Myths About Torture

From this Sunday's Washington Post, five myths about torture:

5 Myths About Torture, by Darius Rejali, Commentary, Washington Post: So the CIA did indeed torture Abu Zubaida, the first al-Qaeda terrorist suspect to be waterboarded. So says John Kiriakou, the first former CIA employee directly involved in the questioning of "high-value" al-Qaeda detainees to speak publicly. He minced no words last week in calling the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques" what they are.

But did they work? Torture's defenders, including the wannabe tough guys who write Fox's "24," insist that the rough stuff gets results. "It was like flipping a switch," said Kiriakou about Abu Zubaida's response to being waterboarded. But the al-Qaeda operative's confessions -- descriptions of fantastic plots from a man whom journalist Ron Suskind has reported was mentally ill -- probably didn't give the CIA any actionable intelligence. Of course, we may never know the whole truth, since the CIA destroyed the videotapes of Abu Zubaida's interrogation. But here are some other myths that are bound to come up as the debate over torture rages on. ... [...continue...]

Until it actually happened, I never imagined having this debate, I never imagined that the U.S. would be close enough to the line that there would ever be any question whatsoever about whether we torture or not. I still hardly believe that we do, or don't want to believe it. We're supposed to be the good guys.

Comments

[robertdfeinman]

The US has been using methods that its citizens claim not to think are constitutional, moral or ethical for, well forever.

So, is the current debate a sign that people don't know history?

One can start with the forced dislocation of the Indians. Is there a moral distinction between "torture" and genocide?

Other high points in our history include our treatment during the Spanish American war in the Philippines, treatment of captured Japanese soldiers during WWII, the Vietnam war and even Iraq part one.

Internally we have the history of the treatment of slaves and currently abuse of prisoners and residents of psychiatric and nursing homes.

The American myth is that we are the white hats, but our cruel streak is no different than that found elsewhere. The curriculum in the school system is so well scrubbed that people come out not knowing large chunks of history. It can be discovered if one wishes. People like Howard Zinn and Studs Terkel have made careers out of telling the stories left out of the mainstream books.

[akatsuki]

You are already prevaricating: "close to the line"? We are way past that line and have been for a long time. US intervention abroad has hardly been noble or as white-hattish as most of us would like to think, from suppressing democracies to CIA sponsored schools (remember the School of the Americas?) to train our now-allies, future-enemies, it has gone on for years and yet people somehow still cling to some notion that we take some sort of moral high ground when there has rarely been any indication that we do.

Our intervention in Kosovo was perhaps the only instance in recent history that I can think of that was international in nature and seemed to be with higher ideals. I sometimes feel that people have been living off of the myth of the Great War and how we rescued the world from Naziism a bit too long (despite conveniently forgetting nuclear attacks on two civilian populations).

And the funny part is that is not even going into anything that would involve conspiracy theories or unproven facts.

[Bob]

>> Until it actually happened, I never imagined having this debate, I never imagined that the U.S. would be close enough to the line that there would ever be any question whatsoever about whether we torture or not. I still hardly believe that we do, or don't want to believe it. We're supposed to be the good guys.

You must be kidding me. You think the US was the good guy ?

After all the democratically elected leaders we overthrew ?

Our evil kicked into high gear in 1953 with "operation ajax" in Iran. We tortured more Iranian citizens than you could shake a stick at via the SAVAK. Then we duplicated this all over the world. Central America, South America, Africa. Hell look at the slaughter of whole villages in central america thanks to raygun's contras. Men, women, children, infants.

I'm not that knowlegeable about our dirty tricks before the 50's but there were the CIA's stolen elections in Italy, United Fruit in central america during the 1920's i believe and the Maine blown up near cuba around the turn of the century.

America is as evil as any other country ever was.

[ken melvin]

Bush and CO are barbarians.

[Peteb]

I to am shocked at how much this country has changed under Bush. The debate now isn't even about whether torture is allowable, but only about whether it's effective- the central question about morality has long since disappeared.

There is no way the US can avoid paying a very, very high price for betraying its own principles like this.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/the_torture_party.php

December 14, 2007

The Torture Party
By Matthew Yglesias

House GOP voted unanimously yesterday * to keep on torturing. The Democrats are clearly against torture. Like all else that's good in the world, this anti-torture bill will presumably suffer death by filibuster at the hands of Senate Republicans.

* http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1158.xml

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2007/12/pelosi-on-republicans-they-like-this.html

December 14, 2007

Pelosi on Republicans: "They Like this War"
By Juan Cole

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said * that she has been surprised at the depth of support for the Iraq War among Republicans in the House of Representatives:

" 'They like this war. They want this war to continue,' Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans' ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters. 'We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq,' Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. 'But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.' Asked to clarify her remarks, Pelosi backed off a bit. 'I shouldn't say they like the war,' she said. 'They support the war, the course of action that the president is on.' 'And that was a revelation to me,' she said, 'because I thought the American people's voices were so — and still are — so strong in this regard.' "

I don't doubt that some Republicans like the Iraq War. It after all got a lot of them elected, and has thrown a hefty part of the $500 billion spent on the war so far to their corporate sponsors.

But what really strikes me about the speaker's remarks is her misreading of the Republicans. She appears to have thought that they had mostly turned against the war in their hearts, and would become allies of the Democrats in ending it. In other words, she seems to have blamed Bush for the war and to have assumed that the Republican representatives would now want to run away from Bush.

But for all the Caesar-like power that Bush claims for his imperial executive, he could not have steam-rollered the country into war if he had not had enablers in the then Republican-controlled Congress....

[anne]

* http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggeAtsS2Wdlv3rvFrvJexIGpvpLAD8TGOEMG0

The reference to Nancy Pelosi's remarks. Notice the astounding difference between the parties and the Republican unity that has been so devastatingly effective.

[James Killus]

Of course, we may never know the whole truth, since the CIA destroyed the videotapes of Abu Zubaida's interrogation.

The destruction of the tapes is itself a good measure of "the whole truth."

The issue here is not whether or not agents of the United States have, in the past, engaged in torture or other criminal actions. The point is that, in the past, those action were criminal. When cruel and unusual punishments (and that is what these things are, punishments, not interrogation techniques) become legal, they then become routine, or even required. Thus does the fate of a country come to be in the hands of men with dead and empty eyes.

[agricanto]

The most profound irony of the depths to which conservatism has sunk this country is in the unabashed love of vengeance (the death penalty), violence (gun culture), torture (the new erotica) and war (Iraq). It matters little to these red-blooded fascists that their closest homologues in history are Nazis and the Gulag. They are puffed up and emboldened by Cheney and Bush and the beer hall right wing in Congress abetted by the extremely cynical jurists on the Supreme Court. They have a huge crowd of pseudo-religious fanatics that egg them on from the pulpit, preaching the “endtimes”, and shock jocks on AM radio and FOX news. So they think they own this country and have a right to practice everything from death cult rituals to war without end.

It also matters little if any of these acts have any impact on the stated goals (safer America, intel from terrorists, etc.) The reason is that the stated goals are secondary. What they want is a “new morality” that makes the humanism of liberal values retreat in the face of might, no-discussion postures, and blatant sadism. The problem with liberals is that we do not hate these people enough. We think we can reason with them and compromise. But they never accept defeat when their ideas are rejected. They come back with guns and lynch mobs.

Consider this: the instructions given to good monks by the leaders of the Holy Inquisition included the observation that if a monk was sexually aroused by torturing the hapless unbelievers, it was evidence that the devil dwelt inside the accused and that they, the monks, should not feel guilt or remorse for getting off on torture. The honesty of the instruction is that extreme transgressive behavior IS sexually arousing. In today’s modern world we dare not bring that up. Torquemada had no problem. We are bigger liars than the Inquisitors.

The real purpose of the death penalty and torture is to find out who will step up to do it. The Emperor is happy to see so much evil in his most loyal subjects—the ones who enjoy the unsavory tasks. For them this kind of safe place for violence, the secret space of torture, is delicious. Bush’s denial on the CIA video was so flimsy that it suggested the opposite. He (and Cheney?) watched it like porno.

On the death penalty issue I read a post by a right winger that promised that he himself would love to execute the guilty of crimes. “love to” yes! Never mind that he was responding to a post that asked how being an executioner could be a “good job?” So now I wonder if he wouldn’t respond the same way to torture? Of course he would. Then he would go to his stadium church on Sunday and raise his arms in true faith posture and go home to his wife and kids after ripping some human being apart all week long.

In a thread on illegal immigration another right winger wanted to water board me for posting a Jonothan Swift style comment that a large army of illegals were poised to take over seven states in the southwest. It was written very, very tongue-in-cheek and was hilarious from any POV. But oops went ballistic and posted:
“ditto for the jackass above. as soon as he starts target practice he's gonna find himself across a barbed wire fence from his beloved fidel- in gitmo, strapped to a waterboard….”
The Waffen SS and Gestapo were just this kind of people. They even took pictures of their kills and sent them to their girlfriends as postcards. I don’t know if this country has already crossed the Rubicon and is now lost, or if there is still a chance that we can defeat the right wing and throw them in the ashcan of the “end of history” which they love so much (along with the end of the world). I doubt liberals have it in them to fight those who would just as soon kill them. They will walk into the firing squad like so many before us rather than fight. Only problem is that this time the stakes are so high that the whole species will pay the price of our niceness in the face of horror.
Jim Morrison saw it coming:

This is the end, my only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands the end.

[hari]

Mark -

This gives me a good opportunity to tell you that you are wrong - in not understanding the meanness of this WH!

I neither believed US gov would go to this extent after 9/11....

But GWB/Cheney have definitely changed the equivalence of "moral disarmament" into almost (I wish to formulate this with circumspect) a "fascist terror" ....!

In the Hague Court, GWB will find no rescue if someone finds him culpable.

[Andrew]

akatsuki-"Our intervention in Kosovo was perhaps the only instance in recent history that I can think of that was international in nature and seemed to be with higher ideals."

I'm afraid that Kosovo falls far short of any noble ideals, as well. The ethnic cleansing and atrocities committed by the Serbs happened after the bombing, not before. They were, in fact, a well anticipated consequence of the U.S. actions.

Serbia had been fighting an ugly internal struggle with the KLA, but there was nothing on the order of 'ethnic' cleansing. US and Britain drew up the Rambouillet Accords, which called for an autonomous Kosovo, knowing perfectly well it would be unacceptable to Serbia.

The Serbian rejection did, however, give Britain and the U.S. an excuse to assert their authority in the region. As well as allow the NATO forces to cut their teeth in an area they knew it could be justified to take military action. Justified after the fact.

[Jeffrey Goodrich]

Both Democrat and Republican administrations have likely authorized torture, either by proxy with rendition or by directly funding those who torture to advance various foreign policy objective (i.e., Guatamala, Chile/Pinochet, Iran). I suspect it works sometimes, and perhaps has resulted in valuable information that furthered the "common good." Regardless, it should never be legal. Rather, like the spys from Mission: Impossible, those who torture, whether our own guys or our proxies, must always remain responsible for such criminal conduct. If they guess right, nobody will ever go to jail. But if they guess wrong, as with the Canadian who was spirited away to be tortured in Egypt or Syria, only to be found completely innocent, they cannot look to our laws for protection. We cannot allow our principles to be sacrificed for perceived security, and those who engage in torture in our name should clearly risk prison terms for such conduct.

So the next time you see some bureaucrat (and that includes Cheney) demand that torture be legal, ask why he doesn't show a little courage and admit that war is a risky business, that if torture is needed to win it then those who torture will gladly risk prison terms to make sure we win, and that CIA officers asking for legal protection should be discharged as unfit for service to their country.

[Patricia Shannon]

Why not torture Bush and Cheney to get the truth about what they've done?

[Patricia Shannon]

Republicans Stop Bill To Ban Waterboarding

(CBS/AP) Senate Republicans blocked a bill Friday that would restrict the interrogation methods the CIA can use against terrorism suspects.

The bill would require the CIA to adhere to the Army's field manual on interrogation, which bans waterboarding, mock executions and other harsh interrogation methods.

The interrogation procedure, which is recognized as a form of torture by making the subject think he's drowning, is banned by international law. It has been used by CIA interrogators on terrorism suspects, or by those to whom U.S. prisoners have been sent via rendition flights.

It was recently learned that the CIA ordered the destruction of videotapes of interrogations in which detainees were reportedly subjected to waterboarding and other harsh measures.

I see that the news media is still saying such things as "making the subject think he's drowning" about waterboarding, when it has been pointed out that it is actually a form of controlled drowning.

[anne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/12/14/BL2007121401204_pf.html

December 14, 2007

Bush Demands Freedom to Torture
By Dan Froomkin - Washington Post

President Bush's repeated insistence that "we don't torture" appeared even more transparently bogus yesterday as the White House threatened to veto a House bill that would explicitly ban a variety of abhorrent practices.

The bill would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow interrogation rules adopted by the armed forces last year....

[No matter, as Patricia Shannon tells us, Senate republicans have saved the Presient need for a veto.]

[anne]

I have no idea how to even address this matter, the thought of what this represents for America is so morally repelling. There is simply no shame or decency; what then is the point of such a pretend democracy?

[anne]

Remember, this is not the President or Vice President or the Administration, but the will of an entire political party that we who are always pretending to be more devout than any who have ever been devout must be torturers. We have become then philosophically devoted to the night. I just do not understand.

[anne]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/speeches/unpub/670225-001_The_Casualties_of_the_War_in_Vietnam.htm

February 25, 1967

The Casualties of the War in Vietnam
By Martin Luther King

Los Angeles, Calif.

I need not pause to say how happy I am to have the privilege of being a participant in this significant symposium. In these days of emotional tension when the problems of the world are gigantic in extent and chaotic in detail, there is no greater need than for sober-thinking, healthy debate, creative dissent and enlightened discussion. This is why this symposium is so important.

I would like to speak to you candidly and forthrightly this afternoon about our present involvement in Viet Nam. I have chosen as a subject, "The Casualties of the War In Viet Nam." We are all aware of the nightmarish physical casualties. We see them in our living rooms in all of their tragic dimensions on television screens, and we read about them on our subway and bus rides in daily newspaper accounts. We see the rice fields of a small Asian country being trampled at will and burned at whim: we see grief-stricken mothers with crying babies clutched in their arms as they watch their little huts burst forth into flames; we see the fields and valleys of battle being painted with humankind's blood; we see the broken bodies left prostrate in countless fields; we see young men being sent home half-men--physically handicapped and mentally deranged. Most tragic of all is the casualty list among children. Some one million Vietnamese children have been casualties of this brutal war. A war in which children are incinerated by napalm, in which American soldiers die in mounting numbers while other American soldiers, according to press accounts, in unrestrained hatred shoot the wounded enemy as they lie on the ground, is a war that mutilates the conscience. These casualties are enough to cause all men to rise up with righteous indignation and oppose the very nature of this war.

But the physical casualties of the war in Viet Nam are not alone the catastrophies. The casualties of principles and values are equally disastrous and injurious. Indeed, they are ultimately more harmful because they are self-perpetuating. If the casualties of principle are not healed, the physical casualties will continue to mount.

One of the first casualties of the war in Viet Nam was the Charter of the United Nations. In taking armed action against the Vietcong and North Viet Nam, the United States clearly violated the United Nations charter which provides,

in Chapter I, Article II (4)

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

and in Chapter VII, (39)

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations or shall decide what measures shall be taken... to maintain or restore international peace and security.

It is very obvious that our government blatantly violated its obligation under the charter of the United Nations to submit to the Security Council its charge of aggression against North Viet Nam. Instead we unilaterally launched an all-out war on Asian soil. In the process we have underminded the purpose of the United Nations and caused its effectiveness to atrophy. We have also placed our nation in the position of being morally and politically isolated. Even the long standing allies of our nation have adamantly refused to join our government in this ugly war. As Americans and lovers of Democracy we should carefully ponder the consequences of our nation's declining moral status in the world.

The second casualty of the war in Viet Nam is the principle of self-determination. By entering a war that is little more than a domestic civil war, America has ended up supporting a new form of colonialism covered up by certain niceties of complexity. Whether we realize it or not our participation in the war in Viet Nam is an ominous expression of our lack of sympathy for the oppressed, our paranoid anti-Communism, our failure to feel the ache and anguish of the have nots. It reveals our willingness to continue particpating in neo-colonialist adventures.
A brief look at the background and history of this war reveals with brutal clarity and ugliness of our policy. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation, and before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by the now well-known Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its re-conquest of her former colony.

President Truman felt then that the Vietnamese people were not "ready" for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination, and a government that had been established not by China (for whom the Vietnamese have no great love) but by clearly indigenous forces that included some Communists.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Viet Nam the right to independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to re-colonize Viet Nam.

Before the end of the war we were meeting 80% of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will.

During this period United States governmental officials began to brainwash the American public. John Foster Dulles assiduously sought to prove that Indo-China was essential to our security against the Chinese Communist peril. When a negotiated settlement of the war was reached in 1954, through the Geneva Accord, it was done against our will. After doing all that we could to sabotage the planning for the Geneva Accord, we finally refused to sign it.

Soon after this we helped install Ngo Dihn Diem. We supported him in his betrayal of the Geneva Accord and his refusal to have the promised 1956 election. We watched with approval as he engaged in ruthless and bloddy persecution of all opposition forces. When Diem's infamous actions finally led to the formation of The National Liberation Front, the American public was duped into believing that the civil rebellion was being waged by puppets from Hanoi. As Douglas Pike wrote: "In horror, Americans helplessly watched Diem tear apart the fabric of Vietnamese society more effectively than the Communists had ever been able to do it. It was the most efficient act of his entire career."

Since Diem's death we have actively supported another dozen military dictatorships all in the name of fighting for freedom. When it became evident that these regimes could not defeat the Vietcong, we began to steadily increase our forces, calling them "military advisers" rather than fighting soldiers.

Today we are fighting an all-out war--undeclared by Congress. We have well over 300,000 American servicemen fighting in that benighted and unhappy country. American planes are bombing the territory of another country, and we are committing atrocities equal to any perpetrated by the Vietcong. This is the third largest war in American history.

All of this reveals that we are in an untenable position morally and politically. We are left standing before the world glutted by our barbarity. We are engaged in a war that seeks to turn the clock of history back and perpetuate white colonialism. The greatest irony and tragedy of all is that our nation which initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world, is not cast in the mold of being an arch anti-revolutionary.

A third casualty of the war in Viet Nam is the Great Society. This confused war has played havoc with our domestic destinies....

[realist?]

should the next potus recognise the world court in the hague

messr bush and cheney and a whole gaggle of generals

would find themselves on trial for war crimes--waging

an aggressive war.

is this too farfetched.?

[hari]

Mark -

This is a subject which does require deeper and more succinct debate between all of us because it's un-american and unthinkable that potus does condone wilful torture!

Can a democracy sustain a gov which pretends to uphold one policy and actually does something quite the contrary?

Let's deal with this in NEW YEAR!

[anne]

When I was beginning high school, I read "The Brothers Karamozov." Reading Fyodor Dostoevsky's work, which I would later hear Richard Neibuhr continually use in lectures, I found out that Dostoevsky had been imprisoned and tortured by the Tzar's police, for no sane reason, finally be subject to a mock execution after which Dostoevsky was never well again. I was terribly frightened, but torture and mock executions in particular are what George Bush and Congressional Republicans have just condoned for America.

[anne]

Martin Luther King understood, but I realize now, as I have suspected for several years, that we have set King's idealism completely aside, making King part of history other than modern American history. Imagine being preached to by Republican Presidential candidates who vie with each other in how we can be fiercer and more brutal. So preventing Americans from being sanctioned monsters becomes the vaunted policy of a President and Congressional minority and an entire political party.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/ah_mukasey.php

December 14, 2007

Ah, Mukasey
By Matthew Yglesias

Sure is good the Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey without him giving a straight answer about torture. As The Washington Post editorialized * that his opponents were "working against the last, best hope to see the rule of law reemerge in this administration." Damn opponents. They were probably worried that if people were caught destroying evidence, he would help block inquiries into the obstruction of justice ** or something crazy like that. But that couldn't happen. After all, the Post said "Mukasey has demonstrated the ethical fortitude required of an independent attorney general" and Fred Hiatt *** is never wrong.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/01/AR2007110102306.html

** http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/washington/15intel.html

*** Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor of The Washington Post.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/washington/15intel.html

December 15, 2007

Delay Is Sought by Justice Dept. on C.I.A. Inquiry
By DAVID JOHNSTON and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the Congressional inquiry presented “significant risks” to its own preliminary investigation into the matter.

The department is taking an even harder line with other Congressional committees looking into the matter, and is refusing to provide information about any role it might have played in the destruction of the videotapes. The recordings covered hundreds of hours of interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda.

The Justice Department and the C.I.A.’s inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department would not comply with Congressional requests for information now because of “our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence.” ...

[calmo]

realist? (really? some doubt about 'realist', izatit?),
is this too farfetched.?
yes.

is this too 'in yo face'?
no. yes!

can I let yo answer the question?
no.

Is the 2nd coming too farfetched? (Is there a fetching threshold?)[Do you have a dog? and how iz he on this fetching business? dedicated or amused?] (Are you fetchin at this very moment?) (why not?) [Why isn't there an expression 'nearfetched'?] (Let's invent it right here and now: He was a powerful diplomat on a mission of great importance but no sense of culinary adventure. He would order his cheese burger, something he knew...not those exotic noodles. Now was not the time to hatch farfetched plans of what he was about to eat. No, it was time to send an aid to fetch him a burger. When in doubt, stay nearfetched or better, leave the fetching to others and the plonking to yourself.)[Almost]

[Blissex]

The issue here is not whether or not agents of the United States have, in the past, engaged in torture or other criminal actions. The point is that, in the past, those action were criminal.

Almost only in theory. The very essence of the history of the USA is that there is a law for insiders (subjects) and a different one for outsiders (objects). Plus a large dose of hypocrisy and propaganda.

those who torture, whether our own guys or our proxies, must always remain responsible for such criminal conduct. If they guess right, nobody will ever go to jail.

So tortures should only get punished if they make mistakes. A nicely ethical stance...

[Blissex]

Remember, this is not the President or Vice President or the Administration, but the will of an entire political party Well, but that is a bit economical with the truth, which is that it is the will of the voters. They have re-elected GWB on his record, resoundingly, and they elected a GOP majority on the same record. Then they switched to the Dems, but I suspect that had little to do with outrage with the damaged of the bodies of unpersons. The average middle aged lady in her suburban home is delighted that a few hundred or a few thousand nasty looking people are going to be tortured "just in case" to minimize risks to her property and well being, as she is secure in her vested rights and that she will not be thus abused. The average voter thinks "Better safe than sorry", and it is better that tens or hundreds of innocent nasty looking unpersons be tortured than a single culprit escape. The tradeoff is between a minuscule increase in perceived safety for the voter at the expense of great suffering for someone else, and the hobbesian voters see nothing objectionable in that.

[anne]

"Remember, this is not the President or Vice President or the Administration, but the will of an entire political party."

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/the_torture_party.php

December 14, 2007

The Torture Party
By Matthew Yglesias

House GOP voted unanimously yesterday * to keep on torturing. The Democrats are clearly against torture. Like all else that's good in the world, this anti-torture bill will presumably suffer death by filibuster at the hands of Senate Republicans.

* http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1158.xml

[anne]

"The average middle aged lady in her suburban home...."

This is stereotypical rubbish, but what is important is to always use stereotypes to cover over what we do not know.