As one of the few living individuals who knows what it’s like to drown, I have to roll my eyes when people argue that simulated drowning, a.k.a. waterboarding, isn’t “torture.” Of course it is. That shouldn’t be the issue, though. The issue should be, should we do it? I think under the appropriate circumstances, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Not under the tortured theory that a certain brand of torture (say, an electrical surge to the testicles of less than 100 amps) isn’t really torture, but on theory that it at least hypothetically possible that a relatively innocuous form of torture (or, for that matter, a not-so-innocuous one) may be necessary to prevent a serious terror attack.

That said, I have to call B.S. on one particular attempt to create the hypothetical into the concrete. I refer, of course, to the widespread speculation (beginning with Brian Ross on Bill O’Reilly’s show) that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded for two minutes, thereby allowing us to foil the planned attack on Library Tower in Los Angeles. There’s only one problem with this theory: the Administration maintains that the plot was foiled in 2002, and KSM wasn’t captured until 2003. Is waterboarding so damned effective that it permits time travel?

UPDATE: See-Dubya says there were two separate attacks planned, one of which was thwarted sans KSM in 2002, the other thwarted with his useful information in 2003. I don’t know about that. Surely al-Qaeda would never strike the same place twice!

Jimmy Carter is the gift that keeps on giving. One of his most infamous judicial appointments is Anna Diggs Taylor, the justice-loving, apolitical judge who infamously made a “highly irregular” effort to wrest an affirmative action case away from a judge she suspected of holding the wrong views on the issue. Now Taylor has stepped in it further, ruling the NSA surveillance program unconstitutional. The objectively pro-terrorist judge, who enjoys a cush job for life courtesy of the worst President in most of our lifetimes, smarmily patted herself on the back in her written opinion:

Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. A bridge which, I might add, would not be exist today, but for the wiretaps this idiot judge deemed unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, more dissembling from the usual suspects, while the real scholars are somewhat less impresed by the ruling. Xrlq Goldstein nails it:

Even still, it’s amazing that we’ve reached the nuance point where only by revealing secrets can we show the the secrets in question should not be revealed, lest they damage programs meant to protect us from attacks, which only work while details of how they work remain secret.

Perhaps we can just tie stones to the NSA program, put it in a lake, and see if it floats. If it does, it is clearly unconstitutional and should be hanged. If it drowns from the weight of its own revealed legality, everyone will know for certain that it wasn’t, in fact, unconstitutional. Which, helluva lot of good that does us, sure.

But it’s the thought that counts.

UPDATE: Patterico has more.

This luminary thinks the real reason for our code red alert is RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman’s campaign against Democrats like that Nedwit Lamont who are soft on terror. Me I don’t know, but like Patterico, I have this sneaking suspicion it just might have a leetle bit more to do with the fact that the Brits just nabbed 21 suspected terrorists in a plot which, had it gone forward as planned, would have resulted in carnage rivaling 9/11′s. However, that doesn’t mean I’m unwilling to entertain silly, baseless conspiracy theories of my own. How about this one:

The British “government,” a wholly owned subsidiary of Karl Rove, Inc. (a Bermuda corporation of which “the” Karl Rove is widely believed but not proven to be the sole shareholder) has known about this terror ring for several months, and could have apprehended all 26 suspects anytime they wanted from June 10 on. However, when they asked their double-secret Grand Master Pooh-Bah Rove for permission to make these arrests, the request was denied. The bobbies wanted to make their catch early rather than take any chances, but Rove knew his party’s interests would be better served by having the enemy party nominate a mentally retarded political neophyte rather than nominating a popular, sane incumbent. He also knew the ‘Tard couldn’t possibly win a serious election unless at least 52% of Connecticut Democrats had forgotten that there was any such thing as international terrorism. No one would have made that mistake on 9/12/01, of course, but without putting too fine a point on things, let’s just say one of our nation’s major political parties is associated with an animal known for its long memories, and the other party predominates in Connecticut.

Given Connecticutters’ obvious handicap, Rove knew that if he could keep international terrorism off the radar screen until after the Connecticut primary, the chances that Connecticut Democrats would nominate an idiotarian boob were excellent. For this reason, he knowingly and willfully endangered the lives of every Brit or American who took a journey across the pond, just to make sure the retarded neophyte beat out the sane incumbent in the primary leading up to an election no Republican could win anyway. Fearful of the risk that the suspects may attack in the interim, Rove’s British subordinates begged and pleaded for a compromise, asking if they maybe arrest these guys on Election Day or at least on the very next day. Evil Karl replied:

Hell, no! Didn’t you know Great Britain is 5 hours ahead of Connecticut? If anything happened on Election Day, some news would almost certainly reach the Nut-Meg State, probably before our polls even opened, let alone closed. That’s all the Joe-mentum Candidate Sane would need to erase his Joe-bituary and waltz right back into the Senate with his Democrat bona fides intact. And no, I’m not going to let you all nab these guys on the following day, either. We need that day in case the race is close and there’s a court challenge or something. Don’t laugh; he’s tried that before. The only risk I’m willing to take is that if he challenges the result, he’ll almost certainly file his complaint on the day after the election. Once once all courthouses are closed in Connecticut on August 9, 2006, if there are no other surprises, I’ll give you the all-clear and you can proceed then, which should be roughly 1700 hours local time. No, you don’t get to roll out at 1700 “Greenwich” Mean Time. Just because the ‘Tard hails from Greenwich, that doesn’t mean his courts will close according to “Greenwich” mean time. Nice try, though.

All went according to plan, and Rove gave the go-ahead on August 9, 2006, at 5:01 p.m. EDT, which is 10:01 summer time in Great Britain. By then, the last the last trans-Atlantic flight had left for the day, and all the suspects had retired for the night. You know the rest.

Attorney Larry Walters was a guest on Bill O’Reilly’s show today to discuss the differing evidentiary standards in Britain and America for investigating terrorists. O’Reilly appeared to endorse the British rule, which allows cops to obtain warrants based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. Walters, a self-described civil libertarian, disagreed:

O’REILLY: OK, in Britain it is, um, “reasonable suspicion,” and here it is “probable cause.” A huge gap, huge gap between them. Reasonable suspicion is basically, uh, Scotland Yard going to a judge and saying “Look, Abdul’s hanging around Mohammed. We know Mohammed’s bad. Therefore, we we want to go into Abdul’s house and see what we can see.” The judge says “Fine.” Here you do that, the judge laughs, you’re never going to get the warrant to go into Abdul’s house. It doesn’t seem to me, and I’ve lived there, that Britain is a fascist society, that the people there are oppressed in any way, shape or form, by their government. Why shouldn’t we have reasonable suspicion, rather than probable cause, in terror investigations, sir?

WALTERS: Britain is a different society, and we have a Bill of Rights, something that we fought the American Revolution against the UK to be able to obtain, and we’re the leaders in the world in terms of civil liberties. And when you’re talking about giving up basic constitutional rights to get a little bit of security. I wouldn’t be in favor of that. You know, it always reminds me of Thomas Jefferson’s quote, uh, “he who is willing to give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security is, uh, soon gonna have little of either.” And that’s true in this case.

The real quote, of course, was not about trading a little freedom for a little security, which sounds more like an even trade. Rather, it was about trading an essential liberty for a little temporary safety, not about trading a little of one for a little of another. Also, the real quote was not a prediction that those who trade any amount of liberty for any amount of safety will not have either; it was a moral pronouncement that they deserve neither. And the quote was attributed to Benjamin Franklin, not to Thomas Jefferson. And even Franklin probably never said it, either, having claimed merely to have published, not authored, the book in which it appeared, An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. Other than that, Mr. Walters’s analysis was spot on.

Denying the Holocaust is an imprisonable offense in Germany, but advocating a new one apparently is not.

Patterico and Armed Liberal have canceled their subscriptions to the L.A. Times. If you subscribe to the L.A. Times, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, [see update] you should consider doing the same. Hell, if you subscribe to the Chicago Tribune or any other paper affiliated with these treasonous creeps, consider canceling that subscription, as well. It’s high time for the public to tell these self-righteous jerks that they do not speak for the public, even when … nay, especially when … they smarmily claim to be acting in “the public interest.”

^* I used to cringe when Ann Coulter used that phrase to describe the far left, and when she joked about how Tim McVeigh’s crime would not have been so bad if she had blown up the New York Times building instead of the Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. Apparently, she wasn’t as far off the mark on either suggestion as I thought; just “ahead of the news cycle.”

UPDATE: Patterico argues that the Wall Street Journal was not treasonous, just the Times and the Times were.

Professor Bainbridge nails it. If these criminals inside and outside the government are not prosecuted, we might as well just come out and admit we are a government by the New York Times, of the New York Times and for the New York Times. Patterico has much much much much more.

Hey hey, goodbye.

It shouldn’t be necessary to say this, but thanks to one particular cupid stunt who shall not be named here, it is. This (h/t: him) provides no justification whatsoever for this, as there’s not a shred of evidence that she had any knowledge or involvement with the deal. It is extremely disturbing, nonethless, as any ransom paid to a kidnapper is all but guaranteed to lead to more kidnappings, and it is particularly odd given that the individual who proudly admits to paying the ransom, also acknowledges that Carroll’s kidnapping was a “mistake.” Even if such an evil act were a mere innocent “mistake,” who the hell pays his employees bonuses to reward them for their mistakes? [Other than the federal government, that is.]

Looks like his allahu wasn’t quite as akbar as he thought.