...by Thiessen's logic, John McCain is a dangerous "radical,"

Correction: McCain was a dangerous radical, but he has since repudiated every view he held as of 2005.

Yoo's also a lot smarter and better prepared than Thiessen ... altogether a tougher nut to crack. Yoo might be repugnant, but he's also a smart, accomplished person. Thiessen's a lifelong hanger-on to people with actual power.

Yes, John McCain said that back in 2005. But 9/11/01---excuse me, I mean 01/20/09---changed everything.

He also cited the disruption of the plot to crash airplanes into L.A.'s Library Tower as proof that the interrogation of KSM was worth it. He's been talking that up for years despite the conclusive evidence that information from KSM could not have played a role in disrupting the plot, since it was disrupted before KSM was taken into custody.

Stewart let that slide by, which is understandable given that Theissen talked a mile-a-minute, spewing misinformation at a rate of about three lies per sentence.

Timothy Noah on the Library Tower plot: http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/

zombies and ghouls want the GOP. Thank God a man like President John McCain stands forthrightly in their path...even tho, welllll, maybe tomorrow, who can tell? Maybe not so much...

"What's the difference between McCain's post-9/11 position and the one Thiessen ascribed to Jennifer Daskal? There isn't one."

Actually, if you look closely, there is: McCain is applying his position to those charged with a crime, but acquitted, whereas Daskal is applying it only to those who were not even charged. In other words, McCain (at least back then) was even more of a radical Muslim sympathizer terrorist, etc.

I think Jon's characterization of the argument being based on Thiessen's own personal idea of safety not backed up by any evidence was great - because there is no such thing as safety.

And seriously Thiessen cracked me up with his terror of lawyers who work with pedophiles. Seriously - with that kind of logic, we shouldn't have any lawyers and just lock up anyone anywhere for whatever. I say we lock up Thiessen for poor debating. He's dangerous.

This isn't a very effective criticism because much of the torture wing of the Republican party DOES think John McCain should be disqualified from shaping government policy, in part because he did disagree with the most outlandish features of the Cheney dungeon network (and because of a few impieties on other matters). Limbaugh, Levin: they hate his guts.

Hurrah for Jon Stewart, but I sure do wish this expose had been done in front of an audience that wasn't already convinced that Thiessen is a war criminal. This sort of thing needs to be done in front of "normal Americans" who think this s.o.b. is someone whose b.s. should be taken seriously. Playing to the Peanut Gallery doesn't solve our national disease of Wingerdom.

Thiessen and his ilk have never realized they are nothing but pots calling everyone else black kettles! His, and their, rhetoric betray their threshold of fear.

Thiessen would be the last person to be next to in a real foxhole in a real theater of combat as he is more akin to Sir Robin of Arthur's cast of knights - all too ready to soil his pants! -Kevo

That interview was breathtaking and by the end of it I was so worked up I didn't settle down for about an hour. Thiessen is the Washington Post's equivalent of Glenn Beck. He came across as a petulant child at the end when he complained that Stewart did not let him speak. I hope that someone with more time than I have makes the effort to time how long each of them spoke. Stewart did a fantastic job of dissembling all of Thiessen's flawed logic -- I particularly liked when Stewart called the Supreme Court 'the al Qeeda Nine' for their Hamda ruling.

I can't say for certain if Thiessen characterized her writings accurately, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

Let's not and say we did;>

Thiessen was beyond odious. So belligerent and defensive at the same time. Constantly interrupting, and yet he complained almost as constantly about not getting a chance to speak. And of course lying and obfuscating about everything in sight. What a douchebag. Another feather in the cap of Fred Hiatt's WaPo Pundit Dream Team.

The whole interview (a least the part that was televised) epitomized the GOP m.o. -- Thiessen simply wouldn't stop talking, throwing out assertions and distortions 2-3 at a time, maintaining a hum of interruption every time Jon tried to rebut what he could grab onto...and then, at the close, Thiessen whined that he wasn't able to state his piece. In Republican World, being free to express your unsupported world view without rebuttal is the only fair way. I was screaming at the screen by halfway through.

That interview was breathtaking and by the end of it I was so worked up I didn't settle down for about an hour.

@kevin, that's funny, I had the same reaction. My heart rate shot up. My wife said I was all red. I've seen a lot of right-wing dillweeds on TV and been plenty annoyed, but this was an especially intense reaction, like those people who got seizures from watching the Pokemon cartoon.

Stewart was great and I thought really exposed the 'fear mongering' mentality of Keep America Safe. I laughed at the 'mob lawyer' reference that Thiessen kept bringing up. What I REALLY wanted Stewart to hit on again and again is THE RULE OF LAW. All this 'constitution', 'rule of law' stuff that Thiessen and his ilk bring up don't stand the smell test on what they really THINK. They are buzz words that are used so people believe they know what they are talking about...instead of hitting back at them with what is REALLY the basis of American jurisprudence.

"The whole interview (a least the part that was televised) epitomized the GOP m.o. -- Thiessen simply wouldn't stop talking, throwing out assertions and distortions 2-3 at a time, maintaining a hum of interruption every time Jon tried to rebut what he could grab onto...and then, at the close, Thiessen whined that he wasn't able to state his piece. "

Absolutely correct. They're anti-intellectual cowards and deserve permanent minority status as a party.

The Thiessen reply of "Oh noes! I are being persecuted by Martian socialists!" will begin in 5.

4.

3.........

I can't say for certain if Thiessen characterized her writings accurately, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's not. (I know, try to contain your suprise.)

From the MediaMatters quoted from Daskal Human Rights Watch report in its review of Thiessen's WP column that you linked to yesterday:

Does that mean that these Yemenis should be locked up without charge -- possibly until the ends of their lives -- based on an assessment that they might pose a future risk? No. They should be released. Doing so will require an assumption of risk. It will require the United States to accept that at least some of these men may cross the border and join the battlefield to fight U.S. soldiers and our allies another day.

General Barry McCaffrey, former U.S. drug czar, following an academic mission to Guantanamo Bay, advised the Pentagon: World opinion is so united against the detention facility that "there is now no possible political support for Guantanamo going forward." It "may be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat then sit on them the next 15 years."

General McCaffrey makes a point. Those detained at Guantanamo present a greater threat to the United States than they would if they returned to the battlefield, where -- under the laws of war -- they can be shot and killed on sight.

So that pinko liberal Daskal is basically saying that we can safely release these guys because our military is so kick-ass that they can handle it.

I submit my earlier comment on Salon regarding the interview and a comment.

The War Paradigm

The foundation for all of Theissen's arguments (and by extension the arguments of all authoritarian neo-fascists) is that WE ARE AT WAR.

To them, these detainees aren't accused criminals, they are "enemy combatants" who aren't even accorded rights under the Geneva Convention. Of course, our military does have those rights, because we wear uniforms and fly under the banner of a country. It was incredible when Thiessen defended the right to do pretty much anything to detainees, and then immediately afterwards contend that the Taliban couldn't do the same to our soldiers since they were protected under the Geneva Convention. Just an amazing, sick, twisted double standard.

As long as Democrats and liberals continue to use the "war" lexicon in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan (and any other country we may happen to invade in the future), the neocons will have standing to make their arguments for torture/indefinite detention/extraordinary rendition as necessary wartime activities.

Using their rationale, we will forever be at war with something/someone/some idea. This has to end.

. . . . . . . .

Basically, Theissen says it's OK to call attorneys representing detainees "mob lawyers" because detainees are "enemy combatants" and therefore not entitled to any rights under our system of justice until the war is over (which it never will be because technically it never began in the first place). Any lawyer who represents detainees must therefore be sympathetic to their cause in trying to confer legal rights to them.

Everything they stand for is propped up by this bullshit war paradigm.

The NeoCon cabal will be with us for years to come. They are a serious threat to America and its values. I say we round them up and send them all to Gitmo for the rest of their lives. You say they haven't broken any law. So what. They are a threat. You say that is unconstitutional. So what the Constitution isn't a suicide pack. I say we start with Marc Thiessen. He has a column in the Post. Think of the mischief he can do with that column.

The problem with all of this nonsense is that once you decline to follow th rule of law for one group, no matter how loathsome, you have abandoned it for everybody.

No enemy combatants will kill any American soldiers in America. The only American soldiers killed will be ones who participate in invasions and occupations of foreign nations. If Thiessen really did not want American soldiers killed, he would insist on bringing them home.

Since everyone else has already made the points about Thiessen that I was going to make, I'd like to point out that we're discussing an interview that was conducted by a former standup comic. How American journalism has allowed itself to decompose to the point that the best journalist on the national stage is the host of a fake news show bugs the living shit out of me every time I think about it.

Dear Lifelong Dem: It makes me crazy too, but we all must admit that Jon Stewart is an amazing interviewer. Yes it is a fake news show, but it is my little piece of sanity. The man seems to have actually read the books these people wrote. Very refreshing.

I just saw a bit of the interview but when Thiessen said that we "know" these people are dangerous and will kill American soldiers if released, I wish that Stewart had said something like "How do you know? Have you seen any evidence? Has there been a trial or some process under which evidence was presented?". The answer to these questions is a resounding "No" and thus the whole rationale for keeping people prisoner is bulls**t.

If a sitting president can name anyone an enemy combatant, then Obama should just name all neo-cons (and blue-dog Democrats as well as obstructionist Republican'ts) enemy combatants and lock them up and see how they like it. Bet they would change their tune pretty quickly then.

And then there's the fact that McCarthy, the "expert" that Thiessen cited in his execrable column, believes that the way around the rights the Constitution grants to the accused is just not to accuse them of anything, and then it's okay to keep them locked up forever! Gee, we're lucky George III wasn't as clever as these neocons...

"...we know they may go out and kill American soldiers."

Well, everybody knows that Marc Thiessen might be a child molester!

Thiessen is not an expert in terrorism. He is just another McCarthyist fear-monger.

Not many are as gifted as Stewart. How he maintains his cool is beyond me. It is only through his relentless tenacity and focus, that an interview with such uncivil, dissembling, fantasist, can have merit. It could so easily descend into a speech by the guest or a shouting match.

What is really scary about this is that Thiessen, and apparently Stewart, seem to think that this idea of a "unlawful combatant" is a real legal term or status. The conservative right, which tries to think of itself as "strict constructionist" towards the constitution, has made up a legal status that does not exist in the constitution or in American law. Warfare was different at the time the constitution was written, and only commissioned soldiers or male citizens fought a known, national enemy.

This "war on terror" that Bush started and "unlawful combatants" created a whole new ILLEGAL status for human beings. TRUE, these people are dangerous. TRUE, if released they may try to act out against the US and our allies. However, "detaining" (Bushism for imprisoning and tortuting people, potentially FOREVER) people without legal process (what if the government is wrong?) was NEVER CONTEMPLATED BY THE CONSTITUTION, THE FOUNDING FATHERS, or ANY RATIONAL, PATRIOTIC AMERICAN would ever conceive of!