I'm watching the Republican presidential debate. Or at least, keeping an eye on the bastards. This is the sort of thing tht makes Mark Kleiman complain that Rudy seems to be running for "Sadist-in-Chief. Which, incidentally, naturally reminded me of Mark Steyn's still-hilarious take on Kerry's stance on the death penalty:
The senator's opposed to the death penalty. Fair enough. A lot of folks have a visceral revulsion at the principle of state execution. But whoa, hang on, no, that's not it. He's not some milksop Dukakis type. Mr. Kerry's opposed to the death penalty because it's too wimpy. "Putting somebody to sleep on a gurney" isn't cruel enough for Mr. Kerry's tastes. Keep him in jail watching cable TV decade after decade. "That is tough, my friend," says Mr. Kerry, not like dying, which -- in case he hasn't mentioned it this soundbite -- is something he knows a lot about: Only gutless pansy types let these killers off easy by sending 'em to Old Sparky. This is Mr. Kerry's answer to compassionate conservatism: sadistic liberalism.
Um, I don't know about you but being repeatedly raped for years, as far as I am concerned, actually is worse than death. What's more, down the road, it is not totally unreasonable to assume that political leaders who care about this issue may (prison rape)end up getting elected and then are willing to spend political capital on addressing it despite having made tortured statements. If this is hypocrisy, then lie to me.
sorry for the minor threadjack.
Megan’s post triggers some long thoughts on the election... if I were a politician who has to deal with what is emotionally popular rather than what is best I would think some of the following:
Re: torture
If we had used two thousand billion tax money as head money we might have received and more meaningful information than through torture or even torture-free interrogation of suspects?
But the problem with torture is that there is an irrational component involved. People who could not slaughter animals themselves can argue that it has to be done by someone else for the greater good? Same with electrocution (how many pro-lifers are also anti-death penalty)? This is not direct self defense in the heat of the moment but it can emotionally feel as such to many who are confused.
It is also not clear to many Americans why they should respect somebody who does not respect themselves. Just read what people write about “rights” discussions of any kind.. This is why I am not certain if taking a firm stand against torture, sad as it is, is as productive in the light of popularism. During the election, mentioning individual rights restrictions of good and honest Americans and the Federal Government instead might yield more emotional sympathy and connection?
As a popular politician with some backbone one should stress that one does not support torture of any kind and that Americans have known of more effective methods for decades. But attack directly the loss of individual and federal rights in the US. It does not get more un-American than that?
Many Americans do not care what others outside the US think of them, they can cope with a $ 2 trillion tax pay check. But they do not want to be mistrusted by their own representatives and restricted. That is like making it less likely to get ones car stolen by never buying attractive cars. Making America un-American does not protect Americans. Making the constitution unconstitutional does not protect but destroys. Making you less free to protect your freedom is a certain loss. There ARE better ways.
Barack should push this more and also the $ 2,000 billion in tax that could have been used to find Bin Laden and extinguish Al Qaeda. Remember, those who were responsible for the real threat after 9/11 and not the imagined one by a fake German spy based on which we spend $ 2 billion torturing while Bin Laden runs free. There are more dangerous thereat I believe, like Pakistan, reminding that Bin Laden still runs free and that there is no closure in Iraq is key. Especially as we take an Iran stand. Rudy and Hillary are both directly responsible that 9/11 has not been avenged - what losers? And how must $ tax trillions have they lost?
$ 2 trillion would have won a lot of propaganda wars, would have bought a lot of regime changes from within in countries, Regan style? Or simply $ 2 trillion in head money on Al Qaeda operations. $ 2 trillion in oil independence and the loss of revenues for terrorists like Saddam and Al Qaeda. Bankrupt them with more than sanctions, again Reagan style. 8 years and no single Reaganesque policy (other than spending tax spending on security. but it is not that you spend that defines you but how you spend.)
Had Bin Laden been tortured rather than innocent software engineers - hmm. Had the torture resulted in the capture of Bin Laden. Hmm. Would not make it ethical but at least effective. That way we have lost character and money at the same time.
But making America less attractive is not real protection (individual and federal rights). Being lied to by people one supported (Reps) is almost worse than their bad business decision on your behalf (Hillary)? Restricting your freedom and mistrusting you on top – no one should get away with this.
Barack knows that he has a lot to attack and he has been holding back. I am curious to see what Tuesday brings - Democrats day?
But I feel like writing a speech letter for Barack..
"$ 2 trillion tax dollars. It is a symbolic number. It is the number that we could have invested in real intelligence about terrorist threats instead of fake intelligence and real expenses. How many Americans were made aware of the real price – how many pay the price of fear and self-doubt now?
It is not their fault – it was policy and policy makers are the ones who should account for it. Literally! 2 trillion tax Dollars. That is two thousand billion tax dollars that could have been invested in finding and fighting Bin Laden and Al Queda! The Republicans and Mrs Clinton could not be trusted back then to be either truthful or rational and given their current positions they still cannot be trusted.
Our soldiers do not have a problem with risking their lives for us as long as we are honest with them. American tax payers can cope with tax money being used for their security as long as it is well spend. All Americans want the truth and sound business decisions that do not waste their money and harm their character.
I want to bring our troops back and have no problem with saying it – because I do not feel that we have lost that war. It is clear to the world after Afghanistan, a war I supported, and Iraq, a war I did not support – what America can do. America is not a loser. Our soldiers are not losers. They are winners. They achieve what they are asked to do for us. The threat of weapons of mass destruction, if it ever existed in Iraq, is eliminated. Saddam Hussain has been removed and killed. It is the representatives of the people in the US who do not want to face accountability for their lack of real honesty or strategy."
And so on... etcetc Now it is time to concentrate on Al Queda and protecting American soil directly again. I would love to have a few free hands in California right now (not that it would help but it sounds good). etcetcetc Now is the time to find Bin Laden.
Therefore, now is the time to find a new approach to Iraq. (which does not exist but only Barack can make a claim at it if he plays it right. No Bin Laden and no closure in Iraq and GOP and Hillary want to distract with Iran, bot having a clear stance there either. Hello? More tax trillions? Less freedom?)
etc.
fuck this has turned out long. I will not post for a week, I promise, as politicians do...
Where does this $2 trillion come from? I assume that it is the "cost" of the GWOT.
But it is very misleading.
It includes the normal salaries and operational expenses that would have been spent anyways on our military.
A better number comes from the "extra" appropriations to continue the war (but I don't have the figures. But it's certainly much less than the $2 trillion number.).
BTW, AFAIK, we still have a standing $25 million reward out for Bin Laden, and it's not been fruitful yet. I suspect that it's simply too much. Lower it to $50K and it might be productive.
I think Mayor Giuliani has the better argument in this case. Part of the problem with the debate over “waterboarding” is that the term “waterboarding” has been used to describe at least three rather different things:
1) Restraining someone in a horizontal position, putting a cloth over their face, and dripping water onto the cloth to create the sensation of drowning without actually putting them at physical risk of harm. This is what the CIA is allegedly doing.
2) Actually putting someone’s head underwater (either by dunking them in tub or tying them to a board and lowering it under water) repeatedly which actually does put someone at risk of physical harm. This is what the Spanish Inquisition did and IIRC it’s what some members of the military go through as part of their training to resist interrogation (I’ll let any current or past members of the armed services correct me if needed).
3) Restraining someone in a horizontal position, putting a tube or hose in their mouth and actually filling their stomach with water (and sometimes stomping on their stomach afterwards until it bursts) which actually does harm the person being questioned. This is what the Vietcong and Japanese did during the Vietnam and Second World War.
Even though they have all been called “waterboarding” at one point or another, they all vary in their level of severity particular with the level of pain and harm or risk of pain or harm they put on the person on the receiving end (which is the relevant standard for torture IMO). So long as we’re sticking with 1 and not engaging in 3, we probably haven’t gotten to the level of “torture” at least as far as “waterboarding” is concerned.
"This is Mr. Kerry's answer to compassionate conservatism: sadistic liberalism."
And, all this time, I thought ALL liberalism was sadistic!
Thorley,
Given that it is possible to drown in puddles, I think that your assessment(type 1 waterboarding) of physical risk is out.
The political consultant who came up with that spin should get a medal for the most innovative triangulation of the decade. "Okay, you've got to come out against the death penalty for the Democratic base. But you've got to sound tough on crime for the mainstream voters. So here's what you do: say you're against the death penalty because you are so tough on crime!" If it weren't so blatent, it would be brilliant.
Megan's notion that Steyn's hopelessly stupid commentary is "still-hilarious" goes a long way to explaining why she's still single.
Just a guess, but I think I'm right. I can just picture her watching P.J. O'Rourke's petrified appearances on the Maher show and her conclusions that the old reptile "still has it."
He doesn't. Steyn never has had it. And I guess eHarmony customers have to come from somewhere.
Moe,
You're so clever. Can I date you, pleeeeeese?
Not in this lifetime, Joe. I'm sorry to hear that things between you and Jeff Gannon aren't working out, though.