Smerconish: When it comes to torturing Al Qaeda, anything goes
posted at 9:21 pm on December 17, 2008 by Allahpundit
He means it, too: Matthews, incredulous, offers him a menu of horribles and Smerc orders everything on it. I can’t remember ever watching a torture debate like this, pitting an absolute opponent like Hitch against an absolute endorser on the other side. And not just an absolute endorser, but one willing to extend the principle beyond unlawful combatants to pretty much anyone who threatens violence against America (or at least any jihadi, uniformed or not). If, like me, you’ve never had much patience for slippery-slope alarmism, good luck watching this without feeling a tinge of strange new respect. Is there any limitation on what he’s suggesting here? It sounds like he’s at least demanding probable cause to believe the prisoner has actionable intelligence, but I can’t tell if he’s restricting this to ticking-bomb scenarios or is willing to drop that requirement, too.
Matthews’s preference is clear but he does, to his credit, press Hitchens a bit more than expected, especially on the dopey point about American POWs being treated worse because of the policy. I can’t think of a single country we’re remotely likely to be at war with that’s known for treating its prisoners humanely now, let alone American prisoners during a state of conflict, but let me know in the comments if I’ve forgotten anyone. Exit question: Hardball’s going to make for riveting viewing after the first report of enhanced interrogation by the Obama CIA trickles out, huh?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Do what is necessary with the jihadists. Ain’t our fault they are not uniformed.
Furthermore, if Khalid Sheikh Muhammad lasted almost 2 minutes under waterboarding, what makes anyone think normal tactics would have worked?
Sometimes, you gotta torture a biatch
blatantblue on December 17, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Smerconish is a liberal in conservative clothing. He claimed to be a conservative, then endorsed Obama. How can one be the lawyer for the family of the cop killed by Mumia Abu-Jamal, then endorse a guy who surrounds himself with Black Panthers and Mumia defenders? Smerc also loves Michael Scheuer and his loony anti-Israel views, many of which Smerc has adopted. And I’m the latest casualty of his move to the left after claiming to be on the right for so long. I used to do movie reviews for his radio show, until the Obama election, now he’s using a liberal.
Debbie Schlussel on December 17, 2008 at 9:26 PM
PS–Bottom line: It doesn’t matter if Smerconish supports all of this stuff–which I support, too. His candidate, soon to be Prez Obama, is against all of these things.
Debbie Schlussel on December 17, 2008 at 9:28 PM
…………… Switzerland kinda comes to mind.
Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Matthews, incredulous, offers him a menu of horribles and Smerc orders everything on it.
I concur with Smerc. Kill ‘em all, let God sort ‘em out.
Chuck145 on December 17, 2008 at 9:29 PM
The fact that this is even an issue proves that 9/11 was not big enough to put things into perspective for half the nation. Next time it will be much more serious.
keep the change on December 17, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Hitch, wanna borrow my comb? It’s torture to watch such sloppy hair on TV.
jgapinoy on December 17, 2008 at 9:31 PM
If you aren’t an American citizen, I don’t care what they do to you, so long as the information needed is obtained.
KSgop on December 17, 2008 at 9:34 PM
But by torturing, we open ourselves up to the following argument:
Those who torture our captured soldiers can and will appeal to (extremely retarded (sorry for being non-PC)) liberal sympathies that the only reason they are doing so is because we did it to them. By retracting from torture, we are capable of getting the liberals (and by extension, other sympathetic nations) on our side in future conflicts with militants. The best reason that I can think of, as a pragmatist, to refrain from torture, is to maintain our allegiances to those nations who might cut ties with us if we did things in a “all holds barred” manner.
Of course, the militant in me says “Screw you” to those nations who are so concerned with our actions that they wouldn’t take action against a much harsher enemy than we could ever be simply because we “offended” their delicate sensibilities.
jimmy the notable on December 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM
if they wanted to drag KSM behind a pickup truck throughout the streets on NYC that’d be cool with me. smerc has it right.
Noneya on December 17, 2008 at 9:35 PM
The Geneva Convention can suck it! The UN can suck it too! Hitchen’s just bugs the crap out of me. And Smerconish, well he is a Obami supporter.
Debbie, you are right too. Started reading your post. Isn’t politics just wonderful? Chrissy is a freak in a Circus. Wish he would shut up!!!
sheebe on December 17, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Use to listen to Smerc MO thru FR mornings on my way home from working mid shifts. Little by little during the 08 campaign you could sense his slide to the left. No doubt he has become intoxicated with the publicity he has gathered from being the “conservative” on Matthews loser of a show. It really has gone to Smerc’s head.
Since the day he endorsed O I have not listened to a single minute of his show. Hey, that’s change I believe in!
MoodyBlu on December 17, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Smerconish’s pretzel logic for voting for Obama tortured me. When he fills in, I turn the radio off.
Blake on December 17, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Contrary to Obama-supporter Smerconish’s assertion, there is absolutely no reason for us to limit the use of torture to Al-Qaeda. The fact is that Hezbollah and HAMAS have both, on several occasions, threatened to attack us. If we caught a terrorists from those or any other group that might attack America, we should torture the plans out of him/her. It just shows Smerc’s ignorance that he keeps repeating he’d limit it to Al-Qaeda. So, we wait ’til Hezbos or HAMAS or Islamic Jihad actually also murder 3,000 Americans, and then he’ll include them in his special group? There is nothing special about Al-Qaeda, but for that they succeeded.
Debbie Schlussel on December 17, 2008 at 9:43 PM
ANY mujahid should undergo ANY means necessary to extract information to protect Westerners and anyone in the world under threat of attack.
blatantblue on December 17, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I stopped listening to Smirky the day he endorsed Obama. Actually, a couple of weeks before that my wife would catch pieces of the show and ask “why are you listening to that liberal dope?”
My guess with obama was that he was courting Rinos and fake conservatives. Smirky endorsing obama was the result of one of the following
1. Smirky fell under the erikson hypnosis and was given the choice of running around phillys city hall naked clucking like a chicken or endorsing obama. He probably figured he could do the former on his own time so he chose the latter
2. Obama offered Smirky (and other rinos) something if he got elected. Think about it. Smirky did hold a federal job a while back. Obama can appoint him to something and say “lookie here, I appointed me a conservative republican talk radio show host.,.Aren’t I bi-sex… er Bipartisan?
3. Smirky figures he can parly the lean to the left into some type of national gig. His contract with The Big Talker in Philly is up Dec 31 (and not a moment too soon)
Anyway, his ego is probably as big as obama’s. As other posters have alluded to, he if full of the brown stuff. He’s talking tough about terrorism but he supported a guy who (1) Has an arabic middle name (2) is a good part arab (3) has questionable origins (4) Spend a good part of his early life abroad (4) HANGS WITH FREAKING TERRORISTS (5) Has marxist tendencies, (5) Wants to have tea with Achmadikhead (6) Goes to a church where the pastor screams GOD DAMN AMERICA…
bullseye on December 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM
When Mathews is asking about morality…I believe it!!! He, much like most LibTards, have absolutely no clue. They can no more discern right from wrong than the man in the moon.
I really can’t figure Hitchen’s….Do they just call him up and say ‘Hey, do you want to argue with somebody?? We have a wet bar and a couch to crash on’.
I really hate the way Slobber Boy makes it a point to mispronounce Cheny’s name.
Cheny is Darth Vader…and I love it. None of the Obama ‘ahh’..’ummm’ crap. It’s YES or NO….
How much pee to you think the reporter left in his drawers after that interview???
BigWyo on December 17, 2008 at 9:49 PM
That was a good debate.
AbaddonsReign on December 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Is Hitchens talking in that clip? I’m sorry. I haven’t been able to hear him since he slammed the ever loving crap out of Sarah Palin.
BrideOfRove on December 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM
What the hell is a Smerconish? He sounds like an overcompensating goofball to me. Probably not a good idea to get too close to him.
MB4 on December 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Oh, forgot one thing.. Before I stopped listening to Smirky, he was sucking up BIG TIME on the air with chrissy “tingly leg” matthews. A short time later Matthews announced he is thinking about runninng for the PA Senate seat.
Smirky is about as conservative as Ted Kennedy.
bullseye on December 17, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I’d like to see torture opponents actually define the term.
aunursa on December 17, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Water-boarding Chris Matthews would be superb.
With the possible exception of every elected representative of this country, media lunatics like Matthews are the most dangerous enemy this country has, including al queda.
notagool on December 17, 2008 at 10:02 PM
As I recall, Hitch was rubbing Americans’ noses in it with the July 4 video of himself being water-boarded. I’m surprised he didn’t wait until Christmas for the stunt. My guess is that Hitch goes total Jack Bauer in the event his loved ones are being held by terrorists.
Mark30339 on December 17, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Cheney is so cool. I love that guy.
mrsmwp on December 17, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I stopped listening to Smirconich when he endorsed Obama. He is the Kathleen Parker of Philly radio.
clnurnberg on December 17, 2008 at 10:05 PM
That he’d want to be associated with the Soviet of Philly is the number one indicator that the guy is a bit off, his endorsement of the Marxist Messiah confirms that.
doubleplusundead on December 17, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Ok, it’s official. Cheney is so awesome that he makes regular awesome people look not awesome.
Kevin M on December 17, 2008 at 10:10 PM
I oppose torture. Yeah, even KSM. Sure they broke him with two minutes of waterboarding, but what if they gradually worked on him and turned him? Would the occupation in Iraq have gone better if we did not have Abu Ghraib (and half assed torture and sexual humiliation is far less justifiable than waterboarding high value al Qaeda members) hanging around our necks as a propaganda victory for al Qaeda. Ever wonder how many Americans died or were injured in Iraq as a result of that? At least half the casualties, maybe more.
I am not being naive. Okay, this has Andrew “I am against torture, except if it involves Sarah Palin” Sullivan’s name on it, but this interview with Col. Herrington on Hugh Hewitt was top notch. http://www.whitcam.com/research/archives/153 http://blog.beliefnet.com/reformedchicksblabbing/2007/02/im-against-torture-of-any-kind.html
Think how the FBI and CIA managed to get Saddam Hussein to open up by simply giving him the son he never had. http://www.fbi.gov/page2/jan08/piro012808.html
And I also oppose attempts to go after the Bush Administration criminally over this too. They erred with this torture policy, but they erred trying to protect us. It did not work and was eventually abandoned, except for extreme situations that may arise like KSM. And yes, Obama may end up having to do that too. I personally would like the see the Herrington approach applied 99.9% of the time, but the treat of the 0.1% has to be floating out there too.
Mr. Joe on December 17, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Like in energy … I support an “all of the options” approach
joey24007 on December 17, 2008 at 10:15 PM
I saw it as a flawed debate with a few false premises tossed around. The Geneva Convention was created in order that people should follow humane rules of war. Any combatant who fails to do so is an unlawful combatant and is therefore not entitled to the protections of the GC. It was written that way to encourage combatants to follow the GC. As far as I’m aware, anyone who shoots anyone in civilian clothes (or not wearing distinguishing insignia), who hides among civilians, endangering their lives, who deliberately kills civilians, etc. is subject to the same laws as captured spies, and may legally be shot after a very quick military trial.
Matthews seems to think that everyone the US captures is a POW, which is not true by any means, not even close in this war. He tried to trap Smerconish into saying that he was pro-torture if it involved anyone fighting against America. Unfortunately, Smerconish is a duffus and pretty much agreed when there were actual legal arguments for his position. Hitchins should know better.
Aardvark on December 17, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Joe, CIA officers last an average of 15 seconds. If KSM lasted through 2 minutes of waterboarding, how in the HELL do you suspect we’d be able to just turn him like that?
You can try to compare him to Saddam, but you’re comparing two totally different types of people. The psychology is totally different.
Of course interrogators know conventional methods are just as useful, but some people just don’t break with convention. You need cards up your sleeves, and the right to use them when necessary.
blatantblue on December 17, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I’m going to cancel you out, Mr. Joe. I fully support torturing scumbags. Not the type of torture that will leave them disabled, but certainly the type of torture, like waterboarding or shocking the crap out of them until they give up the goods on their evil cohorts.
And here’s my rebuttal to the silly possible complaints from peaceniks:
- “It will give the enemy the right to torture our men in the field.” Guess what. They already do that every chance they get.
- “They will give up false information.” Shock some more crap out of them, or waterboard them some more. Problem solved.
- “It would make us as bad as them.” No, it wouldn’t. We wouldn’t be beheading people. For one thing, it’s tough to get information out of a head that doesn’t have a body attached to it.
Kevin M on December 17, 2008 at 10:20 PM
They liked beheading people long before Abu Ghraib.
In fact, they’ve enjoyed brutally murdering people since the time of Muhammad.
blatantblue on December 17, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Hah! Hitchens said that the 9/11 commission was celebrated by all!
Too funny. What’s gotten into that guy’s scotch lately?
Kevin M on December 17, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Man that was funny.
Dritanian on December 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Smerco is a POSER. I cut him a check before he endorsed the One”Obamassiah” I support the position whatever it takes to get information from the terrorists. But, it will be interesting to see his position when the one disappoints…
canesfan on December 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM
If someone on the losing team is captured on the battlefield they should take the easy way out and swallow that last bullet. AQ does not take prisoners and neither should the USA. Any info they give is moot as it is old and changed. KSM should have already be done away with and they never should have set up Gitmo.
If the left thinks that the Christian right is tough just wait until the Muslim Right gets going. Gay marriage and abortions will be the last thing to worry about. A Muslim abortion happens when they stone the mom because she had an affair.
tjexcite on December 17, 2008 at 10:37 PM
I still say taking less prisoners alive when dealing with such scum is the best policy. Intel is great. Dead terrorists is better.
Hog Wild on December 17, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Nice try, Obama endorser. Anytime this guy, FROM PHILLY, comes on subbing for O’Reilly, I turn it off. I can’t stand this guy, FROM PHILLY, pretendting to be conservative even though he’s FROM PHILLY. HEY, WE KNOW YOU ARE FROM PHILLY AND WE DON’T CARE. WHAT ARE YOU GETTING PAID BY THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE? Please go back TO PHILLY.
Fly FROM FLYOVERLAND
flyoverland on December 17, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Kevin M, you are going to cancel me out? I think you mean you disagree with me.
Listen, I am not crying any tears over the plight of KSM, I just think torture is wrong. I think Abu Ghraib, which was more stupidity and sexual humilation than torture, hurt the cause in Iraq enormously and almost lost us the war.
Hunting down the bad guys and killing them with Predator missiles? Working on more effective intelligence (and you do get more with bribes and local on the ground people interacting as we did with Petraus and the surge than you do from beating it out of people via the Rummy “taking off the gloves”). Bring it on. I say more of it. That works. That stops insurgencies.
Of course, we have the opposite extreme with Andrew “I oppose torture unless it involves Sarah Palin” Sullivan. He wants to prosecute John Yoo for this: “Why does AEI employ and give legitimacy to a war criminal, who defended the crushing of an innocent child’s testicles as legal?”
Of course, John Yoo nor anyone else I am aware of from the USA ever crushed a child’s balls as part of an official interrogation. Yoo just gave that stupid comment as an argument. Creepy, but criminal? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/12/bringing-john-y.html
Mr. Joe on December 17, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Think of how that would boost viewership! Toss in Olbermann and MSNBC would have a real ratings bonanza!
My leg tingles!
Bruno Strozek on December 17, 2008 at 10:46 PM
If one is going to openly advocate torture then you have to support changing the laws that the President and executive branch must abide by.
And whether one likes it or not, the President and his people are not allowed under US law and under international treaties that we agreed to to torturing of people.
That’s anyone. Whether they’re terrorists or violators of the Geneva Conventions or not.
Sorry, I just can’t believe those posters who disregard these laws.
If you think we need to do this (torture), then change the laws and allow it.
SteveMG on December 17, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Nicely said Allahpundit, I’m with you and Smerconish on this. I’m also a fan of Hitchens, but I think his argument-as well articulated as it is, fails to convince me. As you said, our enemies are already torturing their own people, imagine what they’d do to enemy combatants. They’re our enemies for a reason and we need to defeat them-period.
I do believe in reserving carte-blanche torture for the most dangerous captives (who represent a national security threat) and having some sensible safeguards/caveats (like making certain these people are actually guilty). Otherwise have at it, these degenerate terrorist psychopaths revel in the deaths of thousands, get all the info out of them and give them a death where they suffer horrendously first, like their victims did.
PS-does Chris Matthews ever STFU and let his guests talk? As soon as he finishes one annoying pea-brained rant he starts another one, somebody should torture him just to make him shut up. (I’m kidding of course)
thinkagain on December 17, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Kevin M, I do not buy those arguments from the left. The people we want to persaude are not al Qaeda but moderates. I am more pragmatic than to think our humanity will make al Qaeda better. Most Al Qaeda members need to be killed and not captured (with some exceptions). High value targets like KSM when captured alive should be manipulated by skilled psychological masters who get them to talk more than torture would ever do (read the Herrington article) or embarass their own organization.
Then we should execute them.
But Abu Ghraib? That hurt the USA. That did not make us safer. That is stupid and idiotic.
Mr. Joe on December 17, 2008 at 10:53 PM
If a group of Jews during WW2 were able to abduct a Nazi who was in charge of exterminating Jews, would it be appropriate to torture the Nazi to gain information that could lead to the liberation of the concentration camps and cease the extermination of a race of people?
Buddahpundit on December 17, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Michael Smerconish is trying to compensate for only having one ball
The other is in the kitchen wall
His mother cut it off when he was not very tall
Al Franken has two
But they are very small
And Chris Matthews has none at all
Cheshire Cat on December 17, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Yes. It would be a type of necessity defense, if nothing else.
But they’re not officials of a government who took an oath to defend the laws and Constitution. Laws that, rightly or not, forbids such actions. And it’s not just the Geneva Conventions. There are other statutory laws.
SteveMG on December 17, 2008 at 11:01 PM
I guess Smerconish used his endorsement of Obama to get that new pundit contract at MSNBC and he used this argument to show his bona fides to the base. He’s a complete fake.
AYNBLAND on December 17, 2008 at 11:04 PM
What about time sensitivity?
All of us would like to see skilled interrogators penetrate the minds of mujahids like KSM.
However, sometimes you need to go for the glory when time is of essence.
By the by, Abu Ghraib was done by a bunch of idiots in the military. Those people weren’t skilled interrogators, or anything near of that sort.
blatantblue on December 17, 2008 at 11:05 PM
I turned off Smerconish the day he endorsed BHO.
I have no time for RINOs like him.
Bill Bennett is a much better alternative in the morning.
JoeAvg on December 17, 2008 at 11:17 PM
If hitch had been scotch boarded rather than water boarded, you wouldn’t get anything out of him but another sanctimonious screed.
keep the change on December 17, 2008 at 11:18 PM
So why exactly did Smerc vote for Obama?
hockey2k5 on December 17, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Matthews tries to play the “what if” game if it was a uniformed Pakistani and Smerc went ahead and blew his argument. If a uniformed jihadi blew up a mall or was caught planning such, there would be a country for us to target and destroy if needed. This floating army has no home country and have no rights as they give their victims no rights.
yakwill83 on December 17, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Hitchens is right. One would expect that you who claim the West’s being above the barbarians would agree with him. But alas, you’re probably pretty illiterate about the principles of civilization, let alone those of your own.
Drum on December 17, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Smerco (“Glenn Beck Lite”) is just another in a long, long line of conservative fellas that love to talk tough on terror, torture, etc. — but who were too busy with “other interests” to serve in the military.
benny shakar on December 17, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Scheuer’s not “anti-Israel” — he just thinks it behooves Americans to put America’s interests before Israel’s. Or is it that you expect Israelis to put America’s interests before their own? Or are the two equivalent?
Drum on December 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Matthews started off with his usual smarmy, I-can-throw-out-traps-to-outsmart-you interviewing tactics. He quickly got in over his head with two minds that can run circles around him, and then wisely pulled back. If we had more people like Hitchens and Smerconish debating with the talking heads, we could help expose their agenda driven BS.
It’s going to be fun to watch when Chrissy tries to run for Senate and goes down in flames.
JeffB. on December 18, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Hitchens looks like he just got waterboarded.
Livefreeordie on December 18, 2008 at 12:25 AM
“I can’t think of a single country we’re remotely likely to be at war”
I forget – what were we about to go to war with Switzerland about again?!?
Dagnar on December 18, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Freedonia’s pretty good about it, I think. Also Candyland.
Jim Treacher on December 18, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Waterboarding is intended to get people to talk. That’s never been a problem for Matthews.
Jim Treacher on December 18, 2008 at 12:39 AM
Hope we don’t go to war with the Swiss. They would make cheese of us.
Johan Klaus on December 18, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Don’t count on Smirky doing anything but kissing Chrissie Matthews posterior. I’ve heard a couple of exchanges on Smirkys show before I stopped listening to the creep (when he endorsed omamama).. Anyway, the exchange between matthews and smirky was a disgusting lovefest.
By the way, I understand Matthew’s bro ran as a republican for the Montgomery county seat (just outside Philly) but votes mostly with the dems. If Chrissie tingly leg runs for office, wanna take any bets on the outcome in Montco??
bullseye on December 18, 2008 at 12:51 AM
If a Jewish state had existed at the time of the holocaust, would it have been appropriate for them to abduct and torture Eichmann to gain information that would prevent the holocaust and liberate millions of Jews?
Buddahpundit on December 18, 2008 at 12:55 AM
The 9/11 Commission is “celebrated by all”?
The same commission that had Jamie Gorelick as a member, in spite of the fact that she helped to create the compartmentalization of the intelligence community, and the “wall” preventing actionable intelligence from being disseminated to the appropriate agencies?
The same commission that refused to look at evidence delivered just before they disbanded?
The same commission that never once mentions Imad Mugniyah, or the links between al-Qaeda, Mugniyah, Hezbollah and Iran?
Hitchens must be talking about some other 9/11 Commission.
Alalazoo on December 18, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Anyone who talks about the Geneva Conventions, as if there were some actual meaning in those goofy documents, ought to have his head examined. If we followed the Geneva Conventions, then we would have to get rid of our strategic nuclear arsenal, since it is specifically built to incinerate millions of men, women, children and pets – you know, civilians and everything else. But that’s war and that’s why war is something to avoid, if possible, and why weaker nations used to think twice before attacking nations that could crush them in a second. … Used to.
Of course, no one with a half a brain would get rid of our strategic nuclear arsenal, because they understand what the reality of the world is – unlike the Geneva Conventions, the 4th installment of which was written after the horribly draining emotional experiences of WWII, when we decided that nothing like that should ever happen again … kind of like when we called the First World War, “The War to End All Wars”, which it fell woefully short of being, to be overly generous.
Just as people wake up with huge hangovers and swear to never drink again, we always end wars by trying to tell ourselves that we will not be pushed to those same actions, brutal and ruthless as the actions of war must be, though it is never our choice. It takes two to tango, but only one to start a war. The Geneva Conventions are a utopian fantasy, just like the UN, and totally unworkable in the real world. We used to understand this, but since the fall of the USSR, Americans have gotten exponentially dumber about reality and what it requires. As things stand now, our enemies’ only defense is our own self-restraint. That’s really smart …
Anytime someone mentions the Geneva Conventions to me, I laugh in their face and ask them to tell me the last war that followed such rules. We all know the answer to that. Everybody does. One thing is for sure, any nation that would follow the Geneva Conventions is guaranteed to lose, or, at best, to have the war drag on for so long and be so costly as to leave itself with nothing but a pyrrhic victory, that will soon be eclipsed by the next leg of the same war … until we do finally lose. You know how Bernoulli trials go. And that’s just downright stupid and not the purpose of our government (or any government’s obligations to its own people).
progressoverpeace on December 18, 2008 at 1:34 AM
Yeah Debbie…. sorry Micheal Scheuer and other thinking minds place America’s interests above Israel’s… that’s the way it goes when you are an American. Israel doesn’t mind making money selling arms and technology to our enemies but that doesn’t concern you does it? We only bankroll their little socialist state and trick a bunch of conservatives into supporting the worst elements of a religio/ethnic enclave.
It does matter how America handles its enemies. We are a great nation with traditions of fairness and civility. I don;t think we have to put these shits up in the Hilton but this is a fight for the minds of millions of people who we need to be on our side or at least against those same shits.
Bottom line… most experts know that torture doesn’t yield good intelligence. KSM’s interrogation just about proves that. If it worked I would think better of the practice.
lexhamfox on December 18, 2008 at 1:54 AM
No, the bogus reporting of what happened in Abu Ghrab was the problem. Instead of reporting what really happened, it was spun worldwide as state-sanctioned torture by the USA against poor, innocent Muslims, which it wasn’t. But don’t be naive. Even that was just an excuse for them. You didn’t see any reaction to it when Saddam was really torturing folks there, did you? Of course not, not in country or out.
Don’t kid yourself. Iraqis didn’t start killing each other and us because of Abu Ghrab. That’s just a scapegoat.If not AG, it would have been something else. Case in point:
And what happens when we do this? It gets spread throughout the Arab-Muslim world that America is killing innocent civilians at weddings, funerals, family gatherings, etc.
xblade on December 18, 2008 at 4:15 AM
Some people say that all conversations are merely defining terms. The corollary to this is that once all terms are defined, there should be no need for further dialogue. But, there will always be those who say, “I will never punch your face, because I believe it is wrong,” and those who say, “I will always punch you because punching you feels so good.” No amount of conversation or Conventions will make these two positions compatible.
Signatories of the Geneva Convention are simply agreeing, in principle, to do the right they within the context of the terrible situation of war.
As for the GC, there are governments that will comply, and terrorist groups that won’t. If, for example, a Pakistani officer in uniform is acting without orders when he blows up a hotel, he is acting as a terrorist. If he is acting under orders, it is an act of war.
As for torture, I agree that there is little functional difference between carpet-bombing Berlin, detonating a claymore, executing a spy, and torturing a terrorist during interrogation; it’s all deadly force to have your way — specifically winning your war. The differences are merely a matter of scale.
But more importantly, what Chris Matthews fudges, is that Bush never refused to follow the GC. It simply didn’t apply. We weren’t fighting soldiers with code of conduct, given orders by the recognized government of a civilized nation. We were fighting lawless, albeit organized, killers.
On this issue alone, I agree with Dershowitz.
flicker on December 18, 2008 at 4:22 AM
A couple more things: With all respect to veterans and to our present military, there very few Americans left who remember a real war, in which losing meant the loss of country and culture. When I talk to young people today, they seem to think that such a potential doesn’t exist and cannot exist. World War II is as real to them as a comic book or, more like, an XBox game which you can turn off in the comfort of your living room. To them, it seems, in their comparative wealth and ease, they have no more of a concept of subjugation that as a vague social term.
Secondly, it seems to me that torture is the least destructive form of the violence of war. You shoot a sniper and he can never go home. But the tortured can at least, eventually, return to his country and family.
flicker on December 18, 2008 at 4:56 AM
Smerconish has always struck me as utterly ignorant when it comes to radical islam and the war on terror.
He seems to believe that the only enemy in this war is the organisation knows as Al-Qaida, consisting of a group of fanatics in deep caves in the Afghan-Pakistan border area.
We’re fighting against an ideology, indeed a whole set of beliefs, here. An ideology supported by organisations and countries all over the world. Wake up, Smerc.
Clemetsson on December 18, 2008 at 5:14 AM
At times ignorance truly is bliss. I don’t need to know how we obtained information that protects American citizens and our fighting forces (God bless them all…even the Navy). If the bad guys are not American citizens, I’m not seeing a constitutional rights issue. Some of you seem to believe that everything the US does must come under public scrutiny. I just can’t go there. I love sausage. I don’t want to see how it’s made. Just gimme the damned Bob Evans and let me enjoy my breakfast “in peace”.
SKYFOX on December 18, 2008 at 5:23 AM
Chris Matthews and other liberals are the main reason we will be attacked again. They would block any efforts that are needed to gain intelligence from enemy combatants. Now that Obama is in the White House, those efforts will be eliminated, Chris Matthews will smile along with Olberdick, and when we are attacked again, they will happily blame George W. Bush.
Sign here to comment on Olberdick.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fire-keith-olbermann
afotia on December 18, 2008 at 5:50 AM
To me it seems stupid to tell our enemies we won’t torture them. We should have them believe that we’ll make them wish they were dead if they don’t talk. Whether or not we actually do it is another matter. We want them crapping their pants out of fear if they get captured. Maybe that means “setting a few examples”. Tough. If you don’t want to do the time, don’t do the crime. There must be a down-side to trying to kill our wonderful men and women in uniform!
mr.blacksheep on December 18, 2008 at 6:42 AM
I just love the panty waisted, limp wristed, sallow chested, pasty faced, mealy mouthed hand wringing poltroons that choose to debate the very tools of their children’s, loved ones’ and countrymen’s survival. We have a right, in fact an obligation, to take whatever measures necessary to combat this barbarity and depravity in order to ensure our survival.
Sure it’s not pretty. War against animals seldom is. What sort of moral calculus would sacrifice our children and loved one’s lives on the altar smug moral superiority?
Christopher points out that the British were civilized during WWII. Hogwash. The firebombing of little innocent babies in Dresden civilized? The carpet bombing of civilian centers civilized? We are adults and have the adult responsibility of protecting our society, nation and culture.
Torture for the purpose of survival or protecting the lives of loved ones is a moral imperative. It’s called self defense for God’s sake.
Your little girl is being held and tortured by a pedophile. Tell me, what wouldn’t you do to get her back? And if you answered ANYTHING you do not have the right to count yourself among civilized men.
Charles Martel on December 18, 2008 at 7:35 AM
Schmerconish lost all credibility during the campaign. How he could support Obama, whose friend Ayers has a FREE MUMBIA poster hanging in his office is a mystery to me.
ctmom on December 18, 2008 at 7:40 AM
Great post. Absof******lutely spot on.
Charles Martel on December 18, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Sorry, Mr. Joe. I did not mean to antagonize you. I just meant that if we were voting on this, I was canceling out your vote by voting the opposite.
Kevin M on December 18, 2008 at 7:44 AM
BTW, progressoverpeace, I would recommend changing your moniker to victoryoverpeace. No one who thinks like you should be in the throes of a world such as progress – it’s just so – soggy.
Charles Martel on December 18, 2008 at 7:45 AM
What Debbie Schlussel said.
I haven’t listened to Smerconish since he announced that he was endorsing Obama. He had been sounding more and more liberal throughout the year, then came the not-so-surprising announcement.
Just another RINO.
SynthSmith on December 18, 2008 at 7:50 AM
I don’t think torture is the answer except it they are not dead. We should just kill them with bullets and bombs. Thats the example I want to see set.
kanda on December 18, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Do it ALL! Whatever it takes to prevent another 9/11 or any attack against our wonderful Military or our strong allies. Torture is totaly on the table, they have ZERO rights, none. By any means nessesary we should defend America and screw what any other Nation thinks, period. America first. I never heard others come to our aid and condem when the bastards dragged our fine troops thru the streets, or beheaded them, or hung them from bridges. We are dealing with monsters that ONLY respect America when we are strong, that will ONLY fear us when we are united and as brutal as they… Kill them all, torture them all… All is fair in love and war, and they declared war on America, time to wake up and fight for a change instead of being a wussy Nation full of hand-slappers and do-gooders… Kick thier butts and take the gloves OFF of our Military. Torture, hell yes… Kill or be killed, untill America figures that out again as we did in WWII, we WILL be a risk of another 9/11 and worse. Once all our enemies understand that they will be tortured and die horrible deaths fighting against American, then we will be safe… When we grow a set again as we had in WWII, we will be free.
Mark Garnett on December 18, 2008 at 8:18 AM
+100
+100
+1000000000000
I’m so very glad to see so many REAL Americans that understand we must fight this horrible enemy with every ounce of agression we can muster, we need to unleash our Military, take off the blinders and kick some butt. We did not win WWII playing nice with Japan or Germany, we totaly destroyed them… We bombed cities, killed EVERYTHIGN that moved, fire bombed Dresdin and turned major civilian population centers into morgues. Until we have the gonads to do it 10x as harsh against rogues like Iran, N.Korea and others who would threaten America, we shall have no peace. We had peace weh nthe rest of the World feared us, not when they “liked” us…
Mark Garnett on December 18, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Just look at the way Hamas tortures and torments Gilad Shalit – this is what we are dealing with. Humanoids without soul.
Hilts on December 18, 2008 at 8:29 AM
You are an ass. Does America sell weapons to the PLO, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?
Hilts on December 18, 2008 at 8:32 AM
“Amurrricah”?
Reaps on December 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM
If clipping a jihadi’s tenders to a truck battery will save lives…
red is positive.
skydaddy on December 18, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Absolutely. There’s no question AG and how it was portrayed in the media hurt the war effort but for people to insist that the the actions of some undisciplined and unsupervised soldiers were somehow a reflection of official Army policy is ridiculous. Hitch also trots out the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is another joke. The UN is forbidden by it’s own Charter from enforcing the UDHR against rogue leaders who abuse their own people, as it would be interfering with a nations “sovereignty”. That’s like forbidding the police from arresting a wife beater because he’s only beating on his own family. But that’s the UN’s legal framework for such situations. Look at North Korea.
muggedbyreality on December 18, 2008 at 8:59 AM
The problem with the torture them all, let Allah sort them out is that you have already assigned guilt to people who may not be guilty. In this asynchronous War on Terror, its not always easy to know who is the terrorist and who is just some guy who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Some of the people we locked up we did so on the word of Pakistani Intelligence. I have no problem with waterboarding KSM, but one taxi driver dying while being tortured can do more damage than any terrorist attack.
BohicaTwentyTwo on December 18, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Smirconsish is a liberal piece of garbage. I live near Philadelphia and am a former listener to his morning radio show. He totally endorsed Obama since he said he was the only candidate who was willing to go after bin laden in Pakistan. TOTAL GARBAGE. I believe he has flipped to the other side so he can get on TV with Chris Matthews. I now listen to Bill Bennett in the Morning on 990 AM. I encourage everyone living near Philadelphia to drop this guy like the load of garbage he is.
Gotcha on December 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM
I want to start a boycott Smirconish petition/movement. Anybody with me?
We need to start by calling Hannity and telling him, he needs to pick his local affiliate better since Smirconish is costing him listeners. As people turn of Smirc in the morning, they might forget to turn it back to 1210 AM in ther afternoon and miss Sean. Medved is not that bad and I listen to both now on the ride home.
BOYCOTT SMIRCONISH… HE IS NOT A RINO HE IS A LIBO.
Gotcha on December 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Spot-on. Smerc is a lib looking for some center-right credibility, although I’m not certain that advocating actual torture (which waterboarding is not) is center-right. What is it, populism?
I am quite concerned about the use of torture, which is barbaric, as an intelligence tool. As a punishment tool, however, where we have tried and judged the accused, and found them guilty of their heinous terrorism, all bets are off. Burn them alive in the public square.
The problem with torture for intelligence purposes – as many on the left rightly have declared – is that you don’t know what they know, so torture in an attempt to get information that you’re not sure is there is cruel and unusual.
I know the logic isn’t perfect. And Smerc’s example of a surviving terrorist after the 9-11 attacks – sure, take their toes off one at a time, blow torch, whatever, I’m ok with that. 3,000 dead people deserve a surprisingly aggessive interrogation technique on their attackers.
Surprise Religious Component! These guys are going to hell, which is, in the classic view, an eternal rotisserie, so this is just prep school.
Jaibones on December 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM
One problem with Hitch is that he uses sarcasm to such a degree that individual statements are hard to pin down. He might be intending their opposite meaning.
This particular quote I can’t say; missed it. Certainly I don’t “celebrate” the worthless 9-11 Commission. It was staffed 100% with people that I distrust or despise, and anything that they got right, they got right by accident.
Jaibones on December 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
muggedbyreality–
While Ms. England and the other pathetic losers at Abu Ghraib were clearly off the reservation, they were instructed to tune up detainees, most who were Iraqi Sunnis rounded up who probably had nothing to do with the insurgency. Not only did they tune them up, but they photographed it too. Plus it was a stupid policy in the first place. Was it torture? Some of it was. Most of it was sexual humiliation–which is pretty bad too. After being marched around naked, humiliated by women (in a culture where that does not happen), and beaten, yeah, they were a lot more committed to the insurgency. It almost cost us that war. Why do you think Petraeus was absolutely opposed to any abuse of Iraqis and coercive interrogation? It does not work for counter insurgency, it is counter productive to winning.
Rummy gave the DOD a “take off the gloves” policy and unfortunately things quickly spiraled out of control. Even President Bush said what occurred at Abu Ghraib was one of the worse mistakes of the insurgency.
Mr. Joe on December 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM
+1
The smirking suits who sniff at those ‘tewwible oogedy boogedy Chwistians; make me laugh. They’ve NEVER known anything close to having a true bunch of fanatics running their nation. The types who don’t care a whit about life (unlike the so-called ‘religious right’) and would gladly tell them “convert or die” if they got half a chance.
Dark-Star on December 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Not when false information, procured out of physical torture, still has to be treated like gospel. It’s one thing to get a confession that KSM was a planner of the 9/11 attacks after the fact. But using torture to get information on an upcoming terrorist attack? How reliable can that information be?
While I don’t believe that the Geneva Conventions are to be applied to terrorists, in much the same way the Constitution doesn’t apply to them, since they don’t meet the requirements, torture out of revenge, or because we can, or to extract confessions, is wrong. Objectively wrong. We have succeeded to places like Iraq because we hold the moral high ground. I’m not going to give it up because busting my knuckles on some terrorist’s jaw would make me feel better for 10 seconds, and I wouldn’t do it in an attempt to get information I then can’t trust worth a lick.
I’ve spent more than two and a half out of the past six years in either Iraq or Afghanistan, as a soldier in the US Army. And the tools of America’s future and survival is not, nor will it ever be, to govern by fear, torture, bloodlust, or vengeance. I thought the people on this site were smart enough to know that.
Spc Steve on December 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Amusing that all the tough talk (you probably also grabbed your balls and spit a few times while writing it) comes from a person who finds it necessary to assume the tag of someone who lived 1200 years ago.
Weak.
Drum on December 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »