"What's ironic about this passage from America's premier liberal journal is that it's a profoundly conservative argument — and yet it's one that most conservatives refuse to take seriously."

Kevin,

What "conservatives?" are you talking about? I don't know a single one. I do know a bunch of rightwing yahoos, but real conservatives seem to be an endangered species.

kevin,

There are important differences between "broken windows" and "zero tolerance." The latter focuses on the behavior you're worried about. The former focuses on seemingly much less important behaviors, which, if unpunished,send a message that no one is watching and no one cares. In that sense, a "broken windows" strategy against torture might require vigilance against, say, lack of toilet paper or decent meals for prisoners. This may be appropriate, but it's not "zero tolerance."

That's why conservatives (especially Scalia), left unchecked, are the true threat to our democratic form of government. Our system of government is predicated on the perfidity of man -- the constitution is intended to contain and control the worst instincts of leaders by ensuring their power is checked. The Bush administration's policy is in large part predictated on "trust us". Accountability has become a dirty word. Prisoners in Guantanamo are "bad people". And the constiution is no more than a piece of paper.

There's no comparison here with broken windows which is criminality for the pure fun of it.

To the extent there really is sanctioned torture going on, a dubious claim, it is not being done for the fun of it. It is being done to extract information to protect the slaughter of innocents at the hands of serial killers.

Can you tone down the reality-based rhetoric, Kevin?

How do you know, rdw? Oh, that's right, because you can "trust" the president.

I fully support the US having the ability to torture whomever it pleases. However, the authorization to perform such actions can only come directly from the President and that whatever torture is performed on the prisoner must also be performed on the President.

It seems equitable. They seem to think torture is vital to national security; let's see them put skin in the game.

It is being done to extract information to protect the slaughter of innocents at the hands of serial killers.

The Red Cross said 80% of the people tortured at Abu Ghraib were civilians or petty crooks. Not terrorists.

Gen. Taguba said the torture was "systematic" and "wanton."

Chew on that.

The same thing goes for bribery and corruption in government.

I see that people are taking the usual literal approach to analogies that we've all come to know and love in the blogosphere.

The issue here is one of human nature. The idea behind "broken windows" presupposes a particular view of human nature: that if you allow small things to happen, eventually large things will become acceptable too. The same view of human nature suggests that if minor acts of torture are permitted, larger acts of torture will eventually become acceptable too.

It's the view of human nature that's important here, not the precise causality behind "broken windows."

Torture is a violation of basic human rights and should not be tolerated in any setting. The only purpose it serves is to terrorize its victims and the public at large. When states use torture, they are trying to persuade their people to behave in a certain way. In a free democracy, we use other means to convince people and marshall action.

-

Kevin, you have this weird analytic tic, where you keep assuming that "conservatives" have adopted that ideology because they believe in conservatism, as opposed to the fact that it is the side that lets them hate on the poor and weak.

OTOH, opposition to torture is also an fundamental expression of the liberal democratic (little l, little d) philosophy--the whole point of government is to protect our fundamental human rights, and in order to achieve this end systems of government must be checked and balanced or they'll spiral into tyranny.

The Bush Administration isn't really Manichean so much as it's elitist. It believes that people are basically bad, which is why you should put the "right sort" of people/interests in charge and give them a lot of power over the common folks' lives, to control their bad behavior.

Honestly, at this point I'm not sure what exactly a conservative is supposed to be. Modern day conservatism in practice is basically anti-democratic elitistm. Whatever it was supposed to be originally doesn't matter anymore--that's what it is now.

crowd,

You'll have to cite reliable sources.

The thing of it is, that the people who are called "conservatives" in the USA today are Bush bootlickers whose only "political philosophy" is that Bush can do no wrong and that whatever Bush says or does must be defended.

For example, people like "rdw" who don't really want to be citizens of a democratic republic, but want to be subjects of a king, an authoritarian strongman that they can worship.

That Bush, as an authoritarian strongman, can torture anyone he likes with total impunity and absolutely no accountability, just makes him an even greater object of bootlicking worship to such people -- today's "conservatives".

onmasticator,

Why would I have to trust Bush? He's 10,000 miles away. I trust our troops. In addition to brave I also think they are honest and smart.

Unlike a lot of liberals apparently I am unwilling to believe the worst about them on the flimiest of evidence and rumors. I am quite confident the worst of our brave soldiers are better people than the best of their critics.

You'd have us believe they are mindless animals.

What "conservatives?" are you talking about? I don't know a single one. I do know a bunch of rightwing yahoos, but real conservatives seem to be an endangered species.
Posted by: gator on December 14, 2005 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Frankly, I've decided to stop calling them conservatives. They're just fascists and thugs. They'd like to be called conservatives, but they're not. We should stop accomidating this falsehood by calling them such.

RDW: For those "reliable sources" you're asking about, just follow the last five or six months of Andrew Sullivan's encyclopedic collection of testimony on the subject (including a substantial number of official government acknowledgements). By the way, as Ted Koppel among others has pointed out, those figures on the percentage of innocent inmates at Abu Ghirab came directly from the US military commander of Abu Ghraib.

The whole history of mankind has shown just how easy it is for people to slip into barbarism when the shackles of civilization are loosened even a little bit

I suspect that djmoonbat & SecularAnimist basically are making the point that "conservatives" are perfectly comfortable with barbarism as long as it is structured in such a way that a ruling class can validate it as a sort of civilized behavior. It seems pretty obvious that what they seek is just tribal behavior, but ritualized & established enough for no one to dare questioning it. It's a very narrow comfort zone, but we're dealing with very frightened & resentful people.

I trust our troops. In addition to brave I also think they are honest and smart. Also very good looking and they smell nice. I also like the high and tight haircuts and the flattering fit of their uniforms. But I don't trust Bush.

You'd have us believe they are mindless animals.

beat that strawman! beat him good!

I trust our troops. In addition to brave I also think they are honest and smart. Also very good looking and they smell nice. I also like the high and tight haircuts and the flattering fit of their uniforms. But I don't trust Bush.

Funniest post of the week!

secular,

Lighten up! We still are a democratic republic. If it seems as if GWB has total control that's your fault for nominating such morons and trying to get them to back stupid policies.

This is a conservative country. This is not France. If you're going to nominate a flake like John Kerry you have to expect to lose. If you are going to appoint a total whackjob like Howard Dean you have to expect to continue to lose.

You cannot win if that moron is around. The two of them are walking soundbites for the GOP. We are going to soon have the various 'best of' lists and the best political ad will be the recent 'retreat and defeat' ad by the GOP starring the Kerry/Dean boys also getting a special mention for best prop being the White Flag.

Your party had the big mo and lost it all.

GWB is a shrewd politician with a sharp team. Keep on putting up amateurs and you'll keep on losing your teeth.

I'm trying to decide which is more ridiculous - arguing with Nazis who advocate torture or arguing with the one person one Earth who still doesn't believe American troops are doing it.

DJ MOONBAT: Kevin, you have this weird analytic tic, where you keep assuming that "conservatives" have adopted that ideology because they believe in conservatism, as opposed to the fact that it is the side that lets them hate on the poor and weak.

Unlike a lot of liberals apparently I am unwilling to believe the worst about them on the flimiest of evidence and rumors.
Posted by: rdw on December 14, 2005 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I am only believing the stories I've heard when the Pentagon has expressly confirmed their truth.

And the worst of those cases are ones of hideous barbaric depravity.

Nobody of any note is saying that ALL US troops are "bad apples". But there is a systemic problem with policy that is tending to bring out the worst in many of them. These incidents would be under control - if the civilian leadership would bother to control them.

My biggest problem was the witch's rasta hair style, and the glop of ice that was supposed to be her crown.

And then her fisher-price palace tied for second most annoying thing in the movie, with the weak, overbearing music.

But the kids were alright.

rdw, nice dodge. When in doubt, wrap yourself in the flag -- and defend the troops from my vicious attack. Truly the last refuge of scoundrels.

Bush is the CIC and he is responsible -- it doesn't matter whether it's a sin of commission or omission. It is irrelevant that the Bush administration has proven, repeatedly, that it is not credible. Whether this is because it is lying or incompetent is also irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the power of the state is not to be left unchecked under our system of government.

The integrity and professionalism of the troops has nothing to do with it. This is not about our troops. In fact, the Bush administration has dishonored our troops by putting them in what is truly an impossible situation. It is a testament to the professionalism of our troops that the occasional breakdowns (Abu Ghraib, the murder in Afghanistan of and innocent taxi driver), while horrible, could have been more widespread and even worse. That said, we still haven't seen most of the photographs from Abu Ghraib, which even GOP members of congress acknowledge are far worse than what had been released previously. Women, children, rdw. Like it? Want some more?

What's ironic about this passage from America's premier liberal journal is that it's a profoundly conservative argument — and yet it's one that most conservatives refuse to grapple with seriously.

No, its a classical liberal or modern libertarian argument. While the conservative-dominated Republican Party makes selective rhetorical appeals to libertarianism on some issues, it is least likely to do so on issues of police power like this (whereas the "liberal" Democrats tend to be very libertarian on this type of issue, though not on, for instance, social programs).

There is nothing "conservative" about this argument. Its a libertarian argument in the area where American liberals are most libertarian and American conservatives least libertarian.

How about - if we interrogate you live, if we don't you die?

"Kevin, you have this weird analytic tic, where you keep assuming that "conservatives" have adopted that ideology because they believe in conservatism, as opposed to the fact that it is the side that lets them hate on the poor and weak."

It's true. Conservatives hate poor and weak folks, especially a poor, weak, black lesbian. Ironically, the people who are most skilled at keeping the poor, poor are Democrats. They have decades of experience in keeping the weakest and poorest at the bottom of the ladder. So maybe the best thing conservatives can do is vote for Dems, that way, the poor and weak will stay that way forever.

Fear can cause some strange behavior. The Bush admin has wielded the fear factor effectively in pushing forth it’s agenda. It is this fear that can wear down those that may have otherwise been against torture. I mean, would we even be discussing this pre-9/11? But of course, “9/11 changed everything” (repeat this, over and over).

As long as fear is used so effectively, and detrimentally, we will continue to circle the drain. Granting a certain amount of torture as ok now, will probably lead to a more callous approach later – and so more of it.

Ray McGovern has a piece today at Truthout
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/121405I.shtml

where he points out the weakness of the McCain argument against torture because McCain seems to be primarily concerned about the U.S. image abroad.

Ultimately, I contend - and this is what McGovern says - that this comes down to a moral argument: either you think that torture is fundamentally unacceptable or you don't.

If you're not on the side of 'fundamentally unacceptable' then the corollary is that there is an infinite number of ways to justify it.

What is striking about the constant arguments defending the practice put forward by all kinds of people from Cheney on down is that they seem to be oblivious to this starting point.

Intellectually they must know that torture doesn't work but they have been caught in the act and they can't simply back away from it. And don't forget the macho aspect: interrogations based on non-physical techniques are for wimps.

Its a libertarian argument in the area where American liberals are most libertarian and American conservatives least libertarian.

Are there really such people as conservative and liberal Libertarians?

Libertarians say they agree with Dems about personal freedom and with GOP assholes about economic freedom.

But they always vote GOP. All that rhetoric about personal freedom is just bullshit rationalization.

If I report to the police that I overheard someone at Starbucks talking on their cell phone about an imminent chemical attack in Fresno tomorrow, are the police justified at detaining and torturing the person to extract potentially life-saving information?

Because I get really ticked sometimes at all the people blabbing on their cell phones.

rdw

France! Good one.

Glenn Reynolds has collected some links on this.

I agree that some definitions need to be nailed down.

The Tom Ricks piece was an interesting blast from the past.

shortstop,

ha ha,

refer to secular animus. He's a bit peeved he's living in a conservative dictatorship. I suspect you are too.

Keep on trashing those troops. I know this will shock most on this post but they can actually read. So can their brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and mommies and daddies and their friends.

And guess what? Not only can they read but they vote too!!!

Are you thinking they're voting with you?

Do you think they'll ever vote with you?

This is just a guess on my part but I'm thinking the soldiers don't much care for being trashed by liberal elitists!

Just a guess!

Here's something I don't understand but perhaps you can explain it to me. John Kerry banned the term 'Liberal' from his campaign. Now think about that. This is a man born and raised in Boston, an Ivy Leager, with his campaign headquarters also in Boston. His 1st campaign rule is, "Whatever you do, don't ever, under any conditions, so much as think about calling me a liberal".

What was that all about?

One more question. What's with these progressives? They sound like liberals. Someone once told me are liberals but they don't want anyone to know it.

What's that all about?

"Libertarians say they agree with Dems about personal freedom and with GOP assholes about economic freedom.

But they always vote GOP. All that rhetoric about personal freedom is just bullshit rationalization."

Actually, liberals are no better in terms of personal freedom as conservatives. Conservatives limit personal freedom under religious justifications, while liberals limit personal freedom through political correctness. Neither side are all that pro personal freedom viewed from the libertarian angle.

Libertarians say they agree with Dems about personal freedom and with GOP assholes about economic freedom. But they always vote GOP. All that rhetoric about personal freedom is just bullshit rationalization.
Posted by: Gary Sugar on December 14, 2005 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

I used to be a Libertarian. And I tell you, I would NEVER have voted Republican. They've made it clear for decades that they want their laws in my bedroom.

Libertarians who vote Republican are not Libertarians. They say they are. Just like people who call themselves conservatives. Republicanism is all about justifying decriminalization of white-collar crime. It's never about honest positions on issues. There's always and underlying rationalization. So they can steal. Republican Culture of Corruption.

Actually, liberals are no better in terms of personal freedom as conservatives. Conservatives limit personal freedom under religious justifications, while liberals limit personal freedom through political correctness. Neither side are all that pro personal freedom viewed from the libertarian angle.
Posted by: Freedom Fighter on December 14, 2005 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I have much less of a problem with being compelled by law to not discriminate against blacks or gays, than I do with being compelled to submit my bride to a state-sanctioned genital inspection to prove she's not a male and we're not having a gay marriage.

tbrosz--if you'd like define down torture, be sure to get John McCain's input.

I think a man who can't lift his arms above his head anymore because the Viet Cong kept him dangling by one arm for 2 years may have some interesting things to say about the acceptability of "stress positions." And he might find some of your other euphemisms for torture enlighening--I'm sure he'd like to compare how they translate into the phrases the Vietnamese used to describe what was done to him as part of their "interrogations."

"And guess what? Not only can they read but they vote too!!!

Are you thinking they're voting with you?

Do you think they'll ever vote with you?"

What liberals can't grasp is the fact that most Americans are actually pro-American. While most Americans understand America isn't perfect, they are still proud to be Americans. Whereas, liberals look for any little excuse to be ashamed of being an American.

The integrity and professionalism of the troops has nothing to do with it.

The integrity of our troops has everything to do with it. You are accusing them of being mindless animals. And you do so on the flimiest of rumors. You are quite pepared to believe the accusers and disbelieve the troops.

The thought that GWB would issue such an order is absurd as is the thought he knows what is going on in every cellbock uder US control. This is pure politics and there is nothing else to it. You and the MSM are using the troops to get at Bush. It's an especially obvious and shallow effort and it will cost you at the polls.

No soldier can obey an illegal order. Every soldier knows this. I and most Americans would place the moral character of these men far above their critics.

You are directly trashing our military and they know it and you are doing it for partisan purposes and they know that as well.

You are the party of retreat and defeat and you will continue to lose elections until that changes.

What's that all about?
Posted by: rdw on December 14, 2005 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

It's all about rightwing media talking heads who have successfully re-defined words in the popular culture, by lying to their audiences. What of it?

"I have much less of a problem with being compelled by law to not discriminate against blacks or gays, than I do with being compelled to submit my bride to a state-sanctioned genital inspection to prove she's not a male and we're not having a gay marriage."

I agree with you! I don't have a problem with laws limiting people's freedoms as long as they are aligned with my political beliefs.

It believes that people are basically bad, which is why you should put the "right sort" of people/interests in charge and give them a lot of power over the common folks' lives, to control their bad behavior. Posted by: theorajones on December 14, 2005 at 3:44 PM

Theora, this is Hobbesian Conservatism to a T. And since Hobbes is the philosophical father of "modern" conservatism, the idea that human beings are inheritly evil and must be controlled, is at the root of almost all contemporary conservative thought.

To the extent there really is sanctioned torture going on, a dubious claim, it is not being done for the fun of it. It is being done to extract information to protect the slaughter of innocents at the hands of serial killers.
- rdw

Don't attribute too noble of predicate causes for the torture that most certainly has gone on. I am more than a little sick of this "the military can do no wrong" mindset. A pervasive and false belief like that marks the beginning of the end of the American Republic.

The truth that anyone who has been in the military knows, is that there are some sick, deviant, degenerate sadists in the service. Don't kid yourself - they get their jollys from hurting people. Witness this Charles Grainer guy. He abused his wife/girlfriend and he enjoyed torturing and abusing the Iraqi captives. There is usually a sexual element in this as well, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn he had sex with some of these prisoners (male or female, living or dead).

Now I know the righties will go nuts over this and assert what noble and wonderful human beings our soldiers are (and the vast majority of them are decent people), but there is no doubt in mind that the sadistic minority did everything (and more) than the media has asserted.

Until we stop glorifying the military and recognize that there was never supposed to be a standing American army, but only state militias that come together in times of true need (not preemptive occupations), this country is headed for a very big fall...

I think that rdw is giving conspiracy nut some serious competition for being the most rock-stupid rightwing script-regurgitator ever to post a comment on Kevin's site.

Conspiracy nut packs a whole lot of scripted, programmed, rightwing idiocy into very brief posts, whereas rdw rambles on and on to get a comparable amount of brain-dead rightwing drivel into his comments.

On the other hand, rdw gives the impression that he actually cares about what he's writing about, whereas conspiracy nut clearly doesn't -- he's just a jerk trolling for attention.

Gary Sugar,

Sure they exist. I'm one of them. I am a small-L libertarian and a big-D Democrat. Pro-choice, pro-gay rights, against the War on Some Drugs, etc. I don't agree with the Dems on everything, but I am a heck of a lot closer to them on most things than to the Repubs. I have voted Republican exactly once in my life- as a protest vote against my congressman, H. Ford Jr., for sponsoring anti-gay legislation. No big deal, he was going to win a landslide anyway, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for him.

But I do agree- most so-called libertarians are Republicans who don't want to call themselves such.

The question, which Kevin refuses even to address, is what constitutes "torture."

I think we can all agree that torture includes infliction of extreme physical pain (e.g., electrodes to the genitals) and permanent physical injury (e.g., cutting off fingers, pulling out fingernails) and that this ought to be prohibited in all circumstances.

But does torture include psycological pressure? Does it include "good cop, bad cop" interrogations of the kind used in every station house in the US? Does it include trickery or threats? How about lies ("we've captured your little brother and we're going to kill him")? How about playing AC/DC or Snoop Dog continuosly at high volumes for a day or two or extremes of temperature or sleep deprivation? How about bribes? with food? with letters from home? with sexual favors? How about humiliation (e.g., with fake menstrual blood)?

Where do you stand, Kevin? Are all of these "torture" in your book? Would you let interrogators do any of them? Which ones?

Until and unless you are willing to engage in this debate, it's very hard to take your moral posturing seriously.

The thought that GWB would issue such an order is absurd as is the thought he knows what is going on in every cellbock uder US control.
Posted by: rdw on December 14, 2005 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

You're full of shit rdw.

A memo about use of dogs on detainees, signed by Rumsfeld, with a handwritten Addendum of "Make sure this happens!" tells me that the policy is at best ambiguous, and purposely so, designed to encourage abuse, without explicitly ordering them to do so.

So tell, me, how does a soldier know what is and is not a legal order in an ambiguous environment like that? What does "gitmo-ize" mean? What does "soften them up for interrogation mean?" Are those illegal, or legal?

and they know that as well.

You are the party of retreat and defeat and you will continue to lose elections until that changes.

I dunno, I consider my assertion an attack on Bush and his policies. No retreat and defeat about it.

The Bush junta encourages torture, and leaves the troops out to twist in the wind without solid leadership to back up their actions. The message they've sent to the troops so far is: "take off the gloves - but don't get caught like Lindie England, and don't speak out or question any of these orders like Karpinsky did, or your career is finished like hers is."

Torture has been defined for years. Waterboarding in the Civil War resulted in a court-marshal for those involved in it. The chimpster needed it redefined so that a way could be found to do it again. Our history and law of the past has and does describe what torture is. Redefining is just a method to sidestep the law. The chimpster has sworn an oath to the constitution, use of torture breaks this oath-he should be impeached immediately.

By the way, Freedom Fighter is pretty stupid too, but he'll have to try harder to be significantly stupider if he wants to compete with rdw and conspiracy nut.

I agree with you! I don't have a problem with laws limiting people's freedoms as long as they are aligned with my political beliefs.
Posted by: Freedom Fighter on December 14, 2005 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

You completely missed what I said.

I said I have less of a problem with one than the other.

I have a problem with both. But one is acceptable. It's unfortunate that legal protection of gays and minorities is made necessary by racists and bigots and homophobes. However, gay marriage bans, a violation of privacy, and the right of equal treatment under law, is NOT necessary. Political beliefs have nothing to do with it.

DBL: Are all of these "torture" in your book? Would you let interrogators do any of them? Which ones? Until and unless you are willing to engage in this debate, it's very hard to take your moral posturing seriously.

Which ones would you want used on you if you were mistakenly taken into custody as a suspected terrorist and questioned about a "ticking bomb" that you actually knew nothing about?

Unless and until you are willing to answer that question specifically and in detail, it's very hard to take your posturing seriously.

"Which ones would you want used on you if you were mistakenly taken into custody as a suspected terrorist and questioned about a "ticking bomb" that you actually knew nothing about?"

Obviously the answer would be: "I don't want to be taken in at all". So, let's ban the practice of questioning suspects.

Yeah, I think you (and the Nation) are right, Kevin.

There's really only one argument (excepting the one that torture is just morally offensive just because it is-- which only appeals to others who feel the same way). It's that you have to draw lines somewhere to keep democratic instiutions from becoming fascist, totalitarian institutions.
It applies to torture, to the death penalty, to propaganda, and to intrusive surveillance allowed on little reason for suspicion. There are possible circumstances under which almost anybody would at least come close to conceding that these practices are ok. On the other hand, almost everybody doesn't think that these practices should be the routine methods of maintaining a secure society. But when you allow the few people who do believe in allowing them as routine practices to use them in a few cases, then they start to feel like they should be entitled to use them in other cases. And then where does it end? If there's no effective review, then it ends with those individuals own personal judgment. And then you get a situation where the U.S. military is responible for the kind of abuse we had at Abu Grhaib, and even summary executions in Iraq.

It's crazy, to go full circle from fighting fascism to being fascism.

If torture is so effective then why is Osama still at large? The chimpster and his fellow incompetents still have failed to find Osama in more time than it took to defeat the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. What's taking so long? An entire country was defeated in less time than it's taken this group of stooges to find one man. They must have the same pinheads working on Osama that malfunctioned with Katrina. Are they really interested in catching Osama or just using him as a way to retain election/power? Why aren't repugs interested in catching Osama? Is it just to hard for them? Is it harder than fixing elections and being on the corporate take? If torture is so effective, then why can't they catch one guy? Is he really an enemy or a useful tool?

>Which ones would you want used on you if you were mistakenly taken into custody as a suspected terrorist and questioned about a "ticking bomb" that you actually knew nothing about?

Well, looking at DBL's list, the parts about bribing with food or sexual favors sound good. Don't know why those were put in the list though, neither one sounds like any torture I've heard of.

Unless they are trying to bribe me with Scottish food or something. Having haggis in close proximity should definitely be considered torture.

I agree with you! I don't have a problem with laws limiting people's freedoms as long as they are aligned with my political beliefs. Posted by: Freedom Fighter on December 14, 2005 at 4:29 PM

Wow, Freedum Fucker just admitted he was a racist and a homophobe, but the law is scaring him into suppressing his natural hate.

What a Nazi-wannabee.

Oh, and are you too another paid, non-American troll like rdw, McAristotle, ad. naseum?

I like what the House of Lords said.

"The purpose of holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was, and is, to put them beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts and at the mercy of victors.... As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice I would have to say that I regard this as a monstrous failure of justice," Lord Steyn said.

"The question is whether the quality of justice envisaged for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay complies with the minimum international standards for the conduct of fair trials," Lord Steyn continued. "The answer can be given quite shortly. It is a resounding 'no'. Prisoners at the Camp Delta base on Cuba are being held in conditions of 'utter lawlessness'."

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former Lord Chief Justice who chaired the panel, said English law had regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for more than 500 years. "The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third-party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice."

Lord Hoffman: "The use of torture is dishonourable. It corrupts and degrades the state which uses it and the legal system which accepts it. In our own century, many people in the United States have felt their country dishonoured by its use of torture outside the jurisdiction and its practice of extra-legal 'rendition' of suspects to countries where they would be tortured."

Lord Hope: "Torture [is] one of the most evil practices known to man. Practices authorised for use in Guantanamo Bay would shock the conscience if they were ever to be authorised for use in our own country."

Lord Rodger: The torturer is abhorred "not because the information he produces may be unreliable but because of the barbaric means he uses to extract it".

Lord Nicholls: "Torture is not acceptable. No civilised society condones its use. This is a bedrock moral principle in this country. For centuries the common law has set its face against torture."

Lord Brown: "Torture is an unqualified evil. It can never be justified. Rather, it must always be punished."

Freedom Fries,

Wha? Most American LIKE America? Really? Wow, you are full of interesting insights today! But do you have any evidence for your assertion?

It's sort of funny, you know. I hear people bitching all the time about various people, places, and things. And you know what? Most of the time, these various people, places, and things can be described as "American". Why just the other day I heard someone complaining about those high (American) taxes. I also heard another fellow decry the fact that the "bitches" in his (American) college never "put out". I even heard a woman on the subway the other day complain about how the (American) men she knows are so insensitive!

What's going on here?! None of this squares too well with your thesis of Americans loving America. Care to address these concerns? Or are all these people just to be placed under Column B: "AMERICA-HATERS"?

Oh, and I thought I ordered a McGriddles with those Freedom Fries! Where you at, McAristotle?

osama,

Your assumptions are an insult to and a smear of the troops. This is purely partisan politics. They know torture is illegal and that they cannot follow illegal orders.

In order to blame Bush or Cheney for a soldier actions you have to assume either the soldier is ignorant of his responsibilities under the military code and/or they are immoral or that they and their superiors are stupid and/or immmoral. Every soldier is responsible for their actions.

This is nothing more than a smear campaign design to get at GWB by discrediting the troops. It is liberal elitism at its worst.

"Wow, Freedum Fucker just admitted he was a racist and a homophobe, but the law is scaring him into suppressing his natural hate."

Really? Where did you read that?

"Oh, and are you too another paid, non-American troll like rdw, McAristotle, ad. naseum?"

Of course, paid blog commenting is a big business. And might I add, it pays quite well too.

"Wha? Most American LIKE America? Really? Wow, you are full of interesting insights today! But do you have any evidence for your assertion?"

Sure, look at the election results.

It is right to resist America's slide towards tolarance of torture, but we still need a better handle on just what degree and type of discomfort should constitute "torture." Being kept awake all night? Waterboarding, which feels awful but doesn't do any "harm" if you don't suffocate? Well?

I would agree with you if I were confident the discussion was limited to what I mean by torture - infliction of intense, prolonged physical pain. But I fear that you would use extreme cases to get agreement, and then apply the new rules to things that I do not consider torture and would not prohibit. This in order to undermine the war effort and score political points v/a/v Bush. I do not agree that anyone who is roughed up, made uncomfortable, or ever waterboarded has necessarily been tortured, and I don't think you can win a war with lawyers looking over every soldier's shoulder. Or is that the point?

(Besides which, just look at the tone of MRB close above or others like it. Kevin, how can we assume that you are operating in good faith if this is what your claque is like?)

Anything coercive is uncivilized. Stop trying to figure which tortures are okay.

until we stop glorifying the military and recognize that there was never supposed to be a standing American army, but only state militias that come together in times of true need (not preemptive occupations), this country is headed for a very big fall...

This is where the Democrats go off the deep end and get crushed politically. Stephen is the classic liberal elitists feeling like a duck hit in the head after 9/11 because his old world is gone. We've gone back to that place where we honor police and firman and soldiers while viewing academics with extreme caution.

In this world the anti-globalists are rich freaks who can't or won't work for a living trying to destroy the business and livelihoods of those who do want to work. This is no longer 1968. Ronald Reagan is a revered figure. JFK is another guy with a zipper problem.

As long as your party has these freaks you'll remain in the minority.

SecularAnimist:

Which ones would you want used on you if you were mistakenly taken into custody as a suspected terrorist and questioned about a "ticking bomb" that you actually knew nothing about?

Unless and until you are willing to answer that question specifically and in detail, it's very hard to take your posturing seriously.

I'd like to know which methods of dealing with criminals and war prisoners actually would pass this odd test.

I wouldn't want a cop shooting me for reaching for my wallet, either, but that doesn't mean cops should stop carrying guns.

I'm still wondering why, in this age of designer drugs, nobody has come up with a functional truth serum. You'd think there'd be a military contract in it for somebody.

What's ironic about this passage from America's premier liberal journal is that it's a profoundly conservative argument — and yet it's one that most conservatives refuse to grapple with seriously.

Who are these people you're talking about? There are no conservatives, self-identified conservatives preach traditional liberalism but dismiss as "liberal" anyone who disagrees with them, apparently ignorant of the irony. Self-identified conservatives do not pursue conservative policies, there is only conservative branding.
.

Sure, look at the election results.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter

A slim majority that quickly slipped away?

OK. [gazes with unconcealed pleasure]
.

Kevin made a brilliant analogy with the broken windows theory and the torture issue. Reminded me of Robert Reich asking why the right felt so comfortable with Darwinism in sociology, but not quite so comfortable in biology (where evolution belongs).

And we should thank rdw for so nicely illustrating (albeit inadvertently) the thought process that lets slip controls so quickly. Once you start rationalizing that it's OK to torture, then you come up with excuses. Excuses like:
1) It's OK because it's saving other lives! (I don't which, but someone in the administration said so...)
2) It's really not that bad, if you don't break bones, or cause organ failure, etc. (Brit Hume)
3) It's not as bad as (pick whatever),
etc.

or you come up with "kill the messenger" defences:
1) How dare you attack our troops!
2) You must cite specifics!,

And all this makes perfectly clear that too many of us are willing to do it, and too many of us are willing to rationalize it. That's why there are international treaties to ban it. And that's why the writers of the Bill of Rights, just said you can't abridge certain rights - because it's hard to stop once you start. Because all of these reasons, the writers of the Bill of Rights knew that men were not perfectable and that barriers had to be put in place.

And the world community is starting to agree. Shouldn't we follow our own Founders lead?

Freedom Fries,
Oh, silly me. I forgot about that Special Referendum Question #445:

"Do you LIKE America? Yes or No?"

I retract fully my previous statement.

I'm still wondering why, in this age of designer drugs, nobody has come up with a functional truth serum. You'd think there'd be a military contract in it for somebody.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 5:08 PM defe| PERMALINK

Because the world isn't black and white, and often, truths have shades of grey to them, and as Republican media talking heads have demonstrated readily, if a person believes a lie is the truth, then no lie detection technique will work on it.

I'm sorry if that reality does not fit your world-view. Must be tough living with that handicap of being faith-based. I'd say there ought to be a federal regulation compelling businesses to contruct some method of accomidating those who are "reality-impaired".

But does torture include psychological pressure?

Yes, it does, depending on the degree thereof. Torture is defined in several laws and treaties the US is signatory to, and thus is well defined under American law. The 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, for instance, says that "For the purposes of this Convention, the term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

We don't need to "define" torture. The law is already quite clear.

Why do folks like rdw hate the bill of rights so much?

We don't need to "define" torture.

Well, maybe YOU don't need to define torture but some people are having to define all over the place to weasel out of the issue.

You know, the people who believe in right and wrong and moral clarity? Yeah, those guys.
.

Why do folks like rdw hate the bill of rights so much?

Because it's against freedom, that's why. Of course, I mean "freedom" in the Straussian sense."
.

The US military regulation that McCain is trying to make US law forbids anything coercive.

I just can't believe all these American Nazis asking over and over, "Can't we hurt them just a little?" WTF is wrong with you people?

Why do folks like rdw hate the bill of rights so much?

Usually because someone else's rights might conflict with their privileges.

>the term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person

Well, not to side with the torture apologists (I am not one of them), but this isn't "quite clear" due to the fuzzy word "severe". What is severe pain or suffering? Is keeping someone awake for 2 days straight severe? 1 day? 3 days? Or sitting them in the proverbial dark interrogation room with an uncomfortably bright light shining in their face? What is severe for one may be negligible for another, and I would rather not leave such a vague statute as the only guideline to prevent abuse by the authorities. I have no idea how to implement a real standard in practice; ideally, having some sort of neutral, trained third-party present would be nice, but I'm not sure who would qualify.

Posted by: rdw on December 14, 2005 at 4:58 PM

osama,

Your assumptions are an insult to and a smear of the troops. This is purely partisan politics. They know torture is illegal and that they cannot follow illegal orders.

In order to blame Bush or Cheney for a soldier actions you have to assume either the soldier is ignorant of his responsibilities under the military code and/or they are immoral or that they and their superiors are stupid and/or immmoral. Every soldier is responsible for their actions.

This is nothing more than a smear campaign design to get at GWB by discrediting the troops. It is liberal elitism at its worst.

Andrew Sullivan today:

The Taguba Report is an "Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade." That brigade operated at Abu Ghraib, but also, according to the report, "Camp Bucca, Camp Ahraf ... and High Value Complex/Camp Cropper." The Schlesinger Report's title is "Final Report of the Independent Panel To Review DoD Detention Operations." It deals with much more than Abu Ghraib. It's a vast report on policies and "leadership failures" across every theater of combat...."

Read the post rdw. Then read the report. Then tell me there's no evidence that the President didn't advocate torture.

The trolls liked the Constitution alot better in the original German. What a bunch of lying, fascist cocksuckers (this means you, rdw, Freedom Fries, tbrosz, et al.) You are the America haters, because you want a totalitarian state without dissent and without any redress against the government (unless you are Microsoft). You are spineless pigs who can't think for yourselves, and are wholly dependent upon the strongman to tell you what to do and how to think.

You and your illegitmately installed government are destroying the country I grew up loving and believing in. And I despise you for it. The fact that you even waste the bandwidth to defend the indefensible shows how utterly depraved you are. Your defense of "America" on this blog is un-American in the extreme.

FINAL RESPONSES TO RDW'S INANE COMMENTS

This is where the Democrats go off the deep end and get crushed politically.

Who has been "crushed"? As I recall, Gore was elected president in 2000 by half a million votes and in 2004, Bush barely squeaked out a win over Kerry (a weak candidate), by using lies, subterfuge and rigged voting machines.

Stephen is the classic liberal elitists [sic] feeling like a duck hit in the head after 9/11 because his old world is gone.

And what "old world" is that? Honest and responsible governance? Yeah, that seems to be pretty well gone under the Bushies....

We've gone back to that place where we honor police and firman and soldiers while viewing academics with extreme caution.

How is it that conservatives honor fireman and police? By cutting their funding? How do they honor military veterans? By reducing veteran's benefits? Talk is cheap, fella. Put your money where your mouth. I respect people on the basis of their actions, not on their title or their profession.

In this world the anti-globalists are rich freaks who can't or won't work for a living trying to destroy the business and livelihoods of those who do want to work.

This doesn't even make sense. If they are rich, why would it matter if they worked or not????

This is no longer 1968.

Well, that is true. You do know your calendar.

Ronald Reagan is a revered figure.

By whom? Certainly not me.

JFK is another guy with a zipper problem.

Really? The conservatives took care of that problem with a bullet in the head, didn't they?

As long as your party has these freaks you'll remain in the minority.

Better to be on the side of peace and justice, than to be in the majority, in that case.

Of course, paid blog commenting is a big business. And might I add, it pays quite well too.

Boy, someone's (Rove?) not getting there money's worth.

if a person believes a lie is the truth, then no lie detection technique will work on it.

True enough. In that particular case, neither would torture, or any other known form of interrogation. What's your point?

I was looking at a circumstance where someone is actually deliberately concealing information.

Sure, look at the election results.

This was Freedom Fighter [sic]'s proof that "most Americans like America." Read it and weep, kids. Here is a (presumably) grown man, who has been raised in the most technologically advanced culture in the history of the planet, with practically unlimited resources at his fingertips, and this is how his mind works. This is where we are: Freedom Fighter [sic] and rdw, in a hell-bent race to see who can out-stupid the other. Implacably, willfully ignorant.

Wonder what Freedom Fighter [sic] thinks we should do with 56 million Americans who don't love America?

Your assumptions are an insult to and a smear of the troops. This is purely partisan politics. They know torture is illegal and that they cannot follow illegal orders.

The usual weak dodge from the usual weak minds. You can't hide behind the troops, yellowphant. You're going to have to do better than "your comment about feldspar is an insult to corndogs everywhere." (but I don't think you will)

Isn't it remarkable that the practice of torture was so consistent over the entire American gulag? Isn't it remarkable that the highest levels signed off on torture? There is a reason, after all, why a certain someone never got that SCOTUS nod.
.

Ronald Reagan is a revered figure.

By whom? Certainly not me.

By corporate welfare queens and murderous dictators everywhere.
.

I'm still wondering why, in this age of designer drugs, nobody has come up with a functional truth serum.

No kidding. I'd love to use it on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Rove, Libby, Delay...

rdw means

Really

Dumb

Whiteman

I was looking at a circumstance where someone is actually deliberately concealing information.

*Bush!* cough cough...*Cheney!* cough cough....

Your assumptions are an insult to and a smear of the troops. This is purely partisan politics. They know torture is illegal and that they cannot follow illegal orders.

We know there are Arabs and others who don't believe the twin towers were really knocked down.

RDW is the American equivalent. So weird.

I'm still wondering why, in this age of designer drugs, nobody has come up with a functional truth serum. You'd think there'd be a military contract in it for somebody. Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 5:08 PM

[heavy sigh] Because telling the 'truth' isn't a brain function, it's a function of the brain.

I was looking at a circumstance where someone is actually deliberately concealing information.
Posted by: tbrosz on December 14, 2005 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

And how pray tell, would you know that they are deliberately concealing information?

The chimpster had to have torture defined because he wanted to use "torture". It had all ready been defined in a period of well over a hundred years. Torture is not new; it is just new to this administration and then therefore this country. Torture is constitutionally illegal and when a president utilizes it he therefore becomes a traitor to his constitution and country and should be impeached and incarcerated for life. His attempt to "redefine" it is because he lacks the guts to defy the law and constitution outright but instead like a cat burglar must attempt to steal things away in the dead of night. Meanwhile, he can't find Osama bin Ladin. He once indicated that Osam was America's main enemy-why doesn't he do something effective about catching Osama? If he put half as much interest and energy into Osama as he does bankrupting the US and destroying America then maybe by now he would have had some success.

And how pray tell, would you know that they are deliberately concealing information?

The music gets louder and there's like this really cool close-up of his eyes, and you can tell he's afraid kind of, and then there's this other close-up of your eyes.

Simple.
.

Samuel Knight: Great post at 5:14 PM.

Bears repeating, this part:

it's hard to stop once you start.

To the extent there really is sanctioned torture going on, a dubious claim, it is not being done for the fun of it. It is being done to extract information to protect the slaughter of innocents at the hands of serial killers.

Given that torture is fairly well established as a poor way to extract accurate information, its use by persons responsible for protecting others lives in conditions where the extraction of accurate information is essential to that task ought to be considered reckless endangerment of human life, at best, and possibly actual murder of the depraved indifference type when, as it will inevitably when adopted as policy, it gets people killed.

"And how pray tell, would you know that they are deliberately concealing information?"

The music gets louder and there's like this really cool close-up of his eyes, and you can tell he's afraid kind of, and then there's this other close-up of your eyes.

rofl!

Are there really such people as conservative and liberal Libertarians?

I didn't say "Libertarian", I said "libertarian".

I am no more referring to the Libertarian Party when I say libertarian than I am referring to the (e.g., New York) Liberal Party when I say liberal.

Similarly, if I say I am in favor of peace and freedom, it should not be taken as an endorsement of the Peace and Freedom Party, when I say I support reform it should not be taken as an endorsement of the Reform Party, and -- even though in this case the capitalization doesn't even vary -- when I say I support the Constitution, it should not be taken as an endorsement of the Constitution Party.

And, yes, there are libertarians of the left and of the right -- most of them in the US are not, in either case, in the Libertarian Party.

Libertarians say they agree with Dems about personal freedom and with GOP assholes about economic freedom.

But they always vote GOP. All that rhetoric about personal freedom is just bullshit rationalization.

Apparently the chimpster is torturing the wrong people with respect to finding Osama. But, of course, it follows with his usual mentality and thought process. You know, attacking the only country that had "nothing" to do with 9/11. Apparently, Bush would resolve a toothache with a colon suppository.

And how pray tell, would you know that they are deliberately concealing information?

When they assert "Executive Privilege"?

And how pray tell, would you know that they are deliberately concealing information?

Simple.

When they open their mouths, they're lying.
When they close their mouths, they're stonewalling.

Why would anyone revere that coward, Ronald Reagan? He let the murderers of over 400 US Marines get away by playing 'wag-the-dog' in the Caribbean.

What scum.

But they always vote GOP.

Many libertarians I know usually vote for the party not currently in power within the other branch, simply to keep gov't at a logjam. Seems to do less harm that way.

In order to blame Bush or Cheney for a soldier actions you have to assume either the soldier is ignorant of his responsibilities under the military code and/or they are immoral or that they and their superiors are stupid and/or immmoral. Every soldier is responsible for their actions.

Well, either Bush/Cheney are incompetent because they didn't know Saddam didn't have WMD, or they are immoral, because they knew he didn't have WMD.

Either Reagan was incompetent because he didn't know about Iran/Contra, or he was immoral, because he knew and complied with the violation of law.

Either Ken Lay was incompetent because he didn't know about his officers robbing the company blind, or he was immoral because he was helping them.

But soldiers have a lot more to worry about. Like being shot for treason if they don't follow illegal orders. Or being reassigned to a more dangerous post. Or getting turned down for a promotion.

It's been shown that some of the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib were actually carried out by contractors who identified themselves as Military Intelligence. Those people were able to legally carry out these abuses because the laws don't apply to them. And they handed bogus orders out to soldiers who acted on those orders because they believed they were legitimate.

That doesn't accuse solders of being immoral or incompetent. However - the situation was created by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, at the behest of Perle, Wolfowitz, and the other Likudnik neocon PNAC operatives. They signed the orders, they obfuscated legal definitions, they hired the contractors, they removed oversight, and they punished whistleblowers.

Fuck you very much for implying that this, in any way, disrespects the rank-and-file troops that were forced to do their jobs in this environment of ambiguity and fear.

Osama Been Doing Good Posting.

Wow, you are some grumpy people!

Well, whatever, America as a constitutional republic is finished anyhow. There are all the forces beloved by liberals ushering in its demise, from cultural fragmentation and illegal immigration to activist liberal and corporatarian judges handing down extra-constitutional decisions on social issues. But of course conservatives have been doing their part to destroy the American republic as well, helping to usher in an epoch of unaccountable global corporations with overwhelming influence on the legislative process, filling the void left by the demise of cultural cohesion with a national (and now international) police and surveillance state, and mortgaging the soul of America to Chinese bankers, Egyptian torturers, and the petty, unimaginative dream of empire. Our politics are late Athenian, or republican, beset with demagogy and cravenness. Onward ye Macedonians. Onward ye Romans. Onward ye partisan tools. We must all pitch in, and do our part; the destruction of America calls. Welcome to the next great age of equality and banality.