Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Rumsfeld vs. Blagojevich, Cheney vs. Spitzer
Salon's Glenn Greenwald wonders at the press corps reaction to two ongoing examples of political crookery and malfeasance:
The bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report issued on Thursday -- which documents that "former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials share much of the blame for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" and "that Rumsfeld's actions were 'a direct cause of detainee abuse' at Guantanamo and 'influenced and contributed to the use of abusive techniques ... in Afghanistan and Iraq'" -- raises an obvious and glaring question: how can it possibly be justified that the low-level Army personnel carrying out these policies at Abu Ghraib have been charged, convicted and imprisoned, while the high-level political officials and lawyers who directed and authorized these same policies remain free of any risk of prosecution?
..........
This Report was issued on Thursday. Not a single mention was made of it on any of the Sunday news talk shows, with the sole exception being when John McCain told George Stephanopoulos that it was "not his job" to opine on whether criminal prosecutions were warranted for the Bush officials whose policies led to these crimes. What really matters, explained McCain, was not that we get caught up in the past, but instead, that we ensure this never happens again -- yet, like everyone else who makes this argument, he offered no explanation as to how we could possibly ensure that "it never happens again" if we simultaneously announce that our political leaders will be immunized, not prosecuted, when they commit war crimes. Doesn't that mindset, rather obviously, substantially increase the likelihood -- if not render inevitable -- that such behavior will occur again? Other than that brief exchange, this Senate Report was a non-entity on the Sunday shows.
Instead, TV pundits were consumed with righteous anger over the petty, titillating, sleazy Rod Blagojevich scandal, competing with one another over who could spew the most derision and scorn for this pitiful, lowly, broken individual and his brazen though relatively inconsequential crimes. Every exciting detail was vouyeristically and meticulously dissected by political pundits -- many, if not most, of whom have never bothered to acquaint themselves with any of the basic facts surrounding the monumental Bush lawbreaking and war crimes scandals....
The auction conducted by Blagojevich was just a slightly more flamboyant, vulgar and reckless expression of how our national political class conducts itself generally....But Blagojevich is an impotent figure, stripped of all power, a national joke. And attacking and condemning him is thus cheap and easy. It threatens nobody in power. To the contrary, his downfall is deceptively and usefully held up as an extreme aberration -- proof that government officials are held accountable when they break the law.
The whole piece by Greenwald contains many more damning examples of high-level Bush administration complicity in some horrible acts and prisoner deaths. He does a similar comparison of the dreadful vs. the petty when it comes to political crimes with Dick Cheney (war, illegal wiretapping, torture) and Eliot Spitzer (consensual prostitution purchase), and sees who gets honored and who gets disgraced.
Elemenope|12.17.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Warren's learned a new chant. Yay!
But seriously, people always find it easier to deal with the petty
stuff, because that can be written off as failure of character or
something equivalently silly. The big stuff (torture, spying, etc.)
is harder for people to deal with, because it is fundamentally hard
for most people to believe anyone they (formally) trusted to be
capable of such acts. If they can do something horrible, why not
me?
|12.17.08 @ 12:59PM|#
The big stuff (torture, spying, etc.) is harder for people
to deal with, because it is fundamentally hard for most people to
believe anyone they (formally) trusted to be capable of such
acts
I would say that the big stuff is harder because it is an
indication of a failure of the system, which people do not
want to acknowledge.
|12.17.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Not a single mention was made of it on any of the Sunday
news talk shows, with the sole exception being when John McCain
told George Stephanopoulos...
So then it was discussed on This Week. Don't let facts
mess up a good story about news outlets ignoring facts,
Greenwald.
Reinmoose|12.17.08 @ 1:08PM|#
I think the big stuff is harder for people to acknowledge,
especially in these specific cases, because they still think that
the president, or whoever is in charge of the failure, really was
honestly trying to _________. (here, the blank would be filled with
"protect us from terrorism in a post 9-11 world.")
On orders of personal character problems, people can see the
dishonesty, and they don't like that.
|12.17.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Good point. By the time any of the petty scandals like blago or spitzer are in the news, the people involved are already on their way out. Reporting on them is actually a vindication of the system, since the guilty are already being punished. To go after the substantive stuff would require more iniative then getting on the us attorney's press release list, which few in the mainstream media seem to have anymore.
Reinmoose|12.17.08 @ 1:15PM|#
To elaborate on my last post, the public and media tends to forgive "good intentions," hence why we have such a "we have to do something" congress. Hence why nobody will get punished for the bailout, or for the corporate favoritism that comes via some regulations, or for attrocities committed by Americans in an effort to protect their homeland - - - do anything under the guise of good intentions, and you're cleared.
James Blaine|12.17.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Selling a Senate seat is 'petty' and
'inconsequential'?
Blago was an amateur
|12.17.08 @ 1:18PM|#
The press isn't going to say anything because they know damn
well that Obama is going to do the same thing. Perhaps these issues
are not as easy as people like Greenwald think they are?
I have said this before and will say it again now, you are going to
see a gradual rehabilitation of Bush's record on the war on terror
over the next few years as Obama faces the same choices and makes
many of the same decisions.
Travis|12.17.08 @ 1:23PM|#
"He's going to lie to bring us into a war and torture
people?"
I would be shocked if he doesn't get us into at least one small
war. I doubt he'll have anyone tortured though.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:24PM|#
"I would be shocked if he doesn't get us into at least one small
war."
I can see a small-bore "humanitarian" conflict like Kosovo. But I
don't see, say, attacking Iran.
Elemenope|12.17.08 @ 1:24PM|#
He's going to lie to bring us into a war and torture people?
Uh, ok.
Hey, I'm not foreclosing the possibility.
In August 2001, people were busy making fun of the laughably
incompetent president who was perpetually on vacation. He was so
incompetent, at the time it was almost inconceivable that he could
do anything malevolent on such a wide scale. I would have put the
probability then of two full scale wars within the next eight years
as low enough for it to be stupid to take bets on the matter.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:25PM|#
"He was so incompetent, at the time it was almost inconceivable
that he could do anything malevolent on such a wide scale. "
And Cheney was just absent from your thinking at that time?
|12.17.08 @ 1:29PM|#
"He's going to lie to bring us into a war and torture people?
Uh, ok."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122636726473415991.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Obama has made no commitment whatsoever to change CIA interrogation
rules. He voted for FISA. All of his national security picks so far
have been very mainline. I would be very surprised if anything
significant changes in those policies. You just hear about as much
because the media will give Obama more cover than they ever gave
Bush.
As far as wars go, the enemy gets a vote on that. The chances are
that we will get into another war in the next four years. But that
has to do with the state of the world we live in more than it will
with Obama.
|12.17.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Presidents don't torture people. Government employees lower down the food chain who can be sacrificed do. Technically.
|12.17.08 @ 1:30PM|#
"I would have put the probability then of two full scale wars
within the next eight years as low enough for it to be stupid to
take bets on the matter."
I didn't know we only started wars and not anyone else. The leaders
of Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with those wars then?
Bush could have just as easily invaded Canada I guess if the globe
he was spinning had stopped there.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Iraq wasn't doing anything different than what they had been doing from 1991-2002. They were contained. So he had to use 9/11 hysteria to whip up fears about non-existent WMDs to cow the media and congress into compliance.
|12.17.08 @ 1:34PM|#
I thought it was just some bad apples, on the night shift, in
this one prison, this one time, because of p0rn.
I don't think "the big stuff" is harder for people to acknowledge.
I think there was a massive media campaign carried out by the
executive branch of the government, the RNC, and a whole lot of
self-motivated activists to simultaneously justify and deny the war
crimes and torture carried out as part of this administration's war
policy, and nothing remotely similar was done in defense of
Blagojevich's crimes.
Then again, maybe that's because this was, indeed, big stuff.
|12.17.08 @ 1:35PM|#
"Iraq wasn't doing anything different than what they had been
doing from 1991-2002. They were contained. So he had to use 9/11
hysteria to whip up fears about non-existent WMDs to cow the media
and congress into compliance."
Oh poor defenseless Congress. I am not going to highjack the thread
into Iraq thread number one million. But I will say is that don't
let your love and adoration of Obama cause you to beleive that he
will not do what is necessary to defend the country. Whatever hit
he will take from the Greenwalds of the world for not rolling back
Bush's anti-terror policies will pale in comparison to the hit he
would take if he does change them and the country gets attacked.
Further, it is not like you or Greenwald won't vote for him again
in 2012 anyway.
|12.17.08 @ 1:36PM|#
John | December 17, 2008, 1:18pm | #
The press isn't going to say anything because they know damn well
that Obama is going to do the same thing. Perhaps these issues are
not as easy as people like Greenwald think they are?
But John, aren't you always telling us that detainee abuse,
torture, and other war crimes are completely unrelated to any
Presidential-level policies, and only insane moonbats with BDS
think they are?
|12.17.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Shorter John: She was asking for it.
John,
You might want to read an article newer than one a week after the
election, when he has a semblance of a cabinet created. Something
like this.
"It is (important that) the new president say up front that the United States is not going to engage in torture or enhanced interrogations," retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, one of the participants in the meeting, said during an appearance on "CNN Newsroom."
Not only are such techniques generally ineffective, Hutson said, but they also "smear the good name of the United States, domestically and internationally."
Don't Miss
* Obama poised to rebrand America, experts say
* Obama team ponders what to do with Guantanamo inmates
Hutson also indicated that some of the inmates currently housed at the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "should be treated like any other criminal" and tried in a U.S. district court.
During the presidential campaign, Obama indicated his intention to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and re-examine the Bush administration's policies relating to the interrogation and torture of suspected terrorists.
"I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that," Obama said during a recent appearance on CBS's "60 Minutes."
"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."
You need to find newer talking points to regurgitate.
|12.17.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Think about this BDB, why are they not playing up this story?
Because they love Bush? This should have been a huge story. The
reason it isn't is that the media is smart enough to know that
things are not going to change.
Maybe we will get those war crimes tribunals dingbats like Dalia
Lithwick want. Or maybe just maybe, the country has always done
pretty nasty things in its defense and all the people who know that
but professed to be "appalled" by Bush were just saying so for
political purposes and will do the exact same thing when faced with
responsibility. I feel pretty confident it is the latter. If
anything, our anti-terror policy will get more ruthless under
Obama. Bush had to worry somewhat about the Democrats. Who is Obama
going to worry about? It is not like the Republicans are going to
be whining about it.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:40PM|#
"Who is Obama going to worry about? "
The Democrats on his left flank, that's who. Democratic Presidents
are destroyed by their left not their right.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:41PM|#
"Think about this BDB, why are they not playing up this story?
"
What story? And I'm not into MainsreamMediaKonspiracies.
|12.17.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Who is Obama going to worry about? It is not like the
Republicans are going to be whining about it.
My ass. Members of both parties have no problem decrying policies
the supported and vice versa with little or no qualms. See the
earlier piece on filibustering judges or the flip from opposing the
Balkans War to supporting Iraq (and vice versa).
|12.17.08 @ 1:42PM|#
"But John, aren't you always telling us that detainee abuse,
torture, and other war crimes are completely unrelated to any
Presidential-level policies, and only insane moonbats with BDS
think they are?"
No I say that Abu Garib wasn't. Water boarding KSM and the things
that happened in the CIA detention camps certainly were. Those
things are going to continue just like NSA data mining will. The
vast majority of the American public doesn't care what we do to
terror suspects but they sure as hell will care if something bad
happens. It is not a hard political calculus to do.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:44PM|#
Thank God at least you have enough sense of morality to admit that waterboarding qualifies as torture. Nothing makes my teeth itch more than t he morons who say it is "discomfort".
|12.17.08 @ 1:44PM|#
The media isn't playing up this story because they've
conditioned to reject accusations of war crimes as irresponsible
and unpatriotic.
The idea that the media, but not the Democrats on the Senate Armed
Services Committee who released the report, are making sure Barack
Obama won't face a problem down the line is beyond the realm of
credibility.
|12.17.08 @ 1:44PM|#
"My ass. Members of both parties have no problem decrying
policies the supported and vice versa with little or no qualms. See
the earlier piece on filibustering judges or the flip from opposing
the Balkans War to supporting Iraq (and vice versa)."
They will do a lot of those things, but they won't say shit if it
turns out the CIA is out waterboarding people. You are kidding
yourself if you think they will. The left will have a fit, but fuck
the left. It is not like they are going to go out and vote
Republican in 2012.
Maybe BDB is right that the left will wipe him out like they did
Johnson. But the left only turned on Johnson over the Vietnam war.
That is a bit different than how you are interrogating people in
CIA prisons.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:45PM|#
"The media isn't playing up this story because they've
conditioned to reject accusations of war crimes as irresponsible
and unpatriotic."
And they'd get thousands of emails screaming that they're "tinfoil
hat wearing moonabts" etc.
Elemenope|12.17.08 @ 1:47PM|#
And Cheney was just absent from your thinking at that
time?
At the time it was not at all clear what role he was playing, nor
the extent to which he had commandeered the decision-making
processes of the administration.
|12.17.08 @ 1:47PM|#
John,
From the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee:
"The abuses at Abu Ghraib, GTMO and elsewhere
cannot be chalked up to the actions of a few bad apples. Attempts
by senior officials to pass the buck to low ranking soldiers while
avoiding any responsibility for abuses are unconscionable. The
message from top officials was clear; it was acceptable to use
degrading and abusive techniques against detainees. Our
investigation is an effort to set the record straight on this
chapter in our history that has so damaged both America's standing
and our security. America needs to own up to its mistakes so that
we can rebuild some of the good will that we have lost."
Maybe it was an honest mistake you've made all these years, and
will now acknowledge that the abuses at Abu Ghraib, by jailers who
were told to soften up subjects for interrogation, actually was of
a piece with the other torture and murders committed in this dirty
war.
|12.17.08 @ 1:48PM|#
'The media isn't playing up this story because they've
conditioned to reject accusations of war crimes as irresponsible
and unpatriotic."
What the hell are you talking about? The media has spent the last
four years accusing Bush of exactly that. They only stopped after
Obama won the election. Why? Because they can't very well accuse
Obama of being that, so they will just shut up about it now. Like I
said, Obama is free to and will run an even more ruthless
anti-terror policy than Bush.
What political price did Bush ever pay for the interrogation
techniques? None that I can see. Bush paid a price for Katrina and
Iraq, but he won re-election in 2004 well after Abu Garib broke. Go
back and read history sometime. The worst accusations against Bush
are minor league compared to the things that went on in Vietnam,
Korea or World War II. The public didn't care then and they don't
care now.
|12.17.08 @ 1:49PM|#
The left could vote 3rd party, see: Al Gore. Or they could stay
at home, see: John McCain.
There are a lot of unaffiliated voters, such as myself, that care
about things like torture. If torture is still around in 2012, I
will not vote Obama.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 1:49PM|#
"
At the time it was not at all clear what role he was playing, nor
the extent to which he had commandeered the decision-making
processes of the administration."
It turns out he had basically done that even before the Florida
recount was finished. I'm reading Angler right now, and
from what I can tell Bush is such a spineless tool he's basically
let Cheney steal the entire Presidency. He told Cheney he wanted to
have a humble foreign policy and work with Democrats, and Cheney
said "no" is the long and short of it.
|12.17.08 @ 1:51PM|#
What the hell are you talking about? The media has spent the
last four years accusing Bush of exactly that
No, they've spent the last four years accusing Bush of wrongly
going to war. On the issue of torture and war crimes, they've gone
right along with the "few bad apples" story.
What political price did Bush ever pay for the interrogation
techniques? None that I can see. None. He's a Republican. His
people get off on this stuff.
The worst accusations against Bush are minor league compared to
the things that went on in Vietnam, Korea or World War II. The
public didn't care then and they don't care now. My side did
then, and my side does now. I sleep well because of that.
|12.17.08 @ 1:52PM|#
"The abuses at Abu Ghraib, GTMO and elsewhere cannot be chalked
up to the actions of a few bad apples." Bare accusation no
facts
"Attempts by senior officials to pass the buck to low ranking
soldiers while avoiding any responsibility for abuses are
unconscionable. The message from top officials was clear; it was
acceptable to use degrading and abusive techniques against
detainees." That may be true, but the fact remains none of the
defendents at Abu Garib ever said they were ordered to do anything
or ever ratted out higher officials despite great attempts by their
attorneys to get them to do so.
"Our investigation is an effort to set the record straight on this
chapter in our history that has so damaged both America's standing
and our security. America needs to own up to its mistakes so that
we can rebuild some of the good will that we have lost."
I have read that to Joe and it is horse shit. They are saying that
the perverts at Abu Garib did what they did because John Yoo wrote
a memo. Bullshit.
That report is a political hack job. If they were interested in the
truth, they would have looked at Bagrim and the CIA detention
centers where abuses did occur and they were the result of higher
ups giving the OK. They only say "Abu Garib" because it plays well
in the media.
|12.17.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Mo | December 17, 2008, 1:49pm | #
...Or they could stay at home, see: John McCain.
Or, see 1994. Lowest turnout in history, mainly because
disappointed Democrats stayed home.
|12.17.08 @ 1:55PM|#
"My side did then, and my side does now. I sleep well because of
that."
Who is your side Joe? The Democrats controlled the entire
government during World War II. Last I looked FDR was a Democratic
icon. They also controled the entire government during Korea and
most of Vietnam. What kind of fantasy world do you live in?
|12.17.08 @ 1:57PM|#
"Or, see 1994. Lowest turnout in history, mainly because
disappointed Democrats stayed home."
And Bill Clinton was so affected by that he triangulated, passed
welfare reform, cut taxes and got re-elected. Clearly, the Left put
the fear of God into Clinton. You really do live in a fantasy world
Joe. It is just amazing what goes on in your head. I thought 1994
was the result of the Contract with America and the gazzillion
Democratic Congressional scandals like Rostinkowski going to jail
and the House banking scandal and Clinton over reaching on
Hillarycare and gays in the Military. No, in Joe world it was
because Clinton wasn't leftist enough in his first two years.
The Angry Optimist|12.17.08 @ 1:59PM|#
Partisan slapfight! Hey everybody, come see the first...no, wait, the one millionth partisan slapfight between John and joe!
|12.17.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Bare accusation no facts
Oh, you've read the report? Or you've decided you don't need to,
because there can't possibly be any actual facts to back up what
you don't want to believe.
That report is a political hack job. If they were interested in
the truth, they would have looked at Bagrim and the CIA detention
centers where abuses did occur and they were the result of higher
ups giving the OK. You mean like when in the part where they
talk about Baghram?
Aggressive Techniques Authorized in
Afghanistan and Iraq (U)
(U) Shortly after Secretary Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 approval of
his General Counsel's recommendation to authorize aggressive
interrogation techniques, the techniques - and the fact the
Secretary had authorized them - became known to interrogators in
Afghanistan. A copy of the Secretary's memo was sent from GTMO to
Afghanistan. Captain Carolyn Wood, the Officer in Charge of
the Intelligence Section at Bagram Airfield in
Afghanistan, said that in January 2003 she saw a power
point presentation listing the aggressive techniques that had been
authorized by the Secretary.
Do you ever bother to find out the truth about what you're talking
about before you spout off with your partisan gibberish?
|12.17.08 @ 2:02PM|#
The republicans will denounce Obama for doing what they did if
they think it will turn the American people against the dems. Think
ahead to the next election cycle.
The techniques used at all detention facilites in Afganistan and
Iraq where roughly the same, which suggest that it couldn't have
been only a handful of people in one Iraq facility.
Cheney was chosen by Bush for his experience. Bush was considered
inexperienced by many republicans so he need an experienced player
to fill the gap. If the shit hit the fan Cheney was Bush's go to
guy.
|12.17.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Who is your side Joe?
The liberals. The progressives.
You might have noticed, the Democrats changed somewhat in their
ideas about war and human rights around forty or so years
ago.
Everyone who's still OK with torture was wearing those Purple Heart
band-aids four years ago.
John | December 17, 2008, 1:57pm | #
"Or, see 1994. Lowest turnout in history, mainly because
disappointed Democrats stayed home."
And Bill Clinton was so affected by that he triangulated, passed
welfare reform, cut taxes and got re-elected. Clearly, the Left put
the fear of God into Clinton.
So, in other words, yes, you agree, I'm right. Clinton lost
Congress, and as a result, had to change his entire political
program, give up on just about everything he had hoped to
accomplish, and play defense for the rest of his term.
I thought... You think a lot of things. They just don't
happen to be true.
|12.17.08 @ 2:05PM|#
"""And Bill Clinton was so affected by that he triangulated,
passed welfare reform, cut taxes and got re-elected.""""
Clinton was big on welfare reform and fiscal responsibility when
Governor of Arkansas.
|12.17.08 @ 2:06PM|#
"Captain Carolyn Wood, the Officer in Charge of the Intelligence
Section at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, said that in January
2003 she saw a power point presentation listing the aggressive
techniques that had been authorized by the Secretary."
Did they authorize aggressive techniques? Of course they did.
Everyone knows that. They have known that since the Yoo memo came
out. But, that doesn't mean that people didn't use that as an
excuse to do stupid shit. The problem was that they authorized X
and people like Wood did X and Y and a whole lot more. Should they
have authorized X? In some circumstances maybe. But, that is never
how this stuff workds out. It is never just waterboarding KSM.
Everyone thinks they have KSM and quickly becomes beating some poor
cabby to death at Bagram.
|12.17.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Right, TrickyVic.
It wasn't the policies he pushed that were the big change; it's the
policies he had to abandon.
|12.17.08 @ 2:10PM|#
"The liberals. The progressives.
You might have noticed, the Democrats changed somewhat in their
ideas about war and human rights around forty or so years
ago.
Everyone who's still OK with torture was wearing those Purple Heart
band-aids four years ago."
When exactly did the Progressives find time to denounce torture
between apologizing for Stalin and talking about how the North
Vietnamese Communist were just groovy people? The last people who
should sleep well at night after the 20th Century are Progressives.
The fact that you apparently do, just shows how much you live in
denial of reality.
|12.17.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Did they authorize aggressive techniques? Of course they
did. Everyone knows that. They have known that since the Yoo memo
came out. But, that doesn't mean that people didn't use that as an
excuse to do stupid shit. The problem was that they authorized X
and people like Wood did X and Y and a whole lot more. Should they
have authorized X? In some circumstances maybe. But, that is never
how this stuff workds out. It is never just waterboarding KSM.
Everyone thinks they have KSM and quickly becomes beating some poor
cabby to death at Bagram.
I'm sorry, that sounds an awful lot like They are saying that
the perverts at Abu Garib did what they did because John Yoo wrote
a memo. Which, once upon a time, was Bullshit.
Now that you've had your reality sandwich, and taken back your
assertion that this is a partisan hack job that only looked at
stories that got media attention, let's get back to the
point:
This is why you don't authorize torture.
It is why, in fact, you actively work to stamp out detainee abuse,
and make it crystal clear that it is not acceptable.
Unless you want it to happen. They ordered torture, and they let
everyone know that they it was ok.
|12.17.08 @ 2:12PM|#
How did the question of whether high-level people ought to be
prosecuted for this shit turn into the question of whether Obama is
going to authorize the same shit?
Suppose Obama does authorize torture. OK, fine, let's
prosecute the rotten bastard.
Abdul|12.17.08 @ 2:13PM|#
How come no one pointed out that the chair of the "bipartisan"
Senate Armed Services Committee is Ted Kennedy? Surely, no one
would accuse the great Ted Kennedy of playing partisan politics
with an issue.
Let's face it, the report confirms what the people in charge of the
committee wanted it to confirm. It was compiled from sources that
have long been public. There's no more evidence of a causal link
between the abuses at Abu Grahib and Donald Rumsfeld now than there
is between the Postmaster General and my Christmas Cards not
arriving until Independence Day.
This isn't to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how Iraq's
and Gitmo's detainee systems were run. It's just saying that these
criticisms have been well aired.
Nothing in the Senate Armed Services Committee report was "new."
That's why it wasn't "news."
thoreau|12.17.08 @ 2:14PM|#
I have said this before and will say it again now, you are
going to see a gradual rehabilitation of Bush's record on the war
on terror over the next few years as Obama faces the same choices
and makes many of the same decisions.
John, I fear that you may be right.
Those who want to can tell me that Obama is not the sort of man who
would do that. However, even if you are right, Obama is one man,
and he has to work with a lot of people and institutions. There's a
limit to how much change he can deliver on issues where the public
can be easily frightened into supporting horrors.
|12.17.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Well put Abdul. The committee is saying that because the
Whitehouse authorized some techniques in some circumstances, they
are responsible for all the abuses in all circumstances, which is
bunk.
But you can't explain that to Joe. You have better luck talking to
a wall. But Joe does give a really good discourse on how the
Republicans fire bombed Japan and locked up all of those Japanese
during World War II.
|12.17.08 @ 2:18PM|#
thoreau,
No one wants another 9-11 to happen on their watch. I say that out
of respect for Obama. I don't think he or his people want American
blood on their hands or to think that they could have stopped
something from happening but didn't.
|12.17.08 @ 2:19PM|#
When exactly did the Progressives find time to denounce
torture between apologizing for Stalin and talking about how the
North Vietnamese Communist were just groovy people?
Shorter John: hey, look over there!
No no, don't look at who actually leads the fight against torture
in America and around the world, and who defends it in our domestic
political discourse: sixty years ago, there were some lefties who
supported Stalin.
So, I'm living in an altered partisan reality, while you know that
the Armed Services Committee report is a partisan hit job, because
they don't talk about Baghram. Except that they talk about
Baghram.
Oh, well. It was a nice partisan talking point while it lasted.
|12.17.08 @ 2:23PM|#
John | December 17, 2008, 2:16pm | #
Well put Abdul. The committee is saying that because the Whitehouse
authorized some techniques in some circumstances, they are
responsible for all the abuses in all circumstances, which is
bunk.
Actually, that's not what they're saying, John. They're saying that
the authorized techniques were torture, and criminal.
Read the fucking report, and try to make an accurate statement
about the truth, before you spout off about what it does and
doesn't say.
For
A
Change.
|12.17.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Joe,
Abdul said it quite well. Just because some techniques were
authorized doesn't mean that the Whitehouse is responsible for
every sadist who took that as an excuse to go nuts. That is the
essence of what the Senate is saying. You will never see that or
understand that because you are too stuborn and dogmatic to see it.
As time goes on, you seem to get less and less willing to see
things in anything approaching an even handed way.
The Angry Optimist|12.17.08 @ 2:24PM|#
So, I'm living in an altered partisan
reality, while you know that the Armed Services Committee report is
a partisan hit job, because they don't talk about
Baghram. Except that they talk about Baghram.
Oh, well. It was a nice partisan talking point
while it lasted.
I
get it.
|12.17.08 @ 2:25PM|#
John | December 17, 2008, 2:18pm | #
thoreau,
No one wants another 9-11 to happen on their watch. I say that out
of respect for Obama. I don't think he or his people want American
blood on their hands or to think that they could have stopped
something from happening but didn't.
Flip! Flop!
Flip! Flop!
Of course the administration didn't order torture! And they did, it
would be totally ok, cuz of 9/11! Only a deluded partisan would
ever think that people in the White House would authorize
completely appropriate, necessary practices.
|12.17.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"Actually, that's not what they're saying, John. They're saying
that the authorized techniques were torture, and criminal."
Maybe they were, but the shit that actually happened and people
were prosecuted for at Abu Garib and Bagram were beyond the
authorized techniques.
Once again Joe, Obama is not going to change those techniques one
bit. Get used to it. Since it is a prime directive of yours not to
criticize Democrats, you might want to start thinking about how to
defend those techniques because come Janurary, you will own them.
Have fun.
|12.17.08 @ 2:26PM|#
That is the essence of what the Senate is saying.
NO, IT'S NOT!
Read the fucking report.
Read the fucking report.
Read the fucking report.
Read the fucking report.
Read the fucking report.
Read the fucking report.
Read the fucking report.
Oh, and you know what? Read the fucking report.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Thank God at least you have enough sense of morality to admit that waterboarding qualifies as torture. Nothing makes my teeth itch more than t he morons who say it is "discomfort".
You might try brushing once in a while.
Waterboarding is such horrendous torture that protesters do it to
each other in public.
|12.17.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Maybe they were,
Oh, so once again, the statement that once proved what a deluded
moonbat I am, you suddenly have to acknowledge it true. Why do you
think this keeps happening to you, John?
but the shit that actually happened and people were prosecuted
for at Abu Garib and Bagram were beyond the authorized
techniques.
The silly naked-guy-stacking was beyond authorized techniques. The
beatings, the freezing, the sensory deprivation, the waterboarding,
the dogs, and the "stress positions" most certainly were not beyond
the authorized techniques.
You're just trying to pretend that the photos you saw with Lyndie
England are the only torture that went on at Abu Ghraib, and ignore
everything else that's come out about it.
It wasn't two enlistedmen on the night shift who stuffed a man in a
sleeping bag, sat on him, and beat him until he was dead. Those
were interrogators, using techniques that had been authorized.
|12.17.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Waterboarding is such horrendous torture that protesters do
it to each other in public.
Hey, can I try?
Electrocution is such horrendous torture that reporters let
themselves be tasered. There, I just proved that electrocution
isn't torture.
Since people are willing to endure the agony of a technique for a
few seconds in order to demonstrate how evil it is, that means it's
not evil? I must remember that.
Les|12.17.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Waterboarding is such horrendous torture that protesters do
it to each other in public.
People have voluntary vaginal and anal sex every day in their own
homes. How bad can rape really be?
|12.17.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Once again Joe, Obama is not going to change those
techniques one bit.
If your predictions were worth anything, John, President McCain
would have beat Hillary last month, and democracy would have been
sweeping the Middle East since January 05.
|12.17.08 @ 2:35PM|#
Joe,
No authorized killing anyone. If the techniques were abused to the
point that people died, that is on the dumbasses who did it. Were
aggressive techniques authorized? Yes. People took those techniques
to extremes and killed people. I am not defending the people who
did it. I just don't think that any technique short of "it is okay
to shoot someone" can be used as an excuse to kill someone.
|12.17.08 @ 2:36PM|#
"If your predictions were worth anything, John, President McCain
would have beat Hillary last month, and democracy would have been
sweeping the Middle East since January 05."
Why don't you just write "Na Na Na". It makes about as much sense
and it is much easier to type.
|12.17.08 @ 2:40PM|#
John | December 17, 2008, 2:35pm | #
Joe,
No authorized killing anyone. If the techniques were abused to the
point that people died, that is on the dumbasses who did
it.
Wow.
I don't know what's worse.
Thinking that it would be ok to torture someone within an inch of
his life, then stop.
Or thinking that ordering people to be tortured within an inch of
his life leaves you wholly blameless when some of them die.
Elemenope|12.17.08 @ 2:40PM|#
People have voluntary vaginal and anal sex every day in
their own homes. How bad can rape really be?
That's a winner. Also, John (and Abdul) the argument that the admin
is only responsible for "some torture, some of the time" really
doesn't buy you much of anything. As far as I know, if you are
responsible for one act of torture, you have committed a war
crime.
Maybe you know better. Is torturing five terrorist ok? Maybe ten,
but only if they were reaaaaaaaly bad guys. Right? What am I
missing from this retarded moral equivocation that you're
peddling?
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:42PM|#
People have voluntary vaginal and anal sex every day in their own homes. How bad can rape really be?
Remember that Take Back the Night rally where they raped each other
to show how awful it is?
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Go fuck yourself.
Les already covered that, but I appreciate the offer.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a person can volunteer to be raped.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:47PM|#
You can't BE voluntarily raped!
Precisely, but you can be voluntarily waterboarded. Kind of my
point. I'm not sure where rape enters into it, no pun intended.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:49PM|#
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a person can volunteer to be raped.
Well, I was using sarcasm to point out the flaw in his argument.
But you seem determined to be indignant about something, so I
suppose that will suffice.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Ex., if the guy on Jackass staples his testicles together for a stunt, that's not torture. But it sure as shit is if some CIA agent puts a bag over your head, ties you down, and staples your testicles together.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:50PM|#
The lack of consent is part of what makes it torture.
Oh. So, then, holding somebody against his will would qualify as
well. Once the guy says, "Let me go," that is.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Did you see when I said, part of what makes it torture? I didn't say that IS what makes it torture. Part.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Ex., if the guy on Jackass staples his testicles together for a stunt, that's not torture. But it sure as shit is if some CIA agent puts a bag over your head, ties you down, and staples your testicles together.
I'm not sure why they'd go to all that trouble and inflict such
grievous, possibly permanent bodily injury when they could just
waterboard the guy. But I eagerly await the list of things
masochists do to themselves that terrorists wouldn't want done to
them. Sorry, suspected terrorists.
|12.17.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Jim,
Some people pay to get whipped and beaten. They even get off on it.
It doesn't mean that being whipped and beaten isn't torture.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Did you see when I said, part of what makes it torture?
Was it before or after you said, "Go fuck yourself"? If it was
after, I don't much care.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Isn't that cute, you're pretending like waterboarding doesn't
cause physical injury.
Does oxygen deprivation, broken bones from the restraints, and
brain damage count?
BDB|12.17.08 @ 2:59PM|#
I really don't much care for amoral dirtbags, so we're even. Arguing with you is like arguing with 9/11 Troofers.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 2:59PM|#
Some people pay to get whipped and beaten. They even get off on it. It doesn't mean that being whipped and beaten isn't torture.
So those protesters get off on being waterboarded? That would
explain a lot.
Hey, how come they don't do any of the other stuff they're
protesting? You know, the stuff that can cause permanent physical
harm?
Les|12.17.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Precisely, but you can be voluntarily waterboarded. Kind of
my point. I'm not sure where rape enters into it, no pun
intended.
You can be voluntarily fucked and it's actually great fun. If you
are involuntarily fucked, it's a nightmare and a form of torture.
So, you see, saying "waterboarding isn't so bad because people do
it to each other" is a terrible way to argue that waterboarding
isn't torture.
Sorry, suspected terrorists.
If you're being sarcastic, could you explain what makes you think
the government is capable of only arresting actual terrorists?
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Isn't that cute, you're pretending like waterboarding doesn't cause physical injury.
Does oxygen deprivation, broken bones from the restraints, and brain damage count?
In your case, I'm not sure how we'd determine the first or last.
j/k lol
Well, I'm sure we could dig up incidences of criminals suffering
injuries while, say, resisting being handcuffed by the police. Does
that mean it's torture?
I really don't much care for amoral dirtbags, so we're even. Arguing with you is like arguing with 9/11 Troofers.
Are we arguing? I thought we were just talking. I let the "Go fuck
yourself" slide, even. For such a peace-loving guy, you sure seem
hostile.
|12.17.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Oh. So, then, holding somebody against his will would
qualify as well.
John is a man. Therefore, all men are John.
Torture is nonconsensual; therefore, all nonconsensual things are
torture.
Nope. John is one of many men. Torture is one of many nonconsensual
acts.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 3:10PM|#
For such a peace-loving guy, you sure seem hostile.
Yeah, I don't like torture apologists. I also don't like 9/11
Troofers, Holocaust deniers, and people nostalgic for the
Confederacy. Call me crazy, but I don't.
BDB|12.17.08 @ 3:12PM|#
But I guess if someone, say, grabbed joe in the middle of the night, put a bag over his head, disoriented him, brought him to a undisclosed location, then told him he was going to be executed, made him dig his own grave, say his last words, then simply fire a blank instead and start laughing that wouldn't be torture since there's no lasting physical harm, or any physical harm at all.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:13PM|#
You can be voluntarily fucked and it's actually great fun.
More than I wanted to know about your personal life, but rest
assured that I was opposed to Prop. 8.
If you are involuntarily fucked, it's a nightmare and a form of torture. So, you see, saying "waterboarding isn't so bad because people do it to each other" is a terrible way to argue that waterboarding isn't torture.
Yeah, it's almost as bad as equating waterboarding with rape. I
don't see protesters wiring each other's gonads to a car battery,
or administering the bastinado to each other. Just waterboarding.
Weird, huh?
If you're being sarcastic, could you explain what makes you think the government is capable of only arresting actual terrorists?
Can you explain how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been unfairly
accused?
|12.17.08 @ 3:16PM|#
I don't think it's remotely weird that people trying to
demonstrate that waterboarding is torture would reenact
waterboarding sessions instead of one of the other varieties of
torture.
Since waterboarding, as opposed to electrodes on the nuts, is the
act whose status as torture is in dispute.
|12.17.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Can you explain how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been unfairly
accused?
I can explain how Maher Arar has been unfairly accued, prior to his
torture, but I think this report does a pretty good job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Yeah, I don't like torture apologists.
Me neither. But then, I don't think waterboarding is torture. I
will now pause to allow you to scratch your teeth.
John is a man. Therefore, all men are John.
Torture is nonconsensual; therefore, all nonconsensual things are torture.
Nope. John is one of many men. Torture is one of many nonconsensual acts.
Yay, non sequiturs!
But I guess if someone, say, grabbed joe in the middle of the night, put a bag over his head, disoriented him, brought him to a undisclosed location, then told him he was going to be executed, made him dig his own grave, say his last words, then simply fire a blank instead and start laughing that wouldn't be torture since there's no lasting physical harm, or any physical harm at all.
I think, for joe, it would be a dream come true. "They really
are out to get me!"
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Stop.Feeding.The.Troll.
I don't agree with BDB, but I'd stop short of calling him a
troll.
I don't think it's remotely weird that people trying to demonstrate that waterboarding is torture would reenact waterboarding sessions instead of one of the other varieties of torture.
Since waterboarding, as opposed to electrodes on the nuts, is the act whose status as torture is in dispute.
So they prove it's torture by doing it to each other in front of a
crowd. Okay, I guess I can see that.
|12.17.08 @ 3:22PM|#
But then, I don't think waterboarding is torture
The US criminal code, and the war crimes tribunals established
after WW2, would like to disagree.
Yay, non sequiturs!
Yeah, non sequiturs are awesome. So, any response to the point that
your logic is flawed, and the argument you made about consent
invalid?
|12.17.08 @ 3:23PM|#
So they prove it's torture by doing it to each other in
front of a crowd.
Actually, they prove it's torture by allowing the crowd to see the
effect it has on a human being.
You kind of need the crowd for that to work.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:24PM|#
So I take it you don't think mock executions are torture, either?
You might want to grab another toothpick.
Les|12.17.08 @ 3:28PM|#
More than I wanted to know about your personal life, but
rest assured that I was opposed to Prop. 8.
Hey, I said "you can be voluntarily fucked." You don't
think that's fun? Glad you opposed Prop 8, but I'm a hetero
husband.
Yeah, it's almost as bad as equating waterboarding with rape. I
don't see protesters wiring each other's gonads to a car battery,
or administering the bastinado to each other. Just waterboarding.
Weird, huh?
I think it's fair to equate involuntary waterboarding to
involuntary sex. And you're just repeating yourself, here.
"Protesters waterboard each other, therefore waterboarding isn't
torture." That argument, that something which is done voluntarily
doesn't qualify as torture when done involuntarily, makes no sense.
As it's been pointed out, sex is frequently done voluntarily. That
doesn't mean it's not torture when done involuntarily.
Can you explain how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been unfairly
accused?
No need to explain that since neither I nor anyone here has made
that assertion. You, however, have implied that suspected
terrorists are actual terrorists based only on the claims of the
government. So, again, what makes you think the government is
capable of only arresting actual terrorists?
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Actually, they prove it's torture by allowing the crowd to see the effect it has on a human being.
A few minutes of B-movie blubbering and then home for a nap.
But hey, why would they be anything but honest? The nice thing
about psychic scars is that nobody can prove you don't have
'em.
So, any response to the point that your logic is flawed, and the argument you made about consent invalid?
How could there be, joe? What you lack in compositional clarity,
you more than make up for in the moral variety.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Les, I can't figure out which part of your comment is quoted material and which is the no-doubt-precise debunking of my torture-apologizing nonsense, so I'll just say, "Could be."
The Angry Optimist|12.17.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Given that I don't think Treacher is as dumb as he's playing, I can only assume that he's breathtakingly dishonest and immoral.
Zeb|12.17.08 @ 3:36PM|#
"Hey, how come they don't do any of the other stuff they're
protesting? You know, the stuff that can cause permanent physical
harm?"
Well, probably because it can cause permanent physical harm. And i
second the "go fuck yourself". Ass.
The Angry Optimist|12.17.08 @ 3:39PM|#
Sorry, but joe did a good job in pointing out how your logic in "nonconsent = torture" was a total failure.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Well, probably because it can cause permanent physical harm.
As opposed to the permanent psychic harm they inflict on each
other.
|12.17.08 @ 3:41PM|#
""""The lack of consent is part of what makes it
torture."""
I disagree, I is an element but I wouldn't call it the one that
makes it torture. If I burned you with a cigarette, even on purpose
without your consent, it's not torture. If I burned you to set an
example and then said I would repeat the process till you told me
what I want to know, that's torture. Maybe torture light, but
torture is about giving someone an expectation that the bad thing
will continue to happen until you say what they want to hear.
Escalation is another element of torture, you think this is bad,
don't answer and it gets worse. That's why waterboarding someone in
SERE school is not torture, the person has an expectation that it
will not be repeated over and over. If you didn't let the guy up
and did it repeatedly trying to get an answer to a question, if
changes from demonstration to torture.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Sorry, but joe did a good job in pointing out how your logic in "nonconsent = torture" was a total failure.
Well, I don't know why you'd say it if it weren't true. Dagnabbit!
The Forces of Good have triumphed again.
Les|12.17.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Jim, I'll try again.
Yeah, it's almost as bad as equating waterboarding with rape. I
don't see protesters wiring each other's gonads to a car battery,
or administering the bastinado to each other. Just waterboarding.
Weird, huh?
I think it's reasonable to equate involuntary waterboarding to
involuntary sex. And you're just repeating yourself, here.
"Protesters waterboard each other, therefore waterboarding isn't
torture." That argument, that something which is done voluntarily
doesn't qualify as torture when done involuntarily, makes no sense.
As it's been pointed out, sex is frequently done voluntarily. That
doesn't mean it's not torture when done involuntarily.
Can you explain how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been unfairly
accused?
No need to explain that since neither I nor anyone here has made
that assertion. You, however, have implied that suspected
terrorists are actual terrorists based only on the claims of the
government. So, again, what makes you think the government is
capable of only arresting actual terrorists?
|12.17.08 @ 3:48PM|#
"""But hey, why would they be anything but honest? The nice
thing about psychic scars is that nobody can prove you don't have
'em."""
Is really nice for Tyrants because you can't prove you DO have them
in court of law.
Xeones|12.17.08 @ 3:48PM|#
The liberals. The progressives.
Hate to derail the fascinating discussion now in progress, but i
just thought i'd point out that these two terms are, technically,
opposites. K thx bye!
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 3:48PM|#
P.S. If it's any consolation, I do think being
held underwater and beaten with a board would qualify as torture.
I'm not completely heartless.
Well, sorry to get you guys so upset. No hard feelings, eh? Have a
good one!
|12.17.08 @ 3:54PM|#
"""Hate to derail the fascinating discussion now in progress,
but i just thought i'd point out that these two terms are,
technically, opposites. K thx bye!"""
Can you explain that without quoting Fox news or Rush Limbaugh?
|12.17.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Mr. Doherty,
What on earth did you do get get stuck on Greenwald-reading duty?
Don't you people have interns for that sort of abuse?
|12.17.08 @ 4:40PM|#
I wouldn't say non-consent by the victim is an element of
torture (you don't see it in the Geneva Convention definition*), so
much as consent would be a defense against a charge of
torture.
But that's splitting hairs. And we don't do that around here.
*any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a
third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any
kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does
not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or
incidental to, lawful sanctions.
Les|12.17.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Shelby,
Greenwald is usually a lot more libertarian in his writings than
you'll find at most conservative blogs. And he has been
consistently critical of Democrats who, with or without Republican
assistance, diminish our civil rights.
|12.17.08 @ 5:12PM|#
A few minutes of B-movie blubbering and then home for a
nap.
Right, that's just what American POWs and Cambodian political
prisoners did after they were waterboarded. Play-acted and then a
quick nap. That must be why the people who performed the deeds were
prosecuted for torture.
How could there be, joe? You're right, there couldn't be.
Your entire argument relies on the reader not realizing that
consent matters in judging the morality of what one person does to
another. Once I pointed that out, what could you possibly say?
|12.17.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Consent might be the differnece between torture, and a night of S&M role playing. ;-)
|12.17.08 @ 6:05PM|#
...Doms are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the subs.
Jim Treacher|12.17.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Your entire argument relies on the reader not realizing that consent matters in judging the morality of what one person does to another. Once I pointed that out, what could you possibly say?
Oh wait, I know this one: "No soap, radio!"
Burrow Owl|12.17.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Well dip my balls in sweet cream and squat me in a kitchen full
of kittens.
Methinks that Joe just may be the threadwinner this time
around.
Fluffy|12.18.08 @ 9:03AM|#
If Jim would sign a waiver saying that I can waterboard him with
no time limit [either for the entire duration of the event, or for
individual periods where he can't breathe] and waiving all criminal
and civil liability for me if he "accidentally" dies - and if we
assume for the purposes of argument that such an agreement would be
legally enforceable - I imagine I could give him quite an education
on whether or not waterboarding is torture.
That's what idiots like him don't realize - that waterboarding is
torture because the practitioner can kill you if they don't relent,
and the subject both knows this and immediately experiences it
physically.
There's no "extreme or permanent damage" if I shove your head in a
toilet, either. Elementary school kids gave each other swirlies for
decades. But if you don't know if I am ever going to bring your
head up again - if that's entirely in my control, at my whim,
and I can kill you without punishment if I choose and you know that
- then getting a swirlie would be torture. Or at least it would be
if I was in charge, you can bet that much.
Virgil|12.18.08 @ 11:00AM|#
It's interesting - in all his posts, I don't think Jim made a single clear, substantive, non-ironic comment or response, beyond a brief statement that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture. It would be helpful if some folks would start their posts with some sort of disclaimer along the lines of "I am completely unwilling or unable to engage in an open, substantive discussion." That might save a little time.
Jim Treacher|12.18.08 @ 7:16PM|#
It's torture because I wouldn't enjoy it. Hey, if I get tortured by Fluffy, please let Burrow Owl watch.
Trish|12.18.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Ok, this whole Blagojevich story really needs to go away. Sadly, the more bad publicity he gets, the more he will make when he writes a book two years from now. He doesn't deserve it.
|12.20.08 @ 3:54PM|#
This has gotten a little silly. I hope you all realize that the
national press is being manipulated by the powers that be. The
slavering reaction oriented national news are tools at this point
of those who want to obfuscate the truth.
Anyone remember Elliot Spitzer erstwhile Governor of NY? He had a
very high priced call girl. Without proof, but also without doubt,
many of our powerful politicians have the same type of arrangement.
Spitzer took on Bank of America and the financial infrastructure
though.
Blago was looking to see what would get done for a senate seat. I
don't think this is odd for a governor either. However, Blago took
on Bank of America.
Neither of these guys are angels. Both are likely sociopaths like
the rest of their ilk (politicians). However, the reason that they
are in trouble is because they did something that was potentially
hurtful to the same financial institutions that have stolen our
money and made themselves targets.
Their actions are politics as usual. They got caught because they
had our best interests at heart. Think on that for a moment.
Is this the country we want? Where the powerful can do whatever
they want until they rock the boat too much and then they are fed
to the sharks in order to obfuscate things like the financial
scandals and the foibles of the Bush administration?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245