Smith has also been mocking Glenn Beck. He might be looking for a job with a legitimate news outlet.
 

Shepherd Smith is one of the more reasonable Fox personalities. It's kind of surprising that they keep him around, actually.
 

I'm glad to see that someone on national TV actually got upset about our country's use of torture, whether it "works" or not.

According to Leon Panetta, a poll reveals that 2/3rds of the people in this country believe that torture is okay if it keeps us safer. Panetta wrote one of the articles in the March, 2008 special edition of the Washington Monthly, "No Torture. No Exceptions."

We've got a big job ahead of us....
 

He also had a piece, Media Matters pointed it out, that showed the the DHS report against right wing extremists wasn't some Obama hit piece or anything. He came off as rather rational.

A maybe even more priceless piece out there, if longer, has Smith and Judith Miller (yes) saying how horrible the memoranda are while some right wing type tries to temper the blow.
 

Obviously, this man will never be invited to the better sort of DC cocktail parties. You know, the ones where the likes of David Broder mingle with war criminals and fellow sycophants and bemoan the decline of civil discourse and bipartisanship in Washington, and how some vulgar people want to criminalize policy differences when it involves people actually committing crimes.
 

Of human infection with swine influenza and influenza-like symptoms after a similar, patients developed symptoms of fever, cough, fatigue, loss of appetite and so on. In the area of prevention at this stage is not necessary to runescape gold against human influenza vaccines, because prevention is the prevention of seasonal influenza vaccine do not have the effect of swine flu. The correct approach is to develop good personal hygiene, adequate sleep, the runescape money hard-working exercise, reducing stress, adequate nutrition; washing hands frequently, especially after contact with public goods and then wash their hands before touching their eyes, nose and mouth; sneezing and cough should not cover your mouth and nose with tissue paper; maintain indoor ventilation.High incidence of the disease, incubation period of 2 to 7 days, about 1 week duration. Diseased incidence of early sudden fever,runescape accounts, loss of appetite or waste must often recline together, not activities, difficulty in breathing, violent coughing, mucus outflow. Period of treatment if the disease is not timely, then easily complicated bronchitis, pneumonia and pleurisy, etc., increased pig mortality.
 

My morning Internet surfing at today's LATimes reveals:

1. Lead editorial: "Taking on Torture - An investigation into the abuse of suspected terrorists is vital, but it must be conducted with care."

2. Frank Snepp's OpEd: "Tortured by the past - There's a disturbing link between Gitmo and the interrogation tactics I used in Vietnam." Here's an excerpt:

"My CIA colleagues and I used to rationalize our tactics, and some still insist that psychological intimidation, verbal threats and tight handcuffs are perfectly acceptable in terms of both morality and expediency. But I believe there is an organic connection between the tactics I applied against Tai and those approved by the Bush Justice Department. Controlled brutality is a slippery slope, and once you pass through the moral membrane that should contain our worst impulses, it becomes so very easy to rationalize another step, and yet another, in the wrong direction."

The momentum continues. But friends of the Bush/Cheney administration continue to push:

"FREEDOM FROM ACCOUNTABILITY.
 

Yesterday's WaPo included Mark Danner's OpEd "If Everyone Knew, Who's to Blame?" setting forth three paradoxes of torture. Danner calls for a commission.

In today's WaPo, former Bush speechwriter Gerson expresses his concerns with torture but talks of the slippery slope potential. Gerson is conflicted and does not provide his customary support for everything Bush/Cheney.

More momentum. But the Bush/Cheney apologists continue their mantra:

"FREEDOM FROM ACCOUNTABILITY."
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

To the extent that Shep Smith's comment can be considered an actual argument, it appears that the debate has now conceded that coercive interrogation works in gaining timely and actionable intelligence. However, the debate over gaining intelligence is abstract and really does not get to the actual tradeoff we are discussing. Its time to move the debate forward to the next step.

The intelligence we are discussing saved lives. For those sharing Shep's view of "America does not "torture" even if it works," how many people are you willing to condemn to death to forego "torture" and this intelligence?

One?

One hundred?

The over three thousand that died during 9/11?

The three million who could die in your city from a nuke?

What if the folks you were condemning to death were your mom and dad or your wife and kids?

I am not talking about a "ticking time bomb" scenario. I am talking about gaining timely actionable intelligence to roll up a terrorist cell preparing for an attack before it can redeploy to safety.

Unless you continue to lie to yourself about the real life consequences of this debate, the decision is no longer so clear cut, is it?
 

The intelligence we are discussing saved lives.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:01 AM

I haven't seen any credible evidence that suppports this claim, and I have seen plenty of evidence that refutes it.
 

Actually, Bart, with every comment you make the issue becomes more clear cut.

Either we prohibit torture and treat it as a crime, or

we allow petty authorities, operating in the shadow or in the fog of war, to commit unspeakable acts in order to obtain questionable information, which will pollute the information pool with garbage, expose other soldiers to more hazard, and fuel still more terrorism.

I know, from reading your comments over time, that you imagine yourself the very model of the military officer who would typically be in a position to make such decisions. Frankly, I don't want you, or anyone with the same delusions of capability, making decisions on whether to torture some poor soul.

If that results in the loss of life, so be it. We'll survive as a concept and a society.
 

The past tense of "forego" is FOREWENT.
 

Gail Jonas:

You guys do have quite a job ahead of you to keep this nation safe.
 

What's the argument for limiting ourselves to the relatively mild techniques outlined in the torture memos? I mean, if there really are three million lives at stake, shouldn't we be crushing testicles instead of slapping faces if that's what it takes?

The pro-torture advocates always want to have it both ways, arguing that the cost of inaction could be staggering, yet insisting they will adhere to only mild techniques that might not even qualify as torture so where's the harm anyhow. But if we accept the premise that the calculus ought to be based upon the possibility that three million lives could be at stake, what's the argument against stretching a known killer like KSM on the rack? What's the argument against breaking his fingers one by one? And why did we have such soft-minded fools in power during the last administration who weren't willing to do whatever it takes to protect the country?
 

Which memos did you read?
 

C2H50H said...

BD: For those sharing Shep's view of "America does not "torture" even if it works," how many people are you willing to condemn to death to forego "torture" and this intelligence?

If that results in the loss of life, so be it. We'll survive as a concept and a society.
Very principled of you. You appear to be willing to allow al Qaeda to kill other Americans to uphold your concept of America. Are you willing to sacrifice your parents or your wife and kids?
 

Are you willing to sacrifice your parents or your wife and kids?I'm definitely willing to sacrifice you. I'm also willing to take my chances that the "terrorists" won't kill anyone else in my family.
 

Bart Depalma said: "The intelligence we are discussing saved lives. For those sharing Shep's view of "America does not "torture" even if it works," how many people are you willing to condemn to death to forego "torture" and this intelligence?"
"I am not talking about a "ticking time bomb" scenario. I am talking about gaining timely actionable intelligence to roll up a terrorist cell preparing for an attack before it can redeploy to safety."

Bart, how about we turn this question around?

How many individuals are you willing to torture to save one American life? One? Ten? One hundred? Three thousand?

Would it matter if you didn't have any proof that the individuals you were torturing had the information that you sought?

What about if there are ten individuals who may have the information you think you need? Would you do it even if you knew that you might have to torture nine individuals who you were quite sure didn't have any actionable intelligence about an imminent plot in order to find one that did? Does it matter if it turns out that none of them ultimately have that information?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I admit I can't guarantee anybody's safety, but my relatives understand that. They aren't such cowards that they'd expect me to torture someone.

In fact, I think they'd be unhappy if I did.

But the fact is that it wouldn't be me doing the torturing. It would be some person or persons unknown, in some hidden location, operating under who knows what rules.

The power to torture is the power to generate information, since, as centuries of experience have shown, a person will say anything to make it stop.

So allowing a government entity to torture is allowing a government to generate whatever information it chooses.

It seems to me we've already seen, recently, an example of what can go wrong with that.

I'm not going to authorize anybody for that. BTW, I think anyone who is willing to give that much power to the government cannot call themselves "libertarian" in any sane sense.
 

Bart DePalma said:

Very principled of you. You appear to be willing to allow al Qaeda to kill other Americans to uphold your concept of America. Are you willing to sacrifice your parents or your wife and kids?

What of your principles? If it comes to it, are you willing to be tortured should you be suspected of some crime? Are you willing that your parents or your wife and kids be tortured should they fall under suspicion?
 

I am aware that no one can change the minds
of the torture apologists, but this is the best
attempt I have seen in several years of lurking.
 

You cannot reason a person out of an
idea to which reason has not brought him.

Spenser
 

Steve M said...

The pro-torture advocates always want to have it both ways, arguing that the cost of inaction could be staggering, yet insisting they will adhere to only mild techniques that might not even qualify as torture so where's the harm anyhow. But if we accept the premise that the calculus ought to be based upon the possibility that three million lives could be at stake, what's the argument against stretching a known killer like KSM on the rack? Fair enough. I know of no one who does not want to draw a line, the other side of which would be unlawful tortiure. I simply draw the line at a different place than you. My personal line is actual physical torture causing real life excruciating pain.

However, if I were President and had reliable evidence that an al Qaeda terrorist had information concerning an imminent WMD attack, I cannot say that I would not order my interrogators to cross that line, pardon them and take responsibility for the interrogation afterward in order to save lives.

Maybe you could allow a WMD attack out of principle. I coiuld not.
 

matrose said...

Bart Depalma said: "The intelligence we are discussing saved lives. For those sharing Shep's view of "America does not "torture" even if it works," how many people are you willing to condemn to death to forego "torture" and this intelligence?" "I am not talking about a "ticking time bomb" scenario. I am talking about gaining timely actionable intelligence to roll up a terrorist cell preparing for an attack before it can redeploy to safety."

Bart, how about we turn this question around?

How many individuals are you willing to torture to save one American life? One? Ten? One hundred? Three thousand?

Fair enough. If I had reliable intelligence of an attack that would kill a single American, I would use SERE techniques on as many al Qaeda with probable knowledge as it took to gain the intelligence to save that American.
 

My personal line is actual physical torture causing real life excruciating pain.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 1:48 PM

Baghdad, I can guarantee that if I were allowed to waterboard you more than 180 times, there would be real life excrutiating pain.
 

Hank Gillette said...

Bart DePalma said: Very principled of you. You appear to be willing to allow al Qaeda to kill other Americans to uphold your concept of America. Are you willing to sacrifice your parents or your wife and kids?

What of your principles? If it comes to it, are you willing to be tortured should you be suspected of some crime? Are you willing that your parents or your wife and kids be tortured should they fall under suspicion?

OK, I will now walk in KSM's shoes.

I am the operations officer for a terrorist network with the blood of thousands on my hands and am eagerly developing plans to murder thousands more. My network does not recognize nevertheless follow your rules. Our SOP for prisoners is to torture them to death to sow further terror - the more brutally the better.

I am not a hypocrite. I expect the same treatment from my enemies if I am captured. I eagerly look forward to my martyrdom and certainly have no legal qualms about my treatment because I do not recognize your law.

However, if you show what I consider to be weakness and allow me to live, I will use your principles against you and rail against my "torture" at your hands with the hope that you will stop the interrogation that broke me and allow future brother jihadi to stand fast against interrogation in the future. You are weak horses and can be manipulated so easily.
 

Baghdad, walking in KSM's shoes would probably come quite easily to you.
 

matrose said...Bart Depalma said: "The intelligence we are discussing saved lives. For those sharing Shep's view of "America does not "torture" even if it works," how many people are you willing to condemn to death to forego "torture" and this intelligence?" "I am not talking about a "ticking time bomb" scenario. I am talking about gaining timely actionable intelligence to roll up a terrorist cell preparing for an attack before it can redeploy to safety."Bart, how about we turn this question around?

How many individuals are you willing to torture to save one American life? One? Ten? One hundred? Three thousand?

Fair enough. If I had reliable intelligence of an attack that would kill a single American, I would use SERE techniques on as many al Qaeda with probable knowledge as it took to gain the intelligence to save that American.OK, Bart...now, having taken the position that you will torture "as many Al Qaeda with probable knowledge as it took to gain the intelligence to save that American," does it matter to you whether we're sure those individuals are undeniably Al Qaeda? What if that is probable, but remains an open question? What if that probable member of Al Qaeda happens to be, himself an American citizen?

Unless I significantly misunderstand your position, all it would take for you to authorize the torture of a fellow American citizen would be something you consider a "credible allegation" of intending to carry out a terrorist act that would kill as few as one American citizen (and what would differentiate that from ordinary murder, and how would we prove that before authorizing torture?). Would you then defend torture as an acceptable method for interrogation of ordinary criminals if it would save even one American life? If not, why not?

I'm not necessarily sure that I agree with the proposition that the President ought to be able to torture legally, no matter how many lives are at stake, but I am willing to accept your position that the President ought to be able to authorize torture to prevent a catastrophic event -- provided he is willing to do so in the open, and subject himself to legal penalties for doing so. That, at least, does something to preserve the fiction of holding our leaders accountable under the law.
 

However, if I were President and had reliable evidence that an al Qaeda terrorist had information concerning an imminent WMD attack, I cannot say that I would not order my interrogators to cross that line, pardon them and take responsibility for the interrogation afterward in order to save lives.But now we're back to the ticking bomb scenario, the one you said we weren't discussing.

The reality is that very, very rarely, if ever, are you going to know with certainty that a given terrorist has information about a pending WMD attack. God does not typically present us with a set of stipulated facts to work from.

The more realistic scenario is that you have a captive who is a high-value target, you assume he knows about whatever plots may be in the offing, and you've tried standard interrogation techniques without success. In this scenario, torture might conceivably result in valuable intelligence that saves thousands of lives - or it might get you nothing at all. And there's no reasonable way to estimate the probability of one outcome or the other.

In that situation, how do you draw the line concerning what interrogation tactics you're willing to employ? Waterboarding, breaking a finger, crushing a testicle, etc? You don't have a set of stipulated facts but you know that it's at least imaginable that you'll save thousands of lives if you go through with this. Can you really afford to take the chance of leaving that testicle uncrushed, just in case?
 

For the record, I would "torture" three thousand non-Americans to save one American life.
 

Chucklehead, how many Americans would you torture to save one American life?
 

Charles,
It seems to me that you don't actually have the courage of your convictions if you are only willing to "torture" three-thousand non-Americans. Are you actually willing to torture them? Since you obviously don't think that waterboarding, stress positions and the like are torture, feel free to substitute something that does meet your definition.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I didn't realize that all this time what Jefferson really meant to write was that "all Americans are created equal..."

While I suspect that at least some of what you post here may be for no other reason than to provoke a reaction, I cannot let what I consider to be a morally bankrupt position stand without comment. Simply stated, I find it repugnant.
 

As many as it took if said American(s) were, in fact, al Qaeda with probable knowledge to save that one innocent American life. None, if said American(s) were, in fact, innocent. Next question?
 

You know, there's two things that Bart and Charles are saying:

1. It's not torture.

2. If it is torture, who cares, it's saving American lives!

Of course, as Matt Yglesias points out, we could also, presumably, save more lives by allowing waterboarding in ordinary murder investigations, organized crime investigations, and the like.

We don't do it, because even if one were to assume that it would increase the efficacy of an investigation, it is still wrong and illegal to do it.

The Torture Convention makes waterboarding illegal, and any number of conventional ethics systems (though not the vulgar utilitarianism that Bart and Charles are adopting here) say that it is wrong.

It seems to me, however, that you can't have it both ways. Either there's nothing wrong with waterboarding and it works, in which case we should incorporate it into our criminal justice system (at least with respect to heinous crimes), or there is something wrong with it that should prevent us from incorporating it into our criminal justice system, in which case we shouldn't be using it in our anti-terror policies.

After all, if it's worth waterboarding a criminal to save some lives, that same principle applies domestically, right?

(And this, of course, is why nobody, including Bart or Charles, is truly a straight-up utilitarian.)
 

P.S. I didn't limit my post to three-thousand, and FWIW not only did Jefferson mean only Americans, but he actually wrote "all Men" excluding African slaves and women (regardless of race).
 

Dilan:

We CAN have it both ways because the President is NOT in charge of saving American lives under State murder laws. Next strawman argument?
 

Charles:

What about federal organized crime laws? Why shouldn't we waterboard suspects in Mafia or prison gang cases?
 

Bart"buster":

My "next question?" was directed toward you. Sorry for any confusion there. Please note that "defense of others" (at least in my JDX) includes any reasonable act UP TO AND INCLUDING use of deadly force to prevent the imminent murder of an innocent (regardless of American citizenship).
 

Dilan:

Because neither the Mafia nor prison gangs are the subject of a Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force. The President's war-powers are at their greatest when CONGRESS is in express agreement with him. Next question?
 

AUMF re: Terrorists, also known as "Public Law No: 107–40"

AUMF re: Iraq, also known as "Public Law No: 107-243"
 

Charles:

AUMF's don't override the torture convention (or even the Geneva Conventions).

In any event, that's a legalistic answer. You are missing the point-- you guys were making a UTILITARIAN (i.e., moral) argument that this stuff saves lives.

So if it saves lives, why shouldn't we repeal whatever laws are necessary to repeal and introduce it into our organized crime investigations? After all, we can get those Mafia types to talk, right?
 

Charles wrote:P.S. I didn't limit my post to three-thousand, and FWIW not only did Jefferson mean only Americans, but he actually wrote "all Men" excluding African slaves and women (regardless of race).Do you care to provide a cite for your assertion that "all men", in fact means only American men?
 

If we're going to discuss plots for speculative fiction, such as Bart being president, with Charles as VP, perhaps? (shudders), I think we should start with the classics.

I would suggest that what's happened in the Bush/Cheney gulag was far closer in plot to "1984" than it was to "24".

Back to your fantasies now, gentlefolk.
 

Dilan:

Because, as I said, the President and Congress have not decided to pre-empt those areas for the sake of national security. That doesn't mean they couldn't, if that's what you are asking. For instance, if the mob were hijacking planes and crashing them into skyscrapers, I would be all for it.

matrose:

Try a 7th grade, U.S. government textbook, for starters. You are at least aware that Jefferson OWNED slaves, right?
 

As many as it took if said American(s) were, in fact, al Qaeda with probable knowledge to save that one innocent American life. None, if said American(s) were, in fact, innocent. Next question?

# posted by Charles : 3:21 PM

Chucklehead, I didn't say anything about the Americans you would torture being Al Qaeda, all I asked is how many Americans would you torture to save 1 American life.
 

And, I gave you my answer.
 

Charles:

1. Again, that's a legalistic point (and it's wrong): the President and Congress can certainly choose to withdraw from the Torture Convention (which they have not done) or deliberately place this country's laws in violation of it (which requires a clear statement which they have not made), but that has not happened here. The AUMF does not override treaties that the US has bound itself to, and no serious legal scholar, lawyer, or judge claims otherwise. (Imagine telling a lawful enemy combatant in World War II "we don't have to treat you as a prisoner of war, because the congressional declaration of war overrides the Geneva Conventions!" and you will see the absurdity of your claim.)

2. Further, though, I suppose you are being consistent in saying "go ahead and waterboard in US criminal cases". That is the logical implication of your argument, but it is not one that would sit well with most Americans.
 

Dilian:

I didn't say to utilize "torture" in criminal cases.
 

I didn't say to utilize "torture" in criminal cases.

# posted by Charles : 4:13 PM

Yes, you did. You told me you would torture Americans to save American lives. How does that not apply to criminal cases?
 

Charles,

I am certainly aware that Jefferson owned slaves, and that the prevailing views of the time were that all other categories of people other than White Men were considered to be inferior. In any case, you would evidently rather use the fact that Jefferson might not have been as enlightened as we are today to argue that the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence can be easily cast aside when they don't support your argument.

However, Jefferson could just as easily have written that all American Men were created equal, but he did not. In fact, that would have been fatal to his premise. I assume that, having taken 7th grade history yourself, that you are also aware that the American Revolution could likely have been prevented had the colonists been granted rights that they viewed as inalienable just like their (largely) English brothers. Jefferson was, in fact, not arguing that Americans are inherently superior to others by virtue of the location of their birth, but that we were on an equal plane, and therefore ought to have all the rights that accord to other citizens of the crown -- no more, no less.

Whatever American 'exceptionalism' and moral authority redounds to the United States and its citizens comes not from the location of our birth, but from the ideals that we fight (and sacrifice) to advance. Torture is not among those ideals, and is, in fact, antithetical to them. People who think like you would sacrifice those ideals that make the United States great in the name of preserving them, and thereby sacrifice what makes America exceptional as well.
 

Bart"buster":

The hypothetical was re: ordering "torture" as President (or, I guess, Vice-President) of the United States. My conversation with Dilan was re: the mafia or gang members.

Besides: "Where did you get the idea that I have any interest in exchanging ideas with a scumbag like you?"
 

matrose:

We'll have to agree to disagree then.
 

Charles:

You are dancing around.

The point-- which is irrefutable-- is that if these techniques save so many lives, and aren't illegal "torture" (or are justified despite being torture), we would certainly want to incorporate these techniques into (at least) mafia and gang and domestic terrorism and serial killer cases where there is significant loss of life.

Of course, if these techniques are actually inhumane and brutal, and/or they don't save lives, we wouldn't want to do it, which is the current position taken by our legal system.

But whatever you say about authorizations to use military force or all the rest, the point is that the same LOGIC that you use to justify the use of these things in international terrorism cases would certainly apply domestically too. And that would (and should) scare many people.
 

Well, I do enjoy "Dancing with the Stars".
 

The hypothetical was re: ordering "torture" as President (or, I guess, Vice-President) of the United States.

None of that changes the hypothetical. We're talking about how many people you would torture to save one American. If you're saving lives, it makes no difference if the person you're torturing is a criminal or a "terrorist".

And we're not exchanging ideas, we're making it painfully clear that you're a scumbag.
 

As I said, I answered that already (and I am not a "scumbag").
 

As I said, I answered that already (and I am not a "scumbag").

# posted by Charles : 4:48 PM

I know. You would torture if you think it might save lives. (and, yes, you are).
 

Then quit asking the question. Our gracious host has urged everyone to lay off the personal insults and name-calling.
 

Bartbuster:

Charles is right about one thing (and one thing only). Calling people "scumbags" is not productive, not constructive, and not really warranted.

I think Charles advocates some awful ideas, I think he is also being cynical and situationist, but you shouldn't resort to barnyard epithets instead of reasoned arguments.
 

On a somewhat related topic, I will retract my endorsement of Professor Kmiec's statements on executive power here several years ago.
 

if you can't tell, charles argues in bad faith. not only that, but he doesn't even know what bad-faith argumentation is.
 

I'm not trying to be constructive, I'm simply stating a fact. It is definitely warranted. If it wasn't warranted, I wouldn't do it.
 

Isn't it "Bad faith" argumentation to accuse someone of "bad faith"? Regardless, it is yet again another "personal insult" that I will abide by our gracious host's request to not engage in.

Does anyone else want to actually exchange ideas on the thread topic?
 

Here's the topic:

Shepard Smith (and Brian Tamanaha) don't care if "torture" works. We are America, and we don't torture. We have even signed paperwork to that effect!!!

Of course, dropping nukes on 200,000 innocent civilians, therefor bypassing "torture" and proceeding immediately to evaporation? That's perfectly acceptable.
 

Charles:

You know it is just as much of a personal attack to falsely accuse people of favoring the deaths of 200,000 people as it is to call someone a "scumbag".

If you want to argue on the merits, you might take the log out of your own eye before worrying about the specks in the eyes of others.
 

Oh please. I was referring to Truman dropping the bombs on Japan. You can't libel dead Presidents!
 

Charles said:

We CAN have it both ways because the President is NOT in charge of saving American lives under State murder laws.

Nor is the President in charge of saving American lives under Federal law.


The President swears an oath that to the best of his/her ability to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Bush did not do that. Obama, if he prevents investigation and prosecution (if necessary) of Bush administration war crimes, will not be doing it either.
 

Hank:

We'll have to disagree about that too. There is no higher task for the federal government than to protect American lives and our Posterity.
 

P.S. the Oath of Office does NOT refer to "her" or "she".
 

". . . Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath . . ."

Don't tell me you think that Jefferson meant to write that all slaves were created equal too?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Dilan:

I think Charles advocates some awful ideas, I think he is also being cynical and situationist,....

No. His aim and motive is quite different (see his comment @ 7:10PM). Please take note of it, and respond (or not) accordingly. That is all.

Cheers,
 

Hey everyone,

We are America--we don't torture! The bad guys torture. We're the good guys, remember?

You know: Apple pie, John Wayne, code of honor, save the maiden in distress, and all that stuff.

It's as simple as that.

Brian
 

Professor:

Please do not take the Duke's name in vain.

Dilan:

If you have any questions about my intentions, please do not hesitate to ask.
 

Charles:

Rent "Angel and the Badman" and then lets talk about Brian's invocation of the Duke.
 

Dilan:

Do you also think that Ronald Reagan was actually in favor of treating a chimpanzee as a human being too?
 

No, but Ronald Reagan was a politician as well as an actor. John Wayne was just an actor.
 

And, a conservative actor who had no qualms with us dropping nukes on 200,000 innocent civilians.
 

Who the heck cares what Wayne's political views were? I thought you guys were the "Shut Up And Sing" party?
 

What?
 

Charles said:

We'll have to disagree about that too. There is no higher task for the federal government than to protect American lives and our Posterity.

You are wrong. There is a higher task for the federal government than protecting American lives, from the President on down, and that is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.


The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Nothing about protecting American lives.


Federal judges take two oaths. Both mention upholding or defending the U.S. Constitution. Neither mentions protecting American lives.


The oath I took when I joined the military says nothing about protecting American lives. The first part is: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

You can derive a duty to protect American lives from these oaths, but that is subordinate to the primary duty of government officials, to defend and protect the Constitution.
 

I guess you never got the memo about the Constitution not being a suicide pact?
 

I guess you never got the memo about the Constitution not being a suicide pact?No, you never got the memo as to what that actually means.
 

Well, I've read both Supreme Court cases with that reference. What do you think it means?
 

Charles said:

I guess you never got the memo about the Constitution not being a suicide pact?

I guess you have nothing but hoary slogans to respond with?

No one said anything about a suicide pact. You’re not even responding to what I said, which is that the primary duty of those who serve in the federal government is to defend the Constitution. This is according to the Constitution itself.

If you think that the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution as a suicide pact, that’s your problem. They wrote the Constitution after going through a revolution that put them in much greater danger than anything we have faced from terrorists. They defied the most powerful country on earth, and had the Revolution gone the other way, they would have been hung as traitors. I think they knew what they were doing when they set the priority of defending the Constitution higher than defending American lives.
 

oh, how far "give me liberty, or give me death" has fallen.
 

Today's WaPo features two "torture" OpEds:

Mark J. McKeon's "Why We Must Prosecute - Torture is a Breach of International Law"

and

Richard Cohen's "On Higher Ground, but Not Safer"

McKeon's piece is straightforward. But Cohen's resembles a corkscrew in getting to the bottom line.
 

if you can't tell, charles argues in bad faith. not only that, but he doesn't even know what bad-faith argumentation is.

For my money, Eric hit the bulls-eye here. Charles doesn't have the intelligence to make a coherent argument. That is why arguing with him is like trying to play ball with a wad of taffy.

Charles is proof positive that there are limits to the utility of free speech.
 

For anyone else who doesn't think I have a coherent argument, here it is (one last time):

1) None of the acts authorized by the President, and justified by legal advice from OLC, were torture.

2) Alternatively, said acts were necessary to protect American lives (this is the part where I disagree with Shepard Smith).

3) Just because you disagree with the advice doesn't mean it wasn't candid, independent, and principled advice.
 

1) None of the acts authorized by the President, and justified by legal advice from OLC, were torture.Chucklehead, if I had the opportunity to waterboard you 183 times, I guarantee that you would consider it torture. When your argument falls apart before you have finished your first sentence, it's not a coherent argument.
 

Bart"buster":

And, as I've pointed out several times to you now, the intent to torture on your part would indeed make said 183 times illegal.

Does anyone else want to actually debate "The Unvarnished Truth about Torture"?
 

And, as I've pointed out several times to you now, the intent to torture on your part would indeed make said 183 times illegal.

# posted by Charles : 12:39 PMChucklehead, 183 times is torture. Period.
 

I really, really know I shouldn't:

Charles,

Those three statements aren't "arguments." They are assertions. When someone attempts to take those assertions, and apply them logically to other scenarios, you throw out other assertions, without any reasoning:

"We'll have to disagree about that too. There is no higher task for the federal government than to protect American lives and our Posterity."

"Well, I do enjoy "Dancing with the Stars"."

"matrose:

We'll have to agree to disagree then."

None of these posts have any substance or argumentative reasoning. They are just claims and quips, signifying nothing but your unreasoned beliefs. One cannot have a "debate" when that's all that the other side puts out. On the other hand, your inability to demonstrate faults in the application of your assertions makes manifest the bankruptcy of the claims you make.

Some have claimed you argue in bad faith. I wonder if you even know how to argue, in a Socratic sense. So, because I enjoy beating my head against a wall:

For anyone else who doesn't think I have a coherent argument, here it is (one last time):

1) None of the acts authorized by the President, and justified by legal advice from OLC, were torture.
Analysis of law? Case cites? Common sense? Historical precedent? Anything other than your ostensibly authoritative word?
2) Alternatively, said acts were necessary to protect American lives (this is the part where I disagree with Shepard Smith).
Very well, then, as Dilan asked, why not apply these techniques to murder suspects, rape suspects, etc. Since the techniques were not torture, and/or could protect American lives, why don't you advocate allowing police officers and FBI agents to waterboard suspects? When Dilan asked you this, he took you assertions to their logical conclusion, which many would find absurd. It's like proof by contradiction. So, if you cannot either distinguish Dilan's analysis, demonstrate its falsity, or prove his conclusion is not absurd, you need to concede your assertions have been proven wrong. That is a debate, that is how one argues.
3) Just because you disagree with the advice doesn't mean it wasn't candid, independent, and principled advice.
That's absolutely true. But no one has made the argument that the OLC memos were made in bad faith because they disagree with them, instead they set forth other reasons for the bad faith nature of the memos. This is what's called a strawman. if you want to argue in good faith, step one is not to tie silly arguments to people who did not make suach an argument.
 

nerp:

The OLC memos themselves cite to plenty of statutory, case law, and SERE training / medicial studies. You want me to "cut and paste" all of that here? Also, I made a distinction with Dilan as to the President being responsible for American lives under the Constitution based on NATIONAL SECURITY, not State laws for murder, etc. We are in a war against terrorists, not some straight-forward criminal case. That's why I couldn't buy his logic about using "torture" for the Mafia or gang members. Lastly, I obviously disagree with any other reasons being claimed as evidence of the bad faith nature of the memos. If you'd like to start with one specifically, I would be happy to make the case why they are instead candid, independent, and principled advice.
 

Charles,
The OLC memos themselves cite to plenty of statutory, case law, and SERE training / medicial studies. You want me to "cut and paste" all of that here?

True, and people here have spent days refuting the memos' nonsense. I am asking whether you have any novel, independent analysis to back up your claims, or at least some analysis to defend the OLC memos. Because, as you can see, no one here thinks much of them.

Also, I made a distinction with Dilan as to the President being responsible for American lives under the Constitution based on NATIONAL SECURITY, not State laws for murder, etc. We are in a war against terrorists, not some straight-forward criminal case. That's why I couldn't buy his logic about using "torture" for the Mafia or gang members.

That's a distinction without a difference. Since the methods are not illegal, and since it could protect American lives, what's the downside to expansion into criminal investigations? Why would national security purposes be necessary to assert the ability to do a non-illegal act? Why would you only do something which could protect American lives only if they were threatened by terrorists, as opposed to murderers? the victims are just as dead. So why draw the line?


Lastly, I obviously disagree with any other reasons being claimed as evidence of the bad faith nature of the memos. If you'd like to start with one specifically, I would be happy to make the case why they are instead candid, independent, and principled advice.
This is pretty much what everybody has been doing here for days.
1) waterboarding obviously creates the imminent fear of death.
2) sleep deprivation is obviously an attempt to alter the personality or sense of someone
3) the intent of all of these procedures is to threaten the victim with extreme pain and suffering.
All of these fit the definition of torture. All that is left is for there to be prolonged mental harm from the actions. Instead of looking at the closest similar situations (cases of abuse, torture in animals, effects on people tortured in other countries) the OLC cowardly and cravenly tried to equate SERE training (which, of course, is to train our men and women to resist - wait for it - torture), where conditions could not be more opposite than for a prisoner, taken from his home, locked up indefinitely, and exposed to a vastly more prolonged sessions of the techniques.

I don't see how any attorney could not see these memos as objective advice, and not fitting the facts to serve the purpose. Its just not there.
 

nerpzillicus:

I was the one who pointed out the sleep-deprivation studies and SERE training as sources INDEPENDENT from the CIA. Even Professor Tamanaha granted me that much. My "analysis" has been stated on those prior threads. For instance, no one refuted my argument that OLC utilized a cautious two-thirds "factor of safety" when it came to sleep deprevation, especially since it was conceded that multiple methods would be used in concert.

In addition, I dispute that the line between State and federal powers is a distinction without a difference. I have not conceded that any of the methods outlined in the OLC are "illegal", but even if they are, the President (as Commander in Chief) has a unique responsibility not invested in local district attorneys, etc. As I think I stated on one of those earlier threads, if mob bosses were hijacking planes and crashing them into skyscrapers, I would be fine with "torture" against them. Short of some grand action / conspriacy in that regard, I don't think it's necessary to over-react.

I will agree, however, with your statement in this reagrd: "I don't see how any [patriotic] attorney could not see these memos as objective advice, and not fitting the facts to serve the purpose." I suspect you included an inadvertent "not" in there though. As always, you are free to your opinion. Look, I'm not even here to convince you otherwise. As long as our gracious host is seeking an exchange of ideas and thinks I am raising "legitimate concerns" based on his posts, that's enough for me.
 

Charles,
I was the one who pointed out the sleep-deprivation studies and SERE training as sources INDEPENDENT from the CIA. Even Professor Tamanaha granted me that much. My "analysis" has been stated on those prior threads. For instance, no one refuted my argument that OLC utilized a cautious two-thirds "factor of safety" when it came to sleep deprevation, especially since it was conceded that multiple methods would be used in concert.
Just because a source is independent, doesn’t mean OLC’s use of it = good faith. The author of the book relied upon by OLC has refuted the cherry picking qualities of the OLC memos. See http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/04/prof-james-horne-on-the-memos.html
Indeed, using footnotes or “outside” sources is a standard method of trying to make bad arguments seem legitimate. (See Coulter, Ann). Simply because OLC referenced outside sources does not prove anything about the quality of the work. In fact, I would argue OLC’s selective and misleading use of outside materials is better proof of bad faith, as opposed to simple incompetence. They carefully found tidbits that would support the conclusions they sought. They had no scientific basis for the ”two-thirds” solution. Why not one half? Why not three fourths?
They knew the difference between a controlled, relaxing sleep deprivation study and what CIA was proposing. I think this strengthens the case for bad faith.
In addition, I dispute that the line between State and federal powers is a distinction without a difference. I have not conceded that any of the methods outlined in the OLC are "illegal", but even if they are, the President (as Commander in Chief) has a unique responsibility not invested in local district attorneys, etc. As I think I stated on one of those earlier threads, if mob bosses were hijacking planes and crashing them into skyscrapers, I would be fine with "torture" against them. Short of some grand action / conspriacy in that regard, I don't think it's necessary to over-react.
But why? Why let people die from murderers, or rapists, or what have you, if there is nothing wrong with the techniques? The federal/state distinction you make is a strawman. The point isn’t whether the President should do this to two bit crooks, but why can’t local authorities do these things to prevent harm to Americans? Since these methods are so great, why not expand their use?
You point also seems to imply, if we assume the methods are illegal, the President still has the right (indeed, responsibility) to have them performed. Is this a correct reading of your comment?
I will agree, however, with your statement in this reagrd: "I don't see how any [patriotic] attorney could not see these memos as objective advice, and not fitting the facts to serve the purpose." I suspect you included an inadvertent "not" in there though. As always, you are free to your opinion. Look, I'm not even here to convince you otherwise. As long as our gracious host is seeking an exchange of ideas and thinks I am raising "legitimate concerns" based on his posts, that's enough for me.
I did make a mistake in my statement. I’ll use this opportunity (and your help) to correct my typo:
“I don't see how any [patriotic], [ethical, competent and literate] attorney could think these memos are anywhere close to objective advice, and not simply an attempt to fit the facts to arrive at the conclusion they desire.”
 

Well, I've read both Supreme Court cases with that reference. What do you think it means?It means the same thing that Lincoln's famous "all of the laws but one" statement means-- that in the rare situation where the very existence of the nation is threatened, it doesn't make sense to interpret the Constitution in a manner which would thwart the solution. (I might add that even though conservatives like to quote this line, it's actually a pretty clear example of result-oriented, non-originalist, non-textualist, law-as-policy type thinking, because what it says is that even if the Constitution apparently mandates a result, we have to interpret it otherwise to further an overarching policy that is allegedly implied in the document.)

It does not mean, however, that the Constitution never mandates that the government refrain from doing things that might save lives. Jackson is talking about the mutual suicide of the entire nation, not individual cases.
 

I might add that even though conservatives like to quote this line, it's actually a pretty clear example of result-oriented, non-originalist, non-textualist, law-as-policy type thinking, because what it says is that even if the Constitution apparently mandates a result, we have to interpret it otherwise to further an overarching policy that is allegedly implied in the document.

That is interesting, especially as it makes a hash of conservative claims to 'originalism.'
 

"That is interesting, especially as it makes a hash of conservative claims to 'originalism.'"

This hash recipe is disclosed in Scalia's Heller opinion. Post-Heller commentary has exposed and tested originalism, demonstrating lack of support in legal history for Scalia's dicta concerning limits on the Second Amendment individual right to bear arms. Scalia's self-inflicted wound has originalism bleeding. In the meantime, America is bleeding. Just imagine, a proposal is out there for a million man march on Washington, DC for believers of this individual right, who may be carrying.
 

First DUI Offense in California
1st Drunk Driving Conviction
Jail for no less than 96 hours and no more than 6 months. The fine will be no less than $390 and no more than $1,000. Your drivers license will be suspended for six months, however, if allowed, the court may grant the convicted a temporary restricted license. Your drivers license will not be reinstated until proof of financial responsibility and proof that you have completed a "driving under the influence" program approved by the state.
Second DUI Offense in California
2nd Drunk Driving Conviction
Jail for no less than 90 days and no more than 1 year. The fine will be no less than $390 and no more than $1,000 . Your drivers license will be suspended for 1 year. Your drivers license will not be reinstated until proof of financial responsibility and proof that you have completed a "driving under the influence" program approved by the state.

Third DUI Offense in California
3rd Drunk Driving Conviction
Jail for no less than 120 days and no more than 1 year. The fine will be no less than $390 and no more than $1,000 . You will be considered by the state a "habitual traffic offender" for 3 years following your conviction and have your license suspended for 2 years. Your drivers license will not be reinstated until proof of financial responsibility and proof that you have completed a "driving under the influence" program approved by the state. The person may apply for a restricted driver's license under certain circumstances by the court.
Fourth DUI Offense in California
4th Drunk Driving Conviction
Jail, Prison or both, for no less than 180 days and no more than 1 year. The fine will be no less than $390 and no more than $1,000 . You will be considered by the state a "habitual traffic offender" for 3 years following your conviction and have your license revoked for 3 years. Your drivers license will not be reinstated until proof of financial responsibility and proof that you have completed a "driving under the influence" program approved by the state. The person may apply for a restricted driver's license under certain circumstances by the court. The person may apply for a restricted driver's license under certain circumstances by the court.
Drunk driving laws in The State of California are similar to many other DUI laws across the United States. California's DUI law prohibits a person from driving when they have a concentration of .08 percent or more alcohol in their blood system. This is the standard measurement use by all states for the "impaired" driver.
 

In prosperity our friends know us; in adversity we know our friends.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya