Matt Yglesias, having contemplated a recent Rasmussen poll showing that 58% of Americans favor waterboarding the Underpants Bomber, has a question for America's "torture-loving conservative elites":
I would be interested to know how far the public—or how torture-loving conservative elites—would be willing to go on this. In a lot of ways terrorism cases strike me as unusually unpromising venues for torture. Something more banal like trying to get a low-level drug dealer to spill the beans on his supplier could really work. My view is that routinized deployment of brutality by government officials isn’t going to produce any systematic gains, so it doesn’t make sense to uncork this kind of treatment on Abdulmuttalab or Generic Drug Dealer X. But for torture enthusiasts is there anything special about terrorism suspects?
I don't know how seriously terrorist-coddling liberal elites take this question, but let me take a stab - terrorist attacks of the type seen in America tend to be rare and extremely damaging, so preventing them is extremely valuable. As to the value of "torturing" a drug dealer to name his supplier or intercept the next Big Shipment? Uhh, not to minimize the fine work being done by our Drug Warriors, but drug shipments are like streetcars - there will be another one along in a minute. For that matter, drug dealers are like - hmm, my Simile Smasher seems to be stuck - drug dealers are like streetcars, too.
America's torture-loving conservative elite supported a regime that used the waterboard three times on Al Qaeda operatives believed to be high level planners - that would hardly count as routine usage or support thereof. As to the other approved "enhanced interrogation techniques", well, call me a monster but I am still OK with the belly slap, the attention grab, the noogie, and some of the others.
Matt does offer some howlers in his explication of the ticking time bomb scenario vis a vis the UnderBomber:
The fact that Abdulmuttalab was on that plane, alone, with a not-very-impressive explosive stuffed down his pants is about the best proof you can think of that al-Qaeda doesn’t have a massive nuclear weapon hidden somewhere beneath Manhattan that they’re about to set off. The guy may or may not have some information that would be useful to intelligence officials, but he clearly doesn’t have specific information about imminent attacks. The idea being endorsed here is really just routinized use of torture as an investigatory technique.
First, it was the detonator that was not so impressive; the explosive was reportedly adequate to crash the plane over Detroit.
More importantly, the notion that Abdulmuttalab does not have useful intel that could be used to thwart an imminent attack is far from certain. Just for example, suppose he provided a tidbit about how he was moved through Yemen that allowed the Yemeni authorities to identify and pick up a key Al Qaeda operative who was well informed on Qaeda plans. That would be a lucky break of the sort that is also described as "making your own luck."
Or perhaps Abdulmuttalab could provide info that led to the bombmaker. Or perhaps he remembers his trainers saying things like "Wow, you are much more adept than the last three guys we trained." Even the intel service that ignored the warnings from Abdulmuttalab's father might consider that to be a useful clue that would aid in disrupting future plots.
Or (I am almost done conjugating possibilities) Abdulmuttalab might simply provide some tidbit that corroborates information from another source. That sort of thing has value in the intelligence world as well.
I suppose it depends on the meaning of "imminent", but as a terrorist-coddling liberal Matt seems to have defaulted to the position that Abdulmuttalab probably has nothing useful to say about any plots likely to come to fruition in the next few months, so let's speed things along by assuming he doesn't. This "Don't Ask, Don't Listen" approach to dealing with terrorists is not favored by the torture-loving conservative elites, who believe that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
My guess is that Abdulmuttalab would not have been a candidate for the waterboard under Darth Cheney. However, if Team Obama had put him into the military system as an enemy combatant he would not have been allowed to lawyer up, we wouldn't be reading about how his lawyer might agree to let him cooperate, and he would be subject to military style interrogation without a lawyer even if other enhanced techniques were not employed.
That suggests an interesting question - do terrorist-coddling liberal elites really believe that prisoners provide just as much (or as little) information whether we observe their rights under US criminal procedures or their rights as detainees of the US military? Do terrorist-coddling liberal elites really believe that all these Miranda warnings and provision of access to lawyers really doesn't encourage anyone to keep anyone quiet?
Just wondering.
"terrorist-coddling liberal elites" believe that the only ones who should be deprived of their Constitutional Rights are "torture-loving conservatives" and anyone else who doesn't agree with them 100%
Posted by: JorgXMcKie | January 04, 2010 at 08:37 PM
that would hardly count as routine usage or support thereof.
I think you're a little confused: you imagine that "making sense" is what he has in mind, instead of scoring points.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | January 04, 2010 at 08:40 PM
Well no, but Abdullah Muhahir "Jose Padilla" was nabbed at O'Hare, and sent to Charleston,
subject to sensory deprivation, and he was flagged by his AQ application, found in Afghanistan, and I recall an interrogation of Zubeydah. Yglesias really makes me doubt that
Dalton and Harvard credential, more and more
each day
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 08:42 PM
Of course, a more apt parallel is Saleh Al Marri, nabbed for credit card fraud, but then it was discovered he had trained at an AQ camp, and he was sent to Charleston. Jane Mayer really cried tears over him, despite the fact he's one of those 'fabulous
Quahtani bros, like the Hatfields but more numerous
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 08:53 PM
I don't see the necessity to "waterboard" ever suspect, but when somebody shows up with underwear of PETN, I'd say he qualifies for a few sessions of waterboarding.
As an aside, I think every politician and government lawyer should be required to be waterboarded every 5 years of so, unless they confess up front for felonious activity. If intelligence and military officers have to go through this, I see no reason why their civilian overseers should get a pass.
Posted by: Neo | January 04, 2010 at 08:57 PM
--But for torture enthusiasts is there anything special about terrorism suspects?--
Not at all. Most of us enthusiasts would gladly introduce Matt's fingernails to some bamboo shoots in order to prevent anymore lamebrained columns like this retarded piece of coyly defamatory and inflammatory crap.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 04, 2010 at 09:11 PM
Well, I do know that terrorist coddling liberals are willing to sacrifice every man, woman, and child in this country to prove their moral superiority.
Posted by: No one you know | January 04, 2010 at 09:15 PM
Hey, this is sort of on-topic, but I've got a better name than pantybomber or underbomber -- how about the codpiece-bomber?
Posted by: cathyf | January 04, 2010 at 09:23 PM
"The guy may or may not have some information that would be useful to intelligence officials, but he clearly doesn’t have specific information about imminent attacks."
"Clearly?" What does Yglesias know that the rest of us don't?
The whole tenor of the quoted passages is so unserious that it's probably not worth commenting. He seems to think that the choices are between (a) putting him in the criminal justice system, or (b) torturing him. In reality, alternative (b) is simply holding him as an ulawful combatant and interrogating him. We have interrogated thousands of these guys and "tortured" three of them.
I'm one of the 58% who favors waterboarding him if, and only if, his professional interrogators conclude, based on their experience, that he is holding back actionable information that is urgently needed, and that he won't give it up otherwise.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 04, 2010 at 09:24 PM
Mr. Yglesias is mistaken about the explosive efficacy of PETN, the underpants jihadi's product of choice, but then, he's never been one to allow the facts to get in the way.
What I find of greater interest is the delusional flights of rhetoric common both to the far Left and the Arabic/Islamic world. Yglesias' logic has more in common with that of say, Baghdad Bob that the historic norm in this country.
Posted by: matt | January 04, 2010 at 09:29 PM
I can't decide which is funnier:
(a) "Don't ask, don't listen" --or--
(b)Not at all. Most of us enthusiasts would gladly introduce Matt's fingernails to some bamboo shoots in order to prevent anymore lamebrained columns like this retarded piece of coyly defamatory and inflammatory crap.
I'm voting for a tie.
But DoT it's such a thwill wunning up my leg when ve pour dat vater down his thwoat...Lily von Shtuup
Posted by: Clarice | January 04, 2010 at 09:30 PM
I don't know if Yglesias has any kids, but would it be too much to ask that when the terrorists get a bus-driver hired, they're driving his kids' bus instead of mine?
Posted by: Extraneus | January 04, 2010 at 09:31 PM
Oh, DoT, I am so glad you have returned. As to what you said in your comments - I say "ditto."
I am really tired of the Hannity and his opposite number who think there is no middle ground between Miranda rights and "water boarding." If he needs it (w.b.) then do it. I think, based on early reports, regular old interrogation would have probably born fruit.
Posted by: centralcal | January 04, 2010 at 09:31 PM
If he wants to see real torture go visit the Taliban I'm sure they would be happy to give him a first person introduction.
Posted by: Harrison | January 04, 2010 at 09:34 PM
Also, given the nature of the codpiece bomber's injuries, we really only have two choices with him: "torture" him in the course of treating him, or let him die.
I'd actually be in favor of sending in some interrogators to ask him some questions while they are changing his bandages. The value of distraction as a pain-alleviating technique is well-documented, so it seems the charitable thing to do...
Posted by: cathyf | January 04, 2010 at 09:34 PM
I suspect, actually, that panties-jihadi wouldn't necessarily have much other knowledge. Once it became clear we were using strong interrogation, you'd stop telling the
idiotsbombers anything useful, just for OPSEC.Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | January 04, 2010 at 09:36 PM
The problem is enough information has been leaked about our interrogation protocols that
they can reverse engineer a SERE program against them. Now, they know that under this
administration, those tactics are frowned upon, but Cloonan and Soufan, should knock them selves out, proving us wrong
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 09:39 PM
Hey, Michael Steele has a book out.
I can just feel the excitement that announcement creates among the JOM readership.
Posted by: PD | January 04, 2010 at 09:41 PM
Is waterboarding all we can do? I'm thinking of the movie "Taken."
Posted by: MarkO | January 04, 2010 at 09:41 PM
Unless they brought him blindfolded to an isolated room and used fake names, it seems like he would know who he trained with, and where, and how many others were there. He might also know what other types of plans were being contemplated.
Maybe if we throw in a transplant, this will all come out in the plea bargain.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 04, 2010 at 09:42 PM
Of course, a more apt parallel is Saleh Al Marri, nabbed for credit card fraud, but then it was discovered he had trained at an AQ camp
AFAICR, al Marri was revealed as al Qaeda by KSM himself. The credit card fraud was intended as a funding source for the next wave of attacks.
(I've tried to keep tabs on al Marri because the two of us apparently went to college together.)
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 04, 2010 at 09:42 PM
What a ridiculous assertion, that "Abdulmuttalab... is about the best proof you can think of that al-Qaeda doesn’t have a massive nuclear weapon hidden somewhere beneath Manhattan that they’re about to set off". Why does the existence of the former preclude the existence of the latter? Hasn't Yglesias heard of multi-tasking? Or of cells that operate somewhat independently and don't necessarily coordinate their respective attempts to kill Americans?
Let's see, do idiots like Yglesias provide the best proof that liberals just can't be taken seriously about much of anything, and especially national security?
And as a torture-loving conservative (I doubt the elitist label applies), it doesn't matter whether torture is 'unpromising', what is important is that torture not be taken off the list of tactics to use at the right time and in the right way in order to protect America and Americans from attack.
Posted by: stevesturm | January 04, 2010 at 09:43 PM
I suspect, actually, that panties-jihadi wouldn't necessarily have much other knowledge. Once it became clear we were using strong interrogation, you'd stop telling the idiots bombers anything useful, just for OPSEC.
True. Doesn't mean he should be in the civilian court system, though. He's an unlawful combatant.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 04, 2010 at 09:43 PM
OT
They better bring a bigger bat! More on Martha and the SEIU corruption.
Posted by: Rocco | January 04, 2010 at 09:44 PM
For that matter, drug dealers are like - hmm, my Simile Smasher seems to be stuck
Well, they sell a seductive kind of poison, and while a select few get filthy rich doing it, most struggle along at the margins of society until they vanish unloved and unmissed; the low-level guys are among the dregs of society but even the high-level folk don't come across as particularly erudite, though I guess they have a certain low cunning
-so basically drug dealers are like progressive writers, TM.
Posted by: bgates | January 04, 2010 at 09:49 PM
Does Matt Yglesias propose we start sending missiles and drones to kill suspected drug gangs/extremists in the United States?
Posted by: MayBee | January 04, 2010 at 09:51 PM
Yikes, Rob, that would make for an interesting
college reunion, So whatcha been doing. . .
Apparently the same designer for the Mohammed
Nayif underwear bomb, was behind this one, so that's one contact, there was an Al Harbi involved there too.
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 09:53 PM
codpiece-bomber? - I don't know, cathyf. A codpiece was also an Englishman's wallet and then some, not merely an enhancement like Algore's airbrushed para-package. Just to demean the terrorist, how about Nappy-bomber?
Seriously, why shouldn't this young wannabe be waterboarded? He wants the glory; give him the treatment. If our military submits and survives, surely he can.
Yglesias may feed his readers "torture-loving conservative elites" but misses the main point for me. If the military had used its *other* methods on this man, there might have been valuable information gleaned. Now, we will never know. But of course, I am a torture lover.
Posted by: Frau Folteknecht | January 04, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Once it became clear we were using strong interrogation, you'd stop telling the idiots bombers anything useful
In the far-off future when that becomes true, yes. At present, I'm surprised they don't give the martyrs copies of Osama's day planner emblazoned with the title "This Copy of Osama's Day Planner Is Protected by the Fourth Amendment, I Know My Rights."
Besides, part of the fun of intelligence work is that they don't know what we might find useful, right?
Posted by: bgates | January 04, 2010 at 09:57 PM
Reportedly, Abdul managed to neuter himself, so I like eunuchbomber. I wonder if criminals here are entitled to medical treatment denied enemy combatants...like silicone implants to replace damaged testes? If so, that bargaining chip was needlessly forfeited.
Posted by: DebinNC | January 04, 2010 at 10:03 PM
"we were using strong interrogation..."
Isn't this code for the Lazyboy recliner that Mark Steyn experienced in Gitmo?
Posted by: Frau Folteknecht | January 04, 2010 at 10:07 PM
Yikes, Rob, that would make for an interesting college reunion...
So far as I know, we didn't have any classes together, and our times there only overlapped by a year.
Oddly, Glen Greenwald's most famous legal client, Matt Hale, also went there for a couple of years. He was a bit more vocal than al Marri, but just as poisonous.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 04, 2010 at 10:07 PM
I wonder if criminals here are entitled to medical treatment denied enemy combatants...
AFAIK, lawful combatants are entitled to life-saving medical treatments, and likely any that are preventative, too. You know -- inoculation against something endemic in the area of the prison camp, things like that.
With unlawful combatants, well, they have no rights or entitlements.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 04, 2010 at 10:09 PM
According to Hot Air, the Republican in MA is within 11 points of the Democrat. I guess that is a big deal in MA but it seems a hill too high to climb.
Posted by: Sue | January 04, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Yes the confy chair, as with many things what was satire back in the Python day, is reality
now. Steyn also remarked on David Hicks, the
'Wallabee Taliban,'(my own formulation) being considerably heavier when he left Gitmo.
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 10:16 PM
If the military had used its *other* methods on this man, there might have been valuable information gleaned.
You're suggesting that waterboarding is one of the military's methods?
Thoughts from Greyhawk.
Posted by: PD | January 04, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Actually, unlawful combatants--everyone held in custody, in fact--has certain basic rights (e.g. humane treatment) under one of the Geneva conventions.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 04, 2010 at 10:20 PM
"how about the codpiece-bomber?"
or, given his ineffectiveness, the "cod-bomber." that one was for you, PUK [sniffle].
Posted by: macphisto | January 04, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Actually, unlawful combatants--everyone held in custody, in fact--has certain basic rights (e.g. humane treatment) under one of the Geneva conventions.
Which?
And is the US a signatory?
Posted by: Rob Crawford | January 04, 2010 at 10:30 PM
">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/6932746/Six-trucks-of-explosives-disappear-in-Yemen.html"> Six Trucks of Explosives "Disappear" in Yemen.
"...militants driving six trucks filled with weapons and ordnance succeeded in giving security forces the slip as they entered the city...(Sana`a Capital of Yemen)."
"Both the British and American embassies, considered the most high-profile targets in the city, remained closed for a second day..."
"The identity of those who smuggled the weapons contingent into Sana'a has not been disclosed..."
"Diplomats dismissed speculation that the vanishing convoy could presage an imminent attack on Western interests in the city...
"These reports have nothing to do with the reason embassies were shut," one said."
Posted by: daddy | January 04, 2010 at 10:37 PM
OT
Amazing pictures from Iran: Three days in Iran
h/t Dan Riehl tweet
Posted by: Ann | January 04, 2010 at 10:39 PM
daddy:
BREAKING NEWS TWEET:
US Embassy in Yemen closed over security concerns will reopen Tuesday*, official tells CNN
Yemen fertile ground for terror groups
*The same day Obama will give his speech.
Posted by: Ann | January 04, 2010 at 10:44 PM
Hey, the UK Telegraph is having a readers poll to determine ">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100021309/who-is-britains-worst-mp/"> Who is Britain's worst MP? .
P`UK fans will be delighted to know that his favorite sureptitious booger eater, Gordon Brown, is currently leading the pack, but some of the comments are certainly fun.
Perhaps TM could set up a similar Poll here at JOM.
I`ll start the bidding with Henry Waxman.
Anybody want to raise my Henry Waxman?
Posted by: daddy | January 04, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Gee, Daddy, you can't pick just one, you need
a sampler case, like Gump's box of chocolates
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 11:00 PM
Ann, Isn`t that amazing.
In 2 minutes of searching we find officials telling us the US Embassy in Yemen is not closed for Security Reasons and other officials telling us the same US Embassy in Yemen is closed for Security Reasons.
The system continues to work well.
Posted by: daddy | January 04, 2010 at 11:01 PM
daddy, I'm still angry about the gauntlet they are making pilots run in NJ. Isn't the pilots union doing anything? Your company? Heck, that should stop immediately..it's just some local stupidity.
Call it in to Steyn who's covering for Rush and has been covering TSA lunacy.
Posted by: Clarice | January 04, 2010 at 11:02 PM
daddy and Mark Steyn on the radio together would be magnificent. Great idea, Clarice!
Posted by: Ann | January 04, 2010 at 11:14 PM
How do they miss 6 trucks, even if they can't get satellite coverage, you'd think a UAV would have picked up on this, from somewhere. How stupid do they think we are, I know rhetorical question, considering the results more than a year ago
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 11:15 PM
Thank you, PD, for the link and additional perspectives (not all of which agree with Greyhawk).
From Greyhawk:
"But other than on television and in movies, the military doesn't have a branch, office, capability, mandate, or jurisdiction to "conduct investigations" of terrorist acts on American territory."
That's useful to know; perhaps it's a misunderstanding in getting information from the media, but Gitmo is considered to be the *current* interrogation site for terrorists. If Greyhawk is correct, a terrorist who acts on American territory and is captured cannot be investigated/interrogated by the military. Who is using the enhanced interrogation methods and where? CIA a/o FBI in a military facility? At what point does the terrorist make it to a military court?
Posted by: Frau Folteknecht | January 04, 2010 at 11:18 PM
Clarice,
We were recently notified that the company was fined $5,000 for each incident of personnel donating Urine prior to completely clearing the Customs gauntlet. Custom`s paperwork apparantly overrules Urine collection, so our new direction, as of 25 November, is to shut up and hold it.
Welcome to Newark!
Posted by: daddy | January 04, 2010 at 11:21 PM
"Which?
"And is the US a signatory?"
Common Article 3 {"common" to all four conventions). And congress in 1999 made it a crime under US law to violate it. So far as I know "humane" has never been defined.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 04, 2010 at 11:31 PM
Sometimes I think that the terrorists should be forced to read Yggie's sophistry.
Then I feel ashamed for thinking about doing such a sick thing to a human being and I have to go confess to a Christian minister because a Buddhist priest just doesn't offer enough redemption.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | January 04, 2010 at 11:49 PM
I hope they are also looking for some of those “money making” Nigerian e-mails.
Posted by: Neo | January 04, 2010 at 11:49 PM
US Embassy in Yemen closed over security concerns will reopen Tuesday
Hmm. Maybe the aspiring terrorists are suddenly pushing up daisy-cutter bits and wishing they'd been waterboarded instead.
Posted by: Jim Ryan | January 04, 2010 at 11:51 PM
That could violate the Geneva and Vienna conventions, much like Vogon poetry. "Oh the humanity"
Posted by: narciso | January 04, 2010 at 11:57 PM
"Hey Lieutenant Mahmoud."
"Yes Captain?"
"See those 6 large trucks over there?"
"Yes Captain."
"Well they`re each filled with tons of dangerous explosives."
"No!"
"Yeah they are. And guess what else?"
"What Captain?"
"They`re each going to be driven by Al Queda terrorists."
"No!"
"It`s a fact. And guess where they`re going to be driven to?"
"Where Captain?"
"To the capital, Sana`a."
"No!"
"Yeah they are Mahmoud, to Sana`a."
"How do you know Captain?"
"Lieutenant Mahmoud, don`t you worry how I know those 6 trucks over there, completely full of dangerous explosives, are going to be driven in a convoy by Al Queda terrorists to the capital Sana`a. What`s important for you to know is that you need to follow that convoy of 6 heavy trucks, not let them out of your sight, and find out where they go when they get to Sana`a. Understand?"
"Yes Captain, I understand."
"Good, now go take as many guys as you like and go accomplish your mission."
"Aye aye Captain. Thank you for giving me this important mission."
........................................
"So Lieutenant Mahmoud, where in Sana`a are the 6 heavy trucks, laden with dangerous explosives, driven in a convoy by Al Queda terrorists?"
"I am sorry Captain. I do not know...
It was difficult to follow that convoy of
6 heavy trucks, laden with dangerous explosives, driven by Al Queda terrorists, to the capital Sana`a....They gave us the slip."
"Well that`s too bad Lieutenant Mahmoud. This will reflect badly on your record. I am now going to punish you by assigning you to duty monitoring the captured Al Queda terrorist`s in our prisons. Here`s the keys to their jail cells. Allah Aqbar."
"Allah Aqbar Captain. What`s for lunch?"
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2010 at 12:06 AM
I don't think that waterboarding meets the definition of torture.
As to using real torture on terrorists, I tend to agree with Australian theory. "Red is positive. Black is negative, and make sure his nuts are wet."
Posted by: MikeS | January 05, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Who is using the enhanced interrogation methods and where? CIA a/o FBI in a military facility?
CIA, I think. I'm sure others here can correct me if that's incorrect.
Posted by: PD | January 05, 2010 at 12:10 AM
Yup, that's about the size of it, how do you say "Gomer Pyle" in Arabic
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2010 at 12:14 AM
">http://wcbstv.com/local/newark.airport.tsa.2.1404572.html"> Officials Point Finger At TSA In Newark Breach
Thousands Left Stranded Inside Airport After Man Seen Walking Wrong Way Through Security Checkpoint.
Perhaps he simply had to take a $5,000 pee.
Posted by: daddy | January 05, 2010 at 12:31 AM
So far as I am aware, only the CIA has any expertise and experience in the use the advanced techniques. Neither the FBI nor the armed services have any such capability.
Unfortunately, I believe (but am not crertain) that Obama transferred all authority for interrogations from the CIA to the FBI.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 05, 2010 at 12:48 AM
He, did, and Brennan chairs that taskforce, 'best of all possible worlds' here
Posted by: narciso | January 05, 2010 at 12:57 AM
I am having a heck of a time posting. Twice typepad accepted by posts but they don't show up. I linked two pictures in one post, so maybe that is the problem.
Sorry, if this gets posted three times but I will try and divide the pictures. Here goes:
Don't miss JMH post last evening to her blog:
Quasiblog.
One of her better finds is a picture of the lapel pin worn by White House Doormen.
If the Drudge Report hadn't gone dormant in the last few months it would be on the front page with a siren.
Posted by: Ann | January 05, 2010 at 01:04 AM
My second link was thoughts on what Michelle's hand maidens wear on their lapels with just a guess:
Anyways, Bravo JMH, you should be in charge of the daily newspaper on our island. You out report the MSM everyday.
Posted by: Ann | January 05, 2010 at 01:14 AM
"I would be interested to know how far the public—or how torture-loving conservative elites—would be willing to go on this."
When Abdulmuttallab says there are "more like me coming", my thoughts are that we should at least try the noogie. I love AC/DC and I'm sure after a substantial number of hours Abjulmuttallab will come to love them as much as I do. How about a couple of direct questions before letting the terrorist lawyer up and clam up?
Now we have the administration talking about making a deal with this terrorist in some plea bargain after his attempt at mass murder and destruction? Perhaps if he "cooperates" he can be released with the next batch of Yemeni transports into an art therapy class?
I just finished watching a Peter Robinson Uncommon Knowledge with Victor Davis Hanson and Robert Baer discussing "The Iran Problem" (LUN) in which, among other topics, they put the probability of an Israeli attack on Iran at 50% by the end of March. Any Gold/Oil options plays? S&P500 puts? TM, you must have some economic/finance play?
It just feels like I'm watching a slow motion train wreck.
Posted by: dk70 | January 05, 2010 at 02:05 AM
'Who is using the enhanced interrogation methods and where? CIA a/o FBI in a military facility?'
John's Hopkins. If they give him his shots and help him get better and forget, the doctors who went overseas to 'help' will be cleared.
They were happy with the contract, but can't figure out what happened with the fiesta underwear.
The King and Queen look great, but I just can't talk about it........it's....dimentia.....so I don't know nothin.....really. We should addr
ess public policy decision makers more and keep that dimentia down........
Something happen in Jersey?
Posted by: collaboration consultation | January 05, 2010 at 04:53 AM
I'm sick and tired of the "panty-wearing" elitist liberal "girlie-men" that pose as real men making commentary on anything military. Go hide under the bed until the war is over. You're an embarrassment to the rest of us. Go pick out some drapes or a good place to hide while real men try to keep you from getting murdered by people that don't give a sh.t about rights, innocent people, women, children, or anyone else who doesn't believe in their God. These wife beating, child beating, intolerent a..holes don't care about you or what you think, whether you offer them an olive leaf, or whether you are liberal or conservative. They want you and your family dead! Be a man and stop cowering to these animals. "Darth Chaney?" Are you serious you coward? Don't you know we waterboard our own soldiers and operatives as a training exercise? Get the hell out of the way, hide wherever you must, even behind your women and children, but stay the hell out of the way so the rest of us can protect your family, something you apparently aren't willing to do.
Posted by: Dave B | January 05, 2010 at 06:40 AM
Sounds to me like another dim liberal defining torture as "any discomfort a terrorist complains about." Sorry, Matt, but rough interrogation is not torture. Torture is when you inflict brutal, disfiguring injuries for the sake of retaliation or punishment. Subjecting someone to physical discomfort with the objective of saving the lives of innocent people is only torture in the minds of preening, sanctimonious twits.
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale | January 05, 2010 at 06:53 AM
(Just a data point, y'know...)
As we know from PUK's mum, "humane" does not include giving painkllers to a woman that you are killing by refusing her dialysis.Posted by: cathyf | January 05, 2010 at 08:31 AM
I wonder how Matt would feel if this plane had been filled with skiers heading to the Aspen Gay Ski Week.
Posted by: Neo | January 05, 2010 at 08:31 AM
Brown within 9 points.
Posted by: Jane | January 05, 2010 at 08:39 AM
I've come to the conclusion that Matt is an idiot based on that one sentence: "with a not-very-impressive explosive stuffed down his pants"
Like the author said, there were enough explosives to take the plane and everyone on board out of the sky. But I guess seeing a plane hurdling towards the ground on the evening news would have been more impressive to Matt.
I never really got this torture thing. I mean you have guys who do these things with full knowledge that they are going to die. So how is throwing them up against the wall or pouring water down their faces with a doctor present worse? They were willing to DIE!!!! Not just "I'm going into battle and I might die". No. It's "I'm going to die".
I put Matt in a special group. These are the people who, if something happened, would be pissing and moaning about how it was missed and who didn't do what right. Yet, they forget it was them who prevented those with the ability to stop it from stopping it.
Posted by: xax | January 05, 2010 at 08:54 AM
I bet Brown's rise partially explains the number of recent stories about the Reid-Pelosi healthcare "ping ponging" preventing the opportunity for another vote.
Posted by: DebinNC | January 05, 2010 at 08:55 AM
There was enough high explosive (80 grams) to have made four (4) Japanese WWII era hand grenades (20 grams apiece). But for a poor detonator indeed.
Posted by: cedarhill | January 05, 2010 at 08:55 AM
Tom -
You're somewhat missing the point.
IF terrorists are put in prison, they will have access to weight-lifting equipment, a library, and cable television ... and the time to use each.
By keeping terrorists in prison, we would be, in effect, creating the next crop of SuperPredators.
Better we should just let them go and hope that their Pre-Detonation visit to the Strip Club changes their minds. But, as you said, we make our own luck.
Perhaps we, as a nation, should be doing more. If the TSA empowered strippers and pole-dancers as our last, best(looking) line of defense two things would happen:
1) the TSA would finally have a group with actual people skills working for it.
2) Janet Napoliatano would not have to resign.
Seriously. If you *know* suicide bombers tend to visit strip clubs - it's be silly to not use that piece of intel in your defense.
... we could make our country safer, one crisply folded dollar bill at a time.
Posted by: BumperStickerist | January 05, 2010 at 08:55 AM
The next time we have a terrorist with a panty bomb sitting in 19A, I hope Yglesias is sitting in 19B.
Posted by: verner | January 05, 2010 at 09:03 AM
I wonder if Matt would be so soft on terrorist if, God forbid, they killed someone he cared about. Maybe they already have. I'm sure his public answer would make wussies everywhere tear up, but I wonder what his real feelings would be?
Posted by: Jim | January 05, 2010 at 09:26 AM
These are the people who, if something happened, would be pissing and moaning about how it was missed and who didn't do what right.
But only if they can find a way to pin it on Republicans.
Posted by: jimmyk | January 05, 2010 at 09:26 AM
Steve Sailer has an excellent blog on profiling theory (not as complex as you might think, but a lot more complex than liberals seem to think). Key graphs--Now that Obama has approved airport profiling ...
And speaking of probability, Pat Buchanan discusses Nuclear Poker with Iran, while managing to avoid his favorite topic--revisionist history of World War II. His conclusion:
Posted by: anduril | January 05, 2010 at 09:53 AM
I'm pretty sure that by causing me to contemplate strip clubs and Janet Napolitano at the same time, BumperStickerist has violated my rights under the Geneva Convention.
Brown is getting pretty close. Pretty soon the RNC is going to have to take a stand and endorse Coakley, maybe send Scozzafava, Specter, and Lincoln Chafee around the state to to let wavering voters know that real Republicans like them think Coakley is the real conservative centrist in the race.
Posted by: bgates | January 05, 2010 at 09:54 AM
For me, a father of a young son, its a no brainer. You wring out all the information the terrorist cum groin-bomber has in his possession no matter how insignificant or trivial it becomes. But you use whatever means are available. The most important responsibility I have as a parent is my family and son's security and safety. Its as simple as that and Matt Yglesia be damned. His opinion is as meaningless to me as a fly is to an elephant. At least Bush and Cheney thought of their country as parents think of their children - your primary obligation is to protect them. First, last, always. Screw the political outcome - its irrelevant.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 05, 2010 at 10:14 AM
Jane, the post was updated--Among likely voters, Ras says Brown's only 2% behind!!!Unbelievable.
Folks, this could be major--send in money, volunteer to call or help--let's see Senator Brown sworn in!!
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2010 at 10:22 AM
OT Yesterday I read that Sheila Jackson Lee is having an election challenger. The astonishing thing to me is this--that idiot graduated from Yale and UVa Law school.
Good Grief!
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Nine points is HUGE and should tighten up considerably after today's debate. I thought Brown kicked Coakley's butt. He was hammered on the abortion issue but cleaned her clock on every other issue. He seemed to convey that he's a tax cutting, small government candidate and stressed that here in Mass we're already self sufficient per a health care bill. Why should we now have to support the rest of the country. A Brown victory will be the 41st vote in the US Senate and he promised to vote against it as a United States Senator.
We vote two weeks from today!
Posted by: Rocco | January 05, 2010 at 10:35 AM
WOW...That's GREAT NEWS Clarice. Brown for US Senate Dot Com
Posted by: Rocco | January 05, 2010 at 10:40 AM
It doesn't matter how Brown would vote on the healthcare bill if no vote occurs...which is what all the stories yesterday and today claim is Reid-Pelosi-Obama's scheme via the "ping poing" gambit.
Posted by: DebinNC | January 05, 2010 at 10:49 AM
If he wins, Reid and Pelosi will be too busy adjusting their depends to keep up this nonsense. Kaus, who wants this kind of carp just did an analysis and he can't find any win for the Dems among any demographic for passing this bill.
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2010 at 10:52 AM
I don't believe waterboarding meets the definition of torture either.
Waterbosrd the SOB, get what info you can, then execute him, period. Treat all the "Jihadists" the same.
Posted by: Greg | January 05, 2010 at 10:54 AM
David Brooks via Insty: "“The public is not only shifting from left to right. Every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year."
The bill's a winner with at least one demographic - "the educated class". Ugh.
Posted by: DebinNC | January 05, 2010 at 11:00 AM
Educated as in Sheila Jackson Lee..BA Yale, LLB U Va?
Posted by: Clarice | January 05, 2010 at 11:09 AM
That's not right, DebinNC. Unless they agree to pass one of the two bills (house or senate) entirely unchanged, the changed bill will still have to get past a cloture vote in the senate. This is true even if the process involved in negotiating the changes does not involve a conference committee.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 05, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Money quote from Ras:
"Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 05, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Brian Lamb of C-SPAN has asked the Democrats for permission to televise the “conference”
Obama did promise that health care negotiations would be on C-SPAN
Posted by: Neo | January 05, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Why do people think Matt Yglesias is smart?
Posted by: Paul | January 05, 2010 at 11:34 AM
"Why do people think Matt Yglesias is smart?"
Because of his listing in the Anals of Credentialed Morony. Same as Josh Marshal or Ezra Klein or David Brooks or .... Lord, I'm going to run out of pixels.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 05, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Same reason the same people think Josh Marshall, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum, Gleen Grennwald, Markos Moulitsas and the rest of that crowd is smart, I guess. I'll never figure it out.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 05, 2010 at 11:38 AM
Lord, I'm going to run out of pixels.
I'll loan you some of mine.
Posted by: Sue | January 05, 2010 at 11:38 AM
That's not right, DebinNC
Thanks for the correction, DoT.
Posted by: DebinNC | January 05, 2010 at 11:39 AM
A poster at Tapper's blog left this...
Obama suffers for ED. Excessive Dishonesty.
Posted by: Sue | January 05, 2010 at 11:40 AM
If he wins, Reid and Pelosi will be too busy adjusting their depends to keep up this nonsense. Kaus, who wants this kind of carp just did an analysis and he can't find any win for the Dems among any demographic for passing this bill.
I hope Brown will win this special election but Reid and Pelosi are not worried about the November elections.
Cloward Piven: Overwhelm the system.
A while back I posted my puzzlement at how the Dems were so unconcerned about their re-election in face of the polls showing majority opposition to the Healthcare Bill.
It made no sense they would commit political suicide and I speculated that they have been reassured that the fix-is-in and they would be re-elected. My gut told me the November elections would be rigged, I just couldn't figure out how they would do it.
Well, now we know. Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer will bring up a Bill that federally mandates every State to automatically register every person of voting age whether they want to be registered or not! Illegals, felons and all. Absentee ballots and early voting will assure enough fraudulent votes to give the Dems the election. Forget States Rights, this is a federal mandate.
"What does universal voter registration mean? It means all state laws will be overridden by a federal mandate. At that point you will have destroyed the integrity of the registration process. This is their stealth bill . . . it is even more sneaky than the healthcare bill." - John Fund, Wall Street Journal
Dems Positioning To Rig November Elections? LUN
Posted by: SWarren | January 05, 2010 at 11:42 AM