Torture is The New Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan opines on last night's debate amongst the Republican Presidential candidates:

The final clarifier for me was, yes, torture...

Some issues really are paramount moral ones. Two candidates opposed it clearly and honorably: McCain and Paul. All the others gleefully supported it - including Brownback. He's a born-again Christian for torture. Giuliani revealed himself as someone we already know. He would have no qualms in exercising executive power brutally, no scruples or restraints. Romney would double the size and scope of Gitmo, to ensure that none of the detainees have lawyers, regardless of their innocence or guilt. That is in itself a disqualification for the presidency of the United States. A man who has open contempt for the most basic rules of Western justice has no business being president.

...For me, the moral question of torture in many ways settles this race. Just hearing Brit Hume curl his lips around the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a brief moment of insight. I was glad that McCain called these hideous methods by their proper name, and that Paul described Hume's weasel words as "newspeak." I was surprised to see Romney so aggressively embrace torture and Gitmo. On reflection, however, I was being naive again. Romney aims to please. He knew where he was - South Carolina. You can largely determine his beliefs in advance by judging the audience he is attempting to win over. For me, then, the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain and Paul. That was quick.

Whatever.  I continue to believe that some "enhanced interrogation techniques" can be distinguished from "torture"; I also strongly suspect that the threat of torture may motivate prisoners to be a bit more forthcoming, so I wonder whether about the trade-off of good PR versus more resolute prisoners that John McCain is promoting here:

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he would not resort to torture because the United States would lose more in world opinion than it would gain in information.

“When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went — underwent torture ourselves — is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them,” Mr. McCain said. “It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are.”

FWIW, the Times transcript is here, so let's puzzle over this from Mr. Sullivan:

Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul's position on 9/11. Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11. I rewound to double-check. It was the Fox questioner who ratcheted up the stakes on that question, not Paul. Paul demurred on a specific answer and switched the question to the general issue of blowback.

I suggest Mr. Sullivan hit rewind a third time - I am reading this, following Ron Paul's paean to the Republican history of isolationism:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Well - the specific use of the word "invited" came from the moderator, but Ron Paul twice went to the moral equivalence argument with his ruminations about what the US might do if China were putting bases in the Gulf of Mexico.  And what a great question!  Does anyone else remember Jack Kennedy blowing up some buildings in Moscow as a response to the Cuban missile crisis?   Maybe Ron Paul could expound on that.

MORE:  I risk losing my bloggers card if I fail to note that Jack Bauer of "24" tortures people routinely, and almost always gets prompt, reliable, life-saving intel.  Surely this tells me something about the attitudes and values of the American people, or at least some of us?

And since torture works, sometimes, this is a real issue - I would love to see the Dem candidates tackle this at one of their debates (as if!).  Would they ever contemplate torturing a terrorist, presumably after first reading him his rights and apologizing for the many indignities the United States has heaped upon his country and the world?  Imagine my suspense.

Comments

[PeterUK.]

North Korea tests missile in Iran. Quick,send a crack team of apologists to preempt any offence.

[Wagster]

Other Tom writes:

"Any military theorist will tell you that hearts and minds are key." Bullshit.

Don't argue with me, take it up with Petraeus's counter-insurgency manual. Quote: "Protracted popular war is best countered by winning the “hearts and minds” of the populace and separating the leaders, cadre, and combatants from the mass base through information operations, civil-military operations, economic programs, social programs, and political action."

What an appeaser that guy is.

And by the way, the re-invasion of Sudan had nothing to do with counter-insurgency.

[gmax]

It seems to me that a consensus of world leaders disagrees with that idea.

Once upon a time we were regaled with a "global test". Now that Germany and France seem to agree with the administration, we dont need no stinkin' global test, apparently.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Yes of course. Bad/sad...Have not stopped thinking about her. And praying.

[boris]

"Any military theorist will tell you that hearts and minds are key."

Bullshit it is.

One general is not "Any (every) military theorist will tell you".

[Enlightened]

Uh, hmmm. I get it - snippets here, snippets there, and we have General Petraeus's full strategic plan nailed down to a single paragraph.

Uh, sadly - no.

[Specter]

What Waggintail doesn't get is that for the last 30 years we have been negotiating with Palestine to solve the crisis. There have been quite a few "deals" worked out. Of course, the Palestinians have reneged on EVERY SINGLE DEAL. But that doesn't matter - right waggin? I mean, given another 30 or 40 years I am sure we can work out at least one deal that will stick. Get a grip.

[PeterUK.]

"Protracted popular war is best countered by winning the “hearts and minds” of the populace and SEPARATING the leaders, cadre, and combatants from the mass base through information operations, civil-military operations, economic programs, social programs, and political action."

Operative word "separating"
But just a minute,isn't al Qaeda trying to disrupt all those things through terrorism?

[JM Hanes]

Wagster:

I must have missed the part where Petraeus recommends conducting counter-insurgency hearts and minds operations from positions on the Iraqi perimeter.

[PeterUK.]

"Protracted popular war is best countered by winning the “hearts and minds” of the populace and SEPARATING the leaders, cadre, and combatants from the mass base through information operations, civil-military operations, economic programs, social programs, and political action."

Operative word "separating"
But just a minute,isn't al Qaeda trying to disrupt all those things through terrorism?

[Enlightened]

"But just a minute,isn't al Qaeda trying to disrupt all those things through terrorism?"

There you go dehumanizing terrorists again.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Well, I'm not surprised that "Wagster" is a Pro-Jihadi/Anti-American Leftist; they do after all, suffer from Category Error, Stockholm Syndrome, Psychosis, Cognitive Dissonance, etc. and his comments betray that all too sadly!

As to his comments that "our" Muslims don't attack us; just take a look at the most recent list of Sudden Jihad Syndrome attacks, that have occurred in the US over the past couple of years, that the MSM refused to identify as such!

This list by the way, doesn't include the DOZENS of Jihadi cells and individuals who have been coopted by the FBI/Law Enforcement, such as the Buffalo Six, the Miami Cell, and the Fort Dix Pizza Delivery Ring!

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=256521423294106

Yeah, "our Muslims" are all good guys, and would never attack us, correct?

But you see, to Leftists like Wagster, these are "acceptable" levels of American casualties, because after all, America is the source of ALL EVIL in the world, and we "invited" the 9/11 Attacks; just as Ron Paul!

Wagster, in addition, don't lecture me on Counter-Insurgency, and winning Hearts and Minds; I've FORGOTTEN more about Counter-Insurgency than you'll ever know, reading your books!

I was a Marine Corps Infantry and Intelligence Officer, I spent time in Iraq; and I've been analyzing and writing about Jihadis for almost 30 years!

Again, YOU don't have a clue, I do!

Classic Counter-Insurgencies, such as you wish I would read Petraeus about, do NOT include the Jihadis, and it is definitely NOT applicable to most Muslims!

They are motivated by one thing: the total and complete BRAINWASHING, that Islam provides it's adherents!

Classic Counter-Insurgency may work against Communist/Leftist movements, or other political based "insurgencies" in the classical sense; but that is because all Leftists have no Convictions, only self-interests, and those are easily assuaged!

We are dealing with a 1000year+ Theology, called "Salafiyysim"; which IF you don't know about, shows how clueless you truly are!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafiyyah

I suggest you Research, Research, Research, Learn, Listen, and Understand; then, when you grow-up, and DO have a clue, come back and try giving your opinion!

Addtionally, you try to marginalize Al Qaeda, and it's appeal, by saying it's a fringe movement, with little support among mainstream Muslims!

BULLSHIT!

A recent poll found that 29% of Muslims worldwide not only sympathized with Al Qaeda, but actually believed that terror attacks on innocent civilians WAS JUSTIFIED by ISLAM!

With over a BILLION Muslims worldwide, that's almost 300 MILLION sympathizers to that point of view!

And you call that marginal???

What planet to you you hail from? Sedna?

You say that the Taliban was NOT a "failed state"??

Are you high?

A group of Madrassa educated murderers and buffoons, who took a country that was barely in the 18th Century, and knocked it promptly back to the 7th Century!

You've got to be kidding me? Right?

PeterUK: you are SO correct about the gathering of Terrorists in Baghdad in 1993.

Here's the lastest on that:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/more_evidence_of_saddamal_qaed.html

As for your comments that Iraq was NOT a "secular" state; thank you; I crush Leftists on other Blogs on this point, all the time!

Ask them what those two green words in Arabic, on the Iraqi flag mean, and who put them there?

Ask them who issued the poster during the Gulf War entitled the "99 Names of Saddam", and the import of that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_99_names_of_Allah

Read Saddam's biography (not the one in Wiki, that's been edited to make seem that Saddam was "secular")!

He never knew his father, he was raised by his Uncle/Mentor/Father-in-law, a gentleman named Kharaiallah Tullah!

Who was Tullah? Devout Sunni Islamist, member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi admirer!

Tullah, Saddam's uncle (Saddam later married his daughter!); was friends and collegues with whom?

Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jeruselum; member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the individual who joined Himmler of the Nazis, in formulating the "Final Solution" of the Jews in Europe, during WWII!

(I can't make this up, it's all FACT!)

Guess who Amin al-Husseini's great-nephew and protoge was, by the way.....wait for it......YASSER ARAFAT!

Guess who both spent time in Cairo, in exil, at various times, and who BOTH joined the Muslim Brotherhood while there, just like their Great Uncle and Uncle??

That's right, Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein!

Both spent time in Cairo, both were members of the Muslim Brotherhood there!

Ever wonder why Yasser Arafat flew to Baghdad prior to the Gulf War, and kissed Saddam on the shoulder in his show of support?

That's how far their relationship goes back; to Saddam's uncle, and Arafat's Great Uncle!

Muslim Brotherhood, Uncle devout Sunni Muslim member of Muslim Brotherhood; Uncle's friend Mufti/Religious leader in Muslim Brotherhood; Uncle's friend's Great Newphew member of Muslim Brotherhood....it goes on and on!

Yes, Saddam PRETENDED to rule as a "secularist"; because he powerbase was 20% of the Iraqi population, the Sunni Muslims; it helps, even for muderous thugs like Saddam, NOT to be in open warfare with 80% of his own population on a daily basis!

But "secularist", he was NOT!

[Wagster]

Boris:

One general is not "Any (every) military theorist will tell you".

I cannot prove a universal condition. Maybe there is a military theorist somewhere that doesn't think the political is the key to fighting an insurgency. Can you cite one?

What is not arguable is that the consensus view in the U.S. military is with Petraeus. My contention is that the proper paradigm to see the fight against Islamic radicalism is not as conventional war, and not as crime-fighting either... it's as a global counter-insurgency.

[Enlightened]

Dale - you should know better than to Dehumanize Yassar Arafat to Wagster.

[Enlightened]

" it's as a global counter-insurgency"

Uh, you mean a Global War on Terror?

Oh wait - the Dems said we can't say that anymore.

[MikeS]

it's as a global counter-insurgency

No matter what we call it, the right strategy is to win. The wrong strategy is to give up!

[Specter]

Hussein was not a secularist - he was a cold blooded, murdering dictator that used torture as an everyday tool, and had not compunction against using WMD on his own citizens. I am so glad that you adore him waggin.

[Enlightened]

Don't you just love how the left has labeled terrorists as mere "insurgents".

So since the "insurgents" in Iraq are revolting against civil authority or an established government.

So Wagster thinks we need to fight these mere "insurgents" globally.

How does Civil Rebellion translate to Global Insurgency?

[PeterUK.]

"Dale - you should know better than to Dehumanize Yassar Arafat to Wagster."

It's OK, Yasser has had his carbon recycled.

[Wagster]

Thank you all! Just too much bullshit for me to address, I'm afraid. But you've corroborated the belief that I came to this discussion with... that conservatives are temperamentally unsuited to fight the war on Islamic radicalism sensibly. Even Rumsfeld once asked himself in a memo: are we creating more terrorists than we're killing? But to know that such thoughts do not cloud your little heads... well, it just reminds me why you must never return to power again. Luckily, I think America is safe. The actions of your administration have been such an obvious disaster to our national interests that I don't think Americans will trust you again for many decades.

Cheers!

[JM Hanes]

PUK:
I laughed so loud at your crack team of apologists, I had to apologize for startling my son!

h&r:
I see you've decided to share the wealth over at American Thinker -- good on you! Never underestimate the power of ridicule.

[Enlightened]

Hah - Cutting and Running in action.

You've got roughly 500 days left Maroon. Till the next Dem Drought. And we thought BDS was bad.

[Enlightened]

"I don't think Americans will trust you again for many decades."

And you think Americans trust Madame Speaker? Harry Nutsack? Bucky Schumer? Rockeseller? Barry Obama? Mrs. Billary Clinton?

I.need.to.RETREAT.

Have a good night all -

[PeterUK.]

"Just too much bullshit for me to address"

What no Hearts and Minds for the Right,or just you have no answers?

[MikeS]

IF we (are) creating more terrorists than we're killing

That wouldn't mean we should stop killing them.

Dems don't understand that and that is why Dems are generally unsuited to fight this or any other war.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Thank you all! Just too much bullshit for me to address, I'm afraid. But you've corroborated the belief that I came to this discussion with... that conservatives are temperamentally unsuited to fight the war on Islamic radicalism sensibly.

Ah, Wagster, you've got that wrong, as I pointed out FIRST, and why YOU LEFTISTS, who suffer from Refexive Surrender Syndrome, MUST NEVER be allowed to be in charge of anything, EVER AGAIN!

"Cheers"!

That's the best part, you aren't even American, you just exposed yourself as a Brit, and a Leftist one at that; that's the worst kind; read Hitchen's latest on how Britain has surrendered to the Jihadis!

Look up and read a book by Edgar Rice Burroughs called "The Lost Continent"; read it, and quake, that's the way the UK and Europe is going to end up in a few more decades!

[Jeff Dobbs]

JMH:
Never underestimate the power of ridicule.

Amen to that.

And just as much, the power of laughter.

And although I don't necessarily do so here or submit pieces to AT to do so, I laugh as much as I can at repubs too. I think the Dems have a comfortable lead on items with which to be ridiculed, but they by no means have a monopoly. (and I'm not even counting Ron Paul as a repub for sake of this topic)

By the way, you got lat/lon coordinates on your location? Or a general idea? what are you still in the outback or what?

[Jane]

You know the left and it's pals in the media has done more to poison the world's hearts and minds about this country and our leaders in the last 7 years than anything I can think of.

The only good thing about the latest troll is that he brought back some people I've missed.

Good to see you JM Hanes, Dale, Boris and anyone else I missed.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Jane, you sayin' someone should parody a troll from time to time to fire people up and get them out of the shadows?

[Sara]

Even Rumsfeld once asked himself in a memo: are we creating more terrorists than we're killing? But to know that such thoughts do not cloud your little heads... well, it just reminds me why you must never return to power again.

This remark taken out of context and used as an argument for walking away from a Mission is stupid and spurious.

The choice in such a scenario is fight and defend ourselves or give up and let the bad guys have their way. In other words, to be wimps and pantywaists and defeatists, we guarantee that the side we give in to will take over and spread and hold all the cards, make all the rules, and kill without compunction ANYONE who won't tow their extremist line.

We may be creating more terrorists in the short run, but to think that giving up to the ones already created will lessen the number is insane. You may be willing to live under Shar'ia law or send your children to the Madrassa to be brainwashed, but that is unacceptable to me and most sane Americans. I would fight to my own death to keep that from happening and I suspect that put in that position, so would most others raised in a free society.

[Dale in Atlanta]

You know the left and it's pals in the media has done more to poison the world's hearts and minds about this country and our leaders in the last 7 years than anything I can think of.

You know what Jane, you are SOOOOOOO dead on with that statement, it's not even funny!

Thanks by the way..

[Jane]

Jane, you sayin' someone should parody a troll from time to time to fire people up and get them out of the shadows?

Oh dear. Okay but can it be a smart person?

[JM Hanes]

Wagster:

Let me guess: you'll retreat to parts unknown where you'll generalize about the danger to America posed by conservatives?

Of course, some of the folks you've been tangling with here aren't, in fact, conservatives at all, but never mind. If you're feeling safe and comfortable, that's all that really matters, isn't it?

[Harun]

Heres' my compromise position over "torture."

1. Real torture - don't do it.
2. Torture-Lite (enhanced interrogation) - reserve this for the secret CIA prisons and limit the number of certified torturers / cells.
3. Military cannot do 2.

My reasoning is that, in general, allowing too much latitude could lead to widespread abuse, i.e. torturing taxi drivers, etc., but that for the really high value targets (KSM) you might need torture-light. In those cases, by having a limited capacity you avoid over-usage.

p.s. If there really is a nuclear ticking bomb, I'd expect the rules to be ignored by our soldiers/CIA, etc.

[Other Tom]

"The actions of your administration have been such an obvious disaster to our national interests that I don't think Americans will trust you again for many decades."

As of yesterday, Wagster's congress was substantially less popular than George W. Bush.

[Jeff Dobbs]

And less popular than the repub congress as of the end of oct 06.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Harun: that is VERY well thought out, and I like it!

Well done; I agree completely, NO military in "enhanced interrogations"; that's why we got Abu Gharib (true abuse), and Gitmo (fake abuse!)

I'd take it one step furhter, not only no Military, but the Military HAS to stick to the Geneva Convention, strictly, unless your "ps" is provable/imminent!

And in addition, I'd say that the CIA/others cannot do, IF we are fighting a Convential Military force/Nation-State, that is defined as such under International Law/Rules of War; wearing Uniforms, adiding by the Rules of War, not attacking civilians, etc.

As soon as we cross over to Terrorist organizations/militias, like Sadr's army, Al Qaeada, Hizbollah, etc., the gloves come off, for those so authorized!

It's a sensible plan, very good, and one that you should tatoo on John McCain's forehead!

[Other Tom]

Pleased to see that Wagster now acknowledges that, after six-plus years of George W. Bush, "America is safe." If there's one thing about which historians can all agree, it is that after eight years of Bill Clinton America was less safe than at any time since 1814. We'll take our progress where we find it, but it's nice to have it delivered by goofy leftists.

[Dale in Atlanta]

and to add to Harun's post above; IF that were the policy implemented, the fact it would be publicized, and well-known, would have the added benefit of loosening tongues, if a detainee, in Military custody, was about to be handed over to the "enhanced interogations" people, if they didn't start to cooperate!

Just the threat of that, would be of immense value!

[rho]

I'm sorry, what?
And what a great question! Does anyone else remember Jack Kennedy blowing up some buildings in Moscow as a response to the Cuban missile crisis? Maybe Ron Paul could expound on that.

That's not what he said. He suggested that we'd be pissed off if China were establishing bases. And he was right, too. Do you remember the utter outrage expressed on talk radio and suchlike when the Japanese were planning to buy Rockefeller Center?

I do.

You're stuffing words in Ron Paul's mouth. If you want to be dishonest, go ahead.

[JM Hanes]

Jane:

"Okay but can it be a smart person?"

Would that it were possible, but alas, I fear it requires a kind of cerebral plasticity that just can't be faked.

I'm glad to see you too. I keep trying to swear of politics for awhile, but then I get to wondering what this crowd is up to...

[clarice]

Always glad to see (well, read) you, JMH.

[Other Tom]

Good God--is this poor fellow Dwild as dumb as the hapless Ron Paul?

[JM Hanes]

Hi Clarice! Ditto (well, ditto). :)

[Mishu]

Wagster,

The Clinton administration used sleep deprivation against all people in Koresh's compound in Waco. Your argument, "somehow, I think only a few years ago his definition of torture would have been a bit different." doesn't hold water. Conservatives didn't object to that as much as *burning them alive*.

[JM Hanes]

Jim Geraghty had an interesting take on the Ron Paul smackdown & the current mood in the GOP. He wrapped up with a comment that really resonated with me:

There might have been a time when the Republican base was willing to hear out someone’s thoughtful criticism of American policy, but right now, they’re sick of it."

If my own reaction to folks like the Wagster here is anything to go by, I'd say Geraghty is right.

[Terry Gain]

McCain's opinion that refraining from the use of torture protects American lives because it sends a signal to our enemies is absurd. Islamofascists will continue to torture and behead regardless of what we do. They do not share our moral values. This naivete makes McCain unfit to be President.

On the issue of torture I say without hestitation that if one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that someone has information which, if revealed, will save innocent human life, the failure to use every means at one's disposal, including torture, to provoke the release of that information is itself immoral-and cowardly.

[vnjagvet]

Another round of cheers for Harun and Dale for getting it right.

The clandestine services like the CIA are used to living by a set of rules totally different from those of the uniformed conventional military. That what spies are for. If you are a spy, and are caught in that activity, your life is forfeit. Remember Nathan Hale, Mata Hari, etc., etc.

By the same rules, spies often do not adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Even ex POWs like John McCain understand this.

But those who have been bona fide POW's have an understandable emotional and rational attachment to scrupulous adherence to the Geneva Conventions by our uniformed military. It was a matter of survival for them during a very traumatic period in their lives.

Guys like the Wagster -- and some of our esteemed legislators on the left of the spectrum -- do not make such fine distinctions.

[JM Hanes]

TM:

I started out meaning to tell you that the title on this piece is absolutely as good as it gets!

Reading Sullivan these days feels like slumming.

Just hearing Brit Hume curl his lips around the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a brief moment of insight.

Explains a lot about the quality of the insights Sullivan delivers, doesn't it? Is there really anybody left who actually believes he was watching the debates with anything but finding a hook to hang his hat on in mind?

The final clarifier for me was, yes, torture...

Well, yeah, torture has been known to have a clarifying effect. Only someone whose sense of irony & self-awareness have zero'd out could have written that sentence.

[clarice]

What I don't get is this--who pays any attention to Sullivan anymore? Every intelligent blogger has challenged his nutsiness for at least 2 years.He pulls stuff like this every week.

[ordi]

*****PLAME ALERT*****

http://www.nysun.com/article/54630>Plame Seeks Showdown With Cheney

A lawsuit brought by a CIA agent whose cover was blown by Bush administration officials, Valerie Plame, is expected to face a withering attack this morning at a court hearing in Washington.

Through their attorneys, the defendants in the case have denounced it as a political vendetta on the part of Ms. Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador. Named in the lawsuit are Vice President Cheney, his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and a former deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage.

'This case is a political exercise masquerading as a civil lawsuit,' Mr. Armitage's lawyers complained in their motion to dismiss the case. Judge John Bates is scheduled to hear two hours of arguments today on whether the suit should go forward. The federal government, which was not named as a defendant, has also urged that the case be thrown out.

Read this rest.....

[abwtf]

Torture can be a very, very serious issue. Other times... well, not so much.

[Jane]

Morning!

[Jane]

If my own reaction to folks like the Wagster here is anything to go by, I'd say Geraghty is right.

JMH,

You got that right. I find myself going from zero to "you are a complete idiot" in about 3 seconds when a liberal opens his mouth. Based on all the lies and bull - over the last seven years, my only reaction is disgust.

I can't imagine who can unite this country at this point.

[boris]

going from zero to "you are a complete idiot" in about 3 seconds when a liberal opens his mouth

Yep.

Geraghty, JMH & Jane ...

me too.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Hello

[Dale in Atlanta]

I'm testing

[Dale in Atlanta]

this stuff

[Dale in Atlanta]

Salafi

[PeterUK.]

The problem is not our understanding of Jihadi's,but our understanding of liberals.With Jihadi's it is cut and dried,we ar4 the infidel,they will try to kill us or make us submit,in the main so that they can eradicate the liberals.We understand this as do the adherents of Jihad.
Liberals on the other hand see the Jihadi's as unenlightened,excluded,love deprived liberals,who with a little understanding,will walk the path of righteous liberalism.Just a matter of counseling,therapy,love and understanding larded with loads of dosh.
As one woman put it "Do sharks kill us because we aren't kind enough to them?"
So there it is,whilst we of the evil right see the issue as a military political problem,liberals see it as a social problem.
Hug a Jihadi,tell him that there is a liberal out there somewhere for him who is far more fun than seventy two virgins.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Okay, sorry about that; someone over at AJ's just taught me how to do that; so had to test it.!

Anyway, Jane, you are so correct again.

I was so proud of the fact, that for 30 years I was not "political"; I didn't vote based upon "party"; I voted on who was the BEST candidate; so sometimes I voted Republican, sometimes I voted Democrat, and sometimes, I didn't vote at all, because I didn't like either.

2000 election for instance; I couldn't stand Gore (who could), and I wasn't going to vote for Bush, because I just didn't really think much about him.

But, the whole Florida recount thing, just got my blood boiling, the way the MSM and the Democrats handled that, it was absolutely sinful, disgusting, corrupt, whatever, and I vowed that from that point on, I would NEVER trust the Democrats again, EVER!

I still wasn't a Bush "fan", and basically ignored him!

Then, 9/11 hit, and I was just absolutely blown away by how he handled that.

So, I started to support him; when he invaded Iraq, I sat up and said, you know what? "This guy 'GET'S IT'"!

Finally, a President with some balls, and who isn't afraid to do what has to be done!

That's what I want!

Because frankly, even Regean ran from Beirut when it got tough, and that definitely sent the wrong signal to the Iranians, Hezbollah and Bin Laden; and we still owe the Iranians and Hezbollah for 241 Marines, the bastards!

Anyway, for nothing other than Pure "payback", what the Democrats, who no longer deserve the term "Democrats" by the way, I refer to them now, all of them, except Lieberman, derisively as "Leftists", because that is what they are; what the Democrats, and the MSM lackeys that are their enablers, and the Holloywood traitor crowd have done to this President, our Military, and our ability to fight future wars and enemies, for the ONLY purpose of "payback" and "gotcha" because they're all a bunch of damn Clinton apologists, is most stupid, shortsighted, self-destructive, traitorous activity in our history; and I want to see them pay for it!

That's how "political" they've made me!

[jglassman]

Maybe Ron Paul could expound on that.

Well he did threaten to basically destroy both the US and Soviet Union if the didn't remove the missiles. If they hadn't moved them, clearly JFK would have done more than blow up a few buildings, no? Doesn't this completely invalidate your point?

[hoosierhoops]

I came accross this from Al Gore this morning:
American democracy is now in danger—not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.
---------------------------
you can find the body of this on Drudge or Time.com.
Mr. Gore claims that because of the silence of the Senate during the Iraq debate that Democracy now stands in danger..
Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall a debate in Congress and a Vote.
The Dems lost that debate and vote because at the time they must have agreed with the bill or something. Now because of sour grapes or regret of thier actions they want to make this out to be a failure of the american process.
Today is one of those days I am ashamed to be labeled a lifelong Democrat and am viewing my party as one that has difficulty with something so simple as the truth.
Because either a lack of principle to vote against the war or to score political points for public consumpsion most members of congress voted to go to war. That is the way democracy works. It was the Dems that failed the system Mr.Gore and you should know that. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you vote yes. I know the choice was a difficult one and I'm glad I wasn't in that position but that's why we pay those guys the big bucks and put our trust in them, to make difficult and agonizing decisions. But hey, when the going gets tough lets just blame the system. I wrote a letter to the Washington post expressing concern that we should get Bin Laden first before opening a new front on the WOT. Luckily for me no one came to my house in the middle of the night to drag me away to prison, so I'm thinking our democracy is pretty damn strong. God I hate sore losers!

[TexasToast]

Well, Tom, there is this...

Military officials have confirmed that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan visited the set of the FOX show, 24, to voice concerns over the depiction of torture in the hit series. More specifically, the military is criticizing the use of torture, which is illegal, to gather information from captives, claiming that no good information comes from torture, and more importantly, that the torture is having detrimental effects on young troops.

[Sue]

The Dems lost that debate and vote because at the time they must have agreed with the bill or something.

I don't think they really lost the debate. Weren't they in charge when the debate took place? Sounds like they won the debate.

[hoosierhoops]

you know Sue, I believe you are correct..
At that time I believe it was 51 to 49 Dems because someone( i don't recall who) switched to Independent.. So really It was our party that voted to go to war.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[clarice]

WSJ on the Comey drama hour:
"What's really going on here is a different form of political theater: Democrats are trying to whip up an aura of "illegality" to create the political leverage to strip a Republican President of his surveillance authority in wartime. They've tried to do this since the program was revealed, and back in 2006 Russ Feingold compared it to Watergate. But unfortunately for the Democrats, wiretapping aimed at America's terrorist enemies is politically popular.

So, rather than arguing the legal merits, Democrats are spinning a yarn about shady deeds perpetrated in a hospital room at night. They are using half-truths to achieve a partisan goal that is dangerous policy, and they shouldn't get away with it. "

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010084

[Other Tom]

Not sure whom Toast is quoting, but the passage pretty much avoids the issue. I haven't seen anyone seriously contending that soldiers should employ "torture"; once you let that loaded term enter the discussion you've just about decided the outcome. As to whether the CIA, on the other hand, should employ what the former director calls "enhanced interrogation," I come out on the side of the director, and I don't think it's close.

But I can certainly imagine circumstances in which a uniformed soldier might, on the spot, employ a technique that some might describe as torture. Nobody likes to do it (well, almost nobody), and we can hope that its use is rare. And I would certainly expect that every general officer would be publicly against it.

[Jane]

WEll, let's see. WE have 3 guys missing in Iraq right now. They have been abducted by terrorists who most likely have cut out their tounges and lopped off their ears by now. If our troops get close enough the terrorists will cut off our sodlier's heads one by one while the others watch, and put it all on videotape. which will be uploaded to the internet to attract recruits.

We capture a guy who knows where this is going on. WE ply him with mint tea, a new prayer rug, 50,000 calories a day and hope he comes over to our side in time to tell us where our soldiers are being held so we can get them back.

Tell it to the families.

[Other Tom]

Clarice, I assume you're going to be on the Plame hearing like white on rice.

[hoosierhoops]

We capture a guy who knows where this is going on. WE ply him with mint tea, a new prayer rug, 50,000 calories a day and hope he comes over to our side in time to tell us where our soldiers are being held so we can get them back.

Jane: You mean we have captured the terrorist that has inside info? or do we just torture everybody till we find the guy?
I understand your sentiment about find our soldiers, my son deploys to Iraq in Sept. so you'll get no augument about the safety of our soldiers...But really we just can't torture every suspect we find in the field..lest we ourselves become the terrorists. I know if my marine finds the guy that has info on another marine he won't torture the guy per se. But he will get his ass kicked and he will talk..call it whatever..but here in Indiana we call it opening a can of wup ass.

[boris]

We capture a guy who knows where this is going on

The premise is clear. The guy KNOWS !

Now if the torture technique to be applied involves mint tea a new prayer rug and 50,000 calories a day, I am ok with using these horrible techniques on a small number of suspects in order to determine which guy actually knows. I can live with that.

[boris]

Going EVEN FURTHER !!!

I am ok with using techniques I would volunteer to endure in order to save lives.

Suppose I was mistakenly detained with a larger group some members of which almost certainly are terrorists with live saving intel. I would volunteer to undergo waterboarding, cold room and belly slap to determine which members of the group are actual terrorists with the life saving intel.

That being the case I do not consider such techniques to be "torture".

[clarice]

OT, I am not going to the hearing. I think Cboldt has the pleadings on his site. But, of course, I will read accounts of what happened, undoubtedly in the vain hope that at least one reporter will give an accurate account.(Maybe they'll assign Matt Apuzzo)

[Jane]

But really we just can't torture every suspect we find in the field.

Oh do let me know where I suggested that, so I can make the record clear. Hopefully you can do that before the terrorists slit another throat.

[Jane]

If you get a chance, read Beldar on the debate. A taste: If you had eyes to see and ears to hear, you could tell that Rudy Giuliani simply could no longer stand silent on the same stage with a barking moonbat who blamed America for 9/11 — not even for another ten seconds, and certainly not until it was his next turn to talk. You don't see many "looks that could kill" on the stage of a presidential debate, but Giuliani's eyes — in contravention of Rosie O'Donnell physics — could absolutely have melted steel.

[hoosierhoops]

Jane: ok you have made yourself clear..We just need to make sure if have got the bad guy in custody.
We got a phone call from my wifes' nephew lance cpl mike patrick on Sunday who is deployed in Iraq.
Saturday he was sweeping a building somewhere with his squad when a terrorist
threw a hand grenade at them. He was blasted up against the wall but received no injury. They chased 4 terrorist out of the building and ran them down and killed them all. His first action using deadly force.
His emotions on the phone ranged from excitement to amazement of escaping injury.
Say a prayer tonight to keep our Marines safe.

[Syl]

"More specifically, the military is criticizing the use of torture, which is illegal, to gather information from captives, claiming that no good information comes from torture,...">

Which PROVES that waterboarding is NOT torture because it has yielded information.

[Syl]

PS...I hate VISTA.

:(

[JM Hanes]

hoosierhoops:

"You mean we have captured the terrorist that has inside info? or do we just torture everybody till we find the guy?"

While I understand the purpose of Jane's question, I think the larger question you're asking here is really the one we must address.

If you know that someone in your custody is refusing to divulge information that will save countless lives, the moral equation just isn't very complicated. Unfortunately, such certainty will almost always be the exception, not the rule -- especially when confronting terrorist networks where no single informant knows enough to crash the system (or in many cases, even expose an individual operation in its entirety) and where eveyone, including top leadership, is fungible.

On a day to day basis, the intelligence we need comes in incremental packages. In essence, virtually everyone we might capture or detain knows something that might (or might not!) be useful, in combination with information from a variety of other sources. At the same time, the consequences of intelligence failures become increasingly dire as networks metastasize and technological advances make devastating weapons ever more portable.

The moral dilema we face across the board here is real and profound, and the highground is not nearly as clear as those who claim it would like to believe. If it were, pols and public on both sides of the issue wouldn't be so loathe to define with specificity what officially constitutes torture and what does not. Even John McCain says he would expect our Commander-in-Chief to OK torture in exigent circumstances, he just thinks we can't afford to make it legal for him or anyone else to do so.

That said, however, I believe we should neither ask nor expect our soldiers to conduct brutal interrogations on our behalves, even should we agree that such tactics are warranted in any given set of circumstances. Over and above the practical matter of expertise, the moral and psychological burden placed on anyone charged with extracting information from unwilling informants is almost incalculable. This is no burden to be shouldered by the soldier in the field whose own life is already on the line. If we are to ask it of anyone, we must acknowledge the fact that the interrogator himself is at grave risk and we must be prepared to provide the training, oversight and support that those charged with such a task will need to survive the process intact themselves.

I'd also suggest that if the highground were obvious, absolutists wouldn't so frequently take refuge and apparent comfort in the idea that "torture doesn't work" either. Those who choose to ignore ample evidence that some techniques (as opposed to torture per se) have effectively saved lives simply appear unwilling to acknowledge that the bright moral line they are drawing has it's own human price tag too. The first to pay will be the soldiers whose lives depend on the quality of our intelligence every single day. The rest of us will just pay later, if we're lucky, sooner if we're not, here at home -- and pay, in all likelihood, far more dearly than we did on 9/11. If the absolutists among us consider that an acceptable risk, then perhaps they also ought to have the moral courage to say so.

[Sara]

Syl: PS...I hate VISTA. :(

Why? So far it is working great for me on my new computer. At least I think it is.

[hoosierhoops]

JMHanes:
A very thoughtful and lucid posting on torture...Bravo

[maryrose]

hoosierhoops:
I am praying for your wife's nephew as he defends freedom and a safer USA for tomorrow. Please let him know that we appreciate his service for our country.

[maryrose]

JMHanes:
Welcome back! You have been missed!

[teri edgar]

I saw some really nasty torture video recently on MSNBC, but I haven't heard the liberals complaining about it.

They showed video of prisoners being gassed, being electric shocked, being assaulted by groups of upto ten bruts in riot gear.

Ohhh, no, it wasn't our soldiers, this was
prison guards in prisons right here in America. Gassing a prisoner and filling his entire cell up with pepper gas until he finally gives up. Multiple electrix shocks given to a prison, all because he wouldn't comply with a simple order. And gangs of bruts rushing into cells with masks, headgear, batons and just wailing on prisoners.

haven't heard a peep from the left...and MSNBC didn't seem to grasp that torture was going on right under their noses. But I guess they couldn't blame Bush....

[Syl]

OT

Sara

Syl: PS...I hate VISTA. :(

Why? So far it is working great for me on my new computer. At least I think it is.

I'm sure it is. It's some technical details that drive me nuts--for my needs. Like the problems with OpenGL which I NEED for what I do, the extra clock cycles for junk, the mucho amt of ram required (and the aggressive caching which uses most of it) when I need every spare meg of ram I can get (as well as every clock cycle for rendering). And the enforcement of certain security policies which make my saved data disappear into folders I've never heard of.

I live inside Explorer and I won't bore you with the details and reasons why. It's much more difficult and unwieldy to do so in Vista.

But for most users I'm sure it doesn't matter. Really. So don't worry.

[battery]

I think the IC did know about the uranium in 1999 per Joe Wilsons own reporting from his first trip. This came out during the Judy Miller portion of the trial.

[FFXI gold]

If you have money to buy FFXI gold, you will find it is very useful.

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!