Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
It's coming here next
[Read the article: Fun and games with terrorist threats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Russian Lawyer Seeking US Asylum
Feb 5th, 2008 | MOSCOW -- Boris Kuznetsov, a lawyer who challenged the Russian security services' wiretapping of his client, has applied for political asylum in the United States, his Moscow attorney said Tuesday.
Kuznetsov fled Russia in July after authorities accused him of divulging state secrets by providing evidence of the wiretapping to the Constitutional Court.
The lawyer has taken part in an array of high-profile cases, including representing the family of murdered journalist Anna Politikovskaya, a fierce Kremlin critic, and the families of sailors who died in the Kursk nuclear submarine disaster in 2000.
By seeking asylum, Kuznetsov is "striving to secure himself from lasting and steadfast criminal prosecution," his lawyer Robert Zinoviev told The Associated Press.
Kuznetsov is one of many Russian lawyers to face official pressure after or while working on sensitive high-profile cases or on behalf of clients whom the government perceives as its opponents.
Kuznetsov had appealed to the court to rule on whether the Federal Security Service, the successor of the KGB, violated the rights of his client, a former member of the upper house of parliament, by tapping his phone conversations without court authorization.
His client, Levon Chakhmakhchyan, was arrested in February on suspicion of accepting a $300,000 bribe. Security service agents claim to have caught him in a sting operation.
-
That would never happen here
[Read the article: Fun and games with terrorist threats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]2. As time passes, the chance that a warring twosome find each other, and take over the thread, increases.
3. There is a tendency to attack or respond to the stupidest or most controversial thing said, and the longer the comments thread runs for, the stupider this will get.
-
What will I do?
[Read the article: What will YOU do with your fiscal stimulus check?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Stash it. Or else buy a badly-needed car with it.
-
"Bloodthirstiness"
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think greypaladin has a point, that explains some of what we've seen. But Martin Gale isn't reading very closely.
As Glenn has in effect pointed out, and Gale reinforces, rarely if ever do Americans get a clear choice between bloodthirsty and nonbloodthirsty, because few candidates get that far on the national stage. Glenn cites LBJ v BG as the best example, and then Gale goes ahead and disagrees while pointing out that it wasn't a clear choice at all. Well, that was Glenn's point.
Glenn 1, Gale 0
Recall all the discussions of "seriousness." Who controls the definition and perception of "seriousness"? Americans? Hardly.
As it stands, if a Dem suggests sanctions, McCain will call for bombing; if the Dems want bombing, McCain will make a joke about nukes. That is the modern sense of "seriousness." It does not reflect Americans as a whole at all.
But Paladin suggests that Americans have a certain tolerance for all this---and they do. Some of us are actually bloodthirsty, and many others tolerate those people as long as the news is good. We want "butter" candidates every time, but we don't want a "butter up and bend over" candidate. Who would?
Having figured out that the invasion was a lie and is a failure, and grasping that between the false options of "surrender" and "victory" is whole other category I'll call "humiliating, potentially catastrophic defeat," Americans are capable of feeling happy about minor successes in Iraq, but they haven't changed their minds about it. So the polls on don't change, even if the gloom lifts a bit.
Even if true victory somehow comes about and 100,000 flowers bloom, this generation of voters will not concede that (a) it should have been done and (b) that it was worth it. Let the next generation accept the whitewash and forget the sacrifice and the mess. But it is far more likely that they will take an even dimmer view than we do now.
If American voters thought victory was possible they would let us know. The best approach for a Dem is to be upbeat and patriotic (not gloomy) but to say clearly and unequivocally that the invasion wasn't worth it and the occupation needs to end, but to end it as decently and calmly as possible. This is just common sense.
-
As for a sudden "terror" attack
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's my hunch that if another 9/11 happened tomorrow, it's not Dems who would primarily suffer. Yes, some voters who have drifted away from Bush would come back because they are drawn like moths to the "primal fear" factor, but there can't be many of those---because that would involve thought, analysis, and changing one's mind, and anyone dumb enough to go back to Daddy isn't likely to have ever left.
Such people would be outnumbered 10 to 1 by voters going the other way---people who would simply no longer be able to cling to the fantasy that an authoritarian facade of "security strength" actually protects us.
The fact is, it just isn't a very attractive fantasy except to fearful authoritarians---basket cases---and it requires a total buy-in. As we all know, that accounts for no more than 30% of Americans.
-
@ the troll named ProWar
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course there's a distinction between strategic withdrawal from Iraq and bringing about an end to the American global empire. Just about everyone who comments here sees that distinction. Who told you there was no distinction?
Did Rush tell you we thought there was no distinction? Did he tell you all Glenn's readers support Kucinich and Paul, and no one else?
Poor deluded troll.
-
@ the troll named Paul
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's called "counting." Try it.
-
@PR
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]An out of Iraq candidate represents about 1 thousandth of Glenn's agenda for the American foreign policy. You might be happy when he wins (which he may well do) but America in the world under Obama will come out closer to what I want it to look like than what Glenn does.
How did you calculate that 1/1000 figure? Seriously? (Says the fuckwit who doesn't bother to read.)
Also, if you think you can reconcile the 2006 elections with a Republican president and Congress in 2008. please do.
Of course, since you seem to deny the kingmaking role of the media, you may need to forgive us for taking your explanation with a large salt lick. But do go on.
-
also
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you meant "teat."
As in, the female breast. Right?
Glenn's.
Demented.
Teat.
Very good.
-
@ Glenn
[Read the article: Conceding John McCain's "toughness" on national security]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But of course history DID begin in 2001.
Ask Rudy.