Definitely not a "knee-jerk liberal publication"
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Definitely not a "knee-jerk liberal publication"
The New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," adds to the record of how torture architect John Yoo got that Inquirer column:
Harold Jackson, The Inquirer’s editorial page editor, said he was surprised by the sudden delayed anger directed his way over Mr. Yoo. He said the decision to hire a columnist was his, but that “Mr. Yoo was suggested by the publisher,” John (sic..er, that should be Brian-ed.) Tierney.
“There was a conscious effort on our part to counter some of the criticism of The Inquirer as being a knee-jerk liberal publication,” Mr. Jackson said. “We made a conscious effort to add some conservative voices to our mix.”
The NYT also spoke with our CEO:
“What I liked about John Yoo is he’s a Philadelphian,” Mr. Tierney said. “He went to Episcopal Academy, where I went to school. He’s a very, very bright guy. He’s on the faculty at Berkeley, one of the most liberal universities in the country.”
To critics of the hiring, he said, “The most important speech to defend is the speech you hate,” and he said there were not all that many critics. “I’ve gotten more mail recently on our making our comics smaller than I have on John Yoo.”
I kind of thought they'd already dispelled that "knee-jerk liberal" thing by hiring Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, etc., but maybe that's just me. Two other quick rebuttal points (as I was cited in the Times article but neither called nor interviewed) would be that a) no one has ever said anything about denying Yoo the right to speak freely but this is about giving a megaphone to this man, out of about 4 million Philadelphians, who advocated -- successfully! -- for the United States of America to undertake torture amd b) there are plenty of principled, thoughtful and interesting conservative voices out there, along the lines of Andrew Sullivan, whose moral clarity on this particular issue would have brought some honor to 400 North Broad Street.
Here's a good rule of thumb: Newspapers should protect free speech, but should project moral vision.
Comments (219)
Seems like an innocuous article. You've done a good job adjusting your approach over the past few days, Will. On May 7, you called Yoo a "bona fide war criminal" (which I still contend is a libelous statement), and yesterday you said he could "utter his detestable viewpoints on any public street corner...that are so far outside the mainstream." Today you write simply that "no one has ever said anything about denying Yoo the right to speak freely"--that's much more professional and in keeping with your profession. With that said, "newspapers...should project moral vision"???? Whose moral vision? Israelis or Palestinians? Pro-choicers or Pro-lifers? People who agree with Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act or those who oppose it? 'Empathetic' supreme court justices or those who strictly adhere to the Constitution?— Vandy- Wow - those Andrew Sullivan articles are devastating. I'd be curious to hear how you respond, Vandy. Here's one excerpt: --snip-- So is “enhanced interrogation” torture? One way to answer this question is to examine history. The phrase has a lineage. Verschärfte Verneh-mung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the “third degree”. It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation. The United States prosecuted it as a war crime in Norway in 1948. The victims were not in uniform – they were part of the Norwegian insurgency against the German occupation – and the Nazis argued, just as Cheney has done, that this put them outside base-line protections (subsequently formalised by the Geneva conventions). The Nazis even argued that “the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement”. This argument is almost verbatim that made by John Yoo, the Bush administration’s house lawyer, who now sits comfortably at the Washington think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Another excerpt from Sullivan: --snip-- Meet an American hero. He’s Army Captain Ian Fishback, a decorated graduate of West Point, and in training to become a member of the elite special forces. He has served two combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is described by friends as a devout Christian who prays before every meal and carries a copy of the US constitution in his pocket. And while serving at Camp Mercury near the Syrian border in Iraq, he observed horrifying abuse of prisoners, in testimony that was released last week by Human Rights Watch....Fishback finally decided to take a stand when he saw Donald Rumsfeld testify to the Senate on television that the Iraq war was subject to the Geneva conventions. He went to his superiors and told them he believed that what was going on was a clear, continuing violation. They ignored him and told him his career would suffer if he persisted in his complaints. But Fishback went all the way to the secretary of the army and Senate aides. Finally one man responded: Senator John McCain, another war hero, who endured five years of torture by the Vietcong. Fishback’s letter to McCain is a poignant illustration of what has happened to America these past three years: “Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al-Qaeda’s we should not be concerned . . . Others that clear standards will limit the president’s ability to wage the war on terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.”— Talking point sleuth
Comment removed.- Vandy, you could have also made a list that included things like free speech or censorship, racism or equality...and torture or human rights (pursuant to the a law that was signed by Ronald Reagan, by the way). That's a list with more clarity, no?— will
- "Wow - those Andrew Sullivan articles are devastating. I'd be curious to hear how you respond, Vandy." Well, I'm not entirely sure I agree with Will's assertion that a NY Times columnist with Harvard Ph.D. who happens to be gay is an authoritatively "conservative voice." Maybe others disagree, but the guy I view as a thoughtful, witty conservative is Daniel Henninger of the WSJ. (example of his work: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681860305802821.html#articleTabs=article) Back on this topic, President Obama said, during his most recent primetime press corps love-in, that "I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe." http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/obama.transcript/index.html I sincerely hope and pray that he means this. But as for his statement that evening that the British don't torture, I'm sure you could wander around Belfast and obtain some diverging views from former IRA members.— Vandy
- "Vandy, you could have also made a list that included things like free speech or censorship, racism or equality...and torture or human rights (pursuant to the a law that was signed by Ronald Reagan, by the way). That's a list with more clarity, no?" Sure, but you didn't specify; you simply made the blanket statement, in an attempt at a dramatic closing sentence, that newspapers should project moral vision, period. Implicitly and presumably on any and all topics. Seems a bit dangerous as a specific rule on all topics; that's all.— Vandy
- First, Vandy, you're ducking. How do you respond to the content of the articles. Second, no conservatives graduate from Harvard? There aren't any gay conservatives? Third, the Sullivan articles are on topic. Fourth, Obama's statements are on topic? Fifth, he didn't say that the British didn't torture - he quoted Churchill denouncing torture. Sixth, the context for Obama's quote was that despite the horrors perpetrated by Nazis, the British didn't torture their WW II detainees.— Talking point sleuth
- Also interesting, Vandy, that apparently you believe that Supreme Court justices who have "strictly adhered to the constitution" were all lacking in empathy. It's not nice to call Alito, Scalia, et. al. sociopaths, Vandy. Might even be libelous.— Talking point sleuth
- I'm assuming Will Bunch is pro-choice. I.e., wanton murder of unborn babies because a human life is an inconvenience. About 40+ million of these murders since Roe v. Wade. And he is going to complain about a little torture of al Qaeda members? Look in the mirror, man.— geoffrobinson
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Just wanted to let you know that you accidentally referred to Andrew Sullivan as conservative.— Scholes
"Whose moral vision?" . . . Why not Jesus Christ's, the scriptures being the moral foundation of Western civilization? WWJD, no?- "Just wanted to let you know that you accidentally referred to Andrew Sullivan as conservative." . . . . Well, he's not in the 21 percent minority of heretics, if that's what you mean.
- Does this make me less than human? I have absolutely zero interest in Will's obsession with torture. Am I the only one?— AngryWhiteMale
- "About 40+ million of these murders since Roe v. Wade." . . . . . Actually more than that annually in the US. And certainly trillions since the ascent of man, not counting God's abortions through miscarriage. It was perfectly legal during Jesus' time, and its odd that He never mentioned it in the Gospels.
- montani: ""About 40+ million of these murders since Roe v. Wade." . . . . . Actually more than that annually in the US. And certainly trillions since the ascent of man, not counting God's abortions through miscarriage. It was perfectly legal during Jesus' time, and its odd that He never mentioned it in the Gospels." Jesus doesn't not to relate every debauched practice of his time that was wrong for it to be wrong. One of the earliest extra-biblical documents mentions it. Even the Greek Hippocratic Oath mentions it as something doctors should not do. Your post also has another deficiency. Just because I cannot take another's life via murder does not mean God does not have prerogatives over His own creation. And that's ignoring primary and secondary causes being a factor. So the fact remains. Liberals tend (I know there are pro-life liberals) to support the murder of the unborn. They may not like feeling guilty. Their consciences probably are nagging them. Maybe that's why they get so upset about torturing al Qaeda members. It probably gives them a release valve and they don't have to listen to their consciences for a little bit.— geoffrobinson
- Bunch, YOU put the jerk in "knee jerk"— JingoGuy
- I am assuming that Yoo was hired since all former Nazi SS members have died.— Continuum
- (1) What makes a newspaper's reputation is not just the variety of it's columnists or writers but it's EDITORIAL comments and particularly it's political endorsements. Therefore, the New York Times and this paper are the very definition of knee jerk liberalism. (2) Andrew Sullivan is no conservative and you can have him along with that other one Specter. I guess you can then classify the both of them as "conservative Democrats" - you know, the 5% minority of heretics to the slavish 95% of Obama sychophants. (3)Will, what is like to know that Sarah Palin, author to be, will probably get a deal worth more than you will make for the rest of your life? If that awe inspiring jerk Alan Greenspan got $8.5 million from Harper Colins, what do you suppose the good Governor of Alaska will get? You can only dream.....(4)AGAIN to the editors of this divine paper, can't you limit the postings of this twit above. Day in and day out he consistantly posts 20% of the posts on any given subject. He is as much of a sleuth as the Pink Panther. Well, he's got the pink part down pat anyway.— WriteWinger
- I'm still fascinated that Yoo teaches at Berkley.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Will, i just heard you on Smerconish. You sounded like a scared kid when confronted by the principal when he asked you those questions...The fact is that "torture" was legal and we recieved great intel from it. Liberals still can't answer the question that would they waterboard a terrorist to save American lives? Why do they always waffle? And who said waterboarding is torture? Gouging eyeballs and chopping off fingers....now thats torture...and if it would save lives then I would be for that as well. And to the people that still believe that waterboarding is torture, then why does some of our military branches waterboard it's own for training purposes?? Are we torturing ourselves??— Front Man11
- Beating a dead horse, Vol. II. C'mon Will, isn't there a soccer story you could write about and spare us this pain?— jimmymack
- "I kind of thought they'd already dispelled that "knee-jerk liberal" thing by hiring Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish," - you mean 0bamaconish, the "Republican" who voted for the 0bamassiah? That's the liberal version of "balance". Keep up that "customer is always wrong" stance... that's a great way to increase readership and business.— fafafooey
- "The fact is that "torture" was legal and we recieved great intel from it." Really? Ask Ali Soufan, or the FBI director, both have claimed the intel received from it was basically useless. Add in the sheer number of times, if you have to waterboard someone 83 times, common sense says it doesnt work.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- How is the Inquirer hiring/condoning John Yoo different from a politician obtaining the tacit support (and willing to show an affinity to associate with) of an unrepentant urban terrorist sch as Bill Ayers? On another note, I heard Will on Smerconish...he should stick to print. His liberal doses of "well, you know", "ummm" and "like" were more along the lines of a 14 year old school girl rather than a "professional" journalist. His ability to verbally communicate in an effective manner is laughable. Smerconsish ate him up. Another, another note...in his Smerconish interview he made the statement that people are wise enough to make their own decision on things without the need for people like Yoo to set them straight...yet Bunch is attempting to do exactly that...tell people what to think. Finally, the issue of these enhanced techniques having a erosive effect on the U.S. moral standing in the world is just plain silly...the killing of unarmed prisoners was condoned from Revolutionary War through WWII, depending on circumstances; as a part of manifest destiny, we advocated the displacement/killing of native americans; in the 40's, 50's and 60's, the CIA engaged in far worse behavoir than "enhanced interrogation techniques"; this "ill behavior" is nothing new, stop presenting it as something that this country never engaged in prior to 2001. By doing so, you are spreading misinformation so as to prey on the ignorance of many.— Justanothervoice
- rg, yeah, saving the Brooklyn Bridge from attack isnt "good" intel i guess— Front Man11
- Sure, if you have any proof that actually happened.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Will, you and the NYT are fascists. You act just like the early 20th Century ones (you know who they are). You employ the same tactics. Smear and distort dissent to your views with lies and propaganda and paint your enemies as evil. Encite hate and fear in the population. You are a disgrace.— CD75
- LJL - to liken the Bush Admin (and those who formulated these ideas) to Pol Pot shows an incredible lack of perspective and reason. It's similar to the clowns who believe the President is beholden to Islam and the Saudi king. You do a disservice to the idea of abhorance towards wholesale murder and slaughter (such as Cambodia, the Holocaust, Vietnam, Rwanda) by mentioning it in the same breath with the interrogation(not liquidation) of a few hundred men.— Justanothervoice
- Comrade Willi...Heard you on Smerconish this AM. You are such a wuss. Not only do you sound like a whining wimp your position is equally weak. Let me see, Clinton was disbarred, Yoo has not been disbarred. If Clinton offered a column to the DN or Inky, would you be OK printing it? You do not have a blog, you have a WHINE.— abnrgr
- Comment removed.
- langx, you are an idiot. Nazi stands for the "NATIONAL SOCIALIST" party that Hitler became the head of. Who would be closer to socialism, Bush or Obama? Which group of people (falsely) consider themselves to be intellectually superior, liberals or conservatives? Which group is for the suppression of religious rights, the removal of religion from society, liberals or conservatives? Which group is responsible for the murder of millions of people (babies), liberals or conservatives? Which group thinks that people exist to serve the government rather then the other way around, liberals and conservatives?— IggleFan68
- Comment removed.
- Tierney is slowly but surely driving the DN/Inky into the ground. Reminds me of another conservartive that thought he knew what he was doing and ran the country into a ditch.— chasing history
- The 21 percenters show their true colors. It's not torture, but it's OK to torture if it saves lives. So we don't torture, but torture is OK if it saves lives. So we're not torturing, but we would if we had to because we "know" someone has information about a ticking time bomb and we'll do it 183 times in a month to stop the ticking time bomb. There is no moral position here. There is just simpering and whimpering masquerading as bravado. Time to change the undies, guys. You wet 'ums...— E.Plebnista
- Umm, Iggles, you are wading into the deep end. Bush expanded govt by adding a cabinet level position (DHS) and greatly expanding Medicaid. He doubled the debt and signed the original bailout. As for religion, the country was founded on the freedom of it, so relgious rights are not being suppressed. However, there is a battle to make sure one religion doesn't become our national denomination. As for the baby killings, I'd say the people responsible are those who chose to have an abortion, let their maker judge them. Otherwise, the argument that guns rights advocates caused the death of millions could eb equally valid.— RG
- "Newspapers should protect free speech, but should project moral vision." But, will, isn't moral vision something that is developed carefully and thoughtfully? Developed over a period of reflection and examination of foundational principles? America isn't going to refine its moral vision vis a vis torture or so-called enhanced interrogation until she examines and reflects on this from all sides. I, for one, welcome that. Besides, Yoo makes a great case to those who already agreed with him; to the rest of us, eh, not so great. And what did I tell you about those EA boys – so predictable— GreyHippie
- "Which group thinks that people exist to serve the government rather then the other way around, liberals and conservatives?" So much material here. I've asked this before, but here goes. How come you trust the government to clearly define and apply torture to the right people, export democracy across the globe, determine who should get married, and what people can and can't do with their bodies, but don't trust them to fix the economy?— RG
- Comment removed.
- Post of the week. So spot on, that it deserves an encore! Thanks Igglefan68. "Who would be closer to socialism, Bush or Obama? Which group of people (falsely) consider themselves to be intellectually superior, liberals or conservatives? Which group is for the suppression of religious rights, the removal of religion from society, liberals or conservatives? Which group is responsible for the murder of millions of people (babies), liberals or conservatives? Which group thinks that people exist to serve the government rather then the other way around, liberals and conservatives?"— E Plebnista
- "Also interesting, Vandy, that apparently you believe that Supreme Court justices who have "strictly adhered to the constitution" were all lacking in empathy. It's not nice to call Alito, Scalia, et. al. sociopaths, Vandy. Might even be libelous." You're free to say anything you want, TPS, but I will not stand by and let you put words in my mouth. I defy you to find a statement I made saying that they "were all lacking in empathy." On that topic, I believe I said that we ALL have empathies and biases. My concern is that the president wants justices with specific empathies for pre-selected groups of people. And if you still believe Will's statement that Andrew Sullivan is a conservative voice, I don't know what else to say. As for this, "the British didn't torture their WW II detainees," I'll put the burden of proof on you: Churchill, like Bush, said his government didn't torture, and you take that statement at face value. So here's an article from the Guardian in Britain: The British government operated a secret torture centre during the second world war to extract information and confessions from German prisoners, according to official papers which have been unearthed by the Guardian. More than 3,000 prisoners passed through the centre, where many were systematically beaten, deprived of sleep, forced to stand still for more than 24 hours at a time and threatened with execution or unnecessary surgery. Some are also alleged to have been starved and subjected to extremes of temperature in specially built showers, while others later complained that they had been threatened with electric shock torture or menaced by interrogators brandishing red-hot pokers. The centre, which was housed in a row of mansions in one of London's most affluent neighbourhoods, was carefully concealed from the Red Cross, the papers show. It continued to operate for three years after the war, during which time a number of German civilians were also tortured." Enjoy.— Vandy
- Comment removed.
- Ah yes, we need a Gallup poll to guide our morality. Why the Right believes this to be a "winning" issue is beyong me. But then again, the people that support torture believed that Sarah Palin was bright and intelligent. lolz.........— chasing history
- Comment removed.
"Gouging eyeballs and chopping off fingers....now thats torture...and if it would save lives then I would be for that as well". Front Man11 is a terrorist, plain and simple. Al Qaeda is always looking for new recruits, and they have plenty of openings for dopes like you. You are not an American.— one_eyed_jack- Vandy - you said this: "'Empathetic' supreme court justices or those who strictly adhere to the Constitution?" You make it an either/or choice - as if empathy and following the Constitution are mutually exclusive.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- --snip- Latchmere House, an extraordinary British prison on Ham Common in the London suburb of Richmond, .. housed as many as 400 of Hitler's operatives during World War II. Its commanding officer was a man named Col. Robin Stephens, ... he was a dedicated advocate of the nonviolent approach ...his view was and remained: "Violence is taboo, for not only does it produce answers to please, but it lowers the standard of information." ... consider the case of the German agent codenamed "TATE," who was parachuted into England in September 1940, at a time when almost all of continental Europe was under Hitler's control and when neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had entered the war against Germany.* Taken to Camp 020, TATE stubbornly maintained that he was a Danish refugee. An external interrogator unused to the rules of Ham Common was exasperated by this initial stubbornness and "followed TATE to his cell at the close of that first interrogation and, in flagrant violation of the Commandant's rigid rule that no physical violence should ever be used at Ham, struck the agent on the head. The incident led, on immediate representations by the Commandant, to the instant recall of [the offending officer] from the camp." One blow to the head at a time when undefended British cities were being blitzed every night, and the brute was out of there for good. Nor is this all. TATE was then put to the inconvenience of intensive questioning, which included the distinct suggestion that he had been betrayed by a close Nazi friend. He ended up making a full confession, leading his captors to the place where he had concealed his transmitter, and then using it to send false intelligence back to Germany. The British wartime records conclude that "skilful direction of his activities and reports provided not only opportunity for deception of the enemy, but gained advance information leading to the detection of other agents and their neutralization."— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- billy, ummmm....where did I say you should be silenced?— chasing history
- "First, Vandy, you're ducking. How do you respond to the content of the articles" TPS, if you want to focus on content, How do you respond to the conent of the Sullivan articles that claimed for weeks and weeks, and still to this day claim that Sarah Palins son was really Bristol's and there was a coverup conspiracy? While I don't always agree with sullivan I usually enjoy his stuff. that is until he went completely over the edge frothing at the mouth about Palin......kind of made him seem mentally unstable. Its funny how when liberals finally give in and allow that there should be a conservative voice it must be a "liberal approved" conservative voice. Smerconish now qualifies because he voted foor BHO so he clearly is now high minded enough. what a joke. Put Mark Steyn on there and you'd all wet your pants— taxmemore
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "How come you trust the government to....determine who should get married" Exactly. The government should get out of the marriage business altogether. The same sex marriage movement claims that they want equal rights for all...and that one class of people (married) have rights that unmarried gay people do not have. It seems to me that this inequality is due not to sexual orientation, but marital status. Now, if they were true to their ideals, they should NOT be supporting the furtherance of an institution that inherently produces UNequal rights. They should be favoring the ABOLITION of all government laws relating to marriage. There are many people who are unmarried (by choice or not, doesn't matter). Don't they deserve the same rights as everyone else? Many groups of people come to mind. There are college age adults & young members of the work force who don't want to get married just yet, there are asexual people who enjoy a single lifestyle, there are Catholic priest and nuns, there are handicapped people who will never get an opportunity to marry. The list is endless, but the point is that these are Americans who also lack access to the same rights as married people. By supporting gay marriage, proponents are going against their stated support of the freedom and equality relating to laws that affect all of the people. THEY are favoring one group over another. Don't the aforementioned people deserve equal rights as well? If the government had no laws with respect to marriage, there would be NO inequity. Isn't that the goal? If people want to form a relationship and live together, they have every right to do so. If people want to have a religious ceremony in order to be married in the eyes of their church, they have every right to do that as well. No government interference would be necessary. It makes me wonder why ssm advocates support the very institution of marriage, and in fact want to broaden its scope.— legatus
- Comment removed.
- I stand corrected, Vandy. The Brits did torture WW II detainees. Obama's statement, still, was correct - Churchill opposed torture, and there's no information that he knew of or approved of any torture that took place. A good interview with the Guardian reporter who wrote about what was discovered from the unclassified documents: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=103728934&m=103728908 You might also note that the torture was used by the British to extract confessions to war crimes. That's why people use torture - to get confessions. It isn't used to gather intelligence, because what someone tells you under torture is unreliable.— Talking point sleuth
- taxmemore - I'm not sure how Sullivan's other writing is relevant to the content of what he wrote about the use of torture. Maybe you can explain that to me?— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Interesting how the administration that got nothing right post 9/11, conservatives "trust" that they made the right decisions on torture. lol.....seriously, the reason why the Democrats beat your asses so bad in the election was becuase of your unwavering support of the Bush Administration. Not a peep out of them when he invaded Iraq on a lie, increased our National Debt or the largest expansion of Medicare in 40 years.— chasing history
- "and that one class of people (married) have rights that unmarried gay people do not have." What rights are you talking about?— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "That's why people use torture - to get confessions. It isn't used to gather intelligence, because what someone tells you under torture is unreliable." Circular logic, TPS. If what you're told under torture is unreliable, then how are confessions obtained via these methods valid?— Vandy
- "What rights are you talking about?" It is not I who is talking about these rights, it is SSM advocates. Some of the rights being mentioned are, hospital visitation, custody of children, inheritance, social security benefits, pension benefits, right to sue for wrongful death of spouse, etc. Why is marital status the determining factor regarding these things...why can't any two people enter into a contract which designates the other as the holder of these rights, without marriage being a prerequisite?— legatus
- Comment removed.
- It's unreliable because people under torture will tell you anything to get you to stop. Once again, Xi Jah, you have not proven that the actionable intelligence, such as it was, couldn't have been produced as efficiently by other means. If you disagree with me, Xi Jah, you also disagree with General Petraeus. --snip-- Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone "talk;" however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees. We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} then how are confessions obtained via these methods valid? {{{--- They aren't, Vandy. That's one of the reasons that they're thrown out of court. I never said that they were valid. The reason despots use such techniques to obtain confessions is because it is a pathetic method use to try to create validity where none exists. Valid governments only lower their validity by utilizing such techniques.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "Obama's statement, still, was correct - Churchill opposed torture, and there's no information that he knew of or approved of any torture that took place." Are you SURE about that, TPS? http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Obama-praises-the-man-who-had-his-grandfather-tortured-44087827.html?page=1 "...as there is clear evidence that Obama’s own grandfather, a member of the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya, was tortured by the British after he was captured. Recent accounts in the British press note that he was whipped mercilessly every day when he refused to cooperate. It was good old Winnie, drawing on his experience in similar tactics during the Boer War, who as Prime Minister ordered the savage suppression of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in 1952. This was the same Churchill who drew an arbitrary line in the sand and created the state of Iraq, which has been the cause of all subsequent commotion — but not before writing in a 1919 memo that "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" to "spread a lively terror."— Vandy
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Once again, Xi Jah, you have not proven that the actionable intelligence, such as it was, couldn't have been produced as efficiently by other means." I'm no lawyer, TPS, but I think the burden of proof is on you. We know how this actionable intelligence was obtained. You and others claim it COULD have been produced as efficiently by other means. Prove it.— Vandy
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- ---}}} Are you SURE about that, {{{--- Listen to the interview, Vandy. As for your poison gas memo - further into the memo, Churchill essentially states that the gas he's referring to will not cause casualties - such as tear gas. And if you are tempted to go the carpet bombing route - that one's been debunked also.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- Sorry - I meant that it wouldn't cause fatalities.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "I'm no lawyer, TPS, but I think the burden of proof is on you." Really? You are saying that torture should be the de facto starting point, since its so effective? Why did we sign onto the Geneva convention? Why don't police torture? You're going down a dark "ends justify the means" path.— RG
- Comment removed.
- That one's laughable, Vandy. So, despite what professional interrogators say (that torture is not an effective or efficient way to obtain information), we should approve torture because in completely undocumented fashion, some people with vested interests (i.e., the desire to save their own skins), say actionable information was obtained. For you, there is not need to prove that the methodologies used are, in fact, more efficient in the goal of saving lives than other methods. One might think from that, Vandy, that you derive some vicarious pleasure from the thought of uniformed men abusing shackled detainees. You seem to have a pretty low bar for utilizing techniques that unarguably lower America's world standing and undermine our efforts to combat global jihadism, Vandy.— Talking point sleuth
"Treason doth never prosper," wrote an English poet, "What's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."— bird11- billy, ummmm....where did I say you should be silenced?— chasing history
- Jesus, man, can you change the station? .......had a rough night, and I hate the f@cking Eagles, man— bird11
- "I kind of thought they'd already dispelled that "knee-jerk liberal" thing by hiring Rick Santorum, Michael Smerconish, etc., but maybe that's just me."....Your token conservatives do not automatically balance your content, anymore than Colmes makes Fox balanced.— E Plebnista
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- taxmemore - I'm not sure how Sullivan's other writing is relevant to the content of what he wrote about the use of torture. Maybe you can explain that to me? TPS Vandy dismissed Sullivan because he is not a great choice as a Conservative Standard bearer....as you set him up to be. So you asked that he focus on his Content. While you are right that his content includes anti-torture views which are well voiced, they aso include the famous frothing at the mouth belief in the Palin Baby consppiracy that is so ludicrous and unbelievable not even Will believes it. So it sort of hurts his credibility , get my point? Go read some Mark Steyn and cry yourself to sleep— taxmemore
- Comment removed.
- "no lawyer and I don't pretend to be".......Oh, I forgot. You were sick the day they taught law at law school.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- the inquirer hires two token conservative who write occasional opinion columns and that represents "balance"? How does that make up for reporters slanting everything to the far left? the inquirer is not a knee jerk organization, it built as a liberal paper on purpose. To bad for old Willy panites in a Bunch and his other liberal buddies since they have alienated the audience that actually has financial value.— dutchman
- Comment removed.
- "why can't they be honest and just admit that even if it saved lives I am opposed to enhanced interrogation techniques" Simple, there is no hard proof that it did save lives, just the opinion of some. Which is contradicted by the opinions of others. So, what we have is no empirical evidence, just anecdotal evidence challenged by other experts. Seems like murky water to me, and hardly a reason to justify it.— RG
- if it saved lives I am opposed to enhanced interrogation techniques, if those techniques led to more attacks and many more American lives lost in the future. See Xi, anyone can use what ifs. Where do the techniques end? "Gouging eyeballs and chopping off fingers"? Chopping off heads and posting the video on websites? Why do you insist that America stoop to the techniques of terrorists?— one_eyed_jack
- So, what we have is no empirical evidence, just anecdotal evidence challenged by other experts. Seems like murky water to me, and hardly a reason to justify it.....So we should err on the side of maybe, potentially sacrificing lives instead of sacrificing moral superiority, when faced with this decision? Since neither side can prove lives were, or were not lost.— E Plebnista
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "if there is an attack on American soil will that prove to you that the inhanced techniques did work?" To say this would prove anything would be to state that 9/11 happened because previous administrations didn't torture. There are many factors that go into detecting and preventing an attack.— RG
- "I could grudgingly respect their consistency if they took that position." The same could be said about the opposite position. When the previous admin alllowed torture, they didn't do so because they 100% knew it worked. IMO, they subscribed to an "all means necessary" theory. They couldn't have believed torture was right or that it was legal. Heck, we've condemned other nations and governments for using similar techniques. So the logical conclusion is that they did it out of fear of another attack, and those who support it, do so for the same reason. The goal of terrorism is to spread fear. The goal of AQ is to destroy our way of life, militarily they aren't capable, so they can only do so by scaring us into surrendering our values. The whole "look, xxxx said it works" argument is an after the fact justification. It should have never came to that.— RG
- Comment removed.
- bryanc, we had this discussion yesterday. The terrorists already think they have the moral high ground, the fight is for the moderates or non-extremists. When we invade other countries w/o provaction, torture, abuse prisoners, etc., it is safe to say that it will harm our reputation abroad. This fuels terorrist propoganda (aka, the Great Satan, America is at war vs. Islam). We should stick to our values and not allow this to happen, the terorists abhorrent tactics will dron out their own message. This has alreay happened in Iraq, Afghan, etc. They may not like us, but they realize the appaling nature of AQ/religious extremism is much worse. Keeping the high ground would have made this even more apaprent.— RG
- and i'm in desparate need of spellcheck.— RG
- RG - serious question based on my own ignorance: How much of the good that the U.S. does actually gets translated down to the street level of the muslim world??? My guess is very little. Bush doubled or tripled real aid to Africa - how much of that is known in this country let alone in the Middle East?? The U.S. - regardless of President or party in power - has always been the first to help yet we still have people who hate us. My suspicion is that any good Obama can do will not make it too the grass roots level of the people in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan and even if it does people will twist it as the U.S. disrespecting their culture. I might wish that in the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along" but when all is said and done I am a pragmatist and believe the Charles Colson slogan "When you got them by the b@lls, their hearts and minds will follow."— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "This is that gray area between the ticking-time-bomb scenario and a standard questioning. And I am not so vain as to claim I have a higher support for some sort of moral calling that I could second-guess the folks who had to make that call." If those who made the call truly believed that a) they were in a ticking time bomb scenario and b) all else had failed, then if they decided to torture, it should have been their decision, with them accepting any and all consequences/ramifications. Torture should not have been codified as acceptable by the government.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Bird, people will always hate, for whatever reasons. Doesn't mean you stop trying to be a beacon of light. The last quote you mention seems to back the Stalin/Saddam/Hitler school of leadership. While it may be true, I'll still pass.— RG
- Anyone read back to T!#rney - his quote that he would not influence the editorial pages of the newspaper - what a joke that was. So it's about going to Episcopal - where their website states:: "Everyone has inherent worth as a creation of God." - and - " Individual moral integrity and a core of common values are essential to every community." I guess those two skipped school the days they were teaching moral integrity.— pal
- "Real Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle." Tell that to the war widows and kids who lost their parents because we wanted to pick a fight in Iraq. Maybe you should get up and take a walk, would help fight the pins and needles developing in your arse from sitting in front of your PC.— RG
- RG - actually I think the quote goes back to Teddy Roosevelt or Douglass MacArthur. Not sure which or if both used it.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- ...BOHICA says, from in from of his computer in a nice cozy chair. That is the funniest post I've seen in a while, though it probably wasn't meant to be. BOHICA, when are you off to Iraq/Afghanistan? How'd that Vietnam war go?— one_eyed_jack
- get away from the computer and news cast and watch a movie now and then folks - bp: I forgot. You were sick the day they taught law at law school (A FEW GOOD MEN). BOHICA's quote: PATTON (opening monologue I believe).— bird11
- My apologies, BOHICA. Did not recognize that as a movie quote.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Now, I want you to remember that no b@stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b@stard die for his country. Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball player, the toughest boxer. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in he11 for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Now, an Army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of cr@p. The bilious b@stards who wrote that stuff about individuality for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know anything more about real battle than they do about fornicating. We have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. You know, by God I actually pity those poor b@stards we’re going up against. By God, I do. We’re not just going to shoot the b@stards, we’re going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun b@stards by the bushel.— bird11
- No one reads the Inquirer. Why do we care?— Raiderfan
- Some people say: Torture doesn't work! Others say : It does so work! I doubt anyone is going to convince anyone they are right or wrong on this issue. Personally, I think torture is wrong whether or not info is obtained by it because the info can't be trusted. This discussion is the definition or redundant right now.— James TL
- Comment removed.
- To further the discussion with bird and bryanc, Obama recently decided to block the release of the detainee photos. The main justiifcation was to prevent thsi from harming our efforts over there. Read the part of the letter from Lindsey Graham and Lieberman as well as the other quotes. It seems that they don't want these photos used against us, which supports the idea that our actions can have negative consequences. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/12/prisoner.photos/index.html— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- RG - I agree with Obama but I wonder what the reaction would have been if Bush tried to stop the release of these photos. I suspect Bunch would be ranting about the rights of the press to have and publish such photos. More importantly, when the Bush administration wanted information on how we were gathering information on terrorism not leaked to the press it still showed up in the NY Times.— bird11
- The far left will still pile on Obama for this decision. I tend to lean towards being transparent, but from the logic in my previous arguments, I can see how these photos could further risk our soldiers lives.— RG
- Comment removed.
- bryanc - excellent point!!! hard to justify not releasing photos after releasing the enhanced interrogation technique memos. Can't the memos be used against us also???— bird11
- BOHICA, you did earn the right, if all that is true. Is that where you learned to call people silly little names, like a 12 yr old?— one_eyed_jack
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.— one_eyed_jack
- tpsyogaqueen: "people like one-eyed-jack@@f view the military with disdain."
one_eyed_jack: "Is (the Marines) where you learned to call people silly little names, like a 12 yr old?"
Looks like one_eyed_jack proves your point, tpsyogaqueen.
— legatus - Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Sepaking of Miss California, gotta love the Donald's dog and pony show yesterday, just so he could get near her and place the sash back on her.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- lol...no, I don't view the military with disdain, nor applaud mumia or spit on soldiers, so yogaqueen is wrong on all counts. In fact I tried to join the military, but there was this one eye issue...— one_eyed_jack
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Heck of a debating technique.— RG
- "Vandy - you said this: "'Empathetic' supreme court justices or those who strictly adhere to the Constitution?" You make it an either/or choice - as if empathy and following the Constitution are mutually exclusive." TPS, I was presenting Will with a series of briefly worded options to challenge his nonsensical point about newspapers projecting moral vision. But since you seek a reminder, this is what I said in a previous post when the topic was the SCOTUS; I hope it clarifies things for you: "Again, I think we can agree that all human beings, by definition, are empathetic towards groups of others based on their own experiences. The issue here is the sense that the President, among the women he's considering, is looking for those who are empathetic to certain, pre-specified groups. That does seem to call the impartiality clause in the oath into question, doesn't it?"— Vandy
- "Churchill essentially states that the gas he's referring to will not cause casualties - such as tear gas." So if it doesn't kill, then it's okay in your book, TPS?— Vandy
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "You are saying that torture should be the de facto starting point, since its so effective? Why did we sign onto the Geneva convention? Why don't police torture? You're going down a dark "ends justify the means" path." No, RG, I was simply responding to TPS' claim that Xi must prove that other methods wouldn't have garnered the same information. The burden of proof for such a statement, or "the responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation," lies with the one hypothesizing that other methods could have obtained the same information.— Vandy
Oh boy! The troglodytes discovered that “Nazi” stands for National Socialist. Socialist…SOCIALIST…*SOCIALIST*!!!! The Nazis use of propaganda in their communications, including in the name of their own party still works on the slack jaws - over seventy years later! Is that why Republicans dislike public transportation? Bad memories from their days of riding the short bus to school?— Hamlet- You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little f@@ked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f@@Kin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny? No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the f@@k am I funny, what the f@@k is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!— bird11
- Hamlet, I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos— bird11
- LOL, Bird. You now have a line to beat that guy (I forgot who posted it) over the head with forever.— Hamlet
- Comment removed.
- Since we're all tortured out, maybe Will can answer our request to address the President's "audacious" actions re: Chrysler. The following points from a law professor at George Mason seem reasonable: "Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right? Until Chrysler. The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies." The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar. The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process." Going forward, why would any lender transact with GM, knowing Obama can strip their rights?— Vandy
- bryanc, I'm going to ask you a couple of standard questions, okay? Have you or any of your family been diagnosed schizophrenic? Mentally incompetant?— bird11
- IMPEACH NANCY PELOSI THE TORTURER. Will, start the petition here!— WriteWinger
- Comment removed.
- Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?— bird11
- Comment removed.
- That they're soft and they're very shallow and they serve no purpose.— bird11
- .....kinda like TPS— bird11
- Now, bryanc, can I ask you something? What is the appeal of Joey Bishop? I mean the man's not funny. I know funny, and he's not funny. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a nice guy, but my father's a nice guy and he's not funny either.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? 'Cause if it leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P.— legatus
- According to Bunch, a terrorist has human rights even after killing innocent people and destroying families. By the way, Will, you got clowned by Smerconish this morning. You kept stammering and repeating yourself.— Domenic
- Hi, welcome to the future. And I'm telling you it's great here. The air is clean, the water's clean, even the dirt, it's clean. Bowling averages are way up, mini-golf scores are way down. And we have more excellent water slides than any other planet we communicate with. I'm telling you this place is great! But it almost wasn't. You see, 700 years ago, the two great ones, ran into a few problems. So now I have to travel back in time to help them out. If I should fail to keep these two on the correct path, the basis of our society will be in danger. Don't worry, it'll all make sense. I'm a professional.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- You still picking your feet in Poughkeepsie?— legatus
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- bryanc, when you get in a fight with a drunk you don't hit him with your pitching hand. God, I can't keep giving you these free lessons so quit screwin' around and help me up.— legatus
- Comment removed.
- I've gotta go, branyc, it's all right, I'm not afraid.— legatus
- If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you ARE! And you should know that!— bird11
- ummm...that's bryanc— legatus
- Come on, bryanc, think of something clever to say, huh? Something full of magic, religion, bu11$hit. Come on, dazzle me.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations. Man, free to kill gophers at will. To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit - ever. They're like the Viet Cong - Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that's all she wrote.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax— bird11
- HAVE ANY OF US BEEN TO A MOVIE IN THIS MILLENNIUM????— bird11
- Once again, Vandy - nice to see that you admit that your either/or choice about empathy and sticking to the Constitution sets up a false dichotomy. And, once again, most experts agree that other techniques, as opposed to torture, are more effective. Just look at what General Petraeus has to say on the subject (shall I post it again for you?), as one example. So yes, the burden of proof that torture elicited information that wasn't not obtainable by other methods, which are not questionably illegal and immoral, and which don't have the same negative blowback implications, is on the torture-lovers. It really is shocking that you'd have such a low bar of approval for those techniques. SOP is to not use those techniques. That is why the Bush administration consulted with non-experts, who had NO EXPERIENCE in interrogations, to develop the policies they used (after they were rejected by experts interrogators). That is why they used methods, also used by despots to extract false confessions, for interrogations. You don't deviate from SOP unless you've first established a need to do so.— Talking point sleuth
- And notice, Vandy, how Xi Jah needs to distort what Blair said, over and over. Blair said that while useful information was obtained by those techniques, there's no way to know whether the information might have been obtained by other techniques. Maybe that need to distort should be a signal to you that the question about the relative efficiency of the torture techniques need to be answered - otherwise, you are willing to go along with techniques that might prove inefficient in addition to undermining the U.S.'s ability to combat global jihadism.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS, here's what the President said at his most recent news conference, a statement you echoed earlier: "But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question. Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?" He (i) acknowledged that useful information was obtained via these techniques, (ii) asked if we could have gotten that same information in other ways, but (iii) just like you, TPS, he provided no concrete proof supporting this supposition. If it were as simple as you claim, he would have said something like "and we know for a fact that this information was obtained via other methods." See how easy it would have been to do, TPS? No proof, only speculation. So I put it to you again, useful information was obtained via enhanced interrogation techniques. You claim this information could have been obtained via other methods. Prove it.— Vandy
- "on the torture-lovers" Who said they loved torture, TPS?— Vandy
- Man - do I hate Vista. Not sure if there's any point in explaining yet again, Vandy, but I'll do it once again for your benefit. The available evidence points to a conclusion that other methods are more effective. Most expert interrogators reject the use of these techniques. That is why the Bush administration relied on NON EXPERTS WHO HAD NO EXPERIENCE INTERROGATING to develop the techniques. Experts, in including the FBI, advised them that the techniques are less effective, as well as questionably immoral and illegal, and that using such techniques would damage our efforts against global jihadism. Maybe you're willing to resort to throwing out well-established SOP - established over years by military and intelligence experts, for policies developed by non-experienced, non-experts, at the behest of an administration that was panicking after 9/11 and interested in justifying policies that turned out to be based on bogus intelligence and shoddy analysis. That's your prerogative. I wouldn't be willing to do the same.— Talking point sleuth
- Hey, kids. Who said you could torture the sloth?— bird11
- It's a rhetorical figure of speech, Vandy. Probably ill-advised and counter productive. In reality, I think very few of those involved "love" torture. I would imagine that had they felt the information could have been obtained through other methods, they wouldn't have used torture. However, the very same people have a proven track record of shoddy analysis and disasterous decision-making. It has been proved in other situations that they allowed previously developed rationale to color their ability to perform policy due-diligence. They panicked, and responded badly. Then they continued to use torture to try to obtain linkage between AQ and Iraq even though the interrogators told them that here were no such links. In fact, Vandy, I think that even very few ARTs actually "love" torture. I think that they're simply partisan hacks that will allow they sycophantism and need to justify voting for Bush, twice, to override better judgment. On the other hand, there are folks like batboy......— Talking point sleuth
- Later, Vandy.— Talking point sleuth
- HMMMMMMMMMMMM "President Barack Obama says the detainee abuse photos he wants to block from release are "not particularly sensational" and would do no good if published." ....is it possible that if people saw the detainees photos they might wonder why we are trying to call this torture. Or maybe Obama just doesn't like releasing photos even if the taxpayers spend $350K plus for them....but that's another story.— bird11
- More from Obama: "Understand these photos are associated with closed investigations of the alleged abuse of detainees in our ongoing war effort. And I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib. But they do represent conduct that did not conform with the Army Manual; that’s precisely why they were investigated and, I might add, investigated long before I took office. And, where appropriate, sanctions have been applied. In other words, this is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action. Rather, it has gone through the appropriate and regular processes. And the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken." INTERESTING ISN'T IT???— bird11
- Can you smell what Barrack............is cookin? Smells to me like B$— bird11
- Just another reason not to read the Inquirer. Since I already don't subscribe, nor even buy it on the newsstand (I found out about John Yoo in the NYT), I can't even exercise my right to stamp my economic foot by threatening to cancel or boycott. Still, it's embarrassing to live in a town where the "liberal" newspaper wants to push this guy's ideas down our throats. And please, no more guff about "defending the speech you hate". We are not talking about abstract, theoretical speech here. This is a man whose sophisticated writings and access to power gave legal cover to torture, not some loudmouth spewing hatred on a street corner. Thanks to him, real people suffered. While he may not be a war criminal, what do we call the jurists who wrote and defended the Nuremberg laws?— paul rossi
- If John Yoo can have a column what's wrong with Medical Advice from Dr Mengele?— Ed_Tilton
- And, newspapers wonder why they are losing money . . . I would cancel my subscription if I had one once I learned Yoo was a columnist. I canceled my subscription to The Washington Post in July 2004 because of the rightwing tilt of a once great paper.— Coppellia
1
Popular Posts