The Difference

If conservatives want to argue that Barack Obama's been flip-flopping on Iraq, I'll disagree but I could see what they mean. Charles Krauthammer, however, can't seriously believe that Obama's been "assiduously obliterat[ing] all differences with McCain on national security and social issues" since the end of the primaries.

Consider such non-obscure points as John McCain is pro-life and has said he wants to appoint judges who will restrict abortion rights, whereas Barack Obama is pro-choice. John McCain favors an amendment to California's constitution that would take back gay and lesbian couples' newfound marriage rights whereas Barack Obama opposes such an amendment. Barack Obama opposes a permanent American military presence in Iraq whereas John McCain favors it. Barack Obama thinks torture is wrong even when the CIA does it, whereas John McCain thinks it's great for the CIA to torture people. Barack Obama favors good-faith high-level negotiations with Iran, whereas John McCain wants to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." One could go on, but it hardly seems necessary -- the only question is why The Washington Post thinks it's a good idea to publish columns that are designed to mislead its audience rather than to inform its audience, or why they think customers would want to pay money for a publication that behaves that way.

Comments

Anybody who has read the columns by Dr. Krauthammer knows that the only issue that interests him is Iran. He thinks that Senator McCain will bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran and that Senator Osama will not. Period, end of story.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 11:39 AM

Since McCain has held both views on every issue at some point, it is hard not to agree with something JM has said in the past.

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | July 4, 2008 11:42 AM

It seems you are being coopted by the beltway media company you are now keeping. In what way can you "see what they mean" that Obama has flip-flopped on Iraq?

Posted by bemused | July 4, 2008 11:46 AM

Matt, I have an economic answer for your question. The Washington Post makes a lot of money of Krauthammer and its other horrible (they're all horrible) op-ed writers. They syndicate these writers to the many small-town rags who are too cheap to hire people to ape their publishers' crackpot views. This is also why it's impossible to remove an op-ed columnist from a big-time paper without using dynamite. They are commodities.
PS: Same goes for the NYT's pretty much less horrible op-ed columnists.

Posted by JMG | July 4, 2008 11:49 AM

". . . the only question is why The Washington Post thinks it's a good idea to publish columns that lie to its audience . . . "

Fixed it.

Posted by Joel | July 4, 2008 11:57 AM

These people (the WaPo editorial paginistas) have a decade or more of their lives involved with rogue state rollback. They are rationalizing Obama's views in the hope that they can at least maintain their status and not be discredited. Good luck with that!

Posted by joejoejoe | July 4, 2008 12:00 PM

JMG: that may be true today, but eventually, some publishers are going to realize that readers aren't buying the paper for the op-ed writers, and whatever that cost is, it's too high.

i expect op-ed writing as we know it today (overpriced, lazy pundits producing next to nothing every week) and completely replaced by some variants of blogging.

Posted by howard | July 4, 2008 12:12 PM

The final proof that the birth certificate of Senator Obama posted on Daily Kos and on the Obama campaign website are forgeries. When is the senator going to show the real birth certificate, if it indeed exists?

"Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims
By Israel Insider staff July 3, 2008

Bookmark to del.icio.usDigg!Digg This Story

A crop from the image for which opendna aka Jay McKinnon takes credit (see context in reproduction below). Posted on Photobucket and in comments attached to the Daily Kos blog post where the purported Obama birth certificate appears

Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.

The evidence of forgery and manipulation of images of official documents, triggered by Israel Insider's revelation of the collection of Hawaii birth certificate images on the Photobucket site and the diligent detective work of independent investigative journalists (led by JimJ and Texas Darling) and imaging professionals such as Polarik in the three weeks since the publication of the images, implicate The Daily Kos, a "progressive" blog site, and the Obama campaign's "Fight the Smears" website, in misleading the public with official-looking but manipulated document images of doubtful provenance. Moreover, the blog and the campaign have been negligent in allowing the promotion of obviously forged and fake official documents together with the purported image of Obama's birth certificate.

ORIGINS OF THE SUSPECT IMAGE ON DAILY KOS

The blog entry, posted by the site founder Kos (Markos Moulitsas), is presented as a response to a request by Jim Geraghty of the National Review Online, who had, three days before, called for the Obama campaign to release the candidate's birth certificate:

Having done some Obama-rumor debunking that got praise from Daily Kos (a sign of the apocalypse, no doubt), perhaps the Obama campaign could return the favor and help debunk a bunch of others with a simple step: Could they release a copy of his birth certificate?
Reporters have asked for it and been denied, and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public [...]

So Kos aka Moulitsas goes out and gets one. One impressed commenter on the site asks Kos where he got it. He answers:
"I asked the campaign. This 'journamalism [sic] thing actually works sometimes."

But why would a presidential campaign that has its own "Fight the Smears" website rely on a radical left-wing blog like Daily Kos to post its official documents, especially one as sensitive and controversial as a birth certificate? A few days later the Obama site would post a very low resolution, barely legible image -- it still is there on the site, with no reference to the one first posted at the Daily Kos.

Yet the service of Daily Kos to the Obama campaign raises some questions: Who in the campaign would be authorized to release a personal document of Barack Obama's birth certificate? Was it a paper document that they sent to Kos to scan, or did the Obama campaign scan the original and send it to Kos? If so, why not just post it on the Fight the Smears site? Or is there another possible source for the document? There is no documentation of the provenance of this image, from whom and why it was transmitted to Daily Kos, and in which format. None, that is, except for the say-so of Markos Moulitsas, who said he simply asked the Obama campaign for it.

The perceived unreliability of the image has provoked petitions and widespread demands for Obama to submit for objective inspection the paper versions of the "birth certificate" he claimed in his book Dreams from My Father was in his possession, as well as the paper version of the Certificate of Live Birth for which the image on the Daily Kos and the Obama "Fight the Smears" website was supposedly generated.

Without a valid birth certificate, the primary record of US birth, Obama cannot prove that he fulfills the "natural born citizen" requirement of the Constitution, throwing into doubt his eligibility to run for President and throwing the race into turmoil. His presumed Kenyan-born father was foreign-born, and his mother was too young at the time of birth to confer natural born status by virtue of her American citizenship. Thus his citizenship comes down to proving he was born in the USA, and his campaign has staked its credibility on the authenticity of the Daily Kos-derived birth certificate image. (These aspects of the case are covered extensively in the previous article in this series.)

WHO IS OPENDNA/JAY McKINNON?

McKinnon, who says he is 25-30 years old, operates a website called opendna.com and uses the opendna screen name on various web sites and blogs, including his comments and diary on The Daily Kos. In recent years he has divided his time between Long Beach, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. He is a Democratic political activist, frequent contributor to the left wing Daily Kos blog, and a fervent Barack Obama supporter.

"opendna" posted two versions of a "Certification of Live Birth" document image that, as demonstrated in the respective blogs of analysts Polarik and JimJ, have a common visual signature (a dot that appears on all four images) with the images posted on the Daily Kos site image that the Obama campaign has endorsed as genuine on its "Fight the Smears" website and has distributed to news media as the "real" birth certificate of Barack Obama. The signature dot appears on that one, too, when magnified, albeit a bit ... smeared.

Here's the same anomaly appears in Jay Mckinnon/opendna's images (highlight added by JimJ:

View the larger image.

One image created and posted by opendna is what he describes as a "blank template" of a State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth. Only two data fields are filled in: the ISLAND OF BIRTH ("Oahu") and the HOUR OF BIRTH (7:24 PM). Neither of the images have a posted date stamp, but embedded EXIF information contains the time stamp of June 12 at 8:24am, the same day and time Daily Kos posted the purported Obama birth certificate.

Both images lack two salient characteristics present in the Barack Obama birth certificate images claimed by the Daily Kos blog and Obama's "Fight the Smears" site. The Field under CERTIFICATE NO is blank whereas on the purported "Obama birth certificate" that area is blacked out as if to conceal a real number. In addition, the two documents posted to the opendna account lack the reversed date (June 6, 2007) that appears at the bottom of the purported "Obama birth certificate."

However, the ISLAND OF BIRTH and the HOUR OF BIRTH is identical on the "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" and blank certificates as well as the purported "Obama birth certificate," which also claims 7:24 pm as the HOUR OF BIRTH and Oahu as the ISLAND OF BIRTH. The odds of an identical time occurring by chance in two certificates is 1440 to 1. Either the former is derived from the latter, or the latter is derived from the former.

If "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" were derivative of the purported "Obama birth certificate," it would have meant that -- in a matter of minutes on the morning of June 12, 2008, opendna would have had to tracelessly erase all fields (save ISLAND OF BIRTH and the HOUR OF BIRTH), and to painstakingly remove the blacked out area near CERTIFICATE NO and the reversed date that appears at the bottom of the purported "Obama birth certificate." Given the complexity of the background pattern, it would have been difficult to do this without leaving behind traces of the extractions. For what motive would one want to do this?

Given that this is an official state document, the risks of altering and tampering with it, or offering it for the express purpose of creating a forgery, or promoting it on a website, would seem to be rather high for fun and games.

The second possibility is that the blank document preceded the purported Obama birth certificate, serving as a "master" for the other. Either one would find a "blank document" and fill it in, or one would scan or photograph an authentic document and then "clean it" to create a blank document that would be filled in with personal details and the necessary stamps and signatures. One might be inclined to leave in type for two rows for alignment purposes and to ensure that the font type and size are consistent. Later one would fill in the blank areas with the desired data and "authentic" markings.

A FORGER'S SECRET CONFESSION ON THE DAILY KOS

The significance of opendna's forged birth certificate template can be discerned by looking more closely at the Daily Kos blog entry in which the purported Obama birth certificate first appears.

Indeed, the document image was initially posted with a resolution of 1024 x 1000. Only later, after it was discovered that the document stamp and official signature were lacking from the document image, Kos replaced the image with the much higher resolution in which it is claimed that, after a series of complex image manipulation steps using special imaging software, a faint image of something the website claims is the missing seal appears. (Even if there is a seal, it's not clear it's a seal from an Obama birth certificate, and there is no visible registrar signature, which is also required for a certified document.) But it is impossible to make out with the naked eye, and the manipulation is illegible and useless for verification purposes.

A possible answer for some of these anomalies is provided in banter between opendna and other commenters in the discussion thread of the blog post.

At 12:41pm, a prior request for a "font expert" is answered by opendna: "How about a certified DHS [Department of Homeland Security] document expert?" And by 1:35pm opendna comes up with a suggestion: "Why don't you just print one up for him? Here's a blank template.

And sure enough, there in the comments stream, he provides the "almost blank" Hawaii birth certificate image that appears on his Photobucket account, with just the information for the island and hour of birth.

The next commenter is impressed: "why can't Geraghty find this stuff? (but bloggers like you have it at thier fingertips? No wonder print media is in total collapse."

Now, as the time stamps would have it, opendna's suggestion is out of synch, appearing 4-5 hours after the initial posting of the purported Obama birth certificate document. That doesn't make much sense: Kos doesn't need a birth certificate for Obama -- one was already posted!

So why would OpenDNA post this? What explains his suggestion that Kos "print one up" with a "blank template"? Is he just trying to be funny? Is he trying to impress the other commenters? For this did he go through the trouble of removing all the text and the reverse date-stamp? Or was the blank template "just lying around somewhere" on his computer or in some corner of the Internet, just happening to have the identical information as the purported Obama birth certificate?

A hint may be found here (click the image to open one in higher resolution):

"Corvo", a very frequent commenter on Daily Kos, had written at 10 am: I'm sure that every forgery includes a note that essentially says "Hey! I'm a forgery!"

At 01:27:12 PM PDT, some three hours later, under the subject "!!!" and without any further comment, OpenDNA posts a crop of his Haye I.B Ahphorgerie image.

In other word, in response to Corvo's comment, McKinnon makes a visual "joke" -- "Hey," the document is saying: "I be a forgery!"

Remarkably, though, the Ahphorgerie crop appears seven minutes before opendna posts the "blank template" birth certificate image with the suggestion to "print one up" for Obama. So opendna was working on the image at that time.

Of course, the almost-blank "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" birth certificate is not a particularly useful counterfeit but, as McKinnon suggests, it could be put to good use by "printing one up" using the "blank template." It's as if opendna couldn't resist boasting, after the release of the "official" Obama version, of his own role: "Hey, I be a forgery!"

It is certainly worthy of note that the "Haye I.B Ahphorgerie" image and comments were subsequently excised from the discussion thread, something that could only have been done by a site administrator or Kos himself. However, the management failed to clean up in the site archive from where these images were pulled and, as of this writing, is still publicly accessible. The suppression of the comments indicates that one or more persons at Daily Kos were involved in the attempted cover-up.

ON THE UNBEARABLE EASE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE FORGERY

None of this is not to imply that McKinnon himself forged the Obama document, with all the fields filled in with information about the presidential candidate but lacking the visible stamp and signature that alone would make it an authentic document. Nor is their proof positive about how the almost-blank "Oahu 7:24pm" document is related to the one endorsed by the Obama campaign that features those exact details.

The presence on the Daily Kos blog of the admittedly forged almost-blank templates of the document, and the admission of forgery by opendna in that same blog entry, not to mention the technical signatures uncovered by Polarik and JimJ, should cause the Obama campaign to radically reassess its reliance on the image of the birth certificate published by the Daily Kos.

If the website is the home for a self-admitted federally-trained document specialist, with examples of forgery posted concurrently with the image they claim as authentic, is that a venue appropriate for a presidential candidate to showcase the only available high resolution purported image of his vital records? If the birth certificate endorsed by his campaign turns out to be a fraud -- and the overwhelming evidence assembled points to it being precisely that -- what would that say about the credentials and judgment of the presidential candidate it purports to represent? Let alone his Constitutional eligibility to serve.

Yet the Obama campaign, three weeks later, continues to run a derivative of the Daily Kos posts, and insists on its authenticity while refusing to submit any paper proof of birth for official or independent inspection, as if proof of Constitutional fitness to serve is of no consequence.

In the summer of August 2006, blogging on the Daily Kos, opendna aka Jay McKinnon showed off his DHS-derived knowledge, discussing under the heading of "The Perfect ID Card" the ease of forging US documents, birth certificates in particular:

"Most Americans have worse ID than illegal immigrants. So, you have a letter from a notary that says you told him you're a citizen. Is that supposed to mean something? I'm certain he would sign one saying I told him I'm a carrot. Birth certificates, are you serious? Take a look at yours. Chances are I could counterfeit it at Kinkos."

Jay McKinnon may not have had to go that far.

In the course of my subsequent email exchange with McKinnon -- more on that in the next article -- he at last agreed to release the following statement: "I believe there is overwhelming evidence that Senator Obama is a natural born US Citizen, and I have no evidence to contradict that belief." He did not relate to the veracity of the Obama birth certificate images.

This is Part 4 of a series. Here's where you can find Parts 1, 2, and 3. Other articles about Barack Obama and his mysterious background are linked on the upper left of this article. In Part 5 (coming soon!), more on the email exchange with Jay McKinnon, some hints from him about "Uncle Mark", a referral to the "Canadian CIA," and an attempt by him to downplay the importance of the purported online birth certificates, the authenticity of which he admits cannot be verified. "

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 12:17 PM

Matt, I think you have the wrong focus on this. Obama ran, successfully, on a platform that was good politics and good governance -let's make peace in the Middle East, let's end the money and blood suck in Iraq, let's talk to our "enemies". He is now rapidly falling into the hands of D.C. Consultant politics, and he has, indeed, visibly aligned himself with the dreadful, stupid foreign policy represented by the average Fred Hiatt op ed. Hiatt was, I thought, laughable for claiming that Obama's foreign policy was a mere continuation of Bush's. That is looking less laughable by the day.

This is neither good politics nor good governance. Don't defend Obama! At least attack the DLC-ish view that, once again, is going to give our foreign policy to the most loutish, brutal and stupid, aka the GOP. Even if Obama is elected, at this rate, he will have tied his hands to do anything that isn't loutish, brutal and stupid.

This isn't the Obama who successfully undermined Clinton. If he has swallowed the surge is working, everybody wants to spend another 150 billion dollars in Iraq mantra (and you just attended the very hive of mainstream thinking and could witness, firsthand, the gilding of the excrement and the way it becomes cw) he will definitely lose his best issue, and maybe the election.

How stupid to think that he has to present himself as "responsible" in terms that the Weekly standard crew can approve of. Obama has to wake up. What he is doing is not only muddying his issues, but is doing the one thing that can cut off the crucial flow of his funding. Coming out for the Iraq war is braindead.

Posted by roger | July 4, 2008 12:19 PM

Just for the record, there are some of us who are long-time conservatives who no longer even bother to read Krauthammer's columns because he has so far lost touch with reality. (Or, to be fair, he may be clear on reality, but be so far gone to cynicism himself that he says things that he knows are totally untrue.)

Take suggesting that Obama's position on Iraq today is any different that it was 6 months ago. The parts that are emphasized have changed, since the general election audience is different from the Democratic primary audience. But anyone who actually listened to what he has been saying knows that the overall policy is the same as it has been all along. And that is true whether you approve or disapprove of what that policy is.

Posted by wj | July 4, 2008 12:20 PM

Indeed, "one could go on". But who needs more sophomoric mis-characterizations of either candidates actual statements and records? Total horseshit, Matt.

Posted by robert powell | July 4, 2008 12:25 PM

He's not flip-flopping . . . here's Obama's problem: he overestimates the American political climate sometimes. To any rational person, plans for withdrawal from a warzone are going to be subject to details on the ground and some changes/refinements in those details.

I think Obama thinks about things in very rational LSAT-type logic, and fails to realize that the media's going to pounce on any hesitation or moderation in his comments (and he's naturally a careful person, whose comments are usually very measured). In the modern media context, taking a measured approach is a negative.

Posted by Thad | July 4, 2008 12:30 PM

You, ah, got a little bit of spam there, Matt. Might want to clean that up.

Posted by Demosthenes | July 4, 2008 12:32 PM

He's not flip-flopping . . . here's Obama's problem: he overestimates the American political climate sometimes. To any rational person, plans for withdrawal from a warzone are going to be subject to details on the ground and some changes/refinements in those details.

I think Obama thinks about things in very rational LSAT-type logic, and fails to realize that the media's going to pounce on any hesitation or moderation in his comments (and he's naturally a careful person, whose comments are usually very measured). In the modern media context, taking a measured approach is a negative.

Posted by Thad | July 4, 2008 12:34 PM

roger -- and Matt -- please just read wj's 2nd paragraph above (well, also Josh Marshall's spot-on rant of last night). The GOP continues to whip Dems' asses in the media-spin race, and that's truly, truly got to stop. But people who frequent (and write!) blogs like this really should know better than to fall for such crap.

Posted by rj | July 4, 2008 12:36 PM

Don't you moderate this at all? I suspect that if one of George Carlin's seven words was used, you'd modify or drop the post.

So why don't you drop the 2500+ screed of "SLC" (who courageously hides in anonymity)?

Stop letting the Republicans use the media to spread their slurs.

This is pretty open race-baiting and your letting this person use your pages to do it.

Posted by john Dowd | July 4, 2008 12:38 PM

robert powell of "Saddam was Hitler, Bush is Nelson Mandella mixed with Prince Charming whose unprovoked slaughter of Iraqis saved their lives" fame? Complaining about "sophomoric mischaracterizations"? This is just too funny!

Hey powell, ever discover that George W. Bush didn't invade Iraq with his time machine?

Posted by Not as bloodthirsty as robert powell | July 4, 2008 12:41 PM

SLC

WHAT A BUNCH OF HOOEY! What the hell are you talking about? You make NO sense. He was born in Honalulu, HI to an 18 year old University of Hawaii student. Why would he have a fake birth certificate? This kind of stuff is sick. It is PUMA/Rethug spammer crap! Get a life!

Posted by margoharris | July 4, 2008 12:49 PM

SLC is just hysterically bothered about anything 'mooozlimy'. He posts every now and then with some anti-Obama screed posted by the scared nincompoops at "israelinsider" who are afraid that Obama's gonna sell Israel to Hamasmedinejadbolla'lQaida, and then the stupid post is proven empirically and disastrously wrong -- you know, like Snopes.com wrong, I don't means sophisticatedly wrong, like, it's based on the 2nd hand now elderly recollections of somebody that was NOT Obama's grade school teacher and by the way it's just even some dude's interpretation of what that 2nd hand elderly recollection must have meant -- and SLC will then wait until israelinsider sends him a new 'hey'dja here this about Osama I mean Obama'.

Posted by El Cid | July 4, 2008 1:00 PM

It is great to read the distain for Charles Krauthammer. When ever there is a genuine threat to the house of cards that lefty loons construct, all the same adjectives and club house, washwomen like gossip comes outs in force to squash that threat. In this case it's the insights of Krauthammer.
It isn't ever worth the time and trouble to attempt to unweave the misrepresentations that live in minds of the frightened old women who pretend to think the truth.
None of you could last 1 round in a head to head with Krauthammer.

Posted by victor Schiro | July 4, 2008 1:16 PM

Re margoharris

If Senator Obama was born in Hawaii as Ms. margoharris claims, then there will be a legitimate birth certificate, not the phonies published by DailyKos and on his website.

Re El Cid

Senator Obama can prove the Israelinsider wrong in a heartbeat by producing his real birth certificate instead of the forgeries that have so far been produced. The fact that he has failed so far to do so speaks volumes.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 1:21 PM

I was going to comment (who, exactly, is going to be misled by Krauthammer?) but the bizarre spamming here is too much. Bye.

Posted by MattF | July 4, 2008 1:21 PM

Re El Cid

The article on snopes does not in any way, shape, form, or regard address the issue raised by the Israelinsider which questions whether, in fact, Senator Obama was born in Hawaii. That's the only issue that they have raised. All the stuff in the snopes article has nothing to do with it. As I have stated, Senator Obama can bury this issue in a heartbeat by producing a certified copy of his birth certificate, if in fact, it exists. He has thus far not done so but has instead endorsed fakes. I can guarantee Mr. El Cid that, in the event of an Obama election, the Rethuglicans will raise it in court if it has not been put to bed in the interim.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 1:31 PM

It is great to read the distain for Charles Krauthammer. When ever there is a genuine threat to the house of cards that lefty loons construct, all the same adjectives and club house, washwomen like gossip comes outs in force to squash that threat. In this case it's the insights of Krauthammer.
It isn't ever worth the time and trouble to attempt to unweave the misrepresentations that live in minds of the frightened old women who pretend to think the truth.
None of you could last 1 round in a head to head with Krauthammer.

Posted by victor Schiro | July 4, 2008 1:32 PM

Yeah, SLC; it speaks volumes about how Obama need not pay attention to loony outlets like Israel Insider. Newsflash: Nothing Daily Kos requires any response from Obama. It's just a blog.

Thanks for hijacking what could have been a fairly informative thread.

Posted by Huntington | July 4, 2008 1:36 PM

100 years.

Meme dead.

Posted by Steve in Sacto | July 4, 2008 1:38 PM

SLC *is* a sock puppet for the Good Doctor.

Posted by ugh | July 4, 2008 1:43 PM

I would like to retract my previous rant. A life changing encounter with Mazola and a beautiful young man from Pittsburgh made me realize that I am wasting my time anonymously slandering Obama. Fortunately the money the McCain campaign paid me is enough to open a nice little leather bar.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 1:52 PM

victor, baby, Krauthammer would never survive a head-to-head with anybody but a koolaid guzzling sellout like you. His column is one long lie, and that's a fact. You defend a raving lunatic liar, because you see the writing on the wall: Obama will free America from the ravages of the sociopathic right wing, and you can't stand it. Too bad. mcCain is toast, as you all are.

Posted by ronjazz | July 4, 2008 2:00 PM

spot on matt. The WaPo need not wonder why its circulation keeps declining. By keeping out of touch and/or horribly ideological clowns like krauthammer, broder, cohen, novak, gerson, hiatt, around and that sorry-ass excuse for an omnbudsman howell, the answer is right there nearly every day on their opinion pages.

Posted by bubba | July 4, 2008 2:01 PM

spot on matt. The WaPo need not wonder why its circulation keeps declining. By keeping out of touch and/or horribly ideological clowns like krauthammer, broder, cohen, novak, gerson, hiatt, around and that sorry-ass excuse for an omnbudsman howell, the answer is right there nearly every day on their opinion pages.

Posted by bubba | July 4, 2008 2:02 PM

"Anybody who has read the columns by Dr. Krauthammer knows that the only issue that interests him is Iran."

Actually, anyone who has read the columns by Dr. Krauthammer knows that the only issue that really interests him is Israel and, specifically, the electoral fortunes of the Likud Bloc. His current fixation on Iran is just a byproduct of those underlying priorities.

He is, for all intents and purposes, an agent of a foreign power -- although given current political realities maybe agent of the 51st state would be a more accurate description.

Posted by Peter Principle | July 4, 2008 2:10 PM

God damn you, Matt, is there no limit to the quantity of junk you let people post on your site?

SLC has earned deletion of all future posts, too. That was pure prefab Republican surrogate trollery on a meta-peripheral issue. He'll be talking about kerning next.

Even Crooked Timber and Kevin Drum finally realized that their comment thread were being ruined by idiots and trolls. You'd be better off permanently closing down your comments than letting the shitheads take over.

There's a formula: a moderate site with unmoderated comments draws shitheads. Don't ask me why -- it's a scientific fact.

Posted by John Emerson | July 4, 2008 2:12 PM

I delivered papers for the Washington Post.

My family bought the Washington Post their entire lives.

I was to be the one to continue this tradition, but when I started seeing the WaPo decline horribly from "Here are the facts, you draw your conclusions" journalism and into this slimy underbelly of "frame the debate", "bait your thinking" articles... I realized I would never buy the Washington Post again.

Sad.

BTW, Charles Krauthammer is ungodly, because he shows no respect for the other parts of God that are not in perfect lockstep with his rigid beliefs.

Posted by Disgusted | July 4, 2008 2:17 PM

Every psychologist and psychiatrist I've ever met turn out to have first become attracted to that field because of severe personal and emotional problems of their own. Usually they are able to master the problems and behave normally.

CK is an exception to the rule.

Posted by Stuart Eugene Thiel | July 4, 2008 2:17 PM

JMG: you may be right, but my own limited experience with small circulation papers says that they mostly carry Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, etc. The Townhall types. Probably cheaper than someone syndicated by the Post.

Posted by Davis | July 4, 2008 2:24 PM

"whereas John McCain thinks it's great for the CIA to torture people."

Are you serious??

Posted by Chris | July 4, 2008 2:30 PM

It seems to be a media theme to use folks like Krauthammer as *experts*. I saw Cliff May being taken as a seriously impartial *expert* on MSNBC the other night. I saw the same with Michael O'Hanlan on CNN the same night.

All of these guys are seriously biased and should be taken with that grain of salt. It will evidently be up to the new media to correctly identify these zealots the same way Michael Moore has been identified as a zealot so folks can take what they say with the proper grain(s) of salt.

Posted by G Davis | July 4, 2008 2:47 PM

"It is great to read the distain for Charles Krauthammer."--victor

I think you are going to find that distain is on diback of your underpants.

Posted by red@cted | July 4, 2008 3:42 PM

"Are you serious??"

I don't think McCain thinks it's "great" for the the CIA to torture people, but he apparently feels that they should have the latitude to interrogate people in ways that go beyond what's permitted in the Army Field Manual. While that might not mean that they can "torture", it almost certainly means that they can do things any decent person would call torture. That's how he voted earlier this year, and if it's not what he believes, he should have voted otherwise.

Posted by alex | July 4, 2008 3:45 PM

Opinion Columnists don't have to be right , in that I can have the opinion that ice is warm due to my total insanity, and if 20 people agree with me cause they are also insane I have a readership and can claim to speak for some constituency. Rethugs don't like objective fact cause , I mean , who would knowingly vote for McDonnell Douglas and Halliburton over childcare?

"A PERSONAL MOMENT WITH CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER....M.J. Rosenberg shares a Charles Krauthammer moment:

About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace — peace essentially on Israel's terms — but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?"

Who indeed.

Krauthammer is a pathological liar on many levels, or just out to lunch if he actually believes anything he writes.
All the more disturbing to me when I think there are people out there whom I call 'good people ' who aren't even that deeply engaged in daily politics and who still believe that venerable institutions like old school traditional papers magically adhere to some kind of essential automatic school of factual decency, and that in their age and maturity would never publish the agenda driven lies of the Krystols and the Krauthammers, and that by their very placement in these organs inherit some of the legitimacy of the institution. I didn't realise 60% of all print media was pro-business biased untill my late teens, and I strongly believe I was never supposed to notice at all .
Perhaps when the readership, shrinking as it does , makes it known that they simply don't buy the nonsense peddled by these charlatans the institutions who print them would realise they are nothing but vampires draining what remains of their credibility, they might jettison the parasites and move back toward ...reporting the news ...? Nahhh, never happen, they'd rather go bankrupt.
It's a corrupt System that feeds on it's own droppings, identifying the source and the nexus of these corrupt elements will be the bulwark of the next generation of bloggers.

Either that or sitting online calling the other side liars

Posted by A.Scott | July 4, 2008 3:51 PM

How about we talk SLC seriously when he/she proves he/she/it is a) an American; b) a Jew; c) a human being? Let him/her/it do so In whatever order he/she/it chooses...

I'd prefer that someone who deliberately uses 'Senator Osama' when spamming be deleted and banned, for reasons far more obvious than the ones SLC considers banworthy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 3:55 PM

Matt, here's one more vote for DrKrauthammer being bat-shit-crazy mono-maniac. His truly sad condition of being wheelchair bound did not elevate his spirit, as suffering and misfortune sometimes do. You can sense the acid and venom that fills him when he speaks in person. I watched him on C-SPAN receiving some wing-nut award a year of two ago. The obvious hatred and anger of his persona was depressing to see.

Mr SLC, I admit to not reading much of the very long post. Did I understand that the 'birth certificate picture' was somehow back traced thru the 'net to it's source? If so why are we not back tracing the internet sites used by AlQaida and either bombing the shit out of their servers or posting false material on them anonymously or somehow subverting them? Seems like a better use of your time than smearing the rare decent politician.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 4, 2008 3:57 PM

Obviously Krauthammer is nothing but a tool, but it's just as deluded to claim that Obama hasn't spent the last two weeks narrowing the gap between himself and McCain by a considerable amount--funny how that never works in reverse--as it is to state that he's completely obliterated it. There may be no easy answers for liberals and progressive Democrats as to what may be done about this, but they surely won't find any by livng in denial about it.

Posted by Michael Hall | July 4, 2008 3:58 PM

I don't think McCain thinks it's "great" for the the CIA to torture people, but he apparently feels that they should have the latitude to interrogate people in ways that go beyond what's permitted in the Army Field Manual. While that might not mean that they can "torture", it almost certainly means that they can do things any decent person would call torture.

Ah, the "decent people" standard. Anti-torture fanatics like it precisely because it's so vague it can mean anything they want at any given time.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 4:01 PM

...oh, and someone go tell Larry Johnson Hillary is Out and actively supporting Barak Obama for President.

Is Hillary treating Hillary unfairly in the media , or is she just buckling to the electorate by no longer supporting her own candidacy? From what I can tell from the PUMA dipshits ,Hillary is like totally betraying ...Hillary...

it's all so confusing sometimes.

Slightly OT, just SLC's blathering reminded me of how freaky No Quarter has become.

Posted by A.Scott | July 4, 2008 4:04 PM

michael hall, don't be inane: obama sold out on FISA. that is not narrowing the gap between him and mccain by a "considerable amount" under any reckoning.

and mccain has worked it in the other way: don't you know he loves the environment now?

Posted by howard | July 4, 2008 4:09 PM

Ah, the idiot patrol ever leaping to the defense of torture using, in an ironic twist, a tortured definition of what torture is; in the person of one whose ideology demands that the indefensible be permitted by merely claiming that torture cannot be defined.

It can, it has been, being a moron doesn't change that.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 4:10 PM

SLC *is* a sock puppet for the Good Doctor.

ugh--Nah. I vote for Victor Shiro.

(We could, of course, both be wrong. I don't suppose someone at the Atlantic could check the posting addresses?)

Posted by Molly, NYC | July 4, 2008 4:29 PM

Peter Principle is exactly right when he says the only thing Krauthammer is interested in is the Likud Party. Oh, and he's very interested in calling anyone who points out his loyalties to Likud an "antisemite".

The little dustup that goofy Joe Klein got involved in with the neocons recently demonstrated exactly what the folks that have taken over the GOP and the Right in America really have in mind. They want WAR WAR WAR in the middle east and they're willing to throw as many American bodies into that meat grinder as it takes. There are quite a few twisted religous fanatics over in the Middle East, and Krauthammer is willing to shed every drop of other peoples' blood in a religious war.

Posted by PopeRatzo | July 4, 2008 4:39 PM

How long may a prisoner be deprived of sleep before it becomes torture?
How long may a prisoner be deprived of food before it becomes torture?
How long may a prisoner be deprived of water before it becomes torture?
How long may a prisoner be subjected to solitary confinement before it becomes torture?
How long, and at what temperatures, may a prisoner be subjected to extreme heat or cold before it becomes torture?
How many times, and how hard, may a prioner be punched or beaten before it becomes torture?

Show me the definition of torture that answers these questions.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 4:41 PM

Hey Not-as-stupd is insane - ask chairman Mao

Posted by DS | July 4, 2008 5:01 PM

Re Mixner

In a previous thread, Mr. fucktard Mixner denied that waterboarding was torture. Attached is a link to an article by Christopher Hitchens where, unlike Mr. Mixner, he decided to undergo the procedure himself before making such a proclamation. Needless to say, Mr. Hitchens' conclusion was that if waterboarding is not torture then nothing is. I suggest that Mr. Mixner either follow Mr. Hitchens example before making his claim or shut his fucking mouth.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 5:03 PM

SLC,

Needless to say, Mr. Hitchens' conclusion was that if waterboarding is not torture then nothing is.

Ah, right. That settles it, then. May we assume you agree with Mr Hitchens on all other matters too?

I suggest that Mr. Mixner either follow Mr. Hitchens example before making his claim or shut his fucking mouth.

I suggest you go fuck yourself with a spatula.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:14 PM

Poor Mixner, he wants so desperately to defend torture, but he can't just say the obvious "I, Mixner support the brutalization of my fellow human beings," so he pretends it is unquantifiable and presents insane arguments premised on the notion that "a law with any variation isn't a law."

Those of you who aren't massive fucking retards know that this is not the case. Irreconcilable differences aren't spelled out in divorce law. A thickwitted moron like Mixner, on the other hand, would demand to know if "holding hands with a man not your husband" is grounds, and if it could be, how many times do you have to do it before it becomes "irreconcilable." That this is stupid is obvious to even the densest of human beings - leaving out our friend Mixner.

But in all honesty, there is no point in arguing with a torture supporter like Mixner because he's so wrapped-up in a love of torture that no examples, no logic, nothing short of the application of one one or more of his favorite techniques - repeatedly, will get him to say otherwise. Which would be fun for some Mixner like character that enjoys torture, but wouldn't actually change Mixner's mind - there's not much there to change, but it has fixated on this idiotic idea and has all the flexibility of intellect of a stone.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:18 PM

Re Mixner

I suggest that Mr. Mixner fucks his mother.

Posted by SLC | July 4, 2008 5:19 PM

Until Not as stupid as Mixner describes what counts as "the brutalization of my fellow human beings" and what doesn't, his claim is meaningless.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 5:23 PM

Irreconcilable Differences:

Differences between spouses that are considered sufficiently severe to make married life together more or less impossible. In a number of states, irreconcilable differences is the accepted ground for a no-fault divorce. As a practical matter, courts seldom, if ever, inquire into what the differences actually are, and routinely grant a divorce as long as the party seeking the divorce says the couple has irreconcilable differences.

Posted by Divorce Lawyer | July 4, 2008 5:27 PM

Mixner--Isn't the "decent person" pretty much the same as the "reasonable man" standard which is used in law, at least for the purpose of demonstrating that the non-specification of "exactly" what something means is a legitmate form of argument?

Could you please sepcify exactly what activities, if any, you would consider torure and why?

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 5:38 PM

Simple.

WaPo is afraid that, if they can the Kraut, he'll sue under the ADA. Because, you know, he's got "principled conservatism" and all.

Posted by Hemlock for Gadflies | July 4, 2008 5:41 PM

Let's remember Mixner Rules:

1. Whatever Mixner says is beyond refutation, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
2. Whatever you say is intrinsically lacking proof.
3. People are icky.

The silly glibertarian boy's sociopathic solipsism makes everything permissible, as long as it doesn't muss his precious little closed mind.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 5:44 PM

No Mixner, what's meaningless is engagement with you. I'll be honest here for a moment, you aren't really stupid - you are deliberately obtuse. Which is actually far worse.

I've already defeated your argument in support of the brutalization of actual human beings (you're right about one thing - your support for torture puts you outside the class of human beings, you don't qualify). That you can't see it is good enough reason to keep the handle:

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:48 PM

Mixner--Isn't the "decent person" pretty much the same as the "reasonable man" standard which is used in law, at least for the purpose of demonstrating that the non-specification of "exactly" what something means is a legitmate form of argument?

No, it's not the same at all. We don't define crimes as whatever a "reasonable man" considers them to be.

Could you please sepcify exactly what activities, if any, you would consider torure and why?

I'm not defining torture. I'm saying that you can't effectively ban it unless you define it. If you believe the ban on torture is effective, please specify exactly what activities, if any, you think it bans, and why. You could start with the list of questions I gave earlier, which include some pretty common interrogation techniques.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 5:53 PM

I am very confused. I can't follow all the stuff that is put here by people making comments.Not sure what most of it means. I know but one thing:

Congress is going to go heavily to the Democrats. Whoever is the next president is going to have to appoint (probably) at least 2 supreme court justices.

If I do not vote for Obama, I won't vote at all. If lots of people don't vote for Obama and the election is close, the McCain will be the guy to appt the two justices. Do I want not to vote and assume that many others bright people will do as I do and do not vote? And through our bright decision help McCain get the chance to appoint the next justices?

I think I will vote for Obama dn urge othes also to do so. I am sure what McCain and his justices will do for our nation: complete the Bush legacy.

Posted by fred lapides | July 4, 2008 5:56 PM

I've already defeated your argument in support of the brutalization of actual human beings

Since you haven't even described what you think counts as "the brutalization of actual human beings" and what doesn't, your "argument" is meaningless.

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 5:56 PM

Hey Not-as-stupd is insane - ask chairman Mao

Posted by DS | July 4, 2008 5:57 PM

Hey Not-as-stupd is insane - ask chairman Mao

Posted by DS | July 4, 2008 6:00 PM

DS,

Why?

Posted by Not-as-stupid is insane | July 4, 2008 6:03 PM

Mixner,

"No, it's not the same at all. We don't define crimes as whatever a "reasonable man" considers them to be."

What about criminal negligence?

"I'm not defining torture. I'm saying that you can't effectively ban it unless you define it."

Does this mean that torture cannot exist, since you appear to believe that it cannot be defined?

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 6:23 PM

Mixner isn't defining torture because to do so would violate his solipsistic argument "I don't want to see torture so it doesn't exist."

That this is fundamentally stupid is self-evident. Were Mixner not in love with supporting torture for ideological reasons even he would regard such an argument as fatuous. But then he's insane as well as stupid.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:23 PM

Mixner,

"No, it's not the same at all. We don't define crimes as whatever a "reasonable man" considers them to be."

What about criminal negligence?

"I'm not defining torture. I'm saying that you can't effectively ban it unless you define it."

Does this mean that torture cannot exist, since you appear to believe that it cannot be defined?

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 6:24 PM

Sadly shawn214us, that is exactly what Mixner is saying. It's not because of an actual belief, it is because to allow a definition of torture, any definition of torture, is to admit that the Bush administration engaged in it. He's too ideologically committed to supporting Bush to ever allow that.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:33 PM

shawn,

What about criminal negligence?

I don't know. What about it?

Does this mean that torture cannot exist, since you appear to believe that it cannot be defined?

I never said either that torture cannot "exist" or that torture "cannot" be defined. I said that torture can't effectively be banned unless it is defined. If you think torture is effectively banned, please specify exactly what activities you think that ban applies to, and why. Is depriving someone of sleep for 24 hours torture? How about 2 days? A week? See the list of questions I gave above for some more examples of common interrogation techniques.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:33 PM

Mixner,

Criminal Negligence uses the reasonable person which claim cannot define a crime.

Could you go ahead and maybe tell us what specific acts, or duration/intensity of those acts that you think would constitute torture? No need to play coy.

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 6:39 PM

That should have been "which you claim cannot define a crime."

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 6:42 PM

I have a few interesting things to do, so I will just say to shawn214us, trust me, the reason why I don't actually engage this moron Mixner is because he has no interest in a rational discussion. He will dance around and play word games, but he will never come out and admit the obvious:

Mixner supports torture.

That's really all there is. All his sophistry, all his idiocy, all of that is merely his way of saying "I, Mixner, am a huge fan of torture, which is why I keep contending it is legal."

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:47 PM

shawn,

Criminal Negligence uses the reasonable person which claim cannot define a crime.

Show me where criminal negligence is defined as what a reasonable person believes it to be.

Could you go ahead and maybe tell us what specific acts, or duration/intensity of those acts that you think would constitute torture?

As I already explained, I'm not defining torture. Do you think the ban on torture is effective, or don't you? If you do, explain how long you think a prisoner may be deprived of sleep before it qualifies as torture. Or deprived of food or water. Or how long and how hard a prisoner may be punched or beaten before it qualifies as torture. And so on.

Or do you think that none of these interrogation methods can ever qualify as torture, no matter how severe or long-lasting, and that the ban on torture simply doesn't apply to them at all?

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 6:52 PM

Shorter Mixner: because it is impossible to define every possible permutation of sexual assault, rape cannot effectively be criminalised.

That kind of sophistry is the kind of thing you expect from egocentric adolescents like the silly glibertarian boy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 6:54 PM

Shorter Mixner: because it is impossible to define every possible permutation of sexual assault, rape cannot effectively be criminalised.

Shorter pseudo: I can't answer what Mixner actually wrote, so I'll just pretend he wrote something else.

How many times can you beat your prisoner before you've committed torture, pseudo?

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:01 PM

Mixner, the entire line of discussion you want to pursue is pointless.

Senator McCain personally engineered the passage of a "compromise" version of the Military Commissions Act after Bush's bill had foundered.

McCain's "compromise" allows the President to define torture essentially at will, and also saw to it that all US personnel who had engaged in torture prior to the bill's passage were immunized for it.

On that basis, I don't care how many long sighs McCain gave us on the subject of torture during the Republican primary debates, and I also no longer care about the man's personal history in enemy detention - he's a friend of torturers, an enabler of torturers, an immunizer of torturers, and everything else you can be in connection with torture that doesn't involve actually torturing some guy with your own two hands. He's scum. Anyone who defends or supports him is scum.

Posted by Brian | July 4, 2008 7:05 PM

Type "Criminal Negligence reasonable person" in to the Google. It undermines your "specific acts must be enumerated to be a crime" rhetorical strategy.

I can understand why you aren't willing to define torture, that would make you defend specific claims, and given the way that you have set up the rules, that is a mugs game--Again, I totally understand why you won't play it, it is stupid and rigged. I don't think that I want to participate anymore, either.

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 7:09 PM

Brian:

Here Here .

Me

Posted by A.Scott | July 4, 2008 7:09 PM

Mixner, the entire line of discussion you want to pursue is pointless.

Right. That must be why no one here arguing for a ban on torture seems to have any clear idea of what they think torture even means.

[McCain] is scum. Anyone who defends or supports him is scum.

Good one. Send that to the Obama headquarters and suggest they use it in their campaign. Let us know how they respond.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:13 PM

shawn,

Type "Criminal Negligence reasonable person" in to the Google.

Sorry, it's not my responsibility to look for evidence to support your claims. That's your job. Do you have any evidence or don't you?

Have you figured out yet what you think torture means? Or do you think CIA interrogators should be able to beat their prisoners indefinitely, or deprive them of food or water or sleep indefinitely, without being liable for conviction for the crime of torture?

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:19 PM

You will note that the Geneva Convention does use the "stress position for 15 minutes is fine, but 16 minutes is torture" language. Does this mean that even the finest legal minds of the time did not know the "true" meaning of torture either. Maybe the way that you have framed the debate is just ridiculous; an example of Wittgenstein's fly-bottle. Or else you are just trolling.

Check out a sample from Art 13, you should pay special attention to the language/rhetorical style employed.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 7:28 PM

shawn,

You will note that the Geneva Convention does use the "stress position for 15 minutes is fine, but 16 minutes is torture" language.

Do you approve of that definition, or do you think it should be different (say, 12 minutes=torture. Or 25 minutes. Or something else)? How about beating? Sleep deprivation? Food deprivation? At what point do you think these interrogation methods cross the line from non-torture to torture? Enquiring minds want to know.

Does this mean that even the finest legal minds of the time did not know the "true" meaning of torture either.

Depends what you mean by "the 'true' meaning of torture." Your claim above merely states a legal definition of torture with respect to "stress position." It doesn't tell us whether that definition reflects the "true meaning" of torture, whatever that's supposed to be.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:38 PM

I think that torture is what a "reasonable person" based on the expertise of doctors, mental health professionals, and applicable common law/tradition/and treaties says it is for all of the items on the list that you drew up above.

I think that phrase "Criminal Negligence" is self evidntly one that applies to a wide range of non-specific actions. At any rate, it is not my job to give you a basic education in legal concepts.
The way you are asking for torture to be defined is not possible, but that does not mean that torture does not exist, or that it is not a crime. And this is the same for a wide range of crimes.

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 7:39 PM

This "You will note that the Geneva Convention does use the "stress position for 15 minutes is fine, but 16 minutes is torture" language.

should have been a "does NOT use stress...."

The fact that you didn't pick up on this shows that you neither know, nor are interested, in anything else other than semantic game playing.

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 7:44 PM

Sorry, it's not my responsibility to look for evidence to support your claims. That's your job.

And the silly glibertarian boy isn't going to look at any evidence you provide, or regard it as evidence, because it's not What Mixner Believes, the only evidence that matters.

What a pathetic fucking cunt he is.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 7:44 PM

"Your claim above merely states a legal definition of torture with respect to "stress position." It doesn't tell us whether that definition reflects the "true meaning" of torture, whatever that's supposed to be"

In order to be a crime,or be banned, the legal definition is the only one that is important. Crudely, the law is what the courts say it is.

I guess I have answered your question as to what I think torture is, then. I'd say it has been fun, but....

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 7:48 PM

And, to engage in a little argumentum ad Mixneram, if anyone has evidence to suggest that Mixner is not a pathetic fucking cunt, I'll be happy to quibble, sneer, play word games and ultimately dismiss it as irrelevant.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 7:52 PM

shawn,

I think that torture is what a "reasonable person" based on the expertise of doctors, mental health professionals, and applicable common law/tradition/and treaties says it is for all of the items on the list that you drew up above.

You're seriously claiming, are you, that all "reasonable persons" would agree on the number of times a prisoner could be beaten before the beatings qualified as torture? Or the length of time a prisoner could be deprived of sleep, or food or water, before it qualified as torture? I think that claim is preposterous. Different people would almost certainly give all sorts of different answers to those questions. Do you have evidence that there is any kind of general agreement at all?

Presumably, you consider yourself a "reasonable person." So what are your answers? How many times can a prisoner be beaten before it's torture, in your opinion? How long can he be deprived of sleep? Water? Food?

The way you are asking for torture to be defined is not possible,

Huh? You yourself just stated a definition of torture in terms of the exact number of minutes a prisoner is subjected to "stress position." And now you're claiming that definitions of this kind are "not possible?" Your claims and arguments are getting increasingly confused.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 7:53 PM

Matt:

Of course Sen. Obama is trying to blur his policy differences with Sen. McCain. Voters decide general elections based on two factors: (1) trust of or identification with a candidate's public persona or (2) support for a candidate's policy positions.

Sen. Obama has more charisma as a candidate. He'll win the swimsuit competition this fall hands-down. Sen. McCain's only hope to win is during the personal statement/interview portion of the pageant when he offers his positions on the issues.

By minimizing the appearance of policy differences in the general election, Sen. Obama is playing for a tie on policy and counting on a sure win in personal likability.

Posted by Heathen | July 4, 2008 7:56 PM

shawn,

should have been a "does NOT use stress...."

Then please try to quote your sources carefully. So we're back to the question of just how many minutes a prisoner can be subjected to "stress position" before it qualifies as torture. What's your answer?

In order to be a crime,or be banned, the legal definition is the only one that is important. Crudely, the law is what the courts say it is.

So your own beliefs about the meaning of torture are determined by whatever the courts rule, are they? If the Supreme Court ruled that waterboarding is not torture, you'd agree that waterboarding is not torture, would you?

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 8:01 PM

pseudonymous in nc

I 100% agree with you and "not as stupid as Mixner"'s comments earlier. This was my first encounter, and I won't spend this much effort on Mixner again; but, I did find it interesting that the omitted "not" in my post about the Geneva Conventions (maybe about 5 up or so) was not noticed and he responded as if I were making the totally opposite point (which given what else I've written in this thread just isn't a reasonable interpretation).

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 8:03 PM

Yet more silly reindeer games.

How long does one have to make contact with a woman's breast before it's sexual assault, Mixner? Refusal to answer will be taken as characteristic hypocrisy on your part.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 8:08 PM

Clearly I am beaten.

---The "not" that I omitted was not in a source quote. Please try to read more carefully.

---The fact that you did not recognize that the Geneva Convention (or sexual harassment, or criminal negligence, etc) shows that you don't know/care about how a "torture ban" would actually be written in the real world.

---And here: "In order to be a crime,or be banned, the legal definition is the only one that is important. Crudely, the law is what the courts say it is.

So your own beliefs about the meaning of torture are determined by whatever the courts rule, are they? If the Supreme Court ruled that waterboarding is not torture, you'd agree that waterboarding is not torture, would you?"

I was talking about the definition of a crime, which is clearly stated, and not my own beliefs at all. Try to read more carefully.

--And "You're seriously claiming, are you, that all "reasonable persons""
No. What I claimed is what A "reasonable person" would think, not all of them. Please try to read more carefully.
"Reasonable person" being a legal concept with which are obviousely unfamiliar, and the one which makes your "how many minutes of X" requirement for a torture definition and ban totally irrelevant.

Ok....enough of this. You have shown enough willfull ignorance and bad faith to make this unenjoyable. Now that I have googled some of your past exchanges I see that this not an aberration.

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 8:26 PM

shawn,

The "not" that I omitted was not in a source quote. Please try to read more carefully.

Well, since you're so bad at paraphrasing without screwing up the meaning of your own sources, I suggest you quote directly from now on.

The fact that you did not recognize that the Geneva Convention (or sexual harassment, or criminal negligence, etc) shows that you don't know/care about how a "torture ban" would actually be written in the real world.

It's not my responsibility to find errors in your descriptions of your own sources.

I was talking about the definition of a crime, which is clearly stated, and not my own beliefs at all.

The definition is not remotely "clearly stated." That's precisely why you do not know how many times an interrogator could beat his prisoner before it would qualify as torture under the law.

And if you weren't suggesting that your own beliefs about the meaning of torture are determined by what the courts say it means, I don't know why you mentioned them in the first place. We're back to the question of what you do think torture means, and how you arrived at that belief. How many times can an interrogator punch his prisoner before it's torture, in your opinion? How long can an interrogator deprive his prisoner of sleep before it's torture, in your opinion? How do you decide?

You have no answers, do you? Which demonstrates that you have no clear idea of what you think torture even means.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 8:50 PM

Mixner knows what torture is. He just enjoys knowing that it is being done in his name. He's an evil fuckwit with a fetish for seeing his fellow men harmed.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 9:03 PM

Heathen, you are very much mistaken. It is indeed McCain, supporter of the war on Iraqis, who wants to blur the policy differences. Obama said the same thing he's been saying and the McCain camp came out and claimed that this was moving to blur the differences. The fact that it was nothing of the kind doesn't matter to John "flip-flop on everything but the belief that Iraq is the 51st state" McCain.

What's important is that McCain can confuse people into thinking he's a reasonable person so that he can use his POW status to win the election.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 9:11 PM

pseudonymous in nc,

I have a question on another subject. Why do you refer to Robert Powell as "Bobbitt"?

There's an answer I'm hoping for, but it's unlikely.

Posted by 23456 | July 4, 2008 9:21 PM

I note that Mixner has not offered an answer on the precise duration of breast contact that constitutes sexual assault. That's because he's a bad-faith hot-air generator.

23456: because Zeffirelli's Jesus is a puffed-up fool. That's all.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 4, 2008 9:35 PM

I note that pseudo doesn't understand the difference between a relevant question and an irrelevant one. He may assume that I will probably ignore any further irrelevant questions that he may ask. Oh, and also, to quote his own words, "What a pathetic fucking cunt he is."

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 9:41 PM

I guess I'm not ready to stop just yet.

--"Well, since you're so bad at paraphrasing without screwing up the meaning of your own sources, I suggest you quote directly from now on."

Sure. Didn't you read: "A 'reasonable person'" as: "ALL 'reasonable persons'"? I suggest that you have someone read to you and help you figure out how "one" does not equal "all".

--"It's not my responsibility to find errors in your descriptions of your own sources."

Nope. But it is your responsility to communicate/read in good faith, without that meaningful conversation cannot take place. Not that I really think that you are interested in meaningful conversation.

--"The definition is not remotely "clearly stated."
What was clearly stated was that the subject of that sentence was the definition of a crime, and not my own beliefs, which you erroneously attempted to make the same the thing--and not the definition of torture which you are now attempting to project onto this out of context snippet.

--"And if you weren't suggesting that your own beliefs about the meaning of torture are determined by what the courts say it means, I don't know why you mentioned them in the first place."

I didn't interject "my beliefs" at that time, you did.

--..."How many times can an interrogator punch his prisoner before it's torture, in your opinion? How long can an interrogator deprive his prisoner of sleep before it's torture, in your opinion? How do you decide?".....
"You have no answers, do you? Which demonstrates that you have no clear idea of what you think torture even means."

What torture "is" cannot be measured in this way; it is qualitative and normative, not quantitative. I have said this in various ways several times, yet you seem to be unable to grasp and/or grapple with it.
I eagerly await YOUR definition of torture, given your dismissal of other ways of thinking about the definition of torture as something other than punch counting, you MUST have some idea. I have little doubt that if I said 10 strikes to the head are too many, you would ask "What were they hit with?" What was the force of the blow?" "Where were they struck?"

I think that we are at an impasse here until you define torture by your criteria. We have pretty much exhausted this line of conversation I think.
But maybe you will amuse me with some more of your ridiculous shit, who knows.
Come on Mixner, do your little trick and make me giggle.

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 9:45 PM

shawn,

Didn't you read: "A 'reasonable person'" as: "ALL 'reasonable persons'"? I suggest that you have someone read to you and help you figure out how "one" does not equal "all".

Brilliant. So five different "reasonable persons" give five different answers as to how many times they think an interrogator may punch a prisoner before the punching qualifies as torture. Which "reasonable person's" answer should we go with?

What was clearly stated was that the subject of that sentence was the definition of a crime, and not my own beliefs, which you erroneously attempted to make the same the thing--and not the definition of torture which you are now attempting to project onto this out of context snippet.

I didn't "erroneously" do anything. You falsely claimed that the definition of torture is "clearly stated." The fact that you do not know, even approximately, how many times a prisoner can be punched by his interrogator before the punching would legally qualify as "torture" demonstrates that your claim is just utter nonsense.

What torture "is" cannot be measured in this way;

I didn't say it could be "measured." Yet another strawman. I asked what you consider torture to mean. And more specifically, what do you think it means with respect to the kinds of interrogation techniques I have described.

Your only attempted response to this question has been a vague allusion to the opinions of "reasonable persons," doctors, "traditions" and other vague sources. Apparently, you seriously believe that there is no disagreement between these sources as to the meaning of torture, and they'd all agree as to how long a prisoner may be beaten or deprived of water before such treatment would qualify as torture. This claim is absurd on its face, as you now seem to recognize.

Posted by Mixner | July 4, 2008 10:10 PM

Mixner the moron continues his parade of stupidity. It's like talking to a three-year-old, only less rewarding. Mostly because at least a three-year-old has the capacity to learn. Mixner has already decided that torture is good. That's why he's willing to spend so much energy defending it using such absurd arguments.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 10:21 PM

Sigh..hahah...

--Didn't you read: "A 'reasonable person'" as: "ALL 'reasonable persons'"? I suggest that you have someone read to you and help you figure out how "one" does not equal "all".

Brilliant. So five different "reasonable persons" give five different answers as to how many times they think an interrogator may punch a prisoner before the punching qualifies as torture. Which "reasonable person's" answer should we go with?

****Reasonable Person is long standing and common legal device, I suggested that you look it up a few posts ago. Maybe you have something against reading that I am unaware of, but a few minutes might clear up this confusion for you. It is relevant to any discussion of what would be considered torture, for the purposes of a ban, or enforcing said ban.****

---"You falsely claimed that the definition of torture is "clearly stated."
***I never claimed that, you attributed it to me. Again. Go back and read the thread****

---"I didn't say it could be "measured." Yet another strawman. I asked what you consider torture to mean. And more specifically, what do you think it means with respect to the kinds of interrogation techniques I have described."

****You wrote: "We're back to the question of what you do think torture means, and how you arrived at that belief. How many times can an interrogator punch his prisoner before it's torture, in your opinion? How long can an interrogator deprive his prisoner of sleep before it's torture, in your opinion? How do you decide?"

How are these not "measurement questions"? The exception in your list is "how do you decide." Well, my answer is that I am not a doctor nor a mental health specialist. Personally, I think that the least amount of physical violence possible is desirable. As far as sleep deprivation and the like, I would defer to the judgment of mental health professionals.****

---"Apparently, you seriously believe that there is no disagreement between these sources as to the meaning of torture, and they'd all agree as to how long a prisoner may be beaten or deprived of water before such treatment would qualify as torture. This claim is absurd on its face, as you now seem to recognize."

***I never said any of that. This must stem from your not understanding the "reasonable man" standard. This was also the point of psuedonomous in nc asking you about how long would it take touching a girls breast to become sexual harassment.

Real life practice is vague, and the type of answer that you are looking for is not possible, because you are thinking about what makes a valid answer in the wrong way. You have to look at the totality of the situation: Is waterboarding Hitchens torture? No, because it was voluntary. Is waterboarding a detainee torture? Yes. As was determined at Nuremburg, and elsewhere. I suspect you will deliberately keep trying to not understand.****

Posted by shawn214us | July 4, 2008 10:47 PM

Not as stupid---

I am wondering if he has an actual learning disability as far as comprehending abstract concepts. In addition to being an asshole, I mean. I still await, and likely in vain, Mixner's "activities x=torture" definition.

Posted by shawn214 | July 4, 2008 10:56 PM

I'm glad I skipped this thread as fucktard torture troll Mixner is at it again.

Guys, Mixner is a fucking troll. Fuck him.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 4, 2008 11:13 PM

Frankly, this is the sort of stuff that killed John Kerry four years ago, you just couldn't figure out exactly where he stood, on anything. Everybody knows that Obama is going to adapt to the current situation, but this stupid waffling doesn't show "good judgement" but rather mere political calculation (i.e. the old politics) ...

Changing dynamics in Iraq pose challenge for Obama
Senator Barack Obama said he might "refine" his Iraq policies after meeting with military commanders there later this summer. But hours later he held a second news conference to emphasize his commitment to the withdrawing of all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.
His two statements, made Thursday in Fargo, North Dakota, reflected how the changing dynamics in Iraq have posed a challenge for Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. He has been trying to retain flexibility as violence declines there without abandoning one of the central promises of his campaign: that if elected he would end the war.

Yes, he did talk about Hope and Change, but I don't think anybody thought he meant he would change his mind hourly, for no good reason.

Posted by Neo | July 4, 2008 11:15 PM

I assure you, Mixner will not commit to anything. It's the same reason he demands proof (in another thread) that life in Iraq is more violent in 2008 than it was in 2002. Not because he has any evidence that it's not, he just finds it amusing for people to jump through hoops to disprove his idiotic arguments. He actually complained that the left keeps harping on the fact that the escalation in Iraq was supposed to do more than merely reduce the violence. So he demanded that proof be provided that this was not the only goal. Some well-meaning people (not understanding that Mixner cares fuck-all about facts, he's just arguing because he likes being an asshole and he gets off on the slaughter of brown people far away) provided this evidence. He then proceeds to pretend it says something wildly different than what it did.

When I say "not as stupid as Mixner" it isn't self-congratulatory. I'm merely pointing out the obvious - I'm not a petulant 3-year-old with a learning disability.

Oh, and Neo (ha). The fact that McCain's positions on everything (except infinite war) change so fast that you could use his reversals to power Los Angles is a problem. The fact that his team is trying to blur the difference between his "war forever" position and Obama's "get out as soon as possible" is a sign of just how desparate McCain's team is.

Posted by Not as stupid as Mixner | July 4, 2008 11:24 PM

He may assume that I will probably ignore any further irrelevant questions that he may ask.

The silly glibertarian boy knows he can't answer, because it exposes his sophistry. What a pathetic fucking cowardly cunt he is.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 12:37 AM

Not as stupid as Mixner---I understand where you are coming from, and even more so after a few hours of interacting with him. I will try not to feed the troll anymore.
I DO wonder as to whether Mixner believes the stuff that he is typing, or whether it is just some way to amuse himself by twisting words, ignoring evidence, willfully misunderstanding arguments, etc in order to get others wound up. the Jerky Boy of this blog. I don't know if I think that he is really for torture (and has he every convinced someone else here of the correctness of his view point?), but I haven't hung out here for all that long.
I almost pity him if he is actually being serious. As long as he can do no harm to others, or course.

Posted by shawn214us | July 5, 2008 12:40 AM

I read this, unfortunately, hoping someone would just tell mixedupner to shut the fuck up and then do a group ignore. He's obviously a logic-monster who uses his one malformed ability as a snare, and then gets off (probably erotically, at least in the head) watching the squirming prey, as if that validates his imagined power in some way. It's a dirty game best left alone.

Posted by CharlesF | July 5, 2008 2:01 AM

CharlesF...You give him too much credit. I never felt like prey in our exchange, nor do I feel that I squirmed. He is just one more asshole on the internet, not particularly intelligent, but very stubborn in his desire not to accept contrary arguement about his positions at all, and he does not mind selectively quoting and misattributing stuff to his interlocutors.
That said, I am all for a group ignore, and I will try not to respond to him any more.

Posted by shawn214 | July 5, 2008 2:19 AM

Yes, I was unclear. The prey and squirming were how I imagine he saw any continuing response to his pseudo-rational demands and interrogations, not descriptions of the actual conditions of the exchange. As for argument, quoting, and attributions, ha! not happenin'. There are two purposes here I think. He, like all trolls, just wants the attention for his own personal needs, where you want an honest, or at least logical, debate towards resolving the issue at hand. Cross purposes.

Posted by CharlesF | July 5, 2008 2:37 AM

True. He seems more interesting to me than the "you are dumby dumb smelly libtards who are PC traitor PC 9/11" kind of troll, in that I wonder if he really thinks, honestly to himself at night, that he was making an irrefutable arguement and that much w00ting and pwnage had occurred to his credit---but that could be the booze talking.

Posted by shawn214 | July 5, 2008 2:57 AM

Senator Obama can prove the Israelinsider wrong in a heartbeat by producing his real birth certificate instead of the forgeries that have so far been produced. The fact that he has failed so far to do so speaks volumes.

Posted by SLC

With this sort of challenge by such a reputable authority based on such crystalline logic, it is obvious that Barack Obama owes you the original, signed, notarized birth certificate, his first Social Security card, his fingerprints, a blood sample, his bank debit card with PIN #, and his YouTube account name & password, and if he fails this crucial task to the high minded representatives of Israel Insider, he cannot be Preznit because then the mystery of being born in Hawaii cannot possibly be solved.

Posted by El Cid | July 5, 2008 3:32 AM

Matthew,
It's time to consider shutting down comments on your blog, as Marc did. Looks like some of the folk posting here justify that. At the very least, it's time to ban some IP addresses.

As an aside, I'm really confused why more people don't implement Slashdot's code. It's open source and it was formed in response to troll infestations like the Atlantic is currently displaying.

Bethany

Posted by BethanyAnne | July 5, 2008 5:20 AM

"It's time to consider shutting down comments on your blog, as Marc did. Looks like some of the folk posting here justify that."

Could you be a bit more specific about why the comments should be shut down, and because of which commentators, and incidences; and what problem that will alleviate?
Alternately, you could just stop reading the comments, so for you they would be effectively "shut down." Go ahead and censor by your own boot-straps. Don't be shy.

Posted by shawn214 | July 5, 2008 6:02 AM

The fact that he has failed so far to do so speaks volumes.

Posted by SLC

And of course, it is your duty to relay those volumes to us, post by post. I so look forward to it.

Posted by CharlesF | July 5, 2008 6:14 AM

Forgive me if I do not understand all of the things at stake in the Obama birth certificate controversy; is the point of questioning his place of birth that his birthplace may result in his being unable to be President according to the Constitution?
If this is the case, then why were the Democratic Candidates during the primary, and now McCain and the RNC, not filing legal motions to challenge BHO's qualifications? Are they waiting to spring it in an "October surprise" Is SLC trying to get us to choose another nominee NOW, before it is too late and Obama is disqualified?

Posted by shawn214 | July 5, 2008 6:29 AM

Obama narrowly won the nomination on quite subtle differences he had with his opponent, very specific positions. He is gradually revealing subtle and not so subtle differences to his platform. Different promises and emphasis. Taking his shift in power and running with it is behaving exactly like a unitary president. Running for President without having a constituency that is supporting of your policies leads directly to the unitary executive. Who cares what he does, he has charisma. Scares me to death.

Posted by t | July 5, 2008 6:30 AM

t..what you wrote about Obama doesn't really make any sense to me, so I have nothing to say about that. But this: "Running for President without having a constituency that is supporting of your policies leads directly to the unitary executive. Who cares what he does, he has charisma. Scares me to death."

To make some sense of that: "Running for President without having a constituency that is supporting of your policies leads".....DUDE,IT PROBABLY LEADS TO YOU NOT BEING PRESIDENT and decidedly not "directly to the unitary executive

I'm no Obama fan, but some of his critics are just reaching beyond the realm of reason.

Posted by shawn214 | July 5, 2008 6:44 AM

Krauthammer wants the US to go to war in the interests of Israel. Everyone who reads his column -- whether they agree or disagree with him -- understands this.

But anyone who says this out loud will be branded an anti-semite.

Posted by ColinLaney | July 5, 2008 12:55 PM

shawn,

Reasonable Person is long standing and common legal device, I suggested that you look it up a few posts ago.

You can keep saying this as many times as you like and it will still be an evasion.

You apparently consider yourself a "reasonable person." You also claim that torture is defined by what a "reasonable person" considers it to be. So tell us, as a "reasonable person," how many times an interrogator may beat his prisoner before his conduct qualifies as torture. Twice? Five times? Twenty? Or what?

You have no answer, do you? You have absolutely no idea how much beating qualifies as torture. Which is precisely why there is no effective legal ban on torture, and there never will be until torture is clearly defined in law.

Posted by Mixner | July 5, 2008 2:50 PM

Does a five-second boob-grope constitute sexual assualt, Mixner? Ten seconds? Thirty? Does it make a difference if it's one hand or two? Or if it involves one breast or two?

You can keep trying to evade this as many times as you like, but every refusal to answer will show you've been hoisted on your own faux-logical petard.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 5:31 PM

Does a five-second boob-grope constitute sexual assualt, Mixner?

As I've already explained to you, we're not talking about sexual assault. If you want to know the answer to your question about sexual assault, look up the relevant statutes and caselaw.

Oh, and also, what was the phrase? Ah yes, you're a "pathetic fucking cowardly cunt."

Posted by Mixner | July 5, 2008 5:53 PM

Okay, let's get the Mixner humiliation sideshow on the road.

Already established: "will not define what constitutes sexual assault."

Next up: what specific actions constitute domestic abuse? Pinching the arm? How many times? How hard? Pulling the hair? With how much force? For how long?

You have no answer, do you? But you can't say that, because it shows your illogic. So you'll pout and evade and sputter, and end up looking like an apologist for sex offenders and spouse-beaters.

This will be fun.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 6:08 PM

As I've already explained to you, we're not talking about sexual assault. Or domestic abuse. If you want to know the answers to your questions about those areas of the law, look up the relevant statutes and caselaw. I'm not going to do your research for you.

You won't be able to cite any statutes or caselaw that defines how many times a prisoner can be beaten before the beating constitutes torture, because there are none. That's because the law doesn't define what torture means. And you can't ban torture until you define it.

Posted by Mixner | July 5, 2008 6:20 PM

Established: "will not define sexual assualt or domestic abuse."

So, next up: what specific actions constitute child abuse?

How long does a punishment time-out need to be before it's time to call in Child Protective Services? Following the model you've advanced, I'll take an answer to the nearest minute.

It clearly won't suffice to pout and whine and blindly assert that these areas of criminal law are somehow different. You'll need to set out a compelling, well-cited case, instead of 'just because I say so', and I'm not going to do your research for you on that.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 6:40 PM

We're not talking about child abuse, either. If you want to know the answers to your questions about that area of the law, look up the relevant statutes and caselaw. I'm not going to do your research for you.

You won't be able to cite any statutes or caselaw that defines how many times a prisoner can be beaten before the beating constitutes torture, because there are none. That's because the law doesn't define what torture means. And you can't ban torture until you define it.

Posted by Mixner | July 5, 2008 6:50 PM

Established: "will not define sexual assault, domestic abuse or child abuse."

We really are in 'epic fail' territory here from the silly glibertarian boy.

What, in precise legal terms, differentiates the federal torture statute from (for example) the Maine unlawful sexual touching statute as regards specificity of definition?

'Because I say so' is not a credible answer.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 7:15 PM

pseudonymous,

You obviously know nothing about criminal law. The nature of a crime is either spelled out explicitly in the text of the statute that criminalizes it or is established through a body of caselaw that serves as precedent for subsequent cases. Courts have ruled on thousands of sexual assault and child abuse cases and as a result of those rulings the meaning of those crimes is not in serious dispute. But torture is completely different. The text of the federal torture statute is intentionally vague. Very few cases have been brought to trial. There is virtually no caselaw. It is not clear whether even waterboarding counts as torture under U.S. law. You probably don't want the Supreme Court to consider the question, because given the current composition of the court there's a good chance it would rule that waterboarding is not torture.

So Mixner is right. For all you know, thousands of police and military personnel are getting away with torture every day, and there's nothing to be done about it because torture law is so poorly defined.

Posted by jbo | July 5, 2008 7:36 PM

jbo: whether or not you've been recruited from the silly glibertarian boys' club, I really don't care.

There are state statutes with varying degrees of caselaw that also lack the specificity that Mixner claims is essential for an act to be deemed criminal. If he considers the torture statute to be substantively different in character, he can presumably explain it for himself beyond 'just because'.

What has he demonstrated by repeated evasion, whining and blustering? That he'd fail one of the basic tests to serve on a jury, since he's apparently incapable of evaluating the relationship of evidence to the charges. As such, he can be dismissed with contempt.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 5, 2008 7:53 PM

shawn 214

To be more clear:

No, a President who is elected despite a lack of support for his policies doesn't make sense, which is my point, but it is happening.

The far left will vote for Obama even though they may strongly oppose his newly formed policies: anyone but a Republican. (Obama's behavior in recent weeks shows that he knows this and calculates with that knowledge. People can quibble over the record but there was certainly the impression only a month or so ago that Obama was the satisfyingly straightforward anti war candidate and Hilary was the disappointing equivocator.)

Anyhow, the far left forms one faction of the Obama constituency, and there are a lot of us.

Another, probably even larger, portion of the Obama constituency is ignorant of his shifting subtle policy moves, but they like his cadence and charisma and platitudes and celebrity. This is a second, and very large, constituency that will vote for him without actually supporting his policies. Of course this happens in every election, but this election is going to be based on hot air, at previously unheard of levels.

In my post I refer to my fear of a President elected by a constituency that doesn't support his policies, and it doesn't seem like a huge jump, when a candidate is shifting on the very subtle policy differences held between himself and his former rival, that he doesn't have a huge regard for the promises he made to the electorate, and thus shows sign of developing into a unitary executive.

The executive is incredibly empowered with W, despite his ratings, people talk about him starting a war with Iran as though he could do so without obstruction. I have no reason to think Obama is anywhere near as stupid and immoral as W, but we are just learning about his arrogance. I would hate to find the spot filled by another patronizing man of god who knows what is best for us, and does whatever he can to obscure the legal processes by which his policies are put into place, because he knows best, and would rather play hopscotch with the checks and balances than argue convincing positions that are ratified by the people.

I support Obama but am ashamed of him.

Posted by t | July 5, 2008 8:05 PM

Thanks, SLC!

How 'bout a few installments of the Turner Diaries while you're at it? Maybe some pictures of your summer vacation in the UFO?

Don't worry, everyone believes you. We're all voting for "Panama Jack" McCain, who's resting at home, south of the border as we speak!

Posted by MultiBig | July 5, 2008 8:34 PM

what jbo said.

He has more patience with pseudo's ignorance and stupidity than I do.

Posted by Mixner | July 5, 2008 8:38 PM