Ann Althouse: Aiding the forces of torture

Ann Althouse has, once again, taken to attacking torture's critics and coddling torture's advocates, in her attack on Glenn Greenwald.

Last night I read a good portion of this report from Sy Hirsch in the New Yorker about General Taguba, who conducted the Pentagon investigation of Abu Ghraib. The article discusses some more of what he found, how he was punished for trying to do his duty in this investigation and some of the twisted shit the Cheney Command has our troops doing at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and God knows where else. (Taguba is one of many generals fired by Cheney-Bush).

They're visiting this torture upon innocent people. I suspect a majority of the people tortured are innocent. This torture I regard as a stain upon our nation's good name. Pisses me off.

Glenn Greenwald looks closely at the torture, the legal rationale used to promote it and the "unitary executive" theory and the people who help the practice continue.

Ann Althouse praises Glenn Instaputz who makes excuses for torture and the Cheney Command that promotes the barbaric practice that we beat hitler and Tojo without.


So when I see Ann Althouse posing as voice of moderation and reason all the while serving the torture movement and attacking it's critics, I get pissed off. She is, effectively, pro-torture.

Like I say, a disgrace for the UW.

Joe Klein's Filters: Recipe for Dupedom?

One link leads to another debate and we learn something odd and alarming about how pundit Joe Klein shuts out views critical of the Bush Administration while basing his portrayal of events to the American people on military and intelligence sources.

When national pundits make a standing policy to shun and ignore critics (even those proved right on the invasion and occupcation of Iraq) while proudly stating their basis of views on some sanitized "middle" and official srouces, we have a pretty good example of a flawed and dangerous filter on our discourse and decisionmaking. (Allowing that may Joe was just pandering to Hewitt's base).

Here's my question for Joe:

Hey, Joe, my question here is relevant to how you filter in and out your information sources and what kind of a filter you apply to each.

This weird conversation you had with Hugh Hewitt is the basis of the question:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=9a23f343-1f51-432b-a3b1-4dc34d2441d3

You say that "I don’t believe in much of the crap that’s coming from the left or right on this stuff..." Your filter is set to entirely shut out these people (me included, apparently).

Instead you get your information and views from "the middle" (do you ignore Juan Cole?) and the military and intelligence establishment: "I talk to our generals, I talk to our intelligence community,"

What kind of filter do you apply to the military and intelligence sources? Do you think they may have reasons to spin you one way or another, to emphasize some problems (Iranian influence increasing Iraq Shia violence) while ignoring other problems you may not ask about (Saudi influence increasing Iraq Sunni violence).

Or, they could be supporting one MidEast interest over another in other ways (see: Israel). They might even, who knows, hide their mistakes from you (which the people you ignore pont out).

Good reporting demands the toughest filter on official news sources. You do not sound like a skeptical, critical reporter when dealing with the government. The tactics you describe are those of an official dupe.

So many times the official version of events are at odds with realty. Do you see how alarming your portrayal of reality on official sources can be?