I’m watching the episode now, and the instant he suggested that, all sympathy I might have had for him vanished. That’s, and I use the term quite specifically, un-American. Maybe he doesn’t deserve to be shouted down for it, but he absolutely got his say on the show and I have no problem with Jon shoving it in his face.
I loved that earlier in the show they had shown a clip from the HBO series John Adams in which well-known-anti-American-bootlicker-for-the-British John Adams took the case of the accused in the Boston Massacre.
Adams not only successfully defended most of the soldiers present, incidentally, he got a change of venue and other concessions to make the trial more fair. For the two who *were *convicted of murder due to eyewitness testimony they had shot directly at individuals rather than in the air he used the benefit of clergy loophole to have the charge reduced to manslaughter. Luckily of course the traitor Adams was long gone from America before 1776 or they’d never have gotten the Declaration written.
Theissen seemed to have a big issue with this. It pretty much cemented to me that he was there to sell his book first and foremost.
I also got he’s used to preaching to the choir, or if he has to defend it then it’s against the Phil Donahue Chair in Liberal Talking Points and not somebody like Stewart who has actually read it and prepared an attack.
I think Stewart talked over him more than he should also but see this as offset by
1- The fact the interview is online
2- If he wants praise that’s what Fox is for
3- If you don’t know that Stewart is sharp, on Comedy Central (i.e. no pretense he’s with a news network or “fair and balanced”*) and hates shit like calling defense attorneys criminals
then you should have done your home work
*Though he is FAR more fair and balanced than most hosts on Fox or MSNBC.
He argued that one of the lawyers has a very radical position on defending terrorists and shouldn’t be working for the Justice Department. The position was that anyone detained as an enemy combatant who wasn’t charged should be released. Then he and Jon started to argue about whether that was such a crazy argument to make and eventually worked their way into debating torture.
I’m sure Cheney’s group wouldn’t mind it if their arguments were perceived as calling defense lawyers terrorist sympathizers. But when pressed they make the point that somehow the legal positions the lawyers took while defending terrorists should make them unfit to work for the Justice Department. It’s still a dumb argument but it allows them to pretend they are being mistreated when liberals say they are demonizing defense lawyers.
I think that Jon might have talked over Theissen during part one of the interview, but that was purely the result of Theissen misstating a lot of facts. At one point Jon said that Theissen’s book didn’t talk about everyone that interrogated a certain terrorist suspect. Theissen said everyone was in the book. Jon then named the person missing. Theissen said that the guy was in the book. Jon then explained that Theissen never talked to him, and at that point Theissen admitted the guy never talked to him, but that he nevertheless wrote about him. In that exchange Theissen wasted a lot of time misstating a simple fact that Jon had to correct.
If Jon would have stopped Theissen every time he misstated a fact then Theissen would have been stopped at every other sentence. Sure Theissen should be allowed to speak and get his point in, but that doesn’t give him the right to talk bullshit all he wants.
That is one of those issues on which practically anyone who is asked, and who has any opinion at all, will respond either, “Of course! What a stupid question! Why is this even an issue?!” or “Of course not! What a stupid question! Why is this even an issue?!”
The (only) argument for that, and Theissen was indeed making that argument, was that captured soldiers don’t have to be released (or charged) until the end of the war. Steward quite correctly pointed out that whatever you’re going to call this anti-terrorism strategy, it’s not going to end. Which got no response from Theissen.
And yeah, John was pretty aggressive, but Theissen did not make any sane kind of argument.
Thiessen was making the same bullshit “enemy combatant” argument we’ve been hearing for years. I’m impressed Jon showed the amount of patience he did.
Thiessen was attempting to monopolize the airtime and Stewart didn’t let him. Bullshit arguments should get called on, that’s not complicated. If he wanted a simple Q&A he should have went on O’Reilly or Limbaugh and been done with it.
Yeah. If you accept their logic that these people are properly classified as enemy combatants, and that as such they can be held indefinitely with no process, then his argument makes perfect sense. Of course, if you even question a portion of any of those propositions, it becomes quite a house of cards.
In the past hasn’t TDS televised edited interviews? Or is it a more recent thing that they simply continue them on-line.
JS did a fine job of expressing a certain position. Which I have no problem with. He’s not going to simply accept BS - even if the BS is in support of a position JS agrees with.
No no no. You weren’t paying attention to Thiessen—if you question a portion of any of those propositions, then you’re a **terrorist. **See? Simple!
God - I just watched the next 2 parts. What a douche! (And I don’t mean JS.)
I saw the entire interview online. On air Jon talked over him and I think that really took the sting out of his position (I much prefer it when he sits back and makes pointed simplistically elegent counterarguments ala the death panel chick). Later the guest was allowed to state his position fully and came off looking equivocating and intellectually dishonest. His refusal to acknowledge in the end that information gleaned from suspects could never have been attained any other way and the threats stopped were facts and not hypothetical was stupid silly.
Could someone please tell me what the anecdote about the terrorist thanking the CIA agent for the waterboarding was supposed to prove? He says Muslims are supposed to hold out until a certain level of duress then they can spill their guts…fine, whats with the ‘thank you’?
I haven’t watched, but maybe it’s “Thank you for not waterboarding me any more?” Maybe Al Qaeda is big into Emily Post.
I watched the whole thing online and man… gotta agree with Dinsdale. What a douche!
The back and forth over whether the hypothetical was a hypothetical was childish and stupid. My god… this guy wrote a whole book?
The guy is just another thug from the Bush camp, trying to justify his part in a fascist regime. He basically got interviewed Limbaugh style and deserved every minute of it.
It’s true, but then Jon refused to answer the question of what he would have done differently or the consequences of that when asked it. The guy stated KSM had information regarding future terrorist attacks, both agreed. Thiessan stated waterboarding KSM led to information (that led to information) that prevented those attacks, both agreed. Thiessan stated it was a fact, not a hypothetical, the information obtained stopped future attacks. Jon said hypothetically, if you didn’t waterboard KSM, the information could have been obtained in other ways. This is where the interview got childish. Thiessan wouldn’t acknowledge even the possibility of getting the information KSM gave up in other ways. Yet previously, Jon refused to answer the question of how he would have gotten the information or more importantly, the consequences of not getting it. He only said something like dynamic complex system or something and that ultimately waterboarding causes more harm than good. Thiessan was dishonest that that particular information from KSM could not have been obtained from other sources. Pretty lame. It’s called sticking to your side no matter what. Cameras and millions of viewers do that to people.
A typical TDS debate. Good stuff, never perfect.
You’re right about the first part. I gathered the “thank you” is for giving him a way to do it that isn’t that harmful to him (waterboarding), but high enough duress to do it (waterboarding). I think that’s what he meant. Pretty dumb beyond belief if that’s actually what he meant.
It was a very telling exchange when Jon said he disagreed with Thiessan that the Presidents most important job was to keep Americans safe, he said it was to preserve and protect the Constitution.
During WWII Churchill was approached by the SIS who said they’ve captured German spies and if he’d authorize it they’d use torture to extract information that could save British lives. He said no, he decided to uphold the values his countrymen were dying for in the first place.
I would have liked it if he had been clearer on this point, saying that certain values America often claims to stand for are more important than “torture-like” behavior which many people consider inconsistent with those values. And that our handling of these “detainees” will very likely affect how others view and act towards us.
Also - and I’m not sure if JS agrees with this - that some values are important enough that we ought to sacrifice some amount of safety to preserve them.
At least JS occasionally said “I don’t know,” and tried to identify and quantify the specific area of disagreement. The other guy seemed to have no interest in that type of thing.
Just watched it, and honestly didn’t get the feeling Stewart was being O’Reilly-ish at all. In fact, the guest seemed to talk much more than Jon, though I didn’t time it or anything. From reading this thread, I was expecting a big deal, and it seemed like a pretty standard interview to me, though both of them occasionally interrupted the other.
This is exactly why Jon Stewart is so well respected in my book. He makes the argument very clear and usually does a great job of accurately establishing both sides of the actual debate.