American Politics: the Lost Generation

[Lord Mord]

Nadie,

Anybody watch Marc Thiessen's interview on The Daily Show?

Its a three parter. Pretty interesting stuff. Also one of the most intense interviews I've seen with Jon Stewart in a long time. Much more so than the Jim Cramer thing.

The guy actually complained for more time, which Stewart gave. I think it was an interesting discussion, but that Stewart came out ahead (slightly) but did manage to refrain from using his "home team" advantage much.

I disagree, especially on the second half of your last sentence, after the comma.

This was actually disappointing for me in Stewart. There were some times when he allowed Thiessen to speak, but most of the time he kept pressing his own desire to speak, and oft-times deliberately riding right on top of what his guest was saying. Also, I appreciate when he takes a definite stance morally and gets icily accurate in his phrasing when he allows his anger to show ... but he slipped a little in this, I think, when he said, "It must be a very nice place to live," referring to the "selective" world with the creation of which he credited the man. I mean, yes, these things happen, and these threads get plenty snarky, but it was disappointing in a man I've come to admire for grace in the main. He invalidated the guy's whole worldview with a glib cheap shot because he was frustrated, and on his own show. It's one thing if he doesn't already have all the advantages, like if he were a guest, but he basically brought the guy on and proceeded not to get a position and a broader complexity, but simply set out to humiliate the guy.

Even in getting past my disappointment -- I mean, come on, what did I think the guy was infallibly nice? no, I guess I didn't -- but even so, this interview was not exemplary work on Stewart's part.

I do think the reasoning behind Thiessen's argument that we train our forces to withstand waterboarding as a reason to use it is total bullshit though.

I would agree with this. Rationalization in general, not great stuff -- but in the wake of torture, it's pretty much abominable.

[Shryke]

I don't give a shit if Jon Stewart was "slightly hard" on Marc Thiessen.

That he didn't just reach over the desk and beat the man to a pulp with a tire iron while Colbert held him down is a testament to his patience.

People like that guy aren't worth shit.

[alguien]

This was actually disappointing for me in Stewart. There were some times when he allowed Thiessen to speak, but most of the time he kept pressing his own desire to speak, and oft-times deliberately riding right on top of what his guest was saying. Also, I appreciate when he takes a definite stance morally and gets icily accurate in his phrasing when he allows his anger to show ... but he slipped a little in this, I think, when he said, "It must be a very nice place to live," referring to the "selective" world with the creation of which he credited the man. I mean, yes, these things happen, and these threads get plenty snarky, but it was disappointing in a man I've come to admire for grace in the main. He invalidated the guy's whole worldview with a glib cheap shot because he was frustrated, and on his own show. It's one thing if he doesn't already have all the advantages, like if he were a guest, but he basically brought the guy on and proceeded not to get a position and a broader complexity, but simply set out to humiliate the guy.

Even in getting past my disappointment -- I mean, come on, what did I think the guy was infallibly nice? no, I guess I didn't -- but even so, this interview was not exemplary work on Stewart's part.

In the televised portion of the interview, which was a 11 minutes, I think he spoke for 5. Did you watch the extended interview? I think the guest definitely got more speaking time there. And I think Jon did try to get into the complexity of his point, several times and made a specific point in saying he disagreed with the author's simple one-for-one worldview.

The thing is... The Daily Show is a comedy show. While I give Stewart credit for doing this interview, I think there was only one other person (Amanpour on CNN) who did anything nearly as intense. It makes me disappointed in our national media. Actually, I do think Thiessen brought up valid points, as did Stewart, but I think he attempted to talk over Jon as much as Jon did over him.

What I liked was when Stewart pulled back and acknowledged this, and attempted to pull the emotion out of the situation. Honestly, I think he (Stewart) could have been a lot more brutal, since this is a comedy show and he has no vested interest or promise in being fair, yet not only did he make the effort to do so, but he offered the guy a whole extra half hour.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In the televised portion of the interview, which was a 11 minutes, I think he spoke for 5. Did you watch the extended interview? I think the guest definitely got more speaking time there. And I think Jon did try to get into the complexity of his point, several times and made a specific point in saying he disagreed with the author's simple one-for-one worldview.

The thing is... The Daily Show is a comedy show. While I give Stewart credit for doing this interview, I think there was only one other person (Amanpour on CNN) who did anything nearly as intense. It makes me disappointed in our national media. Actually, I do think Thiessen brought up valid points, as did Stewart, but I think he attempted to talk over Jon as much as Jon did over him.

What I liked was when Stewart pulled back and acknowledged this, and attempted to pull the emotion out of the situation. Honestly, I think he (Stewart) could have been a lot more brutal, since this is a comedy show and he has no vested interest or promise in being fair, yet not only did he make the effort to do so, but he offered the guy a whole extra half hour.

Didn't see the interview, but I do want to focus on the argument apparently made by the guest that "it's not torture if we do it to our own people." Flipping that around a bit, if waterboarding is torture, then isn't it illegal to use it even for training our own troops? I've read the law myself, and the prohibition doesn't contain any exceptions. So shouldn't all the SERE trainers, etc., be prosecuted for torture if we support prosecuting anyone else?

On a side note, one problem that I have with this whole discussion on a moral (not legal) level is the labelling issue. Whether we define waterboarding as "torture" should be irrelevant to the moral issue of whether it is ever acceptable to waterboard someone.

[alguien]

Didn't see the interview, but I do want to focus on the argument apparently made by the guest that "it's not torture if we do it to our own people." Flipping that around a bit, if waterboarding is torture, then isn't it illegal to use it even for training our own troops? I've read the law myself, and the prohibition doesn't contain any exceptions. So shouldn't all the SERE trainers, etc., be prosecuted for torture if we support prosecuting anyone else?

If you check the link I provided in my initial post about the interview, I think there are concrete physical differences between what we train people for and what we do to suspects. So say nothing of the psychological differences, which to me are vastly more important. Its one thing to learn resistance training. Its voluntary, you know its going to end, you know you're being taught something. Its something completely different to actually have this done to you with no end in sight.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If you check the link I provided in my initial post about the interview, I think there are concrete physical differences between what we train people for and what we do to suspects.

Good point. If the technique used is significantly different, the argument evaporates.

So say nothing of the psychological differences, which to me are vastly more important. Its one thing to learn resistance training. Its voluntary, you know its going to end, you know you're being taught something. Its something completely different to actually have this done to you with no end in sight.

That, I'm not so sure about in terms of a legal distinction. I mean, the prisoner also may know that he's not actually going to drown, and that its just a technique to coerce, just like in SERE training where they try to get people to break.

I personally don't have a problem with waterboarding in limited circumstances, but I do have a problem with someone making a bad argument in support of it.

[alguien]

That, I'm not so sure about in terms of a legal distinction. I mean, the prisoner also may know that he's not actually going to drown, and that its just a technique to coerce, just like in SERE training where they try to get people to break.

I personally don't have a problem with waterboarding in limited circumstances, but I do have a problem with someone making a bad argument in support of it.

One of the best parts of the interview, for me, was where Stewart pointed out that the differences between his and Thiessen's arguments weren't that great. They both had the same goals, its just that how far their philosophies allowed them to go was different. But the bridge between that gap is fraught with emotion, as Stewart pointed out.

I think that's an important point to make. People against water-boarding aren't in favor of "coddling" terrorists or letting American soldiers die, nor do people who agree with waterboarding love torturing the hell out of Arabic prisoners.

According to Thiessen, they were able to stop several plots and save lives because of information they got using water-boarding. However, as Stewart points out, we don't know if they could have gotten that info without having to resort to this tactic. We also know that we've gotten false testimony (some of which led to a war in Iraq) as a result of the technique.

[TerraPrime]

We also know that we've gotten false testimony (some of which led to a war in Iraq) as a result of the technique.

Say that again?

Part of the intel that convinced the Bush administration to launch the pre-emptive war in Iraq was obtained by waterboarding?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree completely. I was trained in the Law of War, taught how to treat prisoners, explored the history and evolution of the treatment of prisoners, etc. And I would never, under any circumstances, support any of that stuff with respect to an opponent who themselves followed the Law of War, including in particular measures intended to protect civilians. I personally intervened once when I saw someone getting a little bit too physical with some prisoners. When a soldier surrenders, he should be treated properly.

War is a very horrible way to decide disputes, so if we can minimize the cruelty and harm to innocents, that's a very good thing. Presumably, neither side gains a benefit if they exercise equal cruelty towards prisoners and civilians, so why not ban such things because both sides will remain on an equal footing anyway?

For me, it all boils down to an opponent who doesn't themselves follow that law, both regarding the treatment of our own prisoners but in particular with respect to measures that relate to civilian casualties. At that point, the moral choice between a few minutes or hours of unpleasantness for that scumbag versus the chance to save an innocent civilian life isn't even a remotely close question. And I'm actually thinking less of the prisoner back in Gitmo then the guy grabbed during the course of a firefight in the field who may have very time-sensitive information. Slapping that guy around to get information that saves lives wouldn't bother me in the least.

That's largely sophistry because waterboarding is never the first thing they did. They tried other things first that didn't work. Now, you could always argue "well, maybe if you would have waited longer they would have talked", but then, maybe they wouldn't have. It's simply rolling the dice with the lives of people who did nothing wrong. And at that point, I'm not inclined to give the civilian-killing scumbag the benefit of the doubt when the lives of innocents are at risk.

Of course, that could happen just as easily with the guy who gives you information without being waterboarded, as in Stewart's argument above, so its not an argument against waterboarding per se. It's an argument for never acting on any intelligence, regardless of the source, which doesn't make sense to me.

In any case, some information is bogus and some isn't. Sometimes, intelligence is self-verifying or can easily be verified by other sources once you've gotten the lead. I'd certainly hesitate taking any irreversible significant action based solely on information obtained from a single prisoner, waterboarded or not, but that's no reason not to try to get the intel in the first place.

Personally, I can't understand the moral argument in the other direction, but I do recognize that a lot of people have that point of view.

[alguien]

Say that again?

Part of the intel that convinced the Bush administration to launch the pre-emptive war in Iraq was obtained by waterboarding?

IIRC, from what Jon Stewart said on the TDS on Wednesday, yes.

[alguien]

FLoW,

I think its hard to say what should have been done in any event, and Stewart was pointing out to Thiessen that while the technique may have worked in that case, there may be even better more effective, and certainly less press-negative techniques to obtain this information.

As to the efficacy of straight interrogation vs. water-boarding, etc. I found this link to be very interesting.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLoW,

I think its hard to say what should have been done in any event, and Stewart was pointing out to Thiessen that while the technique may have worked in that case, there may be even better more effective, and certainly less press-negative techniques to obtain this information.

About the press-neagtive stuff, I agree. That's why the point about people wanting it to remain covert that you (I think) made was so insightful. The question is whether there was time to try every other conceiveable technique first. Clearly, they did try a lot of toher things before trying waterboarding.

As to the efficacy of straight interrogation vs. water-boarding, etc. I found this link to be very interesting.

Again, maybe that guy was so good nothing else was needed. But every clearly, we didn't have that guy or it would never have gotten to waterboarding.

Here's a Bybee memo I hadn't seen before which is pretty interesting as it goes throught the safeguards that has to be used, as well as documenting the other efforts that were attempted but failed. Forgetting the legal conclusions, the other facts in there are interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/042809_memo1.pdf

Anyway, in the case of Zubaydah, EIT weren't authorized until August, and he was captured in March. So its not like waterboarding was the first resort.

[Paladin of Ice]

Dems deciding to kick Stupak and company to the curb?

House leaders have concluded they cannot change a divisive abortion provision in President Barack Obama's health care bill and will try to pass the sweeping legislation without the support of ardent anti-abortion Democrats.

A break on abortion would remove a major obstacle for Democratic leaders in the final throes of a yearlong effort to change health care in America. But it sets up a risky strategy of trying to round up enough Democrats to overcome, not appease, a small but possibly decisive group of Democratic lawmakers in the House.

Democratic leaders are working to rally rank-and-file members around last-minute agreements on several sticking points, health insurance taxes and prescription drug coverage among them, and dozens of other complicated issues — all as Republicans stand ready to oppose the overhaul en masse.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said the leadership will press ahead without reworking the abortion provision, which opponents say falls short in restricting taxpayer dollars for abortion coverage. He predicted some of the anti-abortion lawmakers in the party will end up voting for the overhaul anyway.

...

The current plan is for the House to approve the Senate-passed bill from late last year, despite serious objections to numerous provisions. Both houses then would pass a second bill immediately, making changes in the first measure before both could take effect. The second bill would be debated under rules that bar a filibuster, meaning it could clear by majority vote in the Senate without Democrats needing the 60-vote supermajority now beyond their reach.

That strategy would leave in place the Senate language on abortion. It would allow health plans receiving federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace to cover abortion, provided they pay for it only with money collected from policyholders. The House bill would have prohibited health plans receiving subsidies from covering abortions.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., has been pushing for the stricter House provisions, saying that he and a dozen or so abortion opponents would vote against the health care bill if the Senate language is retained. But the leadership appears to be moving to call his bluff.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Interesting article on Indiana, FLoW.

Nursing schools explicitly try to calibrate supply to meet demand. Until recently there was a nursing shortage that was predicted to grow steadily worse due to the increasing age of baby boomers (more people needing care and more nurses retiring) so production was ramped up by over 100% to compensate. Of course, thanks to the recession, many of the nurses predicted to retire aren't, and now many of the former part-timers are going to full time. So the shortage is gone and I predict schools will start ramping down. The nursing pipeline is 2-3 years long though so it will take a while. In the mean time a lot of new grads will be jobless; which is the main difference from docs, nurses don't do independent practice, so if you graduate to many of them it simply means they won't find jobs.

[Shryke]

Thought this was interesting:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/by-the-numbers/625

* 625 – That’s the number of people who lost their health insurance EVERY HOUR in 2009

[Shryke]

Some more quick snippets on Health Care:

1) http://rawstory.com/2010/03/health-bill-boost-budget-office/

In a boost to President Barack Obama's flagship reform drive, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a Senate health care bill would cut the deficit by 118 billion dollars.

2) http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

Basically, the House can't force the Senate to do Reconcilliation and THEN pass the original bill. So the House must pass the Senate bill and then trust that the Senate doesn't pussy out.

3) Speaking of Pussies, Apparently Harry Reid may have balls. (Though it could still be a mirage)

http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=323016&

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explaining the path forward on health insurance reform. In the letter, Senator Reid details the steps that Senate Democrats have taken to secure bipartisan support for health reform despite the lack of cooperation from Senate Republicans. Reid said he will seek an democratic, up-or-down simple majority vote to revise the health reform bill already passed by a supermajority of 60 Senators last December. Reid also reiterated the commitment of Senate Democrats to deliver meaningful health reform that will ensure access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

[Mad Monkey]

and then trust that the Senate doesn't pussy out.

Are you implying by that comment that women can't pass meaningful health care reform bills? Do I have to remind you that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House who passed the health care bill first and that it was the male-dominated, testicular-centric Senate who dropped the ball and let it drag it on so long? I think we would all be better off if the Senate did (as you put it) "pussy out". :thumbsup:

[sologdin]

then isn't it illegal to use it even for training our own troops?

FLOW--

check out the definition in the torture convention, which, IIRC, has been made executory by statute in the united states:

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

essential elements underscored.

training is apparently excluded by omission in the mens rea disjunctive.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Senate ratified that treaty with specific reservations because it didn't accept the U.N. Definitions, so the definitions in the convention aren't law in the U.S.

[Starkimus]

Nadie:

think that's an important point to make. People against water-boarding aren't in favor of "coddling" terrorists or letting American soldiers die, nor do people who agree with waterboarding love torturing the hell out of Arabic prisoners.

End Quote

You know...I think I tried to make this very same point many many months ago when the waterboarding thing was a HOT BUTTON. So, the world must be tipping over since me and Nadie actually agree on something.

Since tomorrow is my Birthday, I am going to take this as a sign of great things to come! I don't know why....

Anyway, it was nice to see some rational discussion from both sides for a change. Carry on!

Hasta!

Stark Out!