SOLO-International Press Release: The Anti-American President, Pt. 1

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Thu, 2009-04-23 03:00

SOLO-International Press Release: The Anti-American President
April 23, 2009

Fewer than 100 days into his presidency, Barack Chavez-Obama is shaping up as treasonous, says SOLO Principal Lindsay Perigo.

"This is a President who has just re-opened the door for the prosecution of those who in good faith advised that the 'waterboarding' of terrorist trash post-9/11 would be legal. That technique subsequently extracted information that saved Los Angeles from a similar attack.

"This is a President who releases classified information about that technique and withholds information about its success.

"This is a President who has outlawed that technique (which, though distressing—oh, poor terrorist trash!—is neither injurious nor life-threatening).

"This is a President who has officially changed the name of the War on Terror to 'Overseas Contingency Operation' so as not to offend terrorist trash.

"This is a President who is willing to sit down unconditionally with the President of the world's #1 sponsor of terrorist trash, Iran, even as that country proceeds with impunity to acquire nuclear weaponry.

"This is a President who preaches nuclear disarmament at the United Nations knowing North Korea is about to fire a long-range missile over Japan.

"This is a President who bows to the King of Saudi Arabia and beams at Hugo Chavez.

"This is a President whose economic policies are significantly similar to Chavez's.

"This is a President on whose watch the Department of Homeland Security fantasizes about 'threats' from war veterans who 'might' become 'right-wing extremists.'

"This is a President who believes anyone who adheres to America's founding ideals is a 'right-wing extremist.'

"This is a President who trashes his country while overseas, apologizing to European socialists (whose countries America rebuilt) and Latin American communists for America's 'arrogance' and 'dismissiveness.'

"The Department of Homeland Security would be better advised to worry about the threat to America posed by its President. He is making it more vulnerable to external attack while personally unleashing an internal attack on its core values.

"Chavez-Obama's credentials as an anti-American may be unimpeachable, but he'd do well to remember that he is not," Perigo concludes.

Lindsay Perigo: editor@freeradical.co.nz

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


( categories: )

Masterful

Sandi's picture

That is one hell of a PR Linz, it has gone straight to my favoured numo uno!

You have delivered such powerful "punch lines" that could knock out the national grid. This PR is so electric that it will be lighting up circuit boards around the globe.

"The Department of Homeland Security would be better advised to worry about the threat to America posed by its President." KASS, Kudos & total K.O!

Oi! Get with it. Torture's good.

gregster's picture

Is this restricted to Al-Qaeda and their allies or any [ .. ] terrorists?

Robert, are you short of sleep? If it's morally correct to save a life in one case by (approved) torture against terrorists then..

Surely you get it.

"Marvelous, I'm now being

sharon's picture

"Marvelous, I'm now being accused of being a fucking anarchist."

Learn to love it. It isn't bad.

Linz...

Robert's picture

Personally with these specimens water-boarding is in. But only because I can see no other way to obtain information from them. In addition to the fact that they serve a religion rather than a nation, they have nothing that they value - including their lives. And provided that the US government is explicit in restricting these techniques to this particular set of external enemies, I'm fine with it.

Nor is this a particularly radical position historically. Harsh measures are allowed to combat Pirates precisely because they present the same type of borderless, blood-thirsty menace that Al Quaeda does. For instance the last lot of Pirates to take a Chinese vessel in the South China Sea were executed on the spot, on TV, by the Chinese Navy. And not a squeak of protest was heard from anywhere.

My problem is that Bush (to the best of my knowledge) never set the limits of this policy. Is this a wartime emergency measure or permanent US law? Is this restricted to Al Quaeda and their allies or to anyone the US government defines as a terrorist? That is if they are still defining Al Quaeda as terrorists any more.

Nor did Bush get the politicians who signed off on it to sign off on it. Their approval was allowed to be tacit and now they can hide behind plausible deniability whilst the lawyers (and possibly the military) who were involved are hung out to dry.

The policy needs limits and proper oversight and until that happens, I'm not totally unhappy with the ban.

If I had to choose the thing that weakened the US National security the most it would be the proposed cuts to defense. In particular, canning of the F22 Raptor and cutting spending on anti Ballistic missile defense. The may need all the F22s they can get in order to remove Iraq's and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Hahahaha!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

How interesting Michael! In part because it tells us Matty is still getting his appeasement crap from Andrew Sullivan.

I urge everyone to read the whole article Michael links to. Here is its conclusion:

These are just a few of the plots that were broken up because of information gained from CIA interrogations. According to the intelligence community, terrorists held in CIA custody also provided information that helped stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti using an explosive laden water tanker. They provided information the helped us uncover al-Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States. And according to the memos released by the Obama administration “intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda.”

General Hayden calls these facts an “inconvenient truth.” He put it this way in his Fox News interview: “Most people who oppose these techniques want to be able to say: I don’t want my country doing this – which is a purely honorable position – and they didn’t work anyway. That back half of the sentence isn’t true. The facts of the case are that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.”

Former CIA Director George Tenet has said, “I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than [what] the FBI, the [CIA], and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.”

Former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has said, “We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened.”

And even Obama’s director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, said in a letter to the intelligence community on April 16, 2009: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.”

So you can believe Hayden, Tenet, McConnell, and Blair … or Tim Noah and Andrew Sullivan.

\

In case you haven't seen it

Ross Elliot's picture

From mid-2008, Christopher Hitchens' take on waterboarding after he was subjected to it:

Believe Me, It's Torture

And the video of his waterboarding.

The Hitch gets wet

Hitchens' argument is twofold. That waterboarding constitutes torture due mainly to the psychological effects, and that being the case, it demeans the United States by indulging in it.

Frankly, I've never considered waterboarding torture. It's without doubt terrifying in the most extreme sense of the word, but if simply scaring someone to the point of incontinence is torture then I'm gonna sue Britney Spears first chance I get.

Anyway, make of it what you will.

Another look...

Michael Moeller's picture

at the timeline of the West Coast attack.

Not specific to you, Robert

Ptgymatic's picture

...but tell me, anyway, what exactly was my error?

Mindy

Robt

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I for one don't consider you an anarchist. I do think your hierarchy of menace is out of whack. No one is arguing for the unbridled and gratuitous abuse by government of its legitimate powers. The argument here, on a thread whose principal post (cited incidentally by my interviewer yesterday) is about what an evil statist Obama is, is whether waterboarding, outlawed by Obama - and, beyond waterboarding, outright torture - is legitimate to use on terrorist filth when you know they're up to something. The handwringing naysayers are the filth's enablers.

Rejecting government...

Robert's picture

Marvelous, I'm now being accused of being a fucking anarchist.

Maybe that whole 100 days worth of statism thing was just a bad dream. I mean, if I actually imagined the whole thing about Washington DC being full of ACTUAL two-faced, lying, pragmatic, fucks then Mindy is 100% correct.

"Only egoistic self-esteem answers that fear... utilizing, all relevant data and knowledge..."

How ironic to be admonished for imagining government to be evil at a time when 99% of the people tut-tutting me are on other threads using words like traitor and fascist to describe the very same government that I'm wary of.

Sure! Let Obama et al. make up their own rules as they go along. I'm sure that the media will keep an eye on him.

I don't have time to engage

Aaron's picture

I don't have time to engage in the torture debate in all its glory, and have just caught up on the couple threads. I'll give kudos to Scott, who I agree with on everything in this thread excepting only the part about instituting torture being dehumanizing even in appropriate context. The one thing I feel compelled to point out in this thread is the unbelievable attempt at downplaying waterboarding, e.g.:

"why is water-boarding such an obscene act? (To be compared to a rape which is psychologically devastating pretty much for life.)"
"Nothing bleeds after being water-boarded, and if U.S Military Training Camps can use it on cadets (those trained to protect us)"

By such logic, rape (without physical injury at least) is not traumatic because people are also known to engage in consensual sex. Ridiculous.

Rape is traumatic, forced waterboarding - done by people who've captured you, you don't trust, and who have control over your life or death - is traumatic, and that's exactly the point of them! If something wasn't physically painful and/or emotionally traumatic, why the hell would anyone bother trying to use it as torture? 'Not the comfy chair!'

The US unfortunately tends to get bogged down in the minutia of 'what' and not 'when' or 'why' as well - e.g. there are nitpicking guidelines such as it being OK to slam a detainee into a wall - but no more than 30 times in a row, it's OK to hose them down with cold water - but not colder than 41 degrees F. Fuck that. If/when torture isn't justified, that includes waterboarding or 41 degree hosing; if/when torture is justified, hand me the electrodes. Trying to claim something painful or traumatic isn't torture if only you can tweak some minute parameter is obsessing about the wrong question entirely. Everything we're talking about here is torture - the right question is just what contexts can ever justify such extremes.

Aaron

More abstractly,

Ptgymatic's picture

the question of whether torture could ever be justified is completely separate from what are the criteria that justify its use, and what regulations are appropriate to its application. To let the latter decide the former is to succumb to the kind of thinking that rejects constitutional government, and all government, because corruption might enter the ranks of government officials.

It is, if I may wax even more radically abstract, one expression of the most fundamental, distinctly human fears, which comes from the recognition of responsibility that an intellectual being takes on every time he relies on his own thinking, the fear that he will be responsible for the consequences of being wrong--that awful things will happen, and it will be his fault!

Only egoistic self-esteem answers that fear, the genuine confidence that one has searched for, and is utilizing, all relevant data and knowledge, in forming this particular opinion or judgment. Making that one's habitual mode of operation is the "self-made soul" Rand speaks of.

While, on its face, this practice seems purely logical, as a way of life it is encompassing. Great emotional resources are required, at times. Nothing is so intimidating as self-doubt. The temptation to rely on others' opinion, with the attendant privilege of blaming them when things go wrong, is overwhelming to the majority of people, on the majority of occasions. Thus the sheep-think, even in the face of people's knowing better.

Cultural factors make this easier or harder for the individual, and thus the need for and global power of romantic art. Harder or easier doesn't absolve the individual from responsibility, though.

From torture to art. Integrate everything, right?

Mindy

General Marcus strikes again!

Marcus's picture

I hope you have all seen KASS Glenn Beck's report on the torture issue...

Everyone agrees with you

atlascott's picture

I don't think that there are many namby-pamby types here--everyone from Bosch to gregster to Robert agrees with you.

In fact, my position and Robert's seem close to indistinguishable, but his posts are clearer than mine.

I think we all agree that when you are fighting what we are fighting, and they fight "no holds barred" then we cannot meet the threat with ours tied behind our backs.

Here's the reason why I thought we disagreed: I was not clear on the two separate issues being mixed in my head.

The first is whether you can use waterboarding and psychological and other forms of torture on jihadists. (Yes.)

The second is whether we trust the people recently in power and currently in power not to run whole-hog with the authority, and whether there was really any review at all being done before proceeding. I don't want wrongfully accused Americans or visiting Kiwis being tortured because a bureaucrat is sick or because of error.

But they are separate issues. To the extent that we have known-bad actors, our worst is a trifle compared to how they police their own. Why should their treatment of our POW's be judged by no standard and ours be judged by the standard of the most impotent, liberal, anti-violence college professors we can find?

I may tend to default strongly towards distrust of what we allow a government to do. I always will, and I think that is the most responsible position to take. But it was error on my part to confuse the issues.

Great

atlascott's picture

"'Red is positive..."

That is awesome. Why aren't there any of these in American politics?

"Make sure his nuts are wet"

HWH's picture

Just watched this clip on Memri-TV

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en...

Makes me appreciate the wisdom of T. B. Bechtel, a City Councillor from Newcastle, who was asked
on a local live radio talk show, just what he thought about the allegations of torture of suspected terrorists.

His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience.

HIS STATEMENT:

'If hooking up a terrorist prisoner's testicles to a car battery will save just one Australian life, then I have only three things to say,'

'Red is positive,

Black is negative, and

Make sure his nuts are wet.'

Linz...

Robert's picture

My problem with this is the precedent it sets. We are in new territory here as far as the evolution of the USA goes. Certainly I understand the nature of the enemy. I have no qualms about doing what needs to be done.

But, there needs to be some mechanism in place to oversee these powers that we've ceded to the government.

Less than two weeks ago the Homeland Security Department released an assessment that went within a hair of declaring all Republicans to be potential terrorists. That report was preceded by a similar document issued by the Missouri State Troopers.

Sober prudence is demanded here. I've no intention of jumping into the fire in order to escape the frying pan. If that is limp-wristed, then I'm as gay as a may-pole.

I still can't believe ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... there are such namby-pambies here, wringing their limp hands over this. It's not a case of head vs. heart: you're dealing with the scum of the earth, who are bereft of the slightest intimation of conscience or decency. You know they're about to unleash a diabolical attack on you and your fellow-citizens. And you have qualms about pouring water on the filth to thwart it? There's some kind of moral vs practical conflict here?! Jesus H. Christ!

Re rape, I resile. Initially I thought it would be a good and effective method given the filth's homophobia. On reflection, looking at Khalid, who looks like Robert Campbell on a bad (good?) day, it would be obscene to require good and decent men to poke their John Thomases up that.

It might help...

Robert's picture

to remember that the 'victims' of whom we speak are not uniformed soldiers nor non-uniformed spies and saboteurs. Nor are they freedom fighters. The 'freedom' they seek is the freedom to establish the caliphate - an Islamic Third Reich where they are the master race and you and I are either slaves or fuel for the ovens. They recognize nor identify with any home country. The only law they acknowledge is one found in a religious script. The only authority they recognize is that of a super-natural being who speaks through the writings of an illiterate prophet.

They believe that only Islamists of their particular sect have rights. And those rights include the right to slaughter and enslave those that aren't of their sect at will and by whatever means necessary up to and including sacrifice in the pursuit of killing infidels.

In other words these are not people with whom you can reason. They have no homeland you can invade. They have no property you can confiscate or destroy and I doubt that they give a fig about their parents or siblings.

This I have learned from their own words. In short, they worship death.

I share Scott's trepidation at permitting the government such powers. I share your horror at the thought of having to use them. I vehemently disagree with Linz's doctrine of permitting rape and more in order to obtain information. For one thing, I shudder at the thought of the sort of sociopaths and sick-fucks that sort of duty would attract into government service. Being protected by rough men willing to commit violence on my behalf that I can sleep safely is one thing. Being protected by psychopaths with badges is not safety at all.

But to return to the matter at hand, given the current political situation (wherein the USA is fighting Al Quaeda with both arms behind its back), I can't really see what else you are supposed to do to quickly obtain information from this type of drifting Ne'er do well. Do you?

I certainly don't see any honor in treating this type of creature with the respect I'd give to another human being, any more than I'd loose sleep at night after gassing a mosquito to death with bug spray. These people see you and I as prey - Sheep that they can slaughter and consume when the mood takes them. I don't owe them anything - least of all the very decency that they despise me for.

And yet, I'm uneasy about this situation. Not for them. But for the nation. These acts were authorized by some who had the nations best intentions at heart. But they are available for the less noble to utilize at their pleasure with essential impunity - hence my pointing to Bagram airbase and Obama's effort to keep it as the extra-judicial prison he so criticized Gitmo as being. This is the same bloke who wants a civilian security service as powerful as the US military. Maybe he misspoke on that. Maybe he didn't.

Probably the greatest tragedy here is that we have arrived at this point in history because previous generations did less than they should have done when first these bastards were encountered. Hell, maybe the USA should never have helped the Mujahadeen in the first place. I'm beginning to think that the Soviets would have done us a favor by killing these fuckers off in the 1980s.

Not good.

Too true

gregster's picture

"A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Too true for President B.O.

Here's more evidence:

"For the second consecutive week, U.S. President Barack Obama has used his weekly address to encourage fiscal discipline in the federal government, and outline his plans to eliminate waste and increase efficiency.

Mr. Obama said he told secretaries and department heads, in the first full cabinet meeting of his presidency, on Monday, to cut what does not work.

"Already we have identified substantial savings, and in the days and weeks ahead, we will continue going through the budget, line by line, and we will identify more than 100 programs that will be cut or eliminated," he said.

Next, the president said he will ask government workers for their ideas on improving government performance."

You couldn't make it up.

Yes Mindy, no Scott

gregster's picture

:)

Kasper's picture

"go with the head, every time."

What sound advice Olivia Evil

Mndy...

Olivia's picture

The very idea of something right that somehow loses one some portion of their humanity is a contradiction.
I very much agree with this...

and this..

The difficult questions here are when and why torturous interrogation is justified.
What people are screaming about (on TV) is that torture is never, ever justified if you're the good guys... even if your civilization is at risk, which is just nuts in my book.

Scott:

you should be regretful that you have ceded that much of you humanity.

This is exactly the awful bent that Steven Spielberg puts in his films, like Munich. The heroes have to get tough and conquer a prescient evil, but forever carry the burden of terrible regret and lose a part of their humanity. It's believable to a degree*, but if Mossad agents carry ANY regret blowing up xenophobic thugs who systematically terrorize their people, I doubt they'd be of any use to Mossad.

*I can understand pangs of conscience when the innocent (so far) children of xenophobic thugs gets killed unavoidably in the process, but even then, one should clearly weigh the pros and cons in cold, calculated fashion.

I think Rand was correct regarding conflicts between the head and the heart - go with the head, every time.

In other words

Jeff Perren's picture

"Necessary evil" is a contradiction in terms.

Torturers not inhuman

Ptgymatic's picture

Proviso: Assuming due process of forming the conviction that the individual to be interrogated has critical information:

Torturers are NOT "ceding" some portion of their "humanity." Wobble-thinking again!

The very idea of something right that somehow loses one some portion of their humanity is a contradiction. If it is right, in a certain situation, to torture, then not to torture would lose you that portion of your humanity!

The difficult questions here are when and why torturous interrogation is justified. The problems of due process, not U.S. Constitutional due process, but due process specific to the military or intelligence situation, are very difficult, and will be controversial, certainly. I wonder why the current controversy doesn't address that at all--or have I missed those parts of the discussion?

I blame Obama, et. al. for parsing out "torture" from the whole enterprise of detention and interrogation. If he didn't do that, the emotional response to this public discussion of torture would be greatly reduced. It is a case of convenient context-dropping. Amid his others wrongs, that might seem minor, but it is a powerful tool here.

Also: I think the whole discussion of severe torture versus what? "kind" torture? "mild" torture? is wrong-minded. Also the consideration of whether being tortured would scar the person for life!! When we are considering torturing a person, we are far, far beyond concern for those factors in the case of this individual.

That said, I don't think waterboarding is "mild!" Don't think psychological pain is necessarily less torturous than physical pain!

Mindy

Obscene attack on poetry!

Ptgymatic's picture

I also have taught basket-weaving, but I won't defend that. But to denigrate poetry with such a reference! Mr. Pierson, get a sense of proportion! Smiling

Rape of a rapist...

Ptgymatic's picture

...is surely akin to killing a killer. As somebody said here quite recently, there are no physical acts that are categorically evil.

Mindy

Waterboarding is TAME torture

atlascott's picture

That does no permanent damage and is certainly not in the same category as rape, which Linz also advocates being inflicted on prisoners.

Torture can include flaying, removing parts of the body bit by bit--the whole disgusting gamut.

We have to BECOME the enemy to fight the enemy? WE have to ignore civil liberties and empower our government to do ANYTHING to a prisoner just because they have been accused of terrorism?

I am not sold.

You got a known-bad guy and you have to water-board him to prvent deaths, you do it. You do not crow about it, you do not praise it, you should be regretful that you have ceded that much of you humanity.

Easy Question

atlascott's picture

Christopher Hitchens certainly thinks waterboarding is torture. He was waterboarded in a safe, controlled environment by friendlies who stopped immediately when he asked.

Torture=Torture.

If you need to use it, then you use it. If it is LITERALLY a choice between our lives and deaths, then you use it.

That's not really what we are talking about, though.

Olivia

Matty Orchard's picture

I think you understate/underestimate how traumatising being repeatedly drowned is...

Cadets are waterboarded in training to prepare them for what might be done to them if taken hostage, I don't see how that makes any of this more acceptable.

I accept that waterboarding is a better option than having your fingernails pulled out or your head cut off but once again, how does that excuse anything?

Matty...

Olivia's picture

Torture isn't often psychologically damaging for life?

The Rack maybe, or the Scavengers Daughter, or having your fingernails ripped out or your fingers cut off - all cause excruciating pain.
Water boarding induces panic - which is over when it stops. Is it harsh? Sure, but not anywhere near as harsh as other forms of torture. Nothing bleeds after being water-boarded, and if U.S Military Training Camps can use it on cadets (those trained to protect us), I can't understand why you would have a problem with it used on suspected terrorists (those trained to murder us).

Mike Baker

Sam Pierson's picture

I like this guy Mike Baker, and his take on this back in Feb 08.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...

(excerpt)

On occasion, every now and then while reading the news, I like to play a little game I call "What would Bin Laden think?" It goes something like this…

Interior Cave, Breakfast Nook, Daytime

Bin Laden at the table, somewhat disheveled, occasional spoonfuls of Lucky Charms as he absentmindedly scans the North Waziristan Daily Register.

Bin Laden
(Looking up)
Ayman…dude…check this out.

Zawahiri shuffles in from next door, hair all akimbo, wearing a mud mask and halfway through eating a Hot Pocket…

Zawahiri
What’s up, Sheikster?

Bin Laden
Front page… 'CIA Chief’s Waterboarding Admission Prompts Senate Democrats’ Demand for New Probe'… is that crazy or what?

Ayman leans over to read the headline, dribbling some Hot Pocket on Bin Laden’s shoulder.

Zawahiri
Sorry, dude.
(Mumbles as he reads to himself)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called on the Justice Department to open a criminal inquiry into whether past use of waterboarding violated any law… yatta yatta yatta….Human Rights Watch called the CIA director’s testimony an explicit admission of criminal activity… blah blah blah… a Justice Department investigation should explore whether waterboarding was authorized and whether those who authorized it violated the law, said Durbin in a letter to the attorney general…

Zawahiri (Cont'd)
Huh…crazy…but I like that Durbin guy.

Bin Laden
(Scanning the story further)
Look here… they waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed… I would’ve liked to do that one myself. What a tool, giving up all that information… he should be shot.

Zawahiri
Boy, you gotta love America.

Bin Laden turns in his seat as he spits out his cereal, glaring at Ayman.

Zawahiri
I’m speaking sarcastically, of course… seriously. Who hates America more than I do? Really, don’t take everything so literally.

Bin Laden
Six years in a cave, I’m supposed to have a sense of humor?

Zawahiri
Relax. You wanna play some 'Guitar Hero'? I’ll fire up the PS2.

End Scene.

With you too Linz

Sam Pierson's picture

Those given the job to protect America & take out the enemy are bound & then amputated by their own government. And now they have to wait see if they get to keep their testicles & heads for doing the job. Meanwhile back in Waziristan Osama & team just quietly get on with their courses of personal study in advanced basket weaving and late-romantic English poetry.

Olivia

Matty Orchard's picture

All I can say is that I've read about the technique and I find it ugly enough to call it obscene. If you don't agree then that's just a fundamental disagreement on the definition of obscene. Why would you call it anything less? Torture isn't often psychologically damaging for life?

Matty...

Olivia's picture

why is water-boarding such an obscene act? (To be compared to a rape which is psychologically devastating pretty much for life.)

What makes me suspicious

Jeremy's picture

What makes me suspicious about the Los Angeles attack scenario is this: given that the enemy undoubtedly knew we had KSM, why would they still go forward with a planned attack that could easily be thwarted by whatever information KSM gave us? I mean, it's KSM, not Ali bin Abdul the fruit seller from Kabul who has a cousin that knew a guy who went on Hajj with a guy's uncle that might have dry cleaned bin Laden's turban back in '73.

This is another issue concerning the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation. Most of the gems we glean will out of necessity to the terrorist's home Cell be outdated--they know we have their guy, they know we can break him, so they change plans.

They're crazy, not stupid. Okay, a lot are stupid. But still...this doesn't sound like the insidious, patient organization that perpetrated 9/11. Maybe the CIA knows why the attempt was still made, but they ain't telling me. Also, the timing issue sounds pretty damning.

My answer

Matty Orchard's picture

"Khalid masterminded 9/11, among many other unspeakable deeds. If he had been captured prior to 9/11, and the criteria for waterboarding were met—i.e. there was reason to believe he was involved in something dastardly and imminent (again you evade the fact that it isn't just done willy-nilly to anyone), and he was waterboarded, and he revealed the plans for 9/11, and 9/11 was prevented ... and then your pin-ups revealed to the world that he'd been waterboarded ... would you describe waterboarding as an "obscenity"?"

Yes, because it's an obscene act, as is rape. That's a poorly phrased question because it doesn't get to the crux of what you want me to answer. You have an annoying habit of accusing me of dodging things that haven't been put to me.

What you're really asking (correct me if I'm wrong) is whether it's ok to commit an obscenity in order to prevent a greater obscenity.

Maybe it is. If you read my reply to Robert I think you'll see I'm still struggling with that issue. Regardless, I think we should try and avoid committing these kinds of acts wherever it's possible and I haven't seen any evidence this was necessary. A lot of very high ranking people have come out recently saying no information that prevented any attack in America was obtained through torture tactics. From everything I've read, Torture is an ineffective tool for gathering credible information.

Any information gained from Khalid could have been/was obtained by legal means.

I'm not saying it was done 'willy-nilly' but it was done systematically outside of any kind of 'time-bomb' situation.

Scott

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"Necessary" necessarily precludes "unnecessary."

Here's the question I posed to Matty. What's your answer?:

Khalid masterminded 9/11, among many other unspeakable deeds. If he had been captured prior to 9/11, and the criteria for waterboarding were met—i.e. there was reason to believe he was involved in something dastardly and imminent (again you evade the fact that it isn't just done willy-nilly to anyone), and he was waterboarded, and he revealed the plans for 9/11, and 9/11 was prevented ... and then your pin-ups revealed to the world that he'd been waterboarded ... would you describe waterboarding as an "obscenity"?

Jeff

Michael Moeller's picture

Interesting article from Gross.

"Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation."

The spectacle of an administration waging a vendetta against he previous administration for political differences, and in the process shaking the core of our military and intel agencies, is outrageous. If they are going to declassify these memos and put our country at risk, then let's get it all out there. They want to prosecute Cheney and impeach Bybee, then let's see the memos Cheney is asking for on the effectiveness of the interrogations. Let's see what Pelosi & Co knew from their multitude of briefings and what they had for objections at that time. I wonder if this is why Obama is backing off again?

His whole modus operandi seems to be to have his cronies send out disastrous political trial balloons, whip the Left up into a feeding frenzy to keep the attention off his other political policies, and stand back to see which way the political winds blow and what he can get away with. Let's send out the prospect of closing Gitmo in the future and see what happens. Let's raise the spectre of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and see what happens. Let's threaten Stalinist show trials against the previous administration for a difference of political policy and see what happens. The whole time Obama remains non-committal just to make sure he does not get touched by public outrage. This is not the leadership of a US President, but rather the conduct of a Third World Puppet/Thug.

Michael

I get it

atlascott's picture

And there is a simplicity that is satisfying by condoning any and all means to end a conflict.

Whether what you and Bosch advocate amount to "do[ing] what's necessary to win" is an open question.

For example, one way to eliminate the threat of Islam is to commit genocide in the Middle East--literally kill them off, nation by nation. Any Muslim majority nation.

If there are no adherents of Islam, then no Islamic terrorists, right?

Such a philosophy can be used to justify any atrocity as being "necessary" and if that's the case, the standard for proving necessity is very, very high.

Waterboarding has nothing to do with what is really preventing our most effective fight against terrorism, which is our culture and political approach.

There should be race/ethnicity and religious profiling going on on a massive scale domestically. Especially if these folks are here on a visa.

Obama should not be visiting Muslim nations and bowing, and taking off his shoes and visiting mosques. This is naked appeasement.

Stating that torture is what has kept us safe, or implying that because I do not approve of a particular kind of torture means that I am handcuffing our efforts is a package deal, and I reject it.

I will do some more research as to the factual basis of the alleged foiled suicide attack on LA and get back to you.

I would rather see devastating action overseas against terrorism sponsors than occupations and nation building, taking of prisoners and torturing them.

Sherman's letter...

Ross Elliot's picture

...to the Mayor of Atlanta (prompted by Bosch), spells it out. And it encapsulates the American attitude in all wars: in war, enemies; in peace, friends.

Sherman to the Mayor of Atlanta.

You don't have to read between the lines to see that Sherman understands fully what being cruel to be kind means, which is *not* the same as the means justifying the ends.

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are also cases in point.

Jeff

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The man is Mussolini with a gentler demeanor (minus Mussolini's saving grace of an aggressive stance toward external enemies, real or perceived).

You weren't around when I likened him to Mussolini and suggested he might/should meet the same fate, but I'm sure you can imagine the furore. Eye

Ditto, my friend.

Bosch Fawstin's picture

Ditto, Lindsay.

Porter Goss, ex-CIA chief

Jeff Perren's picture

on who knew what when, and who is lying about it now.

Linz,

This Powerline post makes a couple of good points and I thought you would enjoy Goss' statement at the end.

    Goss observes: "The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust."

A previous post (echoing an interview with Liz Cheney) made an ever better one: we waterboard select U.S. military personnel as part of their training. Is that torture? Does it fail the test only because it's voluntary? Rot.

Frankly, though, I wish Obama's worst evil was his policy toward national security. His domestic policies are so dangerous that not only does it weaken us to external attack, it creates an atmosphere ripe for civil war. In the meantime, civil war becomes less likely as we slide rapidly toward explicit Fascism, seemingly the only alternative open at present. The man is Mussolini with a gentler demeanor (minus Mussolini's saving grace of an aggressive stance toward external enemies, real or perceived). I thought Brook was right when he said the culture had about 40 years for Rand's ideas to take hold before it all fell apart. With the recent acceleration, I'm thinking now that we may not have 10 unless the Tea Party and related movements expand and get a more solid intellectual base. Progressivism has gone mainstream in the past year.

Thank you for your efforts in trying to create that base to counter that mainstream.

Thanks for the support, Bosch ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Truly appreciated!

Kill! Kill! Kill!

sharon's picture

"You want to celebrate civilians jumping from skyscrapers? Then pay for it with your god damned lives, you guilty civilians."

Target the civilians, huh? Civilians? Bloodthirsty Objectivists, undaunted and unreformed.

I'm with you, Lindsay,

Bosch Fawstin's picture

I'm with you, Lindsay, here's William Tecumseh Sherman on war:

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war."

General Sherman understood that the most ruthless triumph in war, and that those who begin wars must be ended. That the culture that props up the initiators of war must not be protected at our expense. You want to support those who initiate war? You want to celebrate civilians jumping from skyscrapers? Then pay for it with your god damned lives, you guilty civilians. It is us or them, and they have made that clear since 9/11, with only some of us accepting it. And to those who get water in their eyes over our water-boarding the scum of the earth, Here's your poster boy. If you're ashamed to be associated with him, good.

Scott ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I don't know how you can mistake me for a proponent of Big Government when I spend most of my waking hours fighting it. My bitter aversion to Obama is based in part on the huge extent to which he's increased government's size and scope in the short time he's been in office. This is part of his treason. I agree with the General Marcus quotes, along the lines of: America's enemies had better do their job quickly before Obama does it for them. I am adopting a policy of Zero Tolerance towards those who support him. The situation is too urgent and dire to pussyfoot around. Of course I don't want you to die—au contraire—but I'm trying to get you to see that if you oppose the means by which your government has kept you safe since 9/11, your death is the logical outcome which you will have brought upon yourself. Your position as stated in your latest post is perilously close to opposing waterboarding because the government did it. I'm sure Mr. Beck (Billy, not Glenn) would approve.

If it seems I'm being mean to you in particular it's because I regard you in particular as one of the good guys—one of the really, really good guys—and I can't bear to read your wobbly mush when you write it. I couldn't care less about Mr. "I think I'll suspend my principles for a while" any more, but I do care about you. When you go wobbly I'll spank you!

Please read the memo to which I linked yesterday. I think you'll be surprised at just how hedged about waterboarding was with restrictions and precautions.

As for targeting civilians etc., my position is that in war you do what's necessary to win—no more, no less.

Going Wobbly

atlascott's picture

Only when I drink too much, which is, admittedly, not near often enough.

Calling torture non-torture is a government perversion. You support that?

Giving known bad government actors authority to name you a terrorist because you believe in freedom, thus subjecting yourself to possible torture for adhering to principles of individualism and liberty is a bad idea.

Then, letting them torture you and those like you because you are afraid of a Republican ghost, all while calling it non-torture and legal, is preposterous.

You have become a proponent of big government, Lindsay. Big government policing, Big government spying, and the death of privacy.

I am not the President nor am I the head of the CIA or FBI. Neither are you. We are not privy to the level one straight intelligence.

If they are people of known good character and they tell me that, for classified reasons, it is "all go"--they need to cut heads off to save American lives, then I will not like it, but I will support it. In fact, I support KILLING the bad guys outright.

When it comes to enemy combatants, I do not consider making them very uncomfortable, which many would call "torture"--not letting them sleep, psychological warfare stuff, even waterboarding, to be torture. Still, you advocate systematic rape, and that crosses the line in my opinion.

What separates us primarily is what we consider adequate evidence that waterboarding (or systematic rape of enemy combatants) is necessary.

I will take the word of someone I trust with firsthand knowledge, with misgivings.

You are basing your support of torture on Republican spin. I do not trust the Republicans any more than the Democrats. Only their platform varies. And we agree that the Democratic platform means more harm to America and Americans.

Go ahead and mistake my thinking on this as going wobbly.

Do you support the Geneva Convention in times of war? Do you support targeting known-civilian areas of an enemy in times of war?

If I die in a nuclear fire or of a biological attack or a suicide bombing, I will not be at fault for it, [EDIT] and you are being illogical and, frankly, mean, for saying so.

Heard your stuff on Friday night on 1ZB

LeoPhill's picture

Hi Lindsay,

I heard Bruce Rusell read this post on 1ZB on Friday night and thought I'd have a look for your site, I really have enjoyed reading several blogs so signed up to be a participant.

I have read another blog recently (in fact just this morning), it's www.averagejoe.co.nz and would appear doesn't take the same hard ine as yours, but I still think asks some interesting questions.

I like the thought of where is the line...?

Thanks

Leo

Scott ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

*You* are going to pay for it. Because your habit of going wobbly at crucial times is shared by tens of thousand of your countrymen. You opposed waterboarding. You thereby made your bed. Lie in it. And die in it.

Don't Know

atlascott's picture

"...if he could be honest for five minutes and admit to it, is that if it's a choice between waterboarding of a piece of shit and the extermination of thousands of Americans by pieces of shit..."

I have not followed the Linz-Matty detailed disagreements on these issues, but the above, if true, is obviously indefensible.

I will freely admit that I cannot begin to imagine how anyone who once agreed with 1/2 of Ayn Rand's writings could support Obama and what he has done so far, and what he plans to do.

Whether willful or mistaken, I just don't know.

It's clear that Matty sees Republicans as irredeemably corrupt. That may not be far from true.

But to repair to the support of Obama Democrats with a clear view of what they are doing?

I know that Obama thinks he is being conciliatory around the world, but the message he is sending is "appeaser."

That, more than waterboarding or no waterboarding, is going to account for danger to Americans.

This is a guy who thinks Americans have it coming, that America is, and has been, fundamentally flawed and evil.

A guy who thinks America and her citizens deserve a comeuppance. He's helping that process along.

The whole civilized world is going to pay for it.

Olivia--as least as good

atlascott's picture

I think that Krauss quote is good, but this one is my favorite:

"Give him SOME credit? Fuck that shit." - Sharon

I am with Sharon on this one.

Did you know the child molester and murderer John Wayne Gacy wrote poems and drew nice pictures, and was a really good party clown?

Problem is, he murdered young boys and buried them in and under his home.

I don't give him any credit, either.

Sharon ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I wince at the thought of Matty congratulating himself by blinding himself to the truth of Obama and calling it “independent thinking.”

He didn't blind himself to the truth. At election time he said he'd suspend his principles for a while to support Obama. So he did what he did with his eyes open. Then he declared his hostility toward Ayn Rand, and his butt-licking of the same kind of anti-musical filth for which you, Sharon, make excuses. That's why I called him, and continue to regard him, as a "slimy fuck." Now his position, if he could be honest for five minutes and admit to it, is that if it's a choice between waterboarding of a piece of shit and the extermination of thousands of Americans by pieces of shit, he, as a piece of shit himself, would choose the latter. He wants to go to America, hypocritically. I hope he's there when it happens, and that it gets him and all other filth like him. And I trust I've made it clear to him yet again that he'd better not come anywhere near me ever again.

And Scott, you wobbly, unreliable nincompoop, there is no comparison between waterboarding, which is not even torture, and is conscientiously circumscribed, and the unrestrained, gratuitous beheadings, amputations, mass bombings and other atrocities performed by Matty's heroes, especially since the former is intended to thwart the latter.

Where Matty is right

atlascott's picture

Where Matty is right is doubting the credibility of political animals and their political machinations.

Also, this notion of condoned systematic rape, and lawyers/politicians deciding in an ad hoc committee what is okay and what isn't with regards to TORTURE, with God knows what motivations and God knows what experience or knowledge of torture is TOTALITARIAN SCARY.

I do not think that there is any evidence whatsoever that what we have done does anything. Ignoble, and questionably productive.

Make no mistake, though--they BEHEAD their captives while alive and concious by sawing through their throats with a hand held blade, and do lord knows what else to the poor souls.

If the standard is tit for tat, then we are fine. If the standard is the hypothetical "the bomb is ticking" scenario, which I am not sure of, and I am not willing to take a politician's word for it without corroboration--then do what you must. But we have seen the shoddy supervision and chain of command in these facilities. We see government getting bigger and more onerous.

We have seen everyone on this site being implicated as a possible terror suspect because we believe in freedom and a small (or no) government thanks to Obama's genius move appointing Napolitano as Director of Homeland Security.

Add in the Left's thought police.

Add up the ingredients and you have an Orwellian 1984.

Life outside of SOLO calls...but not often. ;]

sharon's picture

Good we can agree on some things, huh? Be happy for it. I am. ;]

I intend to answer the 'Going Galt' thread, Gregster.

Your French is correct

gregster's picture

Not often we agree. How bout answering the Going Galt Sharon?

Obama is "the anti-American President."

sharon's picture

I wince at the thought of Matty congratulating himself by blinding himself to the truth of Obama and calling it “independent thinking.”

Matty

Lindsay Perigo's picture

That's pretty definitive proof that the notion of waterboarding Khalid even contributing to preventing the LA library tower plot is a fantasy isn't it?

It would be if that's the specific attack referred to in the released memo (which actually cites ongoing planned attacks, plural, that were foiled, including one on the Brooklyn Bridge) and the plot was thwarted in 2002. In which case I'd expect one of your pin-ups to start crowing about this discrepancy sometime soon. But that wouldn't alter the issue, the same one you evade. We know a number of mass atrocities were pre-empted, and their architects located and captured, by the waterboarding of Khalid and a handful of others. Let me put it to you thus, so that we can address the principle rather than the details of any given instance: Khalid masterminded 9/11, among many other unspeakable deeds. If he had been captured prior to 9/11, and the criteria for waterboarding were met—i.e. there was reason to believe he was involved in something dastardly and imminent (again you evade the fact that it isn't just done willy-nilly to anyone), and he was waterboarded, and he revealed the plans for 9/11, and 9/11 was prevented ... and then your pin-ups revealed to the world that he'd been waterboarded ... would you describe waterboarding as an "obscenity"?

P.S. late 2008 is what I said old boy, I give your consistency full credit on the bailouts. But Bush was fiscally reckless from day 1 and has extended the reach of US govt far beyond anything Clinton achieved.

More ducking and weaving. Why don't you address honestly what I said: Obama's Bailout Bolshevism (and statism generally) is steroidal next to Bush's (or Clinton's).

Obama is "the anti-American President."

*That...*

Olivia's picture

"A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss.

...is a perfect sum up of Obama-worship... and a damn great quote!

Matty

sharon's picture

"Come on Linz, Give him SOME credit. He's trying to leave Iraq while avoiding disaster. He's trying to get the Afghanistan situation under control, all in vein I fear, but he's giving it a shot!"

Your naivety is astounding, but let’s leave foreign policy aside for now. Are you not at all worried about the disastrous Keynesian Economics that Obama’s implementing? Let’s talk about that. Can’t you see the destructive itinerary the US is on courtesy of Obama? Do you even know the nature of Keynesian Economics?

Give him SOME credit? Fuck that shit. (Pardon my French).

Jesus. H. Christ!

sharon's picture

There is nothing new about Obama's sophistry. "A demagogue tries to sound as stupid as his audience so that they will think they are as clever as he is," wrote Karl Krauss. Whenever I listen to Obama’s oratory, I am always reminded of Sinclair Lewis' cynical tent-revivalist Elmer Gantry. Now I can see Matty in the front row of the pew.

Linz...

Matty Orchard's picture

"What kind of argument is that? "

I'm saying I don't think there was any good faith here. The memos were written in order to say the torture was legal. There was no 'evaluation.' Some of the arguments are just comical (it aint torture if he's only kept awake for 11 days etc)

The UN piss me off too but I think setting an international standard for how civilised countries treat detainees is perfectly legitimate and a legit function of an international body like the UN. I'm not sure whether the US constitution has much to say on torture, I'd need further education.

"A Second Wave was planned, on LA. Khalid yielded this up under waterboarding."

You're almost certainly talking about the LA library tower plot. I've heard the 'fuss.' I called your assertion false because it is. Check this out from Tomothy Noah on Slate:

"What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [Noahs emphasis]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [Noah's emphasis ] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003."

That's pretty definitive proof that the notion of waterboarding Khalid even contributing to preventing the LA library tower plot is a fantasy isn't it?

"We'll see...maybe" <-- I was thinking about subsequent information that might come forward in the future. We'll see. Sorry for being cryptic.

"Read the fucking news!"

I do! Quit watching so much Fox!

"Again, stupid. If raping the filth would yield the info I'd support that too."

Well I think raping systematically without warrant or conviction is unacceptable policy for the leaders of the free world. We don't even know that all these men are guilty.

My initial point was that it doesn't make much of a difference if torture is neither "injurious nor life-threatening." It's still obscene.

"you favour PC euphemisms when dealing with filth?"

Whether or not I favour it is neither here nor there. Pols use politically crafted language. War on Terror was a politically crafted title that worked very well at the time. Now it's associated with an unpopular war and president so they changed the name. I don’t favour or oppose it, I accept it for what it is and focus on what matters.

"Iraq? Too soon to tell. The military commander says the troops will be needed beyond the pull-out date. Chavez-Obama's also got Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea to deal with. "

Agreed.

P.S. late 2008 is what I said old boy, I give your consistency full credit on the bailouts. But Bush was fiscally reckless from day 1 and has extended the reach of US govt far beyond anything Clinton achieved.

The Scott and Mindy show

sharon's picture

Sticking out tongue

Wow, now I know why Scott asked me that question on another thread. I would worry more about being charged a hundred dollars an hour for Scott’s time (Damn those lawyers!) than I would about anything else living so far away. Haha, I’m just trying to inject a little levity here.

Dead-on

atlascott's picture

You're dead-on with your observations, Linz.

And note: you didn't even have to go into the economic plans, nationalizing healthcare, government stakes in private industry, etc.

This guy is dangerous (Obama, not Matty!).

I still think that there might be hope that Matty will come around, but its going to take a really bad something.

Unfortunately, a really bad Obama something seems inevitable now.

Though, take a read (from a Yahoo News Article): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/...

"Rasmussen poll found that 60% of Americans think the federal government has too much power and too much money. The bank bailouts, which began before Obama was president, didn't fare any better: 59% of voters say they were a bad idea, while 60% say the Chrysler and GM bailouts were a bad idea. In Gallup's long-running question of who the biggest threat to America is — big government, big business or big labor — big government still leads 55% to 32% to 10%, respectively."

Thanks, Olivia

atlascott's picture

I appreciate the support and the good sense.

Matty

Lindsay Perigo's picture

As Scott has observed, you are beyond convincing re Obama, but unlike him I'll go through some points not for your benefit but that of silent readers who might be wobbly:

“This is a President who has just re-opened the door for the prosecution of those who in good faith advised that the 'waterboarding' of terrorist trash post-9/11 would be legal.”
Good faith? You honestly think these lawyers believed for a moment this would be 'legal' by any reasonable standard?

What kind of argument is that? It's in the Robert Campbell category: "Do you honestly believe Mr. Perigo is not a serial killer?" The Justice Dept lawyers had no horse in the race. They were asked by the CIA to evaluate the legality of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" and concluded they didn't violate UN Law (who cares about that?) or the U.S. Constitution. Note - the use of these techniques was awash in caveats, prerequisites and precautions.

“That technique subsequently extracted information that saved Los Angeles from a similar attack.”
Not true. False statement, plain and simple.

Um, check out one of the released memos, May 30, 2005, here. Quite a fuss has been made about this these last few days, and your commie pin-up hasn't questioned its veracity. A Second Wave was planned, on LA. Khalid yielded this up under waterboarding. You would prefer an attack on LA? Waterboarding also yielded up plans for a dirty nuke. I wish there were a way such a thing would vaporize only the terrorists' appeasers and coddlers. Then I'd say, "Bring it on!"

“This is a President who releases classified information about that technique and withholds information about its success.”
We'll see...maybe

Stupid comment. Read the fucking news!

“...though distressing—oh, poor terrorist trash!—is neither injurious nor life-threatening"
The same could often be said for rape.

Again, stupid. If raping the filth would yield the info I'd support that too. You'd rather have the LA attack and the dirty bomb?

“This is a President who has officially changed the name of the War on Terror to 'Overseas Contingency Operation' so as not to offend terrorist trash.”
I put this down to politics. Using the phrase 'War on terror' would be politically moronic. Aren't you the least bit happy he's trying to exit Iraq in responsible manner? Remember the time I told you Obama would never implement an 'immediate withdrawal'?
Have you reconsidered your fundamental notions about the man since then?

'War on Terror' politically moronic? Leaving aside that 'War on Islam' would be better, you favour PC euphemisms when dealing with filth? Need I ask.

Iraq? Too soon to tell. The military commander says the troops will be needed beyond the pull-out date. Chavez-Obama's also got Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea to deal with. How many more sickly YouTube videos before he KASSes up?

Newsflash! I note that he's flip-flopped yet again and closed the door on the witch-hunts re waterboarding. That's undoubtedly because of the outcry and the polls. Shows the value of screaming from the rooftops.

Have I reconsidered? Yes. He's worse than I expected. And I couldn't have known just how accurate "Chavez-Obama" would prove to be!

PS: Re Bush's bail-outs - if you recall, Matty, I started on about "Bailout Bolshevism" at that time. Don't pretend I supported it. But Obama is Bailout Bolshevism on steroids.

Deleted

Olivia's picture

Duplicate post.

Across the board...

Ptgymatic's picture

...would include cases in which the perpetrator had been tried and found guilty--at least, in theory. At that point, and assuming the guy admits to having hostages...would you approve of torture?

Mindy

MIndy...

Olivia's picture

you petty-minded witch... it was clear to anyone with even a modicum of good judgment that Scott's post was hyperbole, a mode of writing that is in common use on this site. It is you who needs to get a life woman, instead of contenting yourself with being an all round pain in the ass.

Robert...

Matty Orchard's picture

"So I'm curious as to whether you think there is a situation that merits torture or whether this was just a typo."

As of now I can't really answer that question definitively. I think it's really hard. Suffice to say in a 24 style ticking time bomb situation I would probably look the other way.

That's not what we're talking about here though.

I do think that the stance of torture being un acceptable across the board is legitimate and arguable, I'm just not sure it's my stance. I certainly don't have any sympathy with the idea that torture is OK because we're good and they're bad and they're scum so they don't get a fair trial and basic rights.

Western democracies just don't conduct themselves that way, end of story.

I can hear the accusations of sympathy toward terrorists already but it's not a question of whether or not they deserve it. And when did 'guilty until proven innocent' become the mantra of liberty?

Can't resist...

Ptgymatic's picture

"I do not take threats lightly" ..."But to extrapolate that what I wrote was a serious, honest to goodness[sic] threat? Preposterous."

"I require no further babysitting..."duh, unless I contradict myself?

Don't forget to add

atlascott's picture

...that I sometimes use profanity, and have been known to drink alcohol!

Go ahead and report it.

atlascott's picture

If you want to report it, report it.

It is CLEARLY not a death threat or anything serious at all. You blew it out of proportion, and then, were we to have taken your mention of checking the rules as pure random happenstance?

And if that's all it was, then why put ideas in the heads of all the nice netters?

I do not take threats lightly, especially such ignoble implied ones.

I have never once in my adult life used violence to solve a problem and have never initiated violence even as a boy. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise.

You can draw whatever hysterical conclusions you choose, Mindy. That does not make them reasonable at all.

I require no further babysitting from you whatsoever, so why not just let it drop?

Move on, discuss something worthwhile.

I have said that my sense of humor is easily sometimes hard to understand, and that I should be nicer on the 'net.

I do not know know why you think those admissions are anything less than my taking personal responsibility for my shortcomings.

But to extrapolate that what I wrote was a serious, honest to goodness threat? Preposterous.

Wrong time-frame.

Ptgymatic's picture

This is all long in the past. Many months past. Back when the threats were made, get it? Not a current issue. I didn't pursue it. I investigated it back then, made my decision, and acted accordingly.

Recently, somebody said Scott's threats were just a "lawyer thing," was that Gaede? I replied that it certainly wasn't a proper "lawyer thing," as it was actually a violation of prof. ethics.
Scott had never thought of that...got excited in the present moment...is spitting and spewing.

I did think it would be a good idea to get Linz to remove the post, as it is fodder for any odd mischief-maker, but Scott decides to indulge a knee-jerk reaction of bravado, and post the fact of his liability...

He's a bull in his own china shop.

Mindy

My understanding is...

Robert's picture

that the torture wasn't routine - but I could be wrong.

So I'm curious as to whether you think there is a situation that merits torture or whether this was just a typo.

???

Robert's picture

I'd love to be a fly on the wall of the Chicago Bar Association when someone attempts to cut into their Gin and Tonic time with this a complaint of this little gravity. Better write it all down on heavy paper so it will fly better as it sails towards the trash can.

But before you file it, it might be prudent to check that sanctions or a counter claim cannot be brought against you for filing frivolous suits.

Robert

Matty Orchard's picture

"Does this smarmy comment mean that you approve of Obama's closing Gitmo?"

It's not smarm, it's true. It means I'm against the routine use of torture. I don't understand why he a had to close the actual facility, though I haven't read much about the decision.

"If so, what do you make of the administrations attempt to exclude Bagram Airbase from US judicial oversight?"

Against it.

Jeff,

you don't know me

Stupid bravado

Ptgymatic's picture

Sure, Scott. Your post is in fact a violation of the standards of the Chicago Bar Assn. If anyone wants to report you for it, you're in trouble.
I didn't want to publish that, for your sake. It is I, and only I, who had the insight to warn you to get Linz to erase it for your protection.
Yes, that proves I don't have a grudge against you.
It also proves your judgment as an attorney is sadly lacking!!
How much baby-sitting do you require?
Your lack of self-control in the moment gives more and more weight to my earlier concerns about whether or not to take your threats of violence seriously.
You really need to get a grip, son.

Mindy

Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

Marcus's picture

Gerald Warner KASSes

"If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter..."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/g...

Mindy requested

atlascott's picture

through Jeff that I delete the post so that nefarious folks would not report me in the future.

This is suppo9sed to be a sign of good faith and no ill-will.

This advice came from the person who brought up that strategy in the first place.

Here is my final word on this subject. Mindy, you think that you are clever with your oblique threats.

I am done with you. Done. You are despicable.

Why don't you grow up?

atlascott's picture

Come on, I'm wating...grow up already.

Grow up, Scott

Ptgymatic's picture

But first contact Jeff Perren for some very important information I've given him to pass on to you. Can't publish it without doing you harm. Check with him, then get a life.

Mindy

No response

atlascott's picture

Other than to note that it seems to have been important for you to note and MENTION that you have "investigated your options."

Readers can decide what sort of person you are, and many have.

It was never a death threat or an actual threat of violence. You know that, but what you are causes the problem here. That part, you don't know. But others here see it plain as day.

Obama and Chavez

Robert's picture

Cartoon commentary

Thanks, Ross

Ptgymatic's picture

I'm good to go with firepower. I can knock a coke can out of a tree at 50 ft. with a .45. (Grew up around guns, there was a rack of rifles in my Dad's home office, his WWII carbine and side arms, and my bgf got into marksmanship--her son was a Junior Olympian, scholarship in marksmanship. It is a great discipline, and empowering in a certain way. Smiling )

Bullies are cowards. But a bully stripped of his pretenses can be dangerous, and anarchists hire DROs, and who knows what foolishness they dream about? Am I supposed to have a crystal ball to separate the kooks from the loud mouths? Don't own one. I have a family to defend, too.

Disagreement and insult are one thing. Actual threats are another. That is true logically and it is true psychologically. I know both those subjects pretty well. I've seen stupid fantasy become bloody tragedy. Social interactions over the internet are highly projective. Benevolent people find actual, violent threats stick in their throats. I made an inquiry to see what my options were. If I had judged things differently, I could have made a formal complaint. Notice I didn't use that option to threaten or intimidate Scott here at the time?

Now, I am supposed to become blind and forgetful and laugh at intimidation, because he regrets his past indiscretions? Think about it. Look at his actual language. He is sorry that I took his actions the wrong way. Sure, it is easy to be sorrry that someone else did something wrong! And I am supposed to mistake that for an outright apology? Who does he think he's talking to? Oh, yeah, he's talking to someone whose intellect he admires, sure that adds up.

You should realize, Scott, that I do not have it in for you. What I have chosen not to do proves that. Just don't add insult to insult, OK?

Mindy

Not Surprising

Jeff Perren's picture

"I find your pro-Obama views very surprising."

I don't. There is a certain type of so-called libertarian who is virtually indistinguishable from contemporary Progressives. All the blather about individual rights is just cover for a subjectivism that goes all the way down.

"The same could often be said for rape."

Robert's picture

Does this smarmy comment mean that you approve of Obama's closing Gitmo?

If so, what do you make of the administrations attempt to exclude Bagram Airbase from US judicial oversight? If having a prison at Gitmo - outside of civil judicial oversight - was a stain on the honor of the USA, what the hell is Bagram?

That was the point of the Wash. Post article that I linked to above.

Come on, Matty!

atlascott's picture

Your are beyond convincing, in your defending Obama for this stuff, so I will not bother to try.

I find your pro-Obama views very surprising.

billions upon billions

Robert's picture

Make that trillions upon trillions. You're off by three orders of magnitude - which is about the size of the financial disaster that will hit the USA soon

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.