Let's time, from this moment, how long it takes to find an article where the Downing Street Memo is referred to as "Downingate."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at June 17, 2005 02:54 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentinghttp://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:h4tuyUiYPRcJ:annezook.com/+Downingate&hl=en&client=firefox-a
This is the only hit on Google for it. I suppose you'll be the second.
This is a good thing, actually since it signals the end of a cliche (albeit a useful cliche.) Now if we can just get everyone to stop calling anyone who disagrees with them Hitler we'll know that common sense is just around the corner.
Actually, the speculation I'm hearing is that from now on people may be starting to use "Street" as the new scandal suffix instead of "gate"...
Actually, I've often seen it referred to as "memogate".
Now you KNOW the people running the Watergate cringe every time gate is attached to some scandal. Which is ironic, because once the gate was attached, ya'd think there would be a way out...
You get slightly more hits if you double up the G: DowningGate.
Did we already have a "Memogate". I like that name better.
"Now if we can just get everyone to stop calling anyone who disagrees with them Hitler we'll know that common sense is just around the corner."
Except that Common Sense seems to have a good running start on many, many people....
I thought memogate was the "Osama determined to strike in the US" memo.
Ryuukuro wrote: "Now if we can just get everyone to stop calling anyone who disagrees with them Hitler we'll know that common sense is just around the corner."
Yeah, well that corner just keeps getting farther and farther away, it seems.
Just yesterday, minority whip Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) bizarrely compared U.S. military guards at Guantanamo Bay to guards in Nazi concentration camps, guards at the Soviet gulags, or Pol Pot's murderous thugs.
Is it just me, or does it seem that key Democratic leaders like Howard Dean, Durbin and a few others are going out of there way to alienate everyone except extreme leftists?
I'm ashamed now to admit I voted for Durbin, but I guarantee I won't ever make that mistake again.
"...a Senate speech Tuesday, Durbin raked Bush administration officials over the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. He read an account by an unnamed FBI agent of the alleged treatment of a prisoner who was "chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water." The prisoner, the agent said, had been subject to extremely hot and cold temperatures, and loud rap music."
"And then Durbin said this: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
R, Maheras,
Your point? Sounds just like something you'd expect at a Russian gulag or Nazi concentration camp to me.
-BBayliss
Set the clock.
Let's time, from this moment, how long it takes for Peter David to comment on the Downing Street Memo by saying BUSH SUCKS.
From reading the actual text of his words, I'd say Durbin is spot on. I don't think he's necessarily trying to appeal to anyone. He's trying to make the point that the tactics employed by US personnel in Guantanamo is completely abhorrent. Now if you disagree with that, that's your prerogative. I happen to agree with him.
Troll-Ray: I'll do it for him. Bush sucks.
Clock is off.
"Your point? Sounds just like something you'd expect at a Russian gulag or Nazi concentration camp to me."
Adolf Hitler - About 9 million dead in camps
Soviet gulags - About 2.7 million dead
Pol Pot - About 1.7 million dead
Gitmo - zero dead
Gitmo - five instances of Koran abuse by prison guards
Gitmo-15 instances of Koran abuse by prisoners.
By overstating the case people are making it a whole lot easier to ignore the actual abuses that have occured.
Perhaps I was not suffiantly generous with the gulags level of achievement. From the LAt Times editorial page, courtesy of Yale professor David Gelernte:
Ignorance of history destroys our judgment. Consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill), who just compared the Guantanamo Bay detention center to Stalin's gulag and to the death camps of Hitler and Pol Pot — an astonishing, obscene piece of ignorance. Between 15 million and 30 million people died from 1918 through 1956 in the prisons and labor camps of the Soviet gulag. Historian Robert Conquest gives some facts. A prisoner at the Kholodnaya Gora prison had to stuff his ears with bread before sleeping on account of the shrieks of women being interrogated. At the Kolyma in Siberia, inmates labored through 12-hour days in cheap canvas shoes, on almost no food, in temperatures that could go to minus-58. At one camp, 1,300 of 3,000 inmates died in one year...
At least Durbin has taken the heat off of Howard dean and made him look like a model of quiet sanity.
"Under Stalin an estimated 10 million were sentenced to forced labour in the camps (GULAGS) in the period between 1934 and 1947 alone. These prisoners were suspected of crimes against the State (anything from political dissidence to failure to co-operate with Stalin's collective program.)"
Sounds JUST like Gitmo to me.
Yeah because we would know if abuses were happening at Gitmo... oh, wait. I guess since travel to Cuba is severly restricted by the self-same government that runs Gitmo, we wouldn't would we? Unless Amnesty International says so... oh, wait THEY DID.
One e-mail from an unnamed FBI agent, and Durbin goes into Hyperbole Land?
The Red Cross has access to GITMO 24/7 at their discretion. About 1,000 journalists have visited GITMO to date, as have lawyers for the detainees, and nearly 100 members of Congress. This place is under a microscope.
Anyone, and I repeat anyone, who compares the soldiers at GITMO with those monsters Durbin cited, either has no knowledge of history, or they are so hateful of the current administration they have completely lost the ability to think for themselves.
R. Maheras:
Here's another comparison for you.
>One e-mail from an unnamed FBI agent, and Durbin goes into Hyperbole Land?
Ever heard of Deep Throat? He was in the news recently. He was an unnamed FBI agent too, ya know.
Bill, I think you're totally missing the point.
Sure, Gitmo isn't as bad as the gulags and the concentration camps...yet. The point is, the abuse carried out by the guards is what you'd expect from a gulag...and unless we do something now to stop it, it's going to continue. No deaths at Gitmo...that we know of. If these are the abuses that we know about, there must be know that are still successfully hidden.
Durbin didn't call Gitmo a gulag, but it sure is convienent to attack his message by twisting his words to say that. We should all take his warning for what it is, and demand action and accountability from our government without delay.
Or someday your list may look something like this:
Adolf Hitler - About 9 million dead in camps
Soviet gulags - About 2.7 million dead
Pol Pot - About 1.7 million dead
Gitmo - 500,000 died in "detention," never having been charged or convicted of anything
Gitmo - Total religious abuse and persecution
What the point is here is that ONE instance of abuse is one too many. Period. So, simply because the US hasn't engaged in the systematic torture and/or elimination of millions of people (leaving the 19th and early 20th centuries out of this discussion), doesn't make it OK for our representatives to have tortured one, five, three hundred thousand people. We are the United States of America, last I looked, and we should be better than that. PERIOD.
Did I miss the part where it said that every prisoner, every day, was put under these same conditions? Did I miss the part where this specific instance was put into some kind of context? Did I miss the part where someone showed how many thousands of prisoners have been worked to death at Gitmo? Because surely there's some evidence of gross, regular, indiscriminatory abuse at Gitmo, instead of perhaps the necessary application of targeted techniques and/or punishments specifically and measuredly applied by professionals operating under interogation guidelines established years ago by international conventions. This issue involves two separate problems that shoudl be addressed individually: 1) the reason these prisoners are being detained and 2) their treatment while being detained.
>interogation guidelines established years ago by international conventions.
Good God, man, don't EVEN go there. Gitmo is the prime example of what the Geneva Convention was trying to AVOID.
Knuckles sort of preemptively responded to me, as I didn't refresh while typing that in. Ironically, I will say I do agree that we have to be held to higher standard than other countries, but I would debate what's abuse and what's acceptable techniques to elicit a desired response, assuming that's a possible context of what Durbin's referencing.
Ok, I hate to come off like some kind of hardline SOB, but folks, international convention do not eliminate all forms uncomfortableness for those being interogated, and without knowing why this specific detainee was being treated this way, it's awfully hard to start making assumptions.
I'm not simply saying we need to be held to a higher standard, I'm also saying that WE need to hold ourselves to a higher standard.
And I apologize for the annoying use of capitals, but that's what happens when you can't use bold type.
First off, i wish it was called "Downinggate" because at least then it'd get more press. I hate that the so-called "liberal media" let's the administration get away with just ignoring it.
Secondly, we don't know if anyone has been killed at Guantanamo. And as Knuckles said so brilliantly, even one abuse is too many.
Let's not forget that everything is entangled with everything else, so when Rep. James Sensenbrenner uses his power to gavel down a hearing on the Patriot Act without observing rules of order or just stating he doesn't want to hear about abuses at Gitmo he's wrong.
The real solution for all these things is to inform your friends and vote! Let's get us to a paper trail and vote these idiots out of office!
Michael
Oh right... because nobody has been "worked to death" at Gitmo, only tortured by methods that any red-blooded free-thinking American would abhore, it's ok. Torture is ok as long as it's only a couple of people. Torture is just fine and dandy because we haven't killed as many people as Hitler or Stalin. In fact, I think that's the new Republican Mantra: "America! Not as bad as Stalin!"
Anyone who criticizes Durbin's words either didn't listen to them, or really does feel guilty about something. Durbin was absolutely spot on. If someone had read that FBI report to me and not told me where it was taking place, I would not have thought of America first. I would have thought of Nazis or Stalinists or something, but not America. That was the entire point of Durbin's speech. There was nothing "bizarre" about it.
To me, America is not about torture. It's a damn shame that so many Americans apparently disagree. But then, I've been reading the reports from our American prison camps, whether it be Gitmo or Iraq, and seeing the same thing Durbin did. These tactics are not American. They go against every ideal America stands for. If you are against torture, then stand with Durbin. If you actually like torture, then go ahead and criticize.
Jason, the Bush administration has explicity said that the Geneva conventions, which are intended to assure that prisoners are not abused by their captors (put another way, to make sure that captives are afforded the basic human rights the international community feels all people, including your enemies, are entitled to). Rumsfeld personally approves on a weekly (ok, maybe monthly) appropriate "stress techniques" that our "interrogation professionals" are allowed and sancitoned by our government to use...including piling captive, naked and bound, and then exposing them to pictures of naked women (which is a combition of things most muslims would consider to be torture).
Our government condones the use of torture on prisoners...and this isn't some mythical scenario where a nuclear missile is streaking to some US city, and we have hours to find out where it is. Or did I miss the part where some imminent, horrible threat is facing the US that could possible justify the use of torture on prisoners?
"what's abuse and what's acceptable techniques to elicit a desired response" this sentence highlights exactly WHY torture never works...because the interrogator tells the prisoner what they want to know. Expose someone to enough torture, and they'll tell you anything you want them to, just to get you to stop. But that doesn't mean that what they tell you is the truth, or accurate, or even useful. All it does is prove that you're willing to fall to sub-human levels to break another human being.
GITMO isn't a Watergate; it isn't Treblinka; it isn't a gulag, and it isn't Cambodia under Pol Pot. GITMO is probably more closely monitored and less dangerous to detainees on a daily basis than any normal maximum security prison anywhere in the world. And that isn't hyperbole.
"GITMO isn't a Watergate; it isn't Treblinka; it isn't a gulag, and it isn't Cambodia under Pol Pot. GITMO is probably more closely monitored and less dangerous to detainees on a daily basis than any normal maximum security prison anywhere in the world. And that isn't hyperbole."
The problem with that above statement (aside from comparing Watergate to Treblinka), is that it is disproven on a daily basis. And that isn't hyperbole.
R., all that may be absolutely true...
And yet it does not excuse for one instance the daily abuses of basic human rights that go on there, especially when those abuses are not only allowed by our government, but they are ordered.
Japanese concentration camps during WWII aside, the US used to be able to speak and act from a higher moral position, where equality and basic human rights actually meant something. This adminstration has taken that reputation and sullied it, maybe beyond recovery. Now, we're just another bully that talks a good talk about peace and tolerance, but when it comes down to it, we're just a bully, falling back on thuggisnenss when there's no one else around to check us.
Let's not forget that everything is entangled with everything else, so when Rep. James Sensenbrenner uses his power to gavel down a hearing on the Patriot Act without observing rules of order or just stating he doesn't want to hear about abuses at Gitmo he's wrong.
It's more than just that, Michael:
Mr. Sensenbrenner decided that he didn't like how the meeting was going and criticized the witnesses who came and gave their testimony to the committee. He then stood up and left (taking his gavel.)
As he was leaving the microphones were switched off while continued discussion was going on.
GITMO isn't a Watergate; it isn't Treblinka; it isn't a gulag, and it isn't Cambodia under Pol Pot. GITMO is probably more closely monitored and less dangerous to detainees on a daily basis than any normal maximum security prison anywhere in the world. And that isn't hyperbole.
Zimbardo prison experiment. If you aren't careful to avoid that, you're in danger of falling into it. And normal maximum security prisons are ALWAYS in danger of that because people ignore the lessons from that.
http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/6/10/54149/5115
Here's the fun link of the video of Sensenbrenner's meltdown.
Just to bring everyone up to speed....
Stanford Report, August 22, 2001
Thirty years later, Stanford Prison Experiment lives on
BY MEREDITH ALEXANDER
Thirty years ago, a group of young men were rounded up by Palo Alto police and dropped off at a new jail -- in the Stanford Psychology Department. Strip searched, sprayed for lice and locked up with chains around their ankles, the "prisoners" were part of an experiment to test people's reactions to power dynamics in social situations. Other college student volunteers -- the "guards" -- were given authority to dictate 24-hour-a-day rules. They were soon humiliating the "prisoners" in an effort to break their will.
Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment of August 1971 quickly became a classic. Using realistic methods, Zimbardo and others were able to create a prison atmosphere that transformed its participants. The young men who played prisoners and guards revealed how much circumstances can distort individual personalities -- and how anyone, when given complete control over others, can act like a monster.
"In a few days, the role dominated the person," Zimbardo -- now president-elect of the American Psychological Association -- recalled. "They became guards and prisoners." So disturbing was the transformation that Zimbardo ordered the experiment abruptly ended.
Its story, however, endures, achieving a level of recognition shared by few other psychological experiments.
"Japanese concentration camps during WWII aside..."
Forget ye not the German detention camps, Italian detention camps, forced relocation of American Indians, forcible (and illegal) seizure of Indian lands...Our moral high ground isn't very high at all. But that isn't the point. The point is that we, as Americans, should be striving every day to make those expectations a reality. And a huge part of that should be not excusing torture simply because "it's war." It's at times like this that it is absolutely necessary that we occupy the moral high ground. We've completely lost it around the world, and all the stupidass hijinks of morons like Sensenbrenner just make it worse. Let's hold ourselves accountable for our actions, before we start pointing the finger elsewhere.
To get somewhat back on track in this thread, I realized I had never read the actual memo. I went out and found a copy and present it here for further discussion.
SECRET AND STRICTLY
PERSONAL -- UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
(Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser)
From: Matthew Rycroft (Manning's aide)
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson (Cabinet secretary), John Scarlett (chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee), Francis Richards (head of the "signals intelligence establishment," an intelligence agency that reports to the foreign secretary), CDS(chief of defense staff, Adm. Sir Michael Boyce), C(Sir Richard Dearlove, the chief of the MI6 Secret Intelligence Service), Jonathan Powell (chief of staff), Sally Morgan (director of political and government relations), Alastair Campbell (head of strategy)
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC (Joint Intelligence Committee) assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary (Geoff Hoon) said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw) said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith) said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR (U.N. Security Council Resolution) 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
Page A - 20
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/17/MEMO.TMP
Bobb wrote: "And yet it does not excuse for one instance the daily abuses of basic human rights that go on there, especially when those abuses are not only allowed by our government, but they are ordered."
First of all, I dispute your phrase "daily abuses" of basic human rights. That sounds like Amnesty International blather. AI, in my opinion, is fast becoming the PETA of human rights abuses. For example, in its 2005 report, AI cites, along with the U.S., countries like Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, France and many other seemingly civilized nations, as hotbeds of human rights abuses. By some of AI's standards, a steelworker, logger, coal miner, fisherman, farmer or GI in Iraq are being abused just struggling through their normal, everyday jobs. AI should realize that not everyone has the luxury of working in temperature-controlled offices where the most hazardous threat is a paper cut or open file cabinet drawer.
Second, I agree that bonafide abuses in GITMO should not be tolerated. I never said otherwise.
As far as your bully argument goes, let's not ever forget who was first attacked here. We have every right to defend ourselves, and to take prudent steps to ensure we are not attacked again. We are dealing with an adversary who follows no rule of law whatsoever, and, if able to do so, would completely destroy us without a whit of remorse.
16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act
SECTION 3. Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements, . . . or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct . . . the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or . . . shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States . . . or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully . . . urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production . . . or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both....
First of all, I dispute your phrase "daily abuses" of basic human rights. That sounds like Amnesty International blather. AI, in my opinion, is fast becoming the PETA of human rights abuses. For example, in its 2005 report, AI cites, along with the U.S., countries like Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, France and many other seemingly civilized nations, as hotbeds of human rights abuses.
What are your sources as compared to Amnesty's sources. Seriously.
SnarkyJerk: WTF?? Are you insinuating that we are all treasonists?
Anyone who criticizes Durbin's words either didn't listen to them, or really does feel guilty about something.
Or, alternate aswer C, disagrees with you and thinks they were foolish in the extreme. I'm surprised this possibility did not occure to you.
Oh right... because nobody has been "worked to death" at Gitmo, only tortured by methods that any red-blooded free-thinking American would abhore, it's ok. Torture is ok as long as it's only a couple of people. Torture is just fine and dandy because we haven't killed as many people as Hitler or Stalin.
Google "Straw man argument" and see what you come up with. Generally not emplyed by those who are confident in their argument.
If you actually like torture, then go ahead and criticize.
Ah, so to disagree with Mr Durbin is to be pro-torture. I see.
Bobb,
Durbin didn't call Gitmo a gulag, but it sure is convienent to attack his message by twisting his words to say that.
Ok, here's his words:
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others —that had no concern for human beings.
I think you can argue that he is not calling Gitmo a gulag just that it is being run like a gulag...which is a subtle distinction but a distinction, I'll grant you.
I well remember the scene in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago where they subjected the prisoners to loud Christine Aguilera music, an atrocity that haunts us all to this day.
I'll say it again for the less careful readers out there: By overstating the case people are making it a whole lot easier to ignore the actual abuses that have occured. You can take from that the idea that I "like torture" or think that nothing wrong has occured at Gitmo...or whatever. Won't change reality, which is that Durbin has just made it harder to see justice done. Critics of Gitmo can now be more easily lumped in with the looney left where, sadly, some will feel well at home.
"16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act"
And the point is....?
This act was repealed in 1921. And besides which, if you're trying to suggest that it allows the use to hold prisoners at Gitmo or anywhere else, since they aren't US citizens, US law has no jurisdiction over them. So, even if the Espionage Act had not been repealed, it would not grant the US any legal authority to hold prisoners indefinitely.
R., defend ourselves, yes, even take forceful action to do so. What threat do the Gitmo detainees pose, that they need to be exposed to torture? And if there's some imminent danger that justifies the use of extreme measures, where's the reports of the foiled next 9/11? Of the 24-like plot that our use of torture revealed?
Simply because our enemy in this instance holds the lives of others in so little regard, must we also lower ourselves to their standards? And you say "prudent" measures. Seems that simply detaining them would be prudence enough...those detainees are not free to plot against us, make bombs, kill. We've already neutralized them.
I'm sorry, but those all sound like the words a cultured bully attempting to justify his use of barbaric means.
"Ah, so to disagree with Mr Durbin is to be pro-torture. I see."
Absolutely. Did you read what Senator Durbin actually said? Do you seriously think that the behavior described by the FBI agent is acceptable? If you answered "yes" to both questions, then you are undeniably pro-torture, and in my opinion, that makes you unAmerican to the extreme.
No Straw Man involved in this. It's a simple matter of whether or not you have any human decency at all. Anyone criticizing Durbin who actually paid enough attention to Durbin to understand what he said is clearly pro-torture.
"I'll say it again for the less careful readers out there: By overstating the case people are making it a whole lot easier to ignore the actual abuses that have occured. You can take from that the idea that I "like torture" or think that nothing wrong has occured at Gitmo...or whatever. Won't change reality, which is that Durbin has just made it harder to see justice done. Critics of Gitmo can now be more easily lumped in with the looney left where, sadly, some will feel well at home."
The real disconnect here is that you think he's overstating the case, and I do not think he is. What he said was not that it is being run like a gulag. What he said, verbatim, was:
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime—Pol Pot or others —that had no concern for human beings."
His reaction is one of disbelief. A reaction that says "This shouldn't happen in America. This doesn't happen in America. This happens in places like Saddam's Iraq, the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany. Not America." And now we are learning that the reality is something different. I don't think he was out of line at all.
Bill, I see your point. I don't necessarily agree.
How should Durbin have approached this? The "US troops are abusing some detainees" at Gitmo wasn't getting the point across. The longer this goes on, the longer the public allows the government to continue with this, the worse it will get. By injecting into the discussion the analogy of much worse historical situations, Durbin appears to be doing the responsible thing.
Sure, there will be those that will try to distract from the main concern by saying "how dare you compare this country to Nazi Germany!" And there will be those that lump Durbin in with the loonies. But there will also be an increasing number of people that recognize that response for what it is: distraction from the very real issue of abuse conducted by this administration on detainees.
Absolutely. Did you read what Senator Durbin actually said? Do you seriously think that the behavior described by the FBI agent is acceptable? If you answered "yes" to both questions, then you are undeniably pro-torture, and in my opinion, that makes you unAmerican to the extreme.
No Straw Man involved in this. It's a simple matter of whether or not you have any human decency at all. Anyone criticizing Durbin who actually paid enough attention to Durbin to understand what he said is clearly pro-torture.
Wow, now to disagree with Mr Durbin is also to be unAmerican. I thought it was the right wingers who were supposed to be tossing out that one for dissent. Well, there are crazies on both sides.
Of course, I DON'T agree that the behavior described by the FBI agent is acceptable, so I guess my citezenship is safe for one day more. Whew.
Here's what Ive been saying. Listen. By overstating the case people are making it a whole lot easier to ignore the actual abuses that have occured.
You can agree, you can disagree (as Bobb does, but at least he's smart enough to know just what it is he's disagreeing with!). But please spare me the outrage--if you think that it's ok for politicians to throw around comparisons to Nazi's and gulags and genocides, hey, that's your choice. But it's hard to take seriusly anyone who believes that to think otherwise makes them an UnAmerican lover of torture. Such rhetoric may wow them at 5th period lunch but it's not appropriate for grown up talk.
So, for arguments' sake, what circumstances and evidence of "immenent threat" to the United States would be necessary to allow interogators to seek information from detainees? Say if we had thousands and thousands of troops abroad that were under constant threat from terrorists? And if the government comes across such evidence, should the government immediately release it and its exact plans on how it intends to use it, thereby ensuring that our enemies can plan ahead, make sure the tea is hot, etc., for our troops when they get there?
And with Jason's latest entry, you have the poster child for the 'Straw Man' argument.
"But please spare me the outrage"
Sorry, no. Outrage is EXACTLY what is called for right now. People are being tortured in my name as an American. You better damn well bet I am outraged. It makes me ill to think that these atrocities are being committed in the name of freedom, when torture doesn't do anything at all positive.
If you aren't outraged, you are not paying attention.
Torture is as unAmerican as it gets. I choose to call a spade a spade. Apparently you want to wait until Bush actually does set up a death camp before criticizing him.
Jason, taking you literally, you're saying that by getting information from detainees that have been in prison for up to three years, we're going to be making our deployed troops more safe.
I'll give you some examples: there's a nuclear bomb somewhere in the US. It's going to detonate in 3 hours. Or 2 days. Heck, make it a week, or a month, even. I'd say that the imminent and real threat to millions of lives justifies a lot.
Or, there's a plan to hijack some planes, and fly them into skyscrapers. The plan's supposed to happen next week. That's pretty imminent.
Where do I suggest we do something that would put our troops are greater risk? If we're going to use torture, then there better be a compelling reason more specific than "national safety." And at the very least, there'd better be some results....we don't need to know about the plots they uncover and are in the process of stopping...but we should have some plots we've stopped that we can be told about now. And absent those kinds of results, there's nothing to support the imminent nature of any danger we face that would even come close to justifying the use of extreme measures.
Yeah, so the worst part about sharing an office with someone of a different political persuasion, they make you look up things when you disagree.
From the Geneva Conventions as posted at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
"PART III
CAPTIVITY
SECTION I BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY
ARTICLE 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.
If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand."
Yeah, so I'll just be enjoying this nice meal of crow over here now...
Knuckles wrote: "His reaction is one of disbelief. A reaction that says "This shouldn't happen in America. This doesn't happen in America. This happens in places like Saddam's Iraq, the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany. Not America." And now we are learning that the reality is something different. I don't think he was out of line at all."
As I pointed out, nearly 100 members of Congress have been to GITMO already, so when Durbin got this e-mail, why the hell didn't he just do the responsible thing and hop on a plane to GITMO and do his own investigating to find out if it was true? Instead, he went public without any investigation, which tells me this whole thing was a planned political move of some kind. And, as usual, as the political chess game unfolds, it's the U.S. military en masse -- people who are just trying to do their jobs under extraordinary conditions and scrutiny -- who get smeared.
That sounds like Amnesty International blather.
Yeah, instantly dismiss a reputable source because Bush wants to piss on them like our soldiers have pissed on copies of the Koran - without giving a damn about the consequences.
I'll give you some examples: there's a nuclear bomb somewhere in the US. It's going to detonate in 3 hours. Or 2 days. Heck, make it a week, or a month, even. I'd say that the imminent and real threat to millions of lives justifies a lot.
So what do we do? We torture the people we've had locked up for 3 years, without trial, and see if they know anything.
Yeah, that'll help prevent another 9/11!
R., you're right there. As we've seen, the only people that are going to suffer from this (other than the detainees themselves) are the poor enlisted folks that are only following orders. Rumsfeld signs the orders describing just what techniques are allowed...and some of those have resulted in the publicized abuses...yet he's almost as insulated as his boss.
Things like this won't stop until we make a change at the top.
You're right. Because it would be so easy for a member of Congress to fly down to a military installation in Cuba and just catch them in the act. Just like it was a piece of cake for all those members of Congress that toured Abu Ghraib prior to the leaking of the prisoner abuse images. "Curses! A member of Congress has infiltrated one of the most secure military installations in the world and discovered all of our secrets! We would have been fine, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!"
Sorry, that doesn't strike me as much of a solution at all. Any truth in a situation like that is going to come from whistleblowers ala Abu Ghraib.
Bobb:
All together now (well, except X-ray, I guess..)
BUSH SUCKS!!!
;-)
"Bobb:
All together now (well, except X-ray, I guess..)
BUSH SUCKS!!!
;-)"
Well, yeah, I thought it was kinda assumed that all my posts ended with that...I just leave it off to save key strokes.
The great thing about sharing an office with a person of the opposite political persuasion is the ability to get them to look up information when you disagree, and you're too lazy to do it yourself. And its even more fun when you're right, and they get to eat crow.
And, yeah. Bush Sucks.
Anyone criticizing Durbin who actually paid enough attention to Durbin to understand what he said is clearly pro-torture.Wow, now to disagree with Mr Durbin is also to be unAmerican.
Nice of you to make your own opportunity to minimize extremism on the right, Bill.
Knuckles wrote: "You're right. Because it would be so easy for a member of Congress to fly down to a military installation in Cuba and just catch them in the act. Just like it was a piece of cake for all those members of Congress that toured Abu Ghraib prior to the leaking of the prisoner abuse images. "
There were Congressional visits to Abu Ghraib prison prior to the events that led to the scandal? That's news to me. When were they?
GITMO, by contrast, is under a microscope. Nearly 100 members of Congress have visited; as have 1,000 media. The Red Cross has free run of the place, plus there's a ton on military scrutiny going on. And you obviously do not understand the power a member of Congress wields in a visitation situation.
And your inferences that the U.S. military guards are just sitting around waiting to torture people when the coast is clear is just plain insulting to military members in general.
R. Maheras:
According to many news sources (NY Times, BBC, ect.) the Red Cross HAS concluded (at the end of last year) that the U.S. has been intentionally using psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
"16 May, 1918
The U.S. Sedition Act"
And the point is....? "
My point has nothing to do with the legitimacy of Gitmo, but rather the legitimacy of Durbin. If there are problems with Gitmo-fine. If there is improper behavior-fine. But having a US Senator package legitimate qualms inside sensationalistic soundbytes does more to hurt and hinder than help.
Though the Sedition act was repealed, or allowed to expire, it's tenet of subversion and incitment rings true here.
Don't you people understand that AQ is taught to cry fowl at things that are considered minor at best just so Amnesty International and Time/Newsweek/whoever can fuel the anti-US machine? All Durbin is doing is playing into that. Regardless of what has occured prior, our enemies are watching us and our leaders must exercise restraint and intelligence in their actions. That's not censorship, that's not rejection, that's called "time and place."
"And your inferences that the U.S. military guards are just sitting around waiting to torture people when the coast is clear is just plain insulting to military members in general."
I'll be sure to tell my brother that (E-8, US Army). And I'm not inferring anything of the sort. What I am saying is that if a member of Congress is going to inspect anything, whether it be a US military installation or freaking Jonestown, they aren't going to be able to keep it a secret. And if they aren't going to be able to keep it a secret, that gives people time to clean things up.
Hell, if Durbin had gone down there and come back with a report of abuses, would you have believed him? I truly doubt it. Do I think that members of the US Military spend their every waking moment looking for the precise time to torture someone? No, I don't. And I inferred nothing of the sort. Do I think torture occurs at the hands of US personnel (both military AND civilian) in installations such as Guantanamo? Yes, I do. Some of it is deliberate, and I'd wager most of it is due to lack of training and overwork. However, that doesn't make it any less wrong.
BBayliss wrote: "According to many news sources (NY Times, BBC, ect.) the Red Cross HAS concluded (at the end of last year) that the U.S. has been intentionally using psychological and sometimes physical coercion "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."
And therein lies the rub. What constitutes torture? Smarter people than you or I wrestle with that argument every single day.
You, perhaps, might say that showing suggestive photos to a GITMO prisoner is torture because of the prisoner's religious beliefs. Yet, if someone suggested to you that it was torture for the government to force a pious pharmacist in the U.S. to dispense an abortion pill to a customer, would you feel the same way?
Food for thought.
RE: Posted by BBayliss at June 17, 2005 12:35 PM
"Stalin's "gulag" of harsh and inhumane conditions did not occur overnight. The American "gulag" is only in its infancy. Only time will determine if the numbers between the two gulags are comparable in harshness and being inhumane. "
From churchforsanctuary.com
Also, from your own quote, it took 13 years for Stalin to amass those numbers. Bush has only been at it a little over 2 years.
-----------------
As far as your bully argument goes, let's not ever forget who was first attacked here. We have every right to defend ourselves, and to take prudent steps to ensure we are not attacked again.
Yes, let's not forget who attacked. And it WASN'T Iraq, where an increasing number of detainees are coming from.
Don't you people understand that AQ is taught to cry fowl at things that are considered minor at best just so Amnesty International and Time/Newsweek/whoever can fuel the anti-US machine?
If the people claiming they were tortured are doing so because they are Al-Queda members (trained to 'disassemble'), why were they released?
"Though the Sedition act was repealed, or allowed to expire, it's tenet of subversion and incitment rings true here."
You know what's more likely to incite acts against our government? When our government condones and orders the abuse of prisoners in violation of international law and basic human rights.
Those tenants of the Sedition/Espionage act that limit free speech are viewed as some of the biggest violations of First Amendment rights ever ennacted by the government. Even during times of war, maybe especially during times of war, the public and elected officials of this country must be allowed to make statements like this, to question the acts our government takes. Especially now, when the only check on the morality of our actions is ourselves.
"Though the Sedition act was repealed, or allowed to expire,"
It was repealed, but only after sanity started to resurface.
>Yet, if someone suggested to you that it was torture for the government to force a pious pharmacist in the U.S. to dispense an abortion pill to a customer, would you feel the same way?
My parents are both pharmacists. What right do they have to inflict THEIR opinions on their customers?? NONE. And I'd argue that they'd back me up on that opinion. If a "pious" pharmacist has a problem dispensing a certain pill, I'd suggest it's time for that Pharmacist to start looking for another line of work.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at June 17, 2005 04:38 PM
Hey, Mikey, are you arguing AGAINST me? Cuz it sure seems like you are arguing my point for me. Thanks!
R. Maheras: My apologies about the Congressional visits to Abu Ghraib. I had them confused with visits from the Red Cross. My argument had to take a backseat to coding.
Jesus ... It is not WHAT is being said, but how.
"Even during times of war, maybe especially during times of war, the public and elected officials of this country must be allowed to make statements like this, to question the acts our government takes. Especially now, when the only check on the morality of our actions is ourselves."
Agreed. But there is a clear and present difference between "making statements" and "going for shock". What good has any of this done? Instead of bringing to light problems he used fear mongering via erroneous comparisons to get a soundbyte. For what? So people can get pissed off and we can get another round of useless, divisive bantering? In this case the bell was rattled through seditious speak; it was neither productive nor peacefully received. People are pissed off and skirting the real issue, hence ... seditious language.
And ...
"If the people claiming they were tortured are doing so because they are Al-Queda members (trained to 'disassemble'), why were they released?"
Gee, I don't know, why don't you ask Amnesty International. In lieu of that, though, knowing full well that reports of "torture" (which in this, as in MOST cases amount to non-violent means that would make frat. hazings laugh) are coached, accusations of more "abuse" should be handled a little more intelligently.
"going for shock".
"And then Durbin said this: "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
HOW in the HELL can you justify in your mind in saying the he is going for shock??
If I own a business, don't I have the right to sell what I want to sell (as long as it is legal), and not sell what I don't want to sell, for whatever reason?
If someone wishes to purchase something I don't sell, they can certainly go to one of my competitors.
Is there really a requirement for pharmacists to sell any and every available medicine? It seems to me that such a requirement might make an undue burden on some smaller pharmacies that don't have the warehouses to stock every conceivable medicine known to man (or woman).
A pious pharmacist would have the exact same right to inflict their opinions on the customer, as does a pious bookseller.
Comic bookstores don't have to sell Manga. (or anything of PAD's, if they're so disinclined. They might lose my business if they made that decision, but that's their decision.)
Computer stores can refuse to sell PCs, or refuse to sell Macs. They don't have to sell both.
And the list goes on.
"But please spare me the outrage"
Sorry, no. Outrage is EXACTLY what is called for right now. People are being tortured in my name as an American. You better damn well bet I am outraged. It makes me ill to think that these atrocities are being committed in the name of freedom, when torture doesn't do anything at all positive.
If you aren't outraged, you are not paying attention.
Torture is as unAmerican as it gets. I choose to call a spade a spade. Apparently you want to wait until Bush actually does set up a death camp before criticizing him.
Every time you come close to making a valid point you have to take it 10 steps too far and blow it. No wonder Durbin seems like such a moderate guy to you.
No, Laura, I've already critisized Bush on a number of issues, with nary a "death camp" in sight. The "outrage" I referred to was your feigned offense at my supposed support for terrorism, when what I have been saying, in words a marsupial could decipher, is that extremist over the top language like Durbins hurts the cause he espouses. You are free to disagree and if you could muster up the character to do so without resorting to calling your opponents unamerican supporters of torture you might even come out ahead. But if you prefer to substitute anger for logic, hey, it's a free country (and there, I gave you a nice setup--feel free to chime in with a pithy bon mot like "Yeah, until Bush declares martial law" or "Not it's not!" or "Right, that's what you pro-torture fascists WANT us to think!" or something).
Mike says:
Anyone criticizing Durbin who actually paid enough attention to Durbin to understand what he said is clearly pro-torture.
Wow, now to disagree with Mr Durbin is also to be unAmerican.
Nice of you to make your own opportunity to minimize extremism on the right, Bill.
Er...sorry, I'm missing your point. Actually, my comment about "now to disagree with Mr Durbin is also to be unAmerican." was in response to Laura's comment where she tossed out the phrase. Laura believes that to critisize Mr Durbin is to be absolutely pro-torture. She didn't pussyfoot around the sunbject, to her credit. I think that's a crazy position, as crazy as anyone saying to critisize the president is to be anti-american, pro-terrorist, whatever. Don't know how you got anything about extremism on the right out of this--we have no idea who the alleged torturer was or what his political affiliation was.
Personally, I think there should be a great deal of oversite on the conditions of Gitmo and torture should not be a part of our arsenal. Of course, we will disagree with the definition of torture--rap music, gimme a break. In some ways we have invited trouble--forcing guards to wear gloves when handling the Koran because our gentle captives think them unclean is practically an invitation for trouble (especially when these same guards witness some captives using the pages of their sacred text to stuff up the toilet).
None of which had anything to do with the fact that--in my opinion--Durbin has come across as an ass and because the Democrats can never do what the Republicans did to Trent Lott, he will continue to be a bleeding wound. Which is too bad because in this acse there was a valid issue. Too bad the wrong guy became the poster boy.
But at least the Republicans will get to have some fun, like at http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/06/from_the_desk_o.html
Mr. Hector Gutierrez
Gutierrez Bros. Landscaping
Arlington, VA
Dear Mr. Gutierrez:
Nothing could have prepared me for the shock that awaited as I exited the front door of my home early Wednesday morning, where I discovered that your lawn crew had cut a swath of environmental destruction across my yard so horrifying that it only can be compared to the Rape of Nanking. I can scarcely bring myself to describe the killing fields that are my North azalea beds and the brutal degradation and torture suffered by the bluegrass around the locust tree by the rear patio. I am writing to inform you that I have contacted the US Department of Interior to conduct a full independent investigation into Gutierrez Brothers' actions in this matter. Please be advised that you may be subpoenaed for records pertaining to mower height, pruning shear maintenance, and leaf blower emissions. I would also advise your crewmen to heed the lessons of the Judgement At Nurenburg: although they may be spared the justice due their superiors, "I was only following orders" is not an excuse.
Sincerely,
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Washington, DC
BBayliss wrote: "My parents are both pharmacists. What right do they have to inflict THEIR opinions on their customers?? NONE. And I'd argue that they'd back me up on that opinion. If a "pious" pharmacist has a problem dispensing a certain pill, I'd suggest it's time for that Pharmacist to start looking for another line of work."
Various methods of psychological "torture" affect different people in different ways, and some, not at all. Thus, only an individual can really decide what is torture to them -- the opinion of your parents doesn't matter, except in their own individual cases.
And one could just as easily argue that the customer can go elsewhere to buy their pill, and that there is no reason to "torture" the pharmacist by forcing them to either comply with dispensing or lose their livelihood over a pill that did not exist when they entered their career field.
"HOW in the HELL can you justify in your mind in saying the he is going for shock??"
Quite easily, actually. Have you, gee I don't know, looked at some of these comments, listened to the radio, or read a newspaper about this today? He made a sensationalistic statement, which by nature is intended to shock for the purpose of getting attention. I expect this kind of conduct from Michael Moore, not a US Senator.
Posted by John at June 17, 2005 05:17 PM
If I own a business, don't I have the right to sell what I want to sell (as long as it is legal), and not sell what I don't want to sell, for whatever reason?
You are viewing pharmacists as owners. Pharmacists are very rarely (in today's corporate world) the owners of the pharmacy.
As an owner, you are right, you DO have every right to sell/not sell whatever you want (within the law.)
As an EMPLOYEE (as most pharmacists are) you have NO RIGHT to dispense morality.
"I expect this kind of conduct from Michael Moore, not a US Senator."
!!! HAve you actually paid attention to senators lately? The only surprise..and not much of one...is that it's a sensationalistic statement coming from a Democrat rather than a Republican.
"Wait...they played rap music at Soviet Gulags?"
Just so long as they didn't play the Scorpions. Talk about violating the Geneva Convention...
Scavenger: That's because if the sensationalism comes from a Democrat, they are anti-American and helping the terrorists. If it comes from a Republican, they simply mis-spoke.
Here I am!
Rock you like a hurricane!
"Just so long as they didn't play the Scorpions."
I love Winds of Change, thank you very much.
But perhaps the gulag isn't the best place to rock like a huricane.
Of interest to the topic, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart did an expose' last night on the very topic of referencing Hitler and Nazis.
Quite easily, actually. Have you, gee I don't know, looked at some of these comments, listened to the radio, or read a newspaper about this today? He made a sensationalistic statement, which by nature is intended to shock for the purpose of getting attention. I expect this kind of conduct from Michael Moore, not a US Senator.
Man, I can't even BEGIN to discuss your point with you.
me: "How can you say he said it for shock value?"
you: "He said it for shock value because I say he said it for shock value."
That's your OPINION, not to be confused with the facts.
Or maybe, just maybe, he said it because he was frickin' shocked himself.
Just thinking outside the box.
Knuckles: Gotcha...
Ok to sum up: Torturing prisoners - not Nazi-like.
Letting Terri Schavo die---Nazi-Like.
Knowing is half the battle.
Knuckles wrote: "If it comes from a Republican, they simply mis-spoke."
Not in my opinion. These days, it seems there are "dumb waves" emanating from far too many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Now you've got it, Scavenger.
We fight for freedom (wherever there's trouble), you know. Unless we're being seditious, of course.
Posted by Scavenger at June 17, 2005 05:45 PM
Knuckles: Gotcha...
Ok to sum up: Torturing prisoners - not Nazi-like.
Letting Terri Schavo die---Nazi-Like.
Knowing is half the battle.
What in the hell are you talking about?
R: I won't argue with that. This time, I was purposefully engaging in the word of the day: hyperbole.
"Wait...they played rap music at Soviet Gulags?"
Yeah, Ice Cube just did a cover of Smelo, tovaritshi v' nogu Slavnoe More, Sviashchennyj Baikal ("With Duty And Perseverance We will Increase Our Tractor Output").
He was referring to this post:
"Scavenger: That's because if the sensationalism comes from a Democrat, they are anti-American and helping the terrorists. If it comes from a Republican, they simply mis-spoke."
and then paraphrasing some of the exchange between Laura and whomever it was that got all uppity about the "outrageous" language of Sen. Durbin.
Hey, he got Hannity all pissed off about it, so Durbin can't be ALL bad.
"These days, it seems there are "dumb waves" emanating from far too many members of Congress on both sides of the aisle."
Won't get an argument from me on that...I just find saying "Torturing people is nazi like" is more acceptable than saying "You're a traitor if you don't think we should invade other countries"
"Yeah, Ice Cube just did a cover of Smelo, tovaritshi v' nogu Slavnoe More, Sviashchennyj Baikal ("With Duty And Perseverance We will Increase Our Tractor Output")."
Dude, that cut was so tight. It was the shizzle.
"Knowing is half the battle"
It was a tag line for GI-Joe...America's Elite anti-terrorist squad!
What I find most distasteful about the situation entire is how supporters of the War on Terror (TM & Copyright 2001 George W. Bush) justify Gitmo. The "criminals" inside aren't representatives of any one country, ergo they are not POWs but rather "illegal enemy combatants" and cannot be covered by the laws of the Geneva Convention, and therefore we as a country can do whatever the hell we want to them--beat them, torture them, keep them indefinitely, pi$$ on their religious texts, because the higher-ups have convinced a majority of Americans some catastrophic attack will happen the moment we let even one of said prisoners out. The culture of paranoia just keeps feeding itself. The Bush snake is eating its own tail--vicious cycle, Pandora's Box, what have you. Scary stuff--if we close Gitmo, then yeah, there may be a greater chance of more attacks, but if we keep it open, the risk is equally great of new attacks because we're keeping it open and keeping it as an "example" where everyone can see it and where foreign powers and terrorist groups can use it as a shining example of the great white devil. Either way, we pretty much lose.
~G.
...sorry, I'm missing your point.
Crap, you got me Bill. I thought your inclusion of "unAmerican" was arbitrary, but I see where Laura brought it in. Withdrawn.
It's cool. This thread is moving so fast I swear I hit the reload button twice in 1 minute and it seemed like a dozen new posts popped up.
Honestly, Bill, I haven't had this sort of discussion, with people occupying both sides of the fence, that actually remained civil in WAY too long. It's rather satisfying. Even if those crazy right-wing pro-torture whackjobs are totally wrong.
JOKE, it's a joke. I'm joking. Please, if you throw anything, I insist you only throw full beer bottles, preferably something from the Brooklyn Brewery or Harpoon (if you're on the East Coast). Some Thomas Hooker or Great Lakes would be swell also.
I've always said that with the exception of a few losers who have more or less gotten themselves booted off this blog, I'd gladly share a beer or beverage of choice with anyone here.
My nephew is now actually in charge of designing some micro-brew beers--Arik the red and the new brown ale Arik the Bold. Unfortunately, you have to be in California to enjoy it. My father, a beer expert, tells me that Brooklyn Brewery is indeed a fine choice.
(Actually, I'm not much of a drinker though I do subscribe to Ben Franklin's theory that Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.:)
What's the name of the brewery? My wife's from the Bay Area, so I make it down there from Seattle now and again. And your father is absolutely correct. My tastes tend to West Coast brewers (stylistically there are differences, believe it or not), but Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout is one of the finest beers I've ever had the pleasure to try.
It seems to me that such a requirement might make an undue burden on some smaller pharmacies that don't have the warehouses to stock every conceivable medicine known to man (or woman).
A warehouse isn't needed. Medicines come in bottles of a couple hundred each, whick can be stored in the back room, & re-ordered when the supply runs low/out
A pious pharmacist would have the exact same right to inflict their opinions on the customer, as does a pious bookseller.
No, because many people are on a medical or perscription plan, and cannot just "go somewhere else".
Since this was arguably a deception, perhaps we should call it the Downing Front..
(The pun *is* the most fundamental form of wit.)
What's the name of the brewery? My wife's from the Bay Area, so I make it down there from Seattle now and again. And your father is absolutely correct. My tastes tend to West Coast brewers (stylistically there are differences, believe it or not), but Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout is one of the finest beers I've ever had the pleasure to try.
He's one of the resident Brew Masters at Brew It Up in Sacramento. This place sounds great (never been there myself, sorry to say). You can go in and work with the guys there to brew your own special batch, bottle it, lable it. Very popular with bachelor parties--imagine the look on your buddies faces when you whip out a 6-pack of Raymond Burr's Nipple Rouge Stout--For the blush of springtime anytime
Ask for RJ Kappler!
My dad sees your Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout and asks if you've tried Keegan Ale Mother's Milk.
Frankly it sounds like the two of you belong to some cult. :) The Keegan company is just down the street from my parent's house where I'm spending the summer so I may have to check this madness out.
Ok,a couple more things to think about:
If the war on terror is supposed to end, as BushCo has said, because we're holding the people at Gitmo until the war on terror is over....
And the people we're holding are so dang dangerous we can't let them go until the war on terror is over...
What do we do with them when it ends? If we let them go, they're gonna become terrorists and the whole war has to start over again! So the only thing to do is either hold them until they die, or kill them. Seriously, what do we do?
Oh and everyone keeps saying we're going to be attacked again so I'm wondering...how many times were we attacked by foreign terrorists befoer 9/11? Seems to me, if we're in so much danger we would've been attacked long before and more often before then.The odds of being killed in a terrorist attack on US soil is less than getting hit by lightning. Heck, it's less than dying in a car crash.
Oh and to quote Uncle from Jackie Chan...One more thing! Anyone ever think that all BushCo has done is give Osama what he wanted? A holy war and he managed to make us less free?
Michael
P.S. Make sure to watch Sensenbrenner's meltdown!
I'll accept the Pharmacist as Employee argument. All employees must accept the decisions of the boss.
But I see nothing wrong with a chain of pharmacies that refused to sell what they viewed as immoral medicines. Any medicine that is prescribed is prescribed by a doctor -- and the doctor would direct the patient to the nearest pharmacy that carried the medicine.
No matter how many bottles come in a box, and no matter hos large the back room, there is a finite amount of space in that back room, and a finite number of boxes that can be stored, and thus a finite number of medicines.
Bill: I have not heard of it, but I'll be heading out to the East Coast in August, and will be damn certain to get my mitts on it. My sister is moving to Boston, so it shouldn't be that difficult. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on some legendary non-West Coast stuff like Great Lakes, Church Brew Works, Keegan's (now, never heard of them before today), Harpoon, etc.
"extremist over the top language like Durbins"
What is extremist or over the top about Durbin's language?!??? Did you even read it?!???
He spoke the simple, plain truth. If you read the FBI agent's report without knowing who or where the abuse took place, you would NOT conclude that Americans had committed such atrocities, but you would think you were reading about Nazis or something. That is not over the top, it's the truth.
"Laura believes that to critisize Mr Durbin is to be absolutely pro-torture."
No. To criticize those particular comments that Durbin made makes you pro-torture, because all that Durbin said is that torture is bad, and it's sick that it's us doing it. How exactly is that a crazy position? Do you disagree that torture is bad and that America should not be doing it? If that's crazy, I never want to be "sane" like you.
To Knuckles-
You're right! My GOD America is an awful country. I don't see how you can live here. All the people that like America must be crazy. It's best to always focus on the negative! And always proclaim loudly that you LOVE America more than anyone. That will throw them off. Right on, Knuckles!
-- X-Ray
"Man, I can't even BEGIN to discuss your point with you.
me: "How can you say he said it for shock value?"
you: "He said it for shock value because I say he said it for shock value."
That's your OPINION, not to be confused with the facts."
I said it was for shock value because the use of such comparisons is sensationalistic language. How does that need explaining?
I realize I'm not in the little PAD clique here, but for the love of God (I can say that here, right?) don't you people think beyond your own ideological boxes?
Such language is not appropriate nor even remotely factual; has no basis in fact -- panties on the head, psychological stress, crap filled pants be damned, the US troops are NOT comparable to Nazis, Gulag guards, or Pol Pot. That's not opinion -- it's common sense.
HE is the one confused with facts, as are you if you somehow think he is justified in slapping thousands of soldiers in the face like that.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with the morality of what is going on in Gitmo, his ... oh for fuck's sake forget it. I'm going to go find a wall. It'll be more productive AND entertaining.
Bush may very well have fucked up, but this incessent harping on an existing problem will do nothing but further divide the country into terms set forth by dumb shit radio jocks and politicians whose sole purpose is money/ratings and votes.
If this douchebag Senator actually cared about what was going on he would've introduced his problems intelligently. Instead, all he's done is get people's back up and look at me playing right into it ...
I think I'll go change the world instead.
Thanks.
Small point of interest to me, most people are dissatisfied with a persin IN the system, as opposed to the system itself. "Rumsfeld is f*ckin' up, X would be doing a better job." Not trying to take a side here, just something I'm noticing.
"But perhaps the gulag isn't the best place to rock like a huricane."
Especially when said gulag is in the Caribbean.
Hey, there's an idea. We're in hurricane season right now. What if a big one came up and smashed the living hell out of Gitmo, and either all the detainees survived and all the soldiers died, or vice versa? Or everybody died? Or everybody lived? I think that'd create some very interesting theological questions for both sides.
Bill, Knuckles ---
Ever have Moose Drool or Trout Slayer?
Or Henry Weinhardt's?
Henry's is from the pac nw, while the others are from the Montana area.... quite good stuff. I'm personally attached to Trout Slayer. Mmmmm... one more reason to go back to Montana.
Oh, and the one time I went to SF, I really enjoyed their brews. Definitely better than Oklahoma's...
Travis
Its all Bullshit. Only reason we are in the middle east is to secure our oil needs. We just moved before China. I wish bush had said "We just want to make sure no other country can blackmail us for our oil needs." Investing in alternative fuel sources is best, it seems that the current government prefers status quo. Picking up where his dad left off and furthering Reagans ideals.
If we invest in military build ups all we will get is war. Dont hand me current Republican crap about how the middle east is learning freedom the ends dont justify the means. I wish our troops where home making families going to school and not in a desert being shot at.
Please excuse the grammer.
John, if our only interest in Iraq had been securing the oil reserves, it could have been done more simply, more cheaply, and without sacrificing our world standing, by simply dropping previous administrations' dislike of Saddam and showering him with cash again.
No, the only way this makes any kind of sense is when you remember that Dubya seems to be desperate to prove to somebody - I'm not sure who - that he's a real Mister Macho Texas Man. Among other things, that means he cain't let nobody get away with threatenin' his daddy. Nossir, he hadda go stomp a mudhole in this Saddamn fella's ass, jest like a Real Man oughta!
Oh, sure, thousands had to die on both sides to assuage Dubya's wounded machismo, but that's a small price to pay to prove he's a Real Man, right?
Right?
Me
"Laura believes that to critisize Mr Durbin is to be absolutely pro-torture."
Laura
No. To criticize those particular comments that Durbin made makes you pro-torture, because all that Durbin said is that torture is bad, and it's sick that it's us doing it. How exactly is that a crazy position?
Laura, either your reading comprehension skills are lacking or, and I'm trying hard to be generous here, you are letting your passions totaly get in the way of any semblance or reason. I have stated over and over again that Durbin's rhetoric-bringing the nazis, pol pot, the gulags into the discussion--is counterproductive to his cause. You may disagree with that but if you do try to remember what it is that you are disagreeing with. Trying to claim that I am pro-torture makes you look like a petulant child.
Do you disagree that torture is bad and that America should not be doing it?
Well, let's see...I've stated that "Personally, I think there should be a great deal of oversite on the conditions of Gitmo and torture should not be a part of our arsenal." and "Of course, I DON'T agree that the behavior described by the FBI agent is acceptable,". Reading, Laura. Try it.
If that's crazy, I never want to be "sane" like you.
I'm pretty sure you're safe.
Troll-Ray: Who's focusing on the negative? I'm criticizing it in the expectation that we, as Americans, will try to turn it into a positive. You, on the other hand, seem to be celebrating the negative. That's your gig, Peaches. Do what you will.
Travis: Henry's doesn't qualify as a craft beer by any stretch of the imagination. Henry's has been around since the mid 19th Century, based out of Oregon. They merged with Blitz in the 60's, as I recall, and I don't know if they are still independent or owned by one of the big three (SABMiller, AB or CoorsMolson). But if you've got to drink an adjunct lager, and you can't find any Rainier around, I'd go with that.
Big Sky Brewing makes some really good beers, and my dad is with you on the Moose Drool. I personally don't care for it, but I do love their Oatmeal Stout and their Scapegoat IPA.
This TroutSlayer you refer to, I've not had either. That is, however, from one of my favorite Montana breweries, Bayern. Their hefeweizen is spectacular, and their schwarzbier is absolutely stellar. The brewmaster/owner there is actually a German brewmeister, born and raised in Bavaria. They make one of two genuine Bavarian-style Hefeweizens I've ever had in the states Baron Brewing in Seattle making the other).
I lived in Montana for about five years in the mid -90's, and had plenty of opportunities to drink their great beers. I would still have to give the Best in State award to Pig's Ass Porter from Harvest Moon. Great stuff. Honorable mention goes to the Irish Stout from Montana Brewing in Billings, and pretty much anything from Sleeping Giant in Helena. Sadly, my favorite brewery in MT was Big Hole Brewing(their Headstrong Pale Ale was a magnificent exercise in a true British style pale), but those yahoos sold the brewery and started having their product contract brewed. Damn them.
And as Bill knows, I disagree with him on the notion of Durbin discrediting his argument by bringing comparisons of Pol Pot, Nazis, etc. Yet somehow we've managed to continue to dialog. I don't think he's saying "Torture is a-ok by me, jack, as long as I don't know about it." I happen to think that Durbin's comparisons are apt, and a reasonable response from an American citizen when learning about such occurrences. He doesn't. There you go.
Under normal circumstances I'd save the keystrokes, but I can't pass up this opportunity: Bush sucks.
But I see nothing wrong with a chain of pharmacies that refused to sell what they viewed as immoral medicines.
I think you're confused.
This isn't a case of pharmacies refusing to stock medicines, immoral or otherwise.
This is, right now, all about individuals who refuse to do their jobs.
And about moronic states giving pharmacists the right to give customers the finger when said customers have a legal right to get those prescriptions.
"I have stated over and over again that Durbin's rhetoric-bringing the nazis, pol pot, the gulags into the discussion--is counterproductive to his cause."
Very well. This is the main point we disagree on. You think that stating the truth is counterproductive. I think that telling it like it is was something that Democrats, and politicians in general, have been lacking for quite awhile. Durbin's statements IN MY OPINION are not over-the-top, because I read the same report from the FBI agent and thought exactly the same thing: How on earth can this be America doing this? It sounds like something Hitler or Saddam would be doing, not America.
It's about time someone started speaking the truth instead of pussy-footing around the subject. You seem to think that we should be politely disagreeing. I strongly disagree with you. Torture is wrong, and we should be raising holy hell to let the general public know what is going on. The only reason anyone thinks Durbin's remarks are over-the-top is because the Republican hate machine immediately geared into action to misrepresent what he said. I think Democrats should respond by shouting his exact words from the rooftops (in a metaphorical sense).
We cannot win the fight against tyrants by being polite. We have to show the country what we are up against. If the Bush Administration is using tactics that any person with any sense of decency would recognize as belonging to sick regimes like Nazis and Pol Pot, then WE NEED TO SAY IT. Staying silent or being polite is not going to help. You fight torturers with the truth, not with being over-cautious.
Only reason we are in the middle east is to secure our oil needs.
It's more than that. Oil is a big part of it, but it's about power & profit.
Just oil & defense contracts alone are generating BILLIONS of dollars of profits. That doesn't include the money being spent to house & feed our troopps, to rebuild the infrastructure, or money lost to corruption.
It's also about power. Most of this administration are members of a group called 'Project For A New American Century'. In short, they want to build an American empire in the middle east, using Iraq as a starting point & expanding outward from there.
And one last comment before I shut up. By claiming that Durbin's statement is over-the-top, you've let the Republicans once again frame the debate. This should NOT be a debate about Durbin, who only spoke some words. This should be a debate about the Bush Administration, who have ordered the torture, sometimes to death, of people who have never been charged with a crime.
Which offense is worse? Rhetoric designed to get people's attention, or murder?
"The only reason anyone thinks Durbin's remarks are over-the-top is because the Republican hate machine immediately geared into action to misrepresent what he said."
Aaaagh! So close! You almost had me cheering for a moment there, Laura.
No, it's not the only reason. That's why even some Democrats disagreed with it. That's why the ADL condemned it. That's why Durbin himself made a semi-apology on friday (Not a real apology, just the old "If anyone was offended I regret it" sort of thing, which is as good as it gets these days.)
Although I usually vote with the Evil Republican Hate Machine I'm smart enough to A-gladly vote for a better candidate from another party (ie Democrat) and B- recognize that if the republicans hold ALL the cards for too long they will become corrupt (yes, yes, I know, some of you think they are already there). So I want the Democrats to get stronger. But if they keep going down the road of paranoid over the top craziness...well, look what happened on thursday: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701249_pf.html
Briefly, John Conyers, nut, organized a circle jerk forum to publicize the Downing Street Memo (minutes). At least one witness linked 0/11 to Israel, claimed that the towers were blown up by demolition inside them and some activists passed out anti-semetic literature.
Dean, to his credit, condemned this but you have to feel that the damage has been done. I don't think that downinggate will maount to anything but now it also has the tinge of bigotry attached to it.
When you begin to substitute wishful thinking and shoot for the moon unified field conspiricy angles for an actual search for the truth you will end up with no support outside of the black helicopter crowds. The Democrats need to give Conyers and Durbin the hook and get the big guns out. Fast.
My gripe with Durbin's comments is simple, they are blatantly wrong.
And, since I am an Illinois voter, unless Durbin apologizes for his remarks, I'll take my action where it counts -- at the ballot box next election.
This discussion (well, the not-friendly-beer-discussion part; overall, this has managed to be a pretty fun thread:) ) demonstrates the problem with hyperbolic statements. Laura is against torture; Bill is against torture. But instead of being able to be united in thier outrage at this abuse, they've been caught up in debate over the language of outrage.
Personally, I lean much more toward Laura's political inclinations than Bill's (though I'll join the list of people who've saluted Bill for his intelligent, open-minded, and polite commentary over the months [years?]). But, I agree that Durbin went too far in comparing Gitmo to Nazi Germany. The systematic imprisonment and GENOCIDE implimented by the Nazi regime is such an extreme (if not quite unique, unfortunately) atrocity that it should be used as a simile only for similar mass, genocidal action. As Bill pointed out, and as demonstrated here, invoking this particular image only serves to obfuscate the true issue, the abhorent actions apparently being undertaken in the name of - but wholly against the spirit of - the United States against prisoners in our custody. These actions do need to be halted, but invoking that most horrific of modern metaphors is a counter-productive mistake, which Durbin should remove from the discussion so that the true problem may be concentrated on and stopped, not easily lost in a firestorm over (probably) well-meaning but overly extreme language.
Luke, it's you who should be saluted, for all the good points you raise (and not just the nice things you said about me, though greatly appreciated :) )
There's a whole other threads worth of discussion on just what SHOULD be done with genuine Al quaeda types and one actually could bring the Nazis into the discussion. For example, imprisoning Hess for life in Spandou prison--on what grounds, other than his being one of Hitler's top henchmen (which, mind you, is reason enough for me). By that logic, some of these guys will never be released--especially when compounded by the fact that, unlike Hess, they could actually be dangerous if released.
Of course, the reality of imprisoning people for life for membership in an organization has tremedous abuse potential. Then again, so does imprisoning people for any reason but it sometimes has to be done. So...
There's also the ever underestimated cover your ass element--imagine if a released Gitmo prisoner shows up on the next suicide mission. Heads would role...safer by far to let them cool their heels in Cuba, if you are the one who has to make such decisions.
You know, I've seen threads that had absolutely nothing to do with my original blog entry, but this one is certainly the lengthiest.
Still, Russ...I'm just curious about the following:
"My gripe with Durbin's comments is simple, they are blatantly wrong."
So can I assume that you've actually read the report and that in your informed opinion, the torture tactics being used are NOT tactics that would have been at home in totalitarian, fascist, or downright evil regimes?
Because that's all Durbin said. Any sane reading of it proves that. So I'm curious as to your informed opinion as to where that's not true.
PAD
These actions do need to be halted, but invoking that most horrific of modern metaphors is a counter-productive mistake,
The problem I see is that, if somebody doesn't make such metaphors and use such hyperbole, nobody seems to give a rat's ass.
It will probably take alot more people calling Gitmo a gulag than have done so already to force the Bush Administration to change the way they're running things down there.
Because, regardless of how or if these guys are being tortured, many of them have been held, without charges, for years!
Hello? What the fuck happened to justice in this country, much less the desire to promote torture?
The Bush Administration refuses to be accountable for this kind of stuff. And, so, I can't blame folks like that FBI agent (that Durbin quoted) and Amnesty International for using the harsh language they have because, otherwise, as I said, nobody seems to give a rat's ass.
So people understand where I came from on my mother side my granfather survived a concentration camp and made it to the US. I grew up with tales of the horrors of life in a concentration camp. There has never been any justification for torture for any reason.
Bush is now being painted as "Hitler" by many.
I agree with Jon Stewart do not demean Hitler by comparing Bush to him. Bush is doing what he thinks is right I live in this country have served in the Military and worry about our troops.
Bush choose the wrong war every General he had said that. Sadly we will now be embroiled in a costly war for years. Thank god we will not let it become a Vietnam our troops deserve every accolade and will come home to cheers.
Bill - thank you for the compliment!
Craig - sadly ... I do see your point. Would this have gotten enough attention without the hyperbole? On the other hand, will the issue, rather than the remark, get any attention now?
And - yes, we've derailed your thread again, PAD. Hm ... for a while, every danged thing seemed to be some sort of a "-gate", didn't it? One would expect this to grow into one, too ... except somehow, more "gate"age seemed to be thrown at any question regarding the Clinton administration than the current one, for some reason .... We'll see if this memo gains enough long-term attention in the press ....
We cannot win the fight against terrorists by being polite. We have to show the country what we are up against. If the enemy insergents and members of terrorist cells are using tactics that any person with any sense of decency would recognize as belonging to sick regimes like Nazis and Pol Pot, then WE NEED TO SAY IT. Staying silent or being polite is not going to help. You fight terrorists with the truth, not with being over-cautious.
Now doesn't that sound more logical than Laura's twisted sentiments!
The comments John refers to can be found at http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=15751
I found it funny, though Durbin supporters may not. One of the advantages of thinking this sort of rhetoric stupid is that one can sneer at idiots on both sides of the fence--Durbin, Byrd and their feeble minded soul mates on the right, like Buchanan and Santorum. (as opposed to rightly condemning it when it's those "other" guys who do it but trying to somehow find it okey dokey when right minded politicians spew it out.
More humor from Iowahawk. I expect we'll be seeing lots of this sort of thing for a few weeks.
Customer Relations Department
United Airlines
Elk Grove Village, IL
Dear Sir or Madam:
In the dark annals of human evil, history has recorded the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocides, and Stalin's mass starvation program. And now, United Airlines flight 671 from Reagan International to Chicago O'Hare on June 3rd, 2005. I know, because I am a survivor of that dark exemplar of man's cruelty to man.
Perhaps I should have known what I was in for when your brusque gate agent refused to issue an upgrade to me for the flight (despite being a Premier/1K member for over 10 years), or when your flight crew Gestapo confiscated my carry on Roll Tote (even though I had nearly fit it into the overhead bin). But the true measure of the horror did not dawn on me until me and my fellow passengers were left taxiing on the O'Hare tarmack for over twenty minutes in the Auschwitzian Airbus A320 cattlecar, in temperatures approaching 85 degrees, not knowing our fates or whether we would make it to our fundraising dinners.
Santayana once said, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." And I say to you and your fellow United criminals: "never again," unless you credit my account at least 2 flight segments for this travesty.
Sincerely,
Senator Richard J. Durbin
Washington, DC
Several posters have brought up Amnesty International. I'm sorry to see an organization that has done so much good in the world risk so much by doing a Durbin. At least they have the integrety to admit it but that just makes it all the harder to defend. from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701218.html)
No American 'Gulag'
By Pavel Litvinov
Several days ago I received a telephone call from an old friend who is a longtime Amnesty International staffer. He asked me whether I, as a former Soviet "prisoner of conscience" adopted by Amnesty, would support the statement by Amnesty's executive director, Irene Khan, that the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba is the "gulag of our time."
"Don't you think that there's an enormous difference?" I asked him.
"Sure," he said, "but after all, it attracts attention to the problem of Guantanamo detainees."
...Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.
Between the conversation mentioned above and the admission by executive director of Amnesty International USA, William Schulz to Chris Wallace that the rhetoric was what got them on TV, it would seem that the organization is sacrificing long term credibility for some TV face time. A shame, really.
The republicans must be salivating at the thought of using the last week's sound bites for 2006 election commercials. A mock impeachment hearing turns into an anti-semitic hate fest. Classic. Just classic. (if Hillary came out and trashed Conyers for this her rating would go up 10 points. The looney left would be angry but they'll be good little boys and girls and vote for her anyway.).
Knuckles-- My Dad recommends the following in Massachusettes-- Mill City Brewing Co in Lowell; Boston Beer Works near Fenway; Harpoon (of course); and John Harvards Brew House.
I don't have a real palet for wine and beer so I don't know. I envy folks who can taste a '61 Dom Corleone Chianti and say stuff like "She's a saucy little wench but her impudence will surprise you." whereas I will chime in with "Hey, this wine tastes real good."
One question for all who oppose the use of the word 'gulag':
When people are arrested without a warrant, jailed without a trial, or even access to a lawyer, told they could be held indefinitely, and are tortured, what word would you use for such a place?
Correction:
"what word would you use for such a place?" should say "what word would you use for the place where these people are kept?"
This isn't a case of pharmacies refusing to stock medicines, immoral or otherwise.
This is, right now, all about individuals who refuse to do their jobs.
And about moronic states giving pharmacists the right to give customers the finger when said customers have a legal right to get those prescriptions.
Perhaps I was confused. I was only responding to a hypothetical situation, that appeared to be completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but still made no sense to me.
If there really are Moronic states that are supporting such pharmacists (and no one in this thread has mentioned any, or linked to any news stories about them that I have seen -- of course, most of the conversation has focused on torture, as it should) Then I would be curious at finding out the details.
PAD wrote: "So can I assume that you've actually read the report and that in your informed opinion, the torture tactics being used are NOT tactics that would have been at home in totalitarian, fascist, or downright evil regimes?"
From all accounts I've seen, Durbin stood up and started publicly shooting off his mouth before he had even investigated the allegation.
Were there bona fide abuses? I don't know. I do know, however, that if there were, Durbin provided no proof. Instead, it seems he immediately went public based on an e-mail. You'd think after the recent Newsweek debacle, Durbin would know better. Perhaps, as the Chicago Tribune posited in Friday's editorial, Durbin is seeking attention because the state's other senator, Barack Obama, is stealing the senior senator's thunder.
In any case, who gets smeared again without a trial? The U.S. military.
By the way, PAD, I do NOT think Durbin's alleged abuses, even if they some or all are later found to be true, are in any way comparable to the three regimes he mentioned.
Now here is a fact: In the three years GITMO has had these prisoners, not one has died. You'd have to look real hard to find other maximum security prisons around the world with track records like that.
"Today's Western society has revealed the inequality between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds. A statesman who wants to achieve something highly constructive for his country has to move cautiously and even timidly; thousands of hasty (and irresponsible) critics cling to him at all times; he is constantly rebuffed by parliament and the press. He has to prove his every step is well founded and absolutely flawless. Indeed, an outstanding, truly great person who has unusual and unexpected initiatives in mind does not get any chance to assert himself; dozens of traps will be set for him from the beginning. Thus mediocrity triumphs under the guise of democratic restraints."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Interesting words from someone who knows a real gulag when he sees it.
Meanwhile, and I caution Republicans and like monded folks not to get TOO excited about this...yet...the Downing street memos now have an element of doubt attached to them. From the AP: The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
This probably makes them diffficult to fully authenticate and is disturbingly like what happened to the "Lucy Ramirez" letters that brought CBS so much grief.
Me, I'd still believe them if only because an out and out fraud would have had a bit more there, there. The memos seem too unexciting to be faked.
Hey, if you want to see a good amateur comic (in spanish) go to my blog! ^^
www.shiumansworld.tk !^^
"One question for all who oppose the use of the word 'gulag': When people are arrested without a warrant, jailed without a trial, or even access to a lawyer, told they could be held indefinitely, and are tortured, what word would you use for such a place?"
How about TERRORIST PRISON?
Alternate: WAR ZONE
I posted this question a day ago but it seems to have disappeared so I'll try again.
If we're holding these guys down in Gitmo because they're a danger to us, and we have to hold them until the end of the war on terror....which is the argument used so far for them being there...then when the war on terror actually ends, how do we release them?
I mean, if they're terrorists now, and presumably they'll be terrorists then, if we release them doesn't that mean we'll have to fight the war on terrorism all over again?
The only solution at that point would be to just hold them until they die, or kill them, right?
Michael
If there really are Moronic states that are supporting such pharmacists (and no one in this thread has mentioned any, or linked to any news stories about them that I have seen -- of course, most of the conversation has focused on torture, as it should) Then I would be curious at finding out the details.
Some states (I'd have to look for articles) have passed laws allowing pharmacists to refuse filling a prescription based on moral, etc grounds.
They are *supposed* to then pass on the prescription itself to another pharmacist, or arrange for the patient to get the prescription.
However, some pharmacists refuse to do as much (on the same moral grounds) and deserve to be fired for it.
You'd have to look real hard to find other maximum security prisons around the world with track records like that.
You'd have to also look real hard to find another maximum security prison in the US filled with prisoners who haven't actually gone to trial.
There are words for such prisons; most of them involve things with human rights abuses, and rightfully so.
Craig wrote: "You'd have to also look real hard to find another maximum security prison in the US filled with prisoners who haven't actually gone to trial."
Bad analogy. You know as well as I do that legally, these alleged enemy combatants don't fall into the same category as civilian prisoners. Now you can argue all you want about whether or not that's fair, but these classifications and laws have been in place for a long, long time. If you don't like the existing laws, lobby your representative in Congress to have them changed.
R., legally speaking, the US is in violation of the Geneva conventions. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories to the GC. This administration has devised a little legal end-run regarding the Afghan, and I'd imagine the Iraqi nationals as well, by declaring Afghanistan as a "failed nation," meaning the US is free to ignore the requirements of the GC. Additionally, by citing the detention camp outside any recognized US territory, every detainee held there is outside the legal jurisdiction of the US courts. Why should we respect the legallity of laws passed by a fearful government when their actions are so clearly violations of international law and basic human rights? They clearly have no respect for such higher laws, and are blatantly hiding behind weak legal protections in order to carry out their thuggery.
The only reason these enemy combatants fall outside the legal protections normally afforded to POWs is because our government says so, and there's no check on that power. Except the voters and people of this country. Already, we're starting to see even other Republicans start to ask questions, and demand answers. The cynic in me says it's only an effort to secure their own reelection, but the optimist in me (it's a small part, but it's there) hopes that it's reason and sense finally replacing fear and anger.
In the interest of being "fair and balanced:"
http://www.hannity.com/forum/printthread.php?t=7768
http://www.adl.org/holocaust/Letter_santorum.asp
So, here we see the Republican brain in action. Comparing abuse of prisoners to other people known to abuse prisoners is outrageous, but comparing arguing over the Senate's debate rules to Hitler is perfectly fine.
Bad analogy.
Perfect analogy.
You know as well as I do that legally, these alleged enemy combatants don't fall into the same category as civilian prisoners.
Why? Because our dipshit attorney general says that some agreed upon rules are "quaint"?
Because the Bush Administration doesn't see fit to follow the rules that everybody else has followed?
I call bullshit. I also call bullshit on the notion of Congress having to make changes, because the Bush Administration DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN.
The Bush Admin will continue to hold people indefinately, without charges, because they are getting away with it. Because these people have done nothing, they know nothing.
It's a damn travesty.
So, here we see the Republican brain in action. Comparing abuse of prisoners to other people known to abuse prisoners is outrageous, but comparing arguing over the Senate's debate rules to Hitler is perfectly fine.
Nope, both are idiots. Agreed? Or do you only thonk Santorum was over the line?
I don't know what was said by democrats during the discussion of what rules the Senate would follow...however, it's hard to imagine what a minority power could say in an open debate about procedural rules that could equate to Hitler.
On the other hand, I think it's perfectly reasonable to compare human rights abuses that are inflicted on prisoners at Gitmo to human rights abuses that were inflicted on prisoners in gulags and concentration camps.
The point is that Durbin is calling the US military Nazis...it's that abuse isn't something that should be practiced by the US, ever. We went to war agains the Nazis, partly, because they were an evil, expansionist empire that wanted a good portion of the rest of the world dead. One expression of that evil was how they treated their prisoners. You can say all the good things about yourself, your government, and your country that you want, but what actions that country takes, or allows its government to take, what they do...those are the things that truly provide a definition.
Gah, major EDIT...should be "ISN'T calling the US military Nazis." That WOULD be outrageous and uncalled for.
Nope, both are idiots. Agreed? Or do you only thonk Santorum was over the line?
I think what Durbin said was over the line, but in the scheme of things, he was at least in the ballpark in comparing abuse of prisoners to abuse of prisoners. Santorum isn't even on the same planet with his comments.
BTW, one of the first US Senators to condemn Durbin's comments? Rick Santorum.
The rules regarding enemy combatants is not a new one. During World War II, for example, German prisoners of war were not charged with any particular crime, but, since they were enemy combatants, they were held for the duration of the war. When Germany -- a bona fide country with a government and borders -- surrendered, the status of the enemy combatants was finally resolved.
Unfortunately, the people at GITMO are enemy combatants who are not members of any country's regular army, so arguments about POW status and Geneva Convention signatory status just does not apply. This is not a loophole, it is just a situation this nation has never had to face before. Al Qaida is made up of ghost soldiers, is not a nation, has no borders, and is not a signatory of any international laws, treaties or agreements.
You can gripe and moan and stomp your feet about it all you want, but there's nothing illegal about GITMO. And unless the old laws regarding conventional enemy combatants are changed to incorporate this new reality, these folks, who are part of an unconventional shadow war, will remain in limbo until released, tried or transferred by the folks trying to sort the whole situation out.
Well, R., I disagree. The fourth Geneva Convention (I can't find a signatory list for that one) applies directly to civilians held by opposing forces. I'd suggest that there's only 2 states of being for a person: either a military person, one supported by an active government and empowered to act, and civilians, which are everyone else. I know that you're going to suggest that we've created a third category, enemy combatants, which are militarily aggessive individuals acting without the sanction of a recognized government.
Which is all well and good, except that we've already got a category to fit these people in: criminals. And whether we like it or not, criminals are citizens, too. Which makes all the detainees at Gitmo civilians or military personnel, and either the accords of the third or fourth Geneva conventions apply to them.
Our abuse of those prisoners, while arguably legal, by some, is growing more and more morally reprehensible to the public.
The abuse at Gitmo is not legal. Period. It's just being covered by a thin web of lies, deception, and legallese that, if it were to be exposed to strict judicial scrutiny, would be found to be violative of the very applicalbe Geneva conventions. The only thing that allows this to go on is the fact that the nations that normally would represent the detainees have had their governments replaced...by the US. Rather convienent.
Did I say anything about abuse in my last post? No, I did not. My discussion was about the legality of the enemy combatant status at GITMO. The abuse issue is a separate matter, and one I addressed when I earlier responded to PAD.
The line between military and civilian has grayed considerably in recent years because of the emergence of al Qaida, and U.S. law (and the Geneva Convention, for that matter) has not kept pace with the changing face of this new asymetrical warfare. It needs to be legally addressed, in my opinion, and that is the real issue here.
R. my apologies if I overstated your "but there's nothing illegal about GITMO" to include the abuse.
The problem with what you're suggesting is that it advocates the position that, in the absence of laws directly on point, we're free to make up whatever rules we want to apply. There's no jurisprudential precedent for this. In the absence of laws directly on point, you make do with what does exist, in this case, the Geneva conventions. These agreements are the only internationally binding agreements that govern the treatment of persons not under the direct jurisdiction of a government granted by citizenship. The laws allowing the declaration of enemy combatant status are US laws...therefore, they should have no legally binding power over anyone not a US citizen. We cannot make our own laws and apply them to people outside our jurisdiction simply by passing a law. The Geneva conventions are a legal expression of jurisdiction over people otherwise outside the jurisdiction of the state, during times of conflict. The only international law that even allows us to hold them is their country's signatory status of the GC. We cannot at the same time say we have the right to hold them, while also saying the GC do not apply to them, simply because some US law grants the apperance of legallity. The power and reach of our laws ends at our borders...unless, of course, we demonstrate that we are going to use military methods to enforce our will. In this case, might does indeed make right. But that doesn't make it legal, or appropriate, or morally correct.
Well, that's exactly what I am saying. Laws are almost always reactive. But in situations where national security is an issue, especially when it involves suicidal people whose only goal in life is to destroy you, one has no choice but to come up with an interim solution and let the legal system catch up when it gets around to it.
That people are having this debate is a good thing. Ideally, this debate will spur U.S. lawmakers, and lawmakers abroad, to adress the problem with new or updated laws. Until that time, however, this presidential administration has a right, as would any administration, to intrepret and employ existing laws to prevent any more 9-11 magnitude attacks on U.S. soil.
If this administration did otherwise, say, freeing this bunch at GITMO years ago, and we were again brutally attacked and economically crippled by some of these same characters, I suspect some of you would take this administration to task for its LACK of due diligence.
There's a big difference between wanting actions that violate the Geneva conventions to stop, and asking for all detainees to be released, although I'm sure there are some involved in the discussion that would demand exactly that. I'm not one of them...I've really not that much of a problem with holding detainees that we have some credible evidence that they are connected to some terrorist movement, or have committed or plotted acts agains the US. But I'd also say those people should be charged, tried, and sentenced accordingly. And if an impartial investigation and trial comes up without a conviction, than I do say release them. Our legal morals mean nothing if we don't stick to them.
I guess, if anything comes out of Gitmo, it is that the situation is far more complex than most of us realize, and if we can't come to any consensus agreement on what course to take, then one probably doesn't exist.
Bobb, you raise a very important point. There is mounting evidence that many of the detainees are actually kidnap victims who were captured by our "allies" in Afghanistan and Iraq just to collect on the bounties we're offering. Many of them may not have any actual connections to Al qaida (not that Bush spends "a lot of time thinking about bin Laden" anymore) or any other terrorist organization.
I know, it's best just to drink the Kool Aid and pretend everything that our new Caesar says is 100% true.
I guess, if anything comes out of Gitmo, it is that the situation is far more complex than most of us realize, and if we can't come to any consensus agreement on what course to take, then one probably doesn't exist.
Yeah, I think you're right on the money, Bobb. This will be a very difficult thing to work out, made all the more difficult by posers on both sides of the political divide.
One thing that may deserve clarification--it is my understanding (and I'm sure someone will point out to me what a right wing tool of the jackbooted neocons I am if this understanding is incorrect) that all or at least most of the detainees actually HAVE had a trial, of sorts--they went bepfre a military tribunal. This is why some have been released. Ok, now this is not quite the same as being judged by a jury of one's peers but it seems to me that it is as much or more than was given to, say, Germans in WWII caught in American Uniform, some of whom were shot where captured. (For that matter, the executions of deserters during the Civil War didn't seem to involve much in the way of lengthy court proceedings).
I can see the need to have something other than a traditional jury trial. Bill Clinton said something much the same, talking about how to do so would involve exposing sources and putting more people at risk. I don't want to see us abandone all our civil rights to catch terrorists but I don't want to give these people the knives with which they will slit our throats either.
BTW, it seems to me that the actual closest parallel to Gitmo and the treatment of the prisoners there would be the similar treatment of the IRA members by the British. I recall some of the same accusations made against the British, even the use of loud music. Evidentally the food is better at Cuba since I haven't heard of anyone starving themselves to death but if I were faced with a lifetime of munching on kidney pudding and spotted dick starvation would probably be a viable alternative.
I don't think that a full blown civil trial is needed or appropriate. The military tribunal system is in some ways superior to the civil courts, and I've no doubt that an impartial military panel is more than capable of presiding over a trial of detainees...provided that they also have acces to competent counsel and translators.
You'd think that, if such trials have occurred, and detainees released (I've heard something about releases, but I don't know how many or under what circumstances) there'd be an incentive for Bush to parade that around the publicity tour.
Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? Can you imagine theoutrage we'd have in the USofA if our soldiers were captured by some enemy and made to defecate on themselves, have their Bibles and flags urinated upon, made to stand naked in the fetal position for hours, being fondled by their captors, deprived of sleep by having loud music played incessantly in their cells, yadda yadda yadda?
Can any of the Gitmo apologists honestly say that they wouldn't be up in arms if the situation were reversed?
Oh yeah, good luck getting any of the corporate-owned mainstream media to cover the Downing Street Memos (plural) in depth. They're too busy finding the next runaway bride and giving us an 18-part analysis on the Michael Jackson verdict...
--R.J.
Ok, now this is not quite the same as being judged by a jury of one's peers but it seems to me that it is as much or more than was given to, say, Germans in WWII caught in American Uniform, some of whom were shot where captured.
Maybe that could be the new Bushite slogon: "We're not as bad at the Nazis. Honest."
"Maybe that could be the new Bushite slogon: "We're not as bad at the Nazis. Honest."
Ummmm...actually, I think the people who shot the Germans in American Uniforms were, y'know, Americans...you're not supposed pretend to be a different army than what you are.
Hey, I didn't make up the rules.
Okay, Bill. I misread what you were saying. Sorry.
Still think the slogon is appropriate, though. :)
Unfortunately, the people at GITMO are enemy combatants who are not members of any country's regular army, so arguments about POW status and Geneva Convention signatory status just does not apply.
How many of them were Taliban? Which was, up until the US invasion, the ruling group of Afghanistan.
Or to you is this still nothing more than a case of the US getting to arbitrarily decide who is a POW and who isn't?
The whole reason we're having this argument is because the Bush Administration made a decision that guaranteed that those in Gitmo would have no rights.
Late to the debate.......
I love how far off of the point Durbin made every debate seems to be moving. When he said his bit I had to agree with him at the time. Still do. He read a report of torture and said that anybody who heard it without being told who was who would not think that it was being done by us, the U.S. He said that most Americans would hear it and assume that it was from some other, more evil, place or people rather then us. Why? Because we don't torture people. We passed laws against the use of torture and speak out against others who use it.
I don't hear stories of torture and think, "good old U.S. of A." Do you? Seven days out and the debate has been spun and twisted away from the point he made because you can't argue with it. What are you going to say if you're on the right? Are you going to say that stories of torture make you think of the U.S.? Are you going to say that you hear stuff like that and, before the story makes clear who is who, you think, "oh, that must be us doing it." Hell no. But give the right wing noise machine seven days (or less) to twist something and, presto, you've got yourself a foolish debate.
And let me vent here about how stupid so many people in the public and in the media seem to be with this and other torture debates. If I hear one more talk radio idiot, their callers or some TV baboon talking about how we want more torture because it gets us intel and makes us safe and saves soldiers lives and ours then I will reach through the airwaves and *****slap them.
Do you know why we and others stopped doing torture as an intel source? It doesn't work. Any good intel guy will tell you that. When you torture somebody for information you often get very bad intel. People can be trained to play the game and then stick to a false story after "caving" on their other false stories. They plant bad intel that way. Our side did it in the last Gulf War. Read Bravo Two-Zero. They got tortured and gave false intell after playing the game. So have others in many other conflicts over the ages. You think anybody we torture is going to be 100% honest with us?
People that haven't been trained? They may tell the truth right at the start. They may not. One thing that many in intel found was that torture victims would tell you what they thought you wanted to hear (and that ain't always the truth) in order to stop their torture. Again, torture as an intel collection device doesn't work. The only reason left after that to torture somebody is that you are sick, twisted or evil. To claim in public that you want to see more of this kind of thing shows that you're sick, twisted, evil or stupid.
Although, another reason for torture is that you are under orders to do so. Bush, his A.G. and the Bybee memo smiled on the concept of torture. They rewrote the meaning of the word to be anything goes and only something that stops life is torture. The abuses came hard after that. When it hit the fan and low ranks stated that they were following orders they were blown off. They went to jail. The men who gave the orders and the man in that big white house in DC who smiled on it to begin with are still there though. Hell, the guy who was in charge when Pfc. Lynndie England and others did their thing is up for a promotion. Bush wants to promote the guy! She faces jail and he gets to look for a reward from G.W. I guess Bush feels he did a good job with giving torture orders in his prison and ducking the blame. I can see how Bush would like that in a guy.
And the people who keep shouting "support our troops" just keep smiling as our troops are given garbage orders, punished and put in jail for following them while the people who tell them to do it get off and move up. I would think that you could best support our troops by not selling them down the road like the Bush Admin does. But what do I know?
As for the debate that has been created by what Durbin said:
He's still right. The reports of torture are like what was done in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union with some prisons and with P.O.W.s. Using them as an example does not always have to mean the number of deaths or the extremes (death camps, gassing, etc.) It gives an example of mindset. We, the U.S., should not ever share that mindset. To hear so many of my fellow Americans claim that torture is good, we should be doing more torture and the only thing really done wrong with the torture is that we let people find out about it makes me sick.
It also shows that Durbin was right on more levels then he realized. Like Nazi Germany we have a large group in the public who have bought the party line so hard that they won't question it and nothing that is done by Bush or his people, no matter how wrong, evil or un-American it is, is wrong as long as they can say that it's making us safer from the evil outsiders and terrorists. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
My how you run on. All that effort -- for an audience of ... who? Would anyone actually read that entire rant?
By the way, the situation in Gitmo is very simple. Liberals want to criticize President Bush. Lacking any issue of real substance, they seize on EVERY perceived abuse, and try to build it up into a new Holocaust. End of story.
"My how you run on. All that effort -- for an audience of ... who? Would anyone actually read that entire rant?"
I did. I have a feeling others did too. And you can't attack his point, which is simply that because what we are doing isn't as bad as mass gassing Jews and Gypsies at Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Birkenau, and all the other names on that litany of horror, dosen't make it right. Rousseau, Locke and other enlightenment philosphers spoke of a higher moral law that we all must obey, even at the risk of disobeying our superiors. This was one of the arguements used at Nuremburg when Nazis tried to wiggle out of war crimes by saying they were "Only following orders." The Geneva Convention has been brought up. Whether or not these people are strictly POW's is a moot point. What counts is that they are HUMAN BEINGS. Maybe they are on the other side, but we have no right to torture them. The Geneva Convention Doesn't apply? Jus au Bellum: the law of war applies. In the "Rules" of war, one of the most important ideas is that all prisoners must be treated alike. We must answer to a higher moral law: the Law of God, the Law of Humanity, call it what you wish. Any person with the least semblence of a conscious KNOWS that torture is wrong. They use it? That is one of the main reasons THEY are the BAD GUYS! If you say, "Hell, they do it, why not us?" Fine. We can have beheadings with penknives, public stonings, and we can gas whoever we want! We are a civilized nation. If we wish to lay claim to that title, then we must take the high road. Hard? yes. It was too hard for the Romans. Look what happened to them. It was too hard for the Mongols. Where are they? It was too hard for Bismark, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Nixon, The Antebellum South, and Joseph McCarthy. Where are they now? Gone. Destroyed by their own moral turpitude. if we would survive, one nation "Of the People, By the people and FOR the People," then we must not make those mistakes. Torture is for barbarians. Is the Right-wing admitting that they are barbarians? Your failure X-ray, is in not admitting that something evil, which the entire truely civilized world has condemned since time im memorium, is in fact wrong. Until the entire world comes to that realization, there will continue to be Gitmos, or Cambodian Killing Fields, or Auschwitzs, or any other gross violations of human rights.
To simplify it for your small brain, X-ray:
Hurting people for no reason is bad. No matter who says it is good, it is bad.
Jerry wrote: "As for the debate that has been created by what Durbin said: He's still right."
How can Durbin be right when his public allegation, made without any formal investigation whatsoever, has yet to be proved? You may want him to be right, because he said what you wanted to hear -- stuff that reinforces your feelings about the current administration. Like Newsweek, you've apparently decided the military people working at GITMO are evil based on hearsay.
Have you weigned the testimony from those military people who work at GITMO? No, because you apparently don't care. You made up your mind the minute Durbin made his outrageous, irresponsible statement.
How can Durbin be right when his public allegation, made without any formal investigation whatsoever, has yet to be proved?
Gee, sounds like Bush's reasononing for going to Iraq - Saddam had WMD.
Yet, for all the allegations, it's never been proven.
Didn't stop Bush, did it?
Or is that kind of reasoning ok only for the Republicans?
Like Newsweek, you've apparently decided the military people working at GITMO are evil based on hearsay.
And like a good little Republican, you've ignored comments from the military that the Newsweek article was pretty much spot on - that the military has abused the Koran (I'd think pissing on it would qualify), among other things.
From mark Evanier website:
Today's Political Rant 04:02 PM
No one will ever give me credit for it but I think, back in the pre-Internet days of electronic bulletin boards, I was the first person to ever make an important point in online discussions. My friends and I used to refer to Mark's Rule, which is that you're not allowed to compare anyone to Hitler or Nazis unless they're actually committing mass murder and genocide. I think this is better that the version now being floated about, which says that you're not allowed to compare anyone to Hitler at all. If someone is going around and killing thousands of people, or even hundreds, I think it's okay to make a Nazi analogy or two.
A lot of people are upset because an Illinois senator suggested that certain actions in U.S prison camps could be mistaken for Nazi S.O.P. This is not exactly saying the perpetrators are equal to Nazis but it's close enough, I guess.
Dick Durbin's detractors are calling his remarks "treason" and demanding that he be kicked out of the senate or at least censured. Personally, I don't think spoken words alone ever constitute treason, and the demands for his ouster are empty political threats. It's like when someone loses a public battle on some issue and says, "You haven't heard the last of this! We're going to pass a Constitutional Amendment to reverse this." That almost always means you have heard the last of it. What's the current batting average for threatened amendments to our Constitution? I think it's like one in five hundred million. The stats for getting senators tossed out of office for what they say are about the same.
Might they get him censured? They shouldn't. But never underestimate the power of the right-wing wackos to force Republicans in Congress to occasionally act on their hysterics. (The Terri Schiavo matter will stand for some time as the shining example but it's by no means the only. By the way, right-wing wackos should not be confused with left-wing wackos, who are just as wacko though somewhat less effectual.)
Was Durbin in the wrong? Yeah, if for no other reason than that the public discourse is now over his choice of analogy, rather than the actual issue he was trying to get people to do something about. He was raising a very serious matter and one suspects that at least some of the folks now hammering him for the Nazi reference are doing so because it's easier -- and probably more fun -- to do that that to address the main charge. Otherwise, I think I agree with Andrew Sullivan, and that must mean something since I so rarely agree with Andrew Sullivan. We need to address the issue instead of shooting messengers. That's probably all Senator Durbin was trying to make happen and it's unfortunate that he used a few words that have gotten things off-topic.
R., from what I understand, Durbin didn't say anything about the veracity of the FBI e-mail. I've read only the small section of his statement that appears relevant, but from what I read, all Durbin did was read the FBI e-mail describing the alleged abuse, and then make an add-on statement saying something like "If I had not told you this was committed by US troops, you would have assumed that it was an act carried out by one of history's eviil regimes."
How can he be right? Because he's stating an opinion, and because there are people that agree with him. There are those, I guess, that disagree, and as Jerry says, think "go USA" when they hear about abusive treatment of prisoners. The allegation doesn't have to be true for the statement to be right. And given that we have proof (and convictions) of prior past abuses, I think it's a good thing that our elected officials are willing to risk their own political necks in an effort to call attention to the issue.
I for one don't think the average soldier stationed at Gitmo is evil. I think they're following orders. I do think an administration that defines tradtional torture methods out of the word torture, all in order to use so methods formerly known as torture in order to punish helpless detainees, is run by evil people. What I also find reprehensible is that a president that essentially won by appealing the christian religious base in this country apparantly has no qualms about using such abusive methods on prisoners in his care. Such abuse is so clearly at odds with the messages found in the Bible that it's yet one more reason I am left speechless that Bush was re-elected.
Craig wrote: "And like a good little Republican, you've ignored comments from the military that the Newsweek article was pretty much spot on - that the military has abused the Koran (I'd think pissing on it would qualify), among other things."
Obviously you haven't been following this thread from the beginning. I VOTED for Durbin, unfortunately.
"...you've apparently decided the military people working at GITMO are evil based on hearsay."
No. I just feel that anybody who does that kind of thing or lets it happen by turning a blind eye to it is in the running for the "evil" or "stupid" titles. But the winners for the belt right now are the people calling the shots.
We know that it has been done by our troops and by contractors placed there by the people in The White House in other prisons set up since the conflicts began. We have the proof in the form of photos, sworn testimony and the convictions of the lowest on the totem pole rather then the order givers.
We've seen that the people in charge and the majority of their supporters in the media smile upon this type of thing. After all, it's not really torture. It's no worse then hazing, frat pranks or the "average" Hollywood movie. It's just guys in a stressful situation blowing off steam. It's just a little fun and entertainment. Or it's vital intel work. To say that it's wrong and is torture is to be called a traitor, un-American or a hater of our troops. Oh, and real Americans want to see even more of it.
Is it happening at GITMO? We don't know for sure yet. The evidence that it is happening is very strong. But saying that does not mean I think that the troops are evil. It means that there is a group of people in our military who need their @$$es handed to them real bad. What we, as citizens, need to do is make sure that these things don't happen in our name and if it has that it does not continue.
Again, I don't believe that our troops nor the military are evil. I simply have too much respect for our military to sit around with my mouth shut and do nothing while a handful of loose screws and a few power players with questionable brainpower stain our military's honor and name further.
And, again, Durbin is still right. I don't think of our military as a first choice when I hear tales of torture. No one should ever get to that point either. That's why we must do something to preserve their honor rather then stick our fingers in our ears, keep our mouths shut and pretend that as long as we, our elected officials and our media never mention it that the rest of the world will not report on any real abuses and torture done by a handful of fools.
Jerry wrote: "And, again, Durbin is still right. I don't think of our military as a first choice when I hear tales of torture. No one should ever get to that point either."
Durbin can't possibly be "right" until his allegations are proved. He was irresponsible for publicly making those allegations without checking them out first. He is a public official who has great influence both at home an abroad, and he should not be thinking with his mouth. His unproven comments were big news in the Middle East, serving as a PR boost for the insurgency, and thus making it even more difficult for the troops on the ground in country.
In addition, as someone who is a student of history, I think his comparisons -- even if later found to be true -- are ludicrous.
And unless he heartfeltly apologizes for his gaffe, I can never, in good conscience, vote for him again.
R., with this current adminstration, the alleged abuse described in the FBI memo/e-mail read by Durbin will never be proven, unless the public is gavlonized into demanding an accounting. Should we silence all allegations of abuse until they can be "proven?" Our own government reports (like the FBI reports basically corraborating the Newsweek accounts of Quran flushing a week after Newsweek was forced to refute it's story) are saying the same thing Durbin is telling us. How many different sources have to come out before it's ok to talk about something?
Bobb wrote: "R., with this current adminstration, the alleged abuse described in the FBI memo/e-mail read by Durbin will never be proven, unless the public is gavlonized into demanding an accounting. Should we silence all allegations of abuse until they can be "proven?"
What Durbin did on the Senate floor the other day, waving around a piece of paper and making very serious, yet unproven accusations, reminded of the darkest days of McCarthyism. If that's the type of person you want representing you, then fine. But not me.
"What Durbin did on the Senate floor the other day, waving around a piece of paper and making very serious, yet unproven accusations, reminded of the darkest days of McCarthyism."
In what way? McCarthy believed (and to a limited extent, was correct) that the US had been infiltrated by Communist spies, and he took efforts to uncover them. In his zeal, he engaged in dubious, maybe even illegal tactics, and eventually didn't know when to stop, turning the machine he had created to target those that had no credible ties to Communism, but were political or moral opponents.
If anything about Durbin should remind you of McCarthy, it would only be the beginning...where there was real, credible evidence of some corruption in our government, and demanding that some action take place to stop it.
If there's anything going on right now that should remind you of the "darkest days of McCarthyism," it should be the abuse of detainees that's been ordered and approved of by this administration...using unethical and illegal means to achieve a political goal, even if the incentive to use those means is a good one.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8623955.htm
This is from last year. And to borrow from something PAD has said in the past, calling a stinking pile of poo a "rosey mound of clay" doesn't make it smell any better, look any better, or be anything other than what it is.
And we're not talking about some unsubstantiated FBI memo, either. We're talking about State Department orders issued or signed by Rumsfeld himself...what more do you need to substantiate the FBI descriptions that this kind of activity if going on, every day, down at Gitmo and around the world, carried out by US troops?
Well, I think this horse we're beating is just about dead -- suffice to say, I don't agree with you.
Obviously you haven't been following this thread from the beginning. I VOTED for Durbin, unfortunately.
I have. Unfortunately, you're spending so much time bitching and moaning about the single quote from Durbin, rather than the loads of bs coming from the Bush Administration, that you come across as a right-winger.
If that's the type of person you want representing you, then fine. But not me.
And yet it was somebody speaking for the Bush Administration that said, in the days after 9/11, that "people need to watch what they say.".
I don't see any Democrats or liberals making claims that to be moderate means you're going to have your political career torn out from under you, as some have threatened with McCain and the other Republicans who compromised on the judicial nominations.
Now, there's a word one side has forgotten the meaning to... compromise.
Sounds like you've picked the wrong side when discuss who's best at McCarthyism, to me.
Now, there's a word one side has forgotten the meaning to... compromise.
Only one side????
Where do you see compromise coming from either side?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101193.html
To the list of people who think that Durbin should apologize we can now add...Dick Durbin!
"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
An emotional Sen. Durbin apologized Tuesday, June 21, 2005 for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.
His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.
"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.
..."I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."
..."I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy."
Frankly, Durbin showed more class and good sense than many of his defenders. His apology should be accepted. If the Democrats decide, as the republicans did with Trent Lott, that the apology is fine but they want someone in a leadership position who is less likely to screw up so spectacularly, well, that's their choice.
Bill M. posted the following from the Washington Post story regarding Durbin's apology: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies." An emotional Sen. Durbin apologized Tuesday, June 21, 2005 for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures. His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks."
Apology accepted from this Illinois voter.
So, I guess we'll be hearing an apology from Santorum for comparing defending the filibuster to Hitler's invasion of France any minute now.
Yep.
Anytime now.
No hurry.
Anyone?
Bueller?
You asking for an apology from Santorum is just like Hitler.
"Mark's Rule, which is that you're not allowed to compare anyone to Hitler or Nazis unless they're actually committing mass murder and genocide."
----
What fantastic insight "Mark" has!
Before "Mark" was born, this used to be called "common sense."
So, I guess we'll be hearing an apology from Santorum for comparing defending the filibuster to Hitler's invasion of France any minute now.
Yep.
Anytime now.
No hurry.
Anyone?
Bueller?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/20/national/w085317D29.DTL
Santorum Regrets Making Hitler Comment
Byrd came under fire in March for comparing Hitler's Nazis and the Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering. Santorum, a Pennsylvanian, criticized Byrd's remarks at the time, saying the Nazi references "lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate."
But on Thursday, Santorum said that Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator seizing Paris and then saying: "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."
Santorum later said in a release that his remark "was a mistake and I meant no offense."
The Republican Jewish Coalition applauded the statement. "Sen. Santorum is sensitive to the effect of his words and the inappropriateness of the analogy," Executive Director Matthew Brooks said.
This was all May 20th.
He's still a nitwit, though.