To Bloggin's point here is Dalia Lithwick on empathy: Excerpt:

Professor Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine Law School has a thoughtful piece in America: The National Catholic Weekly in which he suggests, reflecting on the prophet Micah, that "one can be empathetic toward all sides of a dispute." Empathy means being impartial toward all litigants without being blind to the consequences of your decisions. You can send up such concerns as gooey judicial sentimentalism, unmoored from any fixed legal principle. Or you can admit that judging requires acts of judgment beyond the mechanical application of law to facts and that it's best for judges to know when the mechanical act of deciding cases gives way to ideology and personal preference. Empathy isn't sloppy sentiment. It's not ideology. It's just a check against the smug certainty that everyone else is sloppy and sentimental while you yourself are a flawless constitutional microcomputer.

http://www.slate.com/id/2218103/pagenum/all/

Quoting graz: To Bloggin's point here is Dalia Lithwick on empathy:

Excerpt:
http://www.slate.com/id/2218103/pagenum/all/

For God’s sake, graz, please stop quoting Kmiec. I can’t stand it. If I read one more line of his gooey prose, I am going to pass out.

Glad we had this diavlog, although I wish it had been at least twice as long. Meantime, I highly recommend Mark's report. Long but highly worthwhile, especially if there is any doubt remaining in your mind about whether what was done under the aegis of the Bush Administration was torture. Looks like there is more of substance from Mark on the ICRC Report, starting at his site, not to mention what Dafna has written and made available, but I haven't recovered from reading the first article yet. Highest thanks to both Dafna and Mark for their continued work reporting on this issue.

... who here has heard about John Yoo getting another plum gig? Kudos to Will Bunch for having the guts to call out his bosses on this. And here's a follow up, too. Thanks to DougJ/Balloon Juice for a good post that reminded me of this news.

... here is Doghouse Riley tearing apart Richard Cohen's apologia on behalf of Dick Cheney.

Awwwww. Shucks. BH has sold out to the auto industry - see their ad on the site.

At the conclusion Dafna says she hopes what was discussed was enlightening. I think it is ridiculous that these two democrats are critical of the interrogations w/o mentioning the threat posed by the islamic insurgents. Could they show some guts and answer the first and obvious question that sensible people ask - how far do you go to get information from people who know of imminent deadly attacks? Those serving on the front lines, be it police, military or CIA, are witness to the horror of what results from Islamist insurgent attacks. They are also most at risk from such attacks. Bush/Cheney made the right decision to authorize the enhanced interrogations. Obviously, harsh interrogations work. How else did the socialist, one party state which governed the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after WWII maintain such effective control over the population?

Quoting JoeK: For God’s sake, graz, please stop quoting Kmiec. I can’t stand it. If I read one more line of his gooey prose, I am going to pass out.

In the spirit of empathy I will not quote (redacted) again. I want you to be fully conscious for the debate that may occur.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: At the conclusion Dafna says she hopes what was discussed was enlightening. I think it is ridiculous that these two democrats are critical of the interrogations w/o mentioning the threat posed by the islamic insurgents. Could they show some guts and answer the first and obvious question that sensible people ask - how far do you go to get information from people who know of imminent deadly attacks?

Why don't you, instead, show some brains, and read Mark's report? The torture of Abu Zubaydah, Khaled Shaik Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, and others that he passes along from the ICRC report took place over weeks and months, long after 9/11/2001. There was nothing to do with "imminent attacks." Stop being such a mindless partisan shill. Your defense of such atrocities is inexcusable. You and the rest of your "brave red state Americans" are a bunch of spineless, bedwetting gits.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: At the conclusion Dafna says she hopes what was discussed was enlightening. I think it is ridiculous that these two democrats are critical of the interrogations w/o mentioning the threat posed by the islamic insurgents. Could they show some guts and answer the first and obvious question that sensible people ask - how far do you go to get information from people who know of imminent deadly attacks?

Those serving on the front lines, be it police, military or CIA, are witness to the horror of what results from Islamist insurgent attacks. They are also most at risk from such attacks. Bush/Cheney made the right decision to authorize the enhanced interrogations.

Obviously, harsh interrogations work. How else did the socialist, one party state which governed the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after WWII maintain such effective control over the population?

Dingdingding! Today's Pauli Prize goes to... DenvilleSteve! Not. Even. Wrong. Your last line is a doozy, conflating "control" by Dystopic regimes over their populations by dreadful means with the needs of a constitutional Democracy to obtain accurate and timely intelligence in an emergency. But your premise doesn't really indicate any sort of understanding of the

Quoting bjkeefe: Why don't you, instead, show some brains, and read Mark's report?

The torture of Abu Zubaydah, Khaled Shaik Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, and others that he passes along from the ICRC report took place over weeks and months. There was nothing to do with "imminent attacks."

Do democrats support intense interrogation is allowed to prevent imminent attacks? Jack Bauer told the FBI agent in charge to look the other way as he pressed on an open wound suffered by the terrorist who knew where the poison gas cannister was. Millions of viewers across the US saw this scene. No doubt the vast majority think Jack did the right thing.

Quoting bjkeefe: Stop being such a mindless partisan shill. Your defense of such atrocities is inexcusable. You and the rest of your "brave red state Americans" are a bunch of spineless, bedwetting gits.

Just let the Americans who disagree with you all go free. Allow states to opt out of the democrat dominated federal government. According to drudge, the obama deficit is now at 45 cents on every federal dollar spent. Republican people should not have to pay for democrat overspending.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Do democrats support intense interrogation is allowed to prevent imminent attacks? Jack Bauer told the FBI agent in charge to look the other way as he pressed on an open wound suffered by the terrorist who knew where the poison gas cannister was. Millions of viewers across the US saw this scene. No doubt the vast majority think Jack did the right thing.

rofl
People aren't going to keep falling for your gimmick if you make it this obvious though

At first I was going to respond to his post, but then I had the revelation that DenvilleSteve is actually bjkeefe in disguise! He has that account to make the other side seem stupid! Shame on you for your dishonest tactics bjkeefe!

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Do democrats support intense interrogation is allowed to prevent imminent attacks?

No.

Jack Bauer ...

No point in reading any further. I think either pampl's right or you're even more disconnected from reality than I previously thought. And that is saying something.

Just let the Americans who disagree with you all go free.

Who's stopping you? Need a ride to the airport?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: At first I was going to respond to his post, but then I had the revelation that DenvilleSteve is actually bjkeefe in disguise! He has that account to make the other side seem stupid!

Shame on you for your dishonest tactics bjkeefe!

Heh. I only wish I had the imagination to post such craziness.

Quoting bjkeefe: No.

No point in reading any further. I think either pampl's right or you're even more disconnected from reality that I previously thought. And that is saying something.

Who's stopping you? Need a ride to the airport?

pampl's certainly right. It's still fun jumping up and down on the straw-men, at least until Steve gets lazy - which I think the "24" reference has established beyond much doubt.

Quoting AemJeff: Dingdingding! Today's Pauli Prize goes to... DenvilleSteve!

Not. Even. Wrong.

...

But your premise doesn't really indicate any sort of understanding of the principled arguments against torture at all, does it? The point is, Steve - who cares if it works?

ok, I take it you concede it does work. I think Bush/Cheney did the right thing. As a variation on the "if you cant do the time, dont do the crime" expression, dont get involved with murderous terrorists if you dont want to be walled.

Quoting AemJeff:
If it's immoral and we choose to do it anyway, why are we bothering to fight at all? What then distinguishes our point of view from theirs, except the purely jingoistic notion that it's ours?

I think you are overusing the "we" term. Many americans have zero respect for the democrats governing the country today. It is wrong for an opportunist like Nancy Pelosi to be running the House of Representatives. She was told about the interrogations, did nothing to stop them, lied about her level of knowledge to the voters who elected her, and now she likely supports prosecution of the Bush admin officials who implemented the president's policies.

Quoting AemJeff: One of the ironies of choosing a form

Quoting DenvilleSteve: ok, I take it you concede it does work. I think Bush/Cheney did the right thing. As a variation on the "if you cant do the time, dont do the crime" expression, dont get involved with murderous terrorists if you dont want to be walled.

I think you are overusing the "we" term. Many americans have zero respect for the democrats governing the country today. It is wrong for an opportunist like Nancy Pelosi to be running the House of Representatives. She was told about the interrogations, did nothing to stop them, lied about her level of knowledge to the voters who elected her, and now she likely supports prosecution of the Bush admin officials who implemented the president's policies.

this is ridiculous. Democrats are putting all Americans in debt to the tune of $trillions per year. Large government is bad. It has no limits.

Steve, you're being incoherent. As I've said elsewhere, the utilitarian argument is irrelevant. The data doesn't support the contention that torture is an effective means of intelligence gathering, nor does logic. It's wrong to argue that even if it did work, that would justify its use. As to the rest, I don't think that somebody whose views

Quoting pampl: rofl
People aren't going to keep falling for your gimmick if you make it this obvious though

I think it is a good example. Jon Stewart says Harry Truman was a terrorist because he authorized the dropping of the A-bomb on Japan. I think Obama has the same POV. Would be great if someone in the press asked Obama if he would authorize torture to gain knowledge of the whereabouts of his kidnapped family. That would be a definite Dukakis moment.

Quoting bjkeefe: Who's stopping you? Need a ride to the airport?

Many Americans would move to states that were allowed to opt out of the federal system. Why will democrats not allow such a peaceful resolution of the countries differences?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Many Americans would move to states that were allowed to opt out of the federal system. Why will democrats not allow such a peaceful resolution of the countries differences?

You live in a democracy. You lost the election. Accept it or leave the country.

Steve, there are a number of lox-tax, torture-loving countries around the world that would welcome you with open arms. I hear Saudi Arabia is lovely this time of year.

man its just no fun to try and have a discussion with steve gibbering like a madman in every thread. can we all just stop responding to this wingnut for a while? maybe he'll get bored and go away. better yet, maybe if nobody responds to his drivel, he'll try real hard and make a comment that has a tiny inkling of a thought expressed in it.
great DV, by the way.

Quoting Jyminee: Steve, there are a number of lox-tax, torture-loving countries around the world that would welcome you with open arms.

Sadly, I doubt Steve would move to a country where he would be penalized for liking smoked salmon.

Steve, i know torture can work but i still don't approve of it. if you're so big on torture....why don't you go watch some torture and then see how you feel about it. there are many sites that host these type of vids.

Quoting popcorn_karate: man its just no fun to try and have a discussion with steve gibbering like a madman in every thread.

can we all just stop responding to this wingnut for a while? maybe he'll get bored and go away.

Sometimes I agree with that approach. Other times it seems worthwhile to respond to the claim, independent of who is making it.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sometimes I agree with that approach. Other times it seems worthwhile to respond to the claim, independent of who is making it.

Feeding the trolls gets old though, huh? Anybody use that "hide posts from" feature? Keefe, how about you and me have a flame war? There's got to be something we disagree about. Or I could just play the role of anticlaymisher and see what happens.

Quoting claymisher: Feeding the trolls gets old though, huh?

Anybody use that "hide posts from" feature?

Keefe, how about you and me have a flame war? There's got to be something we disagree about. Or I could just play the role of anticlaymisher and see what happens.

No way. I am entirely too magnanimous for that ever to happen. ;^)

Quoting Thanks, dad!: Steve, i know torture can work but i still don't approve of it. if you're so big on torture....why don't you go watch some torture and then see how you feel about it. there are many sites that host these type of vids.

there are a lot of forms of torture that government inflicts on people. The IRS makes life miserable for people. Prison can be torture for those unable to defend themselves against violent criminals. Who amoung us would not choose waterboarding and walling over a lifetime SuperMax lockup? For all the tortures to single out, minor ones inflicted on murderers is not something many people are concerned about.

Quoting popcorn_karate: man its just no fun to try and have a discussion with steve gibbering like a madman in every thread.

can we all just stop responding to this wingnut for a while? maybe he'll get bored and go away.

better yet, maybe if nobody responds to his drivel, he'll try real hard and make a comment that has a tiny inkling of a thought expressed in it.

oh dont be such a baby. I am sure you have noticed, the country is increasingly ungovernable. The minority is very worried that the ruling democrats are making them less safe. No funding to maintain the country's nukes. An open borders immigration policy. No deployment of missile defense. Unwillingness to investigate terror threats if it means minor violations of the rights of those investigated. Multi $trillion annual budget deficits. On the horizon, restrictions on people's medical care. Democrats have to give up their desire for empire. Let the states opt out of the federal system.

You know what, that ignore list thing works pretty well!

Quoting claymisher: You know what, that ignore list thing works pretty well!

What happens to child responses of an ignored node?

Quoting AemJeff: What happens to child responses of an ignored node?

You still see that the post is there and who posted it, it just doesn't show you its content. You still see quoted text from that poster, which is fine too.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: oh dont be such a baby. I am sure you have noticed, the country is increasingly ungovernable. The minority is very worried that the ruling democrats are making them less safe. No funding to maintain the country's nukes. An open borders immigration policy. No deployment of missile defense. Unwillingness to investigate terror threats if it means minor violations of the rights of those investigated. ...

Steve, out curiosity, how much money do you spend per month on Depends and mattress liners? No need to be exact. To the closest hundred will be fine. Come on, who's my big brave red state American? Cootchy cootchy coo?

Isn't DSteve the one who was claiming the other day that the country was pioneered by members of Der Party, the repository of all that is decent, brave and true, and that the untermenchen came along after them and mucked it all up? Now in defending torture he puts forth taxation by the IRS as tantamount to torture while simultaneously railing about deficits (at least those not run by said Party) and complaining we're not spending enough on nukes and sealing the borders of Fortress America. Are you cruelly mocking childish thinking, or goading the dangerously deranged?

Quoting bjkeefe: Steve, out curiosity, how much money do you spend per month on Depends and mattress liners? No need to be exact. To the closest hundred will be fine.

Come on, who's my big brave red state American? Cootchy cootchy coo?

That's it. I can't handle contrary views. Fingers in my ears. You're on my banned list.

Quoting cragger: Isn't DSteve the one who was claiming the other day that the country was pioneered by members of Der Party, the repository of all that is decent, brave and true, and that the untermenchen came along after them and mucked it all up? Now in defending torture he puts forth taxation by the IRS as tantamount to torture while simultaneously railing about deficits (at least those not run by said Party) and complaining we're not spending enough on nukes and sealing the borders of Fortress America.

Are you cruelly mocking childish thinking, or goading the dangerously deranged?

Think those are really the only two possibilities?

I guess it's supposed to bother me that people who have committed their lives to killing Americans piss themselves in high stress situations as a result of being tortured - but it doesn't. In fact, I think it's fantastic. Would that every confirmed (keyword there) terrorist pissed himself whenever he was in a high-stress situation as a result of being tortured. The world would be a better place.

Quoting atropos: I guess it's supposed to bother me that people who have committed their lives to killing Americans piss themselves in high stress situations as a result of being tortured - but it doesn't. In fact, I think it's fantastic. Would that every confirmed (keyword there) terrorist pissed himself whenever he was in a high-stress situation as a result of being tortured. The world would be a better place.

What about the unconfirmed and the possibly innocent? What about the people pointed out by bounty hunters? How many of the men who died while in American custody were people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? If you assume that everybody in American hands is guilty of everything they've been accused of, it's rather easier to make a simple moral judgment.

Well, since this wonderful interview posted a couple of days ago, Obama has backtracked even further on disclosure of what happened. The photos that Mark referred to were censored by the President under extreme pressure from his military. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is caught in a major lie (and the usual complicity, reminiscent of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Authorization) that will allow Republicans to blather about Dem. hypocrisy for years. I'm starting to admire perp-in-chief Cheney in a perverse sort of way: "Yeah, we did it and we'd do it again in a heartbeat. Fuck y'all." At least it's true. (Of course, Cheney lied on dozens of other points, including the worst lie of the entire Bush nightmare, that we "knew" SH had WMDs).

Quoting Wonderment: Well, since this wonderful interview posted a couple of days ago, Obama has backtracked even further on disclosure of what happened. The photos that Mark referred to were censored by the President under extreme pressure from his military.

Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi is caught in a major lie (and the usual complicity, reminiscent of the Patriot Act and the Iraq War Authorization) that will allow Republicans to blather about Dem. hypocrisy for years.

I'm starting to admire perp-in-chief Cheney in a perverse sort of way: "Yeah, we did it and we'd do it again in a heartbeat. Fuck y'all." At least it's true.

(Of course, Cheney lied on dozens of other points, including the worst lie of the entire Bush nightmare, that we "knew" SH had WMDs).

Pelosi aside, to your other point: Why don't you extend the benefit of doubt?

Quoting graz: Pelosi aside, to your other point: Why don't you extend the benefit of doubt?

It's interesting to see Pelosi at war with the CIA. It seems crazy for Pelosi to take on the CIA, but the CIA did start it.

Obama could send an important message to the military, Congress and the American people by asking Pelosi to resign as Speaker of the House. The message? We're done lying about torture.

Quoting Wonderment: Obama could send an important message to the military, Congress and the American people by asking Pelosi to resign as Speaker of the House. The message? We're done lying about torture.

You have been a active member of various political organizations, and continue fighting, peacefully I imagine. You are aware of how politics actually works right?

You have been a active member of various political organizations, and continue fighting, peacefully I imagine. You are aware of how politics actually works right?

Yes, but we can't have it both ways. We cannot claim on the one hand that torture is a horrific war crime and that its practitioners must be held accountable, while simultaneously admitting we were in on it from the beginning. We cannot claim to want a full investigation but then lie about our role in the subject of the investigation.

Sorry for the redundancy, but was this good news in your estimation?:

Obama Breaks With Gates, Cancels Nuke Program.

Yes, it's good news, but not a "sea change." Congress had already declined -- twice -- to pursue the Reliable [sic] Replacement program. Also, it's of very dubious compliance with the Nonprolif. Treaty. The real biggie to watch for the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review. See a discussion here. Also, last week the Strategic Posture Review Committee resleased a report. Here's the critique I support:

(Washington, DC) In 2008 the Congress established a bipartisan commission to review the strategic posture of the United States. The commission’s findings released today lack the vision necessary to begin immediate and sharp reductions in nuclear weapons by all states that possess them.

Dr. Peter Wilk, executive director for Physicians for Social Responsibility, acknowledged the valuable work of the commission and the expertise of the participants but noted that “the findings once again show a mindset that holds the presence of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons as acceptable. These weapons represent one of the gravest threats to mankind and the planet, and their abolition should be a primary goal for the United States.”

Wilk added, “We are pleased that President Obama has embraced the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. We encourage him

This isn't the first time Obama has backed down to the military. On at least three occasions that I can recall, ranking officers in Iraq have basically said that the US leaving Iraqi cities in accordance with the SOF argeement isn't really going to happen. In the first case, the general went the route of saying "combat troops" would leave but there would be plenty of US troops in the cities doing training, liason, supply, and advising Iraqi forces and of course more US troops for force protection of the others. The strong implication being that there might be some amount of drawdown, but it was all just a rebranding for PR purposes to say the US would be out of the cities. In the second case, the general making the public statements claimed that the US would in fact also continue combat missions in Iraqi cities, that the only difference would be that US troops would be based just outside the cities rather than actually sleeping in them. The most recent was a statement that the US wouldn't be doing any sort of leaving at all in cities that seemed to be trouble

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, but we can't have it both ways. We cannot claim on the one hand that torture is a horrific war crime and that its practitioners must be held accountable, while simultaneously admitting we were in on it from the beginning.

Yet, that is exactly what transpired. Is there any doubt? So where to from here? "We are the U.S.... we do not torture." Alright -it's bullshit- but so is the we part, in that many of the "we" didn't believe in or adhere to upholding the law. "We" reassert and aspire to uphold the principle that had been agreed to previously but was clearly violated. Aside from investigations and criminal prosecutions if warranted (including Pelosi, though I don't see the crime yet), what more can or need be done?
Your wish for the head of Pelosi flies in the face of practical politics. Which isn't to say that I don't envy your idealism... I just can't sanction the cost.

Aside from investigations and criminal prosecutions if warranted (including Pelosi, though I don't see the crime yet), what more can or need be done

? Obama needs to close all torture loopholes, including renditions, including conditions at maximum security prisons. He needs to be an advocate for accountability and transparency -- not flip-flop on issues like the torture photos, and not talk about "moving forward" (and letting the perps skate).

Your wish for the head of Pelosi flies in the face of practical politics. Which isn't to say that I don't envy your idealism... I just can't sanction the cost.

I am angry at Pelosi for lying and for being complicit in the Bush era crimes. However, there's nothing she should be prosecuted for. I'm just suggesting she resign as Speaker; she can stay on as a member of Congress. I fully concede that it's absurd to beat up Pelosi without having Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the crooked lawyers in handcuffs. At the end of the day, she is just a hypocrite and a slick politician. She didn't design or implement the torture. Those who did must be prosecuted.

Good post, good points.

Quoting cragger: One might contrast this with an event way back during the Carter administration which was considering a reduction in US troops in Korea. When the head US general there went public with his objections and claimed that this wouldn't happen because he fouhnd it an unacceptable and risky step, he soon found out he was no longer in command. As weak a president as Carter was, he was clear on the concept that the President and civilian authorities set the policies and it is the military's job to carry them out to the best of their abilities, not to publicly argue for other policies or issue "signing statements" regarding their reinterpretations.

It seems reasonable to wonder at this point just how much Obama is in charge, and to wonder just what "US military out of Iraq" by the end of 2011 is going to mean.

I don't follow your reasoning. Carter had to look tough BECAUSE he was considered weak, not in spite of it. There was no realistic risk of civilians losing control of the military then, nor is there now. It was reasonable to wonder what Obama's Iraq talk

I am with you on Cheney. He's playing by "Chicago Rules", I think. It's pretty entertaining. He's also, I think, providing political cover for the next generation of Republican leaders. Everyone is focused on him, while other politicians can incubate in peace.

Obama knows jack all about the military so of course he's going to heed what they say to them, on some points. The military brass has yet to publicly go against Obama, so the Carter analogy is not wholly complete. My guess is Hillary Clinton has a strong voice on what goes on with the Pentagon since she's got to make sure the diplomatic corps is in the loop and helping out.

I'm not convinced yet of Pelosi's complicity. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/to...n-my-briefing/ I can very easily see the following scenario: (Bush) "So how do we cover our asses with this waterboarding and stuff?" (Cheney) "Simple, we have the CIA brief a couple Democrats on record." (Bush) "But they'll shut it down when they see what we're doing." (Cheney) "No. That's the best part. We won't tell them anything about the EIT's, but when the CIA writes up their record it will SAY that they were briefed on them. So if it ever comes back at us, Pelosi and the other Dems will look like they went along with the enhanced techniques. It'll be their word against the official CIA record." (Bush) "Sounds good. Make it happen." Considering the previous administration's tendency to hide, lie, not-fully disclose etc., in the most Machiavellian fashion, I don't see any reason to write off this entire episode as an extreme case of CYA.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I'm not convinced yet of Pelosi's complicity.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/to...n-my-briefing/

I can very easily see the following scenario:

(Bush) "So how do we cover our asses with this waterboarding and stuff?"

(Cheney) "Simple, we have the CIA brief a couple Democrats on record."

(Bush) "But they'll shut it down when they see what we're doing."

(Cheney) "No. That's the best part. We won't tell them anything about the EIT's, but when the CIA writes up their record it will SAY that they were briefed on them. So if it ever comes back at us, Pelosi and the other Dems will look like they went along with the enhanced techniques. It'll be their word against the official CIA record."

(Bush) "Sounds good. Make it happen."

Considering the previous administration's tendency to hide, lie, not-fully disclose etc., in the most Machiavellian fashion, I don't see any reason to write off this entire episode as an extreme case of CYA.

What was it that Matt Yglesias said about the CIA? That's they're professional liars, so we shouldn't be surprised if they lie about what they say they briefed Pelosi on? If you're trying to fuck with Democrats, telling them that Pelosi was complicit in the torture regime is pretty good way

There is a considerable range between a situation in which the civilian authorities declare policies and the military, which includes channels through which opinions may be internally passed to those authorities, keeps its public mouth shut and executes those policies regardless of whether they might prefer some other option, and the launching of a coup. The world is not that binary and arguing such false extremes is silly. In this case, elements in the military (again, assuming the Obama administration has intended to follow the SOFA) appear to be testing the limits of how far they can push and set their own agenda. In the absence of observed response, just how far they can and will push, and where, is a reasonable question.

TPM:

Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) was just interviewed on MSNBC and he talked about the new reports that Vice President Cheney tried to get the Iraq WMD investigators -- after the invasion -- to waterboard an Iraqi intelligence official to try to pump him for information about Saddam's alleged alliance with al Qaida. Whitehouse noted that this would dramatically change the legal terms of the question since even the notorious OLC memos allow practices like waterboarding to avoid imminent threats to the US. But waterboarding this Iraqi guy about Saddam's relationship with al Qaida -- after the invasion -- would have been to get political information, proof of the purported but then largely discredited rationale for the war. (Also worth noting is that an Iraqi intelligence official captured during the invasion would, I think, very clearly be an old fashioned POW.)

More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...5/bubbling.php Ordering the torture of POWs is pretty serious. I think

Quoting claymisher: What was it that Matt Yglesias said about the CIA? That's they're professional liars, so we shouldn't be surprised if they lie about what they say they briefed Pelosi on?

If you're trying to fuck with Democrats, telling them that Pelosi was complicit in the torture regime is pretty good way to do it. For proof look at Wonderment's reaction. AFAIK the only damaging claim against Pelosi is coming from the CIA.

BTW, I agree with Wonderment: if Pelosi went along with torture, she should resign.

Quoting claymisher: BTW, I agree with Wonderment: if Pelosi went along with torture, she should resign.

I disagree. If her degree of hypocrisy crosses the unacceptability threshold for politicians, they'd all have to resign. She's not responsible for creating the policy. She's guilty of being too much of a coward to take a stand on an issue on which she was bound to be on the losing side. It would be nice if politicians generally had the courage to publicly stand on principles, but that's just not the case. Instead of aiming our darts at the people who seem to be on the right side, and who certainly weren't the architects of this noxious policy - we ought to be concentrating on those who actively supported it. This whole issue swirling around Pelosi (for whom I have little love) is a distraction and allowing it to become important would be a strategic mistake.

I'm not convinced yet of Pelosi's complicity.

Here's what the NYT reported today:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged that she had learned in 2003 that the C.I.A. had subjected suspects to waterboarding...

That's complicit enough for me.

Quoting cragger: There is a considerable range between a situation in which the civilian authorities declare policies and the military, which includes channels through which opinions may be internally passed to those authorities, keeps its public mouth shut and executes those policies regardless of whether they might prefer some other option, and the launching of a coup. The world is not that binary and arguing such false extremes is silly. In this case, elements in the military (again, assuming the Obama administration has intended to follow the SOFA) appear to be testing the limits of how far they can push and set their own agenda. In the absence of observed response, just how far they can and will push, and where, is a reasonable question.

But wondering "just how in charge" the civilian authority is is wondering about one of those "false" extremes. Talking about "set[ting] their own agenda" is pretty close to one of those extremes. They're both very silly and unlikely. Leaking rumors or misinformation has nothing to do with disobeying orders from above.

I agree that the Pelosi story is a distraction. But the truth had to come out. The Repubs. have been muttering for weeks that Dems knew about water torture and the other tortures known as "enhanced interrogation." Ok, now they've made their point. A couple of high-level Dems. were briefed and behaved contemptibly. Now let's get back to the perpetrators of the criminal acts.

I think if we want to be serious about holding people accountable then we need to go whole hog. That means a truth commission and that means potential legal action all the way up to the former President. But having Pelosi be the first (and only) elected official to take the fall seems a bit retarded to me.

Quoting pampl: ... silly and unlikely.

This is a classic case of a new boss being tested to see what they can get away with, and how far they can go. They haven't yet been ordered "get those troops out tomorrow" and blankly refused. These statements are an attempt to preempt such orders and retain the freedom of action to do as they please despite the SOFA. Obama just reversed himself on the release of photos discussed upthread under military pressure. They previously got him to give up his 16-month withdrawl timetable in exchange for what is it now, 22 months? Do you think he will hold to that and have all troops out by the end of next year? My operating assumption is that he will give in to pressure to extend it again.
So far as the idea that high officers might attempt to set their own agendas, even to the more extreme case of directly disobeying orders being silly and unlikely, you might want to refresh yourself on just how Doug McArthur got himself canned.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I think if we want to be serious about holding people accountable then we need to go whole hog. That means a truth commission and that means potential legal action all the way up to the former President. But having Pelosi be the first (and only) elected official to take the fall seems a bit retarded to me.

Truth commissions usually mean pardons for everyone who comes clean. I want to give the plain old law a try first.

Quoting cragger: So far as the idea that high officers might attempt to set their own agendas, even to the more extreme case of directly disobeying orders being silly and unlikely, you might want to refresh yourself on just how Doug McArthur got himself canned.

I'm aware of how he got canned, which is why I know that what you're thinking about is silly and unlikely. You should probably refresh yourself on those circumstances because you are clearly confused and think they're similar to today's.

Good point. I would favor an investigation with little/no guarantee of pardoning. My point was that I don't see the (political) benefit of Pelosi jumping on the former administration's grenade. Is there any doubt that they would even consider doing the same for us. I do find it interesting how a week or two ago, we the people who were talking about the seriousness of finding out what happened with regards to torture, were being cast as sore-winners and wanting to play politics rather than simply move on. (There are plenty of examples in this forum alone.) And yet now the people who violently disagreed with ANY kind of investigation, have suddenly rediscovered the importance of getting to the bottom of Pelosi's involvement.

He got canned for exactly the reasons I stated, which I explicitly offered as a specific example since you seem to doubt the possibility that high ranking officers might try to control agendas rather than simply acting as the operational arm of an administration in authority. I never said that his actions were identical to those which I discussed earlier in the thread, nor said that the circumstances were identical. But then I never said Obama was acting out of fear of a coup either as you also charged. You seem to be either operating in a different reality or simply interested in trying to score snark points in an argument populated by your straw men. Since neither interests me you can take it from here.

I obviously never doubted that, I said it was silly and unlikely. The fact that your counter example has nothing to do with the current circumstances makes it irrelevant to this point. You can't cry about snark and strawmen while refusing to understand even the most remedial points being made.

Quoting Wonderment: Here's what the NYT reported today:

That's complicit enough for me.

I think Will Bunch said well what I think:

And so the big story today is...Nancy Pelosi? Look, I'm not at all a Pelosi fan, and I do think it's unconscionable that she didn't use her powers to do more to stop Bush-era tortures, and that the day will come for dealing with that, but I also think it's about the 41st paragraph of the story. The lede (to use some journalism-ese) is that the vice president of the United States sought torture to extract false confessions to help start a war in which more than 4,000 Americans and at least 100,000 Iraqis (and probably a lot more) died. Karl Rove claims that Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to this -- I don't think that's exactly right but if she had been an accomplice she would have been an accomplice to what increasingly looks like a war crime. Good to know Karl's on board.

In short, Wonderment, I think you and some others on the left are playing right into Cheney and Rove's hands.

Quoting bjkeefe: In short, Wonderment, I think you and some others on the left are playing right into Cheney and Rove's hands.

I am reminded by TBogg that another thing I find puzzling is your implicit instinctive belief in the CIA's version of events. (Because they've never lied or falsified a document, right?)

Unless the CIA has video and recordings of Nancy Pelosi saying "Maybe you should waterboard the moltherfuckers", how you view this matter rests solely on how you have previously viewed the CIA or Nancy Pelosi and the endless harping on what she knew and when she knew it is exactly the distraction that previous party in power wants.

By Monday, people will believe that Pelosi herself was doing the waterboarding and only then will Republicans admit that it is torture.

Quoting bjkeefe: I am reminded by TBogg that another thing I find puzzling is your implicit instinctive belief in the CIA's version of events. (Because they've never lied or falsified a document, right?)

See what I'm saying (via)?

Senator Bob Graham: The CIA Made Up Two Briefing Sessions

Bob Graham just appeared on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show. In addition to repeating earlier reports that he was never briefed on waterboarding, Graham revealed that the first time he asked the CIA when he was briefed on torture, it claimed it had briefed him on two dates when no briefing took place.

I didn't get Graham's exact quotes (and the quotes below are rough approximations), but when asked to respond to Philip Zelikow's assertion that members of Congress from both parties had been briefed on this program, Graham said that when he asked the CIA when he had been briefed on the program, the CIA gave him the dates of four briefings, two in April 2002 and two in September 2002, when they claimed they had briefed him about the program. But after Graham consulted his own records, he pointed out that on two of those dates, he had not

Yeah but maybe Graham just forgot (for the first time ever): http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/...graham.vp.html

The plain law won't work which is why President Obama does not want to prosecute anyone. A truth commission wouldn't be about punishment either, I think. More justice through public shaming.

I see this Google ad next to Reihan's camera:
"I Love my Breast Pump" In a serious vein, though, I really liked what Reihan had to say about torture and, in general, how he handled Eli's bullshit.

From the story you quoted:

Look, I'm not at all a Pelosi fan, and I do think it's unconscionable that she didn't use her powers to do more to stop Bush-era tortures, and that the day will come for dealing with that, but I also think it's about the 41st paragraph of the story.

The presumption here is that someone on the left wants to concentrate on Pelosi at the expense of the perps. That is ridiculous. Pelosi can be 41st or 4001st, but she still deserves criticism for changing her story on torture.

In short, Wonderment, I think you and some others on the left are playing right into Cheney and Rove's hands.

I really doubt that. It's better for Dems. and the nation to come clean about who knew what when.

I am reminded by TBogg that another thing I find puzzling is your implicit instinctive belief in the CIA's version of events. (Because they've never lied or falsified a document, right?)

I don't believe a word of the CIA version. We KNOW they committed torture and destroyed part of the evidence. I'm only going on Pelosi's own words. Pelosi is a miniscule footnote to this story. When it's not

Quoting Wonderment: From the story you quoted:

The presumption here is that someone on the left wants to concentrate on Pelosi at the expense of the perps. That is ridiculous. Pelosi can be 41st or 4001st, but she still deserves criticism for changing her story on torture.

I really doubt that. It's better for Dems. and the nation to come clean about who knew what when.

I don't believe a word of the CIA version. We KNOW they committed torture and destroyed part of the evidence. I'm only going on Pelosi's own words.

Pelosi is a miniscule footnote to this story. When it's not May of 2009 any more that will be clear to all.

Okay, well, it sounds like you're in a different mood than you were yesterday (when you were calling for her to resign).

Okay, well, it sounds like you're in a different mood than you were yesterday (when you were calling for her to resign).

No, I would still like her to resign. As I said above, she should keep her seat in Congress and just give the Speakership to someone whose word we can trust on what they knew when about torture. Cindy Sheehan ran against her in her district in November, getting only 16% of the vote, so -- not to worry -- Nancy is safely fossilized.

Quoting Wonderment: No, I would still like her to resign.

Based on hearsay? You give everyone who's not on your side more presumption of innocence than you give her.

Based on hearsay? You give everyone who's not on your side more presumption of innocence than you give her.

It's not hearsay. It a contradiction in the statements she has made publicly: I didn't know about any torture vs. Oh yeah, I did but I couldn't say 'cause it was secret, plus I wanted Dems. to take Congress, plus I wasn't really there, just an aide was, plus they said they hadn't used the water torture yet, so why would I mention it or follow up or be concerned? I mean it wasn't like people were disappearing into the black sites and the black hole of Guantanamo, were they?

Quoting Wonderment: It's not hearsay. It a contradiction in the statements she has made publicly: I didn't know about any torture vs. Oh yeah, I did but I couldn't say 'cause it was secret, plus I wanted Dems. to take Congress, plus I wasn't really there, just an aide was, plus they said they hadn't used the water torture yet, so why would I mention it or follow up or be concerned? I mean it wasn't like people were disappearing into the black sites and the black hole of Guantanamo, were they?

I don't buy your requirement that she step down as Speaker for that, even assuming that's all true. Plus, I think it would hand a huge victory to the GOP.* When we start seeing a few people from the Bush Administration suffering real consequences, then maybe I'll consider the culpability of the Congressional Dems. Sorry, I think you're all wrong on this one. You're letting your ideals blind you to political realities. You want your side to be perfect and you're ignoring what the opposition is like. [Added] I repeat: You are playing right into the hands of Cheney, Rove, et al by helping them make this about Pelosi. Last word's all yours. ===================
* [Added 2] Sorry -- one afterthought, for clarification. What I mean by handing

Graham: Attempt Under Way to Shift Discussion From What's Important

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2529356 Looks like it's working.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... and the conventional wisdom will become "the Democrats are just as responsible for all this torture as the Bush Administration."

DougJ of Balloon Juice has a useful post on this idea. [Added] If you follow his link to Halperin, you'll be happy to see you're on the same page as wingnut Rep. Steve King and Rush Limbaugh.

Looks like it's working.

Naw. This is a two-day story. It should blow over by Monday. It's like the Iraq War. Unfortunately, it's true that some leading Dems. supported Bush's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq and the subsequent slaughter, (which led to the expansion of the torture program.) So we take note of Hillary Clinton and others who signed on to the war, and we can subsequently factor that in to our support for them. For example, I didn't support Hillary's candidacy for president based on her Iraq War vote. But no one is going to say Hillary bears anything remotely approaching the responsibility for Iraq that BushCo does. Likewise, we can take note of which leading Dems. were aware of torture and said nothing, while keeping the blame for that torture firmly on the perps.

... and the conventional wisdom will become "the Democrats are just as responsible for all this torture as the Bush Administration."

Only if Obama, Holden and Leahy fail to do their job. Of the three, I'm most confident in Sen. Leahy. He is NOT going to let this slide, and he's not going to get distracted by the sideshows.

Amnesty International statement on Obama's broken promise:

President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency.

Whatever revisions the Obama administration has made to the commissions do not change the fact that the commissions do not provide an adequate standard of justice for the detainees nor the victims of terrorism -- they merely mock the U.S. Constitution, international laws and undermine fundamental human rights standards.

What happened to President Obama's confidence in the U.S. justice system's ability to try detainees? He himself said that 'we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism.'

I think this is a bit over the top from Amnesty (it shows a great ignorance of the world and the law). Our military aren't the police and they operate on a battlefield which makes it Nye impossible for them to act as police officers and take detailed evidence of why they're detaining some Taliban or Al Qaeda guy. They simply cannot and should not be held to the standard that a District Attorney is in Federal Court. The military simply doesn't have the time to hold seriously judicious hearings when it comes down to every detainee or prisoner of war. They never ever been held to such a standard before and nor should they now. It's just cannot happen. Amnesty, I know, would like it to be harder for the United States to wage wars, but wars will happen and they will follow the rules of war. There is absolutely nothing unjust about military commissions. They are standard procedure in fact. Two thumbs up to President Obama. He's been spot on so far, I think.

Quoting Wonderment: Cindy Sheehan ran against her in her district in November, getting only 16% of the vote, so -- not to worry -- Nancy is safely fossilized.

That's one way to put it. Here's another.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's one way to put it. Here's another.

Also worth reading -- not on Pelosi, but on the bigger picture.

Cesca:

For instance, killing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) might not happen tomorrow,....

Why not? It should have been killed on Day One. In the meantime, the Commander in Chief appears to be coddling bigots under his command. More Cesca:

As the president said recently, the ship of state is not unlike a battleship and it takes a long time to turn a corner.

That's sort of how I look at the Ship of Blind Support for Obama. More Cesca:

One way or another, I'll be accused of being all worshippy...

It's understandable after a hard-fought campaign and given the charisma, intellect and eloquence of Obama, as well as the immense joy of electing an African American president. Obama also benefits from how off-the-charts horrific Bush was. But giving him a pass and the benefit of every doubt is not "worshippy," it's dumb politics and an abdication of civic responsibility.

Quoting Wonderment: But giving him a pass and the benefit of every doubt is not "worshippy," it's dumb politics and an abdication of civic responsibility.

I don't believe that's what Cesca is advising, and it certainly isn't what I advise. I notice, however, that you appear to have ignored all of his arguments about tradeoffs. In this light, I would say that your attitude towards Obama, while useful in some ways, is sometimes unrealistic (e.g., saying that DADT "should have been killed on Day One") and is at times more harmful than helpful. Doing the right thing costs political capital, especially when you have to deal with a hidebound military bureaucracy, not to mention an insane opposition party and a Villager media that cannot stop giving exaggerated attention to the oppositions gripes while also constantly advising "don't try to do too much at once."

To lighten things up a bit: http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2528415

Actualy making a point, remedial or otherwise, is a prerequisite to getting someone to understand it. Perhaps an example will help. You might have replied to my previous post with: Attacking strawmen and repeating the mantra "silly and unlikely" isn't really especially snarky. Its merely inane. You then would have had a point.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's one way to put it. Here's another.

And nobody's favorite on the same issue:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh051609.shtml Sorry that you have to suffer the compulsory Gore and Clinton mention also. But lets be clear on how the media is framing the Pelosi angle.

Quoting graz: And nobody's favorite on the same issue:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh051609.shtml

Sorry that you have to suffer the compulsory Gore and Clinton mention also. But lets be clear on how the media is framing the Pelosi angle.

Good ol' liberal media, once again.

Quoting Lyle: Two thumbs up to President Obama. He's been spot on so far, I think.

all the evidence we need that he is a serious disappointment.

Haha... He's a moderate like me and I'd govern just about how he's governing so far, if I was President. Thank you for the compliment Popcorn.

Quoting cragger: Actualy making a point, remedial or otherwise, is a prerequisite to getting someone to understand it. Perhaps an example will help. You might have replied to my previous post with:

Attacking strawmen and repeating the mantra "silly and unlikely" isn't really especially snarky. Its merely inane.

You then would have had a point.

I specifically spelled out the point. If you can't understand plain English that's your personal problem, and you shouldn't waste other people's time with it. I think it's pretty funny that you had to come crying back here to get in those scintillating insights after you said were done, though.

I stand corrected yet again on the snark question.

How else did the socialist, one party state which governed the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after WWII maintain such effective control over the population?

Are you crazy?
First off, the Red Army. That helped a lot. Second off, the vast network of spies and informers. I can go on, if you want, about how the Communists seized control in Eastern Europe after WWII, and none of it has anything to do with "enhanced interrogation techniques". In fact, most of the people the Communists tortured were other Communists, and they didn't torture them to gain information, rather to make them confess to "crimes against the people", "Trotskyite deviationism", and going places they'd never gone and meeting people they'd never met.