Drum on Bernstein and Isikoff on the Bushies on Torture
Kevin Drum, in Lying About Torture, Part 2:
A few days ago, Jonathan Bernstein pointed out that former Bush/Rumsfeld speechwriter Marc Thiessen was continuing to claim that the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed in 2003 helped foil a terrorist plot to crash an airplane into a Los Angeles skyscraper. This was obviously a lie. Why? Because the cell leaders of the LA plot were arrested a year before KSM was captured.
Apparently this kind of crude, low-rent deception isn’t limited to Thiessen. It turns out that the same sort of clumsy lying was also part of the CIA’s classified “Effectiveness Memo,” which the Bush administration relied on to bolster its legal case for torturing terrorist suspects.
Sigh. If there’s a better summary than “crude, low-rent deception” to describe the Bush administration’s whole approach to the justification of state-sponsored torture, I’d like to hear it.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Huh, wonder how that could be? What a simple minded boob.
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:32 am
No, I don’t think “simple minded boob” covers it. The Bush administration’s whole approach to justifying state sponsored torture has been demonstrably and intensely calculated, it has been demonstrated that tthey were complicit in the torture in the most extreme sense of the word. This is one of the few places in life that is black and white, you are either pro torture or anti-torture, and if you are pro-torture and an accessory to the act then you should face the legal consequences. That pathetically little action has been taken against against the Bush administration’s human rights outrages is a damning insight into the morality of the American people. Clearly, the majority would support the Roman’s who crucified Jesus. America, a nation of ugly-minded false Christians.
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:01 am
Maybe so, I talking about this guys logic that just because we arested a key figure the terror plot ended.
February 23rd, 2010 at 1:00 pm
It doesn’t say “a key figure” it says “the cell leaders of the LA plot were arrested a year before KSM was captured”
Common sense says that if there were multiple arrests of leaders then the remaining “evil-doers” will be seeking a less compromised plan. If not, they aren’t much of a threat due to thier own idiocy. But I guess they only had to be smarter than the Bush administration, which helps (slightly) to explain the successful 911 terror attacks that happened on Bush’s watch.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:11 am
So if a captain is killed, doesn’t the lieutenant take over until another captain can be moved into place… in a years time. If the lieutenant is captured doesn’t the sergeant carry on with the mission? I don’t know, maybe he is right, maybe the cell collapsed, I don’t know the particulars but to make the assumption that the cell collapsed shows an ignorance of how military operations are carried out.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Military? I thought we were talking about terrorists and their supposed devious plots. This ain’t WWI.
February 24th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
No, this war isn’t WWI, of course WWI wasn’t WWII, the War Between the States wasn’t the American Revolution or the Boer war or the Spanish American War, they are all different, they are all wars.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
yes, those were wars in the classic sense of the word “war”. Strange that you didn’t mention Vietnam or Korea, in terms of relevence.
Those kinds of wars should not be confused with other kinds of wars such as “an active struggle between competing entities” e.g. a diplomatic war, or with wars that are “active struggles against things that are injurious” e.g., the war on drugs or the war on poverty.
The war on crime fits into the latter category too, and as terrorism is a criminal activity, albeit motivated perhaps more by ideological agendas than profit, it is still a crime (crimes can be ideologically motivated) and as such it fits into the latter category.
Now the invasion of Panama or Iraq #2 can be argued to bridge the categories, but a war on terrorism just doesn’t cut it no matter how bellicose your leaders speak about it.
February 24th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
If this is true, it may be too difficult for you to believe, shcb:
and
Full text:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02102010.html