Professor Tamanaha:

[From your linked post] Here's a simple way to determine whether any of the "alternative set of procedures" constitute "torture:" check if any of the techniques on the list--whether physical or mental--were also utlized under Stalinism

The Soviets used every interrogation method from what we would call a Terry Investigatory Stop to true torture - the intentional infliction of severe pain. Consequently, under your proposed test, all interrogation is "torture" because the Soviets (or any other dictatorship of your choice) also used these methods.

Determining what constitutes unlawful torture is a legal line drawing exercise. I would suggest that engaging in guilt by association logical fallacies does not advance this effort. Nor does dismissing the effort to define torture as a "silly legalistic argument."

Moreover, I do not see the comparison between the President's disagreement with you as to what constitutes torture and the Japanese erasing their history of propaganda slanders about our troops.

The President is not "erasing" either the history of the CIA's interrogation techniques as this months long lively discussion illustrates. He is most certainly not "erasing" the al Qaeda terrorists who were subject to this interrogation. Indeed, if the lawyers ever stop squabbling, these terrorists are on the fast track to military commission trials.
 

"...under your proposed test, all interrogation is "torture" because the Soviets (or any other dictatorship of your choice) also used these methods."

I don't think this follows.

Prof. Tamanaha says: "If these sorts of actions were “torture” when the Soviet Union engaged in them, they are “torture” when we do them." This does not mean that any interrogation technique ever employed by the Soviets is "torture." It is a much narrower claim. If the Soviets (or other distasteful regime) used an interrogation technique, and we previously denounced that technique as "torture," I'd say we're probably estopped from denying it constitutes torture when we choose to employ the same technique. Unless, of course, we don't mind being monumental hypocrites. This is, I assume, what Prof. Tamanaha means.

I think it is a useful exercise to look at past behavior by others, and our reactions to that behavior. If we previously denounced a type of interrogation technique when employed by another government, we should probably think twice before using that technique ourselves.
 

don:

Prof. Tamanaha says: "If these sorts of actions were “torture” when the Soviet Union engaged in them, they are “torture” when we do them." This does not mean that any interrogation technique ever employed by the Soviets is "torture." It is a much narrower claim. If the Soviets (or other distasteful regime) used an interrogation technique, and we previously denounced that technique as "torture," I'd say we're probably estopped from denying it constitutes torture when we choose to employ the same technique.

Perhaps Professor Tamanaha has changed his test from the one I quoted above. I would hope so.

Furthermore, Robert Conquest does not speak for the United States and consequently there is no "we" here. While I admire much of his work exposing the mass murder of the old Soviet Empire, I doubt there was much of anything the Soviets would do which would pass this fervent anti-communist's muster.

Finally, there is also a significant distinction between using a technique like "long time standing" on foreign unlawful enemy combatants and the Soviet use on civilian political prisoners, which is what Conquest was commenting on.

All in all, the analogy with the Soviets is very weak and meant mostly to gain a visceral response from conservatives.
 

If you want an idea of what Tamanaha is talking about, see Table 1 of my paper at:

www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/tlightcap/LightcapSPSA.pdf

I call this the "Torture Table" informally. It's a comparison of techniques cited by Solzhenitsyn and Conquest as used by the NKVD in 1937-38 with those used by US forces and agencies in 2002-05. There's a 69% agreement between the lists. The US evidence is all in the AR-15 and CID/IS investigations in the ACLU FOIA documents.
 

Looks like the URL didn't come through. Again, it's:

www.lagrange.edu/resources/
pdf/tlightcap/LightcapSPSA.pdf
 

the analogy with the Soviets is very weak

I'll chalk that one up to ignorance. We've drawn directly on torture methods addressed in SERE training, which itself is based on Soviet torture methods. It's not an analogy; it's a genealogy.
 

Anderson said...

BD: the analogy with the Soviets is very weak

I'll chalk that one up to ignorance. We've drawn directly on torture methods addressed in SERE training, which itself is based on Soviet torture methods. It's not an analogy; it's a genealogy.

Now we have a weak analogy twice removed.

Once again, the fact that the Soviets used a technique does not make it "torture."

Hell, very few of the techniques used in SERE training would qualify as torture - which is the intentional infliction of severe pain. Making someone very uncomfortable and wearing them down physically and mentally is not torture. What the NVA did to John McCain, including beating his broken leg and dislocating his shoulders, was torture. Heck, many of the interrogation techniques used in SERE are straight out of the Army Interrogation manual. While some SERE training skirts the border with some light beatings, the military simply cannot inflict full blown torture on the troops in training.

To use a far more apt analogy, I have no problem at all subjecting KSM and his fellow al Qaeda officers to the full range of what we use to train our own troops. If it is not too tough for our troops, then it is not to tough for al Qaeda.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Determining what constitutes unlawful torture is a legal line drawing exercise.

Yes, it goes like this: "[W]hen the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

In today's MaladministationSpeak™, if we do it, then it isn't torture.

Regardless of how anyone comes out on the "legality", I knows it when I sees it, and it's a crime against humanity. I think people like "Bart" missed their century.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Finally, there is also a significant distinction between using a technique like "long time standing" on foreign unlawful enemy combatants and the Soviet use on civilian political prisoners, which is what Conquest was commenting on.

T'aint much distance between an "unlawful enemy combatant" and a "civilian political prisoner" when the only thing that makes one the former is a preznitential 'finding'.

But that ignores the larger point that who it is applied to can hardly be the appropriate measure of what constitutes "torture". Of course, it's this last fact that completely eludes both of "Bart"'s neurones.

Cheers,
 

Professor Lightcap's link as a blue clickie here.

Cheers,
 

Finally, there is also a significant distinction between using a technique like "long time standing" on foreign unlawful enemy combatants and the Soviet use on civilian political prisoners, which is what Conquest was commenting on.

All right, then, Bart, I believe you define an unlawful combatant as anyone fighting out of uniform. And you have acknowledged that all governments, including ours, employ such combatants, such as spies or Special Forces infiltrating an area to prepare for the main forces.

So perhaps the question should be if the Soviet Union (or any other adversary) subjected captured CIA agents to stress positions, long time standing, hypothermia or waterboarding, would you regard that as a lawful attempt to get intelligence from unlawful combatants?
 

Anyone at risk of being misled by Mr. DePalma is referred to the NYT's little week-in-review feature, "Soviet-Style 'Torture' Becomes 'Interrogation.'"

It will come as no surprise to *most* people that what is done voluntarily, for brief intervals, to our troops, may become torture when done involuntarily and at great length to prisoners.

Torture includes "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental."

This bit from the NYT rang a bell:

The article describes basic Soviet N.K.V.D. (later K.G.B.) methods: isolation in a small cell; constant light; sleep deprivation; cold or heat; reduced food rations. Soviets denied such treatment was torture, just as American officials have in recent years.

It's a shame that the Soviets didn't have Mr. DePalma to be their PR guy. At least, I assume they did not ....
 

Ah, until E.L. pointed it out, I'd missed that particular sophistry.

So, we're told, Conquest's objection to Soviet torture was that they were doing it to the wrong people?

What does Mr. DePalma think a "crime against humanity" is, anyway? The whole point is that there ARE NO "right people" to torture.
 

torture - which is the intentional infliction of severe pain

Nope. Intentional infliction of severe mental or physical pain or suffering, other than suffering incident to lawful sanction.

First Bart says there is no definition, now he's deliberately narrowing the definition.
 

Anderson:

What does Mr. DePalma think a "crime against humanity" is, anyway? The whole point is that there ARE NO "right people" to torture.

I think "Bart" would disagree. See my comments above.

Cheers,
 

Enlightened Layperson said...

BD: Finally, there is also a significant distinction between using a technique like "long time standing" on foreign unlawful enemy combatants and the Soviet use on civilian political prisoners, which is what Conquest was commenting on.

All right, then, Bart, I believe you define an unlawful combatant as anyone fighting out of uniform. And you have acknowledged that all governments, including ours, employ such combatants, such as spies or Special Forces infiltrating an area to prepare for the main forces.

So perhaps the question should be if the Soviet Union (or any other adversary) subjected captured CIA agents to stress positions, long time standing, hypothermia or waterboarding, would you regard that as a lawful attempt to get intelligence from unlawful combatants?

Most definitely, yes.

The Germans captured, tortured and executed dozens of Allied infiltrators disguised like civilians during WWII such as the Jedburgh teams and the Germans were not charged with war crimes for doing so.

When you decide to play outside the protection of the rules meant to protect civilians, then you roll the dice with your life and well being - even if you are one of the "good guys."

People, war is not a game played by Marques of Queensbury rules. The default setting in war is to kill and maim the enemy at will until he either surrenders or is dead. The GC and similar laws of war are merely reciprocal suspensions of the default setting of war.

The logic of war is very, very simple. If you decide to cross the line and venture outside the rules, then you forego the protections provided by the rules.

Are there any other combat veterans who post here who can explain the facts of life to the others?
 

Anderson said...

So, we're told, Conquest's objection to Soviet torture was that they were doing it to the wrong people?

What does Mr. DePalma think a "crime against humanity" is, anyway? The whole point is that there ARE NO "right people" to torture.

To start, civilians, POWs and unlawful combatants all have different levels of protections. This is Law of War 101.

Furthermore, I am getting tired of the torture label being attached automatically for things like standing around.

For the last time, standing for log periods of time DOES NOT result in "severe pain." You get tired, your muscles get sore and your feet begin to swell.

For you sedentary civilians who think this constitutes "severe pain," this former Grunt can tell you that standing for a around 48 hours in a turret during the last war does not even get close to the discomfort of humping 100 lbs of gear for miles while the skin layers on your feet separate and turn into a bloody painful mess. My socks in basic and the airborne were often soaked in blood. In short, if you think standing around for a couple days is "severe pain," you simply have no idea what real pain is all about in your cozy civilian world.
 

"Bart":

For you sedentary civilians who think this constitutes "severe pain," this former Grunt can tell you that standing for a around 48 hours in a turret....

Stow it, "Bart". We've heard it (and pretty much everything you've said here) before. In fact, many times before. A nauseating number of times before. And the responses are there for you to go back and address should you wish to do so.

Can we ask you a favour: If you've said something three times, can you just sit on it the next time? Everyone's heard you, and all you do is detract from the thread by repeating it all over again.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
 

For the last time, standing for log periods of time DOES NOT result in "severe pain." You get tired, your muscles get sore and your feet begin to swell.

Yes indeedy, they do:

In 1956, the CIA commissioned two experts, Harold Wolff and Lawrence Hinkle, who described the effects of forced standing. The ankles and feet swell to twice their normal size within 24 hours. Moving becomes agony. Large blisters develop. The heart rate increases, and some faint. The kidneys eventually shut down.

But of course, we shouldn't credit what scientists, or the KGB for that matter, think. I'm sure the KGB wanted its victims to remain standing for their own good. Physical fitness and all that.
 

Bart:

I wasn't planning to intervene here again, but I can't let you get away with trying to minimize the types and effects of torture inflicted by US personnel. Instead of prolonged standing, let's try:

- Hanging people from ceilings and beating them to death.

- Suffocating prisoners by stuffing their heads in a sleeping bag and sitting on their chest (one of these prisoners died, as you no doubt heard).

- Breaking a prisoner's back in a beating.

- Tieing prisoners up then breaking their limbs with metal baseball bats.

- Stripping a prisoner naked, throwing him into the back of a truck with a metal bed in the middle of the Iraqi summer, then driving around until 70% of his body was covered with 3rd degree burns.

- Confining prisoners in a 4' X 4' X 20" cell continuously for four days.

- Continuously interrogating a prisoner for 20 hours a day for 48 of 52 days.

- Keeping hand and leg cuffed detainees standing on their knees for 24 hours at a stretch.

- Rape of male prisoners by broomstick, baton, phosphorus bulbs.

- Arresting family members of detainees and threatening them with torture before the detainees.

This is actually just a sample of the supported allegations against members of the US armed forces and "other agencies". Let's face the real situation for once, shall we?
 

Remember the Woody Allen movie scene in which he is being punished for misbehaving as a prisoner and is placed in a concrete hole in the ground? The form of torture was to send in an insurance salesman. A remake might have Lisa's brother replace the insurance salesman to explain why Woody's being forced to listen to him is not TORTURE.
 

Tracy Lightcap said...

Bart: I wasn't planning to intervene here again, but I can't let you get away with trying to minimize the types and effects of torture inflicted by US personnel...

We are discussing the repeatedly reviewed and approved CIA coercive interrogation techniques which are allegedly the subject of two more OLC memos. Specifically, we have been discussing at length standing for long periods of time.

Most of your examples are unrelated allegations of actual torture or murder, many of which were disputed, that you know of only because they were the subject of criminal investigation.

In short, you are changing the subject. If you wish to discuss the approved CIA techniques of which we are aware, I would be glad to do so.
 

Anderson said...

For the last time, standing for log periods of time DOES NOT result in "severe pain." You get tired, your muscles get sore and your feet begin to swell.

Yes indeedy, they do:

In 1956, the CIA commissioned two experts, Harold Wolff and Lawrence Hinkle, who described the effects of forced standing. The ankles and feet swell to twice their normal size within 24 hours. Moving becomes agony. Large blisters develop. The heart rate increases, and some faint. The kidneys eventually shut down.

Your article refers to an paragraph without citations which goes from page 36 to page 37 in a secret report entitled Communist Control Techniques.

Presuming that these claims even have a basis in an actual scientific study, Wolff and Hinkle are talking about situations where the detainee is standing for up to several days and fed water which he is unable or not allowed to pass as urine. This is not the same as simply standing for 2-3 days (as I have done in the past with nothing like the ill affects claimed by Wolff and Hinkle) and which seems to be what is involved in the CIA technique long time standing.

Interestingly, the EU Court of Human Rights, in the 1978 case Ireland v. the United Kingdom , held that a far worse version of long time standing used by the British against captured IRA was not torture under their rather expansive definition of the term.

The British technique was called "Wall-standing" and forced the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a 'stress position,' described by those who underwent it as being 'spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers.'

This is far worse than simply standing and would be considered torture in the United States. Indeed, I believe a CIA contractor was under criminal investigation for using something similar to this on an Afghani or Iraqi.
 

More prestidigitation from Mr. DePalma.

(1) The wall-standing at issue in the Ireland case was for "different periods totalling 20 to 30 hours," but there was no proof that the stress position was required during all the time spent at the wall. So: not 20 to 30 straight, but with intervals, and not all that time spent in the stress position.

(2) The definition of "torture" in that case was materially different from that in the UN Convention Against Torture, which uses the term for "severe" physical/mental pain & suffering. The EU court set a higher bar.

(3) Mr. DePalma quotes the "after 24 hours" language that I quoted, and then blithely turns that into "2 or 3 days."

(3) Of course the prisoner is given water -- denying water for that period would be torture in & of itself. The inability to pass the water is due to the strain on the kidneys from the perpetual upright stance.

(4) Mr. DePalma's claim that he stands like this, in a rigid, unmoving posture for 2 or 3 days, with no ill effects, is risible.

(5) Mr. DePalma sneers at Wolff & Hinkle's report, wondering whether their report has any basis in a scientific study. Their sources are cited at page 3 of the report, including victims of Communist interrogators and former Communist secret police officials. Did Mr. DePalma expect Wolff and Hinkle to torture their own undergraduates?
 

BTW, here's "Bart"'s 'I can deal with standing for 24 hours' crapola writ large:

'stress position'

And:

'coercive interrogation'

Let's be clear about what happens, m'kay? And let's be clear about what "Bart" thinks ought to be allowed. Boil his 'legal theory' down, and it becomes: "There's no limits, whatever it takes, dontcha know we're at war?!?!?"

Just to be clear about it.

Thank you,
 

anderson:

(5) Mr. DePalma sneers at Wolff & Hinkle's report, wondering whether their report has any basis in a scientific study. Their sources are cited at page 3 of the report, including victims of Communist interrogators and former Communist secret police officials. Did Mr. DePalma expect Wolff and Hinkle to torture their own undergraduates?

Ummm, yes I expect medial case studies or a controlled experiment when the writer is making medical allegations.

While it is true that that the anecdotal sources credited in the report were Soviet KGB or their victims, there is reason to doubt that the writers even used these sources for their medical claims about standing. They prefaced their medical claims with a notation that the KGB interrogators and prisoners both usually did not consider standing to be torture. The writers offered their medical claims as a correction to what they considered to be a misapprehension of their sources. Therefore, the question stands as to what is the source of these claims.

(4) Mr. DePalma's claim that he stands like this, in a rigid, unmoving posture for 2 or 3 days, with no ill effects, is risible.

I could give less than a damn what you think is risible. A turret in a Bradley is about 2 feet in diameter and the commanders seat that you stand on is about a foot wide. There are no any other positions in which you can stand except upright. At most, I could move my feet up and down to keep the blood flowing.

(3) Of course the prisoner is given water -- denying water for that period would be torture in & of itself. The inability to pass the water is due to the strain on the kidneys from the perpetual upright stance.

I had no problem pissing into an empty water bottle while standing in the Bradley turret. Indeed, it was far easier than attempting to do so while sitting down in the turret. The attack was not going to stop so I could hop off the vehicle and water the sand.
 

When did OpinionJournal become the official reporter for the "EU Court of Human Rights"? Must have missed it.

This is what I was talking about when I said that "Bart"'s 'scholarship' is shoddy....

From the OpinionJournal opinion piece:

By contrast, "slaps to the head," among the examples cited by the Times of the administration's "brutal" methods, doesn't come close to meeting any plausible definition of torture. The other examples--"hours held naked in a frigid [50 degree Fahrenheit] cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding"--come progressively closer to the line, and perhaps they cross it. But how do we tell?

I'd note that one definition of torture includes the intent to cause pain or suffering. Pain and suffering incidental to incarceration may sometimes be necessary and/or appropriate. But when the purpose of such is to gratuitously inflict such (or to do so not as a necessary condition of confinement), the malice and intent to cause pain for its own sake becomes apparent. And that malice is certainly true of the rock music and "waterboarding", and may well be true of "stress positions" or cold exposure when away from the exigencies of the battlefield. "Bart" is of the opinion that we can cause some degree of discomfort (what's unclear is up to what level of pain and/or injury and/or debilitation and/or death) in interrogating prisoners. I say that any such coercion is illegal, and in many cases torture under any civilised norm (see also below).

Here's "Bart"'s OpinionJournal opinion piece:

"The court's reasoning wasn't meant to excuse the behavior of British authorities, which it rightly described as 'inhuman and degrading.'"

... and a violation of Article 3 (art. 3). Funny they forgot to mention that.

For the benefit of those that want to know what the actual decision was, here it is.

As a perusal of this opinion, the United Kingdom agreed that the five practises were illegal, their own commission ordered a stop to such, and they paid civil judgements to the detainees.

We have this:

"168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of Article 3 (art. 3)."

I'd note also that the United Kingdom didn't contest the torture charge.

See also the separate opinions of Judges Zekia and Fitzmaurice. For instance:

"... there is little practical utility in speaking of torture or inhuman treatment, etc. "according to", or "within the meaning (or "scope" or "intention") of", Article 3 (art. 3) - (although the Judgment, probably by an oversight, uses such language here and there), - for that Article ascribes no meaning to the terms concerned, and gives no guidance as to their intended scope."

Article 3 (art. 3) states:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

and makes no distinction between these types of treatment. Trying to pretend that something is not "torture" (as Dana Perino and the maladministration apologists are trying to do), because perhaps some people find a distinction as to the severity of pain and suffering, is just meaningless persiflage; it's illegal regardless, and the ECHR said so plainly. And Article 3 (art. 3) makes no such distinction. The distinction that "this was not 'torture'" is purely a semantic one that glosses over the nature of the act and elides the point that this distinction, for whatever legal effect it has, applies only to "torture" as used by Article 3 (art. 3) and then in a way as to have no practical effect (as both "torture" and "inhuman treatment" are both prohibited and under the same terms by such).

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Interestingly, the EU Court of Human Rights, in the 1978 case Ireland v. the United Kingdom , held that a far worse version of long time standing used by the British against captured IRA was not torture under their rather expansive definition of the term.

We don't know if this was a "far worse" version. But I'm curious as to what model tank "Bart" was riding in that chained his hands above his head so that hs could only touch his toes, and "the weight of [his] body [was] mainly on the [manacled] fingers." M1A1, "Bart"?

The British technique was called "Wall-standing" and forced the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a 'stress position,' described by those who underwent it as being 'spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers.'

So how many hours, "Bart"? I'd note that the Brits gave these people settlements, and agreed to cease such practises, and didn't contest the claims in the ECHR, which found them illegal.

Are "days" of such OK?

Cheers,
 

FWIW, "Bart"'s OpinionJournal opinion piece is, at base, the same "we're are war, dontcha know, so anything goes" type of argument:

"For the record, count me as one who does not object to the interrogation to which KSM was reportedly subjected, including waterboarding. This is not because I take the use of waterboarding lightly (although I have a hard time concluding that a technique, however terrifying, to which CIA officers are willing to subject themselves experimentally can properly be counted as torture). It's because I take the threat posed by KSM seriously."

There it is: Even if it's not to be "take[n ...] lightly", it's OK. yasee, because the ends justify the means.

"That makes it difficult for me to subscribe to the 'So be it' line of reasoning. Taken seriously, it says that the civilized world would be better off sustaining a nuclear 9/11 than tarnishing its good name, that righteous victimhood is a finer thing than an innocent life saved through morally compromised methods, and that self-preservation is not the most fundamental requirement of democratic life."

The "ticking timebomb"/'24' argument. At the risk of repeating myself, I simply will state once again that there is no problem in doing whatever you need to, should you ever find yourself looking too much like Kiefer Sutherland. Just don't demand that we destroy our laws in some hypothetical quest to save them....

After almost three years, I have yet to see any maladministration apologists or Jack Bauer wannabes address my contention than the "ticking time bomb" presents no conundrum to either our laws or government. Particularly from such "brave" ... nay, "heroic" ... warrior-types as our "Bart"....

Cheers,
 

Bart:

The problem with your response is that it is precisely the "approved" interrogation methods used by the CIA and US armed forces that led to the abuses I cited. Since the memos concerning the "approved" methods were kept secret and used as a means of justification for interrogations in Iraq (on this see the Fay-Jones AR-15 investigation), the abuse that promulgated there and at GTMO - including those I listed - were the direct result of the kind of "interrogation" rules you are trying to defend here. As I said before, let's begin by facing the actual situation. Once we have, we can begin to determine whether the methods you want to limit discussion to can be left out of context.

Btw, as Tamanaha says, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The sources for the abuses I described are a good deal more reliable then those mentioned by Solzhenitsyn and Conquest. You might look at the paper to get some idea of how I sourced the material.
 

In a comparison of the long-term psychological effects of physical torture vs. nonphysical "interrogation techniques," Basoglu et al. (2007) found that helplessness of the victims and uncontrollability of the stressors were more important factors in the severity of mental suffering than the physical nature of the interrogation technique.

In their conclusion, they state: "aggressive interrogation techniques or detention procedures involving deprivation of basic needs, exposure to aversive environmental conditions, forced stress positions, hooding or blindfolding, isolation, restriction of movement, forced nudity, threats, humiliating treatment, and other psychological manipulations conducive to anxiety, fear, and helplessness in the detainee do not seem to be substantially different from physical torture in terms of the extent of mental suffering they cause, the underlying mechanisms of traumatic stress, and their long-term traumatic effects. Such stressors satisfy the criterion of "severe mental suffering," which is central to the definition of torture in international conventions. Furthermore, these findings do not support the distinction between torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment made by the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Although both types of acts are prohibited by this convention, such a distinction nevertheless reinforces the misconception that cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment causes less harm and might therefore be permissible under exceptional circumstances."

It seems I've heard something similar in at least two places recently. One was Brian's account above where his aunt "couldn't live with the horrors she had witnessed, knowing that it was based on a lie but helpless to prevent it."

The other place I've heard it was in Marty's post about the Jacoby Declaration regarding Jose Padilla: "Only after such time as Padilla has perceived that help is not on the way can the United States reasonably expect to obtain all possible intelligence information from Padilla."
 

Tracy Lightcap said...

Bart: The problem with your response is that it is precisely the "approved" interrogation methods used by the CIA and US armed forces that led to the abuses I cited.

In a nutshell, your contention is that, by issuing an order authorizing a limited set of interrogation techniques, the issuing authority encouraged its subordinates and others to exceed that set of techniques.

This argument makes no sense on its face.

For example, the same argument can be made that, by authorizing a limited list of interrogation techniques in the Army interrogation manual, the Army is encouraging its soldiers to exceed that list.

An order to stop at a certain line cannot be logically be seen as encouragement to proceed past that line.

Since the memos concerning the "approved" methods were kept secret and used as a means of justification for interrogations in Iraq (on this see the Fay-Jones AR-15 investigation)

This is an argument offered as a defense by those being criminally prosecuted for exceeding the limits of the authorized interrogation techniques. If memory serves, every single commander or court which adjudicated these cases has rejected this internally illogical defense.

Btw, as Tamanaha says, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The sources for the abuses I described are a good deal more reliable then those mentioned by Solzhenitsyn and Conquest.

Huh? Now that the Soviet Empire has gone the way of the Nazis, the existence and scope of the Gulag and the communist genocide in Ukraine are generally recognized.

In stark contrast, allegations of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a good track record of surviving court scrutiny.

If you want to discuss the merits of a particular case, I would be pleased to do so. However, this general comparison does not serve you well.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

In stark contrast, allegations of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan do not have a good track record of surviving court scrutiny.

Evidence, please.

But I'd note that both the defendants and the prosecutors are the U.S. military (or associated people).

Pardon me for being a bit sceptical, but with the maladministration and military command we have, eager to cover up and to whitewash any abuses arising from on high, I just don't trust them to do a very good job investigating and prosecuting themselves. The record seems to bear this out (and "Bart" has even alluded to such WRT the contractors, saying that they will are better in front of a military court). Then there's the "state secrets" 'defence' of other abuse.

But I'd note for "Bart"'s sake that he ought to be arguing (if he was consistent) that we can do WTF we want to the detainees as they have no legal rights, and could have been summarily shot, so they ought to be happy at being given the opportunity to "spill the beans" at the price of only a few broken bones or anal rapes (at least most of them; perhaps the folks that were killed in interrogation just wouldn't come clean; they chose their fate and will have to live with it ... oh, waiddaminnit). In which case, what's all this noise about "maltreatment"?

Cheers,
 

Bart said:

"In a nutshell, your contention is that, by issuing an order authorizing a limited set of interrogation techniques, the issuing authority encouraged its subordinates and others to exceed that set of techniques."

Yes. That is exactly what happened. The "limited set of interrogation techniques" was laid out in a secret, vague, and contradictory fashion, one that encouraged, when coupled with intense pressure to generate actionable intelligence, innovations of techniques beyond those initially authorized. That, to put it simply, is what this entire controversy is about.

As near as I can tell, what you seem to think is that the initial memos were conclusive and strictly limited the kinds of interrogation allowed. They weren't and didn't, especially when read in light of the "fear up" and environmental manipulation techniques allowed by FM-32. Read further on this. I'd suggest the Fay-Jones Report as a start.

"This is an argument (i.e. that the memos were used as a justification for many of the abuses in Iraq) offered as a defense by those being criminally prosecuted for exceeding the limits of the authorized interrogation techniques. If memory serves, every single commander or court which adjudicated these cases has rejected this internally illogical defense."

The "argument" is one of the findings of the Fay-Jones AR-15 investigation. It was used by the defense in some of the courts-martial and rightly rejected. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. It is; it just isn't a legal defense.

I should, however, have said that the memos were taken as authorizing the interrogation abuses, not as justifying them. A small difference, but an important one.

"Huh? Now that the Soviet Empire has gone the way of the Nazis, the existence and scope of the Gulag and the communist genocide in Ukraine are generally recognized."

And this has what to do with the sourcing of the comparison? What I was saying is that the evidence from the investigations conducted by the US military and by civilian agents is, in fact, more solidly grounded then the prisoner reports used by Solzhenitsyn and Conquest. All the more reason not to hide our heads in the sand about the abuses and their genesis.

I suspect from this response that you inferred from this comparison that I think we are as morally culpable as the Soviets. Of course not; after all, most of the victims of US torture are still alive. By the same token, however, that we committed systematic abuses of a similar nature should concern every American.

The remainder of the post has been addressed adequately by Arne above.
 

Tracy Lightcap said...

Bart said: "In a nutshell, your contention is that, by issuing an order authorizing a limited set of interrogation techniques, the issuing authority encouraged its subordinates and others to exceed that set of techniques."

Yes. That is exactly what happened. The "limited set of interrogation techniques" was laid out in a secret, vague, and contradictory fashion, one that encouraged, when coupled with intense pressure to generate actionable intelligence, innovations of techniques beyond those initially authorized. That, to put it simply, is what this entire controversy is about.

Really? Maybe I missed the leak, but where exactly have the orders concerning the CIA techniques been published?

Given that neither you nor anyone else here has read these orders, how exactly would you know if they were "laid out in a...vague, and contradictory fashion?"

Indeed, I am unaware of a single one of your criminal defendants who has actually read these orders. Consequently, it would be difficult for these defendants to be influenced by something they had never read.

As near as I can tell, what you seem to think is that the initial memos were conclusive and strictly limited the kinds of interrogation allowed.

I have no opinion on this since, like you, I have not read the orders. I presume that the orders were at least as specific as the leaks to date about these methods, which are pretty clear.

BD: "This is an argument (i.e. that the memos were used as a justification for many of the abuses in Iraq) offered as a defense by those being criminally prosecuted for exceeding the limits of the authorized interrogation techniques. If memory serves, every single commander or court which adjudicated these cases has rejected this internally illogical defense."

The "argument" is one of the findings of the Fay-Jones AR-15 investigation. It was used by the defense in some of the courts-martial and rightly rejected. That has nothing to do with whether or not it is true. It is; it just isn't a legal defense.

This report concerned Abu Ghraib. I know for a fact the courts rejected this exceedingly weak defense in the Abu Ghraib courts martials. The sexual abuse with which these defendants were charged did not at all resemble the approved CIA techniques that we are discussing. We have been debating long time standing, not stacking naked Iraqi prisoners on top of one another. Furthermore, none of the defendants here had even heard of the CIA orders nevertheless felt inspired by them. Rather, they claimed that unidentified persons had suggested this sexual sadism to them.
 

Bart:

We do in fact have a pretty good idea what's in the memos - they aren't orders, they're the basis for those - because we have a pretty good idea what was in the DoD memos that were used to authorize the techniques used by the mixed military and "other agency" "Tiger Teams" in GTMO and Iraq. Why do you think the MCA specifically included retrospective immunity for CIA personnel? Why did the administration withdraw the Yoo OLC memos? And why did they, apparently, later reaffirm the Yoo memos in secret? It's like Thoreau said, "Sometimes the circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when you find a fish in the milk." There's a very big fish here and I think we have a real good idea how it looks and smells.

You keep trying to restrict the subject of abuse to a single type of torture - long standing. I understand why. The other abusive techniques emerged from prior attempts to provide authorization for torture as an interrogation method. What you appear to be trying to say is that things are all better now and that a second round of secret memos including - by testimony of those who read them, remember - the very same techniques we saw in Iraq, GTMO, and Afghanistan couldn't possibly lead to other abuses in the future. Even if we accepted that those techniques - they're usually used in combination, you know - didn't amount to torture, you are asking us to take it on trust that nothing untoward will happen this time. There is simply no reason to do so. At all.

And what's all this "my criminal defendants" business? I have no connection with any of the accused in these matters or their victims. I'm interested in why my country decided to start torturing people regularly and with authorization from elected officials. Nothing else.

This is my last on this. It's been a stimulating exchange, but life is short and I have things to do.
 

tracy lightcap said...

Bart: We do in fact have a pretty good idea what's in the memos - they aren't orders, they're the basis for those - because we have a pretty good idea what was in the DoD memos that were used to authorize the techniques used by the mixed military and "other agency" "Tiger Teams" in GTMO and Iraq.

We need to clarify our terms. There are undoubtedly memorandum from the mass of lawyers at OLC, CIA and DoD which set forth the legal basis for the interrogation techniques. However, DoD and CIA also issued orders detailing the authorized interrogation techniques and I believe the levels of approval required for each level of interrogation.

There is no evidence that any of your criminal suspects ever saw either the memos or the orders, nor that any of the alleged criminal acts in any way resemble the authorized interrogation techniques.

Why do you think the MCA specifically included retrospective immunity for CIA personnel?

Because, as I have pointed out repeatedly over the past couple weeks, there is no objective definition for torture or CID. The immunity being sought is to prevent a court from creating ex post facto criminal liability for act which was not clearly unlawful at the time. Goldsmith spends multiple chapters in his book Terror President criticizing this problem.

Why did the administration withdraw the Yoo OLC memos?

Because Yoo erred on several issues. For example, the President's power does not change during wartime, nor does Article II trump Congress' enumerated power to set rules for Captures.

And why did they, apparently, later reaffirm the Yoo memos in secret?

When did this happen?

Yoo claimed that the line for torture was pain equivalent to organ failure or dismemberment.

The statutory definition of torture was the subjective term - severe pain - which arguably covers a range of pain less than organ failure or dismemberment

The known CIA interrogation techniques fall far, far short of the Yoo line and also short of the level of severe pain.

Therefore, the newly disclosed memos opining the obvious that the known CIA interrogation technique do no meet the level of severe pain to be considered torture do not necessarily use the far higher Yoo standard.

You keep trying to restrict the subject of abuse to a single type of torture - long standing.

Not at all. The CIA report concerning KGB interrogation techniques spend an inordinate amount of time on an extreme version of long time standing so that became the subject. If you would like to discuss another technique, go right ahead. Water boarding is usually the favorite subject.

The other abusive techniques emerged from prior attempts to provide authorization for torture as an interrogation method. What you appear to be trying to say is that things are all better now and that a second round of secret memos including - by testimony of those who read them, remember - the very same techniques we saw in Iraq, GTMO, and Afghanistan couldn't possibly lead to other abuses in the future.

Try reading my posts for content. I have spent the last couple posts attacking your unproven and logically inconsistent hypothesis that there is some link between authorized techniques like long time standing, varying environmental conditions and water boarding and the criminal sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib. I never stated that the newly disclosed memos made this non existent problem all better.

Instead of falsely linking the approved techniques to criminal sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib to discredit the former, why don't you simply address the approved techniques?
 

Yoo claimed that the line for torture was pain equivalent to organ failure or dismemberment.

Clarification: You claimed that "severe pain" was defined as pain essentially equivalent to organ failure or dismemberment (or similar, the exact language is longer). As long as the standard is "severe pain", if the definition of "severe pain" remains as Yoo maintained, saying we're now prohibiting "severe pain" as well:

["Bart"]: Yoo claimed that the line for torture was pain equivalent to organ failure or dismemberment.

The statutory definition of torture was the subjective term - severe pain - which arguably covers a range of pain less than organ failure or dismemberment

The known CIA interrogation techniques fall far, far short of the Yoo line and also short of the level of severe pain.

doesn't refute the claim that Yoo's standard was reaffirmed.

But it's all OK, because in a war, anything you need to do to prevent potential harm to the U.S. is OK, and legality must fall to expediency, not to mention these folks are "illegal enemy combatants" and have no rights anyway.

Cheers,
 

[Tracy Lightcap]: Why do you think the MCA specifically included retrospective immunity for CIA personnel?

["Bart"]: Because, as I have pointed out repeatedly over the past couple weeks, there is no objective definition for torture or CID. The immunity being sought is to prevent a court from creating ex post facto criminal liability for act which was not clearly unlawful at the time. Goldsmith spends multiple chapters in his book Terror President criticizing this problem.

It is the job of the court to determine if some law is ex post facto. The place to raise such a defence is at trial. The prohibition on ex post facto law is an Article I provision, and in this case doesn't even apply. A more appropriate defence would be to challege the law as being "void for vagueness", but once again, that should be an argument to the court at trial.

The only real effect an immunity provision can have is to make something that was illegal now legal. If it was legal previously (because of vagueness or other constitutional infirmity), and such immunity provision is a nullity.

Cheers,
 

arne:

Congress may also make the determination that one of its laws is vague and remedy the problem itself rather than place its war fighters at risk of criminal liability which at minimum bankrupts them with thousands of dollars of legal bills before the courts get around to making a decision.

Have you read the Goldsmith book yet?

The leftist spin on it is completely misleading. Mr. Goldsmith presents a damning indictment of the crazy quilt of vague criminal and civil laws our war fighters face and how the enemy and their enablers he rather generously calls the "human rights community" use those laws in asymmetrical warfare against our military. Outstanding book.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Congress may also make the determination that one of its laws is vague and remedy the problem itself rather than place its war fighters at risk of criminal liability which at minimum bankrupts them with thousands of dollars of legal bills before the courts get around to making a decision.

No. What Congress can do is make, amend, or repeal laws.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

... how the enemy and their enablers he rather generously calls the "human rights community" use those laws in asymmetrical warfare against our military.

Go ahead. Call them "traitors". I know you want to.

It's amasing how these "enemy ... enablers" use our very own courts to engage in such deadly "warfare" against our military. The horrors of being "under fire" from incoming legal briefs surely has veterans like this cowering in fear ... particularly since the onslaught of just an attack by that valiant combat hero El Rushbo has him pissing his pants (as one can see from the video).

You know, you disgust me, "Bart"....

Cheers,
 

Arne Langsetmo said...

"Bart" DePalma: ... how the enemy and their enablers he rather generously calls the "human rights community" use those laws in asymmetrical warfare against our military.

Go ahead. Call them "traitors". I know you want to.

As I have oft posted before, most of those who deliberately seek to hinder or harm our war effort and military do not appear to do so because they want the enemy to win so much as they want their own country to lose. In this, they share and seek to advance the same goals as the enemy, but I do not think you can fairly say that they have the intent to provide aid and comfort to the enemy. Rather, they have their own political and ideological agendas.

Most of the anti military crowd more closely resemble spoiled adolescents rebelling against their parents and remain willfully ignorant of the genuine harm they cause. Indeed, this appears to be the singular trait of far too many of the Baby Boom Generation.

The horrors of being "under fire" from incoming legal briefs surely has veterans like this cowering in fear ...

This is a perfect example of the willful ignorance to which I referred. Criminal prosecution is not the joke you flippantly make it out to be. Just the legal fees of a significant criminal defense will bankrupt the average civil servant. Then there is the stress of facing criminal sanctions which often tear apart their lives and families. And for what? Defending their country.

To quote Jesus: "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."
 

"Bart" DePalma:

As I have oft posted before, most of those who deliberately seek to hinder or harm our war effort and military do not appear to do so because they want the enemy to win so much as they want their own country to lose. In this, they share and seek to advance the same goals as the enemy, but I do not think you can fairly say that they have the intent to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

This is slander. It is not true. Many if not most people who object to the illegal and immoral U.S. policies do so because they are illegal and immoral, and not at all what we should represent and do as a nation. I include myself among these people. That this involved opposition to those that violate our laws, incarcerate people on no charges, demean, torture, and kill people, spy on our citizens, etc., is hardly due some desire to see our "country [] lose"; rather it is the opposite. We would like our country to "win"; to do the right thing and to prevail. We don't see "winning" as killing enough Iraqis so that no one is left that will fight our occupation. We see "winning" (in part) as doing what it takes so that Iraqis aren't trying to kill us in their own country, and that when they finally manage to get a hand on affairs in their own country, they won't hate us (as, for instance, the Iranians have since our efforts there in 1953 onwards). We see "losing" as doing exactly what al-Qaeda wants us to do: destroy our country, our freedoms, and our way of life ourselves.

Most of the anti military crowd more closely resemble spoiled adolescents rebelling against their parents and remain willfully ignorant of the genuine harm they cause. Indeed, this appears to be the singular trait of far too many of the Baby Boom Generation.

D.F.H.s, eh? Hate to tell you this, "Bart", but two-thirds of this country don't want your steekin' war.... They're adolescents and grandmothers, Republicans and Democrats, black, white, and other colours, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. The "D.F.H." epithet is trite ... old ... and wrong.

But IC that you're of the same apparent (and odious) opinion as His Emanence Rush: veterans like McGough are "spoiled adolescents", eh? Maybe even "phony soldiers" (or at the very least duped youngsters under the thrall of the Liberal Borg).

Criminal prosecution is not the joke you flippantly make it out to be. Just the legal fees of a significant criminal defense will bankrupt the average civil servant. Then there is the stress of facing criminal sanctions which often tear apart their lives and families....

Yeah, like poor ol' Scooter. "Bart", ol' boy: Everyone is subject to prosecution for a myriad of laws. That's hardly an excuse to get rid of the laws; rather, there's other mechanisms to ensure that people (usually) don't get prosecuted unjustly. That's the way it works. If you're of the opinion that we should abandon every law of which a single person is found "not guilty" of violating, out with it. That would be a curious world....

No respectable prosecutor would bring a weak case against anyone that hasn't violated the law (well, except perhaps the corrupt and/or partisan U.S. attorneys that Dubya has appointed).

... And for what? Defending their country.

Umm, for breaking the law. Thought that was obvious. "Defending [your] country" is no defence to a charge of murder.

To quote Jesus: "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do."

Unapropos.

"Who would Jesus bomb?"

Cheers,
 

arne langsetmo said...

"Bart" DePalma: As I have oft posted before, most of those who deliberately seek to hinder or harm our war effort and military do not appear to do so because they want the enemy to win so much as they want their own country to lose. In this, they share and seek to advance the same goals as the enemy, but I do not think you can fairly say that they have the intent to provide aid and comfort to the enemy.

This is slander. It is not true. Many if not most people who object to the illegal and immoral U.S. policies do so because they are illegal and immoral, and not at all what we should represent and do as a nation. I include myself among these people...

Oh really?

(I am going to use the term "you" to mean you individually and "these people" with whom you group yourself.)

Name one goal in the Iraq War which you do not share with the enemy. Just one.

It is hard to distinguish bin Laden and Zawahiri's speeches from your posts.

The term anti-war is a misnomer for you and this movement. You are first and foremost anti American.

You demand that only the United States stop fighting in a war, never the enemy.

You could give less than a damn if the enemy continues to war so long as the United States loses

So do not tell me that you are some sort of a pacifist.

You protest the alleged wrongdoing of only United States troops, never the enemy.

So do not tell me you are some sort of champion of the rule of law.

You question and condemn the motives of only the United States, never the enemy.

So do not tell me you are some sort of moralist.

You claim to support democracy and freedom, yet you belittle the freedom and democracy won through the blood and sacrifice of United States and Iraqi troops, while excusing or ignoring the murderous tyranny of the enemy.

So do not tell me that you are some sort of a small d democrat. The big D Democrat party has very little to do with spreading democracy anymore.

I might take you half seriously as an honest moralist, legalist, pacifist or democrat if you took just half as much time taking the enemy to task and demanding that he stop fighting as you do the United States.

When Ghandi went on his hunger strike to stop the fighting in India, he meant all the fighting, not just that by his Hindu.

Not you.

With you, it is always blame America first.

I would hazard a guess that you are among the 20% of Democrats recently polled who think the world would be better off if the United States lost in Iraq or the further 20% who refused to give an opinion repudiating this anti American hatred..

Be honest and tell me I am wrong on any point here.

Until you can honestly do so, spare me your overweening, self righteous hypocrisy.
 

Be honest and tell me I am wrong on any point here.

Being honest, I would have to say that you were wrong on about all of the points. To choose one:

Name one goal in the Iraq War which you do not share with the enemy. Just one.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/05/al.qaeda.tape/index.html

"This bill reflects American failure and frustration," says al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden. "However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.

And here is one you don't share with our troops:

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
 

I might take you half seriously as an honest moralist, legalist, pacifist or democrat if you took just half as much time taking the enemy to task and demanding that he stop fighting as you do the United States.

The "enemy" didn't invade Iraq, you imbecile, we did. It was the dumbest thing this nation has ever done, and scum like you are responsible.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Name one goal in the Iraq War which you do not share with the enemy. Just one.

Ummm, "goal[]s in the Iraq War"... Let's see, what "goals" are we talking about?

Destroying Saddam's profligate WoMD?

Removal of Eeeeyvul Dictators?

Letting Democracy blossom across the Middle East?

Liberation of the Iraqi people (from their sordid lives, it seems, for the most part)?

You know, "Bart", your problem here is that I didn't have any "goals" for the Iraq war. I thought it was an extremely stoopid and sanguinary idea. So that should easily refute your slanderous claim here.

It is hard to distinguish bin Laden and Zawahiri's speeches from your posts.

Well, if you're extremely stoopid or obtuse. But feel free to trot out any evidence you have of that and maybe we can discuss it.

The term anti-war is a misnomer for you and this movement. You are first and foremost anti American.

You know, "Bart", I think I have a much better grasp of what my sentiments are than you. I'm kind of sick of people telling me what I think, and I think that you need to STFU with this kind of ad hominem attack, which has no place on the legal blog of the kind perfessers here. Feel free to opine that in your view, I am "anti-American", but do it on your own 'effin blog where rational people don't have to scroll past it to see anything of substance.

You demand that only the United States stop fighting in a war, never the enemy.

Huh? And, for that matter, which enemy? I can contribute to the campaigns of candidates here, call them and implore them to do what is right, etc., but I have no voice with the Iraqi citizens (much less al Qaeda) nor do I have access to their web pages and newspapers.

You could give less than a damn if the enemy continues to war so long as the United States loses

False. Hey, dontcha remember? "Mission Accomplished"? A high point of Dubya's career (and that's saying a lot....)

So do not tell me that you are some sort of a pacifist.

I didn't. Why you bring it up then is beyond me. That's hardly rational discussion.

You protest the alleged wrongdoing of only United States troops, never the enemy.

I protest my gummint committing crimes as a matter of policy. But I am no fan of the terrorists in Iraq or elsewhere; however such people are doing nothing in my name.

So do not tell me you are some sort of champion of the rule of law.

Why not? Do you have any evidence to rebut such a claim? If so, out with it, otherwise why don't you cease your ad hominem?

You know, falsely calling Glenn Greenwald a liar is what finally got you booted from Unclaimed Territory.

You question and condemn the motives of only the United States, never the enemy.

No, I condemn the motives of the terrorists as well. For the last 'effin' time, bin Laden is not my hero. He's a religious fundamentalist whack-job intent on some of the most repressive government in existence. I oppose religious whackjobs who want to impose their religion on others without respect to race, creed, colour, or sect.

But speaking of bin Laden, where is Dubya's little birthday present?

So do not tell me you are some sort of moralist.

Don't tell me I'm not ... ad nauseam.

You claim to support democracy and freedom, yet you belittle the freedom and democracy won through the blood and sacrifice of United States and Iraqi troops, ...

Haven't seen much "democracy and freedom" around those parts for a while. The notion that "democracy" can be imposed at the point of another country's guns is one I find rather absurd.

If you're interested in "motive" (and the Asian subcontinent), you'd be well advised to read Stephen Kinzer's book "All The Shah's Men". That gives you a good idea of what America has meant to those parts WRT "democracy". Say, hows that liberated, "democratic" Kuwait faring, eh? How'd the last general elections there turn out?

... while excusing or ignoring the murderous tyranny of the enemy.

Find one place where I've "excus[ed] ... the murderous tyranny of the enemy". If you can't, I'd expect an apology would be in order.

So do not tell me that you are some sort of a small d democrat.

If you have any evidence that I am not, out with it. Otherwise STFU.

... The big D Democrat party has very little to do with spreading democracy anymore.

I'm not fond of the big-"D" Democrats either, right now. They act too much like Republicans (who also have "very little to do with spreading democracy" (and never have). I told a Democratic fundraiser yesterday to go tell them to grow a spine; I'll give to only those candidates that do.

I might take you half seriously as an honest moralist, legalist, pacifist or democrat if you took just half as much time taking the enemy to task and demanding that he stop fighting as you do the United States.

OK. Bin Laden, would you cease your terrorism NOW!!! Happy? Think he'll listen to me? Unfortunately, I can't threaten him with witholding campaign contributions, so I'm not sure it will have any effect. See the difference? Not to mention that I don't see any reason that bin Laden and our gummint have to be held to the same standards, which is an implicit assumption in your attack here.

Lost in passing is that a large part of the insurgency in Iraq is not al Qaeda (or even the copycat "al Qaeda in Iraq"). SO WTF we were doing there rather than actually hunting down bin Laden is something that only President Cheney knows for sure.

When Ghandi went on his hunger strike to stop the fighting in India, he meant all the fighting, not just that by his Hindu.

Quite true. Your point?

Not you.

I'm not going on hunger strikes. Nor do I think that bin Laden would give a fig if I did.

With you, it is always blame America first.

No, with me, it's first "do no harm". I have a voice in American politics. And I have a stake in American politics. Why this eludes you is not something I can do anything about.

I would hazard a guess that you are among the 20% of Democrats recently polled who think the world would be better off if the United States lost in Iraq or the further 20% who refused to give an opinion repudiating this anti American hatred..

An imprecise and unilluminating question. It suffers first and foremost for being a "fallacy of bifurcation".

I don't want the U.S. to "lose" (and how can they "lose" a war they started in someone else's country?) I want the U.S troops out of there ASAP, and hopefully with some co-operation from others to send in whatever support is needed (and possible_ to try to ensure things don't blow up too horribly when we leave. Building the world's largest blockhouse/fortress/"embassy"/rec-centre in the middle of the country is one of the stoopidest things we could do. But it has company; see Ricks's book "Fiasco" for the manifold ways we've absolutely screwed the pooch in Iraq. The answer of the Dubya sycophants like you has, despite the evidence been either "stay the course" or "more of the same". The classical definition of insanity.

Be honest and tell me I am wrong on any point here.

You're wrong from top to bottom, and your attack is purely ad hominem accusation sans evidence and profoundly dishonest in trying to tell me what I think. I think you should stop.

Until you can honestly do so, spare me your overweening, self righteous hypocrisy.

More ad hominem. If you have an example of my "hypocrisy", out with it. That is a serious charge, and I expect you would have evidence to back it up.

Sincerely,
 

Well done, arne. thanks for taking the time to write that out. seriously.
 

I figured taking a bat directly to the hornets nest would get a response...

fraud guy said...

BD: Name one goal in the Iraq War which you do not share with the enemy. Just one.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/05/al.qaeda.tape/index.html

"This bill reflects American failure and frustration," says al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden. "However, this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap.

Ummm... How does this illustrate a goal which you do not share with al Qaeda? You both support the retreat of the US military from and the surrender of the Iraq battlefield to al Qaeda.

Next.
 

I figured taking a bat directly to the hornets nest would get a response...

Actually, Arne just took a bat to your thick skull...
 

Bart,

You both support the retreat of the US military from and the surrender of the Iraq battlefield to al Qaeda.

Actually, they want us to stay; what part of "this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap" don't you understand.

And by the way, it's generally considered prudent to dispose of hornet's nests from a distance, as opposed to hitting them from up close. I've found a new non-toxic spray that kills them from about 30 feet.
 

"Bart" DePalma:

I figured taking a bat directly to the hornets nest would get a response...

So you agree that is what you're doing, then. Pardon me for saying so, but it is neither very intelligent, very honest, nor very polite.

But I await (albeit, knowing your modus operandi here, am not holding my breath) any evidence you have to support your slanderous ad hominem claims above.

Cheers,
 

arne langsetmo said...

What a surprise! A response twice as long as my post which tap dances around all my points....

"Bart" DePalma: Name one goal in the Iraq War which you do not share with the enemy. Just one.

Ummm, "goal[]s in the Iraq War"... Let's see, what "goals" are we talking about?

Destroying Saddam's profligate WoMD?

Let's stop here. As you well know, I am speaking about the nearly identical goals of you and al Qeada. As is your wont when cornered, you are changing the subject. I will take this as an admission that your retreat and defeat goals do not differ in any appreciable way from al Qaeda's.

BD: You demand that only the United States stop fighting in a war, never the enemy.

Huh? And, for that matter, which enemy? I can contribute to the campaigns of candidates here, call them and implore them to do what is right, etc., but I have no voice with the Iraqi citizens (much less al Qaeda) nor do I have access to their web pages and newspapers.

Please. The issue is not who you can influence. Your posts here do not influence anyone. The issue is intellectual honesty and balance. For example, I had no problem comparing and contrasting how the US and the enemy treats prisoners of war to provide some perspective. If memory serves, you ridiculed that approach and never once did anything but attack the United States on this issue.

You could give less than a damn if the enemy continues to war so long as the United States loses

False. Hey, dontcha remember? "Mission Accomplished"? A high point of Dubya's career (and that's saying a lot....)

Stop changing the subject. How is this statement false?

You believe against all evidence that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

You believe in retreating from the battlefield in Iraq regardless of whether the enemy continues murdering people.

So do not tell me that you are some sort of a pacifist.

I didn't.

OK, then you are not anti war, so we can discard that misnomer. You are pro US surrender.

You protest the alleged wrongdoing of only United States troops, never the enemy.

I protest my gummint committing crimes as a matter of policy. But I am no fan of the terrorists in Iraq or elsewhere; however such people are doing nothing in my name.

That is a cop out. No one is doing anything in your name unless you authorize them to do so.

I am so glad to hear that you are not a fan of terrorists. If so, why are you silent as to their massive war crimes while condemning nearly everything your country does?

You question and condemn the motives of only the United States, never the enemy.

No, I condemn the motives of the terrorists as well.

LOL! For heaven's sake, when have you even mentioned the motives and war crimes of al Qaeda here, nevertheless condemned them as you do your own country?

For the last 'effin' time, bin Laden is not my hero. He's a religious fundamentalist whack-job intent on some of the most repressive government in existence. I oppose religious whackjobs who want to impose their religion on others without respect to race, creed, colour, or sect.

But speaking of bin Laden, where is Dubya's little birthday present?

In my last post calling you out, I did not think to address the play of the hoary moral equivalence card. Attacking the United States or a political opponent by attempting to equate its action to the enormous war crimes of an enemy is an old standby of the anti war movement.

BD: You claim to support democracy and freedom, yet you belittle the freedom and democracy won through the blood and sacrifice of United States and Iraqi troops, ...

Haven't seen much "democracy and freedom" around those parts for a while. The notion that "democracy" can be imposed at the point of another country's guns is one I find rather absurd

I will take that as a confirmation of my point.

... while excusing or ignoring the murderous tyranny of the enemy.

Find one place where I've "excus[ed] ... the murderous tyranny of the enemy". If you can't, I'd expect an apology would be in order.

This is too easy. When have you ever condemned al Qaeda's mass murder of Iraqi civilians on this blog? Hell, when discussing Iraqi deaths, when did you ever attribute any of them to the enemy? Indeed, how many times have you attributed Iraqi civilian deaths to the United States?

I don't want the U.S. to "lose" (and how can they "lose" a war they started in someone else's country?)

The same way you lose any war - allow the enemy the space and means to continue to attack or threaten you.

You wish to unilaterally surrender to the enemy the space and means in Iraq to continue to attack or threaten us, so you most certainly want the United States to lose in Iraq.
 

Baghdad Bart's capacity for self-delusion is really quite astounding.
 

"Bart" DePalma continues, undeterred and unashamed:

What a surprise! A response twice as long as my post which tap dances around all my points....

Why, I was just about to say the same of you, and with far more reason.

["Bart"]: Name one goal in the Iraq War which you do not share with the enemy. Just one.

[Arne]: Ummm, "goal[]s in the Iraq War"... Let's see, what "goals" are we talking about?

[Arne]: Destroying Saddam's profligate WoMD?

["Bart"]: Let's stop here. As you well know, I am speaking about the nearly identical goals of you and al Qeada.....

Well, if you know my "goals", why don't you just come out with them. I so cleverly and dishonestly insisted that since I was opposed to the Iraq war that I could hardly have "goals" for said war (even though I must, despite all my protestations, and my writings archived on the Internet from before the war, secretly have wanted this war to achieve some nefarious goals in alliance with Obama bin Laden or sumptin', maybe just cleverly playing a contrarian to egg you dupes into starting the war, perhaps so that I could embarrass Dubya and you and nevermind the near four thousand soldiers and half a trillion bucks it cost....) But you see right through me, "Bart", and I must fess up to your "coercive interrogation" (the "stress position" is really making my pinkies ache, you know). But, alas, I'm at a loss as to what to confess to. So, please, please, "Bart", if you know why I did such a thing, tell me so that I may confess. The suspense (in more ways than one) is killing me.

["Bart"]: ... As is your wont when cornered, you are changing the subject.

Nonsense. I tried to answer you as directly as I could. Please tell me the correct answer.....

["Bart": ... I will take this as an admission that your retreat and defeat goals do not differ in any appreciable way from al Qaeda's.

Why didn't I see that? I'm soooo stoopid, "Bart", and I'm sure this will be apparent to all here. But please, can't you at least give me just a tiny clue as to what my "goals" were (along with some evidence so I know you're not just trying to kid me)???

["Bart"]: You demand that only the United States stop fighting in a war, never the enemy.

[Arne]: Huh? And, for that matter, which enemy? I can contribute to the campaigns of candidates here, call them and implore them to do what is right, etc., but I have no voice with the Iraqi citizens (much less al Qaeda) nor do I have access to their web pages and newspapers.

["Bart"]: Please. The issue is not who you can influence. Your posts here do not influence anyone....

Did I say they did? But I'd note the lack of any evidence for that (albeit your continuing obdurancy and eedjitcy here is strong evidence it doesn't work on eedjits). Do you think that is all I do?

["Bart"]: The issue is intellectual honesty and balance. For example, I had no problem comparing and contrasting how the US and the enemy treats prisoners of war to provide some perspective.

Oh, I don't either. But I also recognise that the tu quoque defence is hardly a legal argument (nor a moral one). In fact, it's generally considered to be a logical fallacy in rhetorics.

["Bart"]: If memory serves, you ridiculed that approach ...

No. I pointed out what I just repeated for the brain-dead.

["Bart"]: ... and never once did anything but attack the United States on this issue.

As well I should. You'd prefer to ignore any abuses by the U.S. because the other side ... and Hitler too, for good measure ... were worse.

["Bart"]: You could give less than a damn if the enemy continues to war so long as the United States loses

[Arne]: False. Hey, dontcha remember? "Mission Accomplished"? A high point of Dubya's career (and that's saying a lot....)

Stop changing the subject. How is this statement false?

I think one phrase illustrates one possible 'answer' to this conundrum: "Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!"

Granted al Qaeda is not completely harmless (not was the Black Knight), and deserved to have its arms and legs hewn off, but I'm not pissing my panties about them like you are, "Bart". As for Iraq, they certainly aren't going to be blowing up our troops with IEDs if we pull out. As I pointed out in LTTEs in the brouhaha about MRAPs, better defence against IEDS comes from physics: Explosives lose their effectiveness rapidly with distance, and keeping the troop carriers 10K kilometres away from the IEDs is far cheaper and more effective in protecting them than building some new fleet of MRAPs.

["Bart"]: You believe against all evidence that the United States has lost the war in Iraq.

No. And we haven't won it (outside of the "Mission Accomplished" episode I referred to above, but which you derided). In fact, it is possible for both sides to "lose" a war (think "WOPR"), and it's possible for both sides to "win" (depending on objectives), and it's possible for the result to be some mixture, or even to have consequences far beyond objectives or even predictions that make the idea of "winning" or "losing" rather trite.

["Bart"]: You believe in retreating from the battlefield in Iraq regardless of whether the enemy continues murdering people.

<*BZZZZT!*> Clue fer ya, "Bart", they're doing that now!!!!

["Bart"]: So do not tell me that you are some sort of a pacifist.

[Arne]: I didn't.

["Bart"]: OK, then you are not anti war, so we can discard that misnomer. You are pro US surrender.

No. I have never said we should surrender. That's your "straw man" (which is another of your favourite logical fallacies). Never said it.

["Bart"]: You protest the alleged wrongdoing of only United States troops, never the enemy.

[Arne]: I protest my gummint committing crimes as a matter of policy. But I am no fan of the terrorists in Iraq or elsewhere; however such people are doing nothing in my name.

["Bart"]: That is a cop out. No one is doing anything in your name unless you authorize them to do so.

When I live in the United States, I have both an interest and a stake in how the United States conducts itself. Do you consider yourself a Citizen of the World, "Bart"? You into that OWG stuff? Would never have thought it of you.

["Bart"]: I am so glad to hear that you are not a fan of terrorists. If so, why are you silent as to their massive war crimes while condemning nearly everything your country does?

I'm not, "Bart". It's just that here, on a legal blog concerned mostly with U.S. law and policy, and only to some extent with policy in the international sphere under the aegis of relatively-law-conforming gummints and agreed-on internatinal law, it's kind of pointless and superfluous to repeat every day that it's a bad, bad thing when hostages have their throats slit on video, particularly when no one here is advocating the opposite. Capece?!?!?

["Bart"]: You question and condemn the motives of only the United States, never the enemy.

[Arne]: No, I condemn the motives of the terrorists as well.

["Bart"]: LOL! For heaven's sake, when have you even mentioned the motives and war crimes of al Qaeda here, nevertheless condemned them as you do your own country?

Covered above. Do you see anyone here defending the stoning of women, the bombing of innocent civilians (well, outside of your support for a war with such "collateral damage"), the slitting of throats, etc.? Point me their way, and I'll be glad to stand side-by-side with you and blast them for their malign inhumanity.....

[Arne]: For the last 'effin' time, bin Laden is not my hero. He's a religious fundamentalist whack-job intent on some of the most repressive government in existence. I oppose religious whackjobs who want to impose their religion on others without respect to race, creed, colour, or sect.

[Arne]: But speaking of bin Laden, where is Dubya's little birthday present?

["Bart"]: In my last post calling you out, I did not think to address the play of the hoary moral equivalence card......

ROFLMAOOOOO!!!!! <*ahem*> Who is the one playing the "hoary moral equivalence card"?!?!? Well, let's see:

["Bart"]: Attacking the United States or a political opponent by attempting to equate its action to the enormous war crimes of an enemy is an old standby of the anti war movement.

I attack the actions by pointing out that they are wrong. Period. It is you that keep saying "We're better that the enemy!!!!" Sorry. Not good enough. I'd point out that in defence of your thesis that captures could be summarily shot on a battlefield so they should be thankful we just imprison them indefinitely (and maybe torture a couple), you even cited a study that listed incidents of such, of which all but one were done by Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

["Bart"]: You claim to support democracy and freedom, yet you belittle the freedom and democracy won through the blood and sacrifice of United States and Iraqi troops, ...

[Arne]: Haven't seen much "democracy and freedom" around those parts for a while. The notion that "democracy" can be imposed at the point of another country's guns is one I find rather absurd

["Bart]: I will take that as a confirmation of my point.

Which just demonstrates the shallowness of your intellect.

["Bart"]: ... while excusing or ignoring the murderous tyranny of the enemy.

[Arne]: Find one place where I've "excus[ed] ... the murderous tyranny of the enemy". If you can't, I'd expect an apology would be in order.

["Bart"]: This is too easy. When have you ever condemned al Qaeda's mass murder of Iraqi civilians on this blog?...

That wasn't the question you nimrod. Try reading for comprehension. Nonetheless, the BOP is on you.

["Bart"]: ... Hell, when discussing Iraqi deaths, when did you ever attribute any of them to the enemy? Indeed, how many times have you attributed Iraqi civilian deaths to the United States?

Once again, the BOP is on you. It's your claim, now come on and support it.

[Arne]: I don't want the U.S. to "lose" (and how can they "lose" a war they started in someone else's country?)

["Bart"]: The same way you lose any war - allow the enemy the space and means to continue to attack or threaten you.

Iraq was no threat to the United States (despite the dog'n'pony show that Powell to his everlasting disgrace put on for the U.N.). But even more, that's not "losing" either. Or we lost the Cold War. Repeatedly. For many decades. Te gavareesh pa Russki?

["Bart"]: You wish to unilaterally surrender to the enemy the space and means in Iraq to continue to attack or threaten us, ...

Nonsense. Na ga happen. You're truly a clueless berk if you honestly think that, and it shoots any military cred you might have had to hell when you make such a silly assertion.

But if "allow[ing] the enemy the space and means to continue to attack or threaten you", then perhaps you might ask yourself what keeping our troops in Iraq constitutes....

["Bart"]: ... so you most certainly want the United States to lose in Iraq.

Nope. Not so sure about you, though. Whether you know it or not.

As a last note on a long post (sorry about that, folks, but "Bart" here needs to be flogged thoroughly for his misbehaviour):

Still haven't seen one iota of proof for your slanderous claims above. I think it incumbent on you to do so, "Bart", otherwise I think an apology for your vile slurs is in order.

Cheers,
 

Sorry.

Me:

But if "allow[ing] the enemy the space and means to continue to attack or threaten you", then perhaps you might ask yourself what keeping our troops in Iraq constitutes....

Should be:

"But if 'allow[ing] the enemy the space and means to continue to attack or threaten you' is 'losing', then perhaps you might ask yourself what keeping our troops in Iraq constitutes...."

But you folks knew that.

Cheers,
 

Ducked out of the Bartathon for a while, but the thread's fractal complication is justified by this quote:

You wish to unilaterally surrender to the enemy the space and means in Iraq to continue to attack or threaten us, so you most certainly want the United States to lose in Iraq.

Better start building the prisons now for the 60% or so of Americans who are traitors to their country.
 

Name one goal in the Iraq War which you do not share with the enemy. Just one.

Um, Bart, aren't you the one who says that we can't back down in fighting the "Islamic fascists" because Iraq is just their first stepping stone on the way toward building a world-wide Islamic caliphate? Except for the Shiites who want Armegeddon and the return of the Twelfth Imam?

Well, I don't think you're going to find much of anyone in this country who shares those goals. I will also add that if thought there was any danger of either of these outcomes occurring, I might be more willing to take off the gloves the way you suggest. But I don't, so I won't.
 

arne langsetmo said...

["Bart"]: Let's stop here. As you well know, I am speaking about the nearly identical goals of you and al Qeada.....

Well, if you know my "goals", why don't you just come out with them.

Go read my last two posts.

I so cleverly and dishonestly insisted that since I was opposed to the Iraq war that I could hardly have "goals" for said war...

While this second attempt to change the subject on my core accusation is not very clever, it is indeed dishonest.

I do not dispute your assertion that you opposed the war from the outset. However, as you well know, this opposition is irrelevant once we went to war.

Once we went to war, the question is whether your new goal was for the United States to win or lose the war. There are no other options.

At no time have you ever expressed a desire for the United States to win the war. Never. Winning or victory simply never was and is not now part of your thinking.

Instead, you have made your retreat and defeat intentions very clear. They are the same as al Qaeda's goals.

Unlike BB, you are intelligent enough to know what a morally reprehensible position it is to call for your country to lose a war. This is why you change the subject, dance, double talk and refuse to admit your position.

You need not waste the time typing out yet another even longer response which still refuses to take a stand.

Unless you deny that you support a retreat from and the surrender of Iraq to the enemy, then you have conceded my point.

You have the last words. I am through.
 

enlightened layperson said...

Um, Bart, aren't you the one who says that we can't back down in fighting the "Islamic fascists" because Iraq is just their first stepping stone on the way toward building a world-wide Islamic caliphate? Except for the Shiites who want Armegeddon and the return of the Twelfth Imam?

Well, I don't think you're going to find much of anyone in this country who shares those goals. I will also add that if thought there was any danger of either of these outcomes occurring, I might be more willing to take off the gloves the way you suggest. But I don't, so I won't.

As usual, you make a good point. You have misframed the argument, though.

I have only pointed out the undisputed fact that al Qaeda's goal is to set up a Caliphate which covers the Muslim world and Europe starting in Iraq. However, I have never made the facially ridiculous claim that al Qaeda could conquer such a Caliphate.

Rather, the issue is whether the United States should or should not withdraw from Iraq and allow al Qaeda a sanctuary and recruiting ground to attack us outside of Iraq.

Even though US and Iraqi success against al Qaeda in Iraq since the Surge began has been very impressive, I do not believe the Iraqis are yet capable by themselves of eliminating or checking al Qaeda.

Nor can the United States conduct effective counter terrorism by withdrawing all but a few troops left in bases in the desert as the "responsible" Dems suggest. As the success of the Surge strategy of moving clearing and holding territory has demonstrated, counter terrorism is a manpower intensive, take the streets back from the night business.

Therefore, the question is whether you would retreat from Iraq and give al Qaeda a sanctuary there?
 

Anderson:

["Bart" DePalma]: You wish to unilaterally surrender to the enemy the space and means in Iraq to continue to attack or threaten us, so you most certainly want the United States to lose in Iraq.

Better start building the prisons now for the 60% or so of Americans who are traitors to their country.

A Dolchstoßlegende that becomes a epic legend for all time.... Hell, maybe "Bart"'s little munchkins (he's obviously too old to fight himself) will grow up to "right the terrible wrongs" those traitors wrought on Amur'kah and restore her to her rightful place in the world (and with some Lebens-Treibstoff to boot....)

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

[Arne]: I so cleverly and dishonestly insisted that since I was opposed to the Iraq war that I could hardly have "goals" for said war...

While this second attempt to change the subject on my core accusation is not very clever, it is indeed dishonest.

Nonsense. It's quite true.

I do not dispute your assertion that you opposed the war from the outset....

Good. Now why do you think that was? Maybe to embarrass my own f*ingin' self by opposing Boy George's wunnaful Liberation Of Iraq and Beacon To The Newly Freed World On Amur'kah's Munificence (Not To Mention 'Power And Glory')?

Yes, indeedy, "Bart", farsighted me opposed the war early on when everyone thought it a cakewalk (like some dolts that were in the "Highway of Death" turkeyshoot a decade earlier) because I wanted to totally discredit and embarrass myself by opposing Glorious Leader who would quickly show everyoen how stoopid I was. And all because I hate Dubya so much I have BDS and want him to flog me on a daily basis. Yep, "Bart", that's a great theory. And I'll get back to you after I clean up that stuff that a stratospheric pig divebombed my porch with....

... However, as you well know, this opposition is irrelevant once we went to war.

Of, course, of course. As soon as the bullets begin to fly, we must cease all our carping, and start singing the praises of Fearless Leader not matter what (even if he tells us this "war" may last decades). Because otherwise the Enemy Will Win. "Bart", you missed your country by four thousand kilometres and six decades.

Once we went to war, the question is whether your new goal was for the United States to win or lose the war. There are no other options.

You're Either With Us. Or You're With The Enemy.

Gawd, you're a stoopid piece of ham, "Bart".....

At no time have you ever expressed a desire for the United States to win the war. Never.

Furthermore, being as unfamiliar with the goal[s] of the war as I am (see link above for more on this), I'm not even sure as to what "winning" is, much less whether it's possible or desirable. But that ain't my problem, bucko. Why don't you tell me THe Goal Of The War and perhaps I might opine as to whether that specific happenstance is "possible or desirable".

... Winning or victory simply never was and is not now part of your thinking.

WHen you're right, you're right, "Bart". I'll hand it to you. I am neither that shallow nor that stoopid.

Instead, you have made your retreat and defeat intentions very clear....

Retreat from where? And what's our oil doing under Saddam's sand anyways?

... They are the same as al Qaeda's goals.

Nonsense. See comments by others above.

Unlike BB, you are intelligent enough to know what a morally reprehensible position it is to call for your country to lose a war....

Cle fer ya, "Bart", I'm no a newbie at this. I opposed the Vietnam War too.

... This is why you change the subject, dance, double talk and refuse to admit your position.

Huh? I don't think anyone here except you has any problems discerning my position. You're the only one that tells me that I don't think what I think, and calls me both a traitor and dishonest.

But still waiting for any actual evidence to support your specific claims above. Out with them or apologise and then siddown and STFU.

You need not waste the time typing out yet another even longer response which still refuses to take a stand.

As if I need your 'effin' permission....

Unless you deny that you support a retreat from and the surrender of Iraq to the enemy, then you have conceded my point.

I deny that. Refute it with evidence, or STFU.

You have the last words. I am through.

You've been a "dead man walking" for days now. You're just too stoopid to know it.

Cheers,
 

"Bart", linking to his execrable blog (which I won't relink):

Even though US and Iraqi success against al Qaeda in Iraq since the Surge began has been very impressive, ...

"Bart" made similar claims about a year and a half ago on Unclaimed Territory, about how the violence was tapering off (and using cooked/wrong numbers to do so). Unfortunately, Glenn Greenwald dropped the comments archive in the move to Haloscan and then Salon, so I can't link "Bart"'s old crapola, but to see "Bart" do this smae sh*te again a year later with absolutely no shame just takes the cake. "Just one more FU ["Friedman unit"]!!! Wait!!! We're almost there!!!"

Cheers,
 

EL:

The Washington Post and Associated Press are reporting that al Qaeda's threatened Ramadan offensive never took place because most al Qaeda staging areas have been cleared and pacified. As a result, US and Iraqi casualties have fallen even further during Ramadan, rather than spiking as in past years.

When the anti war press is forced to admit the strategic progress in Iraq, you know something has to be up.

Hell, the Marines are lobbying to deploy to Afghanistan because their Sunni Triangle sector in Iraq is essentially pacified and they have very little to do there now that the Iraqis are providing the security.

Perhaps, the Iraqis will be capable of taking over more and more of their country over the next year. In that case, perhaps we will both get what we want in the near future - victory for myself and the start of a withdrawal of US troops for the rest of you.
 

In that case, perhaps we will both get what we want in the near future - victory for myself and the start of a withdrawal of US troops for the rest of you.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 11:40 AM

The only victory for you in this war is that you managed to avoid fighting in it.