Why I’m Not a Conservative

Sorry Sean Nelson and other reasonable commenters wasted their time trying to argue with Plaid Pundit. His initial comment turned out to be key: "I'll just begin by saying; I'm pretty sure I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer here. " This thread was a classic example of a troll drawing in people who felt that they had to do their bit to engage in what seemed like serious debate. Instead, PP just kept on with uninformed provocation that eventually devolved into meaningless word salad ("Sean, I meant to also mention that I have, nor carry any guilt(absolve?) in dismissing anyone's opinions. Your tendency to use neat words that inaccurately attempt to describe what I've said is noticed.").
Remember the internet mantra: Don't feed the trolls!

good work plaid pundit! I like reading your comments; they're well written and logical.

Sorry, Plaidpundit: dismissing the opinion of a senior U.S. interrogator because it was printed in Slate doesn't absolve you from engaging with the argu

Sean, I meant to also mention that I have, nor carry any guilt(absolve?) in dismissing anyone's opinions. Your tendency to use neat words that inaccurately attempt to describe what I've said is noticed. I've always believed words matter; hence, my participation in this post. Just sayin'.

This esteemed(LOL) anonymous military interrogators' piece has zero credibility. His invocation that the U.S. tortures is the first clue. To boot, he mischaracterizes Marc Theissen's writing outright. Theissen does not cede that waterboarding is torture, period.

The disinformation in the Slate piece is the very propaganda that has so many confused. Even Jon Stewart better understands(while not agreeing) Thiessen and his argument...of course, Stewart was a little softened in his interview with him...thanks to having interviewed John Woo not long ago - I'd encourage all having commented here watch the Woo interview.

Sean, I'm assuming your work is public domain, why not share?

You assume that the work of a former intelligence officer is public domain? Really? On the basis of that evidence, I'm going to assume that you have absolutely no experience with collecting or analyzing sensitive data.

Please state what you believe to be "disinformation" in Alexander's essay. I worked closely with "Matthew Alexander," and can testify from ample personal experience as to his character, ability as an interrogator, and clarity of thought. I saw no disinformation in his piece at all, in fact, it's completely in line with the Army HUMINT community and the standards set out in the updated Field Manual. Additionally, nothing in that article conflicts with anything I or my colleagues at the Army Intelligence School taught the thousands of interrogation students who came through our classes from 2005 - 2008 (when I was there, teaching the very subject about which we are debating). His opinions are based squarely on longstanding military doctrine, and longstanding US, International and Military Law, as well as lessons learned from the hundreds of thousands of interrogations that have taken place since the start of the GWOT.

The radical innovation, now utterly repudiated by the Supreme Court, was Yoo's. The history of this subject does not allow for another "perspective" on this--look into the legal precedents and you cannot come to another conclusion, unless you're trying to. You do realize that the Yoo/Bybee interpretation is utterly unsupported by previous jurisprudence, don't you?

What I cannot wrap my head around is how you, an obviously intelligent person, believe that a bunch of politicians, almost none of whom served a day in the military, know more about interrogating than an actual interrogator.

And all of this is in the service of what? Endorsing the infliction of pain on a helpless person for the purpose of getting information obtained under duress. I hope that some day you look back on this and shudder that you could have countenanced such evil.

Is it torture if your t-shirt grants permission?

To give the benefit of the doubt to the lady in the photo, the message on the shirt may be done by computer, similar to Reason Pillow Girl of days of yore.

You know what's torture? Listening to you guys argue about what torture is.

Gee Tim,
Sorry to ruin your day...only people's livelihoods and national security on the line. Those of you so apathetic to the torture topic would do well to be more curious and read up on writings and interviews of Marc Theissen and John Woo.

John Woo, the action movie director?

I take it you wouldn't mind being waterboarded?

Csbescos,
Nobody has made the case that waterboarding is not unpleasant...it is by design. For many people running 5 miles is unpleasant as well.
Keep in mind, most elite U.S. troops endure and multiply, despite all of the training rigors, often including waterboarding.

Suddenly I feel very in touch with my inner Hayek.

Plaid, the SERE training is done to teach our troops to resist torture and to show them that torture will lead you to breaking and telling your captors what they want.
The point is to make sure that a POW can still maintain their dignity/ military honor after they confess to being "air pirates" or whatever else their torturers want them to say.
So you can't argue that because it happens to our troops in training that means it isn't torture. It happens to (some) of our troops in training to show them what torture is. And it was instituted after the torture of Americans in the Korean war, because of the affects of torture on capture Americans. You obviously know nothing about SERE. Or torture. Or ethics.

Agorabum,
You repeat much of what I said, yet you tell me I know nothing. I'm not too sure what you're driving at other than trying to convince yourself and others that we torture our own troops by waterboarding them. I'll repeat - the U.S. military does NOT torture our own troops.

If you're making the case that our military tortures our own soldiers, I ask that you cite this policy.

"I'll repeat - the U.S. military does NOT torture our own troops."

You're parsing words here. If the techniques used at SERE training are specifically referred to as "torture techniques," (which they are, I know this from personal experience) then the employment of said techniques in the context of an interrogation is unequivocally torture.

Or at least that's what JAG told me when I asked them about it four years ago, at a US detention facility in Iraq, and again two years ago, when I was preparing a class on international law and human intelligence for DoD. But what the fuck do I know?

Guest,
I don't know of anyone that defends torture. I am here defending the waterboarding/EIT's that the U.S. implements - which is not torture. Marc Theissen's new book makes this case well.

Sean,
Of course I'm parsing words, what else have we got here?!
Another "if" Great. you said: "specifically referred to as "torture techniques,""torture techniques" Where ?... This is a rogue designation, usually ascribed to the Daily Kos types...can you cite?

Sean, what the f*** do you know that I couldn't find out from Daily Kos ??

To be repetitive...the U.S. military does NOT torture our own troops.

Look if you're willing to listen to someone like Theissen over actual experts, with experience in the field,

http://www.slate.com/id/2246692

then this is a lot like discussing geology with a young-Earth creationist. You have faith and that's all you have.

The first paragraph of an expert's view on Theissen's book:

"My gut reaction on reading Marc Thiessen's new book, Courting Disaster, was: "Why is a speechwriter who's never served in the military or intelligence community acting as an expert on interrogation and national security?" Certainly, everyone is entitled to a voice in the debate over the lawfulness and efficacy of President Bush's abusive interrogation program, regardless of qualifications. But if you're not an expert on a subject, shouldn't you interview experts before expressing an opinion? Instead, Thiessen relies solely on the opinions of the CIA interrogators who used torture and abuse and are thus most vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes. That makes his book less a serious discussion of interrogation policy than a literary defense of war criminals. Nowhere in this book will you find the opinions of experienced military interrogators who successfully interrogated Islamic extremists. Not once does he cite Army Doctrine—which warns of the negative consequences of torture and abuse. Courting Disaster is nothing more than the defense's opening statement in a war crimes trial."

LJM,
Stay curious, this will serve you well. But, relying on Slate caliber commentary will let you down - particularly with regard to foreign policy matters.

Interesting, but not surprising, your handicap as a liberal thinker unfortunately prevents critical thinking. You posit "having faith" as a problem, yet you seem to rely on some genius and his "gut reaction" - no difference my friend - both are metaphysical. If I have you totally confused right now... begin reading Dinesh D'Souza (friendly tip)

I'll tip you also to the fact that Theissen at the time was one of only a small handful of people who had eyeballs on top secret info. MUCH of this info has been(FOIA) just recently released(at least one thanks to Obama) to the chagrin of the Bush haters...trust me, daylight on these copious amounts of released info will only make Bush look better and better. Like it or hate it G.W. is going to look Churchillian in a decade.

plaidpundit, suggesting that President Bush will ever look "Churchillian" when he didn't know Muslims could be Shi'a or Sunni and that they had conflicts in the region he wanted to invade, is the quickest way to make sure you're not taken seriously.

The fact is that the people you listen to, the people you trust, have no direct experience with the subject at hand, but rather lots of experience at reflexive partisan loyalism.

When presented with opposing viewpoints by people with direct experience in these matters, you ignore them and refer back to your partisan loyalists. Basically, you're an authoritarian statist, hardly different from the folks who defend people like Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez.

And there's as much point in discussing this with you as there is in discussing the finer points of radiometric dating with a young-Earth creationist.

Adios, Amoeba!

"Torture techniques" is the specific phrase I have heard used many, many times during a 14-year career in military intelligence, specifically HUMINT, including several years in Iraq. I count at least a dozen former SERE Interrogators among my friends and former colleagues. I've written classes of the Geneva Conventions for military audiences. I've never learned anything about interrogation from Kos, in fact, I haven't visited the site in months.

Sleep well knowing that you are the sort of person who is comfortable parsing words in the service of inflicting pain on a defenseless person.

Sean, sounds intriguing. Do you care to share some of your work with us?

Sean said:
"Sleep well knowing that you are the sort of person who is comfortable parsing(analyzing) words in the service of inflicting pain on a defenseless person."
My clarification in parentheses. So I ask you Sean, what is so evil about analyzing words??

One more question for you, Sean; if you could please answer with a yes or no. Is waterboarding synonymous with torture?...

"What is so evil about analyzing words?"

Nothing, if it's only words. When Yoo and Bybee "analyzed words," they justified something both contrary to all existing law and legal precedent, and intrinsically evil. You echo their ideologically-motivated dissembling, therefore you amplify the evil in your own way, however small. You help legitimize a point of view that has no real legitimacy in the international law community, but plenty on the American political right. Only one of those groups could possibly be right, and only one of them is qualified to judge the issue at hand. Your side is not that side.

On a personal level, I find it shocking that someone with a functioning moral center could employ rhetorical sleight-of-hand to explain away something so unequivocally vile as torture. Sometimes nitpicking is legitimate "detailed analysis" and sometimes it's avoidance of the larger issue. The elephant in the room is the infliction of pain on defenseless people, and some people's willingness to approve of it. Where are your priorities?

Waterboarding is most certainly torture. There may be some technicality regarding SERE training (although I am very skeptical of arguments that run, "Army policy is not to torture therefore nothing the Army does is torture") but there is no reasonable doubt as to whether waterboarding someone who is not in a training environment is torture. The legal precedents and laws are extensive, and the only major dissenters are connected to the Bush Administration. In the real world, this isn't even a question. As the JAG liaison to the Army Intelligence School put it several years ago, in my presence: "If the Army ever sanctions waterboarding, I will personally, along with many of my JAG colleagues, resign my commission in protest." He was, incidentally, a former Interrogator.

Agreed. Our military does not torture our own soldiers. However, you are not refuting that it may torture others?

Your logic only works if "it's not torture because I said so, nyah!" is acceptable proof that waterboarding is not torture. It isn't.

At least if pro-torture types straight up said "I'm fine with inflicting pain & physical stress on suspects* to make them provide information, what of it?", I could grudgingly respect their refreshing honesty. Instead, the moral high road is claimed simultaneously with such a barbaric sentiment, and it makes me want to throw up.

You can't justify it by saying "well they're terrorists!" because in many cases that hasn't been proven (BTW: yes, people who were found to NOT be terrorists have been tortured in our name).

You can't even justify it for people who ARE terrorists even, because the value of any intelligence from it has proven lacking, so what is the point?

To me, the point is one of the following: blanket assumption of guilt on anyone from that region of the world ("they're all crazy jihadis over there anyway, surely they're plotting SOMETHING!"), or mere release of pent-up anger regardless of the target. Petty rage, or bigotry. Pick one.

(* - remember that term? It means you have to prove someone deserves punishment before you can punish them. If you want to object to the legal approach, then feel free to explain why you even care whether its considered torture or not then, as that train of thought greenlights not only torture but summary execution. Want to use war as a total void of restraint then walk the walk.)

@Another Guest

I saw a guy wearing said pro-waterboarding shirt at Vinoteca DC three nights ago. Unsurprisingly, he was loud.

My comment need only mental gymnastics in reply if you are intent on believing that waterboarding is torture. I've not posited any "if's" here...nor am I the one confused . Moreover, I'm not qualifying what torture even IS - but simply what it is NOT. "normal definition" ?? Good luck on that.

Clearly, torture can be any number of things, and can be inflicted on whomever. My reference to our Troops being waterboarded in training is fact; which, unequivocally disqualifies it as torture. For those that can't accept this...there simply is no more debate.

Confusion in this dialog is unnecessary - the facts and the laws are complex, but it doesn't help anyone by muddying the basic tenets of reason. Everyone and their brother thinks they know what torture is, and this is good enough the partisan soft-heads, but to many it really matters. Enter John Woo, et al... they only needed to accommodate - and did ruthlessly- thank God -- around the periphery of what torture WAS NOT. Their case has been made and justified...even with Obama's DOJ.

So, what is it exactly the military is training troops to withstand when they waterboard them? Hmmm....

Also, when a soldier is "waterboarded" in training, we all know that they can stop the process at any time. If you think that soldiers experience waterboarding in the same way a terror suspect experiences it, then you're right, there simply is no more debate.

I think you are confusing "torture" with "mutilation".
While these are conflated with the administration's definition, it does not match the normal definition of torture, which involves severe pain or suffering regardless of permanent damage.

@Plaidpundit Torture requires an involuntary subject. If special forces had their fingernails ripped out to strengthen their resolve under duress, this is still not torture because they volunteered for the training. However, if you captured and waterboarded your neighbor, you would be torturing him. Even if the same technique is used in training elsewhere.

What if your neighbor volunteers for it?

Will,
I'll just begin by saying; I'm pretty sure I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer here. That said, I can't help but keep it simple. I submit one simple example of what torture truly is; the pulling off ones fingernails is torture.

Our U.S. military does not torture any of our troops, period. It does waterboard some of our troops for training, particularly for elite Special Forces (SERE training) Our military DOES NOT pull out their fingernails.

Waterboarding is NOT torture.

A lack of clarity is possibly another reason you're not a Conservative.

You give an example of torture as if it's enough to demonstrate why another method isn't torture without explaining WHY it's not torture, and then you accuse Will of not being clear.

Why would our own courts call it torture when the Japanese did it? Why do many military specialists call it torture? Why does it not count as torture?

With the correct level of irony, it could work, but at best it's a very situational thing.

Makes sense, very few Libertarians have a sense of humor.

Well, that girl wearing the shirt is quite attractive, in a jaded sort of way

Oops double post. My bad.

It may be more accurate to say "why I'm not a Republican", or "why I'm not a neoconservative", rather than lump all forms of conservatism with this trash. Clearly, there are many conservatives who disagree with torture. Waterboarding doesn't sound very conservative to me.

It may be more accurate to say "why I'm not a Republican", or "why I'm not a neoconservative", rather than lump all forms of conservatism with this trash. Clearly, there are many conservatives who disagree with torture. Waterboarding doesn't sound very conservative to me.

The real question is whether anyone has actually bought and worn said shirt. Anyone can advertise.

I suspect it's ideological and stupid.

But, I can't seem to muster the same level of contempt for people who think it's funny to joke about being cruel to those suspected of trying to murder them, as I have for those who proudly wear Che shirts.

I can't seem to muster the same level of contempt for people who think it's funny to joke about being cruel to those suspected of trying to murder them, as I have for those who proudly wear Che shirts.

The problem there is that I've known several people who wear Che shirts, and most of them have only the most cursory understanding of what he was about, and many of them have NO idea who he was.

I remember a conversation when I was 18 with a guy wearing one. I'd seen them around and asked the guy what "Che" meant, because I didn't know. He said he didn't know either, but he thought they looked cool. "I think it's, like, the logo for a Mexican company or something..."

Later in life, I had a buddy who wore a Che shirt ironically, as in "Look at me, I'm pretending to be a hipster douchebag idiot." Intended, I assumed, to try and develop some psychological distance from the fact that he WAS a hipster douchebag idiot, bless his heart...

Anyway, I think intention matters, and given the widespread understanding of what waterboarding is, I think it's harder to be clueless when wearing this shirt. I can see it being ironic, though. In fact, I might have a buddy who would want one of these...

I've told people wearing hammer and sickle shirts that it is worse than wearing a swastika. Stalin killed a lot more than Hitler.

Hi Gilm -- the reason to object to a waterboarding (or any torture) policy is identical to objecting to a "summary execution" policy, or a "disappearing you" policy, or "executing your children" policy. Even if the government promises "Hey, we'll ONLY do it to people we metaphysically KNOW are murderous and MOST dangerous!", the non-naive know better.

Oh, I agree it's horrible policy.

I'm just extremely liberal about what's fair game to joke about.

People often joke about things that they wouldn't enact as policy, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I don't really blame Will for finding it unfunny. I just wanted to put it into some perspective, and point out that I find lots of other things to be much worse.

But if it's not ideological, if it's just dada, it's kind of funny.