Obsidian Wings

Least Surprising News of the Day

by publius

I'm not sure Max Baucus and staff read Jonathan Cohn, but they should.  This comes from his latest report on where things stand on Capitol Hill:

Baucus, as you may know, has been trying to hammer out a deal with a bipartisan group of six members. But on Thursday the most conservative member of the bunch, Republican Mike Enzi of Wyoming, made it clear he didn't think it possible to get legislation ready for the August recess.

By all accounts, Enzi has been under enormous pressure from Republican leadership, which wants no bill at all and sees time as its ally. Whether Enzi was responding to their pressure or simply following his own conscience is anybody's guess.

I, for one, am shocked that Republicans see delay as a tactical device rather than as a time for careful study and deliberation about policy merits.  I'm equally shocked to Enzi dragging things out.  And here I thought he only cared about Doritos...

Only Pain.

Jehnna: I suppose nothing hurts you.
Conan: Only pain.

An open thread

-Also-

A bleg.

 by von

This is your weekend open thread:  I'm off to do battle in the nerf apocalypse with my 3 year old kid and his cousins:

Below the fold, a workout bleg.

Why Kidney Selling Bothers Me

by publius

I missed the latest round of the “should we sell our kidneys” debate.  To recap, various libertarian conservatives say yes, arguing that the donors’ health risks are small and that people really need kidneys.  The real challenge then, as John Schwenkler notes, is to justify the ban on kidney selling.

So I’ll try.  I’m not sure I can justify the actual ban – I lack the philosophical chops.  But I can get in the neighborhood, and maybe someone in the comments can punch it over the goal line.

The kidney debate interests me because it touches upon a much deeper and fundamental philosophical divide between modern progressives and conservatives (particularly libertarians).  The divide turns on one’s view of markets and, more precisely, freedom.  This divide, I think, is the original source of disagreement on several issues, particularly health coverage reform and labor law.

Modern libertarians subscribe to the old classic liberal worldview.  Under this view, there is a heavy emphasis on individual freedom.  Markets free from government intervention are good because they allow people to freely exchange goods, enter contracts, and generally do what they want – which has numerous benefits (efficient allocations, etc.).  The underlying assumption is that people can indeed act freely within this system.

One of the main critiques, however, of (classical) liberalism is that this underlying assumption is unrealistic, or even fraudulent.  It’s absurd, the argument goes, to treat people as being "free" within markets – to assume they are islands of self-contained free will exercising their rights equally.

The truth, critics argue, is that “free” markets obscure vast disparities in wealth, power, information, bargaining position, etc.  In this sense, the assumption of “freedom” is a helpful ideology, but not one that accurately describes the relative power of contracting parties.

Here’s an example.  Let’s say Wal-Mart decides to start offering people $5,000 per finger.  (Let’s assume scientists have found a chemical in finger bones that helps break unions).  Under the liberal view, everyone is “free” to take that offer or to decline it.  

But this “freedom” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.  From an opportunity cost perspective, Wal-Mart’s offer exerts more force on someone with a salary of $25,000, than it does on someone who makes $100,000.  The former is essentially throwing away 20% of their yearly salary, while the latter is throwing away 5%.  Both individuals are “free” – but the lower income makes the offer harder to refuse for the $25K person.  It exerts more force on that person.  To say, then, that these two people are both “free” misses an important difference between them.

Of course, you can take this logic to some dangerous and absurd extremes.  You could, for instance, argue that Big Macs should be priced according to one’s income, or that various types of markets (e.g., house cleaning) should be prohibited.  But these are not things I want government to do.  I believe in markets, not necessarily because I completely buy the idea of “freedom,” but because I am skeptical that the government is competent to address these problems through central planning, extreme redistribution, etc.  The remedies are often worse than the problems.

But that said, there are areas where we need to draw the line on markets.  Just as liberalism’s goal was to carve out a realm of freedom from the state, it’s also important to carve out realms of freedom from coercive market logic.

Market failures are a different issue.  I’m sure a market for kidneys would work pretty well.  I’m just not sure I want market logic – which is necessarily coercive on some more than others – to intrude into the realm of body parts, or selling children.

At the end of the day, I’m not sure any of this is helpful.  I’ve basically said “there should be a line,” but I haven’t established whether kidney selling crosses that line.  Maybe someone else can.  But this hopefully at least explains where some liberals are coming from – not just on this issue, but on a whole host of political issues. 

The skepticism that everyone is free under classic liberalism is one of the foundational assumptions that leads me to root viscerally (often too viscerally) for progressive policies.  It also makes me relatively more inclined to favor regulation in certain contexts.

At the end of the day, I guess I feel similarly to Kevin Drum – it’s not so much kidneys that bother me.  It’s that I can easily imagine this logic spreading to things like eyes, or even children.  I can’t quite justify it, but the inherent coercion on poorer people seems like a bigger deal when we start trying to commodify body parts.  If only we had a real philosopher who blogged here….

Shameful

by publius

Like Steve Benen, I was shocked to learn that Karl Rove played a greater role than previously known in the U.S. Attorney firings.  Of all the various DOJ disgraces of the Bush years, this one is actually the most inexcusable.

Don't get me wrong -- the legal approval of torture and wiretapping was outrageous.  But in those contexts, the lawyers have at least a plausible argument that they acted in good faith (subjectively speaking).  That doesn't excuse anything of course.  But the lawyers at DOJ can at least plausibly claim that they were motivated to help keep the country safe.

In the U.S. Attorney context, though, there's no justification that is even remotely plausible.  Rove and the Bush DOJ fired U.S. Attorneys who refused to prosecute innocent people for partisan political advantage.  Any by prosecute, I mean send them to jail.

There's simply no justification -- there's nothing that's even plausible.  It was more than simply ignoring law, it was affirmatively using the prosecuting power of the federal government to entrench political power like some banana republic dictator might do.

The firings also damaged the federal prosecution system as a whole -- and cast a shadow of illegitimacy on virtually all prosecutions of political figures or activists.  Prosecuting opposition parties is always tricky.  But because it is often necessary, the need to be perceived as neutral is even greater in this context.

There's only one way to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future, but it requires "looking back."

Guests, Like Fish, Begin to Smell after Three Days

by Eric Martin

A senior U.S. military official and adviser to the Iraqi military’s Baghdad command, Col. Timothy R. Reese, wrote a rather blunt memo that has recently found the light of day (copy here).  In the memo, Reese argues that the U.S. should accelerate its withdrawal from Iraq based on the following factors: we have already accomplished what was possible for us to achieve militarily, the way forward involves Iraqi issues best-suited for Iraqi solutions (or not) and, further, that our continued presence is actually increasing tension, resistance, risk to our troops and the potential for a serious rift in relations.

Reese argues that we have lost leverage over the Iraqi government, and the ability to influence the political/military landscape.  Political reconciliation - the endgame that the Surge was supposed to secure - is backsliding, as corruption and self-dealing have settled in as the norm:

The general lack of progress in essential services and good governance is now so broad that it ought to be clear that we no longer are moving the Iraqis “forward.” Below is an outline of the information on which I base this assessment:

1. The ineffectiveness and corruption of GOI [ed note: Government of Iraq] Ministries is the stuff of legend.

2. The anti-corruption drive is little more than a campaign tool for Maliki

3. The GOI is failing to take rational steps to improve its electrical infrastructure and to improve their oil exploration, production and exports.

4. There is no progress towards resolving the Kirkuk situation.

5. Sunni Reconciliation is at best at a standstill and probably going backwards.

6. Sons of Iraq (SOI) or Sahwa transition to ISF [ed note: Iraqi Security Forces] and GOI civil service is not happening, and SOI monthly paydays continue to fall further behind.

Iraq's security forces, with new-found confidence and long-simmering resentment, are pressing their prerogatives with increasing assertiveness (as should be expected of any people that underwent such a prolonged occupation):

It is clear that the 30 Jun milestone does not represent one small step in a long series of gradual steps on the path the US withdrawal, but as Maliki has termed it, a “great victory” over the Americans and fundamental change in our relationship. The recent impact of this mentality on military operations is evident:

1. Iraqi Ground Forces Command (IGFC) unilateral restrictions on US forces that violate the most basic aspects of the SA

2. BOC unilateral restrictions that violate the most basic aspects of the SA

3. International Zone incidents in the last week where ISF forces have resorted to shows of force to get their way at Entry Control Points (ECP) including the forcible takeover of ECP 1 on 4 July

4. Sudden coolness to advisors and CDRs, lack of invitations to meetings,

5. Widespread partnership problems reported in other areas such as ISF confronting US forces at TCPs in the city of Baghdad and other major cities in Iraq.

6. ISF units are far less likely to want to conduct combined combat operations with US forces, to go after targets the US considers high value, etc.

7. The Iraqi legal system in the Rusafa side of Baghdad has demonstrated a recent willingness to release individuals originally detained by the US for attacks on the US.

Importantly, Reese contends that Iraqi Security Forces are at the point where they can stand on their own, while our soldiers are becoming convenient targets to several factions:

Yet despite all their grievous shortcomings noted above, ISF military capability is sufficient to handle the current level of threats from Sunni and Shiite violent groups. Our combat forces’ presence here on the streets and in the rural areas adds only marginally to their capability while exposing us to attacks to which we cannot effectively respond.

The GOI and the ISF will not be toppled by the violence as they might have been between 2006 and 2008. Though two weeks does not make a trend, the near cessation of attacks since 30 June speaks volumes about how easily Shiite violence can be controlled and speaks to the utter weakness of AQI. The extent of AQ influence in Iraq is so limited as to be insignificant, only when they get lucky with a mass casualty attack are they relevant. Shiite groups are working with the PM and his political allies, or plotting to work against him in the upcoming elections. We are merely convenient targets for delivering a message against Maliki by certain groups, and perhaps by Maliki when he wants us to be targeted. Extremist violence from all groups is directed towards affecting their political standing within the existing power structures of Iraq.There is no longer any coherent insurgency or serious threat to the stability of the GOI posed by violent groups.

Our combat operations are currently the victim of circular logic. We conduct operations to kill or capture violent extremists of all types to protect the Iraqi people and support the GOI. The violent extremists attack us because we are still here conducting military operations. Furthermore, their attacks on us are no longer an organized campaign to defeat our will to stay; the attacks which kill and maim US combat troops are signals or messages sent by various groups as part of the political struggle for power in Iraq. The exception to this is AQI which continues is globalist terror campaign. Our operations are in support of an Iraqi government that no longer relishes our help while at the same time our operations generate the extremist opposition to us as various groups jockey for power in post-occupation Iraq.

The GOI and ISF will continue to squeeze the US for all the “goodies” that we can provide between now and December 2011, while eliminating our role in providing security and resisting our efforts to change the institutional problems prevent the ISF from getting better. They will tolerate us as long as they can suckle at Uncle Sam’s bounteous mammary glands. Meanwhile the level of resistance to US freedom of movement and operations will grow. The potential for Iraqi on US violence is high now and will grow by the day. Resentment on both sides will build and reinforce itself until a violent incident break outs into the open. If that were to happen the violence will remain tactically isolated, but it will wreck our strategic relationships and force our withdrawal under very unfavorable circumstances. [emphasis added]

His conclusion is eminently sensible:

The massive partnering efforts of U.S. combat forces with I.S.F. isn’t yielding benefits commensurate with the effort and is now generating its own opposition. We should declare our intentions to withdraw all U.S. military forces from Iraq by August 2010. This would not be a strategic paradigm shift, but an acceleration of existing U.S. plans by some 15 months.

That sounds like a plan.

(Spencer Ackerman has more)

Fighting For The Public Option

by publius

Scott Lemieux and Ezra Klein recently had a back and forth on whether a health coverage reform bill without a public option was worth supporting.  I agree with Klein on the merits, but it's a trickier question politically when you start viewing it through a game theory lens.

On the policy merits alone, the public option isn't the most critical part of the bill -- and its absence certainly doesn't justify rejecting the whole thing.  As Klein notes, the current reform plans include the public option only on the exchanges, which are currently limited to "the unemployed, the self-employed and small businesses."

The problem, though, is that conceding this point eliminates the public option's power as a negotiating chip.  If Democrats are going to give up the public option, they need to something real in return.  In this sense, adopting a position that the public option is non-negotiable could ultimately lead to a better bill (assuming it's a credible threat).

But blustering aside, the primary policy defense of the public option is not so much what it will do on Day 1, but what it will grow into.  And that's also true of the exchanges.  Regulating insurers is the most important short-term part of the bill (prohibiting pre-existing conditions, automatic renewal, etc.). 

But strong exchanges are arguably the most important long-term part of the bill.  Think of the New Deal legislation.  Its primary benefit wasn't so much its immediate effect, but its creation of infrastructure and institutions that grew into something much better.  That's sort of how I see the exchanges.  Once the basic institution is set up, it will get progressively easier to admit people in.  Its growth will also help gradually delink health care from employment in a politically easier way (that's essentially what Wyden's new bill would do -- it would inject the principles of his old bill into new, broader exchanges).

And as the exchanges grow, having a public option will be increasingly important.  But it's important to include the public option in the exchanges now.  Although I think it will be easy to progressively expand the exchanges ("let's allow group X to save money"), it might be harder to include the public option in the future because of ideological divisions on the issue.  In other words, the public option needs a 60 Dem Senate in a way that increasing the scope of the exchanges does not.  You can imagine the exchanges getting better regardless of which party controls Congress, but that's not true of creating the public option.

I'm not saying that Dems should fight to the death on the public option, but it's worth making some very serious noise about, both politically and policy-wise.

A Good Offense Is The Best Defense

by publius

Under the "breakthrough" in the House, there will be no vote on health care before the August recess.  Politico adds:

Republicans, meanwhile, are ready to use the August recess to rip the bill apart and attack Democrats in their home districts.

Democrats need to explain the bill.  No argument there.  But they shouldn't devote 100% of the time to defense.  There should also be a strong coordinated attack on Republicans (or Dems) for opposing "reform," for providing no alternative, for standing with insurance companies, etc.

I suppose it might hurt some feelings, but we shouldn't individualize politics.  It isn't about feelings and egos and wooing.  It's more structural than that.  Politicians vote for things they feel pressure to vote for.  They oppose things they feel pressure to vote against.  If you want to win, you have to create the right incentives.

If the Dems spend the entire recess trying to fight off every attack, health coverage reform is in jeopardy.  If they attack Republicans' defense of the status quo -- if they make it a liability -- reform becomes much more likely.

I'd Rather be Famous than Righteous or Holy

by Eric Martin

Ben Smith is impressed with the Obama administration's relatively low-key approach to counterterrorism:

One of the most striking differences between the Obama and Bush administration is the handling of domestic terror arrests. The Bush White House trumpeted every arrest and disrupted plot -- in some cases, ones that were nowhere close to fruition -- as a major win in the War on Terror and a reminder of the need to be vigilant. 

The Obama administration, by contrast, keeps them relatively quiet. There hasn't been a statement from the White House, or any comment save a Justice Department press release, on the arrest of seven men on charges that they helped raise money and provide training for attacks in Israel, and trained to participate in attacks in Israel and Kosovo.

The decision not to talk about terrorism is just that -- a choice, with the goal of ending the "politics of fear" that Obama denounced during the campaign.

While dialing back the fever pitch of fear is beneficial in a number of ways - not the least of which is crafting policies based in reason rather than emotion - the understated approach is also a counterterrorism tactic in and of itself.  As Marc Sageman makes abundantly clear in Leaderless Jihad, publicity and fame are coveted by would-be terrorists, and depriving that oxygen from the movement is crucial.  Here is Sagemen from a piece discussing that book:

There has been talk of an al-Qaeda resurgence, but the truth is that most of the hard core members of the first and second waves have been killed or captured. The survival of the social movement they inspired relies on the continued inflow of new members. But this movement is vulnerable to whatever may diminish its appeal among young people. Its allure thrives only at the abstract fantasy level. [...]

Terrorist acts must be stripped of glory and reduced to common criminality. Most aspiring terrorists want nothing more than to be elevated to the status of an FBI Most Wanted poster. “[I am] one of the most wanted terrorists on the Internet,” Younis Tsouli boasted online a few months before his arrest in 2005. “I have the Feds and the CIA, both would love to catch me. I have MI6 on my back.” His ego fed off the respect such bragging brought him in the eyes of other chat room participants. Any policy or recognition that puts such people on a pedestal only makes them heroes in each other’s eyes — and encourages more people to follow the same path.

It is equally crucial not to place terrorists who are arrested or killed in the limelight. The temptation to hold press conferences to publicize another “major victory” in the war on terror must be resisted, for it only transforms terrorist criminals into jihadist heroes. The United States underestimates the value of prosecutions, which often can be enormously demoralizing to radical groups. There is no glory in being taken to prison in handcuffs. No jihadi Web site publishes such pictures. Arrested terrorists fade into oblivion. Only martyrs live on in popular memory. [emphasis added]

It would be nice to think that the Obama administration is heeding the advice of people like Marc Sageman.

Health Care: The Wyden-Bennett Plan

by von

Among the articles of faith circulating in the liberal blogosphere is that killing the House Democrats' health care package (HR 3200) amounts to killing health care reform.*  The argument goes that HR 3200 is the only way to get traction in the debate and must be supported, warts and all, because there's nothing else out there.  Pass HR 3200, this thinking goes, and we'll fix its various problems in conference.

This is a mistake.  The claim that HR 3200 is the last, best hope for health care reform is a myth.  The thought that you are going to fix the numerous problems in HR 3200 in some backroom committee -- perhaps the committee envisioned by Publius, below? -- is ridiculous.  The flaws with HR 3200 are addressed in detail in my prior post.  They are fundamental.  Even the politics are wrong.  Mickey Kaus is right:  This bill was misdescribed, mishandled, and dropped from the get go. The fractured House Democrats are unlikely to put the egg back together again.  

But there are alternatives out there -- and some are even good ideas!  One of these alternative bills is the Wyden-Bennett plan, a bipartisan reform package promoted by Sens. Wyden (D-Ore) and Bennett (R-Utah).  The Wyden-Bennett plan seems to be everyone's favorite health care reform package that no one thinks will pass, but that's because it has been exiled from the debate because of the House Democrats' insistence on HR 3200.  With HR 3200's slow death, Wyden-Bennett's exile may finally be ending:

Washington »President Barack Obama has called some of Sen. Ron Wyden's ideas for fixing health care "radical."

Some colleagues have written them off as nonstarters, or ignored them altogether.

But the Oregon Democrat's approach -- built around a shopping model in which people would have the option of buying their own health insurance rather than being stuck with what they get through work -- has started attracting second and third looks.

There are actually fourteen current sponsors of the 2009 version of Wyden-Bennett, and they are almost equally split between Democrats and Republicans.  That's more than twice the six-member "Baucus caucus."  (And Baucus's group is reportedto be given serious consideration to the Wyden-Bennett plan.)

Although I'm not completely sold on Wyden-Bennett, there is a lot to like.  It's clearly a quantum leap over HR 3200, or anything that has emerged from the House Democrats so far.  My three criteria for any health care reform are (1) the reform results in substantially greater coverage; (2) the reform lets individuals choose their own health care by making health care personal, rather than dependent on having a job; and (3) the reform doesn't add to the deficit.  Unlike the House Democrat bill, Wyden-Bennett accomplishes each of these objectives.  Wyden-Bennett is estimated to result in 99% coverage.  (That's better coverage, bye the by, then even House Democrats claimthat HR 3200 would deliver.) Wyden-Bennett largely severs health care insurance from employment, while providing protections from abuse.  And Wyden-Bennett has been preliminarily scored by the CBO as deficit neutral.

And I'm not the only one who thinks Wyden-Bennett is a step in the right direction:

Ezra Klein (examining some criticisms of Wyden-Bennett): "I'm on the record in my admiration for the Wyden-Bennett health reform plan. I think it's better than what Barack Obama offered during the campaign and better than what we're likely to get come the end of this process."   

Ruth Marcus:  "The ... [alternative to HR 3200], which would, in a more perfect world, be my preference, is the measuredevised by the odd couple of the Senate, Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon and Republican Robert Bennett of Utah. This bill not only has the merit of being demonstrably bipartisan but has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as fully paid for."

Roger Collier:  "The bill is not beyond criticism, but anyone reading Senator Wyden’s speech on the Senate floor this past week [http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=314529], on the challenges of health care reform, will be struck with how much closer he seems to be to addressing the key issues than the proposals that have been emerging from various congressional committees over the past month."

David Brooks (remarking on the challenges facing Wyden-Bennett):  "Democratic Senator Ron Wyden piped up and noted that he and Republican Senator Robert Bennett have a plan that repeals the exemption and provides universal coverage. The Wyden-Bennett bill has 14 bipartisan co-sponsors and the Congressional Budget Office has found that it would be revenue-neutral."

The Hill:  "Republicans are so impressed with Wyden’s bill that some are convinced he represents President Obama’s best chance for getting major healthcare reform signed into law this Congress. .... Wyden’s support among Republicans is surprising because he is far from the far-right of his own party. He is the son of a muckraking journalist who smoked cigars with Fidel Castro. After college, Wyden founded the Oregon chapter of the Gray Panthers, a liberal advocacy group for senior citizens that borrowed its name from the radical black-power activists of the 1960s, albeit with some humor."

And who opposes Wyden-Bennett?  So far as I can determine, a lot of the vocal opposition has come from large unions and their backers.  Large unions represent an interest group, which has negotiated better-than-average health care plans with their members; understandably, unions don't want the boat rocked for their members, even though other workers don't enjoy the same level of care.  Other folks oppose Wyden-Bennett because it doesn't offer a pure enough "public option" for them.  Of course, neither will the version of HR 3200 that's likely to emerge.  Wyden-Baden also has the advantage of offering more complete coverage than HR 3200:  Up to 99% coverage under Wyden-Baden, compared to a claimed 97% coverage under HR 3200. (Indeed, there's some debate regarding whether HR 3200 expands coverage at all.) 

It's time to revisit Wyden-Bennett.

*UPDATE:  By saying that this claim is "among the articles of faith" circulating in the liberal blogosphere, I don't mean that all liberals share it.  [Whoops!  Left out the "don't" in the first draft!  Sorry.]

But Now I Don't Know Why I Feel So Tongue-Tied

by Eric Martin

A little over a month ago, Andrew Sullivan had a fascinating piece on the evolution of the New York Times' willingness, or lack thereof, to use the term "torture" to describe, well, torture (for definite lack of a better word).  As Sullivan demonstrates, prior to the Bush administration, the Times repeatedly and reflexively referred to interrogation methods such as sleep deprivation, waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions and physical beatings as torture.  No euphemism, no equivocation, no even-handed airing of the torturers' rationale/argument and no concern for the associated political controversy.  It was simply torture. 

In recent years, however, the Times has begun to use euphemisms to describe those exact same techniques.  What was torture was now "intense interrogation," "harsh interrogation and "detainee abuse" - though recently, and to much self-congratulation, the Times has mustered the courage to call what they once freely termed torture, a "brutal mode of..interrogation."  Baby steps for a previously ambulatory being.

Not to single the Times out: other major media outlets such as NPR have embarked on the same self-censorship (NPR opting for phrases like "alleged abuse" and "harsh treatment").  The Washington Post referred to torture-produced evidence as "testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses."  Allegedly coerced - so innocuous.

One of the problems that arises when our major media outlets (and political leaders) partake in this Orwellian exercise in lexical obfuscation is that there is an erosion of meaning across the board.  The new linguistic conventions adopted to provide political cover for American policymakers that implemented a regime of torture become a form of political cover for all manner of torturers - foreign and domestic.  

Consider, for example, the way the New York Times describes the despicable acts of torture inflicted on Iranian protesters by the Iranian regime in recent weeks: "prison abuse."  Not even the new-found "brutal" qualifier.  "Prison abuse" is the term used in the title of the article, and six times in the body - almost the only descriptor employed.  The only exception is when the Times goes as far as to say that one detainee's family "said he was being subjected to torture."

Apparently, these practices don't arise to the level of torture:

Some prisoners say they watched fellow detainees being beaten to death by guards in overcrowded, stinking holding pens. Others say they had their fingernails ripped off or were forced to lick filthy toilet bowls. [...]

Although the government has played down the scale of the prison abuses, some detainees’ relatives have come forward recently to confirm them, mostly to opposition-linked Web sites that have provided credible information in the past, including roozonline.com and gooya.com.

Some deaths have been further documented with photographs or videotapes. Hospital officials have described receiving bodies of those killed in protests, with the total far in excess of 20, the government’s initial figure. It is difficult to confirm such reports independently, given the restrictions on reporting in Iran. [...]

“We were all standing so close to each other that no one could move,” he wrote in a narrative posted online. “The plainclothes guards came into the room and broke all the light bulbs, and in the pitch dark started beating us, whoever they could.” By morning, at least four detainees were dead, he added.

In another account posted online, a former detainee describes being made to lie facedown on the floor of a police station bathroom, where an officer would step on his neck and force him to lick the toilet bowl as the officer cursed reformist politicians.

A woman described having her hair pulled as interrogators demanded that she confess to having sex with political figures. When she was finally released, she was forced — like many others — to sign a paper saying she had never been mistreated.

To paraphrase the Times' Public Editor, Clark Hoyt: In a polarized atmosphere in which many Iranians believe the nation betrayed its most fundamental ideals in the name of repressing political dissent and others believe extreme measures were necessary to save the very nature of the Islamic Revolution, The Times is displeasing some who think “prison abuse” is just a timid euphemism for torture and their opponents who think “prison abuse” is too loaded.

What's a journalist to do in the post Bush/Cheney world?

(links via Bruce Etling)