Julian Assange Being Turned over to UK????
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Some media watchers say it's more complicated than that:
paulsurovell said:It’s been the most-watched cable news network for three years running. Sounds mainstream to me.
Fox is corporate media but "mainstream" not so sure. Is there a definition?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/03/14/is-fox-news-part-of-the-mainstream-media-it-depends/?utm_term=.2b9d7a29bc20
OK. I’ll leave your question to be answered, then, by the one who regularly invokes the term when asking who’s covering a story.
paulsurovell said:
nan said:Great find, Nan. Have any mainstream media sources reported this bombshell?
Huge surprise. Never thought I'd agree with Rudi Giuliani about anything.
Giuliani Says Assange Should Not Be Prosecuted
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/31/giuliani-says-assange-should-not-be-prosecuted/?fbclid=IwAR0eBXCJp8JC2Oxs2Pliad00K9_e5aet-grNj7TQ3a_n3pxmq7Da_SkPF_M
This sounds like what you'd expect the lawyer for the guy accused of conspiring with Assange would say. If you're counting on Giuliani as your best source on what is and isn't a crime, good luck.
This is similar to what's been reported before about Giuliani.
What about any coordination between WikiLeaks and Trump associates? Longtime adviser Roger Stone traded messages with the anti-secrecy organization and made public statements that claimed or suggested inside information. Stone now denies any contact with the group that made its name by publishing highly classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. But even if that did happen, Giuliani said, “if Roger Stone gave anybody a heads-up about WikiLeaks’ leaks, that’s not a crime. It would be like giving him a heads-up that the Times is going to print something.”
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:This sounds like what you'd expect the lawyer for the guy accused of conspiring with Assange would say. If you're counting on Giuliani as your best source on what is and isn't a crime, good luck.
nan said:Great find, Nan. Have any mainstream media sources reported this bombshell?
Huge surprise. Never thought I'd agree with Rudi Giuliani about anything.
Giuliani Says Assange Should Not Be Prosecuted
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/31/giuliani-says-assange-should-not-be-prosecuted/?fbclid=IwAR0eBXCJp8JC2Oxs2Pliad00K9_e5aet-grNj7TQ3a_n3pxmq7Da_SkPF_M
This is similar to what's been reported before about Giuliani.
What about any coordination between WikiLeaks and Trump associates? Longtime adviser Roger Stone traded messages with the anti-secrecy organization and made public statements that claimed or suggested inside information. Stone now denies any contact with the group that made its name by publishing highly classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. But even if that did happen, Giuliani said, “if Roger Stone gave anybody a heads-up about WikiLeaks’ leaks, that’s not a crime. It would be like giving him a heads-up that the Times is going to print something.”https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rudy-giuliani-trumps-lawyers-denying-nothing/578272/
Based on what I have heard from Randy Credico for years, I think Roger Stone is a full of crap attention seeker and I never believed anything he said. As for Guliani, I was surprised to hear him say something I agree with. I still think he's a crazy nut, but even he, evidently, can see the importance of defending Julian Assange. What is your problem?
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:No, Christopher Matthews did not suggest that. It’s clear in the video (21:34) he was being facetious.
Prisoner for Free Speech: the Relentless Pursuit of Julian Assange
MSNBC star anchor Christopher Matthews, formerly a Democratic Party bigwig, even suggested that the US secret service should ‘pull one of those Israeli numbers and just grab him.’
Exactly. And that means that any other claims from the author of the Counterpunch article shouldn't be accepted without checking them.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:OK. I’ll leave your question to be answered, then, by the one who regularly invokes the term when asking who’s covering a story.
DaveSchmidt said:Some media watchers say it's more complicated than that:
paulsurovell said:It’s been the most-watched cable news network for three years running. Sounds mainstream to me.
Fox is corporate media but "mainstream" not so sure. Is there a definition?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/03/14/is-fox-news-part-of-the-mainstream-media-it-depends/?utm_term=.2b9d7a29bc20
If you wanted to define "mainstream media" as corporate (news) media or media with high circulation then sure, you'd include Fox. But if you define "mainstream media" as corporate media with high circulation that follows the dominant narrative on most matters, then I think you'd have to exclude Fox, although on matters of war, peace and military spending, Fox is part of the club, maybe even the leading edge.
So, I generally agree with Wemple that Fox is and isn't part of the mainstream media. It depends.
nan said:
South_Mountaineer said:Based on what I have heard from Randy Credico for years, I think Roger Stone is a full of crap attention seeker and I never believed anything he said. As for Guliani, I was surprised to hear him say something I agree with. I still think he's a crazy nut, but even he, evidently, can see the importance of defending Julian Assange. What is your problem?
paulsurovell said:This sounds like what you'd expect the lawyer for the guy accused of conspiring with Assange would say. If you're counting on Giuliani as your best source on what is and isn't a crime, good luck.
nan said:Great find, Nan. Have any mainstream media sources reported this bombshell?
Huge surprise. Never thought I'd agree with Rudi Giuliani about anything.
Giuliani Says Assange Should Not Be Prosecuted
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/31/giuliani-says-assange-should-not-be-prosecuted/?fbclid=IwAR0eBXCJp8JC2Oxs2Pliad00K9_e5aet-grNj7TQ3a_n3pxmq7Da_SkPF_M
This is similar to what's been reported before about Giuliani.
What about any coordination between WikiLeaks and Trump associates? Longtime adviser Roger Stone traded messages with the anti-secrecy organization and made public statements that claimed or suggested inside information. Stone now denies any contact with the group that made its name by publishing highly classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. But even if that did happen, Giuliani said, “if Roger Stone gave anybody a heads-up about WikiLeaks’ leaks, that’s not a crime. It would be like giving him a heads-up that the Times is going to print something.”https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rudy-giuliani-trumps-lawyers-denying-nothing/578272/
I don't have a problem. I think Rudy is defending Trump by saying leave Assange alone. Since we still don't know the full story of what Assange was up to with the Russians, it's too early to decide he's innocent.
paulsurovell said:
So, I generally agree with Wemple that Fox is and isn't part of the mainstream media. It depends.
Noted. The next time you ask whether a story you’ve seen is being reported in mainstream media, I may even consider “It depends” as a reply. 
South_Mountaineer said:
Exactly. And that means that any other claims from the author of the Counterpunch article shouldn't be accepted without checking them.
Credit where credit’s due: It was originally published a month earlier in Le Monde Diplomatique. (Hence, probably, “Christopher” Matthews and the idea that “formerly a Democratic Party bigwig” remains a relevant description.)
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:Noted. The next time you ask whether a story you’ve seen is being reported in mainstream media, I may even consider “It depends” as a reply.
So, I generally agree with Wemple that Fox is and isn't part of the mainstream media. It depends.
I'll do what I can to make it harder than that.
South_Mountaineer said:
DaveSchmidt said:Exactly. And that means that any other claims from the author of the Counterpunch article shouldn't be accepted without checking them.
nan said:No, Christopher Matthews did not suggest that. It’s clear in the video (21:34) he was being facetious.
Prisoner for Free Speech: the Relentless Pursuit of Julian Assange
MSNBC star anchor Christopher Matthews, formerly a Democratic Party bigwig, even suggested that the US secret service should ‘pull one of those Israeli numbers and just grab him.’
No, it means you need to go back and listen again, cause what he said was shocking and unexceptionable. Even if it is said as a joke, it is in poor taste and reflects badly on him.
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:I don't have a problem. I think Rudy is defending Trump by saying leave Assange alone. Since we still don't know the full story of what Assange was up to with the Russians, it's too early to decide he's innocent.
South_Mountaineer said:Based on what I have heard from Randy Credico for years, I think Roger Stone is a full of crap attention seeker and I never believed anything he said. As for Guliani, I was surprised to hear him say something I agree with. I still think he's a crazy nut, but even he, evidently, can see the importance of defending Julian Assange. What is your problem?
paulsurovell said:This sounds like what you'd expect the lawyer for the guy accused of conspiring with Assange would say. If you're counting on Giuliani as your best source on what is and isn't a crime, good luck.
nan said:Great find, Nan. Have any mainstream media sources reported this bombshell?
Huge surprise. Never thought I'd agree with Rudi Giuliani about anything.
Giuliani Says Assange Should Not Be Prosecuted
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/31/giuliani-says-assange-should-not-be-prosecuted/?fbclid=IwAR0eBXCJp8JC2Oxs2Pliad00K9_e5aet-grNj7TQ3a_n3pxmq7Da_SkPF_M
This is similar to what's been reported before about Giuliani.
What about any coordination between WikiLeaks and Trump associates? Longtime adviser Roger Stone traded messages with the anti-secrecy organization and made public statements that claimed or suggested inside information. Stone now denies any contact with the group that made its name by publishing highly classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. But even if that did happen, Giuliani said, “if Roger Stone gave anybody a heads-up about WikiLeaks’ leaks, that’s not a crime. It would be like giving him a heads-up that the Times is going to print something.”https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/rudy-giuliani-trumps-lawyers-denying-nothing/578272/
Full story? We don't know if there is ANY story of Assange with the Russians.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:No, Christopher Matthews did not suggest that. It’s clear in the video (21:34) he was being facetious.
Prisoner for Free Speech: the Relentless Pursuit of Julian Assange
MSNBC star anchor Christopher Matthews, formerly a Democratic Party bigwig, even suggested that the US secret service should ‘pull one of those Israeli numbers and just grab him.’
Just because Chris did his "Ha!" thing, doesn't mean he was being facetious. Former Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner responded to the remark with "rendition, just sort of – yeah" -- making reference to the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition." Neither Matthews nor Kirschner said they were against the idea of the CIA "grabbing" Assange, as it has done to more than a hundred "suspects."
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
paulsurovell said:
Just because Chris did his "Ha!" thing, doesn't mean he was being facetious. Former Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner responded to the remark with "rendition, just sort of – yeah" -- making reference to the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition." Neither Matthews nor Kirschner said they were against the idea of the CIA "grabbing" Assange, as it has done to more than a hundred "suspects."
If you believe Matthews seriously suggested what Halimi said he did, go right ahead and believe it.
paulsurovell said:
DaveSchmidt said:Just because Chris did his "Ha!" thing, doesn't mean he was being facetious. Former Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner responded to the remark with "rendition, just sort of – yeah" -- making reference to the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition." Neither Matthews nor Kirschner said they were against the idea of the CIA "grabbing" Assange, as it has done to more than a hundred "suspects."
nan said:No, Christopher Matthews did not suggest that. It’s clear in the video (21:34) he was being facetious.
Prisoner for Free Speech: the Relentless Pursuit of Julian Assange
MSNBC star anchor Christopher Matthews, formerly a Democratic Party bigwig, even suggested that the US secret service should ‘pull one of those Israeli numbers and just grab him.’
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10175425/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-november/#.XCv56M17ly0
He seems to find nothing extraordinary about extraordinary rendition. Just a lighthearted ha ha moment. Maybe if you watch a lot of mainstream news, you also get conditioned to think so little of "secret abductions and transfers" that you can just giggle about them.
paulsurovell said:
Just because Chris did his "Ha!" thing, doesn't mean he was being facetious. Former Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner responded to the remark with "rendition, just sort of – yeah" -- making reference to the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition." Neither Matthews nor Kirschner said they were against the idea of the CIA "grabbing" Assange, as it has done to more than a hundred "suspects."
Neither said he was for it, either. It's not even a close call that Matthews wasn't seriously discussing doing that. He obviously wasn't.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:Neither said he was for it, either. It's not even a close call that Matthews wasn't seriously discussing doing that. He obviously wasn't.
Just because Chris did his "Ha!" thing, doesn't mean he was being facetious. Former Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner responded to the remark with "rendition, just sort of – yeah" -- making reference to the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition." Neither Matthews nor Kirschner said they were against the idea of the CIA "grabbing" Assange, as it has done to more than a hundred "suspects."
He was rightfully called out for that horrific remark in the Counterpunch article.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:If you believe Matthews seriously suggested what Halimi said he did, go right ahead and believe it.
Just because Chris did his "Ha!" thing, doesn't mean he was being facetious. Former Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner responded to the remark with "rendition, just sort of – yeah" -- making reference to the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition." Neither Matthews nor Kirschner said they were against the idea of the CIA "grabbing" Assange, as it has done to more than a hundred "suspects."
Halmi's remarks on Matthews starts with a critique of the journalism profession:
The US authorities’ relentless pursuit of Assange is encouraged by the cowardice of many journalists who have abandoned him to his fate or even delight in his misfortune.
which is not far from former NY Times general counsel James Goodale's assessment:
James Goodale: When I wrote the book pointing out the dangers to the First Amendment if Assange was prosecuted, I made it my business to see if I could gin up support within the media/press community to stick up for his rights, since his rights would affect everyone else’s. I had occasion to speak to many groups in connection with the promotion of my book. Every time I mentioned the fact that establishment press should advocate for Assange’s rights, I heard hoots of laughter or people shouting at me that I didn’t understand the journalism profession.
I was dismayed that I got very few converts in the journalistic community that would take my position that it was necessary to support Assange — not for Assange himself, but for the First Amendment.
In the next sentence, Halmi speaks directly about one journalist, Chris Matthews:
MSNBC star anchor Christopher Matthews, formerly a Democratic Party bigwig, even suggested that the US secret service should ‘pull one of those Israeli numbers and just grab him.’Matthew's statement, followed by Glenn Kirschner, is:
KIRSCHNER: . . .
And there other thing we should – like, looking forward, Chris, let`s pay attention to if the U.S. gets its hands on Assange and can extradite him from the Ecuadorian Embassy, he`s a big fish, but you know what? Mueller will look to cultivate him as…
MATTHEWS: Why don`t we pull one of those Israeli numbers and just go get him?
KIRSCHNER: Yes, rendition, just sort of – yes.
MATTHEWS: Just go grab him.
http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/hardball/2018-11-16
So Halmi got Chris's words right, although he missed Chris's trademark "Ha!" (as did the transcript). Was Chris Matthews "seriously" suggesting extraordinary rendition against Assange? Did Kirschner think Chris was being "facetious?" In the context of the media's full-blown assault on Assange, I think Chris was reflecting his thinking, but I don't think he said it, expecting that it would happen.
But regardless of whether Chris was "serious" or "facetious" or somewhere in between, Nan hit the main point -- that it was a horrific remark. Because we do those things.
Who needs extraordinary rendition when ordinary rendition will work just fine?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:If you believe Matthews seriously suggested what Halimi said he did, go right ahead and believe it.
Just because Chris did his "Ha!" thing, doesn't mean he was being facetious. Former Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner responded to the remark with "rendition, just sort of – yeah" -- making reference to the CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition." Neither Matthews nor Kirschner said they were against the idea of the CIA "grabbing" Assange, as it has done to more than a hundred "suspects."
Matthews made an unscripted remark, and if you watch it (which gives you the full context and meaning) he's not seriously suggesting it. "Chris Matthews blurts out things which sound stupid" is a truism.
He didn't write an essay, he didn't put it in his script, he didn't build a show segment around advocating for it. Mr. Surovell is just relying on a misleading reading of the transcript.
Speaking of misleading readings of transcripts:
paulsurovell said:
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10175425/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-november/#.XCv56M17ly0
Were you hoping nobody would click the link, and rely on your description? Anybody who has read your posts describing other articles knows not to do that. Here's the opening -
Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. The debate over the use of torture pits Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, against Dick Cheney, the vice president of the United States. But is the use of torture an effective interrogation tool against terrorists? We will talk to a former FBI counterintelligence agent in a moment.
The "former FBI counterintelligence agent" wrote a book about how torture doesn't work.
MATTHEWS: We've talked about this many times, but let's start from the basics here, because I think a lot of people are curious about this. They may have attitudes; they don't have understanding. Torture, does it ever work?
NAVARRO: You know, I suspect that it may, but in reality, you know, the only thing that torture guarantees is pain. It never guarantees the truth. It's a technique that we in the FBI have never used, we don't need. Professional interviewers have never subscribed to it.
The American Association of Marine Interviewers don't subscribe to it. In fact, most of the military interviewers that I've worked with don't subscribe to it. And so we are not sure where the need for this is coming from.
Matthews pitched questions about various scenarios, to flesh out the author's position and arguments. Such as -
MATTHEWS: So you don't buy the Alan Dershowitz, the professor at Harvard, who says if you've got somebody in the 11th hour and they know that it's going to be doomsday for the planet like a nuclear weapon in New York, a real nuclear bomb in New York, in the subway system, you don't think you would go to extreme measures?
NAVARRO: Look, Dershowitz is a brilliant attorney. He is not a world-class interviewer. I have talked to world class interviewers, I have taught these individuals. We don't need to torture these individuals.
Some of his "unscripted asides" show he's not disagreeing with the anti-torture author -
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that it's torture to keep a person awake for long periods of time, to use sleep deprivation to weaken their resistance? Is that torture?
NAVARRO: Yes I do. I do.
I don't think it works.
MATTHEWS: It doesn't. I bed you become very hallucinatory and weak-minded if you are awake for days after days without getting enough night time.
Matthews made it clear that his guest was representing mainstream thinking on the subject -
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, you worked for the FBI for 25 years.
NAVARRO: Yes, sir. I did.
MATTHEWS: Is there anybody who disagrees with you on this, who thinks torture works?
NAVARRO: There may be, but I'll tell you what, it's not something the FBI has ever taught and I still teach there. And we don't teach that. And we never will.
And he wraps up the interview like this -
MATTHEWS: Well, thank you very much, Joe Navarro. You know what you are talking about. Twenty-five years at the FBI. Good luck with the book, it's name is “Advanced Interviewing Techniques.”
So Chris Matthews devotes an entire segment of his show to highlight a respected expert who makes clear and justifies his opposition to torture. The suggestion that Matthews doesn't have a problem with torture, based on that transcript, is completely false.
paulsurovell said:
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10175425/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-november/#.XCv56M17ly0
Which means you completely missed this transcript from February 18, 2009 (which I found using the search you suggested). In his scripted intro to the program Chris Matthews says:
Now to the war against the country‘s enemies. Is the president doing what he promised to do with foreign prisoners? Is he even thinking about that dirty practice called rendition, where he jets some prisoner off to a country where we know they‘re going to get tortured?
I think you could call that a "suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition".
nohero said:
Speaking of misleading readings of transcripts:
paulsurovell said:Were you hoping nobody would click the link, and rely on your description? Anybody who has read your posts describing other articles knows not to do that. Here's the opening -
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10175425/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-november/#.XCv56M17ly0
Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. The debate over the use of torture pits Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, against Dick Cheney, the vice president of the United States. But is the use of torture an effective interrogation tool against terrorists? We will talk to a former FBI counterintelligence agent in a moment.The "former FBI counterintelligence agent" wrote a book about how torture doesn't work.
MATTHEWS: We've talked about this many times, but let's start from the basics here, because I think a lot of people are curious about this. They may have attitudes; they don't have understanding. Torture, does it ever work?Matthews pitched questions about various scenarios, to flesh out the author's position and arguments. Such as -
NAVARRO: You know, I suspect that it may, but in reality, you know, the only thing that torture guarantees is pain. It never guarantees the truth. It's a technique that we in the FBI have never used, we don't need. Professional interviewers have never subscribed to it.
The American Association of Marine Interviewers don't subscribe to it. In fact, most of the military interviewers that I've worked with don't subscribe to it. And so we are not sure where the need for this is coming from.
MATTHEWS: So you don't buy the Alan Dershowitz, the professor at Harvard, who says if you've got somebody in the 11th hour and they know that it's going to be doomsday for the planet like a nuclear weapon in New York, a real nuclear bomb in New York, in the subway system, you don't think you would go to extreme measures?Some of his "unscripted asides" show he's not disagreeing with the anti-torture author -
NAVARRO: Look, Dershowitz is a brilliant attorney. He is not a world-class interviewer. I have talked to world class interviewers, I have taught these individuals. We don't need to torture these individuals.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that it's torture to keep a person awake for long periods of time, to use sleep deprivation to weaken their resistance? Is that torture?Matthews made it clear that his guest was representing mainstream thinking on the subject -
NAVARRO: Yes I do. I do.
I don't think it works.
MATTHEWS: It doesn't. I bed you become very hallucinatory and weak-minded if you are awake for days after days without getting enough night time.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, you worked for the FBI for 25 years.And he wraps up the interview like this -
NAVARRO: Yes, sir. I did.
MATTHEWS: Is there anybody who disagrees with you on this, who thinks torture works?
NAVARRO: There may be, but I'll tell you what, it's not something the FBI has ever taught and I still teach there. And we don't teach that. And we never will.
MATTHEWS: Well, thank you very much, Joe Navarro. You know what you are talking about. Twenty-five years at the FBI. Good luck with the book, it's name is “Advanced Interviewing Techniques.”So Chris Matthews devotes an entire segment of his show to highlight a respected expert who makes clear and justifies his opposition to torture. The suggestion that Matthews doesn't have a problem with torture, based on that transcript, is completely false.
Your comment is misleading because I said Chris didn't seem to have a problem with "rendition" not "torture," which is the subject of your quotes.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Your comment is misleading because I said Chris didn't seem to have a problem with "rendition" not "torture," which is the subject of your quotes.
Speaking of misleading readings of transcripts:
paulsurovell said:Were you hoping nobody would click the link, and rely on your description? Anybody who has read your posts describing other articles knows not to do that. Here's the opening -
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10175425/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-november/#.XCv56M17ly0
Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews. The debate over the use of torture pits Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war, against Dick Cheney, the vice president of the United States. But is the use of torture an effective interrogation tool against terrorists? We will talk to a former FBI counterintelligence agent in a moment.The "former FBI counterintelligence agent" wrote a book about how torture doesn't work.
MATTHEWS: We've talked about this many times, but let's start from the basics here, because I think a lot of people are curious about this. They may have attitudes; they don't have understanding. Torture, does it ever work?Matthews pitched questions about various scenarios, to flesh out the author's position and arguments. Such as -
NAVARRO: You know, I suspect that it may, but in reality, you know, the only thing that torture guarantees is pain. It never guarantees the truth. It's a technique that we in the FBI have never used, we don't need. Professional interviewers have never subscribed to it.
The American Association of Marine Interviewers don't subscribe to it. In fact, most of the military interviewers that I've worked with don't subscribe to it. And so we are not sure where the need for this is coming from.
MATTHEWS: So you don't buy the Alan Dershowitz, the professor at Harvard, who says if you've got somebody in the 11th hour and they know that it's going to be doomsday for the planet like a nuclear weapon in New York, a real nuclear bomb in New York, in the subway system, you don't think you would go to extreme measures?Some of his "unscripted asides" show he's not disagreeing with the anti-torture author -
NAVARRO: Look, Dershowitz is a brilliant attorney. He is not a world-class interviewer. I have talked to world class interviewers, I have taught these individuals. We don't need to torture these individuals.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that it's torture to keep a person awake for long periods of time, to use sleep deprivation to weaken their resistance? Is that torture?Matthews made it clear that his guest was representing mainstream thinking on the subject -
NAVARRO: Yes I do. I do.
I don't think it works.
MATTHEWS: It doesn't. I bed you become very hallucinatory and weak-minded if you are awake for days after days without getting enough night time.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, you worked for the FBI for 25 years.And he wraps up the interview like this -
NAVARRO: Yes, sir. I did.
MATTHEWS: Is there anybody who disagrees with you on this, who thinks torture works?
NAVARRO: There may be, but I'll tell you what, it's not something the FBI has ever taught and I still teach there. And we don't teach that. And we never will.
MATTHEWS: Well, thank you very much, Joe Navarro. You know what you are talking about. Twenty-five years at the FBI. Good luck with the book, it's name is “Advanced Interviewing Techniques.”So Chris Matthews devotes an entire segment of his show to highlight a respected expert who makes clear and justifies his opposition to torture. The suggestion that Matthews doesn't have a problem with torture, based on that transcript, is completely false.
Exactly. He is moving the goal posts on his claim. Again.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Which means you completely missed this transcript from February 18, 2009 (which I found using the search you suggested). In his scripted intro to the program Chris Matthews says:
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10175425/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-november/#.XCv56M17ly0
Now to the war against the country‘s enemies. Is the president doing what he promised to do with foreign prisoners? Is he even thinking about that dirty practice called rendition, where he jets some prisoner off to a country where we know they‘re going to get tortured?I think you could call that a "suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition".
It's not that simple. Thank you for the link, if I had seen it, I would have incorporated it into my comments about Chris Matthews and "rendition."
Now in the second transcript, Chris calls rendition "a dirty practice" and he also calls "rendition" a "horrible word."
But later on in the discussion, he suggests rendition might be necessary.
MATTHEWS: Michael, I worry about what we do with people who we can‘t make a criminal case against, even before a military court, but we know are dangerous.
What do we do with those guys? Do we rendition them? What do we do with a person who we know has sworn to hurt us the second he gets out of our custody, but we don‘t have a military—even a military case against him, as a criminal?
SMERCONISH: I believe that...
MATTHEWS: What do we do with them?
SMERCONISH: ... everyone is entitled—I—I think everybody is entitled to a trial. I—I‘m not comfortable, Chris, with this notion that we‘re seven years removed from September 11, and you still have 250 or so detainees at Guantanamo in a never-ending process.
(CROSSTALK)
SMERCONISH: They never had a plan as to how they would execute this criminal justice system. So, I‘m not for that.
But I am for keeping more tools on the table as we approach the war on terror. I mean, I‘m not for torture. But if you have the ticking-time bomb case...
MATTHEWS: OK.
SMERCONISH: I mean, put yourself in the position of September 10.
What—what exactly would you like to limit us to on September 10?
MATTHEWS: OK. I know. That‘s the Dershowitz argument. I have heard that argument. You have got to use the thumbscrews. And the whole question is whether it would work or not.
I want to get back to my question, which I‘m confounded by. I don‘t know the answer to it. What do you do with people who are dangerous, but not criminal; they didn‘t do anything wrong, but you know they will?
Again to you, Michael, then to Joan.
What do you do with such a person? Let him go?
SMERCONISH: You put them on—you put—no, you put them on trial.
MATTHEWS: But they haven‘t done anything wrong yet.
I think Chris believes that extraordinary rendition is evil, but he appears to be ambivalent about whether it should be practiced, perhaps a "necessary evil."
I tried to find evidence of Chris Matthews supporting Julian Assange and did not come up with anything.
nan said:Exactly. He is moving the goal posts on his claim. Again.
paulsurovell said:
I think Chris believes that extraordinary rendition is evil, but he appears to be ambivalent about whether it should be practiced, perhaps a "necessary evil."
The "moving the goal posts" comment really should have been directed at you. This whole frolic and detour started with your unsupported claim about Matthews supporting "extraordinary rendition". It was refuted by pointing out his very clear statement, "Is he even thinking about that dirty practice called rendition, where he jets some prisoner off to a country where we know they‘re going to get tortured?" not to mention devoting at least one entire program (one YOU cited) against torture.
I'll leave it to others to decide if your "spin" of a selection of his statements has any validity.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:…
Speaking of misleading readings of transcripts:
paulsurovell said:
I looked up "Chris Matthews" and "rendition" and I found this transcript from 2005 when the rendition and torture of those rendered was in the news. I didn't notice any suggestion by Chris that he had a problem with extraordinary rendition.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10175425/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-november/#.XCv56M17ly0Your comment is misleading because I said Chris didn't seem to have a problem with "rendition" not "torture," which is the subject of your quotes.
Your comment is misleading because I said Chris didn't seem to have a problem with "rendition" not "torture," which is the subject of your quotes.
So you left yourself an "escape hatch". The whole transcript establishes that he does have "a problem with extraordinary rendition". But if we play your game, please explain how that transcript supports your contention that it shows he doesn't have a problem with "plain vanilla" rendition sans torture. There's nothing there to support your claim, so my comment still stands.
paulsurovell said:
Your comment is misleading because I said Chris didn't seem to have a problem with "rendition" not "torture," which is the subject of your quotes.
Do I have this right? Looking for Matthews’ views on rendition, you find an interview about torture, not rendition. In this interview about torture, not rendition, Matthews does not denounce rendition, which you suggest is evidence of his views on rendition. When someone notes that the interview, which is not about rendition, is anti-torture, you reply that’s misleading because you were talking about rendition. Which can make a reader wonder (a) why that interview came up in a search of “Chris Matthews” and “rendition” and (b) why you chose to cite it.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Some media watchers say it's more complicated than that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2017/03/14/is-fox-news-part-of-the-mainstream-media-it-depends/?utm_term=.2b9d7a29bc20