Part Two of Excellent Series on Cheney:
The Washington Post has posted Part II of its series of Vice President Cheney. This one covers Cheney's role in defining Administration legal policies relating to terrorism. A must-read: highly recommended. Part I was here.
wait what?
that got a serious double take
what bizarre kind of torture is this?
One hopes that William Rehnquist is only the first occupant of a particularly onerous section of Hell that, in due time, will include Sandra O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Uncle Thomas, the monkey George W. Bush and his organ-grinder Dick Cheney.
Were that to happen, I'd grant an immediate pardon to Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Thomas. And I'd at least think about one for Bush.
And I used to split my ticket when voting but the exepremism of the Dem leadership has convinced me to vote only for Republicans just to spite them.
John Herbison's hate-filled postings are a disservice to those of us, left, right, and center who are interested in rationale discourse, even when we might disagree with what others say. Trolls like Herbison should look for a Kos-like echo chamber for their bilge--and not pollute this site.
what bizarre kind of torture is this?
- Shnoo Shnoo -- reference Zap Brannigan for details.
Litigator wins the thread!
I have been reading this site pretty regularly for several years. I have read the dailykos, democratic underground, huffington post, and other similar leftwing hate sites occasionaly. Recently in these Cheney threads it is hard to tell the difference between the two with comments like "Uncle Clarence Thomas" and referenceces to George W. Bush as a monkey. I am waiting for the first comment hoping Cheney will have another heart attack and the transition will be complete.
This is one of the very, very few bolgs I know of where the comments are from multiple political perspectives and where the comments tend to be civil. I like the Conspiracy's comment policy of: "So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread." Its why I keep coming back. I hope the other commenters will read that policy again and take it to heart before they post.
I already linked the article &made some comments about it in the earlier thread, but here are some additional thoughts:
(1) Leaving aside the immunity provisions of the MCA, could Cheney and Addington in theory be indicted for conspiracy to violate the War Crimes Act, even where they haven't themselves committed the illegal acts themselves?
(2) I'll ask this one by example, since I have a hard time framing it: say Addington, Flanigan, and Yoo were indicted on the conspiracy count I've imagined, and defended themselves by arguing they were just providing legal advice. Would it be possible to "pierce" that "veil" by showing that they were in fact arguing with the predetermined conclusion of evading the WCA, and that their arguments were deliberately slanted to that end? (The "no sincere lawyer would omit Youngstown" argument, if you will.)
(3) Less technically: Yoo seems positively chatty in the article, doesn't he? And eager to spread responsibility? Not to mention, a model of restraint:Assuming for the moment that he really did this, was his real motive the (well-placed) fear that once the cat got out of the CIA bag, publicity would follow?
Wow! That is just horrible. I imagine you are a treat to be around.
Forcing nude prisoners to fellate each other (etc.) is not a joke, and it doesn't make us safer. Folks who for various reasons can't manage to comprehend this seem to have found a happy home in the GOP. Likewise for folks who aggressively, categorically abhor homosexual acts. Interesting how this works.
You know, when you find yourself writing stuff that's indistinguishable from fascist propaganda, it's worthwhile to pause and consider whether the resemblance indicates any flaw in your thinking.
Once a terrorist is your prisoner, basic decency *and* prudence militate in favor of treating him with enough respect not to humiliate or degrade him, much less torture him. Abusing a Qaeda officer merely confirms his worldview and strengthens him in it. (Cf. KSM's remarkable, twisted speech to the CSRT.) Professional interrogators are agreed that abuse and torture are the methods of amateurs.
What's remarkable about the latest story is that CIA was so impoverished in its humint resources that it apparently couldn't even carry out effective interrogations. Had KSM et al. been in military custody from the get-go, we might never have had the resort to waterboarding, etc.
Just fraternity pranks, that.
That we're actually raping detainees is far and away the most disturbing revelation of this series--and it's not like the rest of the articles have been all hearts and flowers.
I trust you are equally opposed to hate-filled postings by right-wingers who pollute the site. Broad, hateful, and idiotic generalizations about liberals are a regular feature of some commenters' work here. So let's have non-partisan outrage at incivility, or no outrage at all.
"Well, THEY did it too!" I don't think that's a very good response. But that's just my opinion. I may be going to Hell.
I'll have to check with Herbison on that, since he seems to have an "in" down there--Rage being one of the Seven Deadly Sins and all.
Please point to a single conservative post--just one, since you appear to think they are as numerous as Herbison's--and provide a link.
There are many posters on this site I disagree with, but whom I respect because they provide argument and analysis--even if I disagree with that argument and anlysis.
Herbison, on the other hand, is a hate-filled troll--and I make no apologies for calling him on it.
I don't think it's a good response either.
My point is that if someone is going to object to pointless hate-filled comments they shouldn't restrict themselves to those made by one side.
Behaving like humans isn't about being 'nice' to someone else. It's about protecting our own humanity. A lot of soldiers are coming home with mental health problems because their GOP leaders told them this wasn't important.
By the way, probably every atrocity in history had enablers and apologists who claimed that they were only doing what was necessary to deal with "those who would exterminate us."
And once you declare your willingness to be inhuman, as you have done, the difference between you and our enemies is only a matter of degree. Yes, our actions are different from theirs. Just not different enough.
None of what is contained within this article is news to me, but this quotation provides an effective summary of certain sections of the US Adminstration's disregard for the international community and their apparent inability to see that it is possible to both provide national security and respect human rights.
I am once again left with the feeling of being unsurprised yet nauseated, which is somehow more unpleasant than being surprised and nauseated.
"Gonzales listened quietly as the Justice Department and his own staff lined up against Addington. Then he decided in favor of Cheney's lawyer."
"A year after Bush announced at a news conference that 'I'd like to close Guantanamo,' plans to expand it are proceeding. Senior officials said Cheney, standing nearly alone, has turned back strong efforts -- by Rice, England, new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and former Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson, among others -- to give the president what he said he wants."
Well, p. rich, as other commenters have noted, this would be risible reductionism (and morally questionable) even IF restricted to "those who would exterminate us".
The main problem with applying this formula to situations like those that prevailed in Abu Ghraib (and other places) is that maltreatment/abuse/torture, whatever - has been given to prisoners WITHOUT regard to their "status". Whether hardened terrorist, terror sympathiser, innocent bystander picked up in a sweep, poor schmuck turned in for the reward, etc.
Whatever the moral implications of condoning torture/abuse might be: this sort of argument-by-cheap-sneer - apparently a variation on the stale old "X-is-'soft'-on-terrorists" wheeze - fails the smell test.
If you do indeed have some infallible method of discerning exactly who out there "would exterminate us", please do share it, so that we can all feel safer!
I agree, however, that "they did it too" is not a great defense, and that everyone should try to be civil.
Quite a stark exposition of Cheney's radical view of executive power.
Easily understood, on the theory that Cheney is simply carrying out what Bush wants done, and that Gonzales is at least bright enough to know that.
That's the problem with Bah's musing that Cheney can reverse what Bush supposedly wants. Cheney has zero authority to foil the president, other than voting the "wrong" way on Senate ties -- not a fearsome power.
Bush's statement that he wants Gitmo closed, sometime or other, should be filed with his statements that "we don't torture" and that we don't render to countries that torture. Recall that, on the rendition statement, the CIA's acting general counsel absolutely would not state under oath that what the president said was true.
Try this:
You asked for an example of "a hate-filled troll." In my opinion, someone who explicitly, shamelessly claims that "every anti-Bush action" is an act of "overt treason" is indeed "a hate-filled troll," or worse.
Please note that roughly 50-60% of the country took the "anti-Bush action," in 2004 and 2006, of voting D, an action which was "overt treason," and that we should not "allow."
It's also pretty remarkable that such a view is what we now call "conservative."
Cheney controls the flow of information into the president's office. He can make a case for his positions and weaken his opponent's positions (Rice, Gates, etc.) by selectively exposing the president to evidence. While Cheney may not be able to directly go against the president, he can build such one sided arguments that the president has no choice but to comply against his better moral judgment.
See, that's another hole in your theory ... ;)
I agree that there's been quite an effort to insulate Bush, but the president has surely collaborated in it. Even if he trusted Cheney and Rumsfeld, he should've been able to infer from the looting of Baghdad, the rise of the insurgency, and the Abu Ghraib photos that they were fools.
At some point, it's impossible to give the Tsar a pass on account of his wicked ministers. We do after all have newspapers, blogs, etc.
I think you're discounting one of the other main themes of the article. the fact that Cheney is a consumate political operator, good at exercising "shadow power" so to speak.
Yes, it's true that the VP has very little legal power, but I think the article clearly demonstrates that via his own influence, and the influence of those loyal to him, Cheney can exercise far more power than his legal authority would grant.
In terms of directly foiling the president, he can't directly override the president, but I think it's clear he can stonewall any implementation of the president's wishes when he disagrees.
I think the bit about closing Guantanamo is a good example.
We have the fact that more than a year ago, Bush publically stated he wants to close the guantanamo bay detention facility.
If we accept the article's premise that this is in fact the true position of Bush, and that other cabinet level officials have made real efforts to put this into effect, we are left with the assumption that someone (Cheney) is stopping this process.
He's clearly not doing this through direct authority, as he's not in the chain of command on decisions like this. But this in no way prevents him from authorizing indirect authority. Those loyal to him simply delay on the issue, or if they have enough support, ignore it altogether, and because of Cheney's influence, those higher up cannot force their decisions upon the lower subordinates.
But as I wrote above, there's no good reason to accept the article's premise. Bush does not consider that his public statements are shackled by the facts, to put it mildly.
It's just unbelievable -- as in, not believable -- that Cheney has been going wild for 5 or 6 years now without Bush's approval. How stupid would Bush have to be?
President Bush is also susceptible to manipulation because he probably has minimal exposure to "newspapers, blogs, etc." and relies heavily on Cheney to filter out information so that he only has to read what he believes are the key points.
Both Cheney's masterful use of the bureaucracy and the president's lack of assertiveness contribute to Cheney's control of the government.
I am not saying that the president should not be held accountable for what occurs in his administration.
It's not true that we've been entirely indiscriminate with regard to who we sodomize etc. I think for the most part we've been careful to select people with dark skin who don't worship Jesus. Which raises the question: who would Jesus sodomize?
bah: "really makes one wonder who the president really is"
I think it's worth repeating something that was mentioned here and here:
anderson: "at some point, it's impossible to give the Tsar a pass on account of his wicked ministers"
Cheney enables Bush and Bush enables Cheney. And they both have countless other enablers who express themselves in voting booths and blogs.
I agree. Bush trusts Cheney and probably believes that he does a good job of filtering out extraneous information. This does not mean that Cheney does not abuse this trust to feed the president information that supports his own positions.
The fact that the president is unaware that he is being manipulated does not mean that Cheney is not manipulating him.
That would be quite disturbing, but I'm not so quick to buy the claims. Sometimes prisoners lie. Sometimes guards do things which are hardly tolerated or policy. Also if a prisoner were told to simulate fellatio on a dildo, that is wrong, but a world apart from our usual conception of rape.
I personally find name-calling by all sides to be odious and intellectually dishonest. You cite a post from October of last year--on a thread that EV started regarding the very topic for which that poster commented.
I disagree with that post but it was on topic. Herbison's comment, on the other hand, assuredly was not (how far off topic can you get by expressing hatred toward William Rehnquist and other Supreme Court justices in a discussion on Dick Cheney?).
Me, I find the WaPo series interesting--and I think we all agree that Dick Cheney's power comes not from being the Vice President but from being a trusted counselor to the President.
You'd really be suprised how often this isn't necessarily true. With any president.
In college I wrote a research paper contrasting management styles of Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ regarding the Vietnam war.
One of the things that popped up was that, once advisors were in that position of having the president's ear, they could exercise a substantial amount of their own power to keep that decision.
LBJ was less interested in direct involvement in the decision making process and for a time at least, trusted his (inherited from Kennedy's) cabinet to present him with the best choices. But as those policies ran downhill, McNamara exercised a fair amount of authority to ensure that people didn't go around him to tell the president other things.
In that spirit, I'm not sure the WaPo shows a "masterful use of the bureaucracy" by Cheney at all. What he's done hasn't been subtle or skillful. Rather, Cheney has simply ignored the bureaucracy -- "cutting through the red tape," as we like to say -- and gone straight to Bush, treating Powell, Rice, and Ashcroft like bystanders. And Bush, in what's at best a stunning display of ignorance as to how an executive should function, has allowed this to happen -- indeed, encouraged it, it would seem.
In other words, driving down the median is not a masterful use of driving skills.
Now I confess that I've never run anything besides my mouth. But there seems to be a huge difference between Eisenhower's decision to allow smaller decisions to be made at lower levels, and Bush's (apparent) decision to allow his team to decide what the president knows and addresses. Ike also had Andy Goodpaster as the conduit of information from departments and offices to the WH desk. Goodpaster was a sharp, experienced guy. But his only agenda was to be a good staffer to the CINC.
Having one's information flow dictated by someone with his own power-base seems a mistake to me.
jimbino--You've just given a good example of why many of us who condiser ourselves multilateralists nmevertheless don't want the US joining the International Criminal Court: You "citizens of the world" have decided to bring American policy makers to trial after having already convicted them as "war criminals." I for one don't want the Senate to ratify a treaty that sacrifices my right to due process, than you very much.
You would think his MBA program addressed this at some point ... maybe he delegated note-taking to someone else?
By the Way: No one should ever listen to me. I thought that Cheney was going to make an excellent VP, since he could help compensate for W's manifest lack of preparation in many areas of presidential responsibility. Shows what I know.
This seems to be Cheney's view as well. And it's a strange one, because it assumes that no one ever thought of torture in the past, and that we are playing nice just to please liberals. But no, a realist, a hard-nosed man of war knows that torture is the only way to get a person to talk!
Torture actually was the norm throughout much of human existence, contrary to these assertions. We have outlawed them for several reasons, not the least of which is that the information obtained under duress is often highly suspect. And so the real purpose of torture is merely to torture -- instill fear in the prisoners and inflict as much pain as possible for no other purpose than some vague sense of punishment. It is exacthy THAT which has been outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.
Communist governments worldwide used torture -- do you really think that they were doing it to obtain information? Of course not. And considering the fact that most of the detainees in Gitmo have been held for several years, any information they could give is now years old, making any information obtained dubious at best.
There have been plenty of examples of how FBI interrogators did better with their subjects, but then had the subjects whisked away so that the Real Men could take off the gloves, etc.
The most depressing thing about Cheney's pattern of behavior is the utter contempt he shows for the American system of government &for the rule of law. He appears to believe that anything less than an untrammelled executive is a weakness, and that the checks and balances of the Framers -- people who had just won a life-or-death struggle against a British Empire that would surely have hanged them all as traitors -- are silly impediments to effective government. Ditto the view that the federal courts would coddle suspected terrorists.
Thus we get our interrogators literally following the Soviet playbook, etc., etc.
As for the organ-grinder/monkey metaphor, even allowing that there is a bit a spleen there, that is entirely consistent with the theme of the linked article--that Cheney, rather than Bush, is calling the shots.
By your logic, then Barbara Bush should go to hell too because she didn't abort during her first pregnancy--and so shouold everyone who voted for the President in both 2000 and 2004.
Be gone, troll.
Who /decides/ that?
The Barbara Bush bit is worse than anything Herbison wrote, by a good order of magnitude.
(I actually think the organ-grinder image would make a good editorial cartoon; in fact, I can't believe it hasn't been done already.)
Numerous charges of abuse are backed by corroborating evidence, and don't rely on assuming that prisoners never lie.
"I'm not so quick to buy the claims."
If you're eager to review photos, you can do so here, here, here, here and here. Information about the authenticity of these photos is here. Sworn statements relevant to these photos are here.
"if a prisoner were told to simulate fellatio on a dildo"
One or more of the photos I cited depict fellatio, and it's definitely not "fellatio on a dildo." I realize you'd like to hide inside your fantasy of what happened, instead of dealing with what actually happened.
If you'd like a real challenge to your powers of denial, take a look at the Army's own report.
"Sometimes guards do things which are hardly tolerated or policy."
It was clear a long time ago, and it's becoming more and more clear, that this cowardly practice of routinely blaming the little guy is not going to wash. You're floating the same lame, counterfactual excuse used by every two-bit thug in history. Taguba and others have documented widespread, systemic problems that clearly cannot be hidden behind the "just a few bad apples" argument.
I think you are disingenuously backpedaling and trying to change the subject. Earlier, you definitely didn't complain that Herbison's comment was not "on topic." You complained (both here and here) that it was "hate-filled." And you suggested ("please point to a single conservative post--just one") that this was a one-way street.
It's not, as I have shown, so now you're trying to pretend that your original complaint was something different than what it was. In my opinion, this sort of dishonesty is trollish.
Anyway, what's your latest point? That conservatives are superior because their hate-filled remarks are (allegedly) more likely to be on-topic? Is staying on-topic a higher value than avoiding hatefulness? Is hatefullness inoffensive as long as it's on-topic? All this is quite novel.
Also, of course, we hadn't yet had 9/11, which seems to've unhinged in particular the sort of conservative who exulted in American invincibility. Our relative freedom from terror attack had a lot more to do with luck and oceans than with any "strength" of ours, but that escaped notice.
You are right, and I apologize for the hyperbole of my pervious post.
Jukeboxgrad,
You provided an example. I pointed out that your example was actually a post on the subject that you decry. I said I disagreed with the post and I did not defend it other than to say it was on topic.
I find the entire "liberals are socialists" "conservatives are Nazis" meme to be tiresome and counterproductive. Some people on both sides do it as an attempt to stifle debate. My complaint about Herbison's post was that it was full of hate and venom--I am sorry I offended your sensibilities by not also saying up front it was also off-topic.
Frankly, I like civility from all posters. I find most posters here can legitimately disagree without being disagreeable. That was my point.
Finally! I've been looking for a perfect example of Vulcan mind control.
And for the record, jukeboxgrad, not everyone lives in your cozy little world. I, for one, have no problem whatever with our military's use of waterboarding, or any other interrogation methods they find effective. In case you've forgotten so quickly, Islamists have routinely stated that they intend to kill us. They mean it. Islamists worldwide take great joy in the fact that their Islamist brothers saw off the heads of civilians they have kidnapped. Not one Islamist in a million -- literally -- publicly denounces the barbaric atrocities of their fellow Islamists. They would happily commit the very same atrocities on us and on our families if they could. For the good of humanity, Islam must be destroyed.
Attacking our military during war time is not helpful, except to the enemy. As far as I am concerned, our soldiers have an extremely difficult job to do. Whining about waterboarding or prisoners on leashes only makes their jobs harder. I won't second-guess our soldiers' conduct in a war. As George Orwell said, ''People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'' It is that very violence that keeps you safe.
By the way, how do you plan on destroying Islam? By destroying all the Muslims? Even the baby ones?
2000 is another story for all sorts of obvious reasons, but I think that lots of people who voted R in 2004 are experiencing a serious case of buyer's remorse, and for good reason. And this group does indeed have responsibility for what it enabled: a great deal of harm to all sorts of things, including the GOP.
whoi: "Where were all these abuses when Cheney was Sec. of Defense"
Poppy provided some adult supervision. As Anderson pointed out.
1. Archaic "Rules of Warfare" do not reflect the nature of the current conflict against radical Muslims, and
2. "Nice" is not an appropriate position to take when one's culture and very existence are threatened.
Apparently those sentiments triggered a knee-jerk reaction from some who believe they should be the arbiters of morality as it applies to war, if in fact there can ever be an adequate definition of morality when under attack. I tend to think the first rule of survival is Survive. If that requires tossing out the tea party etiquette, so be it.
You're still trying to change the subject. You persist in being disingenuous by pretending you don't know what you did that was offensive. What you did that was offensive was asserting that hateful speech here is a one-way street.
"I find most posters here can legitimately disagree without being disagreeable. That was my point."
When you said "please point to a single conservative post--just one," you were making a different point, a point you are now trying to sweep under the rug.
"I find the entire 'liberals are socialists' 'conservatives are Nazis' meme to be tiresome and counterproductive."
I showed you an example of a poster here claiming, almost verbatim, that all liberals are traitors. Maybe you can present an example of someone claiming that all conservatives are Nazis. Just one.
I'm more interested in placing this into the context of history and our past experience, and exploring it in a way that the shallow media is incapable of doing... in a 4 part article or anything else it appears. Let's do that, shall we?
Anderson,
Not that I disagree with your statement, but would you not agree that the US government has as a matter of policy engaged in this conduct in past wars? Would you not agree that the policies offered up by this administration are platformed off that past work?
Recall that in WWII, just outside Washington, D.C., the US Navy operated a little detention facility accepting captured U-boat crewmen. Here, these German prisoners, none logged into the Geneva system, were "processed". I shouldn't have to tell you the types of "processing" they underwent, but suffice to say that many brave sailors and merchmentmen were dying a cold, miserable in the Battle of the Atlantic, and the military took a great interest in what those prisoners knew. FDR was well aware of all this... sorta like "Geneva... SCHMENEVA... I'm fighting a war here, and my guys are dying."
Is what the CIA advocated so different than what was done then? Is this such a massive departure from historical precedent?
--
Disagree, Anderson. KSM cracked within 1-minute of waterboarding... a technique that many of our own servicemen undergo as a matter of training... with (allegedly) no longterm physical effects. Again, not saying I agree or disagree with these methods, but among many other methods... they appear to work... and work well. Would you preclude their "productive" use, even if a deadly threat is imminent?
--
This is likely a true statement. The Army never sanctioned these methods, then or now, and General Taguba's IG report made this very clear... that the Army policy was to operate by Geneva... by the book. Can we set aside this Abu Graib/Guantanamo distraction, finally, and turn solely to the real issues, within context?
--
I'm reminded of Hugo Black's merciless fascism in Korematsu. FDR had to fight a war, and we might agree or disagree with his methods for doing so, but he employed his methods in the heat of battle, and these were finally subject to review by all the functional groups within government, during and after. However, Black, as a part of one of these functional groups, among a group of 6 black-robed fascists, enshrined an evil that while it may have sprang from horrific choices available at the time, was still an evil. And he did this in sober circumstance, long after the smoke of battle had cleared (and the stain he colored us is on us today, and has set the stage for much other of the black-robed fascists' work since that time).
We have systems of government, and the people come and go, as the current executive and his buddy will be doing shortly. I'd recommend putting aside the BDS/CDS, and fitting this nonsense into a larger picture, even as you flail at your political enemies. Your real enemy may be staring at you from the mirror.
Smokey's embrace of either fascism or genocide -- or is it both? -- needs no response.
Those wistfully imagining United States v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington et al. may be heartened that the MCA apparently did not immunize from prosecution under the torture statute, which expressly allows for a conspiracy count.
N.b. that I do not particularly want to see Cheney et al. before any foreign or international tribunal -- I would much prefer to see them tried under the U.S. flag. It would restore some of my pride in Old Glory.
So this would justify an awful lot of things, should Churchill have done them in 1940-1941.
But American actions in Iraq don't seem to fall under the category that my Church would call 'in extremis.' Is our /survival' on the line in the Middle East? It's hard to see how it could be.
As a matter of policy, up to the White House itself? I'm not so sure about that. Got some cites re: FDR and the U-boat fellows?
KSM cracked within 1-minute of waterboarding
So we are told, by the very people who would be held liable for violating the torture statute, and who have a very strong incentive to protect themselves.
Anyway, the issue is not whether torture ever gets results -- of course it does. It's that torture often produces misinformation (due to the victim's desire to comply and the torturer's tendency to torture until he hears what he wants to hear), is subject to gross abuse, and is thought by professionals to be *less* effective than rapport-based interrogation. Even the freakin' Gestapo found that torture was an inferior method.
even if a deadly threat is imminent?
The "ticking bomb" is pretty well discredited; Djerejian did a number on that in several posts.
Your last remarks are poetic, if cryptic; I'll await clarification before responding to them.
If your point was that conservatives also sometimes say loathesome things, I do not disagree--and I will call them on it if I see it. I found your example a poor one because the topic selected by EV encouraged that trope. John Herbison irked me today because this is the second time he has used the oh, so clever "Uncle Thomas" slur against Justice Thomas--which I argued the first time he used it was an example of liberal racism.
So if your point is that conservatives will sometimes offensive things on this blog, you are right--and I acknowledge it. If you want me to retract that one sentence from my second post on the subject, I will.
Now, can you acknowledge that Herbison's comments were offensive?
Actually, Justice Thomas has been a better jurist that I had expected that he would be. Opinions such as U.S. v. Bajakadjian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), show a healthy, if too infrequent, skepticism about governmental abuses of power. When it comes to installing or preserving Rethuglicans in positions of authority, however, Thomas and his cohorts in the Gang of Five follow the maxim sadly recognized by Thomas's predecessor: "Power, not reason, is the . . . currency of this Court's decisionmaking." Payne v. Tennessee, 505 U.S. 808, 844 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
Bush v. Gore belongs in the Supreme Court Hall of Shameful Decisions alongside Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu v. United States. The kind of perverse decision-making that underlay the Bush administration's accession to power created the environment which spawned the torture policies.
I think Franco was Spanish too ....
Actually, the quote sounds to me a bit like a line from The Fellowship of the Ring about the citizens of Bree, tho I can't remember whether it's Gandalf or Aragorn who says it ...
Orwell, at any rate, was not famous for favoring uncivilized methods; he would've criticized the hypocrisy, not used it as a basis for argument.
In case you've forgotten so quickly, Islamists have routinely stated that they intend to kill us. They mean it.
And:
you sound like spelling nazis critiquing the Declaration of Independence: You've missed the entire point.
OK, on the merits then: the idea that Al Qaeda as an organization is a serious threat to the United States is a joke. Terrorist atrocities -- even something on the horrible scale of 9/11 -- cannot undermine a country as big and powerful as this one by themselves. Which isn't to say that they can't provoke a reaction from those in power that does amount to a serious threat. And if you want a good quote to make the point, try this judgment from British Law Lord Lord Hoffman from a few years ago:
I don’t find any of those (i.e., ideology, logical continuity or even hatefulness) a useful measure of incivility. I would suggest that among the things civil discourse does exclude are unsupported attacks on the person, his character and his motives. The comment you quoted starts out with a fair, though I think incorrect assertion that everything done to oppose Bush or the war helps our enemies. It concludes by calling the war critics traitors, which fails the civility test because it presumes, among other things, knowledge of their motives. John Herbison’s condemnation of Rehnquist, et al, likewise jumps to moral conclusions, but I think it sinks even lower when it resorts to mockery.
You may think that when it comes to giving personal offense, mockery adds little or nothing to character assassination. Usually I’d agree, but when the question is civility of discourse, tenor is as important as content, and mockery sets its own very low tone. Let me make this point a different way. You say you think Dave is “disingenuously backpedaling.” On its face this could be a breach of civility. It does, after all, question his motives for raising the on topic/off topic distinction. (For all you know, Dave isn’t sure himself why one comment offends him so much more than the other. He could be merely struggling out loud to find an answer.) But to my eye, although the content of your suggestion skirts the line, it is saved by tone. Read in context, it’s clear that you are making serious arguments, so if a passing phrase is questionable, it at least gets my benefit of the doubt.
Obviously John Herbison’s original flame -- he has since embarked on his own backpedaling -- deserves no such benefit, consisting only of insults unredeemed by even the slightest attempt to argue a point. And by that measure, Dave is at least partially right, however wobbly his reasoning. Yes, I’ll bet there are plenty of examples on this site of Conservative incivility as bad as John Herbison’s, but his comment was certainly worse than the example you offered.
Here's a current link in more contemporary Abu Graib terms that you may find interesting, which references the WWII era Fort Hunt interrogation center I mentioned.
I've read quite a lot about Fort Hunt, and the Office of Naval Intelligence's role there, which was special and unique from Army Intelligence and the FBI's roles in these matters. Historical works refer to FDR's assignment of Naval Intelligence to activities related to the Navy's "special intelligence requirements" in this regard, although I doubt you'll find FDR's archives calling out specifically for torture, any more than you'll find Hitler calling out specifically for Auschwitz. However, Geneva was violated, clearly. And we know that Admiral Stark was a part of FDR's inner political circle, and that the lapdog Stark made Gonzalez look like a snarling doberman in comparison... so we know which side Stark woulda fallen out on. The evidence, although lacking today's wonderful photography, is compelling. Fort Hunt was a clear violation of international law and practice.
Additionally, a quick internet search discloses one tourist website that references the illegal nature of Fort Hunt. And we have this quote "During World War II, Fort Hunt was again pressed into military service as an interrogation center for captured German submarine crews. The German sailors were brought here, kept in cells outfitted with listening devices, and interrogated -- only then were they transferred to a regular prison camp and reported as captured to the International Red Cross."
.
There are many sources to demonstrate, at minimum, that the US government did not adhere to Geneva in the handling of the U-boat POW's in particular, that's clear. I guess I'm still wondering, do you think today's CIA actions represent a clear departure from these historical precedents?
Yes, I believe KSM cracked in less than one minute, and other independent sources familiar with waterboarding methodology confirm this, so we need not rely on the evil Bush/Cheney tandem's word. Coupled with other interrogation methods... it works... so we'll have to look elsewhere for reasons to fight against this... if we choose to depart from historical precedent. And yes, there are cases when imminent threats exist, so you'll have to answer this question too... should we employ these methods in such a case?
Perhaps my remarks are cryptic... and poetic... but the rantings of the BDSers are boring... and the only contribution I have for them is to make them think a bit, which they clearly aren't doing. Like I say, the BDSers will be out of their misery in a short while, but the problems remain... and I wonder if we'll be applying the lessons of our past history to these problems... or will these useless rants just continue apace?
The Republican who proclaimed in San Francisco in 1964 that "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue," was no liberal. (Neither did he have "other priorities in the '60s than military service", unlike a later Vice-President.)
1. The fact that the United States has engaged in imroper behavior in the past is no excuse. Fifty or sixty years ago, it would have been against US law and policy for me to have the career I enjoy, or to have the wife that I love. We are supposed to learn from the past and improve on it, not enshrine it as some unchanging, perfect ideal.
2. You can argue back and forth about the effectiveness of torture until the cows come home and not really come to a consensus. What is curiously missing in the discussion is the effect of these techniques on us. Remember, at some point this "war" will be over. These techniques will spil over into the society as a whole, much as the "drug war" exeptions have started to creep out. Is this what we want?
I don't think anyone sensible has any doubts that all governments do bad things, America's included. What counts is our willingness to face up to it &to see what can be done to punish those who do them and to prevent their happening again.
While your cynicism is hardly unjustified, I don't think it's "CDS" or "BDS" to want to see the architects of America's torture cells brought to answer in a court of justice. Rather, I think it's important that we be true to the Constitution that these men have betrayed.
And the comments here support that. After all, these are people who want to kill us. "Not one person in a million" will decry the radical Islamists. In other words, these are all really really bad people. And so it's okay to torture them for any reason or for no reason. The point of torture is to torture, nothing more, nothing less.
That's the whole point. "Torture" and Korematsu ARE enshrined in our law... for many, many years... and you can't "prosecute" people, not even the hated Bush/Cheney tandem... for doing what it is that we do and have done as a matter of course, for many years. Or perhaps we should go dig up Roosevelt and Stark (and Hoover and Marshall and Hugo Black... and... and...) and put them on trial today, too?
You're allowing your BDS to obscure this reality... and flailing away impotently at your political enemy... to no good effect. This ain't the evil Bush/Cheney twins... this is our history... this is what we are today... and if you want to change what we are... then do so. But your BDS can't be a part of that, and has no contributions towards it. If you want to see the problem here... do what I suggested (cryptically and poetically) earlier on... look in the mirror.
Why is it? Why aren't people upset that if our country is going to do an about face regarding torture, shouldn't 'the people' know about it? Shouldn't we have a say in it? Shoudln't this be up for public debate? Shouldn't we vote on it?
Oh no. Not a single person says that this should be a subject for public debate, let alone public vote. Trust Dick Cheney -- he knows what's best for you.
(1) That because we've been bad, we have to go on being bad?
(2) Or that because we've been bad, it's not really bad?
I don't "flail away" at Bush et al. re: torture, etc., because they're my political enemies. I don't actually have much interest in politics as a rule. Rather, they're my political enemies, and I take an unwonted interest in them, because they've endorsed torture, gotten us into a damn-fool Mesopotamian quagmire, etc.
This gives the media far too much credit. Most people don't know what we've been doing; don't know the details of the torture issue; don't know that the MCA was passed in part to immunize Cheney et al. from prosecution for their possible crimes.
Instead, we got endless coverage on exactly how far upriver Kerry's boat went, etc., etc. What the media did to Gore in 2000 and to Kerry in 2004 -- guys whose social skills, however lacking, are scarcely inferior to Bush's -- will amaze those future historians who peer into the matter.
Yes, we voted Bush in to office, but that did not give him carte blanche to do whatever he liked. What's the point of the congress, then? Our founders specifically appointed them as the legislators -- the ones who make law. Cheney cannot make or unmake law, however it pleases him.
If you want to change the law on torture, then let's have a vote on it in congress. What do you have to be afraid of?
Did I tune into stormfront by mistake? I could have sworn this was the VC channel.
I guess you're the audience Dubya had in mind when he used the term "crusade" (more than once).
I'll pretend for a moment that you're talking about the idea, not the people. If you then extend your thinking to include every religion that was ever used as an excuse for atrocities, you'll have arrived at where John Lennon was when he wrote a famous song.
"As George Orwell said"
This isn't the first time you've demonstrated that you have a thing for phony quotes.
"To the posters who jumped on the speculation that the Orwell quote may not have been by Orwell"
What a joke. You insist on still calling it "the Orwell quote," even though there's a distinct absence of evidence that "the Orwell quote" is an Orwell quote. It's phony, like your Hillary quote. The "speculation" is all yours, except that it's way too generous to call what you're doing "speculation."
"you sound like spelling nazis critiquing the Declaration of Independence: You've missed the entire point"
Ah, fake but accurate. Anyway, your so-called "point" has now been addressed multiple times.
"It is that very violence that keeps you safe."
Some people think that being human is important, along with being safe. You, on the other hand, seem to think that humanity doesn't mean much. Tell us again how you are different from our enemies?
We have the most powerful military in the world, by a wide margin (our defense budget roughly equals the rest of the world combined), and you're shaking in your boots because of some nuts in a cave. Your inflated sense of victimhood and weakness is beyond remarkable. Given that you feel the rest of world is such a great threat to us, see if you can try to imagine how the rest of the world feels about us.
Our ability to destroy ourselves (and we've indeed taken important steps in that direction) greatly exceeds what anyone else can do to us. Kieran presented eloquent text on this point, here.
Families of roughly 30,000 US killed and wounded might feel differently.
"the US Navy operated a little detention facility accepting captured U-boat crewmen"
It's always refreshing to see Bushists taking a break from the familiar 'but Clinton (allegedly) did it.' Thanks for treating us to the also-popular 'FDR (allegedly) did it.' Why not also try to hide behind George Washington? Surely he also must have sodomized some Royalists with chemical light-sticks, or raped female detainees.
"General Taguba's IG report made this very clear... that the Army policy was to operate by Geneva... by the book"
Really? His report is here (pdf). Tell us where you find support for the statement you made. In fact, Taguba found that multiple officers were guilty of "failing to ensure that Soldiers … knew and understood the protections afforded to detainees in the Geneva Convention." Taguba also recently said that "senior defense officials were involved in directing abusive interrogation policies." I guess it's time to swiftboat him.
The very current (6/25/07) and relevant update from Taguba is here.
The tune you're singing now is distinctly different from the one you were singing before ("please point to a single conservative post--just one").
"I found your example a poor one because the topic selected by EV encouraged that trope."
The fact that this loathsome remark happened to be on-topic doesn't mean that EV "encouraged" it, and it doesn't make the remark the slightest bit less loathsome.
"I will call them on it if I see it"
You are claiming to be universally intolerant of loathsome remarks, but in the same breath you're bending over backwards to make excuses for, and minimize the loathsomeness of, the one I cited.
"this is the second time he has used the oh, so clever 'Uncle Thomas' slur against Justice Thomas--which I argued the first time he used it was an example of liberal racism"
Either I can't find your post you're talking about (even though I've looked pretty carefully), or you don't understand the difference between making an assertion and making an argument. What you said here is the former, not the latter. On the other hand, Herbison defended his claim with an actual argument, here (in a different thread).
"if your point is that conservatives will sometimes offensive things on this blog, you are right--and I acknowledge it"
Your earlier statement was an attempt to do anything but that. You only "acknowledge it" after I repeatedly hit you in the head with a 2x4.
"If you want me to retract that one sentence from my second post on the subject, I will."
That's a nice offer, but it would be much more impressive if you had not presented it as a last resort after discovering that your disingenuous, repeated tap-dancing (here and here) had failed.
"can you acknowledge that Herbison's comments were offensive"
No.
Thanks for the very clear thinking and writing that went into your post.
I completely agree, and the key word is "unsupported."
"Herbison’s condemnation of Rehnquist, et al, … jumps to moral conclusions"
Herbison expressed moral conclusions, but I don't think he "jumps" to them. It's true that he didn't bother to elucidate his reasoning (in his original post), but I think even a slight glance at his track record shows that he's ready and willing to do so.
"I think it sinks even lower when it resorts to mockery … mockery sets its own very low tone"
Mockery has a place. In my opinion, mockery, like "attacks on the person, his character and his motives," is a problem only when unsupported.
"It does, after all, question his motives for raising the on topic/off topic distinction."
Indeed.
"For all you know, Dave isn’t sure himself why one comment offends him so much more than the other."
I appreciate your very thorough, deliberate (and civil) analysis on this point.
In my opinion, you're giving Dave too much credit. It's very often hard to tell if someone is being dumb or dishonest (or both), but I think a careful review of the relevant posts points more toward the latter. This has a lot to do with his ostensible obtuseness in resisting what I patiently explained multiple times.
"Herbison … has since embarked on his own backpedaling"
In my opinion, what appears here is purely argument and explanation, without a trace of backpedaling.
"Herbison’s original flame … [consists] only of insults unredeemed by even the slightest attempt to argue a point"
In my opinion, insults are fine as long as the insulter is willing and able to justify them. Obviously, the original short remark didn't bother to include that justification, but I think the justification was implied, and I think Herbison has shown (in this thread and elsewhere) that, when challenged, he is willing to defend his claims with argumentation and fact. Unlike the classic trollish insulter, who cuts and runs, when challenged.
"by that measure, Dave is at least partially right, however wobbly his reasoning"
I think Dave would be wholly right (to complain about Herbison's remark) if Herbison dropped a bomb and scrammed (or ignored counterarguments, which amounts to the same thing). That's a troll. But that's not Herbison's track record, as far as I can tell, in this thread or elsewhere.
"I’ll bet there are plenty of examples on this site of Conservative incivility as bad as John Herbison’s"
Dave expressly claimed otherwise ("please point to a single conservative post--just one"), and put up a great deal of resistance when challenged on that claim. That's been my key point, in this subtopic.
"his comment was certainly worse than the example you offered"
I disagree. Herbison named eight people and insulted them. In my opinion, the insult is earned. True, in his short remark he didn't explain why, but the explanation was implied, and also explicitly available in various places from him and others, like here. Here's something "certainly worse" than this: suggesting that the 60-70% of the country that is anti-Bush are traitors, and that this is something we should not "allow," and that the appropriate response is to suspend civil rights.
If there are "many sources" then it's hard to understand why the three you cited say almost nothing.
"do you think today's CIA actions represent a clear departure from these historical precedents"
Yes, since you haven't presented anything remotely resembling evidence of torture or abuse, under FDR. I would be surprised if none happened, but it's striking to note how lame your "proof" is.
"I read Taguba's report in January 2004... and you read it 4 months later when the CNN marketing programmers got ahold of those sensational photographs"
Really? "January 2004?" That's quite stunning, since Taguba wasn't appointed until 1/31/04 (pdf, p. 6):
And he didn't finish the report until early March (p. 14):
The report was originally classified (for reasons that were never explained). It wasn't leaked to the public until 5/04.
Thanks for the laugh.
"the evil Cheney got in, because 63,000,000 people said so"
Everyone is entitled to a few mistakes. Grownups learn from their mistakes, take responsibility, and move on. Other folks tell tall tales to promote the idea that the mistake wasn't really a mistake.
By the way, the correct number is 62, not 63. That was less than 51% of the total vote, and a 2.46% advantage over Kerry. A stunning victory margin. Mandate!
And here are the number of times Bush's approval rating has ever exceeded 50% on any major poll, subsequent to 3/05: zero. So his mandate was not just large: it was durable.
It's certainly wrong to despise them. It's also wrong to call on them to give up more of their humanity than the job actually requires. Just like it's wrong for us to look the other way while their leaders behave like thugs. When we do so we disgrace and abandon the vast majority of soldiers who are honorable.
I agree with everything you say in your above post, but find it incredible that you don't think Herbison's post was out-of-line for this blog.
Who's gotten more flak on this thread?
Jurists=Politicians
Condemning to Hell=Unkind Remarks
Dante's 'Comedia Divina'--Book One:
'Il Scorteseo'(Exerpt)
And I found that Hell was an unpleasant place;
Not unlike Yougstown, Ohio in the 1980s.
The lost souls were kind of rude and crude.
Virgil said: Not the kind of place
you want to bring the kids for vacation, eh?
Wishing people to hell is indeed an unkind remark, rarely meant literally ("to hell with you"); if it were meant literally, it would still be an unkind remark.
I admire the Dante parody nonetheless.
You seem to know my motives better than I do--accusing me of disingenuousness. What I was guilty of is hyperbole. Twice in this thread. I acknowledge that but you still cast aspersions at my motives. You refuse to acknowledge that I was not the only commentator who thought Herbison was out of line.
But you showed your true motives (which assuredly was not civility) by saying you agreed with him.
I will not post further on this thread, so you can have the self-righteous last word if that is what you want.
Right on target re jukey, who also snivels about the veracity of quotes that he can not prove weren't said by Hillary or Orwell, so he is implying that he knows a fact not evidenced. Hillary's quote, "We are the president!" was instantly reported following the subpoena, and a quick search provides lots of hits commenting on her statement. And the Orwell quote is found -- guess where? -- under "George Orwell Quotes."
Finally, re my comment, For the good of humanity, Islam must be destroyed, I stand by that assertion, and I reject jukeboy's mendacious insinuation that my statement equates with condoning mass murder. It is the religion of Islam that must be destroyed. Islam is a religion, got it?
As Cato would certainly have said, "Islam delenda est!!"
And look what happened to Carthage. So Muslims might be worried about your intended methods, despite what you've just written.
And since I'm the one who first raised the pseudo-Orwell issue: WHERE did he write this quote? It won't do to find it in a list of quotes. Give me a citation. I've read a big pile of Orwell, and have never encountered the quote, which is well-known for being a quote-that-is-not-a-quote.
Trying to box me in there, are ya? Well, nice try.
Let me turn things around for you. Since I got the Orwell quote from a site called George Orwell Quotes, then it's up to you to prove he didn't say it or write it. Good luck with that.
And:
This fits in with your stated desire to put unspoken words into the mouths of others, and to deny the quotes of others because you want to presume they never said the words.
As posted above, the religion of Islam is the problem -- whether it's located in a sand kingdom, in Bali, or in the UK. It is dominated by bloodthirsty Imams, who issue murderous fatwas against innocent people, and not one Islamist in ten million -- literally -- will publicly repudiate their fellow nail-bomb enablers. Getting a single Imam to renounce Islamic violence and mass murder is harder than getting Nancy Pelosi to renounce William Jefferson's corruption.
Besides, I don't give a damn about whether or not Muzzies are worried about my putative 'intended methods.' You're welcome to do the worrying about them for both of us.
If it's on a website, then it must be true. They don't let you print just anything on the internet.