What's Interesting Is That Begala Is Smart Enough To Know His Argument Is Phony

Paul Begala makes a claim not supported by any of the evidence on offer, but relies on wordplay to claim victory in a dispute with Mark Hemingway of the NRO.  [A noted wordsmith can't spot the fallacy or do the research.  Surprise!]

Begala's claim is that "the United States executed Japanese war criminals for waterboarding".  His source is this Politifact article backing a similar claim by John McCain.  Politifact opens with this quote from McCain, who was expressing his opposition to waterboarding:

"I forgot to mention last night that following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding," he told reporters at a campaign event.

The slippage is obvious - if war criminals who committed many bad acts including waterboarding were executed, McCain's statement would be accurate but Begala's would not be.

Politfact cites this article by jurist Evan Wallach, which reviews the history of waterboarding in US law, including the war crimes trials following WWII.  There is also a WaPo version and this summary.  Let me just present the start of the summary for a flavor of Begala's problem:

Wallach has found a number of instances in American legal history which document the consistent classification of waterboarding as a technique of torture — which is clearly an unconstitutional practice. Among Wallach’s examples are:

• The prosecution of members of the Japanese military for their treatment of Americans during World War II. Seitara Hata was just one Japanese soldier charged with a war crime for waterboarding; Hatara was sentenced to 25 years hard labor.

"Hard labor"?  Hit me with your best shot, pal!  Did Wallach find anyone that was executed whose main crime was waterboarding? I welcome assistance, but I found no such example in the Wallach paper or the NY Times archives (Trust but verify - I was exhausted but I cannot claim my search was exhaustive). 

Plenty of Japanese war criminals were executed, but plenty of horrific abuses were committed as well.  Just for example, this commission in Java cited the "water cure", electric shock, crushing of fingers, and a "scientifically graduated" method of beating that culminated with a cat-o-nine tails designed with metal flesh-tearing hooks as methods of torture.

You know we worry when our friends on the left send a meme out into the world alone and with no visible means of support.  Well - Begala made a positive claim; he ought to be able to provide a name.  Who did we execute whose primary offense was waterboarding in WWII?

Mr. Wallach will be pleased to hear the answer.  Or, quite possibly, my opthamologist will be pleased to see me again.

Of course, all that said, supporters of the Bush enhanced interrogation program are not exactly presenting a winning argument by advancing the notion that waterboarding is not a capital offense but only merits decades of hard labor.  Still, we are pro-facts, not pro-torture.

MORE:  Mark Hemingway makes some of the points above in his own defense but misses the Wallach articles.

[end of thread]

Comments

[MikeS]

...someone else using that moniker...

Wow! My children will be impressed when they find out I have an impersonator.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I believe it's Scarlet Pumpernickel.

Well bread?

[The Other MikeS]

I have come up with a solution to my doppelganger issue.

[bad]

Congaratulations Old Lurker!! All my best to the blessed couple. God be with them.

[bad]

Jane, think how green we would be if white grass were used. It would be so green.

[Rick Ballard]

MikeS,

But you are the original MikeS. The doppelganger is the Other MikeS.

[Elliott]

That's great news, Old Lurker.

[Original MikeS]

But you are the original MikeS.

Yes but but I we we uh uh ...

[boris]

Liked the character Original Cindy friend of Max (Dark Angel).

[Danube of Thought]

My apologies, MikeS--I should have realized upon reading your post today that you couldn't possibly have been the same guy. In addition to espousing the ridiculous, he sprinkled vulgar language and insults throughout his various messages. Very sorry about that.

[bad]

The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested.

Reported in a Britsh paper. LUN

[clarice]

I read that something about it in the US yesterday, Bad, IIRC law enforcement intervewnors argued for retention of the old rule on the ground that it was a simple, easy to follow rule for all their men. Each time the SCOTUS comes up with a fancier test it exposes local LE to more litigation because there is more discretion involved at the bottom rungs and therefore more room for error.

[Original MikeS]

Very sorry about that.
No apology necessary. I'm very happy to know that you keep slapping down the trolls in my absence.

[clarice]

Daily Rasmussen:

58% Oppose Further Investigation of U.S. Torture Allegations Saturday, April 25, 2009

President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders are opposed to more investigations of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects, and 58% of U.S. voters agree with them. A number of congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are pushing for a wider probe.

Just 28% think the Obama administration should do further investigating of how suspected terrorists were questioned during the Bush years, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure
***********
For the first time since Barack Obama was elected president last November, more than half of U.S. voters (53%) say it is at least somewhat likely that the next occupant of the White House will be a Republican. Thirty-one percent (31%) say it is Very Likely.

Thirty-five percent (35%) say it is not very or not at all likely, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Twelve percent (12%) aren’t sure.

This is not an expectation related to the 2012 election. It is a question about the President following Obama which could happen in either 2012 or 2016.

Naturally, there is a partisan divide--77% of Republican voters say it’s likely the next president will be from their party. Just 39% of Democrats agree.

Still, that’s an increase among both parties from previous surveys. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 47% now say a GOP president is likely, while 33% think not.

Just after Obama’s election, 50% of voters said the next president is likely to be a Republican. But since the new president took office, that number has dropped into the mid-40s.

[sbw]

smg: Good luck finding one where all you read are posts by people who agree with you 100% and never challenge your views.

All snark and no substance.

[Jane]

Old Lurker daughter #1 will marry her Marine Intel Officer this afternoon at Washington National Cathedral.

Wow I can't believe I missed the wedding. I bet it was spectacular. I can't wait to hear all about it. Congrats OL!

[MayBee]

Old Lurker daughter #1 will marry her Marine Intel Officer this afternoon at Washington National Cathedral.

That is marvelous, Old Lurker! I hope it was beautiful!

[daddy]

Great news OL,

Wonderful to hear. Congratulations.

[Calming Influence]

Bad:
Imagine if Michelle only wears white skirts and pants...

And wears white sleeves.

...Oh, I get it now! That's funny because Michele Obama is - how should I put this - of the "negro" persuasion! [snicker snicker snort!!]

Because her (let's just say) non-white skin would be almost the OPPOSITE of white!!! That IS clever! How DO you think of these funny things?

But enough with the high-brow jocularity; this is a serious subject. When I was in the Air Force ('75-'81, 9th SRW; "Spy The Friendly Skies!") we knew that countries like the Soviet Union and the Red Chinese were the bad guys because they suppressed democracy and limited their citizens freedoms, and hey, we didn't want that sh*t coming over here. We knew how they suppressed democracy - by locking up and torturing anyone perceived as an Enemy of the State; enemy combatants if you will. The Chinese and the Soviets supported the Viet Cong, encouraging them to torture U.S. P.O.W.s. They got almost no useful information from their efforts, but hey, they didn't give a crap. Our enemies were completely immoral scumbag pricks.

Oh, sorry for rambling; remind me again what this thread is about?

[sbw]

Calming Influence. Wrong. You missed the point, the humor, and the mark.

[sbw]

Maroon!

[Ignatz]

-Oh, sorry for rambling; remind me again what this thread is about?-

Most of us considered it to be about a guy too stupid to know his comments are a crock of s***.
Any relation?

[Calming Influence]

Sorry for the misunderstanding - I thought what was happening here was a Cintonesque It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is defense of torture. My mistake. You can just treat it as a fond reminiscence from my time in the military.

Do you have any remembrances from your service that you'd like to share, sbw?

[sbw]

"Do you have any remembrances from your service that you'd like to share, sbw?"

Yes. I had concluded in 1969 that the United States should not have to be the world's policeman; that that was the job of the United Nations.

Then I discovered that the United Nations was not up to the task.

... But you misdirect: You took what was said one way... Racist... in a way that gets in the way of understanding the substance of what is said at this blog. I know of no blog of the liberal persuasion that is as open to substantive discussion as this one, or as free of ignorant over-generalization (which is what racism is).

If you can suggest a parallel liberal blog that isn't an echo chamber, I would visit there.

[Neil B ☺]

Tom, you are missing the most important points. First, it isn't that important whether anyone was executed just for waterboarding by itself. Some of the WWII Japanese were charged with multiple crimes, and waterboarding was included. To suggest that gets w-b off the hook is like saying, all those guys we arrested for robbery also used guns, so robbery by itself is OK. Also, the fellow that got 25 years for w-b, shows it was considered a serious crime even though he wasn't executed. It is not "good-faith reasoning" to divert with frills that don't challenge the essential point.

BTW, read Kathleen Parker's latest column about the torture issue.

[Neil B ☺]

PeterUK, who lost isn't supposed to be the deciding factor in a matter of law - or do you not care about that issue?