Smerconish loves him some Torture
By Heather Saturday Dec 20, 2008 11:00am
Chris Matthews and Christopher Hitchens take on Michael Smerconish for his pro-torture views. Smerconish uses the "ticking time bomb" scenario which is a ridiculous argument and one better left for the screen writers of 24. Hitchens has really come around on this issue since volunteering to undergo waterboarding himself and if Chris Matthews could stop talking over him every once in a while, he might have had a better chance making his arguments against Smerconish. That said the two of them do manage to make Smerconish look as foolish as he is for taking this stance. Waterboarding does not produce reliable information and it's a war crime and Smerconish is just dead wrong.
John Amato:
Smerconish is also staking out the position that torture is a wonderful thing no matter if the ticking time bomb scenario is in play or not. Whatever it takes is his mantra and I expect as soon as Obama takes the presidency, the right wing zealots will ramp this thing up to insane proportions.
It is truly sickening to witness this in real time. We prosecuted the Japanese for torture on our own troops, but to justify some sick sense of loyalty to the Conservative movement on Smercs part---he's willing to compromise the moral high ground to go on the air and praise the use of torture just shows us how far the Conservative movement has fallen .
More transcripts below the fold:
MATTHEWS: Michael, you're an attorney. What happens if it's determined by the courts at some point in the near future that we do have to apply the Geneva Conventions code with regard to torture or non-torture of prisoners, even when they're non-state detainees? What happens to the president in that regard? He found in his-in his document I've got in front of me in 2002 that we can torture, basically, we're not obliged to follow the Geneva Conventions.
Is the president legally culpable here under some future tribunal in this country for having decided that he can ignore the Geneva Conventions in this case?
SMERCONISH: I think not. Frankly-well, frankly, the law doesn't say much of anything in this regard. I mean, I think I know what went on here. They turned to John Yoo, who, frankly, was at a third level in the administration, and they asked him to create new law in this regard. Now, oddly enough, he's out at Berkeley.
The direct answer to your question is al Qaeda doesn't wear the uniform of any particular nation. They're not a signatory to the Geneva Convention. They're not going to play by those rules, so why should we? If they were playing by them, maybe I'd have a different posture in this regard.
MATTHEWS: So you're consistent...
HITCHENS: I don't believe you would, sir. I mean, what if some-the next conspirator is an identifiable member of the Pakistani armed forces? Are you going to tell me that what you just said, that all measures are allowable, doesn't apply because he's wearing a uniform, but he's the mastermind of what happened in Bombay, what might be going to happen in London tomorrow? You can't be serious.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Michael, would you apply the Geneva Conventions if one of the people...
SMERCONISH: Christopher...
MATTHEWS: ... who committed a horrible act against us was, in fact, a state official? Would you apply the Geneva Conventions there or not, or do whatever it takes?
SMERCONISH: Christopher is correct. I would not apply the Geneva Convention there, either. One of the individuals from the Mumbai attack, one of the terrorists survived and is in custody. And if that individual was believed to have actionable intelligence about a future attack, any means necessary to exact the information from him I would support.
Listen, the Indians apparently used truth serum, and I don't hear anybody beefing-I've read all about it in the U.K. press. They've detailed it. Nobody's beefing about the means that are being used in India about this...
HITCHENS: Well, what if they...
MATTHEWS: Well, let me-let me try to apply this...
(CROSSTALK)
HITCHENS: What if it was a blowtorch?
MATTHEWS: What about the Japanese soldiers, the generals or whatever, the officer corps who were convicted of war crimes for using waterboarding against some of the flyers who were part of the Doolittle raid over-you know, the "30 Seconds Over Tokyo" heroes? I mean, from their point of view, they were operating in self-defense. Would you say that they were operating morally by waterboarding one of our flyers? I'm just asking you tit for tat here, from their point of view, the Japanese point of view.
SMERCONISH: In that...
MATTHEWS: I don't defend the Japanese...
SMERCONISH: No...
MATTHEWS: ... empire in one instance, but where do you draw the line morally on what's in and what's out, or does it just depend whether you're American or not? Is that it, if you're American, anything goes?
SMERCONISH: Chris, I'm all about defending American interests.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: In other words, your moral system is based on, if you're an American, anything goes. If you're in the other country, we try you for war crimes. You lose the war, we cut your head off, or whatever it takes, we execute you. In other words, your morality is entirely nationally based. I'm just asking.
SMERCONISH: And I'm going to answer, if you'll give me the chance. Yes, my moral code is dictated by the fact that I want our leaders to be guided to protect American lives first.
MATTHEWS: OK, so a Japanese colonel...
SMERCONISH: Chris...
MATTHEWS: ... or general...
SMERCONISH: Chris, we...
MATTHEWS: ... who operates under the same code and waterboards an American flyer, how would you judge him morally or legally? You, as an attorney.
SMERCONISH: That is not the current-that is-that is...
MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking you to judge...
SMERCONISH: ... not the current circumstance with al Qaeda.
MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking you, what would you do? You said anything goes in terms of defending this country. That's pure nationalism. I accept it. I'm close to you on that, except I think there are limits. I'm just asking if you have any.
SMERCONISH: I don't have any limits relative to al Qaeda. None.
Login or Register to post comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ5LaSPThfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OqsdyGKPuM
What made people like smerconish such cowards?
That CNN poll: 43% that would keep Gitmo isn't us, it's those subjects who keep applying pain,
at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/
On any given subject these are three guys who are like the wheels on a slot machine Smerconish came out for Obama Matthews was for the war before he became an avid dove Hitchens can't decide which he favors Scotch or Irish whiskey
...I ever witnessed was when my sister and brother-in-law (both ministers) sat in my living room and defended torturing terror suspects.
My sister marched for civil rights and witnessed the results of lynchings. She was always a gentle soul.
Until the same people who promised her that they would end abortions told her that it was okay to torture.
When you check your brains at the door you also check your morals.
That's why I use credit cards.
the first time an American is tortured by anyone; they'll refuse to admit they're wrong if the other side is wrong.
This stuff gets tiring. These people are right-wing authoritarians. They don't operate on logic or reason; they operate on emotion--fear and rage. Reasoning with them will never work because if they were to admit their beliefs were wrong it would bring down the whole house of cards that is their psyche.
Have a look at this study:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
This is what we're up against.
he is hispanicly inquisitive.
I guess y'all've heard by now georgie saying in an interview that at least he didn't sacrifice his soul.
the f*ckerhe has a soul?Matthews had Duncan Hunter and another senator (D) on, yesterday, I think - and Duncan was about over the top. Wouldn't you torture if was your family?
PBS documentary "Torturing Democracy" makes the points about torture counterproductivity, features several members of our gov't who refused to condone it and came up against Darth Cheney.
see http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/2008/12/steal...
I'm completely convinced that the principle reason the Bush-Cheney-CIA Cabal chose to torture their "Al-Qaeda suspects" was to extract false confessions, to coverup their own involvement (whether acquiescent or active) in 9-11.
If information about an attack is obtained by torture and the attack never happened, wasthere ever a plot in the first place?
Shocking study finds most will torture if ordered
More at link.
1
People of good conscience must never cede one inch of the moral high ground as regards the acceptable use of torture.
It is a crime.
Or the acceptable initiation of aggressive war, from which all other war crimes ensue.
I loves me some Alice.
Would people of good conscious and on the moral highground ever go to war, or invade another country?
Aggressive war is committed by one country when it invades another without first being attacked.
Conspiracy to commit and aggressive war were the first two charges we brought at Nuremberg against the Nazis.
The principals were convicted and hung.
The Bush Doctrine promotes aggressive war. It is the first of many war crimes.
The thing that gets me is in or after WWII, Japanese (and some Germans too?) were tried and convicted of waterbording. We put them in jail for waterboartding. What am I missing here? Torture and waterboarding specifically, is against the law. How can these idiots justify it?
nailed it earlier.
These are right wing authoritorians.
They need no logic or justifications other than Gott Mit Uns.
They require blind obedience.
Dissenters and the unholy will be brutally suppressed.
If torture leads to accurate information to keep America safe then in that case waterboard Rove and Cheney if it will get the truth on who made America less safe by outing a covert CIA agent. Or do conservatives not apply the same rule for keeping America safe to conservative traitors in this country?
In that case while we're at it, waterboard all fo BushCo until they admit the real rational for the Iraq war. That certainly hasn't made us more safe in fact, it has busted out budget, depleted our military, emboldened our enemies and alienate our allies so in fact it has made us less safe.
As Bush would say; "So what?"
I think it was on Olbermann the other night that he was talking about how Bush was saying how they got information that stopped other attacks. He listed the four examples that Bush gave. One was the building in L.A. that they said they stopped which in reality was a farce and Bush named the wrong building and the L.A. officials were never notified. Maybe one was the shoe bomber and another one was the shampoo deal on airplanes that forced everybody to throw out their shampoo before they were allowed to board. Apparently experts suggested that it was next to impossible to use these kind of substances to blow up a plane anyway. I can't remember the other example(s) but it was all nonsense. So when Cheney says they got all kinds of info from waterboarding it is all bullshit. I sure hope that the next administration/congress puts these assholes on trial. It will probably take a few years but I have a lot of hope that it will happen.
while we must consider the authoritarian nature of these folks, the neocons and right wingers, we must also consider the nature of toxic ideology. we might ask the question "what would a sociopathic system look like?" we are supposed to believe these righties only care about america, but if torture experts agree that no good intelligence comes from torture, and the rest of the world has defined waterboarding and torture as illegal, what does it mean when a whole administration, including the supporting pundits/press and think tanks, decide it is okay to redefine legality? it is the same with the idea that the executive branch can come in and redefine its job. these are twisted minds here folks and i will stretch as far to say these neocons are not much more evolved than the nazis. their torture use is part of a total propaganda campaign aimed at all of us. sorry to be so dark and moody but i think the truth is darker than the main stream can handle or wishes to admit. making the abnormal normal. if we accept the horror of torture as a culture we move a step closer to the darkness which breeds men like cheney, addington, yoo or smerconish.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Yew Betcha!!
Nein
If by your implication the terms AGREE with each other, but it may be considered redundant.
...another loudmouth, former attorney who likes to hear himself talk. He and Crissy became buds, I guess, 'cause Smerc is on the radio in Philly.
I'm thinking that any lawyer who publicly advocates and supports breaking the law of the land (in this case no torture) should be subjected to the particular crime - so let's waterboard Smerc and see if he can keep talking while gargling.....at the very least they should be disbarred for conspiracy to break the law.
You outlaw torture in all circumstances. Then if the torture vs millions-of-lives scenario ever comes up, you go ahead and break the law to save those lives. Duh.
Like it or not, I'm certain that is the history of the planet: we sorry sorry human creatures.
What I'll never understand is why Bush made it public. To score some cheap political points? Guess he got votes. Sickening!!!!
(I am 100% against torture any time, anywhere, just sayin'.)
no such animal.
Another made up boogieman to make us be afraid.
Torture is immoral under any circumstances. It is also illegal. There should be no argument about it. Anyone who condones torture is a criminal.
As Bush would say; "So what?"
Right-wingers always seem to think they're "talking tough" on issues like this, but to me it just sounds like profound cowardice.
They sound like frightened little children, desperately shouting that they'll give up *anything* if you'll just protect them. It's pathetic to watch.
Why does it, to me at least, that these rightwingers who are for torture have never served in the military and have led a priviledged life. I would bet that this reichwinger Smercomical went to the "best schools" and grew up in a "monied" family. Asswipe!
I think his "performance" on Hardball the other night was his audition to join Fox News. He's always grated me the wrong way but this time he went WAY too far and I'll be happy if he never appears on MSNBC again!
I'm sure the Inquisitors during the Spanish Inquisition believed that they too were morally justified in committing the acts that they committed.
That is why the Geneva Conventions were created. To finally put an end to the hazy area of "moral justification". Essentially NOBODY can claim "moral justification" when it comes to torturing prisoners. NOBODY.
"The ghoul" mentioned "utopia". Utopia can only come when each and every one of us fixes ourselves. Until then we're still crawling out of the primordial ooze. But we can start now, one by one.
"..and if Chris Matthews could stop talking over him every once in a while.."
Yes.It's very irritating.
That said Tweety does a good job at the end of the piece identifying Smerconish's line for what it is:Rightwing Nationalism.You know-Fascism.
Bush, Cheney, Addington, Gonzalez, and Yoo took the morally righteous feet of America, stuck them in a box of cement and then tossed Her into the sea of barbarism.
When Mr. Hitchens wishes to speak, the boorish Mr. Matthews should refrain from talking.
vaginal thrush.
These guys like Smerconish are without exception COWARDS.
The only world they want to live in is a world of Fear where
the end justifies the Means.So in there world there is only
Fear and Torture,and has this helped our Standing in the World?
I think back to all the times the right-wing accused the left of using situational ethics. Anyone who wasn't to the right of Goldwater believed there were no absolute standards.
Along comes Michael Smerconish who believes anything the United States does is right but if any other country or group does the same thing to us it is immoral. If that isn't situational ethics I don't know what is.
Jesus said do treat others the way you want them to treat you. I thought these people were supposed to believe the Bible is the standard for our conduct?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcl-uofCzRc
Login or Register to post comments.