunch of gullible "pussies" in charge of the pursestrings to fight a war against this vicious enemy, an enemy who makes it a point to torture, brutalize, and hideously murder our people.
Now, Democrats in Congress do have the ability to end the war, and even to avoid a Senate filibuster, by putting an end to the 2001 AUMF in the 2010 Defense appropriations budget. But there's a rub; Democrats would be shown for being the gullible "pussies", described by you and me, in the eyes of most Americans, and worse, the enemy Obama promised to wipe out. It makes things interesting.
Here is another problem. If she knew back in the day that she was being lied to, why did she take 6 years, after Obama was about to take office, to do something? Enhanced interrogation was leaked over three years ago, yet Pelosi did nothing, which she confirmed in today's presser. It's not like they were a secret anymore, yet she did nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Let's investigate, let's find out who in the adimin broke which laws when and at whose instruction.
I would say if the Obama administration releases the photos of the waterboarded terrorists, that should be preceded by a photo montage of the events of 9/11, including close-ups of people leaping 1000 feet from the Towers to avoid being burned to death. Then ask the American people this question: who committed a crime, the terrorist, or those who waterboarded the terrorists? Then ask the American people if waterboarding is actually torture?
"Then ask the American people this question: who committed a crime, the terrorist, or those who waterboarded the terrorists?"
I hope the American people would have the intelligence to answer: both.
For extra credit, they might also point out that using waterboarding for vengeance (inevitably punishing innocent and guilty) would be doubly morally wrong.
Even if a majority of American decided that waterboarding "terrorists" was no crime, and doing so was not torture, would that make it right?
In 1858, a majority of Americans believed that enslaving blacks was right, and the Supreme Court declared that "a black man has no rights worthy of respect". Did that make it right?
When did the GOP, supposedly the party of law and order, abandon both?
Toby:
For extra credit, they might also point out that using waterboarding for vengeance (inevitably punishing innocent and guilty) would be doubly morally wrong.
You are correct. But that isn't what the CIA did, was it? No, they were doing it to prevent what could have been further attacks on this country by this same enemy. Whether it was effective or prevented attacks is immaterial, because that isn't the issue; the point of the enhanced interrogation was to defend the nation during a time of war. Even someone like Chris Matthews agrees with the CIA and others who have been called "torture apologists" on when enhanced interrogation can be used.
Even if a majority of American decided that waterboarding "terrorists" was no crime, and doing so was not torture, would that make it right?
Absolutely, within the limited context which I just mentioned. But it doesn't matter because the point is moot. Nobody's been waterboarded since 2003 (maybe 2004), and Obama has already outlawed enhanced interrogations in an executive order (which has its own caveats).
SteveAR,
You will find that most of us on the "left"(as if torture is an ideological issue!) believe that if Pelosi et al are complicit, they too should be prosecuted.
Also, waterboarding HAS been determined to be torture, by the US, when the Japanese did it to us. What color hat are you wearing now, eh?
Actually, the purpose of "EIT" may not have been to protect the USA. It seems it was undertaken to manufacture a connection between Iraq and AQ, so that nitwits could be more easily fooled into going to war with Iraq. See here for an insider's report.
Two wrongs make a right? Wow, that's exceptionally wise. Chris Matthews is a beacon of liberal thought? Who knew? And if a majority of people in this country say so, torture becomes legal? You learn so much every time you read these comments.
Bill Keane:
You will find that most of us on the "left"(as if torture is an ideological issue!) believe that if Pelosi et al are complicit, they too should be prosecuted.
Good. Whenever you mention how Bush broke the law, then say that Pelosi broke the law as well, demanding that she answer for her crimes. She can't be allowed to get away with it.
I, on the other hand, will not be joining you as I don't see that waterboarding is torture (the U.S. military does it to their own), nor any of the other things mentioned, and don't believe a crime has been committed.
Also, waterboarding HAS been determined to be torture, by the US, when the Japanese did it to us.
You forgot to mention some of the other things the Japanese did. Like murdering our troops when they were POWs. That's what got those Japanese executed. Make sure you get that part right.
C2H50H:
It seems it was undertaken to manufacture a connection between Iraq and AQ, so that nitwits could be more easily fooled into going to war with Iraq.
Three of those nitwits are Joe Biden (the VP), Hillary Clinton (the Sec. of State), and Harry Reid (the Senate Majority Leader). These nitwits are three of the people running the government. Great.
By the way, it's interesting how what Wilkerson says comes out six years after the fact, three years after it was known what was going on. I'm glad Mr. Wilkerson was so on the ball and concerned to stop these "transgressions".
The only question is: is SteveAR a sophist or a cultist?
Those are the two remaining archetypes of die-hard Republicans.
The cultist is someone who is tethered to Republican ideology out of loyalty and psychological desperation, and to maintain a stable identity in an unstable world. They rarely benefit materially from supporting their leaders, since most of their ideology essentially rests on enriching the blessed leadership. However they do enjoy psychological benefits -- a sense of security, identity, self-righteousness, and a lack of guilt in exploiting and demonizing non-cultists.
The sophist is essentially a con man. Well aware of the inconsistencies of the party line, he (or she) sticks to it out of a mercenary nature rather than desperation. Since he is smarter and less brainwashed than the true believers, he is in a prime position to leverage them and climb the ladder towards wealth and power. They are well-versed in using rhetorical tactics to obfuscate the logical arguments of their opponents.
The interesting outliers are those who blur the lines. E.g. guys like David Kuo, who are true believers AND who have excellent critical thinking abilities. Eventually they notice the hypocrisy of the sophists at their level, but often have difficulty fully separating from their long-time political home. And in the meantime they've carried plenty of water for a political cartel that has secret contempt for their naivete.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home