In fact is was a great and honest interview from both sides.   But a few elements shifted the debate to [...]]]> I understand the joy about this interview from fans of Jon Stewart and Comedy Central.   For, those fans are not so worried about the facts or the truth but the entertainment value of the “information”.

In fact is was a great and honest interview from both sides.   But a few elements shifted the debate to May.  He stuck to facts and did not let emotion sway his point of view.   Jon Stewart used a few “interesting facts” but as is the problem in much of the arguments from the “torture detractors” you have to ignore history and reality.  

One point continually referenced by Stewart is that we need to look back at emotional reactions and reset ourselves.  Hiroshima should have never ocurred.  If we would have dropped the bomb over the ocean we could have avoid the destruction and scared Japan into surrender.   Nice try but no.  The facts are that we warned them multiple times, presented an ultimatum for surrender on July 26th and were rejected.  Now maybe, they did not believe us and the “ocean drop theory” could have served a purpose.   But that denies the historical facts.    You see, as much as it is the event that gets all the press, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima did not end the war.   In fact three days later Russia declared war on Japan and Japan was still denying demands for surrender.  It was not until Nagasakiwas hit that Japan realized the end game was at hand.   So if a bomb dropped on a city, with destruction viewable and understood BY ALL did not stop the war, how would an explosion over the ocean have accomplished the goal?   It defies logic.

But yet the argument given by Stewart shows so much more.  For the argument is that if we would have done the drop over the ocean we would have been justified in dropping the next one on Hiroshima.  But wait… I thought the destruction of civilian life is always wrong.  How could we ever have been justified?    This either proves a lie of their current outrage or the impossible scenario to prove a negative.  In either case, no go.

The other element of this interview that stood out was the “water boarding is torture” argument.   I think Cliff May did a commendable job in explaining that these memos were in fact “How not to torture” memos.    They very specifically set a line that could not be crossed.  That if crossed these interrogation techniques would become torture.    But many will say “torture is torture” even once.   But they avoid all of the other techniques to make their argument.  May tried to pin Stewart down on the sleep deprivation, to show that it is a matter of degree.  

But let’s take a greater example.  Killing another person.  Is killing another person always murder?   Do we not allow this action in war?  Do we not have different levels of crime?  Do we not have laws for self-defense?  Dare I ask about abortion?   There are levels of degree and intent in all actions.   Torture is not only the action but the action with an intent and an outcome.  This is clearly what the memos set forth and define.  You can disagree with the line (as May stated) but you cannot deny, as Stewart attempts to do, that there is a line.

But what got me the most upset is what was not said by either side.  And this is the MOST IMPORTANT point!  They ignored almost all of the other techniques.  The reason is that almost everyone would agree that those techniques (used as defined) are not torture.  But the problem is that this is now public.  The limits of each technique is now known by the enemy.   The basic fact, also in the memos, is that these techniques are used to confuse the enemy and break down their defenses to gather information.   They will no longer be confused.  They will not longer wonder , “when will this end?” or “what is next?”  They now know.  They know we will not permanently hurt them and if they simply hold out we will have to stop.  This is effect of the release of the memos.  And there is no question that this now makes it virtually impossible to get information and in that we are far less safe.  

Thank goodness that these techniques were used and the Bush administration got the information and were able to successfully wage the campaign to dismantle much of the terrorist cells.  Their current weakness may just give Obama the chance to win this.

Washington Post: Interrogation Details EmergeCNN: Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without ‘severe pain’ intentNew York Times: Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A.LA Times: Memos reveal CIA interrogation methodsWall Street Journal: CIA Memos Released; Immunity for Harsh Tactics[note headline on home page differs No Prosecution for Waterboarding ]Fox News: Administration: [...]]]> Here are the headlines…

Washington Post: Interrogation Details Emerge
CNN: Bush-era interrogation memo: No torture without ‘severe pain’ intent
New York Times: Interrogation Memos Detail Harsh Tactics by the C.I.A.
LA Times: Memos reveal CIA interrogation methods
Wall Street Journal: CIA Memos Released; Immunity for Harsh Tactics
[note headline on home page differs No Prosecution for Waterboarding ]
Fox News: Administration: No Charges Against Waterboarders

Scoring on the bias scale; I would commend the Washington Post and LA Times headliners. New York Times [shock] is the most liberally biased headline. CNN is not bad but adds a bit of detail to the headline. WSJ is interesting… the front page is taking a completely different angle then the headline of the article itself… [different folks with different philosophies?]. Fox loses on the the conservative end of the scale for missing the whole release of the documents and jumping to the end story.

On to the content…[in progress]