Letters to the Editor
-
The Logic of Torture, such as it is
The problem with the "torturing the right guy" to stop 9/11 or the nuke in the cargo container or whatever Awful Thing is the macguffin in question is that in practice, outside of bad fiction, one doesn't know who the "right guy" is. This generally leads to torturing an awful lot of wrong guys...really, there is no limit to the number that could be tortured before you stumble on the right one, or even the one that leads you to the right one. If you follow the argument to its logical conclusion, the torture of every Muslim, or every brown person, or every liberal on earth could be justified if it prevented the death of White American Conservative "Christians" of any quantity. Even one.
Which is really the point. People who support torture, no matter what disclaimer they attach, really do so because at some level they like the idea of being in charge and reminding everyone who isn't in charge that any appearance of being a threat, or even competition, will be met with violence and pain. They LIKE the idea of torturing people, regardless of any efficacy it might have (and most experts agree it's dubious at best as a source of info). It keeps the uppity in their place.
Except of course when it has exactly the opposite effect.
What torture by the US unquestionably does is put us on the same exact moral level as every other state willing to torture to get what they want. If you're happy in that company, I have nothing to say to you, now or ever.
-
A Tutorial
This site provides precise definitions, firsthand accounts, and even a tutorial for the would-be waterboarder:
http://www.waterboarding.org/
-
Complicity, writ large
Joan says:
But Schumer's announcement Friday that he'd support Michael Mukasey as attorney general, despite Mukasey's cowardly refusal to say waterboarding is torture, was a jolt.
Is that because Charles Schumer has been such a principled, dedicated, formidable opponent to the overt lawlessness which has been the Bush Administration's modus operandi for the duration of his "presidency"?
Perhaps there's a simpler explanation for your incredulity. Like, say, a turnip truck.
That you and others (who presumably have not been living under a fucking rock for the last several years) could possibly be jolted by Schumer's narcissistic, duplicitous behavior is itself nothing short of astounding.
Like every other Democrat who has argued against impeachment, you have - in a clear, unambiguous fashion - conceded The Unitary Executive need not be held accountable for his actions, regardless of the consequences. That position reveals you and like-minded Democratic Faithful as mirror images of the amoral, unprincipled cowards you routinely condemn from the rickety perch of your righteous indignation.
As long as you are committed to inaction for the sake of political expediency while crimes are being committed in the name of the American public, your opposition to torture, illegal surveillance and other evils is irrelevant to anyone residing beyond the bony confines of your impenetrable skull.
Enjoy the horse race, Joan. You've certainly sold enough of your soul for it.
-
There's more to this story
Sorry to crash this party, but you have got to be kidding me.
As a former interrogator myself, I should tell you that Ms. Walsh leaves out that: 1) The "water torture" the Japanese used was fundamentally different than used today, and 2) In each case the Japanese were convicted of a whole host of crimes, including beating, burning, etc. "Water torture" was not the primary focus, see here for example:
http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/11/drowning-in-waterboarding.html
Not to mention the fact that it's only been used a whopping total of THREE TIMES under the Bush administration, the last time being in 2003!
-
Democrats hand Bush a victory, recommending the Mukasey nomination, 11-8.
And here's how the dysfunctional Democrats screwed it up, according to Ed Morrisey:
Instead of appointing Ted Olson, the apparent first choice of the White House, Schumer pushed for Mukasey as a "consensus candidate" -- and won.
If the Democrats had left it at that, they could have claimed a significant victory over the White House. Instead, they engaged in a fruitless colloquy over whether waterboarding was illegal -- when Congress has the power to make it explicitly illegal at any time. Not only did that irony escape them, but towards the end of the debate, the White House announced that only three detainees had ever been waterboarded, and the practice was forbidden after 2003 in any case.
Leading Democrats demanded the withdrawal of Mukasey anyway. All of the Democratic presidential candidates insisted on it. The Bush administration made clear that the AG post would get filled in the recess if Mukasey didn't win confirmation, and likely by someone a lot less palatable than Mukasey. Schumer, who pushed Mukasey in the first place, had to find a wingman in Feinstein to get the Democrats out of the large hole in which he'd placed them.
Instead of looking like they control the appointment process, this exercise just confirms for the Democratic Party base that their Congress has assumed a mostly-supine position vis-a-vis George Bush. What an absurd piece of political theater. As Casey Stengel once said of the Mets, can't anyone in the Senate Democratic caucus play this game?
-
arguments from preschool class
"Not to mention the fact that it's only been used a whopping total of THREE TIMES under the Bush administration, the last time being in 2003!"
So why exactly do we need to defend its use?
"It's not bad, and besides, I didn't do it."
-
The Democratic Congress has the power to make waterboading illegal at any time.
It's pretty simple. You make a law against it. So why haven't they? Maybe they'd just rather yammer endlessly about it instead. Kinda like here at Salon.