Some Encouraging News...

RE: Torture

Some encouraging news about this today...

Re: Torture

Ian, I had to respond in a full post of my own; I had too much to say that it just wouldn't fit as a comment!

First off, I don’t think it’s fair of you to characterize torture as a possible Conservative value. Besides the fact that it’s contradictory to even call torture a “value” in the first place, self-styled “Conservatives” like Dick Cheney are extremists and more accurately represent a fringe group in America that, I believe, is represented far more in the media than they are in the mainstream population.

You bring up several questions, which, in turn, bring up even more questions; here's where I stand...

1. Whether torture is ever OK:

It’s not.

There’s zero question that torture violates basic human rights and it’s absolutely absurd for anyone to even attempt to make the argument that it’s ever okay, in any way, shape or form. I am severely disturbed that this question is even being debated in the media right now. If someone can find justification for torture, then what can't they find justification for?

The question this raises for me is: what does it say about our society that this argument is being given any kind of credibility at all? And why is it largely coming from members of a party that not only identifies itself as a protector of "traditional American values" but also finds its staunchest support among a demographic that votes according to religious conviction?

Regardless of the reasons cited by those arguing in torture's defense, whether it be due to a misplaced hatred or even a lock-step deference to authority, their stance violates one of the most basic codes of human morality.

Even Fox News Anchor Shephard Smith gets it:

2. Whether its use on suspected terrorists keeps any more safe:

It doesn’t.

As is explained in the video you provided, there is not a single shred of evidence to even suggest torture is an effective tool; experts in the field roundly reject its viability as a method of obtaining information.

Not only is it highly unreliable, but torture-free interrogation techniques exist that are vastly more sophisticated and provide much more accurate results. But don't take my word for it, here's the former CIA Chief of European Operations:

…And that’s before even taking into consideration how engaging in the practice utterly compromises any kind of moral authority whatsoever you may have had, which hamstrings your ability to cooperate internationally with nations that will want to distance themselves from your actions.

Bottom-line? It’s not even useful.

3. Whether water-boarding is torture:

It is.

This claim is almost as bizarre as the first one. And it’s being echoed on mainstream media outlets as well.

Water-boarding, i.e., the modern day form of Ancient Chinese Water Torture. Christopher Hitchens thought it couldn't be such a big deal - what's some water on your face, I mean c'mon - so he tried it. Guess what? He didn’t last ten seconds. Weeks later, he’s still having nightmares. His column about the experience should be coming out with the next Vanity Fair.

Meanwhile, Sean Hannity has sneered with derision at water-boarding, offering to undergo it for charity.

…here we are almost a week since he made the claim and he still hasn’t went through with it. Why? Because not only is he full of shit, but he knows it.

If water-boarding is not torture, if water-boarding is not a crime, then why did we have Japanese prisoners of war executed for it?

-------------------------------------------------------------

No, the real question here is why are those who perpetrated such a crime against humanity not being investigated? Why are they not being held accountable?

Why, in the name of everything that is fair and just, are those responsible not being prosecuted?

Why, Obama?

It's more than fitting that you posted just before his press conference tonight, in which he was asked no less than 13 times about his stance on this very issue. His response?

“I believe whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.”

A mistake? Not a crime, Mr. President? Just an "Oops. Well, let's move on." Really? Is that how we reclaim our "moral authority"?

And what about the over 100 detainees who died while held in Iraq and Afghanistan, 27 of whom were kicked to death, shot, drowned, or strangled? What about the fact that the U.S. leadership became aware, very early on, that many of the detainees were innocent of any wrongdoing and should be immediately released -- and chose to ignore it because it would have hurt their approval ratings? Where's that story? Where are those memos?

Thomas Friedman made a couple arguments in support of Obama's decision not to go forward today. One, prosecution taken to its full extent would put Bush, Rumsfeld and others on trial and "rip our country apart." Two, "Al Qaeda truly was a unique enemy."

Mr. Friedman, two things. One, if there are really enough torture-supporters in this country to 'rip it apart' then this is a discourse that needs to take place. Right. Now. Two, that's the type of excuse that could be used to justify anything. And that's exactly the kind of thing the law is supposed to protect against.

Torture: A Conservative Value?

So it seems the recent release of the torture memos by the Obama Administration, along with the speedy reaction of torture apologists and former Bush officials, has re-kindled what seems to be an ongoing debate among American conservatives: Is torturing one's captives a conservative value? (Or perhaps I should put it another way: Is causing extreme discomfort and severe mental anguish to one's captives a conservative value?) Or is torture just an effective method of extracting information that has no basis in ideology? Or is it something else? Here are a couple pieces done by the Real News that highlight this debate:





I suppose this all depends on which history conservatives wish to conserve, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that the torture of one's captives is an abridgement of value. What do yo think? Is torturing a person who no longer poses a threat (assuming they posed a threat to begin with - which is a HUGE assumption considering they've never been tried) a lapse of judgment and morality that has more to do with vengeance and hatred than anything else? And do those that argue in defense of torture do so because they share that hate or do they do so for other reasons? Perhaps they do so in deference to authority? That surely has been a conservative value going all the way back to the original defense of the Monarchy. If you ask me this whole issue highlights just why such deference is highly problematic.

Your Ideology Sucks

So I'm afraid I'm going to get serious on everybody and say that I'm very interested in political ideology and how it effects all of us. Specifically the way it shapes our opinions and worldview, and causes us to argue one point and agree with another (despite how crazy it might seem to someone of another ideology). Since Tom and Sal and myself share pretty different views on a number of issues, I'd like to explore political ideology a bit with this blog and question why it is we think what we think and whether these differences are incapable of resolution or whether they all just stem from misunderstanding and our own political prejudice. This may sound boring to some, but I think no issue is more salient to understanding our present political turmoil and the reasons we seem so ill equipped at developing solutions to it. In short, I think: political ideology is everywhere and it's keeping us from solving a host of big issues. So without further ado I'll commence a post or two... and I'll also try to be more entertaining. : )

Oink Oink

Michelle Bachmann has just come out with her latest hit! The new solo is tentatively titled "Blame It On The Goose'o'crats (Swine Flu REDUX)." Listen here and enjoy the poppy new tune as your brain goes into critical failure.





Jamie Foxx could not be reached for comment.


Brought to you by the very same Congresswoman who gave us such memorable classics as:

"Obama Wants Mandatory Political Re-Education Camps But All I Want is You" (by M. Bachmann)

"Let's Get Armed & Dangerous Against Global Warming's Lies" (by M. Bachmann, Exec. Producer B. Oil)

"We Are One... But Not All Cultures Are Equal " (by M. Bachmann, feat. I. Racist)

...And, of course, who could forget the 2008 blockbuster that sold for a record 187,818 votes (easily outselling Tinkleberg's lackluster flop "Vote For Me Because I'm Not that Crazy Bitch"):

"We've Got to Come Together (And Investigate Congress to Find Out Who's Anti-America)" (by M. Bachmann, back-up vocals by S. Palin, lyrics by J. McCarthy)

Dial 1-800-How-Was-She-Ever-Elected to reserve your advance copy now!

Of Ghosts and Specters

Specter has changed parties! If Coleman ever gives up the ghost, the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate...

Who knew 312 Minnesotans would end up accounting for such a difference?

Sneaky Little Hobbitses!

The hobbit skeleton is now on public display! It's being shown at Stony Brook University in Long Island, where they held a conference last week. Scientists are now saying there's a consensus among experts now that Homo Floresiensis was indeed a distinct species, according to an article in today's Times.

Back in 2003, when a team of paleoanthropologists were looking for evidence of human migration from Asia to Indonesia they discovered the remains of seven skeletons of hominids about 3 feet in height. The skeletons ranged from possibly 74,000 to 13,000 years old.

Since then, there's been a bit of back and forth between scientists who've found the evidence conclusive and others who say they've just been reading too much J.R.R. Tolkein. Here's a bit of the evidence on both sides:

For:

-Ridiculously short: the most complete skeleton, that of a 30 yr. old female, is 3'6" and a second skeleton is estimated to be 3'7". They were shorter than even the smallest human populations, such as the African pygmies which aveaged 4'11".

-Small brains: Homo Erectus had more than double the brains of these guys. But the hobbits didn't let that get in the way of developing Stone Age tools for themselves. In fact, they hunted the local dwarf Stegodons. So basically there were mini-cavemen using mini-spears to hunt mini-mammoths in Indonesia. That's fucking cool.

-Different bones and teeth: they have a different shoulder stucture, no chin, disproportionately wide leg bones and their wrists' bones are wedge-shaped, as opposed to square. Their premolars are larger, crowns and roots are different and their jaws are lower.

-Local myths of the Ebu Gogo, modern day hobbits who steal babies from nearby villages and eat them. Perhaps calling them "gollums" might be more fair. MY! PRECIOUS!

-As recently as 2003, hobbits were caught on film saving Middle-Earth.

Against:

-You guys are high, these are just the bones of a bunch of really retarded short people.

He's Joking? You're Joking.

In a study recently published in The International Journal of Press/Politics, students at (The) Ohio State University found that conservatives were more likely to think Colbert genuinely means what he says on his show. As in, they somehow don't get the character he plays is a... character. A participant's identification of themselves as a "conservative" served as a relatively accurate predictor that the participant would perceive Colbert to be 'anti-liberal.'

That's right, there are actually people out there who don't realize The Colbert Report is political satire: the very ones he's making fun of.

And if you had any doubt about the study's accuracy, take a look at the response last week by the National Organization for Marriage to Colbert's spoof (at bottom) of their Anti-Gay Marriage Ad:

"I've always thought Stephen Colbert was a double-agent, pretending to pretend to be a conservative, to pull one over Hollywood. Now I'm sure," said Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

"Thank you Stephen for playing our ad in full on national television--for free. HRC eat your heart out. Plus we all had a great chuckle, too!" said Brian Brown, NOM's Executive Director. "Where can I make a donation to the National Organization for Colbert?"

Now, at first, I thought NOM was joking; perhaps their reply was some kind of bizarre, misguided attempt at humor. Of course, how does one respond when it's rightly pointed out to them that they're a myopic, bigoted hypocrite? In light of this recent study, however... I'm not so sure. Perhaps, just as the conservatives in the study, NOM genuinely believed Colbert was trying to help them out here and is thanking him, with pathetic sincerity, for mocking them.

Which isn't so far-fetched, really, when you think about it. I mean, if they can believe basic civil rights are a threat to the "sanctity of marriage" (or should I say, "opposite marriage") then they can probably believe anything.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Gay Marriage Commercial

Obligatory 100 Days Commentary

So apparently there was this guy, FDR, and he had a pretty important first hundred days in office. Obama hits the quasi-traditional milestone on Wednesday in case you haven't heard already from say, I don't know, CNN. Or Fox News. Or Time Magazine. Or the Wall Street Journal. Or the BBC. Or the Palatka Daily News. Ok, maybe not Palatka, but pretty much everyone else is offering up their respective analyses. That includes the President himself, who will be commemorating the occasion with another one of those "town-hall-style" events we've all grown so fond of.

Anyways, I didn't want to be left out of all the fun. Here's what I thought were some of the highs, lows, and in-betweens of the past one hundr- ahem, ninety-eight days:

Highs:

-The Budget. A progressive tax structure, a plan for universal health care, cuts in unnecessary defense spending... are we finally past this 'supply-side' and 'starve the beast' nonsense?

-Foreign Diplomacy. A President who commands respect abroad, keeps his cool and enunciates his words. Fuck. Yes.

-The National Service Bill. Providing incentives & funding for increased involvement of America's youth in community service projects in health care, clean energy and education? Unless you're Michelle Bachmann, you have to admit that's a good thing.

-Stem Cell Research. Duh.

Lows:

-Bank-o-philia: The heavily bank-o-centric composition of Obama's economic team has compromised the long-term effectiveness of the administration's economic plans and sticks us with zombie banks that still aren't lending and who aren't being held accountable for the taxpayer money that's keeping them afloat.

-Gun Control. Jimmy Carter's Op-Ed for the NYT today lays out why, in case common sense didn't tell you already, AK-47s should be illegal. Despite the fact that this was a campaign promise of Obama's, he's been avoiding the issue. Perhaps he's still puzzling this one over:
Question: Why does someone buy an AK-47?
A) Because they're a psychopath.
B) To shoot people.
C) To shoot lots of innocent people and then kill themselves in yet another horrifying example of why we need stricter gun control laws.
D) All of the Above.

-Laughing off a legitimate suggestion to legalize & tax marijuana as a way to significantly boost revenues for states like California that are currently facing major budget crises while, at the same time, effectively cutting out THE major source of revenue for drug cartels currently running rampant in Mexico. No, really. Time to wake up and smell the buds.

In-betweens:

-Foreign Policy. Positive steps taken on Cuban embargo. Finally a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. But committing 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan without any real military solution on the table? Hrm.

-Torture. Step 1: Close Gitmo, check. Step 2: Release classified memos authorizing torture, check. Step 3: Green light to initiate investigations into illegal actions of previous administration for which, by any definition of the law, they must be held accountable, ... ?

-The Stimulus Package. Good start, not enough. To quote Paul Krugman, a nobel-laureate economist who actually saw the crisis coming years before it hit, "Mr. Obama’s promise that his plan will create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 looks underwhelming, to say the least... 3.5 million jobs almost two years from now isn’t enough in the face of an economy that has already lost 4.4 million jobs, and is losing 600,000 more each month." There has been a total failure to recognize the pressing need for a comprehensive plan to restructure the banking system; most likely, largely due to the bank-centric view of his team... but I digress.

-Bo Obama. Seriously, what is that thing? Get a real dog.

-----------------------------------

Great promise so far, especially considering what was inherited. And I don't even want to think about the alternative.

You're Not Wrong,

You're Just an Asshole.

Post what you want, invite who you want, but make sure the monkey gets fed.

Sal's contribution:
Sometimes you are just wrong. Sorry.

Tom says:

I agree.