Bush Collapses
Now here’s a headline. George W. Bush has “caved in” to the proposed ban on torture. Says the Friday Los Angeles Times:
"After resisting for months, President Bush caved in to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Thursday and said he would accept a formal ban on the cruel or inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody anywhere in the world.
The agreement represented a rare policy reversal for Bush on his signature issue: his leadership in the battle against terrorism. It followed an unusual rebuke of the president from lawmakers in his own Republican Party, who largely fell in line behind McCain, a former Vietnam prisoner of war and torture survivor with unassailable authority on the subject."
I suppose after this cave-in, almost any miracle is possible. Just imagine the wigged-out possibilities:
“Bush Capitulates to Reason”
“President Surrenders to Peace”
“White House Folds to Democracy”
“Prez Cedes to Civil Liberties”
Lame joking aside, this submission by Bush is significant. Even if the McCain torture ban is flawed, still leaving open the possibility of rendering prisoners to foreign sadists and manglers, it’s a step forward. Or better said, backward. The ban halts the forward momentum in barbaric law-breaking (and leg-breaking) that this administration has endorsed and promoted – to our national shame.
Now comes one of those great Hitler-Stalin Pact moments that make partisan politics so damn entertaining. In the late 1930’s the Communist Left had to leap through acrobatic hoops, wildly flip-flopping on appeasing or opposing the Nazis in order to stay in perfect lockstep with Soviet foreign policy. Now Conservative Republicans who only yesterday were justifying torture in perfect lockstep with GW Bush are going to be doing some back flipping of their own. Or are they?
December 16th, 2005 at 6:49 am
I support our President, but I don’t wait to learn his position before I determine mine. Republicans are typically individualists who make up their own minds and later come together in a party with similar interests. Republicans generally adopt new positions only with new information that is accurate and rational and do so with much thought–not because of “marching orders.”
Democrats, on the other hand, are the ones who flip-flop and do double-back-twists after they learn their party’s positions (usually, we’re against whatever the other side says) and read the talking points of the day through their MSM–Mangled Stories Media. Democrats are the ones who don’t think for themselves as much as they follow their herd instincts and are prone to supporting the party no matter how rediculous or inconsistent the message.
Other than in cases of political pressure for support, many will be disappointed that the Republicans won’t fall all over themselves to change positions just because the President might. Democrats only predict that Republicans will take certain actions because that’s what the Democrats would do in a similar position. Don’t make the error of confusing the two. Republicans think as individuals and Democrats don’t think at all.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:59 am
P.S. I’m still on my mind-numbing cold medicine, but the message above wasn’t affected by it, as those thoughts are consistent with previous expressions on this issue by me. I just wanted to beat you to the punch before anyone declared otherwise.
December 16th, 2005 at 8:10 am
“Republicans think as individuals and Democrats don’t think at all.”
How is this not an ad hominem? Mind-numbing? You bet. Talk about lockstep. You guys are mindless droids. Individuals? Ha! That is funny. Why is that that one republican sounds identical to another? The exact same language and talking points on every website and newspaper column?
I’m sorry, if this idiot is allowed to insult everyone continually expect others to return fire. What a crock of vomit.
December 16th, 2005 at 9:04 am
“I’m still on my mind-numbing cold medicine”
We couldn’t tell…
You forgot to mention that Democrats smell like doggie poop.
December 16th, 2005 at 9:13 am
You also forgot to mention that we eat babies in satanic rituals.
Christ, Woody reading you is like reading the RNC talking points.
December 16th, 2005 at 9:21 am
“You also forgot to mention that we eat babies in satanic rituals.”
Dammit, Randy, you were supposed to keep that secret.
December 16th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Randy,
Thanks for finally admitting the truth.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:03 am
John Moore,
Ha! You should try my right-winger risotto or my filet of John Bircher in basil sauce.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:08 am
“Republicans think as individuals…”
Or they just take money from the highest bidder:
http://tinyurl.com/9uuzm
(And I always thought the Cato guys were the PRINCIPLED conservatives.)
December 16th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Don’t forget the part about hiding behind trees and drinking blood. That’s from the “Protocols of Al Gore” a Reganbook.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Okay, you dog-poop smelling baby eating satan worshipers, I went to google and typed in “Republicans individualists” without the quotes. Here’s what the early entries say:
1. Republicans are individualists and believe the purpose of government is to protect and empower citizens, not run their lives or affairs. http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=27711
2. Democrats tend to appeal to collectivists, and Republicans to individualists. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/ft-9-27-04b.html
3. The individualists tend to be conservative Republicans and Libertarians. …The individualists are not only outnumbered politically, but are also vastly outnumbered in the media, in public schools and in higher education. http://radio.weblogs.com/0100740/stories/2002/03/12/whyTheSocialistsWillWin.html
4. Republicans tend to be individualists; Democrats tend to be collectivists. http://www.natenichols.net/mt/archives/2005/06/rosen_061005.html
If I or others sound like Republican talking points, it’s only because we came to the same conclusions–but (an important but) did so independently.
You could see the independent streak of Republicans when Bush nominated Miers to the Supreme Court–and he was forced to ask her to withdraw because the Republicans didn’t follow “lock step” behind him. When Republican politicians voted for billions in waste, like those bridges in Alaska and FEMA funds for deadbeats (as opposed to those who really need them), huge numbers of individualists made their individual voices of protest heard.
To remind you, Marc asked: “Now Conservative Republicans who only yesterday were justifying torture in perfect lockstep with GW Bush are going to be doing some back flipping of their own. Or are they?”
Well, that assumes that I, for one, justified the torture before, but the bigger issue is whether Republicans blindly support whatever the President says. I don’t and never have, and other Republicans act individually as well. When the situation is reversed, however, the Democrats find any position comfortable as long as it follows their collective goal of power and socialism.
December 16th, 2005 at 10:48 am
reg,
I continued to be appalled at how many writers do not see the inherent conflict of interest between independent journalism and receiving payment for placing an article. This behavior puts a blot on the integrity of the profession of jouralism itself if readers cannot trust the independent judgment of the author.
Ferrara, who has been an influential conservative voice on Social Security reform, among other issues, says he doesn’t see a conflict of interest in taking undisclosed money to write op-ed pieces because his columns never violated his ideological principles. “It’s a matter of general support,” Ferrara says. “These are my views, and if you want to support them, then that’s good.”
This is plain willful blindness and self-deception. Nothing’s changed since Biblical times; bribery still blinds the recipient. Withholding disclosure from the reader (not to mention one’s editor) is plain deception. Prostitution and love don’t mix.
“If somebody pinned me down and said, ‘Do you think this is wrong or unethical?’ I’d say no,” says Tom Giovanetti, president of the Institute for Policy Innovation. Giovanetti says critics are applying a “naive purity standard” to the op-ed business. “I have a sense that there are a lot of people at think tanks who have similar arrangements.”
Traditional values at work?
*************************************
As an independent freelance journalist, I’ve been approached in the past by people from PR firms to “place an article” on a topic of interest to their client. My response has always been the same: 1) I first would have to personally believe in the accuracy and newsworthiness of what I write; and 2) I would fully disclose the financial arrangements to my editor (telling my caller parenthetically that the chances of my editor accepting the article under these circumstances would rival that of the proverbial snowball in Hell). The callers always drop the topic quickly, and I never hear from them again.
*************************************
This BusinessWeek story really distressed me. If the electorate loses all confidence in the integrity of what they read, tyranny is close at hand.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:02 am
CT wrote: “If the electorate loses all confidence in the integrity of what they read….”
It’ too late, CT. But, it doesn’t require money for journalists to lose independence. They will deceive and slant news to further their social aims along with the people who support them–or, they will tear down their opponents.
I just looked at the link that Marc provided to the LA Times at the top. Here it is again: http://www.latimes.com/ . Go look at it before it changes and look at the first two articles. The first one says in large, bold type “Sen. McCain Held All the Cards, So Bush Folded.” Okay, look for another entry, which is further down and smaller. It is titled “Millions Drawn to Iraq Polls.”
Is that the importance and order that would be placed on those stories by an independent, impartial editor–or, more likley, are these stories in the order and size that they are because the press, controlled by the left, wants to discredit the President and avoid giving proper recognition to his accomplished goals? It certainly seems to me that the success of the election in Iraq is vastely more important than an agreement on treatment of enemies.
So, the LA Times, as conservative as some would like you to believe, shows its liberal slant again, and all the Democrats read this and actually believe that the lead story is the most important. Republicans know better.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Example of consistant Republican
http://tinyurl.com/88bvj
NOW:
“Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott and his wife sued State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. to force the insurer to pay for damage to their house in Pascagoula on the Gulf of Mexico, which was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.”
- Wall Street Journal, 12/16/05
THEN:
“The Democrats seem to think that the answer is a lawsuit. Sue everybody.”
- Sen. Trent Lott, 7/20/01
“I’m among many Mississippi citizens who believe tort reform is needed.”
- Sen. Trent Lott, 5/8/02
“If their answer to everything is more lawsuits, then yes, that’s a problem, because I certainly don’t support that.”
- Sen. Trent Lott, 8/2/02
“It’s sue, sue, sue… That’s not the answer.”
- Sen. Trent Lott, 8/4/01
December 16th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Naturally they don’t like the negative findings. This is why left wingnuts rely on a web of lies, innuendo and rumors to spin their skeptical of the truth rosy tales of democracy. Only one problem: they’re false as usual.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Woody -
I’ve never voted for a Republican and may, in fact, never do so. Some Republicans curdle my blood, others almost do. However, I can’t picture myself ever proclaiming anything to the effect that Democats think as individuals and Republicans don’t think at all. Not because I think the opposite is true. Simply because, having spent a few years as an adult sentient being on this planet I know that nothing is remotely that simple and that life would not be worth living if anything were that simple.
I can’t understand what satisfaction you get out of making statements like that.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:50 am
“Republicans think as individuals and Democrats don’t think at all.”
Seriously, is the highest level of debate and discourse we can aim for on this blog? Sort of, my team rules, your team sucks? Woody, you are getting to be a broken record but unfortunately even more boring.
December 16th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Woody,
Democrats think for themselves. It’s just that they all have exactly the same form of collective instanity. That’s why they say the same dumb things.
Randy, it will have to be the Bircher – am on the Atkins diet.
December 16th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Boring reply to boring criticism:
Ah, yes. Michael Balter. I remember you from months ago in which your best retort was that I’m boring. You haven’t changed. Let me suggest that you just skip what I write to save your time reading my comments, your time to criticize me, and my time to reply. What’s boring is that you can’t come up with any better discussion point and have established no position of intellectual superiority.
If you and evets only got out of my commentary the one sentence that you and he referenced, then you can’t see what’s below the surface–and, it doesn’t take a lot of digging and certainly much less than an archeological one.
There was more said than just that, but you know full well that that one sentence was not meant to be taken literally for everyone. I don’t “get satisfaction” from such statements. I’m just relating my observations. Also, brief comments as these are not meant to explain and take into account all complexities of life. I make my points, then you can disagree and explain why or ignore them.
This is the point. Where’s yours? Stay on topic.
My point was that Marc shouldn’t expect great reversals of Republican sentiments just because of this clarification of rules for prisoner treatment. Republicans follow their intellect, their consciences, and their spiritual guidance–not the LA Times or political opportunists wanting to use them.
My response was a direct answer to Marc’s question. Do you not have thoughts or anything to say about the topic?
December 16th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
“shouldn’t expect great reversals of Republican sentiments just because of this clarification of rules for prisoner treatment”
Um, except for the whopping Bushie reversal that’s the raison d’etre of Marc’s posting here. Ah, wait, hear that sound? “flip….. flop… flip”. Pancakes? Fish-fry? Flip-flops on cold tile House floors? What could it be?
December 16th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
On the issue, I am disappointed in the president. The 9-11 commission showed how legal “firewalls” kept vital information from preventing the attack. The defenders of the McCain amendment have stated their hope that our interrogators will knowingly violate the law if they think the information to be gained is critical enough (but the FBI people were unwilling to violate the firewalls even though they had good reason to believe that Al Qaeda was planning mass casualty attacks by crashing airplanes into buildings.
But life isn’t that simple – the interrogators might have good reason to believe so, but not get useful information. In that case, they go to jail. A change of administrations could lead them to prosecution. The net result: we will be denied critical information for defending our innocent citizens, because we are too squeamish to even us mild and proven techniques. KSM was broken by waterboarding. No more – the next high ranking Al Qaeda will just shut up – knowing his interrogator won’t have the courage to do anything useful.
And I’m not talking about the horrible tortures that McCain suffered, but methods we use on our own troops for training, such as waterboarding. If we are so timid and stupid as to be not even be able to use these techniques on terrorists in a “ticking time bomb” situation, then we deserve the next terrorist attack. This is the sort of behavior the terrorists are counting on, and they have said so numerous times. They think we are too weak to wage effective warfare. It looks like they are being proven right.
Geez – you’d think we are at war with teletubbies rather than an organization that claims it has a dispensation from God to kill 4,000,000 innocent Americans, and a serious intent and eventually probable ability to do so.
It’s a really strange world: we have the legal right to shoot these people (illegal combatants) with no trial or reason, but we can’t interrogate them using techniques that our own troops routinely are subjected to. I guess that rather than waterboarding these butchers, we will have to hand them to tender mercies of the Jordanians or the Egyptians.
I expect such nonsense from the narcissistic John McCain – he can usually be counted on to do whatever will earn him plaudits from the main stream media. But Bush backing down is a terrible disappointment.
It is apparently going to take an even more violent attack than 911 before many Americans realize that the bad guys play for keeps and will target all of us.
Hmmm…. I know of no law or international treaty that prevents us from beheading them…
December 16th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
John Moore…you’ve almost got it right with “Democrats think for themselves. It’s just that they all have exactly the same form of collective insanity. That’s why they say the same dumb things….”
Dems think for themselves (at least some do, occasionally). As a result, we can never come up with a single coherent message. Herding cats and all that. ; – )
Reg and Civil Truth….Good God what a truly appalling article. (Pleae go to reg’s link above.) File this under Just-When-You-Think-The-News-About-Journalistic-Standards-Can’t-Get-Worse… All this and that lovely twit of a girl at Time magazine, Vivica Novak.
In another “crushing defeat”—today, the Senate blocked renewal of the Patriot Act, not so they could junk it altogether, but so that the Senators might be forced to actually READ the f*cking thing this time before they voted on all its provisions.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
This is just stupid. Among other things we are prohibited from doing to terrorists captured what we do to our own troops in basic training.
“Torture” is breaking someone’s bones, violating their body, and other obvious stuff. It is NOT:
*Putting someone in a loud, cold place where they don’t sleep for over 26 hours (otherwise I was tortured when I stood up server after server in a data center; along with thousands of other dot-commers). Work 36 hours straight to get a deliverable out the door? Done that and it’s not torture. Not fun but not torture.
*Having someone yell at you face to face and force you into uncomfortable positions (which happens to every recruit in boot camp).
*Pyschological gamesmanship such as telling a terrorist that a personality tests “proves they are gay” and that “the other prisoners know about it.”
*Pee on a Koran. Or Piss Christ.
Marc what you are saying is that you’d rather be so morally pure and vain than to take reasonable steps above under US control to interrogate prisoners that stresses them in ways that are illegal under Criminal Law or the Geneva Convention but do not constitute any reasonable definition of torture. The idea that we can stop 9/11 by treating terrorism like an episode of Law and Order is just stupid.
You are OK with hundreds, thousands, perhaps millions of Americans dying because we cannot get information out of Khalid Sheik Mohammed or other Al Qaeda prisoners. For those in need of a refresher course, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his nephew Ramzi Yusef planned and carried out the 1993 WTC bombing, aimed at toppling one tower into the other and killing 50,000 people. Khalid Sheik Mohammed then sold his failed 1996 “Bojinka Plot” which involved assassinating the Pope, blowing 12 airliners out of the sky in the Pacific, and crashing a plane into Langley to bin Laden, who scaled it down into 9/11. These people are our enemies. They really hate us and think if they kill enough of us we’ll surrender to them and be their slaves. Clinton tried “law enforcement” and it got us 9/11. A nuclear version of 9/11 is too horrible to allow.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed did NOT talk until he was waterboarded (made to think he was drowning, hey like Ted Kennedy’s girlfriend Mary Jo Kopechne). Information he gave saved lives by aborting plots.
If you want Geneva Convention treatment for Al Qaeda prisoners then you are OK with the result: missed intelligence that could prevent attacks killing hundreds, thousands, and perhaps millions of Americans. You’d rather be morally vain and perfect than save potentially millions of lives.
At a time when Ahmadinejad threatens to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust happened (both common threads among Muslims, Malaysia’s Mahathir denies the Holocaust happened as well) and talks of “green rays” signifying he’s the 12 Imam as Iran probably already has nuclear weapons, this moral vanity is dangerous. It will get perhaps millions of Americans killed. And, inevitably, hundreds of millions of innocent people in Muslim lands killed as well with a strategic level response. This future is so horrible yet like August 1914 entirely preventable by reasonable measures under US control.
We have not had use (thankfully) since August 1945 of nuclear weapons. While Nixon was loathesome in many respects (and helped inflict Pinochet on Chile) he also was the founder of Detente and the SALT talks. We are now in a situation where an insane world leader is threatening not just to “finish Hitler’s job” as one Lebanese College student put it but to threaten us as well with nuclear attack (like Mao, Ahmadinejad figures his population will let him achieve “victory” in nuclear war).
I believe that limited, not-crossing the line, abusive yes and aggressive interrogation of Al Qaeda prisoners is warranted given the nuclear stakes. We can’t prevent Israel from being “wiped off the face of the planet” because Iran is determined to make that happen, banking on “winning” a nuclear exchange with Israel. We can prevent nuclear and other attacks on the US with limited but yes frankly abusive interrogation that does not cross the line into torture. Iran does not yet have missiles capable of reaching us and will have to smuggle stuff into the US.
We can conduct Able Danger type “spying on Americans” (Summer 2000; SOCOM Commander Gen Schoomaker tasks Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity unit, LIWA, to conduct data mining to find Al Qaeda cells, they do so by using a combination of classified and commercial data including stuff on American citizens and legal residents. They find Mohammed Atta, lead 9/11 hijacker and two others. Pentagon Lawyers shut down the program and purge the data because it was “spying on US citizens” and Bush does the same in Summer of 2001 when LIWA folks ask to re-start for the same civil liberties fears) because it will save American lives. The NSA revelations are part of the “lesson” that Bush learned … put American lives first over civil liberties abstractions.
9/11 could have been stopped had not Pentagon Lawyers let civil liberties concerns over-ride anti-terrorism efforts. We had found Mohammed Atta by “spying” on US citizens (basically, data mining the connections between worshippers at a well-known Brooklyn terror mosque associated with “Blind Sheik” terrorist). Yeah it’s “spying on US citizens.” It also would have saved over 3,000 US lives.
Make a choice: some limits on civil liberties to stop at worst nuclear attacks; or pure absolutism and lurching towards a nuclear conflict that will kill millions of us and hundreds of millions of innocents. Ironic that the dragon’s teeth are more dangerous than the dragon.
December 16th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Woody have you seen Michael Balter’s credentials? Now compare them to say, yours and Ropers. Who do you think is the more credible journalist? Give me a break. As for story selection, the Iraq election, what’s this the third?, with 375,000 candidates, is becoming a familiar event, and the last two changed nothing. I’m sure the torture amendment and Bush caving is something you’d like to forget or ignore but it’s still the top story. The election was yesterday. Copy editors write the headlines and editors place the stories.
December 16th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
This is not a cave-in, it’s a deal. Bush got what he and Cheney wanted, functional impunity for torturers: Now those accused of torturing can use the defense that they reasonably believed they were following a lawful order.
The Army Field Manual for interrogation has been rewritten with a classified section detailing permitted procedures. Do these new procedures amount to torture? We won’t know, because the revised section is classified. Unprecedented for a field manual, making oversight difficult to the point of meaninglessness.
The Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment which will accompany McCain’s on the defense spending bill will make it impossible to gain any more information about the innocence, status, or treatment of prisoners, because they will lose access to U.S. courts.
Also, according to Emily Bazelon at Slate, the Graham amendment will also allow the use of testimony obtained under torture before combatant status review tribunals, which the Bush administration has set up to determine whether a detainee is an enemy combatant.
All in all, I can’t view this as a victory for anyone but John McCain. His presidential prospects have been burnished, without any real change in the underlying reality. Bush may even get a bounce out it (though the NSA revelations should take the glow off that quickly).
But U.S. soldiers, CIA employees, and “contractors” will continue to torture persons taken into U.S. custody. The erosion of command responsibility will continue.
December 16th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
I’m curious how Woody or Roper would square the rah rah rah cheerleader coverage of CNN on the elections in Iraq with their belief that there is a conspiracy of leftist controlling CNN?
December 16th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Jim Rockford you’ve managed to produce one of the more vile posts I’ve yet to see– comparing torture to standing voluntarily in a server room is really beyond the pale. You can only be this cavalier by willingly evading what torture is.
Your defintion is wrong and allows you to trivialize. Try the World Medical Association Declaration: “torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.”
The Center for Victims of Torture has the following to say:
- Torture is a crime against humanity; as a strategic tool of repression, it is the single most effective weapon against democracy.
- Torture is rarely used to extract information from someone.
- Torture is a low-technology enterprise, mostly carried out through beatings.
- It is a fundamental human right to live without fear of torture.
Jim, do you honestly think that once given the official authority to torture that it will stay within limited boundaries? That it will not become more and more widespread and more and more depraved? What in your experience of government or people or power leads you to believe this kind of power can be contained. We limit governmental power and we limit things like torture because we know unequivocally that these things are abused by people who are given that power.
You conflate “aggressive” interrogation with torture; a very dangerous thing to do.
Also, all the usual arguments come into play. How do we know the people captured even have information? How do we know torture works and yields useful information? How can we trust the information thus gained? And so on.
The ticking time bomb example is useful to illustrate only itself. Certainly most people would agree that there are cirmcumstances where physical torture could be justified in an imminent emergency to stop an attack, but this case hardly suffices as a principle by which we can generalize across the whole spectrum. That ploy is rhetorically slippery. If you honsetly think torture can be justified as official US policy, you need something stronger than that.
You can only be so blithe about this by defining torture down, but torture is a far worse thing than you think it is.
December 16th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
Back when I had a job as county officer in charge of the budgets for various agencies, some headed by Republicans and others by Democrats, I was required to treat everyone the same, apply the same laws and principles to all, etc. Since we were dealing with money, and me often telling people we weren’t going to pay for the new pencils they claimed to need, I experienced a wide range of emotional response from Democrats and Republicans. I was known to be a Democrat, designee of the elected Democratic officeholder.
I came to the conclusion that the biggest difference between Dems and Repubs was personality-based, not ideology-based. The Rs were relatively disciplined and did not question orders. If I said a purchase order had to be yellow copy on top, salmon copy underneath, the people from the R agencies figured there must be a good reason.
The Dems tended to want to think it out themselves, and if they came to a different conclusion, the agency would put salmon on top, etc. Without question, the Rs were easier to deal with. By the same token, as one might guess, the Rs were a little more prone to listen when it was explained to them that they could buy pencils this year, but not the fancy ones with erasers and all. The Ds tended to threaten to get court order, or if the agency was a court, to assign contempt without further ado.
As for Woody’s claim that Rs think for themselves, Ds don’t….I really don’t believe that is even close to the truth. Rs are followers…Ds follow their own drummers. No doubt.
December 16th, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Dan O
You seem to think that if we have limited and specific criteria for torture, we will magically degenerate to the level of fascist and communist states, torturing all over the place.
That is just nonsense. If we were prone to that, don’t you think we would already be doing it? The best way to end up with excessive torture is for us to fail to stop some sort of massively hideous Al Qaeda strike on us. Then the civil liberties crowd would simply be ignored, as the populace became enraged and demanded that the government take drastic action to prevent it from happening again.
The best way to massively lose civil liberties is to suffer from a monstrous Al Qaeda attack. We are in a war, and yet we have done nothing to civil liberties compared to previous wars. That could change overnight terrible events happened.
This law (unless there are, hopefully loopholse) is going to make operatives afraid to use useful techniques – ones which are not even close to what McCain experienced – for fear of prosecution and having their lives ruined. This is exactly what happened with the ticking time bomb of Zacarias Moussaoui. It also happened with the ticking time bombs discovered by Able Danger (assuming reports are correct).
As for the nonsense that torture rarely works… well, that’s just bull. Perhaps torture carried out by sadistic elements in a regime rarely produces useful information, but stressful interrogations (which, with the wrong people bringing charges, would be called torture and lead to prosecutions) do work.
Furthermore, torture of the sort I would never condone works. That is one of the things I learned in SERE school: 80% of the Vietnam POWs broke under torture. We weren’t just trained to resist torture – we were trained to live with the consequences of breaking under torture.
The statement you cite is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, but useful to mislead:
“- Torture is a crime against humanity; as a strategic tool of repression, it is the single most effective weapon against democracy.
- Torture is rarely used to extract information from someone.
- Torture is a low-technology enterprise, mostly carried out through beatings.
- It is a fundamental human right to live without fear of torture.”
Since we do not plan to use it as a strategic tool of repression, we don’t plan to use beatings, and we don’t plan to use it indiscriminantly, three of those four reasons are obvioously irrelevant. Who cares how torture is “usually” or “mostly” done – what we care about is what *we* would do, under the circumstances described.
As to it torture rarely yielding useful information… do you think that the those of us advocating the legality of its use (in rare and tightly defined circumstancces) want someone out there doing it for fun? This particular canard, that it doesn’t work, is one of the silliest, but most common, in spite of lots of evidence that it does. It doesn’t work perfectly (do you know of anything in counter-intelligence that does?); it may yield bad information (same comment); but it does work and has worked in the war on terror.
If we have to humiliate a mass murderer a bit, or even cause him some fear, in order to prevent more mass murder, then we should not feel soiled by having to do so. Only those with confused moral compasses would prefer the deaths of thousands to the short term discomfort or fear of a known terrorist.
Finally, we see the slippery slope argument – if we allow it for this case, pretty soon we will be torturing school kids to see if their claim is right that the dog ate their homework.
Yeah, right.
You bring up the ticking time bomb isue, and then imply that we are using that to justify torture in a much wider context. No, the ticking time bomb is brought up to point out the utter insanity of banning torture in all circumstances.
Hardly the same thing – there is a huge difference. Those who support the original torture ban have said, when confronted with the “ticking time bomb” issue – that they would hope that the agents would, in that case, torture anyway. In other words, they are supporting their ban by an assertion that responsible people who follow this law should, in that case, knowingly break the law (and somehow avoid the legal consequences). This is an absurd policy, and in reality simply exposes their inability to justify a total ban – because there IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A TOTAL BAN.
December 16th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Well said Michael Crosby. The R’s are followers pure and simple. Much more belief-based than than reasoned.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
I am so gratified that one of the wingnuts got Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Mary Jo Kopechne in the same sentence. I’m in awe and I’ve decided that the only response is total submission. You fruitcakes are right about anything that pleases you. I’m a complete idiot, reduced to babbling in the face of towering genius. The arguments – about anything – are over. Thank you Jesus for this redemption and deliverance.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
This doesn’t matter>/strong>
Sgt. York wrote: “Woody have you seen Michael Balter’s credentials? Now compare them to say, yours and Ropers. Who do you think is the more credible journalist?”
Mark, in his field Balter is probably a decent writer. In my field, I do fair. (Not boasting because I didn’t ask for it, but a national accounting magazine published a smart-ass letter of mine as an article in October. You probably all saw it.) However, Balter didn’t carry his hidden journalistic skills into his response to me. He has to do better than “you’re boring.” Well, hell yes I’m boring. I’m an accountant. But, my statements weren’t inaccurate, (to me), and Balter’s responses so far have been empty phrases. Also, Marc Cooper is known to write well, but that doesn’t keep me or Roper from disagreeing with him–and with us probably being right. One other thing. I saw Balter’s picture and he needs to comb his hair.
More to the points
steve, CNN is NOT a cheerleader for the President and for progress in Iraq. Maybe Bush has some secret illegal tapes of Anderson Cooper auditioning for Brokeback Mountain.
—–
Michael Crosby, I see what you mean from your experiences–but, adherene to written rules and obedience to authority is closer to being independent thinkers and decision makers vs. being a free-spirit in defiance to those situtations. In the cases that you provided, the Republicans acted appropriately with information that they thought through. The Democrats acted emotionally and were unable to grasp the necessity for order.
Last Sunday my kids wanted me to go slumming and shopping with them in the “hippie” section of town. One thing that I noted was that all the left-wing individualists all looked, dressed, and talked alike and all had similar tatoos and piercings (ouch). These non-conformists were conforming to each other. Most were too spaced out or stupid to think beyond the next slogan found on bumper stickers. So, what do they do? They follow–not think. That doesn’t mean that ALL are that way. But, I believe that in politics masses of Democrats are merely followers and not independent, critical thinkers.
——-
Many here sure seem more concerned about taking care of our enemies than in progress in Iraq.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
John:
In fact you ARE generalizing from a specific case, an emergency, to all cases. You seem to be saying that if torture can be condoned in one or two or some cases, then it ought to be official policy. But why? Can’t reasonable people see a ban, or a right, as having limits? We do it all the time with free speech, murder, and so forth. This is hardly controversial. It is the specific extreme emergency that ought to be an exception to the rule. I agree: categorical imperatives are prone to problems, especially in extreme cases, but still our official policy ought to be a prohibition even if a rare and extreme case can justify some instances of torture.
And yes, that is precisely my point, that this genie cannot be contained, that it will degenerate at least to some unacceptable level. Power accretes and expands, that’s why we limit it.
You talk a lot about what we plan to do. That’s exactly my worry. I submit that the reality will look nothing like our “plans.” The practice of torture will appeal to the sadism of some individuals and thus get worse in degree. It will appeal to others as an effective policy of defense and deterrence and thus expand in scope. It will appeal as a general use tool for gathering information and also expand in scope. It may very well begin to appeal as a tool of repression in areas we think we need to pacify. The term “brutalize” refers to the perpetrator and not the victim for a reason.
You guys don’t trust the government to levy taxes; you’re going to trust them to employ torture in a limited and careful way? Really?
And in no way is opposition to torture mutually exclusive from aggressively going after Al Qeada. How much damage did Abu Ghraib do to the US and any goodwill we might have? I suspect it’s generated terrible animosity and distrust.
I honestly thought the conservatives would get this one.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
In fact John, as an addendum to what I just said, I would argue that the best way to make sure torture does not get out of control is to put the prohibition in place and design penalties. Then you can be damn sure that an individual agent that engages in torture is sure it is necessary to meet an imminent need that cannot otherwise be met.
We might be able to have some mitigation based on factors that we can delineate. This would have the effect of reinforcing the gravity and hoped for rarity of torture, rather than the opposite.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Darn it reg, I went through all of Rockford and Moore posts and was thinking, “can’t wait til reg fires back.” (You guys are getting off easy tonight).
I’m actually quite releaved that Rove finally allowed the President to support McCain’s measure. I think the editor of this site rightly showed how there’s some serious shortcomings in the bill. However, in my view, this whole debate actually has less to do with the actual use or non-use of torture and interrogation in itself, than in projecting a post-Abu Ghraib corrective to Europe and our allies. The first quote of McCain in today’s NYT was exactly along these lines. The rest of the world is still profoundly pissed off that the Administration and the Pentagon hasn’t done squat, save the for imprisonment of a handful of enlistees. So amen to McCain and legislators who finally shamed President Cheney and Bush.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
…ah President Bush and Cheney. Freudian slip.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
“Last Sunday my kids wanted me to go slumming and shopping with them in the “hippie†section of town. One thing that I noted was that all the left-wing individualists all looked, dressed, and talked alike and all had similar tatoos and piercings (ouch).”
Believe it or not we have redneck bars in Oakland and I went into one last night and say all of these guys dressed alike, talking alike and with similiar tattoos. I had a pretty good time, because the whiskey was good and there’s nothing better than George Jones on a jukebox (even Sinatra considered him the “second best singer in America” – no doubt giving Ray Charles his due) but when I left I thought a lot about the experience (because I’m a thoughtful person) and I drew a whole bunch of conclusions about the intellectual limitatioins of Republicans. More on this later, after I’ve cleaned the the little skinny guy’s vomit off my best pair of shoes.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
“saw” not “say”…
December 16th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
“can’t wait til reg fires back.â€
Because of my irrational hatred for all things Bush, I’m siding with the wingnuts against the sorry little shit. Why ban torture when the Bible tells us to every thing there is a season ? Plus, I don’t want to surrender the inner peace I’m feeling right now.
December 16th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Things you couldn’t learn by reading Editor & Publisher: “Maybe Bush has some secret illegal tapes of Anderson Cooper auditioning for Brokeback Mountain.”
My understanding is that these tapes do, in fact, exist and that when Bush saw them his reaction was, “That’s an awfully weird way to clear brush on your ranch.” But then we’re dealing with a guy who thinks “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” is a home improvement video.
As for torture, sometimes it’s the only way to make them say, “I’m sorry!” Think of it as a cleansing ritual. Anyone who thinks we can get bad guys to talk with the Comfy Pillow has been watching too many Monty Python reruns. I’m sick of Patrick Fitzgerald with his candy-ass subpoenas. It’s time to take Dick Cheney into a back alley and get to the bottom of how the hell we got stuck in this mess in the first place. If he likes it, we cast him in Return to Brokeback Mountain. Did I mention Mary Jo Kopechne ? Wait a minute…I hear something ticking…
December 16th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
Yeah a national magazine converted a letter to the editor into an article. Un huh sure they did. You just keep thinkin Butch that’s what you’re good at. In your room that is.
December 16th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Damn…John Spencer died.
When pondering issues such as the above, one could do a whole lot worse (as certain usual suspects have shown us rather dramatically) than try to imagine what “Leo McGarry” would have to say about it.
December 16th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Damn fellas (and Rosedog of course – with a gentlemanly bow to Celeste) Marc posts an article, with typical Marc aplomb and verve (and wrongheadedness of course) and Woody comments, John comments etc. And rather than discuss Marc’s article, you jump all over Woody and John.
Now, tell me again that all you guy’s don’t think alike.
Oh, and reg, I’ve been to one of them honkey tonks in Houston, the whiskey was good, the air smokey, the women-they all got better looking at closing time. There were hats and boots aplenty and more than a few tattoo’s and most of them were democrats
So, as the wise man once said, all generalizations are false, including this one.
December 16th, 2005 at 7:35 pm
The people were democrats that is, not the tattoos: just in case I needed to explain that to York.
December 16th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
Completely, totally and unreservedly off topic In Praise Of A Democrat In fact, I’d be willing to bet that not many here will read it because I’m a knuckle dragging conservative. Oh well. William Proxmire, 1915-2005 Requiescat In Pace.
December 16th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
Proxmire was a unique figure…one of the great midwestern progressives in a tradition that goes back to LaFollette…I was going to say he will be missed, but hell…he’s been missed since the day he left the Senate.
December 16th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
I wonder if the realpolitik of the situation was that the pentagon budget approval would have been delayed without the McCain demand being heard
December 16th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
The problem with McCain’s bill is its ambiguity; it doesn’t mention a “minor†detail–the “black sites†where captives are tortured. So is he saying that it is permissible for prisoners to be tortured by foreign governments at these black sites in the name of U.S. DEMOCRACY? In another words—torture is ok– as long as we contract the job out to a foreign government. Is that called washing our hands of the whole affair?
December 16th, 2005 at 10:31 pm
A timely reminder for those who think that the only victims of torture are us suitcase nuke carrying ‘turrists’.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Here’s a direct link to the video.
December 16th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
Eleanore, you seem to be one of those folks who believe that a democracy will magically survive even if it gives its enemies every possible benefit of that democracy.
Our enemies believe (and have long believed and stated) that our civil liberties absolutism will allow them to defeat us. Many on this board tend to confirm that viewpoint.
Dan O – no, I am not generalizing to all possibilities. I am saying that the bill does not allow for the “ticking time bomb” situation. Do you think it should? I certianly do.
Of course, I think it should go much farther, because often you don’t know the time bomb even exists without intelligence you may get from the *limited* “torture” techniques that are SO HORRIBLE that we routinely use them on our own tropps (including myself in SERE school, as I’ve said before).
If we are such a weak and timorous people that we cannot bear to fight using even well justified and relatively mild tactics like waterboarding, it will take another 9-11 squared to wake us up.
As has been mentioned in this thread, when that happens, all hell will break loose. I’d bet those on this discussion who are absolutely against torture, and who survive that attack, wille ven be calling for the government to use whatever is necessary to stop any more of those attacks.
In other words, this posturing about “torture” is simply out of context. It fails to recognize the xistence and nature of the danger we face. It fails to distinguish between the sorts of vicious torture engaged in by totalitarians and the mild forms of “torture” a couple of us advocate. It fails to distinguish between normal citizens and Islamofascist foreigners. It fails to make the fundamental recognition of the Geneva Convention on warfare: that those who do not obey the convention – for example, intentionally attack innocents and not wear uniforms of clear identifying marks – are specifically not only not given protection under the convention, but are intended to be killed or seriously punished without normal judicial process, as a deterrent to others who would engage in those actions. It reats the Geneva Convention on Torture as if it applies to military boot camp, and as if it was handed down from God on a stone.
In other words, the arguments are more suitable for a college debating class than a world where we are in real peril.
Finally, how many of those protesting the “torture” here actively protested the torture routinely exercised by the USSR? How many recognize that we have put a stop to Saddam’s routine use of torture on a vast scale, an d have cheered the fact? How many are protesting the torture, degradation and lack of respect for human rights of Fidel Castro towards dissidents? How many here are bloody hypocrits on the subject? A show of hands please?
December 17th, 2005 at 12:10 am
Don’t forget the torture by Jimmy Carter–to our entire nation for four years and counting. At least he “beat the ass” of Ted Kennedy (see http://www.cosmicbaseball.com/kopechn7.html ).
I thought this was ironic. While shopping in the loser district, we went to what I referred to in my younger days as “the commie pub.” It is well known for its radical bulletin board and partrons. No sooner had I sat down, then the piped in music started playing Lee Greenwood’s “Proud to be an American.” (True story.) It was a cosmic experience.
Hey, if we could torture U.S. officials, it wouldn’t have taken four years to find that the missing Rose Law Firm records were in Hillary’s kitchen all that time–and, maybe John Kerry would have actually signed Form 180 and released his military medical records. Let’s do it! The Republicans always eventually reveal the truth anyway, while Democrats continually get passes–so this works in the Republican’s favor.
Elenore kjellberg might be correct about torture possibly occurring in “black sites” in other nations. Thank goodness there’s a loophole in McCains’s bill.
Now, I’m on my night time cold medicine. I hope it doesn’t affect me.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:07 am
Woody says:
“I saw Balter’s picture and he needs to comb his hair.”
You don’t comb your hair on Lanzarote, where that pic was taken, you let it down. Maybe another diff between Ds and Rs? (although I am neither)
December 17th, 2005 at 2:20 am
I’m just reading this thread now and am ignoring the politics and going for the humor—which, as it turns out, is a hell of a lot more enlightening AND fun. A few examples:
WOODY: “…He has to do better than “you’re boring.†Well, hell yes I’m boring. I’m an accountant….One other thing. I saw Balter’s picture and he needs to comb his hair.”
[note to Michael, your hair looks fine]
REG [re: Anderson Cooper....secret tapes...Brokeback Moutain audition]:
“My understanding is that these tapes do, in fact, exist and that when Bush saw them his reaction was, “That’s an awfully weird way to clear brush on your ranch.†But then we’re dealing with a guy who thinks “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre†is a home improvement video…”
******
Unfortunately all laughs stopped when I read reg’s post that John Spenser died. A genuinely lovely man. Friends of mine have acted with him.
And what are we [and the West Wing] possibly going to do without Leo?
December 17th, 2005 at 6:04 am
You know Roper someone as fat-headed as you would say that sort of thing. We comment on John and Woody’s insults, at least I do because that’s what they are: personal insults. I went to Gilley’s Club back in the day when I lived in Houston, but I don’t recall determining the political affiliation of the clientele. You must be psychic since pseudoscience is your specialty.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:10 am
“Don’t forget the torture by Jimmy Carter”
Right, nutball. The evidence for ths must be hilarious.
“While shopping in the loser district.”
And the winners are? Because if it’s your Republican friends we can’t tell for the wining and moaning coming from the victors. Well you haven’t all been sentnced, yet.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Woody, so any evidence that there are leftists criticising the ‘elections’ in Iraq? I don’t see Phyllis Bennis or Chomsky or UFPJ, etc. on CNN. I’d say Anderson Cooper and Nic Robertson fall into the cheerleading for the elections mode pretty well. And the former generals/military consultants featured as ‘experts’ on CNN do a good job of that too. Maybe Lou Dobbs is a leftist?
December 17th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Incidentaly Woody, regarding your post of 12/16 – 10:35am where you googled “Republicans and individualist”….
I just googled “Democrats & Doggie Poop” and came up with the following:
Dirty rotten Democrat Pooper!!! …
forums.windrivers.com/archive/index.php/t-62888.html
Basic Moral Values Interpreted as “Extremism”
Do Liberals/Democrats/Whomevers not see the absurdity of rubbing this statement in peoples’ faces like so much doggie poop that people just can’t stand it. …
forums.dealofday.com/Basic_Moral_Values_Interpreted_as_Extremism-t-150947.html
” Democrats are Sexy! Through the chronicles of history, Democrats have always been sexier people ”
http://www.cafepress.com/shop/democrat/browse/store/wannamakeout/458957
I rest my case, although I’m not sure what it was…
December 17th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Woody, I’m impressed with the small number of amateur websites that support your contention that Republicans think as individualists, while Democrats do not. I am surprised that you didn’t throw in “Girls with big tits for Republicans.com ” for good measure.
December 17th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
December 16th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
Here’s a direct link to the video.
Abbas,
I viewed this video–these were not prisons they were more like concentration camps.
Call me naïve or an idealist but torturing prisoners is a form of SADISM. Sadistic treatment of captives does not benefit our society. Political prisoners will often give false information to end their torture. Inmates in prisons become resentful and angry. Eventually they are released, and it is not surprising that many want to vent their rage. There is no justification for torture, it does not accomplish anything—it only degrades those who practice it. Unless of course we have a clandestine department in our government that enjoys this particular fetish; I think the guys who are advocating torture have been watching too many Terminator movies. Actually watching those movies were torture!
December 17th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why George Bush violated the law, admitted it in a national speech, and vowed to continue doing so. So far, it appears nobody is willing to address this question. Are you guys all afraid to address that issue? Are you having too much fun beating up on Bush to consider whether it is reasonable or not?
Of course, it may be that because FISA *does not apply to conversations to … foreign countries* that perhaps, just maybe, maybe, maybe…
the only law broken was the leaking of classified material.
Oh, and isn’t it interesting that the New York Times held off a year before publishing. Doesn’t that mean that the venerated grey lady of the left allowed (gasp) civil rilghts to be vioated for an extra year? Aren’t you guys going to raise hell with the Times for this unforgivable lapse in protecting our civil rights?
And isn’t it interesting that nobody from the intelligence committees of congress (both parties were briefed from the beginning on this programming) saw fit to stop it? Do they know something the left doesn’t know? Nah… I figure that they all have some little pecadillos that the NSA unconvered and is holding against them. Yeah… that’s the explanation.
The FISA court, btw, was informed of the operation. The only concern of the judge was if the data gathered by this program might lead to tainted evidence later used in a court proceeding. I guess she doesn’t know FISA law well enough to know a blatant violation when she sees one… right? Oh, that’s right, the NSA is holding some secret failing against her so she can only approve of the program or the jack boots will come out, drag her in front of a TV camera, and the NSA will play a tape of whatever naughty thing she did…
………………………….
Mark, your replacement brain is starting to come unglued and is leaking out your ears. You need to have Marc re-install it.
Personal insults? Only if you insist.
December 17th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Eleanor, you managed to tempt me one more time.
Torture is only sadism if the torturer derives pleasure from it (or maybe the torturee?).
Torture (or really, stressful but non-damaging interrogation techniques like waterboarding) works just fine. That’s why it *is* used for extracting informatino. KSM gave a whole lot of useful information about Al Qaeda after 150 seconds of waterboarding.
I watched a person completely crack under more serious torture (beating) in the Navy SERE school where I was trained in resisting and surviving torture. Oh, and our instructors told us it worked and that we shouldn’t have our morale destroyed if *we* broke. Then they demonstrated it to us on us. Today, that same school uses (gasp) waterboarding. I guess our sailors deserve to be tortured, but not terrorists actively working on killing thousands of innocent people. Is that YOUR value system?
BTW, do YOU, Eleanor, have answers to my questions about Bush’s motivation? Do I have to poll each commenter individually to get any answers?
December 17th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
John,
You stated that torture is only sadism if the torturer derives pleasure from it. I can’t speak for those that have been recruited by the government for this specific task. Although I will say, that a number of pedophiles are teaching at pre-schools. I don’t know what attracts people to certain professions; you’ll have to ask Dr. Phil.
To answer your other question regarding the Bush and the NSA—the NSA has never been subject to any explicit limitations on its operations. While the CIA had been created by statutes that had intended, however unsuccessfully, to put limits on its activities, the NSA has never been subject to a similar embarrassment. It had been created by EXECUTIVE fiat, and was regarded as too secret to require or to need statutes to back it up. Its enormous capabilities have been developed and operated without any substantial congressional authorization; its budget appropriation has been carefully camouflaged within the huge Defense Department budget, and because of its super-secret status it has, until now, enjoyed isolation from controversy that the CIA might envy. At the same time, it has been able to fall back on a statute-P L. 86-39-that exempts the NSA from disclosure laws, including the Freedom of Information Act.
December 18th, 2005 at 5:45 am
Here’s “Voice of the White House” on the (latest) torture revelations and related matters:
* * * * * *
TBR News.org – December 16, 2005
“Faced with a de facto revolt in Congress, Bush caved in the McCain plan to ban maltreatment of prisoners of war in American hands. Mark this, Bush was mad as hell and will do everything in his power to sabotage any such agreement. The President is a small minded, mean and vindictive man whose word means nothing and who has the character of a snapping turtle. The idea for torturing the Iraqi, and other, captives originated with Bush himself, not the obvious choice, Cheney the Sadist. Bush actually enjoys the suffering of others. Now, torture has been going on, especially in the CIA, for decades. What these assholes did in Vietnam is as bad as anything Stalin or Hitler did but, of course, no one will dare talk about it and frankly, the CIA has nothing but contempt for the American people and their leaders. We know here that the MI6 in England was fully aware that CIA flights carrying their prisoners to a safe place outside the US to torture them were using Britain as a transit point to Hell. The Brits are reasonably civilized, certainly far more so than the giggling perverts at Langley, and their public is becoming increasingly restive over the torture and other issues. It would not surprise anyone on Embassy Row here if Bush’s lap dog, Blair, got booted out, leaving Bush with only the butt sucking Poles who would let him open up Auschwitz for the torture of Arabs. There is a story, no doubt untrue, that when the Polish Ambassador was visiting the White House, he heard the foul-mouthed Bush shout, “shit!” at the top of his lungs. True to form, the Ambassador dropped his pants and fawningly said, “Where, Sir? In the corner?” Bush will promise anything to anyone…and then never produce. This is partially because his memory is totally shot for medical reasons but also because George W. Bush is a lying, treacherous creature who surrounds himself with similar low-lifes, dead-beats and moral lepers and thinks the world owes him a living. What he is owed by the rest of the normal world cannot be repeated in print.”
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2033.htm
December 18th, 2005 at 7:41 am
“Personal insults? Only if you insist.”
As you wish fat, bald and stupid one.
December 18th, 2005 at 10:07 am
David Cummings, those web sites that I provided covering Republican individualists were simply the first ones that came up. They were not screened or selected for any purpose other than to demonstrate that the observation is not unique to me. The site you suggested, “Girls with big tits for Republicans.com,” would unlikely exist, as girls with those assets don’t have to be thinkers or rely on brains.
December 18th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Right, it’s simply those of your ideology repeating the same view on individualism which proves our point nicely. I recommend a logic class.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Eleanor, the NSA is in fact limited by several statutes, including FISA.
Here’s another one…
“Under Section 502 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the heads of all U.S. spy agencies are obligated to furnish “any information or material concerning intelligence activities . . . which is requested by either of the intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities.”
As you must know by now, those committees were indeed briefed about the activities which have raised such a kerfuffle.
While the budget appropriation is hidden (i.e. the amount of the budget is classified, for good reason), the NSA is most certainly funded by congressional bills, as is the gigantic NRO, the existence of which was classified until the ’90s.
Also, the Posse Comitatus act would most likely limit the use of NSA (i.e. military) intercepts in actual prosecutions.
You may not like it, but intelligence and counterintelligence clearly requires secrecy, with minimal disclosures. Hence the existence of congressional committees which meet in secret, and the secrecy of the FISC.
NSA’s job is to gather intelligence by technical means, and to design codes. They do lots of this in secrecy, since the very revelation of their methods or targets disables their abilities.
But the Terrorist Protection Forces in the US are bound and determined to hobble the NSA, just as the Church Commission destroyed the CIA’s covert action and intelligence gathering capabilities.
There is a balance that needs to be struck between civil liberties and national security. There is nothing new about this. But there are civil liberties absolutist who don’t understand this, and seem to believe that everything should be out in the open, and that Americans have no obligation to suffer the slightest invasion of their privacy (even in communications that they should expect to be intercepted by someone – if not us, then foreign powers).
Furthermore, there has been a tendency the last couple of years to attack the administration regardless of the potential harm this causes to our war effort and our security. I find that impulse to be beyond disgusting.
You should consider that your own privacy, unless you are planning on doing terrorism, is not threatened by the recently disclosed NSA activity at all. Beyond the legal reasons and the impulses and training of the personnel involved, NSA simply doesn’t have the resources to gather intelligence on people who are not threats.
By the way, you, like all other commenters are still refusing to answer my challenge on motivation.
Thus, it is clear you are not serious about this argument.
December 18th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
Well the motivation is to accuse anyone of anything on vague suspicions. It gives an appearance of doing something while still stumbling around in the dark. That about covers it.
December 18th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Abbas,
Abbas,
That news report from TBR was very clever; especially the part of about the Polish Ambassador wanting to shit on command—now that’s a lapdog for you. What I find particularly annoying about Bush is his arrogance and his cavalier attitude towards life lost in Iraq. Let me share with you guys an e-mail I sent some other people.
HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS
During this holiday season many people will be reunited with friends and family who have traveled a distance. They will meet and greet them at airports and eagerly anticipate their home coming. It will be a joyful reunion; something to look forward to. However, families waiting for soldiers who have died in Iraq will also be waiting for their loved ones arrival, however, they will be reunited with their relatives at the cargo terminal where UPS delivers freight. Instead of waving to their relatives at the arrival terminal, they with be looking at a conveyor belt waiting for a crate to slide off. What holiday message is the government sending to military families?
DEAD SOLDIERS SENT HOME IN THE LUGGAGE COMPARTMENT
The other day Bush admitted, that we invaded Iraq based on false information: “It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong,” “As president, I’m responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.” So what is he saying? Bush is stating that he was going to invade Iraq, NO MATTER WHAT! His decision was intractable, and it didn’t make a difference what the facts were, the invasion was inevitable. WE WERE GOING TO WAR REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES! An oil field is a terrible thing to waste and so is a soldier’s life. Two Thousand one hundred and fifty-two American soldiers have made the “ultimate sacrifice.†AND NOW THESE DEAD SOLDIERS ARE SENT HOME TO THEIR LOVED ONES IN LUGGAGE COMPARTMENTS AS FREIGHT. Is third class shipping the way our government honors the memory of dead soldiers? Treating the dead like bulk freight; as if soldiers are disposable objects to be used and discarded– is that what Bush means by the term ultimate sacrifice? Dead soldiers should not be hidden in cartons—what is the government afraid of? Mainstream media has been discouraged from showing flag draped coffins. Bush can’t talk like an arrogant bully, play Top Gun in a flight suit for a photo opportunity; and then be afraid to show the end result of his DECISCION—2,152 U.S. Military Deaths. DEAD SOLDIERS NEED TO BE HONORED; AND THAT MEANS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS FREIGHT AND DUMPED unceremoniously into COLD EMPTY CARGO HOLDS.
MILITARY FAMILIES DESERVE RESPECT
CHICAGO –After Gay and Fred Eisenhauer learned their son had been killed while serving in Iraq in May, the couple traveled to the cargo area at Lambert Airport in St. Louis to get his body.
Army Pfc. Wyatt Eisenhauer’s flag-draped coffin was delivered to his parents in a crate-filled area of the airport where workers on break sat nearby smoking cigarettes.
For Gay Eisenhauer, it was an impersonal place to meet her 26-year-old son on his final trip home.
“When we bring them home and we call them heroes, let’s treat them like heroes all the way and not pull them into a cargo section and bring them home to the family that way,” said Eisenhauer, of Pinckneyville, on Wednesday.
John Holley and his wife, Stacey, were stunned when they found out the body of their only child, Matthew John Holley, who died in Iraq last month, would be arriving at Lindbergh Field as freight.
Matthew was a medic with the 101st airborne unit and died on Nov. 15.
“When someone dies in combat, they need to give them due respect they deserve for (the) sacrifice they made,” said John Holley.
Parents should not have to beg the government to treat their children’s dead bodies with respect, after they gave their lives to fight Bush’s war in Iraq– a war that Bush admitted was based on false information. These war heroes, should be flying back home in military planes not in luggage holds. Their bodies should be in flagged draped coffins not in crates. RESPECT MUST BE SHOWN TOWARDS THE FAMILIES WHO LOST LOVED ONES FIGHTING IN IRAQ. If Bush really believes in the validity of this war then there should be NOT BE A NEED TO HIDE THE DEAD BODIES. What is Bush ashamed of? The ignominious treatment of dead soldier’s, reflects the overall total disregard of Bush’s administration towards the military, which is further demonstrated by their cavalier actions:
• Waging a bogus war based on misleading information
• Not supplying the military with sufficient equipment to prevent injury and death—A great deal of Guard equipment comprised of approximately 64,000 items valued at more than $1.2 billion, has either been destroyed or left in Iraq and the Army cannot account for over one half of it. One would think that the Department of Defense has knowledge however of what equipment has been deployed and that which needs replacement. But stunningly revealed in a Government Accountability Report in October 2005 at the request of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Army “does not have a complete accounting of these items or a plan to replace the equipment.â€
• Forcing soldiers in Iraq to do three or four tours of military duty
• Cutting military health benefits
• Not paying soldiers a living wage
• Using fraudulent recruitment tactics to entice possible enlistees
• Not ending the war in Iraq and redeploying the troops
WHY DO WE NEED AIR FORCE ONE–CAN’T BUSH AND HIS CRONIES TRAVEL 3rd CLASS IN UPS FREIGHT!
COME FLY WITH ME
Flying first class is never an issue for our congressmen—they get plenty of free plane trips from lobbyist who are only too eager to GREASE THEIR PALMS hoping for favors like lucrative military contracts. Defense contractor Brent Wilkes, is a case in point, he had ties to former Rep. Duke Cunningham, and also cultivated relationships with DeLay, Blunt and Hastert.
Hastert has have taken numerous undisclosed trips on Wilkes plane. DeLay flew frequently, and Majority Leader Roy Blunt ) reported flying on Wilkes’ plane as well.
And how about Tom Delays plane trips, how lucky can he get, his airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 when he was House Majority Whip, happened to be charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe. Delay’s expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland, were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham.
Isn’t it ironic that war heroes fly freight and crooks fly 1st class!
Are we are exporting this kind of democracy to Iraq?
December 18th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
“By the way, you, like all other commenters are still refusing to answer my challenge on motivation.
Thus, it is clear you are not serious about this argument.”
Why did he finally admit to this ? He was caught. Why does he deny it’s against the law ? Because he’s a fool and a liar. Why did he do it in the first place ? Because this gang holds rights and liberties in disregard. You appear serious about the argument, but not very serious about the nature of your arguments.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:20 pm
Reg,
Is Reg short for Regicide? I agree with you Bush and his gang are fools, liars and bullies. The sociological explanation for their disorder is called “Elite Deviance;†meaning that persons and organizations in a culture that possess the highest social status, and have the power to systematically exploit the powerless by economic domination, denial of human rights, and governmental control. This deviant behavior causes injury, devastation, huge monetary losses, and ultimately undermines public trust in political and economic institutions. Can it be that the CEOS running the oil companies and the politicians controlling our government are inflicted with this deviant behavior? Or to put it simply, maybe they are just a bunch of THUGS!
December 19th, 2005 at 6:32 am
And they think Democrats are for big government. Up is down baby.
December 20th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
L.A Times = Oh yeah? We’ll show you a conservative big-city paper! The Orange County Register has nothing on us.
January 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pm
The theory that Republicans want less government interference than Democrats applies only to the area of corporate greed and profits. When it comes to your sexual and reproductive life, it’s the Republicans who want to get under your sheets and control what you can and cannot do.
PS: Irrelevent but fun – I recommend taking a look at http://www.ddaze.com
May 23rd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
credit bureau report…
crews,Lenny.Orkney?notoriously Farnsworth.belongings.loader credit report http://www.bulk-credit-report.com/ …
July 29th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
ephedra extract ephedra extract
August 8th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
metabolife 356 metabolife 356
November 19th, 2006 at 9:27 am
cheap 3mp camera
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
http://wapurl.co.uk/?CJ8UTOI
good site
June 3rd, 2007 at 5:15 am
last minute flights to vegas…
One search to find cheap package holidays, late deals, flights, flight…
June 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Ben…
…