Funny you should mention that…
By Thoreau
First, I completely echo IOZ’s take on this David Broder article.
But I would go further and react to this fascinating little tidbit in the article:
Looming beyond the publicized cases of these relatively low-level operatives is the fundamental accountability question: What about those who approved of their actions? If accountability is the standard, then it should apply to the policymakers and not just to the underlings. Ultimately, do we want to see Cheney, who backed these actions and still does, standing in the dock?
My biggest criticism of the actions by Holder and Obama has been that I do not foresee a scenario that leads to Cheney in prison. It’s funny that Beltway insiders should be talking about a scenario that, on the surface, seems to be ruled out by Holder’s decision to focus on people who didn’t adhere to Yoo’s memos. (Although I have promised our readers to keep an open mind and wait to see where the attention turns to when “just following orders” is trotted out.) Why, it’s almost as if Beltway insiders know something. Fascinating! Tell more! Oh, wait, just a second. OK, got my Bible. Here, put your hand on this and tell me that what you’re saying is true. OK, good. Now, you were saying?
Comment by Seward —
September 3, 2009 @ 10:38 am
The costs associated with trying to put Cheney in prison would be so high and it would take up so much of this Presidency’s energy and “political capital”* (a lot of which they have already spent for little gain) I can see why they would never go after Cheney. You’d have to have some significant grass roots pressure for it to go forward.
Comment by Barry —
September 3, 2009 @ 10:44 am
“My biggest criticism of the actions by Holder and Obama has been that I do not foresee a scenario that leads to Cheney in prison. ”
We take what we can get, and push for more. If it turns out that underlings are held accountable (more or less), that’ll put some fear into those underlings’ minds., In addition those future underlings who do such things, or are next door, will have massive motivation to preserve ‘just following orders’ evidence, or ‘take you down with me, m*f*’ evidence. And their middle management, as well, because they were next in line, and will proabably be sweating (are you an underling who gets tried, or safely above the line?),
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Ah, your open-mindedness is readily apparent.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 10:59 am
TAO-
Fuck you.
Barry-
Yeah, scaring people to get them to preserve evidence in the future is probably the best we can hope for. But, damn, everybody in Washington is acting like Cheney is in the crosshairs, so, you, know, let’s see. If they know something, maybe they’d like to have a chat with this nice man with a badge and a tape recorder….
Comment by David —
September 3, 2009 @ 11:16 am
I’ve always hated the “Investigating X will damage the country” argument. They never say how.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Nice, thoreau! Hey, you said you promised.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Your idea of an “open mind” is one that falls for any bullshit pulled out of John Yoo’s ass.
So fuck you.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Actually, it would be, as our resident friend from lowell says, waiting until all the facts come in. That is the definition of an open mind. This:
Would not be a good example of that.
Comment by fish —
September 3, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Since Cheney has already admitted to war crimes, an open mind is hardly required. The evidence is already in play, it is just whether anyone chooses to do anything about it.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 3, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
I think Art Bell says that, too.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
War crimes? What would those be?
Then why is thoreau getting bent out of shape about it?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
The evidence is clear on the crimes, you gibbering idiot. My mind is open on whether the process will actually result in prosecutions for the criminals.
And fuck you.
Comment by Eric Martin —
September 3, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
War crimes? What would those be?
Authorizing and ordering torture.
You didn’t know that?
Comment by Seward —
September 3, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
The only downside to being an atheist – beside the whole social stigma associated with it in some quarters – is the lack of an afterlife where one does not get ones just desserts. Then again, spending a lifetime somewhere suffering for what are essentially a few short years of “sin” does seem rather barbaric. So the best I can hope for in the case of Cheney is a lot of unpopularity by the general public.
Comment by Seward —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
“…is the lack of an afterlife where one does get ones just desserts.”
Leaving out the “not.”
I need to preview more often; it is still a very unartful sentence.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
That really is not anything to be open-minded about. It will either happen, or it will not. I think you know that the latter is more likely.
I am taking issue with the “war” portion of the “war crime” descriptor. The relevant issue is 18 USC 2340A, which is statutory, not a ‘war crime’. “War crime” is just a way to elevate the emotionalism.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Just out of curiosity, what did I do to you?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
This is David Broder, who wanted Bill Clinton impeached.
…Holder’s decision to focus on people who didn’t adhere to Yoo’s memos.
Holder has made no such decision. He’s authorized this one probe as of September. He’s never ruled out other investigations. We’ll just have to see what he, and his successors, do.
Investigating a President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense for war crimes is a real reach. Optimistically, this is a decade’s work.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
You are one of the most obnoxious torture apologists out there and hence deserving of contempt.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
I wonder: is it always wrong to want to see someone brought up on criminal charges when there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt, or only when it’s a Republican officeholder?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
oh, I see. Where did I ever make a pro-torture argument? I think the fact that I call you on your lack of bases for coming to certain conclusions, especially legal ones, has somehow led you to believe that I do not agree with you on policy / criminal prosecutions principals.
In other words, you have a “if I am not with you on everything, I am against you on everything.” Little did I know you were such a GWB fan.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
Relax, joe. Skeptical and pessimistic though I am, I know it will take time to see how it plays put.
And my main targets today are people we both despise.
So relax.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
It makes me laugh, because the same hammers the Bush Administration used to crush debate (”objectively pro-terrorist” / “objectively pro-Saddam”) is the same one you, thoreau, use on a regular basis (”objectively pro-torture”).
Huh.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Huh? Relax about what?
Are you jumping at shadows already?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
Your game is very, very transparent, TAO. We can point to people being beaten to death, people being subjected to abuses for which we’ve sent Japanese officers and American cops to prison, and officials at the highest level bragging about it, and you say “Crime, what crime?”
It’s blindingly obvious what you are doing, and in 2009 I have no more patience for it. Yes, there are gray areas in life, and yes, W. sometimes liked to talk about absolutes. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any absolutes, or at least that there aren’t some shades of gray that are pretty damn dark and other shades that are really, really close to pure white. Not every shade of gray is dead in the middle or impossible to resolve.
The bad guys who play with absolutes usually prey on the less educated or less intelligent. The bad guys who play with gray are dangerous in their own way, because they know that no edge is perfectly sharp, and that the sophisticated can appreciate that fact. So they zoom in as far as they can and show how dull the knife blade looks at a certain magnification, and they kick and scream if anybody tries to zoom out and show that (1) it’s still a knife and (2) a prisoner was in fact cut with it.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:12 pm
I don’t think you’re “objectively” pro-torture, TAO. The “objectively” implies some sort of disconnect, as if you are merely supportive of something that could lead to torture.
I think you’re pro-torture. I think you want people waterboarded, you want them beaten, you want them kept awake for days on end through painful means, you want them hitched up into positions that become agonizing after a number of hours.
I think you want all of these things to be done to captured terror suspects, to keep us safe. Whether you hide behind an argument that even you don’t believe about those things not being torture doesn’t matter. You support the use of torture practices by the government.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
joe,
Let’s forget I wrote that. I misunderstood you, so it’s all good.
As far as this taking a decade, frankly, I don’t think that’s possible. This will either get enough momentum and happen after the first round of underling trials shows something, or it will lose momentum and go nowhere. I agree with you on how hard it will be, but if it doesn’t happen within a few years it won’t happen at all. I just don’t see this keeping momentum for 10 years or more.
Also, sadly, while I am not a bedwetter I do not think we can go for all of eternity without another terrorist attack. Somewhere, some day, something will happen (OMG, I’m Tom Ridge!
) and when it does that will unfortunately destroy any momentum for punishing torturers.
So if this doesn’t happen within a few years, it won’t happen at all. I do agree, though, that a round of underling prosecutions is necessary before it goes higher.
Comment by Eric Martin —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
I am taking issue with the “war” portion of the “war crime” descriptor. The relevant issue is 18 USC 2340A, which is statutory, not a ‘war crime’. “War crime” is just a way to elevate the emotionalism.
Torture is listed as a war crime under the Geneva conventions, under the ICC, under various international tribunals that were assembled to judge war crimes in certain conflicts and is almost uniformly recognized as a war crime under general international law and jurisprudence (and has for over a century).
The United States has previously tried and convicted enemy combatants for the war crime of torture (including waterboarding).
The phrase “war crime” may or may not have an emotional impact, but that does not change the fact that torture is a war crime under applicable international law and treaties.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
Sorry if I mislead you.
Remember Pinochet.
They still deport Nazis every once in a while.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
No, I do not.
The only “blindingly obvious” thing is that you don’t like your faith questioned, that’s for sure. Nothing but blind rage and lashing out from you, rather than rationality in any sense.
As for saying “it’s 2009″, you’ve believed all of your articles of faith for over five years now. Spare me that you’re “out of patience”. You’ve been outscreaming every lefty since this whole thing started.
Comment by dhex —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
there are worse things to be a moral hardass about than kidnapping and torture by the state.
[insert joke about how kidnapping and torture = the state here]
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Note how he doesn’t object to any of the tortures I just listed.
He doesn’t support torture. He just supports things that TOTALLY AREN’T TORTURE. Like water boarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
wrong again, joe – I seem to remember you having a fit when I tried to impute a position from you based on what you DIDN’T SAY. FWIW, I object to waterboarding on moral principles, and most interrogation techniques from a utilitarian stance, I am just not convinced that (again, you trying to hammer folks on emotions) all of those techniques, without an exploration of their duration, severity etc. is, by definition, torture.
A stress position…for five minutes? Torture or no?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
What dhex said.
And the only thing tao has objected to is punishing torturers.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
“Note how he doesn’t object to any of the tortures I just listed.”
Yeah, I did notice that. I’m not familiar with the Tao’s stance on torture, though I’d picked up on the fact that Thoreau doesn’t like him much before today.
(And yes, free punning opportunities in my preceding sentence for anyone with a background in Eastern philosophy to get in on.)
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Ah, another classic: defending torture that was performed on the grounds that something else, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual torture that was performed, might not be torture.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
OMG! There’s gray! Look, can you believe it? Damn, how stupid are those pain manufacturers to go around labeling cans of paint as “black” or “white”? If you look closely enough, you see that it’s all gray. All of it!
It’s annoying enough when done by freshman humanities students. It doesn’t get any more charming over time.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Incorrect again.
This is pure silliness. You imparted a “pro-torture” position from me because I didn’t specifically object to a list of techniques that you listed.
What I object to is the notion that in order for me to be “anti-torture”, I have to condemn, without context, techniques, even though you won’t provide the context, duration and damages caused by those techniques, outside of broad, emotional appeals like “agonizing” and “for days on end”. For example, does that mean that sleep deprivation is torture when employed for 48 hours? 72?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Ditto “Torturer in Chief” and “War Crimes” and other like rhetoric and rape/torture fantasies that come from that same sector.
Oh, wait…
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
For example, does that mean that sleep deprivation is torture when employed for 48 hours? 72?
I know where you’re going with this. I’ve endured 48 hour sleep deprivation. It isn’t fun, but I’ve done it. I did it in order to accomplish goals. I was in charge of my situation. A prisoner being kept awake for 48 hours by people who have complete power over him, and who are doing everything possible to make it an unpleasant 48 hours (they weren’t showing up in the middle of the night to offer a cup of coffee and watch a DVD to pass the time) is a completely different proposition.
A lot of torture techniques involve experiencing things that might be bearable under some other circumstance but are not bearable when coerced by hostile people who have you at their mercy. It’s in the mind, and the mind can be broken faster than the body.
Take, for instance, you. Your body clearly functions, as I gather from the fact that your fingers are able to work a keyboard. However, some propagandist destroyed your mind a long time ago.
Anyway, fuck you.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
As to “torturer in chief”, hey, if the term of derision fits, he should wear it.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
That actually isn’t where I was going with that, because that level of argumentation is akin to the stupid “the SERE school kids go through it!” argument. I know the difference between voluntary and involuntary.
It seems, however, that you are danger close to saying any imposition by authorities while people are in custody is ipso facto torture, and that isn’t quite true either.
What were you saying again about un-charming college-freshman level rhetoric?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Wow, stunning. I didn’t expect you to invoke an “argument” akin to the unfair use of “privilege!”
So, by definition, my questioning of your unverified faith must be because some “propogandist” broke my mind! Is there any way to argue against that, or is everything I say evidence of my zombie-ness?
I figured a scientist might not front unfalsifiable argumentation.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
“Torturer in chief” makes an important point.
“OMG! It’s all gray!” is not a terribly useful observation.
There’s a difference.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Riiiight – your overblown rhetoric is fair and just and reveals “the truth”.
Color me shocked!
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
It’s only overblown if you don’t think he was presiding over a policy of torture.
And given everything known today, everything that’s been known for years, only an immoral idiot would disagree at this point. Some things really are that simple.
Fuck you.
Comment by JasonL —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
I can’t help but think how odd it is that that libertarianish people think the government can get justice right, especially when the top level is involved. I know rule of law and all that, but come on. Even normal rich dudes are going to skate unless you have videos with them in the room with the dead hooker and a claw hammer. I think at some point you just have to accept that everything else you believe about public choice and self interest and deterrence and accountability tells you that you should not hold sincere hopes that a VP of the United States is going to go to jail for something like this.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
Poor thoreau, reduced to
“Disagreements with me make you an immoral bastard, by definition.”
and
“Disagreements with me must prove that your brain is broken”
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
No, you dumbass, not every disagreement with me makes you an immoral bastard with a broken brain. Just on certain issues where the truth has been blindingly obvious for years and yet you’re still pulling “Look! I found gray!” as a tactic.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Jason-
Am I optimistic? No. I’m realistic enough to know what is likely here. I fully recognize the difference between “should” and “will.” However, if we don’t try, we just guarantee even more bad behavior. Sometimes a losing battle has to be fought anyway. See Man of La Mancha for more details
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
the problem, of course, is that I have been on record as supporting investigations, arrests and trials concerning torture.
What has happened here is that you’re all in a tizzy because I won’t sign on to your Radical Leftist form of “arguing”, which involves screaming, shouting, foot-stamping and saying airheaded things like “War Criminal” and “Torturer-in-Chief”.
Comment by dhex —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Even normal rich dudes are going to skate unless you have videos with them in the room with the dead hooker and a claw hammer.
just ask the kennedys!
just to lighten things up a bit, there is a dearth of good ted kennedy jokes out there right now, beyond a few sly one liners like “ted kennedy’s been sober for 12 hours now.” or “he’s finally carried on his family tradition of dying with a foreign object lodged in his skull.”
anyway, yeeeeeeeeeesh. we’re already up to accusations of slander and false consciousness and it’s only 3:40.
Comment by JasonL —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
thoreau: I think the difference is more profound than you are acknowledging. You are beating a drum that the guy needs to go to prison, and if you have a law in hand and want to make an argument I’m all for it. It just, prison vs. no prison is an essentially legal consideration. You have to make a specific legal argument. I don’t think you appreciate the degree to which you are talking about politics and not justice once characters like this are involved. I think its kind of like a nuclear weapon. If you think of it as a military tool, you are wrong. It’s a political tool, and military considerations almost don’t matter in the overall decision of nuke yes or nuke no. Eh, I’m not explaining this very well. From my perspective it’s not that you are hopelessly optimistic, it’s that you seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the issue when you make the arguments you are making.
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Jason, I subscribe to argumentum ad 24 on this: When President Logan gave nerve gas to terrorists and assassinated anybody who knew what he was up to, Jack Bauer went after him. And, in the end, the US Marshalls made him do a perp walk. President though he was, he was also a criminal, and his ass went to….comfortable house arrest on his private ranch. But it’s the thought that counted.
Comment by Barry —
September 3, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Comment by Thoreau —
September 3, 2009 @ 10:59 am
“Barry-
Yeah, scaring people to get them to preserve evidence in the future is probably the best we can hope for. But, damn, everybody in Washington is acting like Cheney is in the crosshairs, so, you, know, let’s see. If they know something, maybe they’d like to have a chat with this nice man with a badge and a tape recorder….”
Two things – first, anybody who knows anything in DC knows that Cheney ordered most stuff. The only question is how much of a paper trail, and uncovering it.
The bigger, IMHO, is that there’s enough (relatively) easily uncoverable stuff to badly hurt the GOP. By now it’s pretty clear that the Village People, no matter how many gays they invit to dinner, or how many black/latio friends they have, are very, very, very, *very* much in the GOP’s pocket. Note Broder’s record of only supporting one impeachment in his career – Clinton’s (Cohen has a similar record). The WaPoo never had a problem going after Clinton, in line with just about every Villager media outlet.
Comment by please —
September 3, 2009 @ 6:32 pm
the problem, of course, is that I have been on record as supporting investigations, arrests and trials concerning torture.
What has happened here is
The problem, of course, is that you’re a known troll who always argues in bad faith and nobody takes anything you say seriously, that you waste bandwidth on every third topic on this blog, that it’s a pain to keep scrolling past your crap, and yet the proprietors are trapped by their “libertarian” ethos into believing that they can’t ethically do an IP block on you.
Comment by Seward —
September 3, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
dhex,
Not to brown nose, but I gotta say you are probably my favorite commentator in libertarian blogging circles.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
September 3, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Commenter “please” – by all means, call me a troll. I am fairly sure that your name-calling amounts to 0 when it comes to the universe.
Seward – don’t worry, he’s one of my favorites too.
Comment by mds —
September 3, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
I get kidnapped and tortured by the government every year at tax time!
(And what’s that relevant old aphorism? “Never mudwrestle a pig, because the you’ll just get dirty, and the pig is an authoritarian asswipe who gets off by playing fucking semantic games on the internet about torturing people”? Something like that.)
Comment by dhex —
September 3, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
I get kidnapped and tortured by the government every year at tax time!
now, let’s be honest. it’s only the threat of kidnapping and torture unless you really fuck up. otherwise it’s just compound interest all the way down.
Comment by All Your Summer Songs —
September 3, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
Let me guess: bipartisanship jizz rag David Broder is opposed to trying Cheney since it would not be bipartisan.
Comment by All Your Summer Songs —
September 3, 2009 @ 11:54 pm
I am right.
Comment by Seward —
September 4, 2009 @ 9:17 am
dhex,
Or the government fucks up.
Comment by JasonL —
September 4, 2009 @ 9:25 am
I should get credit for the assist to dhex. That there was a Kennedy softball. Where’s my adulation? WHERE?
Comment by Seward —
September 4, 2009 @ 9:58 am
JasonL,
You’re pretty awesome too.
Comment by dhex —
September 4, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Or the government fucks up.
that too. one of the benefits of being a tiny fish is going unnoticed – one hopes – among the larger prey.
jason, i will never miss an opportunity to rag on teddy h. christ kennedy. were it not for these past few weeks i would not have known he was gandhi, jesus and buddha rolled into one. thankfully i have been informed otherwise, and my ignorance was lifted from my eyes.
i have seen, and having seen, now know.
on a more serious note, whomever showed the freepers how to use ms paint either deserves a medal or a kick to the face. (perhaps both)
http://www.free
republic.com/focus/f-news/1431237/posts
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 4, 2009 @ 9:04 pm
More like Moses.
God let him see the health care promised land, but He didn’t let him enter.
You may commence retching.
Comment by dhex —
September 7, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
why, it’s kinda funny. perhaps god was the second gunman on the grassy knoll?
Comment by Gene Callahan —
September 7, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
TAO, Popper was “falsified” decades ago.