The Washington Post is reporting that the torture ofhigh-value captive, Abu Zubaida produced nothing but false leads — in direct contradiction of suggestions by former Vice President Dick Cheney and others who endorsed the torture program and use of waterboarding. Moreover, the report indicates that the Administration quickly learned that Zubaida was not the high-profile, highly placed Al Qaeda operative that they told the public. I discussed the latest developments on this segment of Countdown.
The greatest irony is that the only useful information came before the Bush Administration tortured the suspect. No plot was foiled as suggested by the torture and Zubaida was not as President George W. Bush had publicly described him, “al-Qaeda’s chief of operations.” It turns out that Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda,
The Bush torture program is a wonderful example of not just the time-proven junk that comes from torture, but also the value of legal process as a way to acquiring legitimate information in legitimate ways. Putting aside the obvious immorality of the program, the reports show how we tortured people for little more advantage than the visceral and political benefits of “getting tough on terrorism.” It turns out that we sold our collective soul pretty cheap in craeting this torture program. The question is now whether Obama will continue to buy into the same cover-up by continuing to block a special counsel.
For the full story, click here.
Jill, “You are willing to support these industries with your tax dollars but you are not willing to support the health care industry”
To sort of piggyback on this particular statement we do support this industry via Medicaid and Medicare and NIH as well as inflated prices for all health care to treat the uninsured that show up at a hospital’s emergency room. We also have two medical industries in this country: the private monopoly driven by the Insurance companies and the public one subsidized by taxpayers for those that qualify for those programs. Everybody else just does without.
We also pay for a lack of health care in a myriad of ways through Social Security and other Federal and State programs that tend to people that can’t work due to conditions that could have been taken care of with early and appropriate health prevention and care.
Drug resistant TB is poised to become a problem for this country. TB is a growing problem. TB is to America’s poor what cholera is to a third world country. A good public health industry could nip it in the bud. Don’t hold your breath.
We don’t need to set up another industry, just ramp up Medicaid which is probably the best run most cost effective gov. program around, and decrease the monopolization of the medical industry by insurance companies and big pharmacy.
Bron,
Each one of the things mentioned above is also an industry. You are making a choice. You are willing to support these industries with your tax dollars but you are not willing to support the health care industry. Rational people can and do make the same rational choice about healthcare as is made concerning all the other industries mentioned above.
We do not now live, nor have we ever lived in a free market economy. As Dean Baker put it, if the bankers were good capitalits they would be demanding their own dissolution. Egypt was a centralized economy that last a rather long time. Check into Germany’s health care system if you haven’t already. It might not seem so bad to you.
Jill:
I pay taxes for all of those things so no I dont mind using them. I agree that some things need to be paid for by tax money such as the protective forces you illustrate above. The interstate highway system was developed as part of our national defense and thus should be funded with tax payer dollars. A person who is rational would want to allocate tax money to those services even if taxation were voluntary.
I believe that medicine is an industry like Ford or GE, its practioners are individuals (doctors) that have their own businesses in most cases. Should the government be able to control an entire industry? I think we call that Facism.
I think government controlled medicine is a very bad idea and I have not seen one good argument for it. My favorite example for free market healthcare is laser eye surgery, insurance companies dont pay for it and the price is reasonable and the technology gets better and better because doctors are trying to make more money by increasing the number of patients they can treat in a given time and by reducing complications and call backs. If insurance companies paid for it the cost would be $10,000 per eye, if government paid for the procedure it would be $20,000 per eye and you would not be able to get an appointment for 6 months.
Free markets efficiently allocate resources, it has worked in every civilization in every time period when tried. Centralized control of resources has failed in every civilization in every time period when tried. What makes you think that centralized control of healthcare will be any different?
Bron,
I was wondering if you object to our socialized highway system. Do you refuse, on priciple, to drive on any road that is not a private company toll road? If you have an accident on the road will you accept EMT help? Do you object to our socialized police force? Will you allow them to assist you in a crime or do you pay for a private security force and wait for them to assist you? Do you accept help from our socialized fire depts? If you accept these types of services as social goods why do you object to health care being another type of social good that we band together to provide each other.
Right now it is private insureres who determine what doctor you will see and what proceedures you will be allowed (unless you are independently wealthy and extremely healthy). Why is it better to have 200 different plans telling people which doctor they may see and what coverage they will have? Other countries with national health care do not restrict your doctor choice. We do. HMO’s tell you what doctor to see, or if you may even see a specialist at all. Without insurance you can have any choice you want, if you can pay for it. If you can’t choice has no meaning.
MikeA:
“Further, it is my belief that all of the arguments about “socialized” medicine get us nowhere because the word “socialism” is used by opponents of universal health coverage as synonymous with communism and totalitarianism in an effort to confuse theories of social justice with theories of governmental structure, as though universal health coverage were a dramatic step in the march toward the creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
First of all I agree with your assertion that our health care system is in need of repair. I further believe as you do that insurance companies are part of the problem, when someone else is paying the bill there are no personal fiscal controls (Personaly I think insurance should be for catastrophic illness).
There are other problems to caused by government regulations of insurance providers and insurance company policies, so it is a multidimensional/variable problem.
Socialism/Communism/Totalitarianism are all stripes of the same tiger, different shades maybe. When a man is forced to pay for something he does not want or for someone he cares not one wit for he is denied basic justice, namely his rights as an individual are usurped by the state.
The individual is the most basic minority that is protected by the constitution. Where is the justice in using the full force of the government to implement “social justice”?
Why should doctors be forced to practice medicine? Why should patients be forced to chose a particular doctor? Why does a group of government employes get to decide the level of care that someone will get? There is certainly no justice in any of that.
Gyges,
I was too enamored with my own words to realize their logical fallacy. Sort of like SC&A, don’t you think?
Mike,
To be fair, every ball hit by someone not in the ball park has been hit out of the park.
I have always felt that the most dangerous people are those who are really ignorant and don’t know it. This (these?)turkeys qualify, but dangerous is not quite the adjective, unless its is to themselves (self?). What is amazing is the smug blitheness that he thinks he is making cogent argument, when it has been totally ripped to shreds. He says he is British, could he be some lordling, with an unbound sense of entitlement, not justified by the reality of his lack of debate credentials? He is not even in the ballpark of logic, yet he thinks he hit the ball out of the park. Ah to be that blind to my own frailties, why I coulda had my own blog!
SC&A,
I understand the meaning of what you said. My point was that what you said was entirely without context, and on top of that completely irrelevant to the conversation.
Thought experiments do not create a new reality.
Gyges:
” I’m still trying to figure out what where SC&A got that 30% figure justifying torture, and what that has to do with anything.
If I could read people’s mind 30% of the time, I could save countless lives.”
*******************
Well of course he just made it up. Imagination is a wonderful thing.
BTW If you could hit 30 baseballs out of hundred safely in the majors, you’d be in the Hall of Fame. And you’d be just as relevant as SC&A is on this topic. But alas, if “if” and “buts” were candy and nuts…
Gyges-
The 30% number was not definitive. I used that only to make a point- that if only 30% of the time torture proved effective, then it was worth it, especially in the case of the ‘ticking bombs’.
Mespo-
It is quite fascinating to watch you continue to engage in the same dysfunctional behavior, over and over. You have yet to engage and address the many points I have raised, preferring instead to engage in ad hominums- wryly noted inasmuch as you a point of declaring you would no longer engage me (that was a good idea. Clearly and by ant measure, engaging me me in debate is something you have studiously avoided.
Finally, it is laughable if indeed you cannot see the open links between Hamas and the Nazis. Hamas has made no attempt to hide their bigotry and racism. ‘Abu Hitler’ is a nom de guerre adopted by many Hamas types and the promises to ‘Finish what Hitler started’ is a regular refrain, as in the lovely kindergarten ditty, ‘Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!’. I could go on and provide examples of other examples (did you know that next to the Quran, Mein Kampf is the best selling book in Arabic?) of Arab world affinity towards Nazism.
Of course, if you do wish to have a civilized exchange, I will be happy to reiterate the issues I have raised in a list format and we can go from there.
As for your ‘strategy’, thanks for the chuckle. I really thought you were devoid of a sense of humor. Referring to your behavior as ‘classic’ is an absolute truth- though probably not in the way you intended.
As I noted, my tone will always reflect your own.
Mespo,
I’m still trying to figure out what where SC&A got that 30% figure justifying torture, and what that has to do with anything.
If I could read people’s mind 30% of the time, I could save countless lives.
In re-reading Mike S’s sage comments and the preceding drivel by our three lettered friend, I cam across this doozy by SC&A:
“Finally, why are you deliberately misrepresenting my remarks on institutionalized racism and bigotry? Do you not see that kind of [leftist] institutionalized hate in the Arab world? Are you oblivious to it?”
Having noted it in awe when I first read it, I forgot about it when a more inane comment followed it. Certainly, we must all admit that the Mideaster mullahs are prototypical left-of-center progressives with an overriding hate for things ancient, delusional, and totalitarian–and how they love women’s rights, I find.
SG&A:
“You continue to delude yourself and you continue the childish ‘pivot and attack’ arguments rather than address the realities I posed.”
***************
Well, I do like classic encounters, and I am not so sure how childish my strategy has been in dealing with you. That’s for the readers here to decide. By the way, I wouldn’t dismiss “pivot and attack,” so casually. That scenario seemed to work pretty well for Alexander at Arabela.
SC&A,
Besides a spelling problem,”ad hominum” which you have used at least twice, you’ve got a reading comprehension problem. This is shown by your conflation of Mespo’s, Rafflaw’s and my comments and treating them as if they came from one person. Mespo did not talk about Pajama’s media, but did make the rather elegant quote. My attack on you, to reiterate for a third time was made based on the paucity of rhetorical logic in your arguments, tinged with an overlay of macho geopolitics.
“You continue to delude yourself and you continue the childish ‘pivot and attack’ arguments rather than address the realities I posed.”
You are also guilty of projection, since your arguments are of the “pivot and attack” variety. To wit: In your first comment you went from a statement that torture was good if only 30% effective, to comments regarding Hamas and then Nazi Germany coming to power through elections. No logical nexus existed between the two, except perhaps in your mind, which we can’t read.
Your specific “pivot and attack” came when in reply to Mespo’s proving that the US didn’t have standing to bomb Berlin in 1939, to which you agreed by signifying “right” but then went on to state the rhetorical question would Britain have been right to Bomb Berlin? Duh! They were at war with the Germans and of course would have had that right and I know of no one, save for Nazi sympathizers, who would think otherwise. From there you state:
“I suppose your remarks explain the rationale for not intervening in Rwanda, Darfur, Sierra Leonne, Congo and so on and I suppose the institutionalized racism, bigotry and hate of groups like Hamas and Hizbollah are no reason for concern either.”
You have no basis to make your “suppositions” based on anything written thus far on this particular thread and in fact there is nothing that Mespo, Rafflaw or myself have written anywhere on this site that would give credence to your supposition.
The fact is that it comes from your Neocon meme regarding “Leftists” and your repetition of that meme without any evidence of those beliefs, does not speak well for your own intellectual honesty, or more importantly self-awareness of your own prejudices.
Finally, when you talk about terrorism and assume that I am blind to it, that is not based on anything that I have written on this site and so is a “supposition” based on a meme, as seems to be your wont. I have clearly written that I am a Jew and a supporter of Israel. I’m have also extensively written numerous comments on my disgust with Islamic Fundamentalism, in fact all fundamentalism of any religion. However, in your narrow minded ignorance you make a supposition about me that is not backed up by anything other than your incorrect pre-judgment of the Left, based on mythology rather than reality. However, the most annoying false premise that you operate on is that because I am against torture, I can’t be against terrorism. Wrong and stupid on your part. I am against torture because it is immoral and because it doesn’t work.
Lastly, I’ve read your Dershowitz links and in the first he uses qualifiers regarding the use of torture and offers no rebuttal to the arguments put forth by Ken Roth except to say that they are naive. In fact his main point is that if you are going to torture that it should be approved by the highest levels of the Executive and Judiciary and be done openly, with responsibility taken by those levels. He offers no justification of the effectiveness of torture. The second Dershowitz quote is merely a summary of the first without sufficient detail.
Secondly, your Bill Clinton quote from 1998 is also a misreading of what is being said and a misunderstanding of the politics involved. The Air Strike was to force the Iraqi’s to let inspections resume, which they did. When Bush chose to invade Iraq there were inspector’s on the ground and they were pretty certain that WMD’s didn’t exist. So again we see that even in your quotes your lack of reading comprehension, fueled by pre-judgment, keeps you from getting your facts straight.
Your are being vilified for those reasons and not because you represent a Right-of-Center viewpoint. You are incapable of logical thinking and your reading comprehension is stunted by pre-suppositions that let you believe you have found supporting material. God bless you though because despite that handicap you have an ongoing blog for now. This proves that even the logically challenged can get somewhere in this world, even if it is on a second rate, attempted web conglomerate, known for the conspicuous lack of talent of its contributors.
Bron, I agree with you to the extent that there is no “right” to health care under the Constitution. It is only conferred by statute. You and I disagree in that I have long believed that basic health care ought to be accorded the status of a legal right in this country. Further, it is my belief that all of the arguments about “socialized” medicine get us nowhere because the word “socialism” is used by opponents of universal health coverage as synonymous with communism and totalitarianism in an effort to confuse theories of social justice with theories of governmental structure, as though universal health coverage were a dramatic step in the march toward the creation of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, various forms of “socialized” medicine already exist in this country, the Veterans Health Administration being a prime example. Finally, I disagree with your assertion that health care is already available to everyone. What has happened is that emergency rooms have become involuntary primary care centers, a highly inefficient and expensive allocation of health resources. The insurance market has not dealt with the problem because profit based institutions are not going to assume the risks associated with those most in need of health care.
Mike A.,
That was very well put. Thanks for articulating the issues so deeply.
SC&A, the phrase is “ad hominem.” My point was that the perceived utility of a course of action is not in itself sufficient to justify it. For example, the execution of convicted shoplifters would obviously eliminate recidivism with respect to that crime. The elimination of recidivism is a desirable goal. However, I doubt that even you would conclude from that that the execution of convicted shoplifters would be sound public policy. With regard to the issue of torture, I am rather confident from what I have read on the subject that it is not an effective tool for securing accurate information, although I have no doubt that most of us (me included) would likely confess to the most terrible crimes in the face of unendurable pain. The law in this country recognizes that and confessions procured through duress are not admissible evidence of guilt in the courts. But even were torture an effective tool for the gathering of accurate information, one would still need to grapple with the its moral propriety. From your comments I concluded that you disagree. The fact that many people are prepared to endorse torture in the interests of national security is a function of fear, which also explains why many people are prepared to surrender constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Utilizing the most extreme conceivable example to support your argument (e.g., what if someone refuses to reveal the location of a nuclear device set to explode in 24 hours?) plays to the same fear without addressing fundamental moral issues. This type of argument is frequently used by proponents of the death penalty (e.g., would you still be against the death penalty if your spouse had been raped and murdered?). Fear invites poor judgment. Fear based politics invites poor policy. Torture violates the most fundamental principles of a nation committed to individual freedom and human dignity. The torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo has contributed no more to the security of this country than did the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. Our fears have reached such an absurd level that countries (including yours) are now racing to criminalize the criticism of religious beliefs. I, for one, do not intend to live my life in fear, regardless of the constant rantings of demagogues, and will not endorse immoral policies in the interests of perceived safety.
“Having systematically dismantled your arguments to this point, I will just not waste the time knocking your last peg from its rather loose mooring.”
You continue to delude yourself and you continue the childish ‘pivot and attack’ arguments rather than address the realities I posed. That you engage in ad hominums is, as another psych blogger associate who has read your responses noted, is entirely predictable.
You believe that as a leftist, you are a better person and therefore, whatever you believe is the only thing that matters or is correct. As someone more conservative, I believe I have a better idea and I’m willing to exchange ideas in the marketplace of free thoughts and ideas.
To be clear- I take you to task and not classical liberals or liberal ideology. Those ideologues are open to exchange and present ideas that do not denigrate others or seek to subjugate dissident voices. To be fair, you are not alone. There are those on the right who do as you do and espouse the same kind of parochial thinking as you. I hold them in the same contempt as I hold you.
You do not want to engage in an exchange, really (if you did, you would not have resorted the personal attacks from the onset). You believe you do not have to explain yourself or answer to anyone- because after all, you are a better person and everyone else be damned.
In virtually every instance, you attacked me when you could not attack my arguments (the Dershowitz references on torture, for example or President Clinton’s remarks on Iraq, or Arab world bigotry and racism). You seem to believe that the business model of PJM is relevant to this discussion- a notion that is not absurd, but simply stupid. They NYT is in trouble, as is a host of other media outlets and Fox News beats CNN in the ratings. Does that mean that CNN, the NYT and their reporters as well as other less than dominant media outlets are irrelevant?
Bron, Thank you for your remarks. I wrote too hastily re the bombing of Berlin. In my defense (poor, I concede) I am a Brit. When I spoke of ‘we’ I was thinking of the Chamberlain debacle. I should have been more clear and for that I apologize.
That said, my overriding point is no small question. After up to 50 million deaths, how long ought we be bound to legalisms? At what point does morality come into play? In the case of Darfur for example, we hear of 200,000 to 300,000 deaths. That is misleading at best- the racially charged civil war has been going on for 2 decades with a human toll of between 2-3 million.
We cannot talk speak of human rights if we are not willing to commit to higher ideals- and that means action. In the case of Darfur, there is nothing 50 helicopter gunships can’t cure. The janjaweed are butchers and rapists gone wild, to the cheers and applause of the regime in Khartoum.
The fact is that Darfur is allowed to go on because we refuse to deal with the enablers- The African Union, the Arab League and other tin pot dictators, for starters. It always amuses me when people get worked up over Gaza as the frenzied slaughter in Africa goes on ignored and unanswered.
Lastly, before I answer your question on bigotry on the right, I’d like to ask you to be more explicit. How are you defining bigotry?
I ask because I do believe that there are an equal number of fools on the left as there are on the right. I fear examples of stupidity are equally dispersed, usually by the periphery players. I do believe that the vast majority of Americans on both side are far more centrist than the extremists would have you believe- which is bad news for those extremists. They would lose their bully pulpit and standing if they ever admitted that!
“Simply making an assertion or ad hominum does not make your arguments relevant.”
SC&A,
Were some of my points ad hominem? Yes they were and intentionally so. I reserve that method for when I’m dealing with a comment that is so ill thought out on its’ face and yet pernicious in its’ intent. I don’t normally like to make fun of people who attack with faulty logic, unless at heart they are doing it in service of a bloated Neocon ego. Followed your link first, saw who you were and who you were connected with and decided that beyond your stupid assertions, you weren’t worth responding to except with ridicule.
Yet within my original comment there were two refutations of
YOUR assertions that you failed to respond to in the comment
referenced above. Your criticize me for making assertions and yet from your first comment all you have done is make silly assertions and strung them together with other assertions that do not follow from the original. Mespo and Rafflaw have basically demolished all your arguments and the only expert you can muster is Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, while a renowned legal authority does not have intelligence experience and of late has rather gone off the rails with some of his ideas.
Your gratuitously throwing in genocides, Rwanda, the USSR et. al. must have seemed impressive to you, lacking coherent logic, but were unrelated assertions on their face. The bombing the Germans in 1939 was not only a stupid assertion,
but was proven so by Mespo and Rafflaw and a far way off point since this thread is discussing torture. However, it is
an obvious argumentative trick, not one that bespeaks intelligence mind you, that is used as a way to string together unrelated points by Neocons in convincing their
following that something of importance is being said. That was the same tactic in conflating Blacks and Jews, two groups that incidentally know much about survival from torture and yet overwhelmingly vote similarly. Coincidence? No. Intelligence? Yes.
Let’s get down to cases though. Your blog is posted with a failing blog conglomerate and is looking for business and so you take your ill thought out comments on the road hoping to snare someone who likes your Limbaugh-like logic. You use the “everything but the kitchen sink” rhetorical form so loved by Neocons and get the further (in your silly mind)pleasure of “stirring up them Libruls.” You came to the wrong place because this site, unlike yours has quite a few people who really can think and believe it or not represent a wide spectrum of political thought. If you want to get some respect for your drivel, stop driveling and make some coherent, logical points and then perhaps we might even find grounds for interesting discussion..