Today, I read two pieces by Andrew Sullivan, one linked by a reader, the other by OpinionJournal’s Political Diary. Buried beneath that blogger’s bile were some insightful observations and even the makings of solid arguments. But, as I read each, I realized (yet again) why I don’t much bother with Andrew’s blog any more. It seems that soon after introduces an interesting idea, he launches into some diatribe against the president his Administration and/or those who, from time to time, dare defend him.
Andrew Sullivan’s tendentious tirades and persistent name-calling obscures his occasional wisdom.
He does have a point in the debate on aggressive interrogation techniques and torture, but his obsession with the issue has caused me to question his judgment. The very issue raises an important question: as a free society which values the rule of law, how far should we go in interrogating detainees suspected of terrorist activities so we might learn of (and hence thwart) their associates’ plans to attack civilian — and even military — targets?
Yet, instead of giving a fair hearing to those of us who favor the limited use of aggressive interrogation techniques (which some have called torture), Andrew levels all kinds of angry accusations against the Administration. In today’s piece on the topic, he addresses the conflicting accounts on the value of the information gathered with such aggressive techniques from Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida and resorts to so much name-calling and misrepresentation that he ends up only appealing to his existing audience and other Bush-haters.
He describes the interrogation as “Gestapo-playbook torture,” claims that “that Abu Ghraib was not just Bush policy – official Bush policy was worse” (someone forgot about the Schlesinger report), even suggests there have been “hundreds – and possibly thousands – of torture sessions” in the Bush Administration.
With rhetoric like this, no wonder so many who once regularly read his blog no longer do so.
Andrew finds it incumbent to bring up the issue of torture even in his endorsement of Ron Paul for president. He praises his man and John McCain not just for taking issue with the president’s stand on detainee interrogation, but for taking a “stand against the cancerous and deeply un-American torture and detention regime constructed by Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld.” Torture regime? He makes sound it like torture is the defining agenda of the Administration. Despite this juvenile comment, he does make (in that post) a valid point about the authenticity of McCain and Paul.
In his post on torture, he doesn’t bother to address what he calls the “key argument of torture advocates like Charles Krauthammer.” He merely claims that it has been rendered “moot.” As if the piece he cited proved his point, rather than presenting conflicting views (as it does) on the topic. Indeed, there is a debate among serious pundits and responsible public officials about the merits of aggressive interrogation techniques (with some while conceding that one such method, waterboarding, may be torture, recognizing its effectiveness). Instead of joining their important conversation, Andrew resorts to insults and misrepresentation.
I might take read Andrew more regularly (and take his points more seriously) were he to show greater respect for the opinions of others and refrained from name-calling.
The debate on aggressive interrogation techniques (or torture as some have called it) as means to gather information from suspected terrorists is perhaps one of the most significant issues of our day. Believing that we should treat all our prisoners with dignity, I’m not entirely comfortable with such methods as waterboarding. But, many in the intelligence community believe these methods are an effective means to gather information. To be sure, others are skeptical.
At present, I side with those who favorite such techniques provided that procedures are in place to make sure they’re only used in limited circumstances. I wish we didn’t have to resort to such methods, but think the safety of thousands of civilians outweighs the treatment of a handful of terrorists. Stuart Taylor offers somewhat different view and makes his case in a rational manner without insult or misrepresentation.
As Andrew’s references to “torture” show, his problem since February 24, 2004 is not the ideas he expresses, but the manner in which he has in the past three-and-a-half years expressed himself. He has all too often adopted the rhetoric (and sometimes even the arguments) of the angry Bush-hating left and so all too frequently obscures the eloquence of his expression and the intelligence of many of his ideas.
– B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
It’s really simple: His kind of FB&P (fantastic blamestorm and posturing) generates no light, only heat. It doesn’t help the country do the right thing, nor advance the state of the debate. And he surely knows that, on some level. Therefore: He isn’t actually interested in helping the country do the right thing, nor advancing the state of the debate. Only in making himself feel morally OK or ‘righteous’. He’s an hysterical child.
The reason Sullivan is screaming and wetting his pants over this one is because he bought hook, line, and sinker into the lies of Ron Suskind that Zubaydah knew nothing.
When it turns that Suskind was a liar, that Zubaydah did provide useful information, and that Sullivan was wrong, he’s simply not capable of admitting that fact.
And of course Daniel Coleman is going to show up. Coleman was the FBI agent with the ax to grind who told Suskind the lies about Zubaydah being useless in the first place.
In short, Sullivan’s vendetta against the Bush administration has been taken to its logical course and exposed as the inanity it is; Sullivan would rather we never have gotten any useful information at all rather than to waterboard al-Qaeda operatives. If Sullivan’s opportunistic “principles” were in place, we never would have captured or even identified the ringleader and master planner of the 9/11 plot, to say nothing of disrupting other plots and saving lives.
In short, Sullivan has been exposed as someone who hates Bush so much that he would rather people die than give Bush any credit. Hence the meltdown and hissy fit.
I am reminded of the classic radio interview Andrew did with Hugh Hewitt… what an ass
Part 1
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=dcfbb811-974c-413a-8c39-27ab596d1e26
Part 2
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=c5769cbd-47b2-4bf7-b03a-24afa730c374
Part 3
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=3b45fadb-a622-4959-a8b6-4352ad5abd5b
Then Lileks perfect imitiation of him here
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=4cfd6acb-23ec-4993-8c47-11d1c6787024
I gave up on reading Sullivan’s blog long ago. It is impossible to take him seriously. He seems to want to attract attention to himself by saying obnoxious things and that just tells me to ignore him.
I find this tortue/water boarding debate interesting. Couple things. It is possible that two water boardings have prevented ANY furthur terrorist attacks against our nation the past 6 years. For the critics like Sullivan and most liberals….they can’t wait for a Democrat to be elected so some of the executive orders can be recinded. I’d like them to list them for me. And if an attack follows, I want to use this list to totally humiliate any pundit and liberal polititian.I’ve yet to get any of my leftist friends to list all the RIGHTS we have lost during Bush 43. The lost freedoms. My life hasn’t changed at all. Except for being near strip searched at airports.
#5
I can get any answers either. You’d think they’d have a list handy. Not even Ian dares to go that far.
As far as Sully goes, follow the money.
Um, seeing that waterboarding:
Was invented in the Spanish Inquisition as a form of torture to extract false confessions from nonbelievers,
Was later exported to the Philippines as the “Water Cure” and picked up by American military during the Spanish-American Ward and then condemned as torture by Teddy Rosevelt,
And was condemned by our country as torture when the Khmer Rouge used it,
I’m pretty sure that “advanced interrogation techniques” just doesn’t cut it as a name. It’s torture. That being made clear, the questions to be asked should follow the format: “Should America torture for reason X?” We should not water down the language to avoid impinging upon our consciences through ignorance.
As for the comparison to techniques used by the Gestapo, he had documentation on the site earlier in the week concerning their used of extreme sleep deprivation, along with a quoted statement made by a victim of the practice (this time in Soviet Russia). The practice of extreme sleep deprivation is one which was admittedly used. So, unfortunately for us, our country, and our country’s good name and reputation, Mr. Sullivan’s moniker is not, in this instance, “mere name-calling”, but a proper description.
Forget not, either, that the primary use for torture throughout history has been the extraction, as mentioned earlier, of false confessions.
Now go ahead and tell me how anti-American I am and how much I’d love to see another attack on this country.
How many American lives is it worth to not torture someone , where if they had been tortured, the attack could have been prevented?
The question to be asked is if you’re going to give a damn about Ahmed feeling uncomfortable while you’re being buggered with a scimitar?
No, the question should be, should an interrogation technique that causes no serious long-term bodily damage be considered torture.
Further, another question to ask is why are ignorant assholes using it as a political tool long AFTER it was discontinued? And why do we let mindless assholes like Pelosi etc. get away with pretending they knew nothing about it???
What bugs the ever loving shit out of me is that we let every two-bit piss ant from NPR to Brian Ross to DailyKos to Huff ‘n Puff Post get everybody worked up into hysterical fits. Everybody thinks they know what’s best and everybody thinks they know how to do a better job.
If the calmed down and bothered to pay attention, they would have noticed that the same “unnamed sources” who unleashed this hysteria on the populace can’t seem to get their stories straight about it. In the case of KSM, as a prime example, first they say that he had to be waterboarded multiple times. Then it was only one time. Then all it took was showing him the equipment. Which is it?
Then one has to realize that these “unnamed sources” are the same folk who unleashed the steaming pile of the Valerie Wilson kerfuffle, smeared Ahmed Chalabi, leaked national security information to the NYT more than once, leaked NIEs, lied about the “sixteen words, smeared John Bolton, smeared Rumsfeld, run out to 60 Minutes and lie to Ed Bradley to push their books etc.etc.etc.
One has to wonder why in the hell we’re letting the CIA and douchebags who ascribe to the “Global Test” idea run the show?
On a sort of related note, my favorite blog tipped me to this fascinating article on the detachment of the anti-war right.
Does that sound Sully to anyone?
TGC – How does your name calling vulgarity get through the filter?
Seriously man, what’s your secret?
Torture is another example of the American conservative’s lost morality.
You have thrown aside all principals for your childhood binkie “security”
For the new American conservative its OK to torture 2 innocents because maybe 1 is a terrorist – maybe.
Then instead of standing up, being a man about it, apologize and look to rectifiy your wrong, you play semantic games to mollify a twingy conscience. Followed by labeling those who dare to question as “anti American”
Yuck.
oh gill.. can you be any more of a ρussy
No, silly person, the left has simply dumbed down the definition of torture to mean “Any discomfort, however minor or temporary, that a terrorist complains about, even if it never happened.” And this has been done purely for political reasons.
In my book, if it doesn’t result in serious, long-term physical damage to the body, it isn’t torture. If someone’s mutilated, or burned, or seriously damaged, that’s torture. Making someone think they’re drowning for thirty seconds isn’t torture, and I officially volunteer to be waterboarded on live television if, in return, every leftist in the country will shut their pie-hole about it.
There’s stuff that happens at the Fulsom Street Fair that’s far worse than anything that’s happened at Gitmo.
Let’s face it. Andy is a little bit nutty. If he weren’t kind of adorable I doubt we’d ever see him on TV. At least he’s an interesting voice and isn’t reiterating someone else’s talking points like so many other bloggers.
As for torture, it’s a real problem. Would we find it acceptable if Americans were being waterboarded by Al Qaeda? Of course we wouldn’t. We have to be careful about lowering ourselves to the level of terrorists lest we find our selves no better than the enemy. I also acknowledge that there is a grey area between intense interrogation and torture and I also accept that in extreme cases where lives are at stake that we have to do things that I don’t necessarily feel comfortable with.
16 –
Though tyrants throughout humanity’s history called it torture, to soothe your guilty conscience, you call it “discomfort.”
You only prove my point.
Thanks
And you are right, if you volunteer to be tortured, you probably enjoy the S&M stuff that happens in the world of kink.
But its still tortured. That’s why its kink.
Uh hello.. what planet are you on? If AQ waterboarded any captured troops, the troops will be lucky that is all that happened to them.
Usually they are tortured with a capital T in the most inhumane way possible, for as long as possible.. and their bodies are usually thrown to the mob to be ripped to shreds.
You lost like 90000 poiints with that comment.
Would we find it acceptable if Americans were being waterboarded by Al Qaeda?
Typical moral equivalence from the left. It’s quite one thing to waterboard a terrorist who may have information that will save the lives of innocents or of soldiers fighting for a good cause. It would be quite a different thing for a terrorist to waterboard a soldier (fighting under color of arms in a declared conflict per the Geneva convention) just because our terrorist enemies are barbarians and that’s what barbarians do.
But of course, HT doesn’t get that. To him, there is no moral difference between our military and the terrorists they fight.
And Vince P is right. If a US soldier is captured by a talibani or an al Qaeda, waterboarding is the least of their worries.
And HT may be completely ignorant of this, but the US military waterboards our own soldiers to prepare them for what the enemy might do to them.
I’m not saying they are equivalent. I think more than anything I don’t have any faith in my government at this point. I have been lied to too much. At every point in this conflict we were told things that turned out not to be true. When I voiced concerns about civil war in the aftermath of overthrowing Saddam Hussein I was called a traitor. In fact anyone questioning the war was denounced and vilified. And here we are in exactly the mess that anyone who had done any reading about the history of the region could have predicted. There never was a plan for what to do post Saddam. I’m not one of those who would argue that we’d be better off if he was still in power but it’s rather obvious that there was no serious consideration given to how to win the peace. Iraq isn’t Germany. And even Germany had some turmoil (though nothing like Iraq) immediately following the war.
As for WMDs, yes hearings please. Something is terribly wrong with the narrative here. SH either had the weapons or he didn’t. Did he think he did but didn’t? Did the administration ignore questions about the intelligence? I think we have a right to know how this went so wrong.
A couple of thoughts. First, it appears HT is willing to take out his animus against Bush by depriving our soldiers of interrogation techniques that may save their lives in the field.
Second, ain’t it funny how all the liberals who gleefully point out how wrong the intelligence community was about Iraqi WMDs accept the latest NIE as gospel truth about Iran’s nuclear program?
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 12/19/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
I don’t accept anything as gospel truth. But I trust the Bush administration not at all. And there’s absolutely no reason that I should.
In other news, Houndentenor, “you keep dodging the point” (by your standards – Half-joke) that several people have made now about your gross mis-use of the accusation, “You keep dodging my point”.
I don’t trust Bush either, nor do I trust Democrats, and I trust the career bureaucrats at State and in the CIA even less. I do, however, trust our trained military intelligence officers to behave honorably and do what is necessary to protect our troops.
“We were engaged in the defense of a way of life, and the great danger was that in defending this way of life we would find ourselves resorting to methods that endangered this way of life.”
The president noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had told him, “we should do what was necessary even if the result was to change the American way of life. We could lick the whole world… if we were willing to adopt the system of Adolph Hitler.”
— President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as quoted in the National Security Council declassified minutes of a meeting in Fall 1953, and as published in “Legacy of Ashes – The History of the CIA” by Tim Weiner, page 75.
HT, you may not “trust” the Bush Administration –which is kind of strange because I don’t trust inanimate institutions either… I trust or distrust people. People. Not institutions.
Was Clinton 42 trustworthy? Right, stupid question even if you were a loyal, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Was Bush 41 trustworthy to those anti-tax conservatives he pledged he would not raise taxes (read my lips)? Was Reagan or Carter on countless issues? Not to me.
Do I think honorable people, operating with good intent, sometimes have to be dishonest? Sure. We’re not in a Catholic grammar school playground here. Are some govt servants beyond trust? Sure, NancyP, HarrygReid and a few others come immediately to mind. Would I let TeddieK drive our babysitter home? Heck no… even if he is a guy.
Trust or distrust people. I trust Bush and many others to defend, protect and serve our interests over the interests of other countries when in a terrorist interrogation setting. No question about it.
But would I let SandyBerger carry my legal brief to the county courthouse? Hell no. But I know when it comes time to sanction harsh interrogation techniques on known terrorists who threaten US safety, I’d trust Bush to make that decision far more than Obama, Hillary or Dennis. And when it comes time to listen in on the communications between terrorists and US citizens, I trust Bush to set into place the appropriate safeguards and balance the right of privacy with natl interest.
Trust/distrust people. Not institutions.
Houndentenor, as for your Iraq distraction:
That’s just false.
It just wasn’t a great plan – in 20/20 hindsight – because it didn’t take into account:
(1) the astounding degree to which an extra 12 years of the monster Saddam had ruined Iraqi civil society, and
(2) the desire / commitment of outsiders – Iran, al Qaeda, and others – to turn Iraq into their own battlefield against the United States.
I don’t have faith in that accusation coming from you, Houndentenor. I’ve been “lied to too much” by you, i.e., too often told things that turned out not to be true.
Further,
That’s pure bull. The additional mess in Iraq (additional to what Saddam did) was caused in 2005-2006, by outsiders – Iran and al Qaeda. You seem to be laboring under the delusion, Houndentenor, that Iraqis themselves are in a “civil war” or, left to their own devices, want a “civil war”. They aren’t and they don’t. The only way you could have “predicted the mess”, other than in your own head, is *IF* you had recognized that Iran and al Qaeda are both real enemies of the United States and would both be pouring resources into Iraq in the 2005-6 timeframe. Did you?
Been there, done that. Multiple, major investigations and reports in the 2004-5 timeframe. Perhaps you missed them.
That’s one of the possibilities. Some of the evidence is that, out of sheer terror, his own people lied to him. Other powerful evidence (by no means contradictory or mutually exclusive) is that, instead of working the “stockpile” or “current production” angle, Saddam was working the “research” angle – which is just as bad, and just as much justification for the war.
You might be interested in this article.. there’s tons of new information available from the Iraqi files that we seized and brought here for translating..
See the link.. i only pasted two questions and answers
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=09F9FC90-1752-4965-8D02-D2EFD4FB112B
FP: John Loftus, Dave Gaubatz and Ryan Mauro, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.
John Loftus, let us begin with you.
Your volunteers at the IntelligenceSummit.org have been examining the secret documents captured from Saddam — and it appears that they have solved a large part of the mystery of Saddam’s missing WMDs. Correct?
Loftus: Yes, now the truth is beginning to emerge. Saddam’s own secret files show that he was lying to the UN, year after year. He told the UN that Iraq had no more WMD after 1991, and would never start those WMD programs again. But his own secret records show that in 2001, 2002, and 2003, Saddam was repeatedly purchasing banned chemicals, covering up radiation leaks, and generally orchestrating a cover-up.
Are the records genuine? We had NSA check the audiotapes to make sure it was Saddam’s own voiceprint. It is. Now, why would Saddam and his top aides record all those tapes year after year and hide the forgeries in secret vaults? There are three shelf miles of paper records. What is the point? These are secret internal records, it is not as if he was using them in public to fool the Iranians into thinking he had WMD. These records almost did not even make it onto the light of day. They were buried amid a forest of documents that might not have been reviewed for decades, if ever. I cannot think of any explanation but these are genuine secret archives of Saddam’s innermost feelings at his innermost meetings.
Moreover, at the time people like Dave Gaubatz and John Shaw were putting their statements on the record about how the WMD ended up in Syria, they did not know that we would get circumstantial corroboration from Saddam’s own files. Statistically, this is beyond the realm of possibility of fabrication.
Gaubatz: Thanks Jamie. My friend Mr. Loftus is the person who has inspired me to continue requesting our political leaders and the American public demand the truth about WMD be brought forward. There was a point in time when I had raised the flag indicating I surrender and can no longer fight the WMD cause further. Then I thought of the innocent children who would suffer the most during a terrorist attack in which WMD was used. I have obtained a second wind and want to inform everyone based on many years of working counter-intelligence, I left Iraq knowing WMD had indeed been buried, some had been transported out of Iraq directly before the war, and some has now been looted by our enemies.
Are the records genuine as Mr. Loftus stated? The documents are genuine. In the last year I was informed by Federal Agents on the ground in Iraq, that many Iraqi sources who provided WMD intelligence to us in 2003, were subsequently kidnapped and killed for helping Americans.
I want people to realize the war in Iraq is unlike any that our country has ever faced. There was chaos in 2003, and there is chaos in 2007. I do not mean to put fault on any one person for the failure to locate the WMD when we had the opportunity. Our leaders had the best intentions, but failed to properly review intelligence reports in a timely manner, and most were not acted upon. We are now suffering the consequences of not listening to the counter-intelligence officers on the ground and who was obtaining first-hand intelligence. In 2003 we reported the pending civil war between the Sunni and Shia Muslims. In pure Islam the Sunni Muslims consider Shia Muslims to be non-believers and apostates. The punishment for apostasy is death as described in Fiqh Us Sunnah. Fiqh Us Sunnah is in virtually every Sunni mosque in America. Our mapping team just left Florida. A prominent Islamic Scholar (Sunni) advised that all Shia people need to be
killed in the U.S.
The best way to solve the WMD mystery is to have all witnesses involved in either the search or excavations come before Congress and testify. This is when I will release names and contact information of the Iraqis who know first-hand about WMD and the Al Qaeda presence in Iraq well before 2003. Military agents will then be called forward.
This issue is very easy to prove. Put all players before Congress, under oath. The truth will be revealed. Some will be hurt politically or their military careers will be damaged, but America will know the truth. The truth is the only thing that may have a remote chance of preventing another attack against our great country.
Mauro: In 2006, particularly after pressure from the Intelligence Summit, the Bush Administration began declassifying some of the millions of documents that have been found in Iraq. Many of them were not translated due to the sheer volume of documents the U.S. possessed and how few reliable Arabic translators we have. These documents, as they were declassified, were put on the Internet where concerned citizens, fluent in Arabic, began translating them. Joseph Shahda and Ray Robison are two individuals who played a critical role in this. My only role was organizing and presenting them at the 2007 Intelligence Summit, and coupling it with the extensive open-source research I’ve done.
However, this web site where the declassified documents were placed has been taken down. An Iraqi document with critical details on how to build a nuclear weapon was posted, and the government decided it was best to end this practice. As a result, millions of documents are not translated and analyzed, leaving a big gaping hole in our intelligence collection. Though the picture is incomplete, we have clear indications that Iraq, at the least, had the capabilities to produce WMD and was actively researching and expanding that capability. There is also evidence that WMD went to Syria.
We learn about an Iraqi dissident who reported to us that he was in contact with drivers who confessed to transporting WMD into Syria. Apparently, 50 trucks arrived in Deir al-Zour, Syria, on March 10, 2003. One driver told the informant that an earlier shipment occurred on March 1st. Another document describes how Chinese intelligence picked up information about a WMD transfer to Syria, and asked the Germans for verification. The Germans said they didn’t have information on such a transfer, and then someone in the German government leaked this discussion to the Iraqis.
We also know that Iraq was in bed with foreign terrorists, and although no smoking gun exists to prove a collaborative relationship with Al-Qaeda, we do know from a document from 1997 that Iraqi intelligence met with Osama Bin Laden on February 19, 1995, where Bin Laden requested that Iraqi radio broadcast the speeches of a radical sheikh. Bin Laden also “requested joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz,” which is Saudi Arabia. Those who argued for so long that Bin Laden was unwilling to work with a so-called secular dictator like Saddam are proven wrong, as Bin Laden, not the Iraqis, initiated the request for collaboration.
It is worthy to note that on November 13, 1995, only months after this meeting, Al-Qaeda bombed the Saudi National Guards headquarters in Riyadh, killing five Americans. It’s circumstantial evidence, but other documents clearly point to Iraq as a committed state sponsor of terrorism.
Houndentenor, getting back to Sullivan and alleged “torture”:
And there you have it, folks. The most pathetic kind of leftie moral equivalence.
Houndentenor: If (note IF) it were true that Americans were terrorists planning the mass extermination of Muslim civilians as such (i.e., as civilians)… then yes, I, for one, would at that point find it acceptable for al Qaeda to waterboard for the specific, tightly controlled purpose of saving all those lives.
(typo – acceptable for al Qaeda to waterboard AMERICANS)
And – Needless to say, but in case I have to spell it out for any dummies out there –
(1) American’s AREN’T terrorists plotting mass casualty attacks on Muslim civilians.
(2) Al Qaeda wouldn’t waterboard for the specific, tightly controlled purpose of saving civilian lives. They have done real torture – not just waterboarding – and they have done it wantonly.
People who seriously, and in the face of all facts, claim that America “tortures” or that America is morally equivalent to al Qaeda are… twisted moral perverts. Disgusting.
31 –
Your loose moral standard has just freed all Palestinians from all culpability in their actions against Israel.
Nice work!
You have shown how the New American Conservatives has sunk to a new low.
Thank goodness, the left has clung to a morality that condemns torture and murder.
and
33 – What are you talking about? Get your head out of the sand, accept the fact that the USA now tortures people as well as outsourcers the torture to other countries.
Perhaps you need a true admission of sin. Maybe that will allow you to begin truly cleaning your stained conscience.
Its obvious through your denials you feel ashamed…
I have two issues here, why is Sully still called a conservative? Because it gives him that ‘outsider’ cachet?
As far as whatever techniques are used to gather information from terrorists. (non of these people are innocent) TMI, I don’t want to know. There are many things about police and CIA work that are off limits for me. Unfortunately in order to keep law and order, one can’t run the world like a hippy day care.
I wish we didn’t feel the need to know everything and second guess every move our security forces make. I blame 24 news, this idea that since we live in a free society, we have to be privy to every aspect of really affords us these freedoms.
The name calling/temper tantrums aren’t so bad. It’s the non-stop incessant whining kick he’s been on since 2004 that makes me want to bitch slap him back to P-town. I gave up on ol’ Andrew back in ’05.
Houndentenor: If (note IF) it were true that Americans were terrorists planning the mass extermination of Muslim civilians as such (i.e., as civilians)… then yes, I, for one, would at that point find it acceptable for al Qaeda to waterboard for the specific, tightly controlled purpose of saving all those lives.
Completely agree.
Not moral equivalence. Just plain morality.
Hmm. HT and other libs have a concept of “morality” that reminds me of a scene from the “A Tale of Two Santas” episode of Futurama where the robot Santa is reviewing his Naughty and Nice list. “Mobsters beating up a shopkeeper for protection money! Very naughty. Shopkeepers not paying their protection money – exactly as naughty!”
I contend it is more immoral to let people die when their lives could have been saved by aggressive interrogation of evil people than it is to let them die and forego the interrogation just to *prove* we’re better than they are.
There, fixed it for ya.
HT, try it this way: the application of harsh interrogation techniques (it isn’t torture no matter what some say including McCain) of inherently evil people conspiring to harm innocent people with mortal intent is a moral imperative. In fact, to act as you & some other Democrats suggest WOULD be immoral.
Just like using American military force to enforce the Bush doctrine of preemptive action against terrorists and those who house them is immoral. Teddy Roosevelt was doing it with that big ol’ stick he carried throughout his progressive GOP political career and long before “cowboy diplomacy”.
There, fixed it for ya. (last word)
If anyone in this debate knows what torture is, it’s John McCain. He does speak from experience on this issue after all.
I do know what morality is. I refuse to lower my standards of right and wrong just because it’s suddenly convenient to do so. Some people really need to read their Torahs and Bibles instead of chastising other people for being anti-Christian. Would Jesus waterboard?
Would Jesus let innocent people die for the sake of his own moral vanity?
It’s also interesting how lefties got all sobby because some terrorist barbarian is briefly subjected to the illusion that he is drowning… but when doctors tear apart late-term fetuses in the womb, that’s just fine with them. Wonder how Jesus would feel about that.
No you don’t, Houndentenor. We’ve established that in this thread. You seriously think that:
(1) Waterboarding a terrorist under carefully controlled conditions and for an essential purpose of saving thousands of innocent lives, is morally equivalent to the real and actual torture that al Qaeda practices on civilians.
(2) Letting thousands of people die is acceptable if it will gratify your illusory sense of righteousness (aka ego) over not waterboarding.
Both of which establish you as a morally ignorant, if not downright immoral, Houndentenor.
Would Jesus let innocent people die for the sake of his own moral vanity?
Jesus answered that question quite nicely.
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.
Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”
He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored.
Luke 6: 1 – 10
Or:
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away.
Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?” And they had nothing to say.
Luke 14: 1 – 6
What Jesus was very pointedly making clear in all of these examples is that the preservation of human life is paramount. He Himself was willing to be tortured, imprisoned, and die an unjust death as an innocent man to save the lives of billions.
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
I stopped reading Andrew Sullivan a couple years ago … his posts were beginning to feel obsessive, and they began to bore me. In search of something to fill the gap, I found GayPatriot. Rock on, guys.
#46 ILC: Well said. The only thing you missed out is that in additio to preening moral vanity, there are also crass political motives for labeling the temporary infliction of physical discomfort on a terrorist as “torture.”
Per GPW in the other thread… Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul (for the Republican nom at least; we know he’ll go Democrat in November)… and Ron Paul takes money from white supremacists:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016371.php
Let’s see. I’m not really into guilt-by-association, but I know a few of our nuttier commentors are. (John Santos comes to mind, LOL) By that standard, um, “Andrew Sullivan is a white supremacist”.
Now we have liberals who hate and fear religion, judgement and morality preaching about morality? The VERY same people who defend immorality and those who conduct it haven’t got a leg to stand on.
What in God’s name do you know about morality? You rabidly defended a douchebag who lied to the media and slandered his fellow soldiers and you STILL don’t believe that he lied. You still defend Hillary and John In Chief lord BJ and excuse what he did and failed to do with that weak assed “he’s not president anymore” and you want to preach to us about morality?
Screw you sideways, ghillie!
Well your secret is safe with you.
Our prisoners are still alive. Their prisoners are dead. I have yet to find a single, solitary liberal who gives a rotten damn about that. Instead, we get liberals who piss and moan because Muj’s feelings might get hurt if we look at ’em crosswise.
Not surprisingly, these are the same people who believe that the best way to protect America is for our soldiers to surrender and run away to Okinawa.
Our prisoners are still alive. Their prisoners are dead.
I have yet to find a liberal who gives a damn about that. Can’t look at Muj funny ’cause it might hurt his feelings though.
That’s why Teddy is still in the Senate, right? That’s why infanticide is illegal? Where was this morality when the left was supporting “Uncle Joe” Stalin and enabling Pol Pot? Where’s this morality when the people of Venezuela are oppressed, shot and starved? Where was this morality when millions of Iraqis were filling mass graves?
Further, where was your morality when you defended that POS who smeared his fellow soldiers?
My Goodness you all are cracked
1st – Jesus is PRO TORTURE?!?!?!? Yow.
Is that unhinged or what?
V-
Throughout human history, water boarding, induced hypothermia and other such methods have been labeled torture.
Yet according to you pointing out this obvious truth now makes one “crass”
Laughable.
This thread has proven Sullivan correct, the New American Conservative has lost its soul. Perhaps you all should read his book…maybe you will get it back
“What in God’s name do you know about morality? ”
I know enough to know that torture is torture and not simply “aggressive” or what ever word that the new American conservative uses in its semantic game
“Screw you sideways, ghillie!”
Ha! That’s a new one….What does that even mean? “Screw you” is obvious…but “sideways?”
Is it like spooning? But with a twist?
I am intrigued!
“Our prisoners are alive, theirs are dead.”
I think we can do a little better than some morally-twisted terrorists for a measuring stick of our behavior. And where does it stop? “Our prisoners are just subjected to emotional suffering; theirs are dead.” “Our prisoners are just missing their pinkies, theirs are dead.” Etc. When you set the bar as low as “not dead” there’s a lot of room to be better than them. However, we as a nation should not aspire just to be “not as bad as the terrorists”; we should aspire to live up to the ideals of our founders and of human liberty. We should not engage in torture.
And as for what constitutes torture, I think “severe mutilation” or even just “physical harm” also sets the bar WAY TOO LOW for our great nation (see #10). We should be able to step over that measuring stick without even changing our gait. And you talk of “liberal redefinition of torture”. Well, I’m not a liberal, but when I consult my dictionary for a definition of “torture”, here’s what the OED gives me:
[Emphasis mine]
Hardly a book written by “liberal extremists”.
So if you want to talk “redefinition”, first get out your mirror.
So, basically the lib position is: Subjecting a terrorist to temporary discomfort – bad. Letting people die so we can crow about how morally superior we are to terrorists – good.
#5 I’ve yet to get any of my leftist friends to list all the RIGHTS we have lost during Bush 43. The lost freedoms. I can list a whole bunch of rights I’ve lost during the Bush 43 administration.
Funny thing is, they were all taken from me by my liberal Democrat legislators and governor.
How about we call it, “non-lethal force?” You know, like tazering criminals instead of shooting them, which unlike water-boarding actually causes pain. And yet liberals demand we use such measures.
I have documentation that the Gestapo gave food and water to their prisoners! By your asinine logic and that of the hysterical miss Sullivan, we should stop feeding all prisoners immediately!
I went many a sleepless night in college. Little did I know I was BEING TORTURED!!!!
Unfortunately for you, we already know that Kaleid Sheik Mohammad sang like a canary after being waterboarded less than a minute and divulged real, actionable information that saved countless lives.
Please do try to you use your brain. I know you have your little liberal bumper sticker talking points from the daily kos or wherever, but the reason torture has been used for centuries, is not because it doesn’t work, but because it does.
As far as it producing false confessions, theres more than one rather blatant flaw with that silly argument, in that, 1) We already know it produced true confessions from KSM that saved lives, and 2) if the information we get was false — we can check it out! Its not as if we release these people after their waterboarding and tell them thanks! come back in a week!
The fact remains we have used waterboarding, a technique that causes no pain, and no physical damage in VERY limited circumstances (apparently twice) and it has worked exceptionally well and saved countless lives.
The fact also remains that ANYONE who would NOT torture someone who had information that could save innocent lives and would not otherwise give it up is morally retarded and morally repugnant.
So you know that torture is torture. Well shit, that answers everything. You sir, are a puss and wouldn’t know morality if it kicked you in the ass. It’s clear that you have a perverse, bastardized understanding of it to the point where anything you disagree with is “immoral”.
The point is, PSU, that they kill our soldiers and it seems that very few give a shit. However, we’re supposed to piss ourselves, and there shalt be wailing and gnashing of teeth because some Muj was looked at funny. Further, we’re supposed to extend our courts and rights to those who don’t abide by the rules of warfare and don’t live in this country.
The bottom line is that almost 3,000 people died on 9/11. We got our ass spanked. We got our ass spanked some more in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention getting spanked several times during the 90s. War was declared on us. Meanwhile we’re surrounded by colossal pu$$ies who believe that it’s all our fault and we should apologize for it. Not only that, but we should bend over and provide the Astroglide.
Worse than that, we have “Americans” who have consistently lied about every move we make and tell our enemies the measures we’ve taken to monitor them so they can trash the president and sell their goddam books. Tell me, is THAT the morality we should all be observing? Blowing our cover to sell fcuking books????
The real question is, what difference does it make to you?
Take Abu Ghraib for example. What was the point in all that coverage? Why did the NYT need to run it for 30+ days? The issue was known about and was being dealt with 4 months before we knew anything about it.
Did we really need that kerfuffle especially during a war? Did it change your day to day life? Did it make you feel morally inferrior or superrior? Did it make you feel good knowing that we enraged our enemies? Did it make you feel better when Turban Durbin compared our soldiers to Nazis etc. and do you think AQ felt better about it after that?
WTF difference did it make in your day to day life?
I think saving people’s lives is worth subjecting a terrorist to the illusion that he is drowning for a couple of minutes. Others apparently would rather see people die so they can feel smug about themselves.
So I guess it’s better morally to smear our soldiers as “terrorists” and “baby killers” and endanger our national security all for monetary and/or political gain. However, it’s immoral to call into question the lame brained bastards who do so.
Who cares if people like Khaleid has plans to kill us as long as we feel all warm, fuzzy and morally superior?
Sparing the guilty and punishing the innocent seems to be a recurring theme among liberals.
#60 –
It has nothing to do with being “smug”
It has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong.
Is it OK to torture an innocent person?
Or maybe is it OK to torture a terrorist’s children?
Or maybe is it OK to nuke a whole city because a terrorist might be there?
Your “torture a few eggs to kill the omelet” philosophy is bad road to start down….
It has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong
And to silly people, it’s right to let innocent people die so that guilty people can be spared momentary discomfort.
Would it have been wrong to waterboard Mohammed Atta on September 10, 2001 if it would have prevented what happened the next day? I don’t think so, but apparently many people do.
How quickly they change the subject.
If I believed that torture would only be used on those who had information that would save lives, I wouldn’t bother protesting it. But I don’t trust this administration. (I also feel confident that in spite of what the rules are, the CIA will indeed use torture in extreme circumstances and we’ll never hear about it.)
I have never called a US soldier a babykiller by the way. And I don’t have any association with anyone who would. I spent quite a bit of time on the Wiesbaden Army base in 2002-2003. I met men who are probably dead now. This isn’t abstract to me. Nor is the threat of another terrorist attack. What I can’t endorse is giving this administration a blank check to detain any person for any or no reason and torture at will. Now would you give those powers to a Democratic president.
I nearly drowned when I was eight years old. So, I guess that gives me the authority to say waterboarding isn’t torture.
Sorry Houndentenor, but the line only works when it’s true. 😉
No one – not even among your fellow lefties – has dodged the real and important points being made in this thread, more than you.
Sweet Jesus! What are you talking about?
I almost drowned when I was four or five. That was in salt water off Boca Grande, swallowed a bunch of it and puked my toenails up. I’d venture to guess that I got more water than KSM.
I remember back in elementary school, sometimes when you acted up, the teacher would have you stand with your arms out and hold it until they said stop.
Had a jr. high teacher who would make you stand in front of the class if you had the hiccups.
Not only did I get over that, I barely remember it or think of it.
A thought occurs:
I was perusing the American Elephants blog and was reminded that the liberals got General Ricardo “Abu Ghraib” Sanchez to criticize Bush after a radio address back in November.
One has to wonder why the liberals, who torture and beat us over the head about Abu Ghraib, reward General Sanchez with that sort of deal.
TGC, you assume that the Sorocrats sincerely care about torture. They don’t. It’s just another ploy to undermine the administration for political advantage. Back in 2002, Stretch Pelosi was fretting that waterboarding wasn’t tough enough.
And you’d think that if the liberals really gave a damn and thought it was their moral obligation to notify the public about Abu Ghraib, they wouldn’t have waited four months to howl at the moon.
Sorry, getting caught up.
Don’t we Waterboard our own troops as part of the SARE training?
And I assume gil is all for treating these people as the Geneva conventions allow?
But I don’t trust this administration.
Yes, well, we all know where that leads.
So help me, God, if anyone–ANYONE–ever again writes, implies, or otherwise insinuates that I have some association with the crackpots over at Kos, I will go berzerk.
With that out of the way, so many of you are way oversimplifying this. When you say “Why not do it!? They’re terrorists!”, you start with the assumption that all such persons in US captivity are terrorists, absolutely and undeniably. That’s a pretty crass error.
Now that you’ve read that and gotten yourself ready to accuse me of calling KSM a dear high school chum, I don’t deny that a great many of these people probably are and/or are evil people. But the fact that you commit an evil act against an evil person does not mitigate the evil of that act.
Next. I’m not talking about slight discomfort. I’m not talking about “mean faces” (as someone put it). I’m talking about harsh mental and physical suffering. A person suffers in both ways with water boarding. I don’t think there is any rational way to dispute that. I really don’t. So most of the arguments made are along the lines of, “It’s OK; they’re evil.” For that, see previous paragraph.
As for the person who made the extraordinarily jumbled conceit between this situation where a procedure is ramped up and the situation of using non-lethal force, i.e., a DOWNGRADING OF FORCE–well, hats off. You made the worst case ever, in my opinion.
As for the argument about “if we know he has information, we should torture”, well perhaps. But I think something important to ask is, “How, in normal cases, do we know what information an individual has if he has been so uncooperative as to warrant torturing.” So should we just torture everyone we suspect of having information, even those who have none, like Zubaydah? Where do we, as a civilized people draw that line in your opinion? I want real answers, not “We torture terrorists! We do not torture not-terrorists!”
For the next crassly stupid argument, I will take the “You could say we are like the Gestapo because they gave food to prisoners and so do we!!” Again, why do you set the bar so low? If you take a category so strikingly broad as “give their captives food”, you might as well take “breathe oxygen” as your limiting qualifier. The point in the comparison is in the uniqueness of the limiting standard. You show me just one civilized, democratic institution which has been supportive of using extreme sleep deprivation for extraction of information, and then I MIGHT consider your argument.
Lastly, I can’t believe that a group of fellow conservatives would be so…trusting of their government as to allow it the power to, without oversight or restraint and based solely on executive authority, administer torture to any human being.
It’s slightly slanted in wording, i’ll admit, but the question which stands before us is, “Should the US debase its ideals for safety.” I think that a fellow by the name of Franklin had a retort to that…
(Pardon me if this has all been a bit disjointed, but I am trying to rebuff and address so many disparate arguments in one comment. It becomes difficult to maintain fluidity.)
Ah, sorry, but I forgot one retort.
As for this notion that to be torture, it must leave “permanent marks” or cause permanent physical harm, frankly that is the biggest line of crap I have ever heard.
I don’t think anyone here would argue–well, I’d hope not, at least–that multiple simulated deaths by drowning could result in fairly serious and permanent mental repercussions for a person.
Are you not people who follow the philosophy of Barry Goldwater, such as I do? Do you not recognize that man is not just physical needs, but a complex interweaving of both the physical and the psychological/mental, as he did?
If you are such and do recognize that fact, then the logical conclusion is that harm to a person need not necessarily take a physical form to be real.
Why would supposed conservatives take such a non-conservative and materialist-based approach to this issue? Please explain; I am truly curious.
Correction:
Please get over it.. they did it to a grand total of THREE PEOPLE.
How do we know he had information? BECAUSE HE WAS THE GUY IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT of Al qaida!
This is the real world.. these people are ruthless and deliberately are trying to kill as many civilians as possible.
i find your moralizing offensive to be honest. Are you telling me that we should have done nothing to KSM and thereby condemm who knows how many thousands of people to their deaths because you’re too high and mighty in your ivory tower of abstract purity?
This mindrot is precisely what is wrong with this country.
When you’re in a war with ruthless people, the most ruthless win.
Ok. Let’s just nuke the [dung] out of the whole middle east, then. That would be pretty [darned] ruthless. And, you know what? I think that would be an automatic win.
And don’t give me any of this ivory-tower moralizing about “collateral damage” and “innocent people”. They’re living there, so they’re guilty. And even if they were innocent, well, it’s worth killing them and debasing our morals, because it keeps our people safe.
Explain to me why that that is not the logical conclusion of your premise, Vince, if ruthlessness is the ideal we aspire to for victory.
Oh PSU please spare us the emotional hyperbole.
When you can form a cogent non-hysterical arugment let me know. i’ve learned from the past it’s useless answering people who are more interested in their sanctimonious pacificity then reality.