They ran a picture of the vacancy! They'd rather show nothing than a picture of a woman who is not the right kind of woman.
Behave, ladies, and you might win our approval.
Has a male appointee at this level ever been treated with such disregard? I'm thinking this is special for women. This is what happens to women when they don't adhere to the required politics. Be warned!
Scrolling down, the next image is:
Men. It's an article about Gina Haspel. Why am I seeing Trump and Tillerson?
Another screen's scroll downward and we finally get a picture of the woman, nudged over to the side:
Don't worry, Gina. The building will love you.
I'm complaining about the formatting of the page, not the choice to decline to do a dance of celebration for this female first. The story of the involvement in "harrowing interrogation measures widely condemned as torture" would, I assume, be told the same way for a male nominee, and it should therefore be told about the female nominee, even when she is a first. If you don't muck it up with insinuations that it's a perversion of femininity not to be caring, it's fine. Give us the facts:
Her extensive involvement in a covert program that used harrowing interrogation measures on al-Qaeda suspects resurfaced last year when she was named deputy director of the CIA.... Haspel ran one of the first CIA black sites, a compound in Thailand code-named “Cat’s Eye,” where al-Qaeda suspects Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, better known as Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were subjected to waterboarding and other techniques in 2002....I wonder how many people think this background helps overcome concerns they'd otherwise have about a female CIA director. And I wonder how many people would impugn my womanhood for having said even that.
Haspel later served as chief of staff to the head of the agency’s Counterterrorism Center, Jose Rodriguez, when he ordered the destruction of dozens of videotapes made at the Thailand site. Rodriguez wrote in his memoir that Haspel “drafted a cable” ordering the tapes’ destruction in 2005 as the program came under mounting public scrutiny and that he then “took a deep breath of weary satisfaction and hit Send.”
Posts
140 comments:
"...we finally get a picture of the woman, nudged over to the side..."
Would not do.
First women anything are only liberal women. She's dead to them.
You, a woman!
If you want to see a woman using brutal interrogation measures, try coming home with lipstick on your collar.
Women on the wrong side must be savaged. They are traitors. See Hill in India: unloading on married white women who meekly followed their husbands' orders to vote GOP. No phony equality for them: destroy those girls. It's the prog version of the sisterhood. Politics ueber alles. With "feminists," twas ever thus.
If you want to see a woman using brutal interrogation measures, try coming home with lipstick on your collar.
;-D Good one, Rob!
Was she at the CIA throughout Obama's presidency? If so, I don't see how anyone can complain about her now.
And I'll remind everyone once again, Nancy Pelosi knew about the enhanced interrogation. She is still celebrated for her role as a a woman. As Althouse covered, she just donated her womanly gavel to the Smithsonian.
You are on point, Ms Althouse. There would be ready access by the press to the usual stock photo. On wikipedia, she has her own webpage with typical photo used for all bureaucrats of major rank. An active lack of using this readily available pic in a media story is a tell of some kind.
Tangent: "Cats eye" compound? Really? Do the CIA use S King novels / films as code for their super secret camps?
Camp Cujo = swiss alps. Silver Bullet = central america. Salems Lot = middle east. Misery = canada.
Clapper endorsement is not plus in my book. Using Waterboarding is a big plus though. Maybe she can use her skills to do some Waterboarding on various Obama holdovers and previous WH people so we can get to the truth about some issues.
I hoped to never have to revisit the whole black site enhanced interrogation thing from almost 2 decades ago, but here we are. So is this woman a sadistic monster or a loyal patriot or neither? I have no idea. I can never fully believe anyone who gets super passionate and absolutely certain about these issues one way or the other.
The one tangible problem for Trump's "chaotic" firing is Senate Confirmation for judges and high level appointees. Ya got 49 Dems to block appointments.
That's one reason why we got Rosenstein as Deputy AG.
Chaos!
We can hope she turns out to be an Irene Kennedy-type director, from the Mitch Rapp novels.
And, on substance, I like this woman. She has a lot of high-level CIA experience and a "kick-ass" quality to her.
Confirm Haspel Now!
And I wonder how many people would impugn my womanhood for having said even that.
Well I, for one, would not dream of impugning your womanhood.
But I do note that the picture they used is pretty unflattering. Hopefully no one will impugn my manliness for noting that.
So she knew about waterboarding? BFD!!!
If they don't want waterboarding then they need to stop like two bit suicidal murdering terrorist!!
Gun running from Libya to ISIS.
Refugee crises from Libya to Syria to Ukraine.
A trail of tears from abortion fields opened by social justice adventures.
WaPoo, among other foreign and global interests, has a selective memory with the intention to influence our perception.
My building has every convenience.
It's going to make life easy for me.
It's going to be easy to get things done.
I will relax, along with my loved ones.
The logo was a hasty substitution for the photo of Stormy Daniels attached to the article by an unidentified staffer in an apparent newsroom prank.
Waterboarding, eh? Maybe she'll get Trump to READ the damn' briefings, y' know what I mean?
A real spy at the CIA. I love it!
Trump is going to make bigger use of direct actions and covert operations with the new CIA director.
Brennan was a disaster. And she knows Brennan's secrets.
Payback is going to be a bitch.
Great choice.
She has lots of field experience.
She is NOT an analyst REMF
She actually has Intel experience, unlike say, Leon Panetta...
Field leaders need to make hard choices.
I’m in a funny position here. I don’t regard waterboarding as torture, but by the same token it is clearly physically abusive in a major way, so the question asks itself: how many times should you apply waterboarding to a suspect before you conclude (correctly it seems) that this individual has no information of intelligence value? Ten? Twenty? Forty? Surely somewhere way before it gets to eighty-three it should dawn on even the densest of CIA bureaucrats that the guy really doesn’t know anything worth finding out. Or perhaps that you’re waterboarding Superman — I fon’t see a third alternative.
So where I’m going with this is that at a certain point Gina Haspel and her subordinates were no longer trying to extract actionable intelligence from her prisoners; they were abusing the prisoners because they could get away with it. Haspel has two defenses, both weak. She can try to argue that she was only following orders from Langley — but that defense was disposed of in Nuremberg in 1946. Or she can argue that her subordinates did the waterboarding and beat one prisoner until he lost an eye without her knowledge or concurrence. In other words, that she is a poor manager (and who wants s poor manager in charge of the CIA?)
Trump needs to withdraw her nomination.
It's like that dizzy bitch from Homeland became the CIA director.
I hope she was held back by the Deep State and wants to shiv some rivals.
Trump loves to do this. Hire a woman and set her up to take down the assholes who held her back. He did it in his businesses. He had many very capable female executives who were happy to step up and say what a great boss he was. Of course the media buried that because they are only interested in the porn stars.
Trump has always helped women get ahead. So it is not a big deal if he gets a little head on the side. Bill Clinton rules baby.
Wait. She spent her time torturing Muslim terrorists?
You say that like it is a bad thing.
Not one Trump voter would think that.
Her record waterboarding filthy Muslim terrorists is a feature not a bug.
Appointing strong competent women remains Trump's secret sauce. I don't think the Democrats will ever figure that out, they don't believe such mythical creatures exist.
Wait. She spent her time torturing Muslim terrorists?
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. You are an immoral beast.
No apologies necessary from Ms. Haspel. She should emulate Trump: Don't apologize, don't back down, don't offer explanations. She presumably knows her job better than we do.
She doesn't look like one of the Mean Girls.
Sure Ferdie.
Keep kissing the Muslim murderers ass.
That is really working out for Europe these days.
If you like having your children groomed and raped.
But then that is probably your thing so I can understand your desire to protect murdering Muslims.
Of course Nancy Pelosi is "tied to brutal interrogation measures":
Pelosi said unequivocally in February: "I can say flat out, they never told us that these enhancement interrogations were being used." In April, she said that "we were not told" about the program at any briefing.
But a CIA memo released May 6 flatly contradicts those claims, stating that CIA personnel gave Pelosi "a description of the particular EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] that had been employed." That briefing was in September 2002.
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/pelosis-tortured-denials/
Frederson, I suppose, is eagerly looking forward to the day Nancy Pelosi gets her torturer's hands on the speaker's gavel.
I think the unwillingness to engage with Haspel being a woman (we have to first be convinced that she is a monster) is due to politics. The WaPo readers (all the non-deplorables, anyway) should be acculturated to react positively to the "first woman" in a leadership position thing. But WaPo is struggling to get past that, so they are burying the woman thing until they've hopefully built up a strong sense of revulsion in the reader. She's a very ordinary-looking woman - not intimidating at all - so the photo is contrary to the goal. That's why you get the side face, low position. By the time you get down there, you should have mentally formed an image of the Bride of Frankenstein. WaPo wishes you to leave with that mental image intact.
I really don't see this as sexism at all, but purely political. From WaPo's perspective, God forbid people just skim the headline and walk away with the impression that Trump is appointing women to leadership positions in a trailbreaking way. That's the worst of all possible outcomes.
Frederson is looking forward to unlimited immigration from illegal immigrants including many Muslims who will seek to impose sharia law on their communities. Much as the Somali cockroaches are doing in Minnesota. First they invade. Then they get political power. They are elected their own representatives.
Like many fools Frederson is happy to give these beasts the rope to hang him.
Torture - leaving aside the question of whether or not waterboarding is torture - is a very situational thing. There are two criteria:
1. Time sensitive. Torture is not 100% unreliable as many like to say. It can work. However, it can also generate a lot of crap data as the victim lies his head off to get you to stop. Unless there is a time constraint, there are much better ways.
2. Importance; subjective (where is my child?!?) or objective (where is the nuke?!?). It's definitely leaning toward the dark side. One needs a very good reason.
The victim (terrorist or nun) has very little to do with the moral decision.
I don't understand why anyone has an issue with government torturing people. They're wise enough to determine whether one should live or die (single payer! you're mentally ill; no self-defense for you!), surely they are wise enough to make the correct decision in this case.
So, I'm going to go with Mr. Peel on this one and say "She spent her time JUSTIFIABLY torturing Muslim terrorists?" and disagree with Mr. Frederson and say "one must assume it is not bad thing because the government was doing it"
Poe's Law of the day.
Frederson, I suppose, is eagerly looking forward to the day Nancy Pelosi gets her torturer's hands on the speaker's gavel.
I don't know why you think I am such a fan of Pelosi. Regardless, there is a big difference between being told about an illegal program and doing nothing about it and actually participating in the said illegal program.
Clapper endorsed her.
Which means she's got the clap.
Not good.
I forget, is Clapper the liar or the Communist?
Yeah there is a big difference about pretend to care about America's safety and doing something however unpleasant to ensure that we don't have another 911.
I am not worried about waterboarding but I actually prefer the Mad Dogs approach. Just kill them. The way he is doing to ISIS.
The stay of these Muslim murderers should be very short term. Very.
Clapper is the liar, Brennan is the Communist and Obama is the traitor.
I have it on good authority that she not only waterboarded, but she made the prisoners in Guantanamo listen to endless recordings of Hillary Clinton cackling insanely and demanding to know why she wasn't fifty points ahead. But cooler heads prevailed and put the kibosh on that, saying that the worst terrorist in Guantanamo didn't deserve such cruel and inhumane treatment.
Meh, she's a piker compared to other notable first Janet Reno. That gal could really get her slaughter on!
Some one is up for CIA Director. The most important position ever, ever.
And the discussion is about.....Waterboarding.
You know, that massively IMPORTANT problem that affects maybe 100 terrorists.
When is the USA going to become a serious country?
Field Marshall Freder on torture: "It is a bad thing. You are an immoral beast."
No more than you, Inga, Cookie, ARM and the rest of the usual suspects who torture me with lies, distortions, evasions, emotional reasoning and just plain bullshit.
Sometimes I think it would be easier to handle waterboarding (which is NOT torture) than what leftists try to pass for reasoning.
Oh, I forgot that you are morally superior. Excuse my impudence as a deplorable.
I enjoyed this clueless point by WaPoo.
The open disdain with which Mr. Trump mocked the C.I.A., especially after intelligence agencies said they believed that Russia had tried to swing the election in his favor, had raised concerns at the agency of a repeat of the unhappy tenure of a former director, Porter J. Goss.
Trump disdained the leftist center of Resistance at CIA.
Goss tried to drain the swamp but I suspect he got little support from Bush.
Mr. Goss took over the C.I.A. in 2004, when the agency was widely viewed as being at odds with the Bush administration over the Iraq war, and his marching orders were to end what the White House viewed as a campaign of leaks by insiders who opposed administration policies. He lasted only 13 months after his attempt to crack down on leaks drove many veterans out of the C.I.A.
What a shame ! I would have considered that a plus !
I suspect Bush didn't.
Several things to say about this:
Almost everything you read in the article about the “torture” that causes you to say she should be withdrawn (looking at you Big Mike and Freder) is false. Nothing new for outlets in the MSM.
If you want the actual facts, read Enhanced Interrogation, written by the two psychiatrists who designed and managed the program. James Mitchell and Bill Harlow were the PhDs who actually water boarded the principal terrorists. And yes, despite what Dianne Feinstein put out in the media and was accepted as gospel, they really did get valuable intel, including the clue that in the end led to discovering Bin Ladin’s hideout and the operation that took him out.
As a 9 year Marine, I personally experienced water boarding in my training. I promise you it is effective, despite what Rand Paul and others believe. Maybe they should try it sometime and tell us how they did with it?
While very effective, I don’t consider waterboarding to be torture, as it causes zero physical damage, a la burning, nail pulling, eye gauging, cutting off appendages and many many hideous things that our enemies actually do. Minutes after waterboarding, while feeing awfully weak for awhile because it’s exhausting, you are fine, nothing is missing, you have no scars or other injury. I experienced something very similar in feeling on a river rafting trip once with friends in a remote, wild river in New Zealand. I got thrown out of our 6 person raft but was able to grab the safety rope and cling to the raft. I was in full wet suit, rubber slippers, helmet and life vest so was very weighed down.
One of my buddies was able to haul me back into the raft, but I landed on my back like a turtle. At that instant we got caught in a curl, as we became trapped between a massive boulder and a huge backcurl wave created by the boulder. Tons of water were crashing down on me and I could not get up out of it. I could barely get my nose out of the water from time to time to catch my breath. I thought I was going to drown. That’s the closest experience to waterboarding that I’ve ever felt. Folks on our other raft threw a line and hauled us out of the curl. I was finally able to sit up and was completely exhausted for a good 20 minutes. After that I was fine and enjoyed the rest of our adventure.
In the Marines we were tear gassed without masks too. Very similar generically to waterboarding. Very physically uncomfortable (putting it mildly) but 20-30 minutes afterward all is normal.
I greatly applaud promoting a pointy edge of the spear field operator as head of the CIA, and like others hope she’s in the Irene Kennedy mold. Sure beats the likes of Brennan, who at one time was a communist and does not believe in spies (!), Clapper, who lied to us all and is one of the slimier creatures of the swamp, or dirty cop Comey. Obama really knows how to pick kindred spirits, I must say.
Torture is against international and U.S. law. Ronald Reagan signed the international treaty against torture. It is a crime against humanity and a war crime.
To pretend that waterboarding is not torture is to ignore (like John Yoo did) the statutory and treaty definition of torture. Causing "zero physical damage" does not mean something is not torture.
Field Marshall Freder: "It is a bad thing. You are an immoral beast."
Something Freder has never written about any terrorist anywhere.
Even those lopping off heads and sexually enslaving girls and turning children into walking bombs.
In Freders defense, all of that is mostly due to Global Warming.
It's the WaPoo, dear; they're just "that way".
Overall public support for free speech is rising over time, not falling. People on the political right are less supportive of free speech than people on the left. College graduates are more supportive than non-graduates. A 2016 Knight Foundation survey showed that college students are less likely than the overall population to support restrictions on speech on campus. Among the public at large, meanwhile, the group whose speech the public is most likely to favor stifling is Muslims.
Bill Mitchell, it was kirikaou, who leaked their names to Scott Shane, and Brian Ross, along with their associate deuce martinet. Waterboarding is unpleasant but compared what is practiced in the mahabeth, the fingernail palace in Amman their counterpart in Cairo, its near beer.
Who reads wa-poo anyway?
Says you, the armchair expert Freder. Who gives a shit what you think, if we need to stop another 9/11 we do what we need to do. Then you little worms wriggle out of the mud after it’s safe to come out and criticize the folks, like this woman, who did what needed to be done, with the then full approval of the after the fact political second guessers. Disgusting.
Even those lopping off heads and sexually enslaving girls and turning children into walking bombs.
Sheesh, if it will make you feel better I will condemn all terrorists as immoral beasts. I didn't think I had to say anything so obvious.
Just because others do horrible things does not give civilized people license to respond in kind.
Freder: "To pretend that waterboarding is not torture is to ignore (like John Yoo did) the statutory and treaty definition of torture. Causing "zero physical damage" does not mean something is not torture."
You and the usual suspects do not cause me clearly defined physical damage. Yet, you torture me with your moral sanctitude.
Maybe your moral high horse is a bit to tall for you Field Marshall.
LOL
VOX!
ARM uses a hilariously and patently false Mathew Yglesias VOX "explainer" article about why everything that is happening before our very eyes is actually the opposite of how it actually appears!!!
Classic Yglesias quote: "Fighting dishonesty with dishonesty is sometimes the right thing for advocates to do, yes."
And how does Yglesias define "dishonesty"? Any disagreement with the left!
ARM beclowns himself beyond recognition with that one.
Tell us about the Gaza Bridge ARM and how the big meanie Israeli's won't let the Palestinians use this mythical bridge!!
LOL
VOX!
Field Marshall Freder: "Sheesh, if it will make you feel better I will condemn all terrorists as immoral beasts"
Wow. Not because it's the right thing to do, but just to make me feel better, eh?
#LeftyPrinciples
Unexpectedly.
It is a bad thing. You are an immoral beast. - Freder
#metoo
I mean, sure islamic terrorists lop off heads, shoot up magazine writers, sexually enslave girls, etc.
But at least they don't vote republican.
Not because it's the right thing to do, but just to make me feel better, eh?
I was being facetious. I couldn't care less about making you, or any of the other torture apologists Ann has gathered here, feel better.
Field Marshall Freder: "I was being facetious."
I always hated the Facetians. I don't care how many smart-alecky colonies they established around the Mediterranean.
Better to be a torture apologist then a terrorist one, Freder.
So are we all, all immoral beasts.
Field Marshall Freder: " I couldn't care less about making you, or any of the other torture apologists Ann has gathered here, feel better."
LOL
I could change that simply by converting to Islam.
I always hated the Facetians.
I always get them confused with Fecetians.
I didn't go to SERE school (Search, Evasion, Resist and Escape), but my understanding from colleagues and my Army Ranger cousin who did, is that: (1) it sucks, (2) they waterboard folks, and (3) it's invaluable training, if God forbid you ever get captured by the bad guys.
So, if US military personnel can endure waterboarding at SERE school, I see no reason why Khalid Sheik Muhammad and other deserving asshole terrorists should miss out on the same fun.
I always get them confused with Fecetians.
They are like the Facetians but with crappier attitudes. They are probably the ones who settled in Napoli!
Better to be a torture apologist then a terrorist one, Freder.
You are a fucking liar.
Find one post that I have made that could be remotely interpreted as being an apologist for terrorism or terrorists.
BAG: "So, if US military personnel can endure waterboarding at SERE school, I see no reason why Khalid Sheik Muhammad and other deserving asshole terrorists should miss out on the same fun."
Freder won't be satisfied until we give islmaist supremacist murderers american rights and full scholarships.
After all, it's not like they are Midwestern "deplorables" who cling to their constitutional rights.
As long as we're throwing our Moral Perfectionism around, let's give a thought to SecDef James Mattis, who has presided over the killing of hundreds. For shame !
This woman kind of looks like Lynndie England.
So, if US military personnel can endure waterboarding at SERE school
I don't know how many times I have to point this out. Just because waterboarding is included in SERE training has no bearing on whether or not it is torture. It is like saying you can knock people down in the middle of the street because they do it all the time in the NFL.
Field Marshall Freder: "Find one post that I have made that could be remotely interpreted as being an apologist for terrorism or terrorists."
If you voted for obama and his policies, you were a clear terrorist apologist.
And obama's state dept and spokespersons made no bones about it.
Now, if you are an American military veteran, well, we need to keep an eye on you buddy....
Freder won't be satisfied until we give islmaist supremacist murderers american rights and full scholarships.
You are also a fucking liar.
Field Marshall Freder: "I don't know how many times I have to point this out. Just because waterboarding is included in SERE training has no bearing on whether or not it is torture."
LOL
I'm a lefty and things need to mean what I need them to mean for me to win so stop arguing with me and stop using common sense!!!!
Hey Freder, you want to know what the standard operating procedure is for for our enemies? They stick a knife at the edge of your eye socket and if you don't immediately respond to their questions, they shove the knife in and take out your eye.
In a nice, understanding, warm, potential future democrat voter unvetted immigrant sort of way.
And that's just the beginning. Don't worry though, they will quickly run out of stuff they can cut out of you and usually that's when the beheading occurs. Or burning alive in a cage. Or throwing you off a building.
Come to think of it, that's probably why we don't duplicate those tactics on our own soldiers for training.....
LOL
Freder is turning into Chuck.
He cannot stand the exposure of his inconsistency and duplicity.
The arrogance suggests he is a social sciences teacher.
Field Marshall Freder: "You are also a fucking liar."
No, you are.
The left made no bones about declaring terrorism a simple "crime", moving terrorists to American courts with full rights and then putting them in prison.
During which the terrorists can pursue higher education.
So, once again, you are the liar.
Unexpectedly.
I thought all female CIA officers looked like Valerie Plame. I think she's the only one I'd ever heard of until now.
Per Wikipedia, Gina Haspel has been at the CIA since Reagan (1985) which means she survived, and I guess thrived at least some of the time, during Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama before Trump showed up. This also means she knows where lots of bodies are buried, yes? And perhaps held the shovel herself now and again, figuratively speaking. I don't think she's accused of actually killing someone. Although she probably knows something about that whole predator drone program which was so popular under Obama.
I think this is the kind of woman who has evolved well beyond standard feminist concerns.
I almost never agree with Althouse on feminist analysis of the news, but In this case, she is right. They can’t give Trump credit for hiring a woman for the job, a first, and the woman pays for it.
BTW, I'm missing exiledonmainstreet. Where art thou, exiled?
I thought all female CIA officers looked like Valerie Plame. I think she's the only one I'd ever heard of until now.
Sally, I saw a different photo of her today that indicated she may have been very pretty when younger.
The left made no bones about declaring terrorism a simple “crime", moving terrorists to American courts with full rights and then putting them in prison.
That’s one side of the coin, the other side was trying to close Guantanamo, which meant, of course, no prisoners. Everybody knows what “take no prisoners” means, it means the “double tap” to the forehead that bin Laden took, rather than capturing him, though they were somehow able to capture others...
How many suspected terrorist have been killed on the battlefield rather than take prisoner due to Obama’s fecklessness.
"Sally, I saw a different photo of her today that indicated she may have been very pretty when younger.
3/13/18, 6:23 PM"
The one at Wikipedia for Haspel's entry looks like a more recent one and she's attractive there. Although I was being sarcastic with the Plame comment. Valerie, the pretty blond super spy, America's answer to James Bond.
I could be wrong but I'm betting if Richard Armitage had leaked something about Gina Haspel she would have dealt with all that very differently than Plame and her goofball husband did. Like he'd never be seen again.
"Great choice.
"She has lots of field experience.
"She is NOT an analyst REMF
"She actually has Intel experience, unlike say, Leon Panetta...
"Field leaders need to make hard choices."
And she's a torturer! BOOYAH!!!
People in another thread were wondering if the example of the Nazis could ever occur here. Well, that our government uses torture and that many American citizens cheer its use answers that question!
Field Marshall Freder is going to invade SERE graining for the Air Force and stop the waterboarding.
That'll show 'em !
To pretend that waterboarding is not torture is to ignore (like John Yoo did) the statutory and treaty definition of torture. Causing "zero physical damage" does not mean something is not torture.
Horse's ass mouth.
Former CIA Director John Brennan recommended Gina Haspel to take over the position after President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Tuesday.
Shit. Now I am worried.
"I don't know how many times I have to point this out. Just because waterboarding is included in SERE training has no bearing on whether or not it is torture. It is like saying you can knock people down in the middle of the street because they do it all the time in the NFL."
Actually, that trainees at SERE are waterboarded proves its torture. They're subjecting willing soldiers to torture under controlled, friendly circumstances to train them how to endure torture under uncontrolled, unfriendly circumstances.
And, of course, the whole thing, you know, that something someone may agree to in some circumstances but might not be happy to be subjected to it against their will in other circumstances doesn't mean it's not a crime in the second instance. After all, this describes the difference between hot sex and rape, or a boxing match and assault, or a job and slavery.
Nitwit torture apologists abound! Talk about the banality of evil, this is the dumbing down of evil.
To pretend that waterboarding is not torture is to ignore (like John Yoo did) the statutory and treaty definition of torture. Causing “zero physical damage" does not mean something is not torture.
Let’s hear the “statutory definition” or the “treaty definition” whichever you believe has been most egregiously flouted.
Speaking of nitwits, there is one nitwit on this board that throws around the term “criminal” constantly, but I don’t think he knows what it means, and he never seems to provide a link to the actual statutes involved.
"Frederson is looking forward to unlimited immigration from illegal immigrants including many Muslims who will seek to impose sharia law on their communities. Much as the Somali cockroaches are doing in Minnesota. First they invade. Then they get political power. They are elected their own representatives.
"Like many fools Frederson is happy to give these beasts the rope to hang him."
I hear a fool talking, and it's not Freder.
"Let’s hear the 'statutory definition' or the “treaty definition” whichever you believe has been most egregiously flouted."
Here you go.
but I don’t think he knows what it means, and he never seems to provide a link to the actual statutes involved.
Another fucking liar. And you have been around here long enough that you can't pretend you didn't know. I have provided links to the relevant statutes and treaties numerous times.
But since you asked, here and herethey are again.
Asshole
Trump must be doing well.
Freder and Cookie are in full whack job mode, but trying to sound reasonable, except that the Field Marshall is losing his shit..
LOL!
want images? then use images.google.com
"Freder and Cookie are in full whack job mode"
So providing a statutory definition of torture that clearly includes waterboarding is "full whack job mode".
LOL
"Sheesh, if it will make you feel better I will condemn all terrorists as immoral beasts. I didn't think I had to say anything so obvious.
"Just because others do horrible things does not give civilized people license to respond in kind."
The self-appointed soldiers of liberty demand constant affirmations from everyone that they are on the team, or they are deemed traitors and terrorist-sympathizers. Of course, they are the terrorist-sympathizers to the degree they support our wars abroad and our torture of captives.
Cookie and Freder holding forth on stuff they have no idea about.
Where's Inga ?
"That’s one side of the coin, the other side was trying to close Guantanamo, which meant, of course, no prisoners."
Of course, you ignore that the majority of prisoners ever held at Guantanmo were not terrorists, however loosely that is defined. (By our definition, anyone who takes up arms in their home country to defend themselves against an invading force are terrorists, if we are the invading force. Of course, to them, we were the terrorists. They're more right than we are.) Many had never even taken up arms, but were simply kidnapped by profiteers and sold for bounty to US forces.
"Cookie and Freder holding forth on stuff they have no idea about."
This is funny considering none of you have bothered to look up the statutory definition of torture
"As long as we're throwing our Moral Perfectionism around, let's give a thought to SecDef James Mattis, who has presided over the killing of hundreds. For shame!"
Mattis:
"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling.”
Yes, he is shameful.
Did Robert Cook leave out the most pertinent part of a longer quotation, or was he foolish enough to let someone else do that for him without checking? Searching his first sentence, I found (as I recalled) that the full quotation is considerably less shameful:
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people."
He was specifically speaking of 'men' who beat women for years at a stretch - a bit of a feminist, our Gen. Mattis.
By the way, I read the proffered definition of torture, and whether waterboarding is or is not torture depends entirely on the precise meaning of "severe", which is undefined and highly arguable.
Field Marshall Freder: "This is funny considering none of you have bothered to look up the statutory definition of torture"
Uh, wrong.
Again.
Per usual.
none of you have bothered to look up the statutory definition of torture
Poor Freder. I thought you considered "triggering" to be torture.
The LGBTQ lobby is writing the definition for you as we speak.
Waterboarding was used 266 Times! On a grand-sum-total of TWO suspects.
Yes, only two suspects were subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.
"The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.
A former C.I.A. officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew.
The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."
Freder said: “This is funny considering none of you have bothered to look up the statutory definition of torture.”
I’m about as interested in the statutory definition of torture as you lefties are in the First and Second Amendments, Separation of Powers and laws and Presidential orders defining and prohibiting illegal immigration.
Which would you say are more important?
Here's the problem with your Vox article, ARM.
The data show that support for free speech for racists is the only category where support for free speech has declined. What is every conservative who is shouted down accused of?
You got it. Racism.
The Vox article was basically cut-n-pasted from this blog entry: http://jmrphy.net/blog/2018/02/16/who-is-afraid-of-free-speech/
The very first comment on the blog entry is "
I think the difference being the definition of what constitutes racist speech has been significantly broadened by the left in the last decade."
And, in an unintentional bit of hilarity, a reply to this comment is "It's not relevant, and it's clearly not true. It is just another racism apologist tactic at work."
Lot of wackos walking the liberal anti-racism beat.
Funny Vox didn't see that virtually everything the Left does not like, from capitalism to free speech itself, is called "racist" these days, but then, Vox isn't a place where you should go for intelligent commentary. It's click bait for liberals.
The survey question is directed at what kind of person should be allowed to speak, not what kind of speech should be permitted.
The data are broken down into a political spectrum, from far left to far right. The only groups that show a clear downward trend in acceptance of racists to speak are people who identify as liberal and slightly liberal. This would likely include most of the people working in media, meaning the people who can actually decide whether or not a person is allowed to speak and to be heard.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data
I read the link Robert Cook offered. Waterboarding is not mentioned. Further, the modifiers "severe" and "prolonged" do not seem to apply.
Robert Cook is wrong.
"Robert Cook is wrong." I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! A guy whose best friend is the biggest murderer and thief in history* and whose idea of economics is snake-oil even the dumbest rube wouldn't swallow--WRONG??!! Next you'll be telling me ARM isn't reasonable after all!
*The State, of course.
Progressive liberals prefer to torture civilians in elective abortion fields and along a trail of tears, while the foreign and globalist press, and social organizations, provide a cover-up through emotional appeals, obfuscation, and displacement. Truly a Nobel Peace Prize-winning performance.
Just because others do horrible things does not give civilized people license to respond in kind.
Of course it does. Duh!
Our citizens sleep securely in their beds because rough men and women stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
I'm always amused by the moral outrage of the left. The left that celebrates abortion.
The left that wants to inprision or murder climate deniers. The left that supported the violence of antifa. And lets face it. If you are a progressive you support all those things. But all of a sudden the left finds enhanced interrogation,.....icky.
The grim reality is that the world that does not embrace western values. The world tht goes not embrace the rule of law is a lot bigger than than we, the civilized western world, are.
The world outside our little bubble of westernciv.org. is pretty much a horror show. Ask any 'woke' woman in a muslim country.
Remember Daniel Pearl? Cry me a river proggs.
"Our citizens sleep securely in their beds because rough men and women stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
An oft-quoted line that, 99% of the time, is the purest bullshit. Mostly, it's rough men and women acting as paid gangsters for the corporate/government complex. See General Smedly Butler's remarks from nearly a century ago:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
As true now as then, and as throughout history. War is plunder.
"'Just because others do horrible things does not give civilized people license to respond in kind.'
"Of course it does. Duh!"
Well...if civilized people choose to respond in kind, they should at least give up the self-serving vision of themselves as "civilized people," and acknowledge they are no different, no better, than any other brutes in the world. Especially when those civilized people don't just "respond in kind" but initiate horrible things for their own profit.
"Waterboarding was used 266 Times! On a grand-sum-total of TWO suspects.
"Yes, only two suspects were subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."
Oh, for fuck's sake! You believe the claims of a government that wants to evade acknowledging the extent of its torture? Many captives at Guantanamo were tortured. Many of the prisoners at Abu-Ghraib were tortured. There are reports of prisoners being beaten to death by our interrogators. Probably any captives we've had in our possession at any time in these last 15 years are likely to have been tortured.
Also, I love how you emphatically use the term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," as if that renders torture into not torture. Of course, we weren't the first to use the term "enhanced interrogation" to describe our torture--the Nazis used the same term.
""You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them. Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people."
Uh, Dr. Weevil...just because Mattis says it doesn't mean he knows if any of the people he "had fun" shooting beat their wives. That's just his own bigotry speaking, and a self-serving justification for his brutality. Can you imagine Dwight Eisenhower speaking of the "fun" he had shooting Nazis?
And...don't you think it's a bit extreme to sentence even an actual wife-beater to death?
"By the way, I read the proffered definition of torture, and whether waterboarding is or is not torture depends entirely on the precise meaning of "severe", which is undefined and highly arguable."
If the question of whether an interrogation technique is "severe" is arguable, it shouldn't be employed. "Torture" doesn't just involve physical torment, but psychological torment. Prisoners expecting and waiting to be beaten, put in stress positions, made to sleep naked in freezing cells, and, yes, waterboarded, are, you can be certain, suffering psychological torment.
To my view, applying any kind of physical force on a bound and helpless prisoner is despicable, and is torture, whether it meets exacting legal definitions that, by nature, will be open to interpretation. Legal definitions of torture that allow any degree of physical abuse are simply tools designed to allow the torturers to evade acknowledging their own crimes.
Of course, you ignore that the majority of prisoners ever held at Guantanmo were not terrorists, however loosely that is defined.
What the fuck does that have to do with the fact that they are now being killed on the battlefield rather than taken prisoner with at least some possibility of sorting it out later? And left out of your quote was my phrase "suspected terrorists" because I guess including that part would have been inconvenient for your, what I have to admit , looks like trolling.
Legal definitions of torture that allow any degree of physical abuse are simply tools designed to allow the torturers to evade acknowledging their own crimes.
There you go again using the word "crime" as if it were some legal definition when all you really mean by crime is an offense to your own sense of morality. I think you New Yorkers were so terrified by 9-11 that the only way you can deal with the fear is to transfer it to something over which you feel you have some control.
that allow any degree of physical abuse
Handcuffs is now torture? Leg irons? A hood? These are all torture now? What about taking a way a guy's gun when he doesn't want to give it up? Does that register on your "any degree" scale?
Abuse: Treat (a person or an animal) with cruelty or violence.
Dictionary says! Taking a combatant's weapon away is 'some degreeO of abuse! We don't want to lower ourselves to our enemies!
I personally blame 9-11 on Clinton's cruise missile attacks on sovereign Afghanistan which created a state of war between our countries that did not exists before that moment. Still, that doesn't me we could tolerate what the Afghanistan Jihadis did. What's that Fitzgerald line?
They were careless people, Bill and Hillary – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together and let other people clean up the mess they had made
OK, I changed it a little!
People pretend that the English language has a kind of precision that it completely lacks. Word after word, like "severe" and "abuse" etc, defy precise definition. One gets reduced to rhetorical questions, which are just another flavor of the "no true Scotsman" argument. This is why I think the whole "critical theory" movement, or whatever they call themselves, is a complete joke.
"I think you New Yorkers were so terrified by 9-11 that the only way you can deal with the fear is to transfer it to something over which you feel you have some control."
Actually, I wasn't terrified by it at all...and I was only a few blocks away while it was happening. I was shocked and horrified, but not terrified. I thought to myself at the time, "Well, that's it...they've done the worst they can do."
And I was right.
"Well, that's it...they've done the worst they can do."
OK, so a dirty bomb in Manhattan, not a problem for you? Or are you counting on "rough men" to keep that from happening so that you can sleep soundly in your bed?
The US has been fighting Muslim pirates, which is what the hi-jackers were, since our founding. The marines are known as leathernecks because they wore collars to keep from getting decapitated by scimitars in fighting along the Barbary coast. You might say that we had no right to keep the sea lanes open for trade, and that's a point of view, I guess, but here we are, and this fight will probably not be over for centuries. We have two powerful populations with incompatible world views.
"Handcuffs is now torture? Leg irons? A hood? These are all torture now?"
Are handcuffs and leg irons physical abuse? If the restraints are purposely made too tight, such that the prisoner suffers physical injury and pain, then, yes, handcuffs and leg irons are torture. If they're not too tight and merely restrain, rather than injure, the prisoner, and if the prisoner is not kept in these restraints for prolonged periods, even in his cell, no.
A hood? It's certainly abuse, if not "torture," but then, I'm splitting hairs. Why would a prisoner be hooded? Why would a prisoner be kept hooded for a prolonged period? Yes, I would call that torture, as it induces fear and disorientation--psychological suffering--in the prisoner.
I grant that my personal definition of what constitutes torture is wider than what our legal definition might include, but then, I'm considering it from my imagining of the experience of the prisoner, and not from the point of view of lawyers trying to define that unclear line between torture and not-torture, to determine just how close we may get to torture without being subject to legal sanctions. However, I do think that water-boarding--not the only kind of torture we practice, I must point out--does fit the legal definition.
OK, so a dirty bomb in Manhattan, not a problem for you?"
I don't expect that a dirty bomb will be set off in Manhattan. Besides, the horrors of "dirty bombs" have been oversold. As this site points out, the radiation released from a dirty bomb would not be great enough to kill or even sicken people. The bomb part of the dirty bomb is the danger.
Do I think a bomb will be set off in Manhattan that will do as much damage and kill as many people as the 9/11 attacks? No, I don't.
OK, so a dirty bomb in Manhattan, not a problem for you? Or are you counting on "rough men" to keep that from happening so that you can sleep soundly in your bed?
I forgot the second part of your hypothetical.
No, I don't think "rough men" will protect New Yorkers from a bomb, but trained and skilled investigators doing intensive police work to discover and stop plots before they're carried out. (This doesn't mean they will always be successful, of course, but it will be mind and not muscle that we must look to.)
Are handcuffs and leg irons physical abuse? If the restraints are purposely made too tight,
You said "any degree" and I am just pointing out that that is just not workable. I am sure loss of freedom is annoying to some degree. And what if a prisoner is being flown to some hypothetically acceptable location for acceptable processing by whatever hypothetical forum of which you would approve, and on the plane is a person who had infiltrated his organization? Still no hood would be justified? You are living in dreamland.
Also, you are living in dreamland if you don't think that the fear of cancer caused by a dirty bomb in Manhattan wouldn't lead to it being abandoned eventually, by all but the same types you see traipsing around Chernobyl.
The big unanswered question of course is the "no prisoners" policy necessitated by attempting to close Gitmo. It leads to killing suspects on the battlefield, same as we were forced to kill bin Laden without trial, because Obama didn't want the hassle of him as a prisoner. I have to believe that the individual soldiers involved would have risked their lives further, since they already were at great physical risk, to bring in such an intelligence prize as bin Laden so that "trained and skilled investigators" could interrogate him, or is interrogation torture too?
Black and white answers do not exist. It's "turtles all the way down."
Remember when one of the Left's t-shirt/bumper-sticker slogans was "One nuclear weapon can ruin your whole day"? When did that change?
Well. The beta males have weighed in so I think I made my point.
Torture is defined by law, which means torture is defined by Congress. When the torture statute was examined and amended in 2004, whether or not water-boarding was considered torture was specifically debated in Congress and specifically excluded from the definition of torture. Although legislative history is not definitive when it comes to interpreting the law, it is a strong factor.
(1) Water-boarding is not torture according to the law in the U.S.
(2) Water-boarding (and torture) works when used properly.
"'Are handcuffs and leg irons physical abuse? If the restraints are purposely made too tight,'
"You said "any degree" and I am just pointing out that that is just not workable...."
But if they're not too tight, how are they physically abusive? And...you're also playing coy. You know I meant any kind of intentional physical or psychological assault, not restraints, and not accidents. However, restraints can be used abusively, and they can become a method of torture.
"2) Water-boarding (and torture) works when used properly."
That torture may work is immaterial; it's illegal and immoral, and that's why we shouldn't use it.
The PowerLineBlog guys did suss out a decent photo of CIA nominee Gina Haspel.
"Black and white answers do not exist."
Sure, they do. Do not mistreat prisoners of war in any way, treat them as we would want to be treated ourselves, and there's no issue.
That most of the prisoners in Gitmo were never involved in 1)acts of terrorism against the US, or 2) taking up arms against the US, (not the same thing at all) is the greatest reason to close Gitmo, and why its legacy is shameful.
Do not mistreat prisoners of war
According to the Geneva Convention these terrorists who hide in civilian clothes instead of wearing a uniform are not POW. If you want us to adhere to international norms you should know what they are.
Seeing the comments by the lefties on here makes me even more confident that Pinochet did nothing wrong.
You know, we went over all this in great detail when Bush was president, and it's really annoying to have to make the same arguments over again to people who weren't listening the first time. For instance, Mike's point that prisoners are not legitimate "prisoners of war" if they do not wear uniforms or "insignia recognizable at a distance", do not have a definite chain of command, or if they hide behind citizens, using them as human shields, has been made before, by me, among many others, to no visible effect. Do any of the prisoners in Guantanamo qualify under the actual rules of the Geneva Convention? I don't think so.
As for "psychological torment", that may be required in some cases by federal law. Some prisoners may feel very uncomfortable if they are interrogated by a Jew, or a woman, or (horrors!) a Jewish woman, yet it would surely be illegal to exclude Jews and women from the interrogation teams. Again, we went over all this on the web and (I think) on this very site with many of the same adversaries years ago. I'm pretty sure they're trying to bore us into submission. They certainly haven't come up with any plausible new arguments, or any new arguments at all.
I've said this before, but If I lived in a nation as wicked as wicked and shameful as Robt. Cook believes the United States to be, I would emigrate. I would not want to associated with it. I would leave with tears in my eyes, perhaps, at the thought of the great nation it could have been, but how could I remain a citizen & resident of a country that endorsed sadism, murder, and looting other nations of their meagre wealth?
I guess I am just more moral than Robt. Cook.
Post a Comment