Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's a been a while since I was a practicing logician in college, but let me see if I can lay this out.
1) Yesterday, AG designee Eric Holder said, without hesitation that water-boarding is torture.
2) Dick Cheney has admitted authorizing water-boarding.
3) Dick Cheney has admitted authorizing torture.
4) Torture is a felony under US law punishable by up to 20 years of prison.
5) Dick Cheney authorized a felony.
QED, right? Is there any other way to reason through these premises and deductions?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Monday night, Dick Cheney & any other W accomplice in this position will be pardoned.
That's only logical.
Posted by sloper at 01/16/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by sloper at 01/16/2009 @ 1:29pm
When you pardon someone, don't you have to AT THE LEAST admit they have committed a crime or convictable of a crime?
How does the Right spin a pardon for Cheney...if he's innocent?!???!?
No...not going to happen. But retroactive prosecutions aren't either, Mr Hayes.
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 1:40pm
We have countless legal opinions dating back prior to the Geneva Convention that waterboarding is torture. It didn't make any difference. Why should this?
Posted by Cannonball at 01/16/2009 @ 1:40pm
Well, as we all know, contradictions are something we live with everyday from the mundane to the massively absurd.
It's difficult to escape the conclusion that Massively Absurd has taken control.
We'll see soon enough how that all panned out for us, I would wager.
At least the door has been opened wide for a cornucopia of new Camus.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 1:41pm
Actually, Mask, the governor of Ky pardoned his entire administration of any charges that may be brought in relation to an illegal hiring scheme to exclude Democrats from government jobs over a 4 year period. This pardoned was challenged and upheld.
Bush can in fact pardon Cheney for any conduct that may later be charged as illegal in relation to interrogations that ocurred during his tenure as VP without Cheney admitting anything. The subject matter of sovereign grants of pardon need not be current charges, but must be limited by siubject matter and retroactive as to conduct; and not proactive, which would be cart blanche to commit future illegal acts.
Posted by Cannonball at 01/16/2009 @ 1:46pm
Here's some well chosen notes in an Absurd time:
tinyurl.com/yqjcr8
Please be patient for the first 1:38.
Thanks for your time.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 1:53pm
Bush Administration are related to the Klingons: Check out for yourself at blackcoptermedia.com. I guess the right wingers are right lefties do not like to support causes, like blackcoptermedia. Left wingers talk a good game but when its time to pony up they get alligator arms.
Posted by thesid at 01/16/2009 @ 2:18pm
Posted by Cannonball at 01/16/2009 @ 1:46pm
I'm not speaking of the legalities, but the politics.
How does Bush pardon Cheney...and Rush, Sean, O'Loufa, Kristol, Krauthammer, Adam's Apple Annie, etc. (and their drones here and elsewhere) claim that "They didn't do anything wrong!"?
If not, what does the Veep need a pardon for?!??!??
It negates a talking point, which is more devastating than a "witchhunt of poor, besmirched Dick"!
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 2:19pm
Posted by thesid at 01/16/2009 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
enough already. ignored
Posted by emile duBois at 01/16/2009 @ 2:29pm
Had to add this one:
I've always been a fan of George Bush, on the simple grounds that the American empire needs taking down several notches and George Jr has been the right man for the job. It was always odd to listen to liberals and leftists howling about Bush's poor showing, how he'd reduced America's standing in the family of nations. Did the Goths fret at the manifest weakness of the Emperor Honorius and lament the lack of a robust or intelligent Roman commander?
~Alex Cockburn @ Counterpunch
I would add:
"Was it over when the German's bombed Pearl Harbor?"
See, Dubya hasn't ruined us yet.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 2:32pm
Emile,
Just for fun, I actually looked over that blackcoptermedia site thesid mentioned. If you are in the right mood, that conspiracy stuff can be fairly entertaining, even laugh out loud funny...
Of course, the scary part is, to the people who write it, it is deadly serious.
Posted by FDR43 at 01/16/2009 @ 2:53pm
Mr. Nichols asks:
" Is there any other way to reason through these premises and deductions? "
The answer is yes. Premise 1 is wrong. So the whole rest of it falls apart.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/16/2009 @ 2:59pm
I just objected to the constant flogging of the site.
I'm not much for conspiracy stuff, it defies credulity. it is usually based on the fact that the facts are incredible too. see Oswald.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/16/2009 @ 3:00pm
FDR,
Apparently Osama's ears were buzzing the other day.
Had to figure that he would pipe up while Gaza burns, and a new POTUS takes over --that is predicated, of course, on the message being confirmed as authentic.
I certainly hope that Osama/Obama don't become Protagonist/Antagonist for the world stage. Not a good position for Obama with Osama seizing the mantle of "Defender of the Downtrodden".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 3:00pm
QED, right? Is there any other way to reason through these premises and deductions?
Premise 1 doesn't matter since it is only his opinion..therefore the rest is what is mostly found here...Bush hate and wishful thinking about prosecuting Bush crimes, which do not exist anywhere but in the minds of the legal genius residents here, the emotionaly driven here, and the unraveled loons here.
The non producers now have the reigns of the govt...lets sit back and see what happens since the team the left wants is now in charge...forget Bush, the "dictator" will be leaving as all the other presidents have.....after the swearing in of the new president...freely and with out so much as a coup..
Lets see what the blue team will do...I suspect we are headed into Carter territory...but it is early.
My guess is that Chris would never consider waterboarding anyone(except Bush and Cheney, of course) including Osama, even if he thought he would have info on the mass destruction of NY or of his own family..
As I stated before, I would gladly waterboard Osama for you, save NY and YOUR family..PLUS I would do another dastardly deed....
I would listen in on Osamas phone calls...check his bank accounts, follow his cash transactions...just like the IRS has for the new Treasury Sectary,...er, may be not...
and I would secretly try to disable Irans nuke program...without the NTY exposing the program(except Plame, of course).
and while I am at it...someone should spy on the NYT...they seem to be acting as a foreign agent here and I would deport them for spying..or jail them...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 3:34pm
or waterboard them...
I have a feeling that if you connect the dots ou have layed out above you end up drawing a pussy.....cat.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 3:35pm
Since I am a philosophy grad student, figured I'd be a bit of a geek and point out that (3) above doesn't (I think) follow from (1) and (2). "Admitting" I think is one of these weird things like believing, opining etc., where from the fact that I believe or opine that p, and p is equivalent to or falls under q, it doesn't follow that I believe, etc. that q. Again, not totally certain, but it would seem that "admit" could well also fall under this rule.
Having said all that, would absolutely love to see Cheney et al behind bars.
Posted by beingalam at 01/16/2009 @ 3:36pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 3:34pm
MAASCH, I see a lot of fluff, but no contradiction of what Mr Hayes said-
Simple questions-
1. Is waterboarding torture?
2. Did Cheney admit to authorizing waterboarding?
3. Is torture a felony under US law?
Ergo 4. Did Dick Cheney authorize a felony?
We can play "What would Jack Bauer do?" later....what are the answers?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 3:37pm
Seems just a bit dull here today --although "beingalam" makes an interesting point (I think). ;-)
Speaking of "being a lamb", here's some peppa':
tinyurl.com/a9y4mq
I fully realise that short attention spans rule these blog spaces, so if that's "you" just move the little control button to about minute 6:30 and enjoy the verbal fireworks.
If only we had some leaders in this nation with the same cojones and moral fiber.
If only.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 3:44pm
Mask,
1. I don't know.
2.I don't know, but could be...and no one would do so publicly unless they believed they were on solid ground..which could make 1. a no.
3. Probably
4. I do not think so.
I do know that what is legal has nothing to do with what is right, guilty or in nocent, or correct...and even that can depend on what the meaning of is, is...
So I have no faith in the laws we write these days since they are defended and charged by lawyers who write the laws, and then decided whos right in front of a judge, who was a lawyer...and STILL an appeal...in front of more judges..
I still can't read my auto insurance policy...
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 3:45pm
This thought just occured to me.
Chris Hayes, if things really start to go down the tubes in this nation, and in particular in DC, how about changing the name of your blog to "Survivalism"?
Just a thought.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 3:49pm
MAASCH.....seem oddly ignorant.
Tell me are you as unsure if the subject was BILL CLINTON and his impeachment?
Or do you get more sure on some cases than others???
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 3:56pm
ON the vid link I posted above, it seems that moving the time control button prior to viewing the whole footage can cause a glitch in internet explorer.
Another option is to let the footage run at low volume for the first 6:30 while you continue what you're doing in another window.
Just trying to help you guys out.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 3:57pm
I thought Bill Clintons impeachment was a waste of time.
Yes he lied...but not an impeachment to me, except he did lose his license...
as I have said ad nauseum...
Bill should have come out and said...I was with Monica, I hit the dress,send me the bill, it was a mistake, but my mistake, and I will not answer another question on it..
I would have stood and cheered.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 3:59pm
I'm just about out of here.
Have a fine weekend everyone --even you Monsta' Maasch.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 4:00pm
You too, Kool
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 4:02pm
Wow, first pyette, now MAASCH/JOMAM....
aren't there ANY Righties who supported Bill Clinton getting impeached?
Or did this thread just turn them all into "soft on crime'ies"?....heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 4:20pm
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 4:20pm
Mask,
Y
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 4:28pm
Mask,
opps...
You are the record keeper of record here...
look back I believe I have been consistant on the impeachment regarding my opinion of it...
He screwed himself with the tape of is, is...he should have admited the affair instead of playing word games...he foprced peoples hands..
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 4:30pm
"I would listen in on Osamas phone calls...check his bank accounts, follow his cash transactions."
only problem is, those actions are legal. waterboarding, under no circumstances, is legal.
"I still can't read my auto insurance policy..."
then maybe you should just STFU
Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2009 @ 4:49pm
The Left, and the media, have successfully cast that Slick Willie was impeached because of sex.
But, Slick Willie was impeached because of lies in court and obstruction of justice.
That whole thing got kicked off because he was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment, just like any citizen can sue another citizen.
Now, sexual harassment is wrong for all people but Bill Clinton, apparently. But that is beside the point.
Because of the lawsuit, Slick had to testify and that is where the lying and obstructing began. In court.
Bill Clinton was a liar to begin with, but in court it is illegal.
So more investigating began that would not have even happened if there had not been lying and obstructing.
And that is how the Monica Lewinsky thing came to light to begin with. And then more lying and obstructing.
Eventually, because of this, it got beyond court and to the concern of those in Congress and the special prosecutor. Added to the concern of those investigating were the Whitewater shenanigans.
But, apparently the Republicans were supposed to do nothing about this.
I will admit, maybe it was a mistake to impeach Slick, because it backfired on the Republicans, as the media and the left portrayed Slick as a victim of righteous Republicans harassing Slick because of sex.
But there is another problem that would have come into play, and because of this Slick probably should not have been impeached.
Bad as Slick was, if he had been convicted by the Senate, and kicked out of office, then ALGORE WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT!!
God almighty, I can not fathom that. For the first time in U.S. history, a Village Idiot would have attained the presidency.
ALGORE as President? God Almighty, thank God that did not happen.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/16/2009 @ 5:03pm
At least the door has been opened wide for a cornucopia of new Camus. :D Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/16/2009 @ 1:41pm
Absolutment!
But not a single publisher in NY would touch an American Camus. No way. Even less a foreign author who entailed translation expenses.
Dumb-down, big corporate publishing rules.
As Goebbels said re the occupied French publishing & film businesses, "They can produce and publish anything they want, as long as it's stupid."
Posted by sloper at 01/16/2009 @ 5:13pm
only problem is, those actions are legal. waterboarding, under no circumstances, is legal.
"I still can't read my auto insurance policy..."
then maybe you should just STFU
Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2009 @ 4:49pm
Last I checked...
pot smoking is illegal, too..so
maybe your ass should be in jail?
Maybe your ass should be investigated?
Maybe your ass should be checked to see how you are paying for pot?
Maybe your ass should be examined for illegal cash transactions involving illegal drug transactions, which might fall under Homeland Security cash transactions since you may help and might involve terrorists with your illicit cash deals?
Maybe the IRS should investigate your cash transactions?
Maybe the State of California sales tax people might want to speak with you?
Your continuious pot smoking combined with your "logic flows here" prove brains can be turned into shit by the owners.
Maybe you should STFU...criminal.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 5:18pm
Do you receive govt checks for any of your suppoet?
If so, then I am sure a muriad of alphabet govt agencys might want to have a word with regarding what you think is legal.
Ok with that Darlaloonie toon? Wanna stand up and cast the first stone?
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 5:23pm
YourJomamma,
I think your suggestion is an excellent idea - sending the California Franchise Tax Board people after Darladoon.
Actually, it probably would do a world of good for a lot of other libs to have Franchise Tax Board people, and also IRS people chasing after them, just so they can experience what tax, and tax people, are all about.
Because right now a lot of these libs think taxation is the be all end all, there are so many things that libs say we need to "invest" in, with "investment" being a code word for higher taxes.
Not only do most libs think that the wallets of wealthy people are bottomless pits that a lib can tap into whenever the lib feels like it, but some libs themselves from time to time will say that they themselves do not mind paying taxes, and can not understand why people have qualms about paying more and more for the greater good.
The tax rates in places like Canada and Sweden are enough to make some libs swoon with delight.
But maybe after some go arounds and audits and conversations and hassles with the Franchise Tax Board or the IRS, some of these libs may begin to see that high taxation is not everything they believe it to be. It may begin to look less attractive to them.
Posted by sjchermak at 01/16/2009 @ 5:44pm
jomamma,
medical marijuana is LEGAL in california. i can consume all the medical pot that i want, in my home, or in one of our many clubs. and i can carry a certain amount on my person at all times, even outside of california.
and btw, just for clarification, i don't smoke marijuana; i eat it, or inhale it via a vapourizer.
and none of this has any relevance to the topic at hand.
you are the one who refuses to use logic, because doing so would make your deeds and actions look wholly retarded the last 8 years (meaning: your blind support of bush, cheney and the entire conservative "movement"), which, i might add, were wholly retarded....and simultaneously destroyed this country.
chris's logic above is spot-on. holder's "opinion" is not really an opinion; it's the LAW. and if you don't believe in the law, then that's fine. but if you do, then just admit that the logic squares away.
Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2009 @ 5:47pm
Hayes' logic on this point is virtually airtight. The progression goes as follows, with the following guide:
D: Dick Cheney W: waterboarding T: torture F: felony
1) D authorized W 2) W=T 3) T=F 4) W=F (from (2) and (3)) 5) D authorized F (from (4))
The only thing left is to examine whether the premises are true. Though the word "confession" might be slightly inapt for a statement not taking place in a specifically judicial context, the only question is whether it provides evidence for (1). It does (and no one on this site appears to have disputed that).
The only premies that's been disputed is (2). However, I think it's also clearly true. It has been recognized as such since WWII, and it is difficult to imagine how inflicting suffering that would lead to death if continued (this isn't simulated drowning, it IS drowning) could be anything but torture. This is the premise that critics of this argument HAVE to beat, and I don't think they can do it. With this granted, Hayes' conclusion follows inescapably.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 6:16pm
Unlike Chris Hayes, Obama is NOT -
>> CONNECTING THE DOTS ON TORTURE <<
It is true that Obama's campaign opposed waterboarding, something Bush had made illegal in 2006.
But now, when asked on, This Week (with George S), whether he intended to outlaw all interrogation not permitted by the Army Field Manual, Obama replied: "Dick Cheney's advice was good, which is, let's make sure we know everything that's being done".
In short, he is not prepared to discard, pell mell the methods he campaigned against. Or in Obama's words, "we shouldn't be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric"
No media supported Obama as avidly as Newsweek, but now its headline reads: "Why Obama May Soon Find Virtue in Cheney's Vision of Power."
We see that as the responsibility for protecting this country falls on Obama's shoulders, his rhetoric is changing. Incidentally, Senator Obama voted for expanded presidential wiretapping (FISA).
He already began to move into the penumbra of the prince of darkness in keeping Bob Gates at Defense, in hiring the conservative banker, Timothy Geithner for the Treasury, giving Hillary whose judgment on Iraq he castigated, the State Department.
We don' know what more there is to Obama. He may yet bring the community organizer into play, but there is no way the dots connect in the way Hayes suggests, not with regard to torture, or Iraq or Cheney.
Hayes' problem with dots is, too many empty spaces in his head.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/16/2009 @ 6:21pm
Posted by sjchermak at 01/16/2009 @ 5:44pm
You are correct...and the fact is California has been dying for years now and is in fact today, dead. The California dream has been taxed to death as more and more people flee its borders to lower tax states..the place will become 3rd world in time and revert back to Mexico..very sad...a schell of what it once was and could have been forever.
the place is infested with libs and illegals and Dems who have rigged the distircts so bad a repub has no chance in Sacremento. Arnold is no conservative.
What is happening there, is those with capital and risk takers who create the jobs have become the target and IDed as evil as they are taxed into death..they are leaving..and the same may happen here nationaly as the Daraloon types demand more and more from them..they leave.
My China venture will not bring the profits back here for that very reason, 60% rates do not drive me..it chases me away..too many Darla types making too many demands that will put me out of business.
ATLAS SHRUGGED is in California..begging for Fed relief on their budget which INCREASED in the face of a slow downs and falling revenues while hampering all with more tax schemes...Hollywood types do not care..for their money is no where near California...and neither is Kennedys, Clintons, et al...it is far away and safe from taxman...
only the rich, defined as $85K and above has a target painted on them...and they do not know it and vote for it every year. Thank you public schools.
They will not cut spending or help themselves. The golden goose out there is plucked and dead.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2009 @ 5:47pm
I suggest you vaporise, ingest more..
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 6:23pm
The parasite class has now taken control of the host...it is only a matter of time.
Tax spenders and takers out number tax payers...the end is near...and Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Adams,et al, will rise again... for if they were here today..
they would be the first to get the pitch forks and torches...
and drive out BOTH PARTYS based on their spending the fruits of others labors for starters.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 6:27pm
In English, of course.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 6:28pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 6:16pm
THRAWN, I think a good indication of the lack of flaws in the premise is...
the fact that Hugo, MAASCH, and SJCHER want to change the subject to taxes and the California economy.
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 7:35pm
I am not sure how we wondered into the tax thread...
I guess it was as a result of the resident legal schoLar..Dartaloonietoon.
not intentional Mask.
Good thing YOU never wander around..:)
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 7:45pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 7:35pm</i>
True.
<i>Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 7:45pm </i>
I think you might be able to blame Darla to wandering off into the California tax sunset. What that doesn't explain is why you haven't ALSO dealt with the torture analysis. As I've said, your only out is to beat premise (2), and I don't think you can.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 7:59pm
thrawn, jomamma will never admit he's wrong, even when all the evidence, clear as day, surrounds him
Posted by darladoon at 01/16/2009 @ 8:09pm
Mask at 7:35pm says:
>> the lack of flaws in the premise is... the fact that Hugo, MAASCH, and SJCHER want to change the subject to taxes and the California economy.<<
My relatively long post did not mention taxes, California, or the economy, with no hint of a desire to do so.
Such is Mask's idea of a "fact."
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/16/2009 @ 9:12pm
Just because someone thinks waterboarding is torture does not mean it is, especially someone so ethically challenged as Eric Holder. We waterboard our own combat troops so they will know what it is and how it feels. Futhermore, we don't use it anymore because everyone now knows it does not kill you or harm you so it is not effective. Anything less than "mints on the pillow" is torture to the left which has left the word meaningless. Real torture causes real harm - cutting off body parts, permanent injury, death, etc. The rest of it is a head game.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 9:15pm
and I would secretly try to disable Irans nuke program.
Posted by YourJomamma at 01/16/2009 @ 3:34pm
hmmmm?
who has ever used a nuclear weapon?
let me think.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 9:20pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/16/2009 @ 9:12pm
You're right. I apologize.
BTW, if "Bush made it illegal in 2006"...why was Cheney PRAISING it in October 2006?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 9:21pm
Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 9:15pm
So we were wrong to prosecute Japanese for war crimes on a waterboarding charge?
"Other stuff", maybe...but no harm-no foul on the Imperial Japanese using waterboarding....right?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 9:22pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/16/2009 @ 6:21pm
two wrongs don't make a right.
how's that for logic?
to me it would be very, very embarrassing to see my country transform from a nation of liberty to a nation of torture (in the name of liberty).
god's watching.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2009 @ 9:31pm
<i>Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 9:15pm </i>
This doesn't follow. The fact that we expose our troops to a technique does not show that the technique isn't torture; we expose them to a wide range of things from standard interrogation techniques (not torture) to poison gas (pretty clearly torture).
Moreover, the idea that this doesn't work because it's "not harmful" is just bizarre. This is functionally equivalent to drowning. In fact, it's not even functionally equivalent to it...it IS drowning! If you kept it up, they would die. Why? Because they would have drowned!
Finally, the standard of permanent physical disability for torture doesn't make any sense. One, it pretends that mental torture doesn't exist. How about executing someone's family in front of them? Would that be torture? It doesn't cause permanent (or even ANY) physical disability to the person, but nonetheless I think we'd agree it's clearly torture. The same would be true of continued "executions" that always stop right at the brink. Two, what about a device that could cause massive amounts of pain sensation while leaving the body ultimately undamaged? It seems pretty clear that that would be torture as well, but your paradigm rejects it.
None of your standards for torture hold up, and I wonder whether this explains why you continue to posit the blatantly obvious "well, it's this or a cushy suite" false dichotomy.
I know they're not popular now, but Israel interrogations have astonishing success rates...even with nothing approaching torture. They find ways of getting information that are clever (such as planting informants, etc.). Compare that to the complete lack of success of torture here (see Army Field Manual) and tell me why we should torture people.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 9:32pm
mask: That 1947 trial of a Japanese officer was probably wrong. Given the date, it sounds like they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for something that might be a crime. The standards have changed.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 9:38pm
Christopher Hayes's argument is a little sloppy. How about...
1) Waterboarding is torture.
2) If the vice president authorized waterboarding, then he authorized torture.
3) If he authorized torture, then he is guilty of conspiracy to commit torture under Title 18, Section 2340A of the US Code.
4) If he is guilty of conspiracy to commit torture under Title 18, Section 2340A of the US Code, then he should be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
5) The vice president authorized waterboarding.
C) He should be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/16/2009 @ 9:47pm
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 9:32pm
"Two, what about a device that could cause massive amounts of pain sensation while leaving the body ultimately undamaged? It seems pretty clear that that would be torture as well, but your paradigm rejects it."
The Gom Jabbar of Dune. The arabic source of the word, ironic.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/16/2009 @ 9:59pm
Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 9:38pm
Wow, pye....to defend Cheney, you've got to defend Tojo.
And I thought the 28% who still like Bush were goofy....you 18% who still like Cheney are evne funnier!
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 10:21pm
Mask: Sorry but you lefties suffer from BDS and that twists your logic to the insane.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 10:33pm
Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 10:33pm
Cool thing is pye...in 4 days...."B"DS becomes "O"DS and it's your turn to be deranged by hatred of our beloved President.
Same standards you guys established from 2001, right? ANY criticism of the President is "hatred"....ANY criticism of his defense policy is "not supporting the troops"....ANY fears or doubts about his policies are "wanting America to fail so you can get your power back"!
I mean, it works BOTH ways....doesn't it?
Posted by Mask at 01/16/2009 @ 10:45pm
<i>Posted by srjenkins at 01/16/2009 @ 9:47pm </i>
That's fair. Though I think his argument is still pretty airtight, his form is a little bit more loose than what you're giving. I just went for a more direct strain of equivalences based on the property of identity (at least, that's what I believe it's called). Yours is probably more precise in a formal sense.
Also, I think the conspiracy link is valuable, especially since a conspirator to a crime is liable for any acts that were either part of the conspiracy or reasonably foreseeable extensions of it.
<i>Posted by srjenkins at 01/16/2009 @ 9:59pm </i>
I was thinking more about the torture machine used against Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back, but that works quite nicely as well. It's not even a strictly scientific concept; it requires only a substance (which I believe we already have) that amplifies the sensitivity of our pain receptors. Unless I'm mistaken, that doesn't cause permanent damage.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 11:03pm
The most telling measure of the filth that trivializes or supports torture on this blog is the false machismo that typically provides the accompaniment. These are typically the touchholes that adorn their cars with dual flags and their bumpers with "These Colors Don't Run" stickers. Would love to see the kind of courage laptop maggots like these would exhibit under torture. Might they compare favorably with, say, St. Max Kolbe who gave his life for another who had been slated for execution by the Nazi's at Auschwitz during WWII? Little doubt they'd run if it were ever even suggested that they muster anything like 5% of that kind of courage. No, these are fearful little people, the kind that joined Hitler's SA to feel a sense of importance and then went on to beat up Jews on the streets of Berlin and Munich in the early 1930s. These are the dregs of the human race and we have far too many of them here.
Posted by john lowell at 01/16/2009 @ 11:50pm
Posted by john lowell at 01/16/2009 @ 11:50pm
Thank you Mr Pot, for that enlightening analysis of the dark color tones of the Kettles.
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2009 @ 12:02am
OTAY to play partison politics with the office of A.G. of the U.S.A. like all the other Undemocrat appointees of the past have!
Posted by comanchenation at 01/16/2009 @ 9:55pm
otay?
wtf is that, rio?
please, please tell me it's a typo.
please.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 12:31am
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 11:03pm
The conspiracy part was what I was having the most trouble with. Hayes asserts, "4) Torture is a felony under US law punishable by up to 20 years of prison." Strictly speaking, I can say this premise is false because Cheney never committed an act of torture and his argument requires you to read in the conspiracy part in order for it to work.
If you are going to bother breaking an argument into a formal deductive logical structure, it is best to make it as clear as possible.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 11:03pm
I'd argue that it doesn't even require a substance - only sensory deprivation. If you watch what people say about prisoners that have been hooded and so forth, most tell some kind of story about how people start going crazy in less than 3 days. I think that qualifies.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/17/2009 @ 12:35am
Crossing the border into a sovereign nation, the United States of America, with established immigration laws is a crime, a felony. So then what crimes should be prosecuted? What about our, soon to be treasury sec'y? He cheats on his taxes, he pays up after he is considered for the position, is questioned about it in some clandestine meeting and all agree, "he made a mistake." Let's see, maybe I can rob a bank and when caught, simply, admit to a mistake and go on home. Either we are a country of LAWS or we are not a country of laws. But, if we are not a country of laws we will surely be a country of chaos.
Posted by uPay2Play1 at 01/17/2009 @ 01:35am
Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2009 @ 11:03pm
if a=b and b=c then a=c Transitive property
FWIW
Posted by canaarak at 01/17/2009 @ 03:13am
Mask at 9:21pm asked:
>> if "Bush made it illegal in 2006"...why was Cheney PRAISING it in October 2006? <<
Because, as Cheney was not ashamed to say, just a few days ago, it produced invaluable information. It helped defend this country. We don't want to admit that torture works, but it does and it did, and it is one reason we have not had a 9/11 repetition.
The outgoing National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell has affirmed that waterboarding was applied to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planed 9/11, to Abu Zubayda, a deputy to OBL and behind the millennium plots, etc., and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiriws who masterminded the attack on the USS Cole.
Each of those men broke and revealed vital information on terrorist networks and their plans. There were key arrests in Canada and worldwide.
To moral paragon like you, preventing catastrophe afflicting tens of thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, is trumped by the imperatives of PC attitudes. But I assure you, if Obama is presented with a list of captives who are believed to have key knowledge about imminent terror operations, he too will authorize getting that dope with whatever means necessary. He too will prefer the indignation of pious poseurs, than risk bombs ripping open US cities.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/17/2009 @ 05:43am
Posted by comanchenation at 01/17/2009 @ 12:19am
"Thank you!"
You're welcome.
Posted by john lowell at 01/17/2009 @ 06:34am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/17/2009 @ 05:43am
Oops, now you've done it, Hugo.
If it produces "valuable information"...stuff that might save lives....
why did Bush make it illegal?!??!??!???
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2009 @ 07:27am
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2009 @ 12:02am
Oh dear, did I somehow skip over your rather limited, liberal-conservative, conventional wisdom based excuse for a mind set, douche-nozzle? And have we set aside the usual petulant demands at least for the moment. Make sure the windows are shut and go turn on the gas, I'm told it only takes a few minutes.
Posted by john lowell at 01/17/2009 @ 10:27am
"Make sure the windows are shut and go turn on the gas, I'm told it only takes a few minutes."----Posted by john lowell at 01/17/2009 @ 10:27am
Interesting. You attack people for being "the kind that joined Hitler"...
and then in your next post, mention gassing someone to death!
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2009 @ 2:15pm
(below response to a post by mask)
Oh dear, did I somehow skip over your rather limited, liberal-conservative, conventional wisdom based excuse for a mind set, douche-nozzle? Posted by john lowell at 01/17/2009 @ 10:27am
It's always enlightening to notice that when conservatives make a vague play at humor on this blog it always has something to do with the evacuation of excrement from the body.
Considering that they are full of it most of the time, is this some psychological reflection, or a statement of some ongoing personal problem? I'll footnote this in my next post. Go to highcolonic.com
Posted by ficheye at 01/17/2009 @ 2:51pm
w and the klingons read a crazy article about the klingon empire and w at blackcoptermedia.com
Posted by thesid at 01/17/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/17/2009 @ 05:43am
If torture is so effective, I look forward to your next series of arguments about how they should be used in your local police station.
But the reality is that torture is not effective - as anyone who has worked as an interrogator will tell you.
Further, there is a simplier explanation. Cheney is a liar. The only real question is why he doesn't lie about his involvement in torture - and the reasons is that he knows he will never see the inside of a courtroom on the issue. So, why bother?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/17/2009 @ 4:07pm
Mask at 07:27am said:
>> Oops, now you've done it, Hugo. If it produces "valuable information"...stuff that might save lives.... why did Bush make it illegal?! <<
Bush made it illegal as a standard CIA practice. But he retained the right, in specific situations, to issue an executive decree, to warrant whatever is necessary to protect the US.
Obama seems to be following that path. Yesterday, the AP reported:
"His [Obama's] advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said.
"The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the [Army field] manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.
"Obama spokeswoman Brooke Anderson did not have an immediate comment Friday about the drafted plans, which the two officials discussed only on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.
"No final decisions have been made about how to adjust the government's interrogation standards. Obama is still weighing whether to alter interrogation policy by executive order during his first days in office or to work with Congress through legislation.
"There are some coercive techniques that he might employ on a ticking time bomb scenario, but he'll distinguish himself by making it clear that the presumption under the law is that there is no torture," Glenn Sulmasy said Friday.
Oops is right.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/17/2009 @ 4:18pm
Oops is right. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/17/2009 @ 4:18pm
From "Behind the Disappearances" pp 14-15
One obvious drawback to the theory (that it was unrealistic for authoritarian regimes to live up to western standards of behavior) was the fact that latin American constitutions invariably outlawed torture. Was this not as clear cut and binding as the American constitution? No, came the answer. Such rights and freedoms should not be interpreted at face value but instead seen in Latin Americas 'authoritarian' or 'Iberian' context....
...this analysis suggested three things. first, that 'authoritarian' regimes of Latin America should be exempted from the universal standards of behavior demanded by international instruments such as the 1948 declaration of Human rights; second, that the torture they invariably generated was inevitable an even justifiable; and third, that military rule was as legitimate as a democracy, perhaps even more so, if it could keep order.
Viva la punta negro! You are an American, yes?
Posted by ficheye at 01/17/2009 @ 4:42pm
OTAY-You did not like Eddie Murphy and his Bupwheat charactor on SNL ? What's that about?
Posted by comanchenation at 01/17/2009 @ 02:05am
i love to see you say that to mr. holder's face.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2009 @ 5:13pm
Posted by Mask at 01/17/2009 @ 2:15pm
You didn't want to take my suggestion? Simply trying to be helpful. I mean a man with your limitations, it's got to be painful. But it's all up to you, you know. Only you can help us. What could be holding you back? Maybe you didn't want to act because you couldn't discern whether it was a "conservative" or a "liberal" suggestion. If it were either one of these maybe you could have grasped and labeled it, found some middle ground to which to retreat, and tee-heed all the way to the stove.
Posted by john lowell at 01/17/2009 @ 5:26pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/17/2009 @ 4:18pm
But WHY did Bush make it illegal as "a standard CIA practice"?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2009 @ 07:46am
"Sir, are you involved in terrorism in anyway?"
-NO-
"Then you are free to go."
Posted by bleedingheart at 01/18/2009 @ 09:30am
When JOMAMMA's, RIO's, SJ's, LUVVYs and HUGOs' kids get caught by some group other then the USCIA and they get flayed alive and set afire, remember, if the lawyers for AQ or Russia or Venezuela (singular named John Yoo or even 2, the other named Addington, even though the rest of their DoJ disagrees) say it is not torture, it is NOT torture.
this is your ethics at work. What is good for the goose is good for the ganders children.
The torture of captives caused the deaths of Americans and helped strengthened Americas enemies. The republicans on the Armed Services Committee and the troops say so. If you oppose those groups, we know you hate AMerica, because you cons have told us that for years.
You help kill Americans and make AQ stronger. That is your legacy, in addition to opening up the door for our enemies to torture your kids, leaving you no moral argument for why they should not.
Posted by crabwalk at 01/18/2009 @ 10:01am
<i>Posted by bleedingheart at 01/18/2009 @ 09:30am </i>
And I thought the only strawmen came from The Wizard of Oz...
Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2009 @ 1:18pm
Mask: Big difference between BDS and ODS....I don't hate Obama and am willing to give him a chance. It is interesting to note that he is not going to dismantle all the anti-terrorist infrastructure implemented by Bush when he gets into office. He even voted for the expanded wire-tapping (FISA) powers Bush wanted. Even Newsweek, (in the tank for Obama) who hated everything Bush, has taken the Bush side now that the dems are poised to take over. No clear-headed democrat wants to take responsibility for another terrorist attack, which they would be forced to do, if all the rules are relaxed that have kept us safe for the last 7 years.
Posted by pyeatte at 01/18/2009 @ 2:49pm
Wow. The post by our 'resident evil', Mr. Lowell was a lot of fun. First, he's agin' torture. Then he suggests that MASK commit suicide by turning on the gas.
I know that MASK already responded to the post, but it was so unbelievably outlandish that it bears a second mention.
Sometimes the sickness of conservative bloggers is hard to parse. They'll say something rational and fair, but when you point out that you may agree with them, they turn around and bite you. Shots will be required.
Posted by ficheye at 01/18/2009 @ 6:54pm
Mask at 07:46am asked:
>> WHY did Bush make it illegal as "a standard CIA practice"?<<
For the same reason Obama wants torture to be illegal and yet wants to retain a loophole.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/18/2009 @ 7:34pm
ficheye at 01/17/2009 @ 4:42pm said:
>> Viva la punta negro! You are an American, yes? <<
Yes, and what is the point of that long quote and non sequitur?
If you can't squeeze an opinion or argument out of yourself don't offer cut and paste irrelevancies, just - que te den por culo.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/18/2009 @ 7:49pm
so crass, hugo.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2009 @ 9:55pm
If you can't squeeze an opinion or argument out of yourself don't offer cut and paste irrelevancies, just - que te den por culo. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/18/2009 @ 7:49pm
Why Hugo, it all fits if you just open your mind to it... and I think you know that.
As an Argentinian, I thought that I might clarify for our fellow bloggers that your mindset about torture is essentially the one that is stated in the book excerpt, in essence (are you following this?), that you believe in torture AND that it's OK for the government to obfuscate about it to retain some sort of credibility with the people. Simply put, that you are an advocate of tyranny if it fits YOUR best interests. And the little bit at the end... well, I thought that since you are THE Hugo Pirovano, I would just needle you a bit since it's my opinion that I don't think it's very American to bring a political philosophy to this country and try to inject us with it. That's why I was wondering if, indeed, you are an American or just an unhappy transplant. Now it's your turn.
I have to admit that my posts sometimes require a little imagination, difficult to achieve for people who refer to dogma as thought.
Posted by ficheye at 01/18/2009 @ 11:42pm
¿hugo es de argentina?
imposible.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 01:04am
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 01:04am
Hugo seems to be of foreign nationality, yes.
And there's a giant loophole in the end of my last post. Will Hugo drive his truck through it?
Posted by ficheye at 01/19/2009 @ 04:04am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/18/2009 @ 7:34pm
If there's nothing wrong with it, Hugo, and it helps get valubable information...
why did Bush make it illegal in 2006?!???!?
Posted by Mask at 01/19/2009 @ 09:18am
As Goebbels said re the occupied French publishing & film businesses, "They can produce and publish anything they want, as long as it's stupid." Posted by sloper at 01/16/2009 @ 5:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
and yet, "Les enfants du paradis" was created during the occupation.
it has outlasted and will outlast Goebbels et al.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/19/2009 @ 10:53am
We waterboard our own combat troops so they will know what it is and how it feels. Posted by pyeatte at 01/16/2009 @ 9:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is the BIG lie. our troops know very well that they will not drown, something that our prisoners are certainly not assured of.
it's a little bit like that live fire exercise, where the troops crawl under a set machinegun fire. this is an exercise. sprawled in the dirt in front of enemy machine gun fire is a completely different thing.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/19/2009 @ 11:00am
it has outlasted and will outlast Goebbels et al.
Posted by emile duBois at 01/19/2009 @ 10:53am
i don't know.........
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WK64UFwzrLA&fmt=18&fmt=18&fmt=18
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2009 @ 1:32pm
Posted by Cannonball at 01/16/2009 @ 1:46pm
Mr Ball, The law in Kentucky is not necessarily the same as the law in other states. In short, just because something happened in a backward SE state in the U.S. doesn't necessarily mean that it is valid in all 50 states.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/19/2009 @ 5:21pm
que te den por culo. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 01/18/2009 @ 7:49pm
Hugo, you are such a sweetheart. Big love to you, too! Most of your posts are civil and informative, albeit a mite conservative, but it's good to see that you are human. Viva Che! (non sequitur for fun - you may think he is a war criminal).
I'll bet that statement George Bush made about how it would be easier if he was a dictator must have given you a warm fuzzy feeling (ad hominem for fun). He just didn't have time to get around to pushing people out of airplanes. But I bet Cheney must have mentioned it at least once.
Posted by ficheye at 01/19/2009 @ 7:24pm
Cheney's crimes including the authorization of torture are begging for indictment. It is our collective duty to hold him accountable for crimes committed. If we don't, it will come back and bite us again. Just look at what happened after Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon - Cheney came back and bit us good!
And he's profitted handsomely from war, from Halliburton to Vanguard, which has financial interests in prisons for suspected terrorism detainees.
He must be forced to pay for his crimes against America for the sake of justice and the future. And he should also be forced to pay all his war profiteering money back to the government.
Posted by bowlegs at 01/22/2009 @ 1:05pm