Powered by TypePad

« Securing A Target Versus Monitoring A Movement | Main | Misinformation In Two Languages »

April 16, 2009

Comments

Porchlight

OT,

So yesterday I was angered and discouraged by the MSM's juvenile and mendacious reaction to the tea parties. Today I am heartened by it. The more they disparage it and write it off as trivial, the less they'll be prepared for the groundswell. The tea partiers are after all not people who are normally moved to protest, by and large (as opposed to the left who can organize and populate demonstrations at the drop of a hat). Therefore their turnout numbers are more meaningful.

BTW I credit Nate Silver for what seems like a good faith effort to keep count of the number of people who attended. However, per Jim Geraghty, Silver's way off in his numbers. The Campaign Spot had several posts on this topic yesterday.

PJM is currently estimating about 550K and the number is still growing.

pagar

Our appeaser in chief has screwed the pooch as far as intelligence gathering goes.

AND FOR WHAT?

They want to make sure we don't get any useful intelligence. It might get used against their friends.

cathyf
Madsen Pirie wrote the book on logical fallacies.
Max Shulman wrote the short story on fallacies.
Sue

You absolutely have to read the Obama smackdown by Hayden and Mukasey in the http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993446103128041.html>WSJ.

The release of these opinions was unnecessary as a legal matter, and is unsound as a matter of policy. Its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001.
Ignatz

"Is this new? Typepad has twice now reformatted my long comment above, removing the links and html tags. (Once after having it correct for an hour or so.) Very odd."

Cecil,
Been doing the same thing to me in the last week or so (so now I add quote marks to italics, just in case), or it's just eating the posts altogether after telling me my 'comment has been posted'. And I never had a problem with it before.

verner

I'm telling you porch, I think the true number will be in the millions.

As I said, there were close to 2000 in my small satellite town just south of Nashville. Many raised their hands to say that they had never attended a protest before.

For every attendee, think of the dozens who support the cause, but either were unaware of their local gathering, or were unable to attend.

People are going to see the negative reports, and they are going to see them directed at people just like them.

Not good.

Sue

Well, as Geraldo said last night, Hispanics were able to get 500,000 at one rally without any organization whatsoever. ::eyeroll:: He really said that. With a straight face.

clarice

cathy, thanks for reminding me of that Shukman piece. I've always loved it.

Porchlight

Thanks verner, that is encouraging. Austin's turnout was relatively low for a city its size. I'm thrilled to hear of high turnout in much smaller places. Boerne, TX, northwest of San Antonio, had nearly 1000 people out of a total population of 9500!

Porchlight

Okay, my last post had links in it when I hit the button, I swear. I don't see them now.

I've been having this problem (links disappearing) in IE but not in Firefox fwiw...

Ignatz

Re, waterboarding;

In California the tort of 'intentional infliction of emotional distress, has a standard of proof not unlike the definition of torture cited earlier.
Below are two of the standards:

"SEVERE-DEFINED
The word "severe," in the phrase "severe emotional distress," means substantial or enduring as distinguished from trivial or transitory. Severe emotional distress is emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. In determining the severity of emotional distress consideration is given to its intensity and duration.
The Restatement view is that liability "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities," but only to conduct so extreme and outrageous "as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." (Rest. 2d Torts, § 46, com. d; see Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, at pp. 46-47.) "The emotional distress must in fact exist, and it must be severe." (Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, p. 51; Rest.2d Torts, supra, § 46, Com. j.)
EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT-DEFINED
Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct which goes beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Extreme and outrageous conduct is not mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions or other trivialities. All persons must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind.
Extreme and outrageous conduct, however, is conduct which would cause an average member of the community to immediately react in outrage."

In actual practice I am not aware of severe being defined as only a 'substantial quantity'. It is always construed as needing to having left a long and continuing pattern of some provable psychic distress; clinical depression, anxiety attacks, insomnia etc.
Now, sometimes a jury will hold a party liable for conduct which is on its face truly outrageous without giving much heed to any of the actual psychological effects in order to punish an obvious butthead.

However that standard should obviously not apply to interregators, when being a butthead is the job description.
Which leaves us with what effect any of this had on the various terrorists it was used on. Is there some evidence that any of them actually believed they would be drowned before the waterboarding began? If so they must have been the only people on earth who believe we routinely assassinate people in our custody. If not then what evidence is there any of them endured any prolonged psychologcal suffering or distress from their interregations?

Also bear in mind, the IIED standard applies to the distress an innocent citizen of one of our states is not expected to endure. I would hope interregators of terrorists are allowed a little more leeway, which is what the Bush memos seemed to be trying to do.

narciso

Geraldo, is the idiot he was always being. the illegal immigration protests were coordinated by ANSWER's network, BTW it's my mother's birthday today

bad

Happy Birthday, narciso's Mom!!

Danube of Thought

MediaMythbusters gives us the background on that airhead from CNN:

"Susan Roesgen is a general assignment correspondent for CNN based in Chicago. Roesgen joined CNN after more than a decade covering the Gulf Coast. A New Orleans-based journalist during Hurricane Katrina, she was the first reporter hired by CNN for the CNN Gulf Coast bureau in 2005. She moved to CNN's Chicago bureau in September 2007. She is widely believed to be the stupidest pair of titties in the history of TV faux journalism."

Foo Bar

Clarice:

Can I assume you no longer consider that Hugh Hewitt quote to be worthy of needlepointing?

boris

"Can I ass"

Pretty sure you can't help it.

pagar

What's better than having a political appointee without auto experience trying to restructure the biggest car company in the world?

Try a Sec of Treasury who is described in this video.

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=William%20Black%20Wary%20of%20Bank%20Results%20Since%20New%20Accounting&clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/v1x9bOhL_HN8.asf

A Sec of Treasury as described
by William Black "a failure at every thing he has ever done".


There is a short commercial first, and the subject has been covered here on JOM, but no one has pointed out the failures of our Sec of Treasury better. Every one should listen to this video.

Preview shows the link works, and I also put it LUN

verner

The word "severe," in the phrase "severe emotional distress," means substantial or enduring as distinguished from trivial or transitory. Severe emotional distress is emotional distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure it. In determining the severity of emotional distress consideration is given to its intensity and duration."

Which is why the CIA had trained psychologists present at all waterboardings etc.. Although, for the life of me, I have no idea how one can assess the "mental health' of sociopathic mass murderers.

And I repeat, if waterboarding meets any meaningful definition of TORTURE, then why has it been administered to THOUSANDS of American military personnel in the S.E.R.E program (including members of the JOM community)without any documented long lasting consequence.

Hayden gave em a fanny busting in the WSJ, and we have been reminded by the Wa Po article that congress was FULLY BRIEFED, and only objected that the CIA methods might not be TOUGH ENOUGH.

And when another three thousand innocent Americans lay dead in the rubble, we're going to be reminding them of it--with pitchforks.

clarice

FooBar, I doubt Hewitt made an error. Perhaps the legislation, not linked to in the article you cited, did not--as he said define waterboarding as torture. Perhaps you could email him with your question and see what he meant.


OT..In 1999 Susan Boyle taped Cry me a River for a local charity. Listen to her angel voice here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5ETPG26ALE&feature=player_embedded

Charlie (Colorado)

With a straight face.

Which, I guess, is more than Sullivan can manage.

clarice

DoT, I read Fox twice declined to hire Roesgen..Perhaps that explains her open disparagement of Fox..it certainly confirms the low standards CNN has.

verner

Thanks for that Clarice. I LOVE Susan Boyle. I have watched that youtube 20 times and I get goosebumps every time she hits those first few notes.

I get tweets from Slate.fr, and the latest is "Who will be Susan Boyle's first boyfriend?"

Those naughty french.

Can you imagine the love letters she's getting.

My only hope is that she won't be overwhelmed and harmed by all the attention, and that Simon Cowell, if he has a heart (and I doubt it) will keep the sharks away.

I just finished reading "Last Train to Memphis" Elvis was destroyed by FAME. If he had married his high school sweetheart Dixie, become an electrician, and joined a gospel quartet (as he said was always his real dream) he'd likely be alive and well today and happily bouncing his grandbabies on his knees.

But I think Susan is getting good advice. In her interviews, she says she's taking baby steps. Good idea.

TM

Tell me a crisp definition of torture and I'll tell you if I agree.

"Torture" is what I would do to the sorry SOB who threatened my family. Or my neighbor's family, actually.

I'm not sure that helps...

Jane

Porch,

I too think the estimates are ridiculously low. If 1500 people showed up in a city like Worcester - and there were 500 events, there were well over 500k.

The whole thing is absolutely fabulous.

verner

TM, I consider myself a decent human being. I have devoted a large part of my life to the nursing profession, and deplore any unnecessary human or animal suffering. I won't even kill spiders in the house, unless they're the poisonous variety.

But let me tell you, if the well being of my babies was at stake, and I was locked in a room with one of those evil sacks of human garbage along with a screw driver and a blow torch, the ACLU would not like what it found when the door opened.

And at least I'm honest about it.

davod

I have not read all the posts so this may be redundant:

This is really quite simple. The left does not believe in peace with their political enemies. They aim to destroy anyone who disagress with them. The release of the memos is designed at a minimum, to ensure some in the Bush Administration are never able to leave the US.

Not only that but, as happened with the international banking transactions, foreign prisons and rendition, foreign allies will be loath to work with the US.

Call me paranoid but at what stage does some of this pattern look like the fellow travellers and their gullible dupes (I forget the term used during the Cold War)are at work.

Karl
the mental effect is transitory and does not result in long term mental harm - call it the "Psych!" defense.

Actually, I'll call it the partial sign-on to the UN Convention Against Torture, which is what the US did. That's where the legal concern about the long-term comes from; it's part of the definition of torture -- a part the Left frequently ignores.

Foo Bar

Clarice:

FooBar, I doubt Hewitt made an error. Perhaps the legislation, not linked to in the article you cited, did not--as he said define waterboarding as torture. Perhaps you could email him with your question and see what he meant.

The final sentence of the Hewitt excerpt which you thought was so wonderful was the following:

They are the lawmakers, and chose --even when House and Senate were controlled by Democrats from January 2007 to the present-- to avoid passing a law bringing clarity to the very gray areas of the law of interrogation.

This sentence is false, regardless of whether you consider the legislation to have "defined" waterboarding as "torture" (Congress is not in the dictionary business, anyway; they banned the procedure, which is what matters).
The legislation would have limited the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual. That most definitely would have "brought clarity to the very gray areas of the law of interrogation".

I did email him but (predictably) have not gotten a reply as of yet.

MayBee

FooBar- can a law be considered passed if it is vetoed and then...not passed?

Foo Bar
FooBar- can a law be considered passed if it is vetoed and then...not passed?

No, but those who successfully voted to send it to the President's desk for approval can be considered to have chosen to pass such a law, although the veto prevented that choice from becoming a reality. Therefore, Hewitt is incorrect to allege that those in Congress who were critical of waterboarding and other practices chose to avoid passing a law banning them.

Porchlight

The whole thing is absolutely fabulous.

Jane,

PJM says they have a lot more counting to do so who knows how high it will go. It is indeed fabulous. What does Amy think? I think I remember you saying she predicted 50,000.

davod

Foo Bar:

What are the 19 Army approved techniques and do they fall within the guidelines of the internationl conventions, or even the US laws relating to coercion.

verner

Foo Bar, there is a reason that the constitution allows for an executive veto.
It prevents poorly crafted legislation from becoming law. In this case, the bill did not garner a veto proof majority, and therefore NEVER BECAME LAW.

And rightly so, considering that CONGRESS HAD BEEN BRIEFED ON THESE PRACTICES FROM THE BEGINNING AND ONLY STARTED OBJECTING WHEN DEMOCRATS SAW A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE-WORTHLESS SACKS OF CRAP THAT THEY ARE...

MayBee
No, but those who successfully voted to send it to the President's desk for approval can be considered to have chosen to pass such a law, although the veto prevented that choice from becoming a reality. Therefore, Hewitt is incorrect to allege that those in Congress who were critical of waterboarding and other practices chose to avoid passing a law banning them.

Your first sentence is dangerously close to saying any Congressperson who votes for something has effectively passed a law.
As we all know, Congress people often vote the way they do to make a statement when they know the outcome of their vote will be changed by the use of the Presidential veto/non veto. The only real test of whether a law passed is if it has become a law.
If a law wasn't passed, it wasn't passed. Your first word in your paragraph says you agree with that.

boris

Fubird is a nit-picker. Don't expect that type to grant the obvious when there is some detail to quibble over.

Ignatz

Don't see much harm in granting Foo's point.

HH was wrong and the Dems voted to ban Bush's 'enhanced' interrogations.

The question is was Bush right or Pelosi, not is HH infallible.

Foo Bar

Maybee,

If you want to get super-rigorous about it, I'll grant you that we'll never know with absolute certainty how they would have voted had Bush been willing to sign it. Regardless, Hewitt claims that Congressional critics of waterboarding chose not to pass a law. Since Bush was unwilling to sign such a law, they did not have the option (i.e. did not have the "choice") to pass the law. Therefore, Hewitt's claim that they chose to avoid passing such a law is still false.

clarice

I believe what he said is that they failed to pass a law defining waterboarding as torture, FB.
Do you know what was in the original bill that Bush vetoes. I still don't . It looks like they voted in 2008 to ban waterboarding, but did they define it as torture or just specify they didn't like it and wanted its use made illegal?

boris

[chose] to avoid passing a law bringing clarity

FuBird appears to be claiming that the 2008 law that was vetoed would have "brought clarity" to the subject of interrogation by limiting it to standard Army procedures.

There is nothing in the quoted section to ascertain if that is what HH would consider "clarity" rather than "avoidance". It absolutly avoids the issue without defining whether waterboarding is in fact torture. If such a definition is what HH was refering to as clarity than FuBird is trying to pull an Appalled on this thread.

sbw

Davod: The left does not believe in peace with their political enemies. They aim to destroy anyone who disagress with them.

That's because the left cannot admit to being wrong. Their fragility demands they be right.

Which is why the real enemies of liberty sweet talk and stroke them. "Of course you are right. Come into my gingerbread house and help me see if my oven is lit."

It's also why they fall for it. If the left has one principle, it is that they are right because the thoughts are their own.

Foo Bar

I believe what he said is that they failed to pass a law defining waterboarding as torture, FB.

Please reread what you posted earlier, from Hewitt's blog. The last sentence of what you chose to excerpt is the following:

They are the lawmakers, and chose --even when House and Senate were controlled by Democrats from January 2007 to the present-- to avoid passing a law bringing clarity to the very gray areas of the law of interrogation

I have already indicated to you what was in the bill, i.e., legislation limiting the CIA to 19 interrogation techniques in the Army field manual. Agree with it or not, this legislation would have brought clarity to "the very gray areas of the law of interrogation", as Hewitt puts it. Thus, this sentence of Hewitt's post is wrong.

It is wrong even if you contend that there is some technical sense in which it is true that Congress did not "define" waterboarding as torture but merely outlawed its use (as if Congress has control over how the English language is used).

Sue

Hmmm...they fight like hell to pass a TARP law but let the president win on a torture law? Very odd, these congresscritters. One would think they were politicians playing political games with our security.

boris
this legislation would have brought clarity to "the very gray areas of the law of interrogation", as Hewitt puts it ... even if you contend that there is some technical sense in which it is true that Congress did not "define" waterboarding as torture but merely outlawed its use

BS. I consider that "avoidance" rather than clarification so it is perfectly reasonable to suggest HH does also.

Foo Bar

There is nothing in the quoted section to ascertain if that is what HH would consider "clarity" rather than "avoidance"

Why do you truncate what he wrote after "clarity"? He claimed that Congress chose to "avoid passing a law bringing clarity to the very gray areas of the law of interrogation." He didn't say they avoiding passing a law bringing clarity to the semantic question of whether waterboarding should be called torture.

By giving a precise list of techniques which are legal, that legislation most definitely would have brought clarity to "the law of interrogation".

boris

HH wrote:

see if any of them cite a single vote by the Senate or the House to define waterboarding as torture throughout the years when the Congress was fully aware of the practice. The DOJ legal analysis was the best effort of front-line lawyers in the aftermath of a massive attack on the United States. Their Congressional critics of today who did not demand a defining vote on what constituted torture are the worst sort of hypocrites

HH is perfectly clear about what he would consider clarity. The 19 Army techniques will only suffice until there is another successful terrorist incident at which point it will be reset to "whatever works". Therefore there has been zero increase in clarity on the subject. A real and significant public question has been avoided using the old "because we say so" solution.

Sue

Those same congresscritters were in attendance when "torture" techniques were being applied and wondered, hey, are we being aggressive enough?

Cecil Turner

This sentence is false, regardless of whether you consider the legislation to have "defined" waterboarding as "torture" . . .

Nonsense. In the absence of a legal definition of torture, we'll continue to torture the language. That's exactly Hewitt's point, and it's correct.

The legislation would have limited the CIA to the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army field manual.

More nonsense. The manual then becomes the definition of what's acceptable, but it's dependent on the latest rewrite of the manual (last one happened since the Detainee Treatment Act).

Foo Bar

The manual then becomes the definition of what's acceptable, but it's dependent on the latest rewrite of the manual (last one happened since the Detainee Treatment Act).

I don't even know whether that's true or not (i.e., whether the law defined what's acceptable using a snapshot of the field manual or whether it said "whatever is in the field manual (which itself is subject to change) is OK" ), but even if it's the latter, so what? At any point in time, one could look at the current version of the field manual and know what is and isn't legal. It had been (debatably) unclear whether waterboarding was legal,and the legislation would have made it clear that it was not (given the current version of the field manual).

Congressional Democrats took a very clear stand against waterboarding by voting for that law.

Sue

Congressional democrats only? I seem to remember John McCain voting for that law too all the while saying the president should ignore it if he felt the situation warranted it. Sort of what the democrats were saying but not so bluntly.

Sue

Isn't it odd in the months after 9/11 the CIA was able to come up with, off the cuff, torture techniques for Bush/Cheney to use? Why, I'll bet you money they didn't even think about using any of those techniques while Clinton was president, let alone practice them to the point they knew they would work, just in time for evil Bush/Cheney to use them. Democrats are idiots. History begins and ends when they want it to.

glenda

Narciso...tell your Mother Happy Birthday!!
I thought Sarah's speech last night was excellent, it was a brilliant "toe back in the water" kind of thing! And the loony libs are so scared of her, it's sad! How did we ever let the media and whomever is telling Obama what to do have this much power over the truth?

verner

Democrats stood against waterboarding ONLY when it was politically expedient, which makes the democrats a bunch of f-ing hypocrites one and all. The leadership knew FOR YEARS exactly what was going on. Didn't you read the WaPo piece?

Stop trying to defend what can not be morally defended.

As I have stated before, THOUSANDS of American soldiers were waterboarded, and one of the reasons that it was considered acceptable in extreme conditions, and only used with the very highest value criminals, is that they had years of data that indicated that the practice WOULD NOT cause permanent harm either physical or psychological.

I'll only add, as Hayden stated in today's WSJ, and Tenant said before him, THE PRACTICE WORKED. It saved lives, and stopped Al Qaeda plots both at home and abroad.


clarice

FooBar, Typepad ate my last post to you made some time ago. I've sent your question to HH (didn't see that you'd asked him, too) and I'll post what he says, but I do think he viewed the vetoes legislation as mere showboating that added nothing to the definition of what is or is not torture.

clarice

**vetoeD legislation***

Cecil Turner

. . . but even if it's the latter, so what?

I don't see any other way to read it, since it doesn't specify a particular version of the manual. As to "so what," the law allows the evil executive to authorize waterboarding (unless it's actually "torture," in which case title 10 would outlaw it). And we still don't know the answer to the question asked by the CIA types:

"You have asked for this Office's views on whether certain proposed conduct would violate the prohibition against torture found at Section 2340A of title 18 of the United States Code."
Congressional Democrats took a very clear stand against waterboarding by voting for that law.

No they didn't. They knew it was going to be vetoed, and it was a zero risk vote. Moreover, waterboarding was not then currently authorized for use by anyone (except at SERE school, where it's apparently still okay, Democrat posturing to the contrary notwithstanding), so framing this as a "waterboarding" stand is disingenuous.

daddy

"I don't know the reasons for this in-state Republican disaffection, but it is significant and troubling."

Come now. She interfered with the big boys in oil.

Rick, you may be right, though with so many Republicans on the Anti-Sarah Bandwagon, I have to think there's more to it than simply that, but I can't put my finger on it.

In other depressing Alaskan Oil related news,

"WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled today that the Bush administration did not properly study the environmental impact of expanding oil and gas drilling off the Alaska coast and canceled a program to find new reserves." Link.">http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/story/762894.html">Link.

We have had an explosion in the Polar Bear population up here in recent years, yet 3 unelected Judges in Washington bought the environmental argument that the Bush Administration had not conducted enough studies to ensure Global Warming wasn't harming Polar Bears. So drilling is again forestalled, and Hugo Chavez and the Saudi King must once again be smiling. Depressing.


bad

Daddy, is Palin in to global warming in a big way?

daddy

Jane,

'Your report on Sarah is troubling at best.

No one decent or talented will ever be encouraged to run for office again. The only people who can withstand it, are rich crooks.'"

That reminds me again of that famous conversation at some Pub in London between Ben Franklin, Joseph Priestly, Dr Johnson, etc, where by the end of the evening they concluded that no decent people should ever be appointed to Parliament because they were bound to become corrupted, so better to just appoint crooks in order to prevent decent people from becoming corrupted. Thankfully, Ben Franklin didn't take his own advice personally, but man, I sure do understand the sentiment.

Cecil Turner

Back when I followed this stuff regularly (before we moved out of AK), I seem to recall the Democrats were some of the biggest Palin supporters (especially on the big Alaska issue--AGIA). The GOP--especially the party machinery--was always lukewarm at best. Seems to me the current retrenchment in support is the predictable dropoff of Democrats who now see her as a national threat, combined with the preexisting soft GOP support.

daddy

Bad,

Sarah has brought law suits against the Federal Government for their Endangered Species Legislation effectively shutting down all energy development within the state. See my above Link for the latest example. She is a non-Global Warmist, or at least she is calling BS on the Fed's calling our Polar Bears endangered, because the Alaskan population of the things is and has been on the increase, exactly the opposite of what the environmentalists are saying.

Another big problem is that our city bear population is increasing. Local Talk Radio yesterday had a caller say a bear had killed a calf moose and buried it in her front yard, so as to have access to come and eat it whenever. As she had young kids who want to go outside, she called the Police/Fish and Game guys, and was advised she was not allowed to shoot the bear, just let it have its way and keep her kids inside.

Common sense has completely gone out the window. I wasn't joking when I told you that former Mayor, (now Senator Mark Begich) had his city authorities declare that a snowman built in winter in Alaska in a guys front yard was officially determined to be both a Public Nuisance and a Safety Hazard, in order to hassle the guy into not building one in the future.

At times I feel like I'm back in that little box Cecil was talking about back in Sere school 30 years ago.

daddy

Bad,

Sarah has brought law suits against the Federal Government for their Endangered Species Legislation effectively shutting down all energy development within the state. See my above Link for the latest example. She is a non-Global Warmist, or at least she is calling BS on the Fed's calling our Polar Bears endangered, because the Alaskan population of the things is and has been on the increase, exactly the opposite of what the environmentalists are saying.

Another big problem is that our city bear population is increasing. Local Talk Radio yesterday had a caller say a bear had killed a calf moose and buried it in her front yard, so as to have access to come and eat it whenever. As she had young kids who want to go outside, she called the Police/Fish and Game guys, and was advised she was not allowed to shoot the bear, just let it have its way and keep her kids inside.

Common sense has completely gone out the window. I wasn't joking when I told you that former Mayor, (now Senator Mark Begich) had his city authorities declare that a snowman built in winter in Alaska in a guys front yard was officially determined to be both a Public Nuisance and a Safety Hazard, in order to hassle the guy into not building one in the future.

At times I feel like I'm back in that little box Cecil was talking about back in Sere school 30 years ago.

verner

Here's something for the anti-torture crowd to think about--at SERE school, why don't they put cattle prods on genitals? Pull out fingernails? Beat people to the inch of their lives? Drill into healthy teeth like Marathon Man?

The answer is pretty obvious, n'est pas?

But now you've put waterboarding into the same category as all of the above.

So, why should a CIA agent, or the enemy for that matter, not consider waterboarding the moral equivalent of the above mentioned TRUE methods of torture? (Not that our enemies give a crap in the first place.)

In other words, the unintended consequence of making waterboarding illegal, is that you promote other more extreme methods of torture. If you're going to go to jail anyway, heh, why not go for the full monty!

Cause trust me, Al Qaeda has already trained it's murderous scum how to evade the "techniques" in the Army Field Manual--they will laugh like goats into the faces of interrogators from now on end.

Hope you morally superior paragons are happy. Can't wait for the next big hit. I'm taking names, and believe me, you'll be hearing from me.

daddy

Cecil,

Exactly correct. The minute she became a National figurehead on McCain's Ticket, she became persona non-grata to the Dem's. I don't have any problem understanding the Dem's motivations to annihilate her politically. It's the Republican's, especially the Senate President and House Speaker that I'm still floundering around about. It's definitely more than just the Oil deal, and Old Boy Networks etc. There is animus and jealousy and pettiness, but mixed in with all that is a significant bunch that just think that as a Governor she is doing a lousy job. It's a mix of reasons, and unfortunately all the microphones are in the hands of folks with political bias or personal animus, so it's tough to ferret out if there are honest reasons for Sarah discontent , and if so, what those reasons are.

But I definitely think her out of state supporters need to be aware of in-state perceptions, so thats why I throw it out there.

boris

At any point in time, one could look at the current version of the field manual and know what is and isn't legal.

And the clarity HH wanted was what is and isn't torture.

Your so called "clarity" is subject to change and will change when voters express their (apparently short lived) outrage that more US citizens have been murdered while the morons they so foolishly elected postured and preened.

The "clarity" I prefer would be based on what was considered reasonable in the aftermath of 911. Anything else = hypocrite.

clarice

Hmm, Maybe we should just redo their rotten teeth without anesthetic--probably a better medical care than they're used to anyway.

(We could import British dentists)

boris

"redo their rotten teeth without anesthetic"

Simultaneous complimentary colonoscopy.

"Hold still now ..."

bad

spit

verner

And no clove oil unless they talk.

Elliott

narciso,

Happy birthday to your mother.

AL

Rick Ballard:

You employ to much logical reasoning. My feeling is that specific crowd just needs somebody to hate. Hate in unexplainable and pathological manner.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame