Paraphrasing Cliff May on Jon Stewart, sincerely and not in the satirical ‘shorter’ style:
The so-called “torture memos” are actually anti-torture documents. They accomplish this because they establish a bright, shining line that we must not, under any circumstances, cross.
Emptywheel captured this key point from Stephen Bradbury’s 2005 memo.
…where authorized, it may be used for two “sessions” per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period.
Needless to say, waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in one month broke even the insane guidelines of Stephen Bradbury’s memo. Id est, even according to Cliff f*cking May America went too far.
What ever. I am so sick of these people. My uncle declared the other day that we should not prosecute torture because it would “tear the country apart”, and he was confident that America would never torture again. If prosecuting torture would ‘tear the country apart’, that pretty much takes for granted that a lot of people think that America should use torture.
Thus, the next time someone to the crazyward of Obama wins office torture will come right back. Every country always faces one existential threat or another. The only meager chance we have is if future George W. dumbasses think that the next guy might prosecute them for it.
Anyhow, here’s the vid.
Jody
One of my favorite parts of that entire exchange was Cliff’s tone of breathless desperation. He literally acted as if he could keep Jon from getting a word in edgewise thru the entire interview.
In other words, he knew he was selling bullshit, and hoped that if he heaped enough on he wouldn’t get called on it.
What. A. Douche.
Jody
That’s right. I double posted. Whadda ya gonna do abouddit?
SGEW
Jon Stewart is not – not – the best advocate against torture we have. I’m glad that he does what he does, but he should not become the lead voice out there, dammit – his position has troublesome holes, and he might wind up providing strawman for torture apologists.
There, I said it.
Cerberus
I couldn’t make it through the whole thing. I really hope Jon Stewart roasted him alive, because the staggering level of pure evil and raw bullshit was just a little too much to take.
Torture isn’t fully a subjective process to be argued away by sheer weight of legal argument. One doesn’t become anti-maiming by using a rubber hammer so as not to leave marks, nor anti-murder by not chopping the body into tiny pieces afterwards.
I’m really hoping this is just one more case of the 20% and the beltway pundits really missing the plot, because otherwise, the country is up for Civil War II.
Martin
Unfortunately, those limitations say nothing about the rationale for the techniques in the first place. So, we can subject these individuals for two hour long sessions per day just for the hell of it, whether we get info or not, whether that info is good or not.
It’s a license to do it just because we think they’re dirty fucking towelheads.
I say again, why not just rape and sodomize them?
Warren Terra
I can’t watch videos on my phone, so I’m not sure, but this looks like one video, suggesting it’s the abridged version. Comedy Central has an unabridged version broken into three parts that might be more interesting; you can find a link at Andrew Sullivan’s blog, from the middle of the afternoon today.
kommrade reproductive vigor
@Martin: Because that would be gay and gay is worse than torture.
Actually, if I tilt my tinfoil hat a leetle bit, I start to wonder if all this screaming about waterboarding is a bit of distratovision. Keeps people from asking what else they did to the prisoners.
Danton
As I listened to May I kept thinking, “And Irish babies, braised with plenty of garlic and fresh vegetables, make a delicious repast for unexpected guests.”
asiangrrlMN
@SGEW: I hate to agree with you, but I do. I forced myself to watch the whole unedited interview (I really loathe this guy), and I found myself disagreeing with Jon on some things. First of all, we are not that close in substance with the torture apologists. Not. Even, Close. Second, there is no way you can know ahead of time if someone has useful info that will save lives (ticking time bomb scenario), so that’s a strawman.
However, Jon did the best he could with the blowhard trying to talk over him. I wanted Jon to say, “Stop with fucking Truman already.” I have no illusions about whether America will torture again. We’ve done it before (along with stuff like interning the Japanese–which Jon did point out), and we will certainly do it again.
i give Jon props for tearing down some of the strawmen such as if don’t agree to waterboarding once in a while for the very very bad men, then we might as well let all the prisoners free, but I was disappointed over all. Not necessarily in Jon, but in the fact that we are having this conversation at all. May’s protests to the contrary, he is pro-torture, and so were many of the people involved in this debacle. Sleep deprivation for eleven days? Torture. Stress positions and hanging by the wrists? Torture. Waterboarding? Torture. It really is that easy.
Hey, a favor, guys? Can someone try YouTube and let me know if you can actually play a video? I can’t right now. Thanks.
r€nato
I feel like I missed a lot watching just the clip here; they cut out the whole middle part where apparently things got a little heated. I’ll have to catch it later in its entirety at their site…
agree entirely with Jody in comment #1.
JK
Maybe, he picked that up from Glenn Beck.
gwangung
Why do I get the uneasy feeling that some proto-Dahmer or Bundy in the making are eagerly taking notes from these asswipes….
r€nato
One of the problems I have with the torture debates is the utilitarian argument. That is, that one of the reasons we should not torture is because it is ineffective at extracting useful intelligence.
It’s useful that the utilitarian argument can be made for the anti-torture side, but what if torture DID sometimes extract useful intelligence?
It would still be wrong, sick, depraved, and ultimately corrosive to our American values both here and abroad. Just like how the Iraq war was wrong even if it had been executed competently.
(I could go into great detail about how torture twists and erodes society and law and order, but I’ll save that for another time.)
Unfortunately, that argument is a bit esoteric for the average ‘Merkin to relate to, so for now we have to content ourselves that the utilitarian argument happens to work in our favor.
KCinDC
If these “non-torture techinques are good for people we say are terrorists, by what logic are they not equally applicable to serial killers, other murderers, rapists, kidnappers, armed robbers, burglars, embezzlers, tax evaders, jaywalkers, and illegal parkers? Where do we draw the line?
Cerberus, I fear that the torture fans exceed 20% by a significant amount. On a good day, with a properly worded question, we can get a majority to oppose torture, but the Republican insanity has really coarsened our culture. That why I’m a little worried about the prospect of trials. What happens when the torturers are acquitted by a jury of their morally incompetent peers?
sparky
blerach. this time Stewart accepted the premises of the questions, which was a mistake since they were grotesque hypotheticals. but nobody’s perfect, and that this is the closest (excepting Moyers) that the mainstream TV folks get to the topic is itself offputting.
interesting that Stewart thinks Truman committed a war crime by dropping atomic weapons on Japan. i say the more we air our dirty linen the better. funny how all the stalwarts of the establishment don’t believe in the principles they are supposed to be defending. just can’t trust those peasants with the good china, after all…
Library Grape
hey, cheer up! sarah palin is now on twitter! http://www.themudflats.net/2009/04/29/major-announcement-sarah-palin-is-on-twitter/ now we can receive the never-ending stream of lies in bite-sized 140-character segments.
apparently her office made the move to bring “nuance and subtlety” to our discourse.
[faceslap]
Corner Stone
@SGEW: I for one do not hate to agree with you. This is true. JS should not be a point man for any real, relevant issue. He’s a comedian sticking his cane in the wheel spokes of the powerful – not a serious commentator. And this is not a knock against him as I’m sure he’d laugh in your face if you asked him to take on a serious mantle. Love his work, and it’s almost always incise and concise but this isn’t his fight.
Corner Stone
@sparky:
I can’t tell. Do you agree or disagree?
r€nato
@KCinDC:
As much as I would like to see certain folks investigated and put on trial, it would have to be a fair trial.
And what happens if, as you suggest, there are several acquittals? Holy crap. A lot of people would be demanding – and rightly so – ‘what the hell did you put us through all of that for?’
This is why it’s easy for people – including Greenwald – to demand investigations and subsequent trials. It feels good to demand it, and yes it really is the right thing to do.
But… you and I and Glenn Greenwald are not the ones whose asses are on the line if such things are set into motion. These people (Addington, Cheney, et al) are powerful people who in turn will be protected by other powerful people. It would be the height of foolishness to take them on lightly, no matter how they deserve it.
A failed investigation and/or trials resulting in acquittals with regards to torture could derail Obama’s entire presidency.
Finally, check out today’s Fresh Air (4/29/09), great interview with Phillipe Sands on the topic.
JK
I thought Stewart did an adequate job with May, but I think he got too much credit for his interview with Jim Cramer and his appearance on Crossfire.
He rightly went after Cramer for his Wall Street boosterism, but he never went after Brian Williams or Tom Brokaw for their slanted coverage in the run-up to the Iraq war and instead gave both of them big, wet, sloppy kisses.
r€nato
@JK:
maybe we expect too much of Stewart, then. He’s a comedian, you know? As Jon often reminds us, it says more about the sad state of our media than about him that we expect the hard-hitting interviews from Stewart all the time.
JK
@Library Grape:
Now, I’m psyched. Does the Bachmannator twitter?
Sarah Palin is to nuance and subtlety as Larry the Cable Guy is to Noel Coward
Rick Taylor
We are a country that tortures. If no one is prosecuted for it, we will continue to be a country that tortures. Maybe we don’t torture currently, but it’s an option we have that a future administration could use. If no one is prosecuted for it, then we’ve taken the stand that torturing or not torturing is a policy disagreement, like cutting the tax rate on the top income bracket or capital gains. Some people passionately believe it’s a good idea, some don’t, but you wouldn’t think of criminalizing a policy disagreement, that’s decided by elections. That’s where we stand now.
Fulcanelli
@Library Grape: Yet another sign of the Apocalypse.
What’s her Tweet handle, pray tell?
/this should be good
Corner Stone
@Rick Taylor:
We’ve always been a country that tortures. But fuck me I don’t want to be any more.
JK
@r€nato: I hear you. That’s the frustrating thing about Stewart. I’d be perfectly ok if he only did silly, softball interviews all the time. That’s my problem with him. He appears to want it both ways – play the court jester and play the last angry man.
Library Grape
@JK:
“Does the Bachmannator twitter?”
If there was a God, he would make it so.
“Sarah Palin is to nuance and subtlety as Larry the Cable Guy is to Noel Coward”
WIN!
r€nato
@Rick Taylor:
good points, one and all. Ultimately this whole torture debate shows us what happens when our ideals clash with practical realities.
Cheney, David Addington, John Yoo and the rest – including the GOP establishment – wouldn’t go down without an extremely nasty fight that could make impeachment look like a tea party. That’s not what Obama envisions for his first term; he wants to bring America together and end the bitter partisanship which the GOP started.
The reason guys like Milosevic get put on trial for war crimes is because they are from small, relatively impotent countries. Not a whole lot Serbia can do in retaliation for arresting and imprisoning one of their own. Nazis and Japanese were put on trial for war crimes because they were from nations utterly defeated in every way possible in war.
But the guys we’re talking about now? A whole other kettle of fish. These are not tinpot fucking dictators from countries whose GDP doesn’t equal that of a middle-sized American state.
So if Obama and Holder and their people seem to be equivocating or waffling on what we’re going to do about this legacy of torture, have some patience. (Keith and Rachel, stuff a sock in it.) Put yourself in their shoes. Their prudence does not come from a desire to look the other way; I am certain they are disgusted as the rest of us with the willingness to use and endorse torture. Their prudence, instead, comes from fully recognizing the extremely high stakes involved and the dangerous minefield they’re trying to navigate.
r€nato
@JK:
yeah he wants it both ways. So does Rush Limbaugh for that matter. Funny, that.
JK
@Library Grape:
Palin and Bachmann are pure comedy gold.
If we have a Palin/Bachmann ticket in 2012, every evening network newscast will be like open mike night at Caroline’s with all of their flubs, gaffes, and dear-in-the-headlight moments.
SixStringFanatic
@JK: I have to disagree. I don’t have a problem at all with someone who’s funny some of the time and serious at other times. Aren’t most of us like that? And while his show is a satirical look at news and current events, it is still about news and current events. Most of the time, he’s making fun of the way that the so-called “serious” news channels cover things and my god do they deserve to be made fun of. I think the idea he’s trying to get across is that it is certainly possible to cover the news without making it a f#@$ing clown show. If a guy like Stewart can be a clown 80% of the time and still manage to be smart and serious the other 20, it just shows how poorly the “serious” channels are failing at their job.
Delia
Is Obama going to get around to closing the School of the Americas, or just let the crazy Quakers and DFH’s find their way to it to protest every year? I’m sure the latter.
Being the Shining City On The Hill is hard work.
JK
@r€nato: On balance, I’m much more a Stewart fan than a detractor. I just wanted to make a point I hadn’t seen expressed in too many places.
Don’t get me started on Limbaugh. He’s a malignant cancer.
JK
@SixStringFanatic:
There are times when Stewart annoys me, but as I previously wrote, I’m more a fan than a non-fan.
El Cid
I think it would be really serious progress if we could not only figure out how to put the djinn of our own torturing back in the box, but if we didn’t hire thugs to do it, either.
Still, I think there was a reason that the Reaganites did everything they could to make sure that their Central American and Southern African and Afghan tyrant / warlord / drug trafficker / genocidal general allies were the ones doing the slaughtering and the torturing, and not (at least paper trail systematically) U.S. forces acting under Executive orders.
There is, admittedly, absolutely nothing which I foresee being attempted which would completely block the sadists from renewing direct torture programs upon coming back into power, but if we just do some commission / hearing thing, it’s almost guaranteed to be back on the table next go ’round.
MikeJ
If I were to be given a chance to ask Obama a question, it would be, “if you caught someone from a foreign country committing torture, would that person have to face the justice system, or are only Americans allowed to torture without penalty?”
SixStringFanatic
@JK: But in the post to which I was responding, you didn’t say that you were or weren’t a fan. You said….
I’m not saying that one should or shouldn’t be a fan of Jon Stewart. I was merely disagreeing (politely, I hope!) with the idea that one should be either all silly or all serious. Stewart seems, to me, to be a pretty smart, perceptive guy under the goofiness. I appreciate the times when he lets that part come to the forefront. I particularly appreciate it in these times when so many of our “serious” news people are such a disappointment.
However, as free-thinking adults, we are all entitled to our own opinions!
Corner Stone
@SixStringFanatic:
Fuck you!
SixStringFanatic
@Corner Stone: Now, that’s funny!
Tresy
After every damn Republican scandal–Watergate, Iran-contra, Iraq, torture–we hear the same refrain: prosecution would “tear the country apart.” The only scandal about which this wasn’t said was Clinton’s blowjob. True, that was the only scandal where there was near public unanimity–AGAINST impeachment. But that didn’t stop John’s former party and the media from hijacking the government for over a year to pursue it.
What the people making this argument are saying really is, “Stop or I shoot this country in the head.” I wonder how that plays in your usual hostage negotiation?
JK
@SixStringFanatic:
I appreciate your post. Maybe I should have written that on balance, I generally come away from his program feeling more satisfied rather than less satisfied.
My overall enjoyment of his program exceeds the feelings of frustration I have sometimes had with him.
asiangrrlMN
Blow job blow job blow job! I knew I should have implemented my policy of giving all the Republicans blow jobs when they were in power! Except for Dick Cheney. There are just some things even I won’t do for my country.
I was willing to do W., Condi, Laura Bush, hold-my-nose Rummy, Colin, and the rest if it would just get them out of freakin’ power.
However, we all know it’s different when a Republican does it. See, for example, Rudy G., Newt, Reagan, to name a few.
I apologize to my country that I was too lazy to do my civic duty and blow those fuckers out of office.
Martin
See, I don’t think they’re equivocating or waffling.
Aside from torture and lying into Iraq, one of the other big Bush failures was the politicization of the DOJ. It would not at all do to have Obama, the guy who can fire at will, making statements to suggest that the DOJ should go after the Bush admin. He stated publicly that he thinks waterboarding is torture – which is a HUGE thing. But he’s not going to tell the DOJ how to do their job, who to go after, etc. That was the failing of the last guy, and lets not forget that the Bush DOJ is NOT how we want it done.
Obama may or may not want prosecutions. I don’t think we can really say. What we can probably safely conclude is that he doesn’t want the appearance of a partisan move here, and so he personally can’t hint here, and he’s surely told Holder to play it very carefully. If the public cry gets loud enough and if the international moves get credible enough, then their hand will be forced by outside forces, and that I think is what he wants. The best possible outcome would be for the GOP to demand an independent prosecutor to protect Cheney et al from socialist european tribunals at The Hague.
El Cid
@Tresy: In particular that Iran-Contra investigation is so frighteningly relevant here, because it involves the same players, both those involved directly (Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, John Poindexter, Otto Reich), and the same politicians undercutting the investigation and rabidly trying to advance more illegality, i.e., Dick Cheney, as well as the same arguments that any compromise had to be made to keep Republicans happy.
Such as keeping unreleased the commission’s chapter on Reagan’s domestic propaganda campaign for Central American terror, a campaign against the American people — Otto Reich’s job and the direct predecessor of the Iraq invasion propaganda program.
How did such compromises make us stronger, or a better nation, or more committed to at least some vague idea of the rule of law?
And this, of course, reflects a crew of people who had been burning with hatred of both the ‘liberal establishment’ and the notion of lawful restraint upon the executive ever since their roles in the Nixon / Ford administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld)…
These are committed counter-revolutionaries. These types will never stop trying to overthrow the system they hate.
SixStringFanatic
@Tresy: I dunno, worked pretty well for Sheriff Bart in “Blazing Saddles”!
“Do what he say! Do what he say!!”
JK
@Tresy:
I’m sick and tired of hearing that phrase “tear the country apart.”
The Republican move to impeach Clinton was very smart strategically. They have effectively innoculated themselves against an impeachment effort against a sitting Republican president or an investigation of a former Republican president. If Democrats were to attempt either, the MSM would say that Dems are simply seeking payback for the Clinton impeachment.
eric k
renato,
You bring up a good point. Juries in this country acquitted the cops who beat Rodney King when they saw the whole fucking thing on tape; they regularly acquit cops who shoot unarmed suspects; they acquitted OJ. What are the odds of Cheney et al with their high priced lawyers being able to get enough wing nuts on the jury to at least get a hung jury? I’d say pretty darn high.
pseudonymous in nc
Clifford the Big Red Asshole gets paid about $300k in his particular line of wingnut welfare. Just sayin’.
He’s an older, douchier Stephen Hayes.
JK
@Corner Stone:
Win
@El Cid:
The MSM doesn’t have the stomach for turning the rocks over and just want everyone to walk on by (apology to Dionne Warwick) so the guilty parties are going to get away with it
@asiangrrlMN:
Apology accepted
Chuck Butcher
I switched the channel to Sirius Bluesville for most of the interview – the appologists make me too goddam mad to listen to it anymore. I seriously cannot take that shit.
TenguPhule
If going after torturers would tear this country apart, then maybe this country should be destroyed.
Mark S.
I honestly do not understand this. How exactly would this tear the country apart? Will a bunch of right wing guys be pissed off? That goes without saying. But do that many people love Bush and Cheney so much that they are going to start street riots to set them free?
If Bush had stolen $20 million from the Treasury, I doubt too many tools on the right would argue that we should just let him go for the good of the country. But war crimes, the crimes against humanity variety, that we should just walk away from? Well, this country has always been good at sweeping things under the rug.
JK
OT
Who’s going to watch Sarah Palin on American Chopper tomorrow?
TenguPhule
So shoot the hostage in the thigh and then plug the hostage holder.
Mike in NC
But GOP women need to be kept in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant (pretty easy for Sarah, huh?). Money is still on Gingrich/Sanford 2012 to bring the wingnuts out in force.
TenguPhule
I thought you said this wasn’t satire?
Corner Stone
@asiangrrlMN: There is absolutely no doubt but I’m starting to see things your way.
Third Eye Open
@KCinDC:
The scariest thing I can imagine is this pack of jackals (apologies to real jackals) walking out of a federal court with shit-eating grins after a hung jury. There would be NO fight left in this country to re-try them. That is worth moving to New Zealand for.
HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker
That is true, and it is true no matter what measures are taken now. The Unitary Executive types will always do exactly what they want to do. You aren’t going to stop them with prosecutions.
That’s why the Watergate prosecutions didn’t stop Iran Contra. That’s why Iran Contra didn’t stop Clinton from being an ass. That’s why the Clinton impeachment didn’t even phase the Cheney administration.
The way you get responsible government is by electing it. Electing Cheneys will get you another government that does what it wants.
If the people elect Cheneys, there is no point in coming along later and saying On Noes, we got Cheney!
When the people really want a certain kind of government, they will elect it. Which is sort of what happened in 2008, which proves that it can be done. Keep doing that. Stop doing that other thing.
JK
@Mike in NC:
I think Palin and Bachmann would be given a special dispensation due to their star power.
If Republicans follow their brains, they’ll go with Gingrich/Sanford. If Republicans follow their libido or their funny bone, they’ll go with Palin/Bachmann.
GregB
The Republic survived a civil war and it survived an attempted political knee-capping over a blow job.
It’s rather funny how the chest thumpers and war mongers are always talking about how fragile the state of the nation is.
-G
asiangrrlMN
@JK: Thank you. I feel awful for neglecting my duty to my country when it would have mattered most.
@Corner Stone: See, that’s the power of sex. It can get anyone. The fact that it would have been ME (agnostic-deist bisexual Asian who reads tarot cards and scries) would have really put a nail in all their coffins.
My best friend and I had been drinking when we came up with this plan, but it makes more sense the harder I think about it.
When I think of all the righteous indignation the right spewed over Clinton receiving blow jobs in the Oval Office and compare it to all the torture-lovin’ crap now being spewed by the same people, well, it makes me want to spew.
kuvasz
come on, cliff may is a whore. he’ll say whatever the highest bidder would pay him to say. he’s like that old jon lovetts character who lies constantly, i bet cliff may tells people that his wife is morgan fairchild.
JK
“Tear the country apart” is just the MSM’s way of saying “Forget it Jake, It’s Chinatown”
tc125231
@Jody:
I think that’s about as accurate a technical summary as one could hope for.
I can only add my earnest desire to see him experience these “non-torture” techniques on the “right” side of the line. It would be good for his grubby little soul.
JK
Is this a more potent voting block than single, left handed, red-headed, white women under 40?
tc125231
@JK:
“Forget it Jake, It’s Chinatown”
Another great sum up. You guys must all be among the usual suspects
asiangrrlMN
@HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker: The reason the Clinton semi-impeachment didn’t deter Cheney, et. al is because Ford pardoned Nixon–at whose teat Cheney suckled. I don’t disagree that we get the government we elect, but it also helps if we actually enforced the laws we have FOR the people in the government as well as for the people buying a dime bag of weed on the street on Saturday night. Otherwise, why bother having laws at all? I don’t think the two things are mutually-exclusive. We can work to elect the best government possible AND we can prosecute when our elected government breaks the law.
asiangrrlMN
@JK: Heh. Probably not. I like throwing all that in there because it firmly establishes my creds as being in the least-important demographic evah! I wasn’t even going to vote during the last election, but then I caught Obama-fever, and I HAD to vote for him.
Gr.. Stupid S-word.
Ok. I added that I also don’t want to marry or have kids and that I am a so ci al ist-capitalist, so I’m surprised that I’m allowed to live amongst the natives.
Gah, stupid spam-filter.
JK
I also see this statement to mean that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh will sic their mobs on Obama.
If Holder actually moves in the direction of seeking prosecutions, watch out for the above named rabble rousers to give the signal for their followers to start stirring things up.
SixStringFanatic
@JK: Yay, fellow lefty!
Dennis-SGMM
I’m all for prosecution if an airtight case can be brought. Yes, we know that they were a bunch of torturing assholes – proving that in court in a way that will convince a jury to convict is another story. And a conviction won’t deter some other Bushian lunatic from torturing because they’ll just think of new justifications, new methods, and a new name for it. The trick is to not elect assholes in the first place.
Chuck Butcher
@HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:
We’ve done this before, but I’d like to point out that Nixon was pardoned ahead of any criminal investigation, Iran-Contra saw everybody get off (thanks Congress) and the same crowd was right there, Clinton turned into a political farce, nobody busted up Bush/Cheney at the time.
When it comes to prosecution of the elite the DOJ has been proven toothless too many times to use prosecution or lack there of as past example of efficacy of deterrence. While deterrence is part of the issue, the biggest one is whether the law means anything and why it applies to anyone. You cannot make a case to me that I should consider myself bound to a system that disregards anything politically inexpedient in crimes and pursues the powerless.
You propose to create an immune political class aristocracy and I make the counter proposal that they are then subject to the same remedies as the French aristocracy – revenge from the mob. Why am I then bound to a ballot rather than bullets? That splattered brains are inconvenient is insufficient. I play in the realm of rules and allow the ballot process to go forward because there are laws, there are rules to the game that apply to us all.
Clinton was at least tried and politically allowed to continue, in a court of law he’d have had bigger problems but a process was followed. The treaties we have signed create some real difficulties for us if we refuse to follow the processes – on the practical and political end. On the ethical and societal end not following those processes opens us to even worse problems.
The very worst outcome of letting this go is that it remains a political dispute with the appologists free to continue their crap right on into another administration as a political question – which it is not and you know it is not. You know it is a question of law but you don’t like the possible political fallout. That fallout is only possible, it is not assured or even especially likely depending on the conduct of the cases. 26% currently approve of BushCo, they’re dead to any Democrat and immaterial so your worry must be people with little to no sympathy for BushCo, that’s questionable.
eric
I think that there are three forces Obama is worried about. First, he does not want to be perceived as going after the foot soldiers (no matter the impropriety of a following orders defense) without also going after the big, big fish. Here is the second problem: the big fish are not just GOPers, they are members of an establishment that includes the MSM which abjectly failed in its duties to uncover or even question what W and his minions were doing. This leads us to number three: the dems. I think the Jay Rockefellers of the DC establishment are more than passive participants in this drama. I think they knew what was going on and supported the decisions.
So, Obama (really, his DOJ) would be implicitly indicting service men and women, the MSM, and certain key Dems.
No thanks. I think he is waiting for a critical mass of public sentiment that something must be done.
Lets be clear, I am against torture, and i am also against assassination. But, this country has been in the assassination business for a long, long time and the rest of the world knows it. There is no virginal US for the rest of the world. They know us for what we are and for what we have been: a geo-political power that uses almost all means to achieve America’s parochial ends.
I would settle for naming these butchers and for history to judge them. Maybe, i get lucky and they get convicted. But, heck i would settle for Yoo’s disbarment and the impeachment of Bybee and neither of those acts requires one darn thing from Obama.
eric
JK
@SixStringFanatic:
Politically speaking, I’m left but I’m not left-handed
This is a demographic I made up out of whole cloth just to have some fun. The only parts that are relevant to me are single and white.
Michael Gass
Every torture apologist enters the debate with the mindset of, “it’s us vs them”, where the “them” is a terrorist out to harm the United States.
What these people fail to realize is that George W. Bush withheld the RIGHT to declare, arbitrarily, who “them” were… then those “thems” were them tortured.
So, what we should be asking these people is, “if YOU were declared a “them”, arbitrarily, and it was you or YOUR family who suddenly had these techniques used on you, or your family, would you still feel it was ok?
I would bet no.
It has always been about torturing “them”…
Joel
Stewart caved in quite a bit to May, but he still got the main point across; that these guys are idealogically-driven apologists for torture.
Everything else was just concession to keep the guy at the table. I don’t blame him. It’s awfully hard to call a perfectly reasonable-sounding person a demon right to their face.
TenguPhule
That’s because in both cases we didn’t shoot the bastards.
We can solve that problem this time.
blogreeder
What you’re failing to understand (par for the course) is that you’re proposing opening the door to prosecuting a previous administration. That’s all. What it’s being prosecuting for doesn’t enter into the picture. Are you sure you want that knowing that Obama has his roots as a Chicago democrat? Corruption isn’t a matter of IF but of HOW.
Anastasius
I think Stewart really sucked on this one. Notice how May goes straight past “is torture bad” and just argues that torture is always effective without getting any push back?
Then every time Stewart speaks he is constantly trying to interrupt him, always threatening to take over the conversation, giving Stewart no time to think or articulate a counter while he has all the talking points rehearsed.
Stewart notices that halfway through and basically doesn’t stop talking anymore but it is just round and round in circles.
someguy
So everybody is talking about prosecuting people who tortured or who directed torture.
What about prosecuting their public apologists? Seems to me that they advanced the criminal conspiracy.
There should be a way to hold Republican voters accountable too, but I don’t know how you could work out the logistics of that.
Patrick
Electrodes may be applied to one testicle only during any single enhanced session. No more than 500,000 volts may be administered, for a maximum of 30 seconds. Operations may be shifted to the alternate testicle no more than once in every 24-hour period.
The subject’s spouse or oldest child, but not both, may be suspended no more than two feet above the floor (measuring from floor to the second toe of the right foot) during the enhanced session, in full view of the subject. Enhancements applied to said spouse or child must observe all appropriate limits as specified by the Office of Legal Counsel.
Hunter Gathers
No matter what happens to these people, prosecutions or not, they still have Hell to look forward to. Enjoy being the Devil’s bitch, Mr. Cheney. I am not a very religious individual, but I am sure as anything that these sub-human pig fuckers will spend an eternity in Purgatory, being waterboarded every 5 minutes. Eternal payback is a mother fucker.
jayackroyd
The United States has not faced an existential threat since the war of 1812, or, perhaps the Civil War. No country in OECD has faced an existential threat in the post war period. Gimme a break. Australia? Canada? France?
The US needs to get off a war footing. The US Defense budget is not about security. It’s about graft.
slightly_peeved
I don’t think he does – I think he feels obliged to, simply because there is no-one (and I mean NO-one) in the US media that can interview worth a damn.
That’s the whole point of his comments on Crossfire that he appears after crank-calling puppets – this isn’t his job. If he doesn’t try and do a decent interview – balancing the need to get the person to open up, while making serious criticisms of their argument – then no-one else on US tv will. Everyone else mistakes ‘gotcha’ questions for serious critique, or refuses to ask probing questions (or heaven forbid, show emotion) because it’s more important to be polite than be a good journalist.
Get some decent interviewers – people like Jeremy Paxman in the UK, or Tony Jones or Andrew Denton in Australia – and Jon Stewart might feel like he can stick with the jester schtick.
Svensker
Does anyone understand why Andrew Sullivan is surprised Clfif May is a torture apologist and keeps praising May for his support of civil liberties in foreign countries? Guess Sully doesn’t realize that May’s “support” for civil liberties means overthrowing Muslim governments and advancing Greater Israel and the neo-cons. Allowing human rights to Muslims makes Cliffy break out in a rash.
someguy
@Jackaroyd
Stewart’s just a comedian but Harry Truman probably should have been tried as a war criminal for dropping the A-bombs and incinerating a couple hundred thousand Japanese, and condemning god knows how many to death from cancer and related diseases. It’s possible the most monstrous thing in a pretty monstrous national history and nobody really wants to address it.
@ Svensker
So you’re talking about conservatives, and you’re telling me you’re shocked, simply shocked, to find racial and religious bigotry there, and a see no evil approach among those who don’t openly espouse that bigotry?
Dave Trowbridge
And this is a bad thing? I’d say that any polity that tortures as a matter of policy (which is what not prosecuting it would equal) should be torn apart–it’s obviously become too big to be trusted.
Svensker
@someguy:
No, I’m not shocked. I just don’t understand how Andrew Sullivan can’t see that May is a complete asshole and not a “champion” of civil liberties for our dark brethren.
Stefan
You bring up a good point. Juries in this country acquitted the cops who beat Rodney King when they saw the whole fucking thing on tape; they regularly acquit cops who shoot unarmed suspects; they acquitted OJ. What are the odds of Cheney et al with their high priced lawyers being able to get enough wing nuts on the jury to at least get a hung jury? I’d say pretty darn high.
But is that an argument for not arresting and prosecuting those cops? Should we not have prosecuted OJ and simply let him go on his way? Yes, sometimes criminals manage to beat the rap, but I’ve never heard too many claim that this is a reason for not prosecuting them in the first place. Why then should we not go after the torturers?
And may I say once again how bizarre it is to be an American in the year 2009 — and rather than, say, an Argentinian in the 1980s — having to actually argue that government-sanctioned torture needs to be prosecuted.
TenguPhule
Try WWII.
TenguPhule
That is already a given should the GOP steal back enough power.
The stake of law needs to be driven deep into their black hearts.
TenguPhule
Not being religious, I prefer their punishment be here on Earth, which is more certain and ensures we know they’ll feel that fucking bullet when it hits.
Stefan
What you’re failing to understand (par for the course) is that you’re proposing opening the door to prosecuting a previous administration.
If the previous administration committed crimes, then yes, they need to be prosecuted. What you’re failing to understand (par for the course) is that you’re proposing immunizing an administration from prosecution, and thereby giving them the green light to commit any crimes that they want.
RememberNovember
The best way to treat these torture apologists is to never, ever EVER, let them sit at the table again.
Treat them as persona non grata. I hear there are low- apr mortgages in Buenos Aires and Dubai.
Give them all one way tickets, routed through Mexico City.
RememberNovember
@JK:
It is the tone of the desperate child justifying the baseball through the kitchen window.
America needs to get out of its pubescence and grow the F up already.
mclaren
Welcome to Torture Nation. Next president, the torture gets worse — and it’ll be done in public. I’m taking bets on public impalement.
Incidentally, if you think there’s still a constitution, disabuse yourself of that fantasy.
We now live in a totalitarian police state run by the whim of the tyrant, who happens to be called a president. Right now we’ve got a really smart kind sensible humane tyrant, but next election…who knows? Right now we’ve got Marcus Aurelius in the White House, but all too soon things will change, and eventually we’ll get Caligula in the White House. Then watch out.
You’ll be seeing public crucifixions. And an army of John Yoos will step forward to write briefs proving crucifixion is legal and constitutional, and the congress will clap their hands raw applauding.
matoko_chan
My very favorite part–
Marcos El Malo
The torture issue is what finally has caused me to break with the GOP, although I’ve been long considering it for other reasons. As much as I’ve put up with some of the disgusting doublethink that goes on, the support for torture was just to mind-boggling. On a matter like this, no one can afford to be partisan if they care about our nation.
One of the things I can’t stand with the pro-torture people is conflating the holding of a prisoner with fighting an enemy on the battlefield. A prisoner has been removed from the battlefield and is no longer a current or potential threat. Even in the case of the atomic bomb which was used against a civilian population, that population was not in captivity and under our control. One might still argue that it is a war crime, but it is not of the same moral order despite the quantitative difference in the number of victims.
I go back and forth on whether the utilitarian argument has any utility. Certainly, in a discussion on why torture is a bad thing it should be used. But I remember that torture is ILLEGAL, and the utilitarian argument is irrelevant to that. Very important laws and international treaties were broken.
@blogreeder:
It doesn’t matter if it tears the country apart, because if we don’t fully investigate and we don’t prosecute those found to be responsible, the country will be destroyed by internal moral corrosion. Not just because it’s about torture, but because it’s about the Rule of Law (and this time it’s not about a consensual blowjob).
@r€nato:
Your moral cowardice is astounding (and I’m sure you’re a really nice person despite my harsh judgement). You’re saying that justice and the Rule of Law should take a backseat to political expediencies and advancing one’s political agenda. I apologize in advance for putting words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying, “Look guys, following important rules about horrible crimes needs to wait so we can pass our worthy agenda.”
Both the Rule of Law and stopping torture are EACH more important than passing healthcare or any other worthy program on Obama’s agenda. Because without the Rule of Law, healthcare doesn’t matter. Personally, I think we can have both, but to have healthcare without the Rule of Law is meaningless. It’s like adding a room to a house that has had its foundation removed.
I’m sorry if my harsh words offend, but I feel very strongly about this. If you feel I’ve singled you out, maybe I have, because I think you’re smart enough to know better.
Excuses about how only the weak and vanquished despots can effectively be prosecuted and made examples of are both cowardly and short-sighted. GDP shouldn’t enter into it.
I better stop before I burst a vein.
Mjaum
The claims about a jury finding torturers ot guilty due to “extenuating circumstances” seems odd to me. Firstly, since the relevant law says that there *are* no extenuating circumstances, would not the jury’s role be limited to determining whether or not it was proven that torture was committed by the accused?
Also, how could any US jury be said to be impartial? After all, the torturers are from the US, their victims were not.