Decision ‘08

Our Cover Is Blown

mcjoan, writing at Daily Kos (the site founded by the co-author of Jerome Armstrong, who, as you may recall, has entered a consent decree with the SEC regarding charges of stock manipulation), has seen through the careful disguise we conservatives have been at pains to construct:

It comes as no surprise, but today the Washington Post says that the Rubber Stamp Republican Congress is intending to make political hay of the Supreme Court Hamdan decision by painting the Democrats as weak on terrorism. Well, that’s news.

Let’s talk about what that really means for the Republicans. It means they are branding themselves as pro-torture. Because what the administration’s insistence upon military commissions really has been all about, from the beginning, is torture.

Curses! Foiled again…for everyone knows that if there is one thing that all Republicans love more than anything else, it’s torture. We live for it. That’s why we sent young Americans oversees to die fighting two of the most notorious violators of human rights, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, who were in the habit of torturing, then killing, people who had the stones to question their all-encompassing authority.

Put another way, so that even a feeble-minded Kos front-pager can understand: we put two regimes out of business that would have tortured and killed Bill Keller rather than heap scorn on him and express disappointment in his judgment…

10 Responses to “Our Cover Is Blown”

1 mtl Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 9:30 pm
My first rxn to the idea of torture was that there was a certain window where it would prove effective. I hear about the folk in gitmo, and am lead to believe that they are still being tortured. I’m thinking at this point that maybe it is getting sadistic, wondering what they have to gain.

I mitigate it now, with the idea that intel is still flowing in- a person that the interigators never thought to ask about, but new intel makes it a ripe and new avenue, for which a terrorists might realize that he better not speak-for a time.

Still it is the weakest part, ethically of the GWOT, and always will be-no person need apoligize for their view on torture 51-49 on it myself. I think the congress will rubber stamp, with the olive branch that no one can be executed under this new concession to the WH.

I am pro-torture, wish I could say otherwise.
2 Mark Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 10:35 pm
I don’t know; I have read some of the justifications for ‘torture lite’, or extreme stress techniques (I think proper torture is just unthinkable), and I can’t see any way to get around the fact that that’s just not my idea of America. I suppose there might be extreme circumstances that merit extreme actions, but the best way to ensure that torture (even of the light variety) is not used regularly is to keep it illegal; that way, if someone does it, they know there will be a heavy penalty attached, thus ensuring that it remains exceedingly rare.

Again, I stress I am talking about extreme stress techniques, which are damaging enough; anything that involves physical harm is just completely beyond the pale, in my view…
3 jpe Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Basically, what Mark said. Can the sarcasm, and it seems the post is objectively pro-torture. Why not just come and say you’re angry that the State’s freedom to torture has been curtailed?
4 Mark Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Umm, except Mark the commenter and Mark the poster are one and the same…with all due respect, I think you’ve completely missed the point of my post…which is that we have, even with our sometimes appalling incidents such as Abu Ghraib, freed up millions from the tyranny of authoritarian, brutal regimes…
5 mtl Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:27 am
There is torture for the sake of torture, and there is torture with a specified goal.

That is a huge difference.

It does add an element of free will-the individual can stop the torture.

(Please note that I’m using torture in the broadest sense-inflicting pain-physical OR mental are equivalents.)
6 mtl Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 1:38 am
jpe-worth noting that the President is sworn to defend this country-I believe Bush takes it seriously.

His duty is solely to the people of this country, try and think about the responsiblity. For some recent past presidents it was an easy duty to shirk. Others just outsourced torture. I think bush, under advise was told-we can have govt x do the torture, but we can’t insure that govt x won’t have a leak.

I think bush decided in the wake of 9/11 that we do it here(actaullly Cuba), and we do it right.

I wouldn’t be so quick to absolve any president, for having another country do our dirty work. I defintely wpould not find much ethical improvemnt to outsourcing it, largely because the only reason it was done was to avoid responsiblity.

Keep the heat on me about torture, I deserve it, but accept it.
7 too many steves Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 3:43 am
Two points:

1. Torture is proven to be highly ineffective and inefficient at gathering information (the torturee will say almost anything to end the torture, how do you know when to stop, i.e.; you’ve gathered the info you seek).

2. Illegality is an ineffective tool as a behavior deterent - most people that they will not be caught.

But we sometimes do get useful info from these “interrogations”. I like Dershowitz’s idea of making the use of torture legal via a legal review and approval process which mimics that of issuing search and arrest warrants.
8 mtl Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:03 am
It is funny, the holier than thou attitude that the left is crowing about.

Not a peep about rendition, but suddenly the US is evil for doing its own torture.

Like a mafia don saying he didn’t kill/torture anybody in his life, he just paid to have someone do it.
9 proximity1 Says:
July 6th, 2006 at 11:29 am
in reply to:

“There is torture for the sake of torture, and there is torture with a specified goal.

“That is a huge difference.”

“It does add an element of free will-the individual can stop the torture.”

(Please note that I’m using torture in the broadest sense-inflicting pain-physical OR mental are equivalents.) ”

I’d ask:

Which is the U.S. doing? “torture for the sake of torture” or “torture with a specified goal” ?

If our brand is the latter, then, please tell me what these “specified goal(s)’ are.

Second, why does “That [make] a huge difference.” ?

Among the people (i.e. usually brutal dictators) who have their underlings practice torture, have you ever heard of one who admitted that his torturers were torturing “for the sake of torture”?

How do you decide which cases are “for the sake of torture” and which are “torture with a specified goal” ? Is it just a matter of looking at who is being tortured and saying, “Yeah, _that guy_ I _don’t_ “like”;_his_ case is definitely “”torture with a specified goal.” ?

That is to ask you– if I described a situation _without_ telling you the details about the victim of the torture–they’re usually described as victims; isn’t that interesting?–could you tell me whether it was a case of “”torture with a specified goal” ?

Why or how is it that,

“It does add an element of free will-the individual can stop the torture”

? What does that mean? Do you mean, the victim can stop the torture simply by “confessing” , “signing the paper” ? Is that what you’d recommend Castro’s torture victims do? Or Saddam Hussein’s victims? Could they have just confessed and ended their torture?

How is it different with our brand?
10 proximity1 Says:
July 6th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
In reply to:

“It is funny, the holier than thou attitude that the left is crowing about.

Not a peep about rendition, but suddenly the US is evil for doing its own torture”

- —————————-

Uh, “not a peep about rendition…” — you think “the left” isn’t up in arms and outraged about “rendition”?– I prefer to call it State-sponsored kidnapping and imprisonment– is that your view?

If so, you just aren’t looking around, then. There’s lots of outrage.