Megan McArdle (April 10, 2008) - I just don't understand

Okay... I've read all of your posts and I still can't divine, exactly, if you think that our media has any obligations beyond the profit motive. You seem to go back and forth, or so it appears to me.

Posted by Freddie | April 10, 2008 4:14 PM

Did you and Greenwald decide to enter some kind of cross promotion agreement or something? Based on the response count in the previous posts with his name in it, it seems to be working. Good job at marketing!

Posted by Nelson | April 10, 2008 4:19 PM

I find it hard to believe that he actually can't recognize a distinction between "is" and "ought"; either way, it does not reflect well on him.

Wow, you noticed this all by yourself, or do you have some Editors to help you?

Posted by ed | April 10, 2008 4:23 PM

Greenwald is kicking your ass all over the schoolyard on this one, Megan, and he's doing so effortlessly. You supported the invasion of Iraq. Be an adult and accept the well-deserved criticism of that, as well as the equally well-deserved criticism of the compliant and foolish media which enabled Dumbya & Co. and CONTINUES to serve the public poorly.

Just be thankful you're not Joe Klein.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 10, 2008 4:27 PM

Let God and let go, Megan.

Posted by Your Daily Affirmation | April 10, 2008 4:32 PM

By the way, the root of Greenwald's rage is that his country, my country, your country, is engaged in a useless war of aggression and has committed countless war crimes. If you can't work up any anger over that fact then I suggest his criticism of you is far too mild indeed.

But Obama can't bowl! McCain is a maverick! Move along now, nothing to see over there in the Middle East.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 10, 2008 4:32 PM

Megan, you're an arrogant lightweight.

Posted by Jay Bespoker | April 10, 2008 4:36 PM

Nelson said: Did you and Greenwald decide to enter some kind of cross promotion agreement or something? Based on the response count in the previous posts with his name in it, it seems to be working. Good job at marketing!

I can't help but wonder how many of the responders in the other threads are Greenwald sockpuppets.

Posted by Kevin in MN | April 10, 2008 4:39 PM

Freddie says:

Okay... I've read all of your posts and I still can't divine, exactly, if you think that our media has any obligations beyond the profit motive. You seem to go back and forth, or so it appears to me.

That's because you have no reading comprehension. Megan is not trying to say whether or not the media should be driven primarily by profit, she is stating that it is driven primarily by profit. That's the difference between "normative" (what she thinks things ought to be) and "positive" (a statement of how things are.)

Right from the first post, she has said that she wishes the Yoo memo would be covered in more depth, but that major media outlets would stand to lose money by pushing it much more than they already have. This is in opposition to Glenn's assertion that major media outlets would stand to lose very little money due to covering the Yoo memo, but conspire to bury it. (For the record, I think that Megan is spot on. I don't think people much care, despite all of the Sturm und Drang on the internet)

Posted by CatCube | April 10, 2008 4:40 PM

The least you could do is deal with his argument.

He says that if you, like Hitler, like Napoleon, like Saddam in Kuwait, like the Romans, engage in wars of aggression, bad things will happen. Among those bad things are war crimes. His argument is that if you, say, support a war of choice against a country that poses no threat to you because you believe you'll do a better job than other invaders do own the consequences.

And to think that just because it is Good America engaging in these acts of aggression that things will turn out aok, well, Beethoven got fooled too when he dedicated the 3rd Symphony.

But he was a musician. You claim to be a participant in the world that communicates about the nature of these decisions.

For Bush to conduct this war of imperialist aggression, he had to have a chorus of supporters singing loudly beside him that when Americans engage in conquest, the rules are different. You may find it irksome that he points out that this is what you signed on for, but this is, indeed, what you signed on for. You signed on for a war of aggression in pursuit of imperial conquest and control. You were part of the chorus that chimed in when Tom Friedman said "Well, suck on this."

And you still seem to be saying that it's all okay, because, after all, the torturers are Americans.

Posted by jayackroyd | April 10, 2008 4:42 PM

Was just reading Ilya Solmin at the Volokh conspiracy last night, a discussion of whether mass murder by Stalin was morally equivalent to genocide and was happy my family lived in America. With your friend Greenwald and MoeLarryandtakeTHEnameinvain, perhaps we too shall join the world of moral masochists and their life horror and destruction. May American exceptionalism continue instead.

Posted by Michael Brophy | April 10, 2008 4:46 PM

Megan, I read GG's response. Where exactly does he "profess not to understand why Dan Drezner and might be offended"?

Posted by phasearth | April 10, 2008 4:58 PM

Megan is not trying to say whether or not the media should be driven primarily by profit, she is stating that it is driven primarily by profit.

This statement is obviously false. A large segment of the media, from the New York Post to Harper's is not profitable. Many people claim that this subsidized media segment is much larger on the right than on the left.

The idea that it is a "normative" statement to say that the Times covered Whitewater in tremendous detail because their readers were interested in the story, and have neglected Bush's lawbreaking because their readers are not interested is risible. There's no way that Bumiller on McCain's foreign policy advisers is more interesting than the president approving torture.

It's also circular. It's like the joke about the two economists walking by a 20 bill in the street. Whatever is being published is what readers want, because otherwise they wouldn't publish it approaches contentlessness.

Posted by jayackroyd | April 10, 2008 4:58 PM

Good God! Anyone over the age of 12 who admits to believing in "American Exceptionalism" is a monumental lightweight, and anyone who compares our behavior to Saddam Hussein's as proof of that is just, well, driving in the slow lane. The US, like everyone other nation, has its own particular strategic goals, sometimes they're pretty, sometimes not so much. For heaven's sake, Megan, wake up.

Posted by qwrt | April 10, 2008 5:07 PM

jayackroyd, please stop lying. McArdle has never stated or implied that is all okay because the torturers are American. Why do you think such obvious dishonesty is an effective form of rhetoric?

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 5:08 PM

Megan:

as I've said elsewhere at tedious length, my arguments are not normative; they're positive.

Where does GG claim your arguments are normative? (I personally believe your arguments do have a normative subtext of "this is the best we can do" but that's another matter.) He neither agrees nor disagrees with your positive description. Comment by GG:

My original post had nothing to do with whether profit motive and ratings was a key reason why the media behaves this way. So if that's the only point they were making - as you claim - why would they think they were disagreeing with me?

Posted by phasearth | April 10, 2008 5:12 PM

"My conviction that we had the wisdom and power to take the fate of another country into our own hands was overweening arrogance, and it's too bad that other people, mostly Iraqi civilians, have paid the price."

I think the most shocking thing is that McArdle is supposed to be the Libertarian person around here. Her mea culpa for intervenionist foreign policy is "overweening arrogance?!" It's kind of unbelieveable to read this and to think McArdle expects to be taken seriously. No mention of the complete and utter lack of causal justification for intervening in Iraqi affairs in the first place. No attempt to justify the intervention at all (probably because there is no logical justification). Finally, no admittance that the entire project, from conception to implementation, was based on horseshit that people like McArdle have swallowed and regurgitated ad nauseum for approaching on 7 years now. As if the entire problem is that, shucks, Americans just dream too big, don't we?

The problem is that interventionist foreign policy is immoral and self-defeating. Let's all repeat this please: intervenionist foreign policy is immoral and self-defeating.

This is what Greenwald is ranting about, perhaps somewhat self-righteously, but in the face of McArdle's seeming willful refusal to put the pieces together I can't blame his anger. It makes me angry. It makes me want to start yelling and calling names like Greenwald does.

At the end of it I simply cannot believe that someone like McArdle has the cohones to call herself a libertarian and say the biggest problem is "overweening arrogance." It's truly stunning. Almost like she doesn't really understand what a libertarian is, or perhaps she just forgets when confronted with post-9/11 propaganda.

Posted by bakum | April 10, 2008 5:14 PM

Actually, I'd like to see an American criminal trial, based on the revelations today that the principals on the security council authorized waterboarding Zubaydah, and thus he was coerced into giving up information that led to Khalid Mohammed's capture. First, it would actually let the public know whether torture "worked" in this instance. I suspect it does occasionally, when used by someone who is very skilled and disciplined. Unforunately, I also think it is a practice that can never be adequately regulated, thus allowing torture inevitably devolves into widespread sadism for the sake of sadism. Thus I think it should be always prohibited.

A trial, however, would be an excellent thing for the public to view, and would force people to confront the issue. I suspect jury selection would be critical to the defense and an attempt at jury nullification would follow.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 5:28 PM

No mention of the complete and utter lack of causal justification for intervening in Iraqi affairs in the first place.

You're going to need better material than that. You may not have liked the causal justification, you may even believe it was exagerated and/or a distraction from necessary affairs in Afghanistan, or whatever. But a claim that there was "a complete and utter lack" is a pair of lead wings on the back of a pig.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | April 10, 2008 5:35 PM

McArdle claims here that it is simplistic and unfair to ascribe base motives to the way the political press covers a story. Elsewhere she has claimed that all members of the political press are doing the best they can, and it's the mean old corporate side of news that makes them cover Obama's bowling instead of stories about torture.

The problem with this analysis is that political press bias is obvious within the confines of its whimsical coverage, and the existence of this bias lends a lot of credence to Greenwald's claims of "base motives".

For example, perhaps the public is demanding, and will only consume, frivolous stories about John McCain. But is the public somehow demanding positive frivolous stories about John McCain? Are editors nationwide demanding that he always be referred to as "the maverick"? Wouldn't there be a human interest value to pushing the frivolous, non-intellectually-taxing, easy and accessible story about how McCain likes to talk about how much he "hates gooks"? Somehow the public seems to continually demand "light" coverage that paints pro-war figures in a positive light. It's odd, to say the least, that the public demand is so achingly specific, and that cable news mavens have mapped it so precisely.

It is obvious to anyone who watches the political press on TV that individual reporters and on-air personalities have distinct personal preferences. John King of CNN loves John McCain and deliberately covers him in a positive light. Chris Matthews hates Hillary Clinton and abuses her at every opportunity. [I say this as a fellow Clinton hater who relishes Matthews' anti-Hillary abuse.] With these biases as obvious as they are, why is it so far out of the realm of consideration for McArdle that perhaps story choice is biased as well?

Posted by Brian | April 10, 2008 5:38 PM

just when i thought she couldn't be any dumber, she goes ahead and outdoes herself.
hey, i have to admit, this is some hilarious stuff.
does atlantic realize that they are publishing a blog devoted to humor?

Posted by frankie d | April 10, 2008 5:41 PM

All B, C and D* list bloggers know they can boost traffic by picking a fight and then getting stomped by Glenzilla.

Did you and Greenwald decide to enter some kind of cross promotion agreement or something? Based on the response count in the previous posts with his name in it, it seems to be working. Good job at marketing!

Posted by Nelson

It worked for German, Japan, Iraq, Iran and even al-Qaida!

Go McGargle! You are in over your head!

*There isn't a letter rating low enough for Drezner.

Posted by Go McGargle! | April 10, 2008 5:48 PM

I don't know that MM will answer my questions, so I am curious if someone else can point out to me where GG "professes not to understand why Dan Drezner and [MM] might be offended" and where he claims MM's arguments are normative. As far as I can tell, he couldn't care less about offending them, and shows no sign of disagreement with MM's description of the media market.

Posted by phasearth | April 10, 2008 5:49 PM

Oh noes! Smackdown from the big A lister!

"As for why anyone clicks through a Megan McArdle post, I could not say."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_04_06_archive.html#4473406313343620128

Posted by / | April 10, 2008 5:53 PM

phasearth:

GG accuses MM of a normative argument here), as quoted by MM:

And she wants it that way, as she argues that the media should tell her more about Obama's bowling score than about these dreary, boring stories about DOJ memos.

Posted by kenB | April 10, 2008 5:59 PM

Megan,
I think you are missing a pattern fairly basic to the admittedly recondite scholarship of international relations. Unlike classic totalitarian states, which want you to think the KGB might knock on your door at any time, our governing elites tend to obscure our power-seeking behaviors and our felt need for economic resources behind humanitarian rhetoric on the one hand and bureaucratic and consumerist obfuscation on the other. This aesthetic management of our massive military-industrial complex plays on the hyper-patriotism of many in the US, who are very concerned to uphold the nation’s moral self-image without attending to the details of our policies.

Thus, although we’ve committed a great deal of torture ourselves during the Bush administration (Bagram, Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi detention facilities, Gitmo, CIA prisons, etc.), it seems clear to me that our preferred style is to outsource the unpleasantness. This habit applies to more than extraordinary rendition; it speaks to overt and covert support for surrogates who engage in many proxy wars and brutal counterinsurgency tactics to secure regimes friendly to US military and economic interests. Study our tactics during the Cold War in detail and the pattern is not hard to discern. Once we ourselves arrive on the scene abroad, in situations in which our own perceived interests are not threatened by settling for a truly minimalist helping role, we indeed exhibit (and feel!) fine motives and deploy lots of technological and professional savoir faire to good ends (thus our military’s outstanding work after the December 2004 tsunami and its important peacekeeping efforts in the Balkans and the legal community’s work helping build more sound legal systems in former East Bloc countries, etc.). This fuller picture of the public relations components of foreign policy does not deny our goodness. (Thank God we won the Cold War.) But it does indicate that that goodness falls short of an absolute standard; to ascribe to the US purity of heart is badly inaccurate.

Posted by jason | April 10, 2008 6:06 PM

Also for Phasearth:

As for this from GG:

My original post had nothing to do with whether profit motive and ratings was a key reason why the media behaves this way

This is a little less clear-cut -- GG's original post argued that individual members of the press covered the fluff because that's what they saw everyone else doing -- basically a feedback loop:

Our nation's coddled, insulated journalist class reaches these conclusions about what Regular Folk think using the most self-referential, self-absorbed thought process imaginable. The proof that the Regular People are interested in these things is that . . . the journalists themselves chatter about it endlessly.

So while he doesn't deny that the press is motivated by profit/ratings, he does imply that they're wrong in their assessment of what would lead to better ratings.

MM responds by saying that the press's assessment of the people's interest is correct:

This is not because journalists are insulated from their readers. It is because readers buy more papers with headlines about Jamie Lynn Spears than they do with headlines about Alphonso Jackson or John Yoo, since as I think I just mentioned, they have never heard of either person.

Posted by kenB | April 10, 2008 6:14 PM

Brian, it is all out the realm of consideration because your theory would entail a monolithic media preference, from the 90% of the reporters who vote for a Democrat, to the editors and producers who I suspect mostly vote for Democrats, if not at the 90% mark, to the publishers and CEOs who likely vote for Republicans in much greater numbers. The chance that this very large group of people have all decided to protect President Bush is pretty small, as is the chance that the CEOs and publishers have issued dicta that the lowly reporters aren't leaking to the public. It is far more likely that they are merely following their normal instincts as to what is the safest way to attract eyeballs. Now, it is possible that their normal instictls are wildly off base, and the market is thus hugely inefficient in meeting customer demand, but such situations are exceedingly rare. There is not a deficiency of capital available, if some person with intimate knowledge of the industry noted the inefficiency. What are the odds that this massive inefficiency has existed all these years, and not has been acted on? I have posed this question for a couple of days now, and the best evidence supplied so far is that Keith Olbermann has been able to draw 700,000 viewers a night. That is a bit less than convincing.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 6:23 PM

I find it hard to believe that he actually can't recognize a distinction between "is" and "ought"

I'm sure he does recognize that distinction. What "is" is outrageous compared to what "ought" to be. What is galling is that you don't seem to be similarly outraged. Instead you spend a lot of time making excuses for why outrage is uncalled for (which all boil down to "it's just the economics of the business"), all the more outrageous because you yourself admit that what "is" is worse than what "ought" to be.

You are making positive arguments when (I think) you should be making normative ones. That upsets those of us who are daily trying to make normative arguments to get change to happen. Your positive arguments are undermining our efforts to make normative arguments, and we're going to fight back against that. What "ought" to be should win out over what "is."

it's not clear to me that our government policy in Guantanamo and elsewhere would be any different if we had not gone to war.

The two are both linked as examples of abuse of power and executive overreach; but don't focus on that, if that's too confusing. Even taken separately, there is ample evidence now that both activities are fraught with human rights violations and possible war crimes. Do you accept the principle that the Yoo memos gave the green light for the President to authorize the use of torture on detainees? If you feel unqualified to make a legal determination, can you at least make a normative statement that torture is not something our government should engage in? Assuming you believe it is not, would it be outrageous to you to learn that in fact our government has engaged in torture, and that they are relying on John Yoo's legal analysis that no laws prohibited such actions as a defense for their behavior? If you can come that far, it would go some way towards lessening MY frustration at least that you refuse to put principle above economic interest and excuse the media for doing the same- which is what Glenn has been accusing you of doing.

Posted by liberalrob | April 10, 2008 6:25 PM

to aMouseforallSeasons:

I'm a little surprised I thought the lack of causal justification for our Iraqi expedition could be taken as given by this point...

So I have to plead ignorance as to what you might be talking about. WMD's, relationship with Al Qaida, even Sadam's relationship with Zarcawi...all proved to be made up. I'm really interested in hearing what causal justification you think exists for our forces in Iraq?

Maybe you're going to say "our invasion caused such a massive mess that if we leave now it will be a bloodbath?" Or something like that?

Posted by bakum | April 10, 2008 6:31 PM

Where we differ, liberalrob, is that in your effort to get to where we "ought" to be, you favor a new "is" that many of us find just as unacceptable as the current "is", and we furthermore beleve that your new "is" would still leave us short of where you think we "ought" to be.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 6:34 PM

bakum, I favored ending Baathist rule in Iraq, but wished it had simply been stated that the Baathists had violated the '91 cease fire agreement, so the firing was going to resume until the Baathist regime was toppled.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 6:38 PM

Your positive arguments are undermining our efforts to make normative arguments, and we're going to fight back against that.

IMHO your efforts are undermined much more by your tendency to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Self-righteous outrage certainly feels good, but it's usually not a very effective tool for convincing people who don't already agree with you.

Posted by kenB | April 10, 2008 6:41 PM

belief in the basic goodness of America

Well, golly, Ms. Megan, maybe you should read what Geoge Kennan wrote in 1948 in a US State Department document:

We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.

To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

Is that enough American goodness for you?

Posted by HH | April 10, 2008 6:54 PM

Will Allen:

I appreciate that you are engaging with facts and ideas not name calling, but I disagree with your premise.

I don't agree that ending the Baathist regime justified the invasion. I think back in 2000 I would have been more sympathetic on sentimental grounds but by 2002 didn't we have more important fish to fry?

Further, if for the sake of argument I agree that in 2003 it was a wise, intelligent, logical thing to do to stop hunting for Public Enemy #1 and instead start playing moral cop around the world, I still fail to see why Iraq would be a logical target. Certainly the Baathists were horrible, but Congo? Sudan? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Saudi Frickin Arabia?! Pardon my French.

Post-facto we could bend ourselves around and perhaps eventually come to some rationalization with the benefit of hindsight. Pre-facto though, I have never heard even a halfway decent argument for invading Iraq. Certainly nothing the Bush admin has sent up the flagpole is salute worthy, as evidenced by nothing else than that their story keeps changing.

So, again, to say that the problem we had in 2003 is "overweening arrogance" is weapons grade poppycock. To get that from a regular person on the street would be frustrating but understandable. To get it from someone paid to think and write it's shocking. To get it from someone like Ms. McArdle who is paid not only to think and write, but whose bones were made on being an analyst of "facts" is nothing less than pathetic, and worthy of derision.

Posted by bakum | April 10, 2008 7:01 PM

You admit to "overweening arrogance" regarding your support of unprovoked war (and then give it a living, shining, cringe-worthy example by saying "it's too bad that other people, mostly Iraqi civilians, have paid the price.")

Too bad. Tut tut.

But you're offended by Greenwald's words regarding that "overweening arrogance"? Really?

And since he said nothing about not understanding why you'd be offended, who exactly is being "thoroughly incoherent"?

And: But this has absolutely nothing to do with the John Yoo memos, which as I understand matters are more about the war on terror than Iraq...

How many false arguments can you cram into one post? Even going with your logic - the War in Iraq has nothing to do with the "War on Terror"? What the hell? And you somehow missed that people were tortured in Iraq?

And the fact that you started this fight with Greenwald - regarding a post about the John Yoo memos - Jesus, you have the nerve to say this doesn't reflect well on Greenwald?

Really astonishing.

Posted by Thom | April 10, 2008 7:12 PM

As regards the war, I think his charge of American exceptionalism is actually pretty fair; I think the US has done a better job of occupying Iraq than, say, Iraq did of occupying Kuwait

Will Allen--

I don't know how else to read this.

Has the US done a better job of occupying Iraq than the Iraqis did occupying Kuwait? How is Abu Graib okay?

And even if that was over the top and wrong, she still hasn't dealt with the argument. And a commenter above intensifies it. How can she, a libertarian, possibly justify a war of aggression? How can she, a libertarian, believe that a government is engaged in some kind of beneficent action when it calls up its troops, and unleashes its bomber on a nation that poses no threat? And then, immmediately, engages in torture and abuse?

Greenwald's argument is simple. If you support wars of aggression, you have to accept the consequences of those wars. Those wars are wrong. Wrong for the Romans, wrong for the British, wrong for the Germans. Wrong for Saddam in Kuwait, and wrong for Bush in Iraq.

That's the point. And I do not see how a libertarian can assert that American exceptionalism makes it all right.

Posted by jayackroyd | April 10, 2008 7:15 PM

jayackroyd:

"And I do not see how a libertarian can assert that American exceptionalism makes it all right."

That is what stuns me the most I think. Fred Kagan, Bill Kristol...at least those people have the guts to align publically with the imperialist philosophy, however misguided I think it is. But a Libretarian?! It's...stunning, and it throws into doubt the very definition of libertarian as I understand it.

Posted by bakum | April 10, 2008 7:33 PM

I'd like to see an American criminal trial, based on the revelations today that the principals on the security council authorized waterboarding Zubaydah, and thus he was coerced into giving up information that led to Khalid Mohammed's capture. First, it would actually let the public know whether torture "worked" in this instance.

Will,

Given the track record of dishonesty amassed by the Bush administration why would you believe this is anything other than their having tortured one guy into a false confession and then implicating another guy who was then tortured into a false confession?

Zubaydah and KSM may very well be guilty. But, believing in their guilt because of statements made under torture is absurd.

This is what the pros mean when they say torture doesn't work: you may get tons of information, but none of it is worth spit. Even if they give you the best intel in the world you'd have no way of knowing it was anything more than all the other bull the subject spouted hoping to make it stop.

Let me use the same techniques on you (and anyone you give up) and I'm confident that I can expose you and everyone you know as one big terrorist ring.

Posted by not important | April 10, 2008 7:56 PM

Glenn: McArdle possesses a drooling, self-loving American exceptionalism.

McArdle: That's right, I do. (Wipes away drool with sleeve)

Brilliant.

Remember how we are supposed to listen to people like Megan who are constantly wrong, and ignore people who are right, because they learn from their mistakes and that's super-valuable?

What is Megan learning here? She supported a disastrous war because of her drooling exceptionalism, and now she is defending her exceptionlism, while at the same time expressing fake outrage over the fact that we aren't taking in Iraqi refugees, a point that obviously contradicts the notion that America is nothing but kind-hearted.

My error was in not recognizing that our strength is not the strength of ten merely because our heart is pure.

No, your errors are as follows:

1. Believing America can do not wrong despite all evidence to the contrary.

2. Believing that America can and should create and maintain a global hegemony at gunpoint.

3. Believing that war is puppy dogs and flowers and not cracking open a history book and realizing that war has terrible consequences such as dead people and refugees.

4. Continuing to dismiss people who believe that America can do wrong, that America should not create a global hegemony at gunpoint and that war has terrible consequences as not worth listening to because they aren't wrong as often as you are and are "mean" about it.

Our heart is pure? Why do we care so much about the Middle East and so little about everywhere else? Is that better explained by the purity of our hearts or our reliance a certain natural resource?

But this has absolutely nothing to do with the John Yoo memos, which as I understand matters are more about the war on terror than Iraq;

Yes, these two are clearly wholly unrelated. It's not like the War on Iraq has been linked to and justified by the War on Terror and vice-versa, and that in the minds of many Americans they are together a nebulous war on evil outsiders.

You claim to learn from your mistakes. I'm not seeing it. What I'm seeing is someone who is happy to repeat the exact same mistakes ad infinitum.

Posted by Margalis | April 10, 2008 8:02 PM

"Unlike classic totalitarian states, which want you to think the KGB might knock on your door at any time, our governing elites tend to obscure our power-seeking behaviors and our felt need for economic resources behind humanitarian rhetoric on the one hand and bureaucratic and consumerist obfuscation on the other. This aesthetic management of our massive military-industrial complex plays on the hyper-patriotism of many in the US, who are very concerned to uphold the nation’s moral self-image without attending to the details of our policies."

Didn't somebody that can't even be mentioned on TV or in major newspapers write a few books about this? I always wonder how all these self-absorbed conservatives nuts get on TV, but those self-absorbed liberal nuts never seem to make it. I guess there is no market for them.

Posted by mickslam | April 10, 2008 8:07 PM

It's...stunning, and it throws into doubt the very definition of libertarian as I understand it.

The more you hang out with libertarians the more you realize that for the vast majority it's simply a way to put an intellectual sheen on their own self-interest and preferences.

Why would a libertarian support the Iraq War? Because to them being a libertarian doesn't mean anything more than "doing what I want."

The great thing about principles is you only have to adhere to them when they benefit you.

Posted by Margalis | April 10, 2008 8:15 PM

I always wonder how all these self-absorbed conservatives nuts get on TV, but those self-absorbed liberal nuts never seem to make it. I guess there is no market for them.

The public has an incredible demand for the Kagans. It's true!

Posted by Margalis | April 10, 2008 8:18 PM

"I think the US has done a better job of occupying Iraq than, say, Iraq did of occupying Kuwait;"

Jesus. talk about the bigotry of low expectations.

"My error was in not recognizing that our strength is not the strength of ten merely because our heart is pure."

If that's not a joke then you are one of the stupidest people on the planet.

And given your previous posts i don't think it's a joke.

"My conviction that we had the wisdom and power to take the fate of another country into our own hands"

Nope , you are incredibly stupid. I've read your posts and thought you were ignorant. But apparently you're very very stupid as well.

Still keep waving the flag and supporting your government.

And no doubt you will still keep calling yourself a libertarian

Posted by kb | April 10, 2008 8:24 PM

Nice to see that other posters share the same general ideas as me. (Ie. helping with the smackdown.)

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 10, 2008 8:27 PM

Is there really any point in continuing to argue with Greenwald? It isn't like there's any chance of his admitting he was wrong about something.

Posted by Dan | April 10, 2008 8:29 PM

Come now kb, the Bush Administration is nothing of not both wise and pure of heart.

It certainly seem a bit odd for a "libertarian" to defend her terrible judgement and ignorance by claiming the government is a wonderful, benevolent and efficient entity with only our best interests at heart.

She doesn't believe that complex regulation can work but she does believe that...a global benevolent hegemony lead by the Bush Administration would be swell!

Curious.

Posted by Margalis | April 10, 2008 8:39 PM

How McArdle got this Atlantic blogging gig is one of the deepest mysteries of the blogosphere. Day after day, she embarrasses herself, the institutions where she was educated, and the Atlantic by demonstrating ignorance, naivete, and argumentative clumsiness appropriate to a third-string libertarian crank.

Watching McArdle try to trade punches with Greenwald is a painful ordeal. If there had been a referee, he would have stopped the fight in the first round. But her limitless sense of self esteem makes her confident in challenging people who completely outclass her in every category of intellectual capability.

McArdle's running joke of a worldview is that she is always fundamentally correct, even when proven wrong. Irrespective of the issue, she will find a way to morph her (usually fatuous) initial position into some kind of meaningless generality defended by disclaimers and caveats.

When, oh when, will the Atlantic editors stop giving a platform to the horrible mismatch of ego and talent that is Megan McArdle?

Posted by HH | April 10, 2008 8:57 PM

Not important, you misunderstand what I wrote. I didn't say the waterboarding produced evidence of guilt. I said it has been reported that the waterboarding produced information which pointed to the location of another wanted man. This is where torture is most likely to produce good information; when the torturer can verify the veracity of the information that the tortured prisoner provided, and the tortured prisoner knows his agony will become worse if the information does not prove accurate.

I think the opponents of torture do a disservice to their cause when they assert torture "never works". Very few things "never work", and most people can detect the falsehood in that assertion. When challenged by torture advocates, opponents of torture would be better served by stating that torture might work in limited circumstances, but the damage that is done to society by it's practice is so great that it must be prohibited anyways. If someone tortures in violation of the law, let them argue for nullification in front of a jury of their peers, for a jury composed of ordinary citizens is the bedrock of a free society.

As I said, I cannot forsee a circumstance where torture would be tightly regulated enough where it would not inevitably devolve into widespread sadism for the sake of sadism, given the corrupting nature of the pratice, and the type of people that would become attracted to it. Thus I think it should be prohibited, period.

The trial I was wishing for was for the people who ordered the waterboarding.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 9:00 PM

jayackroyd, I did not write what you attribute to me.

Posted by Will Alen | April 10, 2008 9:04 PM

Oh, goody. We can have another discussion about torture.

I don't admit for a minute that waterboarding is torture, simply because as of now, the Congress has not seen fit to define it that way for purposes of the law. So even if waterboarding is torture, it is certainly not illegal at this juncture.

That being said, the fact of the matter is that torture WORKS.

Does it work for law enforcement purposes? Not very well, especially at the hands of untrained personnel, which is why the Supreme Court has said that it is not reliable enough to form the basis for a criminal conviction.

But is does work for intelligence gathering, where one is trying to elicit information father than confirm information. If you tell the victim that you want him to confess to a specific act, eventually he/she will confess to that act just to put an end to the torture. But if you don't tell the victim what it is that you want to hear, the victim will spill his/her guts and tell you anything that he/she thinks you might be interested in. Good interrogators know how to make tortue effective.

My reason for not liking torture is what it makes us become if we engage in the practice. But I have no problem at all with coercive or harsh interrogation techniques (short of turture) if they will save the lives of me or my fellow Americans.

Posted by Rex | April 10, 2008 9:27 PM

you misunderstand what I wrote. I didn't say the waterboarding produced evidence of guilt. I said it has been reported that the waterboarding produced information which pointed to the location of another wanted man.

I understood your post.

That's why I closed the way I did - I bet you know the locations of loads of other terrorists and I'm certain it could be gotten out of you, along with all the terrible things you and they've done and are planning. Oh, and look they lived just where you said they did, and will doubtless support the veracity of your statements about their guilt.

If someone tortures in violation of the law, let them argue for nullification in front of a jury of their peers, for a jury composed of ordinary citizens is the bedrock of a free society.

You've been in these threads long enough that you know that "torture" is always in violation of the law. This is not some grey area - this is absolutely settled law for more than 50 years. The treaties and statutes are as broad as they are to cover anything close to torture and to make any attempts a hair splitting look as absurd as yours do.

You can easily find the law references (some even in these threads) and I'm confident that an honest reading will disabuse you of any notion of ambiguity.

I didn't say it never works. I said the pros say it doesn't work. And, the reason it doesn't work is exactly that even when it does "work" you can't tell... No matter if your uncle Bob lives where you said he did.

I didn't think the social damage and moral repugnance arguments needed any help from me. Surely, you can formulate those for yourself.

The trial I was wishing for was for the people who ordered the waterboarding.

Obviously.

And, apparently you're under the odious belief that an American court should allow material obtained under torture to be introduced as evidence for their defense. Otherwise how could any judgement be made on whether it "worked".

Never mind the absolute prohibition on such evidence that has been a defining feature of our legal system since it's inception. Seriously, what is your point here except to try to find some excuse to circumvent that restriction?

Posted by not important | April 10, 2008 9:45 PM

Since, to my knowledge, no one else has brought it up: on another blog comments at 1:00 am, The Editors writes,

There are plenty of ways to disagree with McArdle and Drezner on the merits (as there are substantive points to engage), but Greenwald ignores all this, pretends not to understand the difference between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, and accuses them out of the clear blue sky of supporting torture.

...and here, at 3:46 pm, our hostess writes,

Greenwald has repeatedly tried to obscure the difference. I find it hard to believe that he actually can't recognize a distinction between "is" and "ought"; either way, it does not reflect well on him.

And there's no hat tip or nuthin. Ought someone call Shenanigans?

Posted by ed | April 10, 2008 9:53 PM

How many of the first few commenters do you suppose are Glenn himself

Posted by Josh | April 10, 2008 10:19 PM

"Is" or "ought" is a red-herring anyway.

Megan has said many times that not only is this the way the media works, this is the way it should work, because the purpose of the media is to respond to consumer demand and consumers demand bowling and Whitewater tales.

This is a common complaint of hers, that someone didn't get what she was saying. At some point it should be evident that the problem is her poor writing.

And has Glenn has explained, this began by Drezner complaining and Megan seconding his complaints. Drezner's original post is a defense, not just an explanation.

I see this very often: one blogger quotes another, signals their approval of the original post, then when called on it plays dumb and claims "well I didn't write that post, I'm saying something totally different!"

If you read Drezner's original post carefully, the one Megan approvingly quoted, parts of it are normative arguments. For example:

Shockingly, the press appears to be more interested in events that determine the future (i.e., who will be the next president?) than in events that look back at the past.

I don't think this can be read as purely explanatory.

I would also point out that Drezner and by proxy Megan attacked Glenn personally before he said a word specifically about them, so their cries for civility are a bit absurd.

This is typical schoolyard bully behavior: attack then complain to teacher when reciprocated against.

Posted by Margalis | April 10, 2008 10:23 PM

Bakum, I favored removing the Baathist regime in Iraq for one reason; I thought a great many more violent deaths would likely result if it was left in place, and I pretty much expected to be where we are today.

If Osama Bin laden had died of a stroke on 9/12/01, the strategic stituation would have have changed very little, and if every Al Queda member in Afghanistan contracted a virus tonight and died by noon tomorrow, the conflict with violent Islamic sects would not be over. As long as the American public demands that Persian Gulf oil, especially Saudi oil be extracted on an uninterrupted basis, and added to world energy markets, so as to keep energy costs as low as possible to the American consumer (please don't make me explain the concept of fungibility again), the United States will be the defacto ally of the entity which has the most control over world energy costs, The House of Saud, which means we will be the defacto enemy of any who oppose the House of Saud. Now before anyone says, "But anyone who controlled those fields would sell the oil!", yes this very likely true, if short term interruptions are ignored in the case of violent attacks on the House of Saud. One of Al Queda's most desired tactical goals, after all, has long been to disrupt extraction form Saudi fields.

No Amrican President can risk, on an electoral basis, even a temporary stoppage in Saudi extraction. Look what has happened to this President, or what happened to President Carter, when the price of oil skyrocketed. The chance of an Ameican President being politically brave enough to risk even a very short term halt in Saudi extraction is nil. The U.S. is thus tied at the hip to the House of Saud, which inevitably means war with all who violently oppose the House of Saud.

The only way this ends in less than multiple decades is if the population of Saudi Arabia achieves self government, and willingly sells the oil for it's own benefit, because all technological dreams aside, the U.S. population is going to demand Saudi extraction for many decades to come, in a world where terribly destructive technology becomes more ubiquitous, likely eventually even regarding non-state actors, with each passing decade.

Now, I can hear the question now, "What has Iraq have to do with Saudi Arabia?" Well, given that an invasion of Saudi Arabia is impossible, quite a bit. The entire status quo of the Persian Gulf, as it existed prior to 9/11, must change for this conflict with violent Islamic sects to end. Directly pressuring the House of Saud is impossible, and Sunni Baathist rule actually served the interests of the House of Saud, which is why they so vehemently opposed removing Hussein, both in 1990 and 2003. A Shia majority Iraq population which achieves even rudimentry levels of self government, with recognition of the rights of religious or ethnic minorities, puts a huge amount of pressure on both the House of Saud and the Iranian mullahs, and emboldens the elements in those societies which also desire self government. Look at what the captured documents from Al Queda have stated as to what they fear happening in Iraq. An oil rich Arab population practicing self government, and not under the heel of theocratic dictators, would be an utter strategic disaster for them, as it would be to the Persian Shia theocrats to the east.

Now, saying it and doing it are two entirely different things, of course, and I never thought the chances of success were high. However, I also thought continuing to simply try to manage the status quo of the Persian Gulf for a few more decades, in hopes of slow improvement, would eventually end with a far more destructive attack on the U.S. population than the 9/11 attack, and that would result in a completely enraged American public demanding a total war response, which would make the current carnage appear like a minor dust-up.

The situation sucks, and has sucked, for many decades now. The world is changing rapidly, in terms of the ability to bring the sucking to bear on the U.S. population, and if that happens to any large degree, we will have violence on a level not seen since the middle of the last century. The only way out is for the people in that region to achieve self government, and then choose to peacefully and profitably trade with the rest of the world, and in my estimation taking the risk of ending Baathist rule would provide the best of some really crappy likely alternative outcomes.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 10:23 PM

And it takes neither genius, nor collusion, nor cosmic coincidence to notice that Greenwald constantly elides words that can create easier-to-argue opponents.

Posted by Josh | April 10, 2008 10:26 PM

Stop calling yourself "Josh" Megan, you aren't fooling anyone.

Posted by Margalis | April 10, 2008 10:30 PM

will Allen--

jayackroyd, I did not write what you attribute to me.

I did not attribute anything to you. That's what Megan wrote.

Posted by jayackroyd | April 10, 2008 10:35 PM

Not important, I neither wrote or implied that torture cold be legal, and the term "torture in violation of the law" is just a redundant phrase. Sorry about that.

As a matter of logic, you are simply wrong about the possible utility of torture. If a torturer believes his victim knows where Osama Bin Laden is located, and tortures his victim for the knowledge, while also informing him that information will be verified shortly, the victim, if he actually has knowledge, can either choose to reveal it, or choose yet more agony, after the false information he provides undergoes examination. Of course, if he doesn't, then he wastes a lot of resources with false leads. There are circumstances, however, where the torturer will have know that the odds are pretty good the victim does have the information. Of course, torture never stops there, which is why prohibition is needed. I wasn

Finally, if you are going to try someone fairly for a violent crime, it's pretty much impossible to prevent the defense from showing the jury evidence which goes to motive. I also am of the opinion that information is kept from juries far too frequently in our justice system.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 10:41 PM

Well then, jayackroyd, in regards to your question, I have no real interest in verifying political labels, so I really can't answer it.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 10:46 PM

The U.S. is thus tied at the hip to the House of Saud, which inevitably means war with all who violently oppose the House of Saud.

Huh? Doesn't it mean thoughtful diplomatic outreach? Foreign aid?

The only way out is for the people in that region to achieve self government, and then choose to peacefully and profitably trade with the rest of the world, and in my estimation taking the risk of ending Baathist rule would provide the best of some really crappy likely alternative outcomes.

And the way to do that was to invade the country, kill a whole lot of them, and hope for a pony?

I mean, yes, I agree, that was the policy position of the neo-cons. Invade Iraq, topple Saddam and hope for a pony--10 percent shot, maybe, according to them.

But you consider this a good idea? As opposed to any number of any foreign policy alternatives? Like giving Saddam an obscene amount of money, and sending him to Dubai?

There is nobody violently threatening Saudi Arabia in any case. Their problems are internal. And if you think that a populist, Islamist movement is going to overthrow the Sauds and then refuse to sell the oil onto world markets, well you need to study the history of populist movements.

The only thing a country can do with oil is sell it onto world markets. Even bilateral sales have that effect, as with Soviet sales to Cuba.

It's so hard to figure out when conservatives will believe in the fairy dust of markets, and when they'll dismiss them as irrelevant. Bill Keller's decision-making is finely tuned to every nuance of NYT front page readers, but islamist revolutionaries have no idea about what's in their own interest.

People are rational actors, except when they aren't.

Posted by jayackroyd | April 10, 2008 10:48 PM

Will Allen--

These ticking time bomb scenarios are ridiculous. If you can verify the information you get from torturing this person, then there is no need to torture him.

These scenarios don't arise. And they should not be considered as reasons for permitting torture.

If one ever does arise, like Dirty Harry in the football stadium, then the torturer will have to run the risk that he will be convicted of breaking the law. But to suppose that these scenarios will arise, and therefore set up rules for dealing with them, is ridiculous.

We've seen this in Israel. Torture was permitted under the ticking time bomb rule. Torture took place in circumstances that didn't meet the criterion. Israel's highest court banned torture.

(Hey Megan--check out your peeps. They do believe in torture.)

Posted by jayackroyd | April 10, 2008 10:53 PM

If the alternative is a five percent pony shot, then a 10 percent pony shot is a good one. No, Baathist rule could not have been ended by bribing Saddam Hussein. Also, please read what I wrote, so as to avoid arguing what I have addressed. I never said that anyone who controlled the Saudi fields would refuse to sell it. I said an internal entity (you know Al Queda is an internal Saudi enemy, right?) which sought to topple the House of Saud would seek the tactic of temporarily halting extraction from Saudi fields, and that no American President would take the electoral risk of a temporay halt in Saudi extraction, thus meaning all American Presidents would back the House of Saud, thus becoming the enemy of those who oppose the House of Saud.

Posted by Will Allen | April 10, 2008 11:02 PM

liberalrob at 6:25 is right that the "is vs. ought" issue is more easily applied to Megan's response than to Greenwald's initial post:

You are making positive arguments when (I think) you should be making normative ones. That upsets those of us who are daily trying to make normative arguments to get change to happen.

This is actually an interesting pattern that runs through many political debates over the past 7 years; it may even be a fundamental structural difference between liberal and conservative ways of thinking. Broadly, conservatives seem to resist thinking about systemic change, or apportioning blame for failures in systemic environments. In this case, Greenwald's basic argument is that a news media which pays more attention to Obama's bowling than to John Yoo's memos authorizing torture has something deeply wrong with it. Megan is saying, well, but that's nobody's fault, it's just market demand. Greenwald says, by deflecting the attempt to fix responsibility for this problem, you yourself become part of the problem. Megan says, excuse me? I was just describing the way things work. And so on. But at much more heated temperatures.

What's interesting is that this conflict over the attempt to fix responsibility mirrors the conflict over American torture and the torture memos themselves. When the Abu Ghraib story first broke, conservatives described it as the frat-boy excesses of a few bad apples. Liberals responded angrily that such excesses are predictable in wartime unless there are clear command directives restraining soldiers' and prison guards' natural tendency towards cruelty, and that those who failed to provide such guidance were culpable. As the story developed, it became more and more clear that in fact the case was far more awful than liberals had at first thought. The problem was not a lack of clear instruction; it was that political and military leadership had gradually, deliberately crafted a methodology of torture, and had commissioned pliable lawyers to author opinions which confused the legal structure and created a grey area within which they could torture people without fear of eventual prosecution. At no point in this process could one easily identify an evil mastermind to pin the blame on. It was a systemic evolution. But one common characteristic that ran through the whole story was the evasion of responsibility, the evasion of law, the evasion of guilt by everyone who created the system for torturing detainees in Iraq, Guantanamo, and the CIA's black prison sites.

In "Control Room", the documentary about Al-Jazeera's coverage of the Iraq invasion, there's a scene in which several reporters, including a female reporter for I think CBS, are interviewing a US Army officer about the rioting in Baghdad immediately after the US takes the city. The CBS reporter is flabbergasted that the Army officer is blaming the rioting on the Iraqi people and denying the Army's responsibility for ensuring security. It's the clearest example I've seen of how a conservative ideology of individual responsibility leads to complete, culpable irresponsibility among the people who are supposed to create and enforce governing structures. And that clash in worldviews has played out over and over again in these last 7 years, on issue after issue.

So, again, I think this different in attitudes explains some of the fury one sees in these posts. Liberals feel that conservative descriptions of how responsibility for catastrophes, misdeeds and atrocities is, in fact, diffuse, are basically attempts to evade blame.

On reflection, though, I don't think that this divide in attitudes maps quite so neatly onto the liberal-conservative divide, or even onto the Greenwald-McArdle divide. In fact Greenwald is overly personalistic and Megan is overly systemic, on this issue. But Greenwald is being personalistic in an effort to assign systemic blame, and Megan is being systemic in an effort to deflect personal blame (on the persons of journalists, that is, not on herself). Complicated, but interesting.

Still, not 180-posts interesting.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 10, 2008 11:15 PM

Encountering an assertion about politics can provoke in me a set questions: Is this true? Likely to be true? Possibly true? Should I do something, even if that's just to find out more or reconsider I view I now hold?

But that almost never happens when the assertion's swaddled in disdain, however expressed - sarcasm, sneering dismissal, etc.
That posture means the writer doesn't understand the other side well enough to have any useful to say. Public issues only have two or more sides because each side has thoughtful, well-intended, knowledgeable people -- people who may be entirely wrong - though generally not, but people who have a point of view worthy of being taken into account before deciding. Otherwise these issues just don't last long enough to be controversies. And if you're not addressing the thoughtful, well-meant, knowledge-based positions of another side, then you're not really offering anything worth taking seriously.

Obviously, a scan through this trail of comments suggests that some people aim at something else than persuasion or enlightenment. They may imagine they're humiliating people by holding their devastated arguments up to ridicule as retribution for error or for misleading others into mistaken thinking. But if you've demonstrated you really haven't appreciated the argument of your adversary then you haven't demolished it and the insult really only rebounds. It is therefore pointless, if not self-defeating.

Posted by Brien OToole | April 10, 2008 11:16 PM

Hey, here's yet more stuff that the media was doing because "That's just what the people want".

As someone said up above:

The problem with this analysis is that political press bias is obvious within the confines of its whimsical coverage, and the existence of this bias lends a lot of credence to Greenwald's claims of "base motives".
For example, perhaps the public is demanding, and will only consume, frivolous stories about John McCain. But is the public somehow demanding positive frivolous stories about John McCain? Are editors nationwide demanding that he always be referred to as "the maverick"? Wouldn't there be a human interest value to pushing the frivolous, non-intellectually-taxing, easy and accessible story about how McCain likes to talk about how much he "hates gooks"? Somehow the public seems to continually demand "light" coverage that paints pro-war figures in a positive light. It's odd, to say the least, that the public demand is so achingly specific, and that cable news mavens have mapped it so precisely.

Yes, yes, I know, people only _say_ they disapprove of Republicans in general and George Bush in particular, but of course, the media knows that what The People _really_ want is just more of the same, and that they just don't like Democrats.

Uh-huh.

Posted by ScentOfViolets | April 10, 2008 11:24 PM

Could someone please define for me, a lowly foreigner, what American exceptionalism means? It sounds as though it is a belief that Americans, as opposed to other races, are born with an inherent goodness. The thinking goes like this: As Americans, anything we do or done in our name is, by definition, a good thing. Is this correct?

Posted by Shan | April 10, 2008 11:32 PM

Oh dear God, another Greenwald post. Megan, the guy is a pompous inflated fool who is always right. Arguing with him is like wrestling with a pig. You will only get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

Please take the high ground and let Greenwald root for his truffles.

Posted by Kevin P. | April 11, 2008 12:01 AM

Shan, Greenwald meant it in its most widely used sense, that the United States is "exceptional" because, unlike European nations, America can do what it wants and only cares about its own interests, not things like treaties and diplomacy. In economics and politics the term means means that socialism or workers rights or labor/capital dichotomies never caught on in America, unlike in Europe.

Megan, it seems, wrongly thinks that American exceptionalism means that America is an "exceptional" country, i.e., the best in the world. Very strange for a college graduate.

Posted by Blake | April 11, 2008 12:04 AM

Kevin P apparently thinks "taking the high ground" means making excuses for those who fiddle while the Republic is burned down by Repiglicans.

Greenwald IS the higher ground here. Megan would do well to find a way to climb up there.

Bush and those who have accommodated him have shamed this country. No other journalistic message is more important these days.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 11, 2008 12:07 AM

Megan - while I frequently disagree with you, I normally enjoy your columns, but this pissing match with Gleen has to end - you can't win because he and his fans/sockpuppets/pool boys are nothing but giant sacks of urine, and will thus win any pissing contest. Move on to something useful instead of giving these jagoff and his clone army the attention they seek but in no way deserve.

Posted by holdfast | April 11, 2008 12:54 AM

jayackroyd, your logic fails. The torturer can only verify what he has been told. If the prisoner refuses to say anything, the torture is applied to compel the prisoner to provide information, with the knowledge that information which is falsified will result in more agony. ABC News reported today that the whereabouts of Khalid Mohammed were discovered by the use torture. I don't know if this is true, but it isn't even close to being impossible. I don't know why some torture opponents have been so hell bent on claiming that torture could never produce useful information. Making your case with an easily falsifiable claim seems unwise. Better to make your argument with rock solid as

I just don't understand

Comments (132)