Letters to the Editor
-
@DQuintanaNY
Who the hell is this coward and why is he not speaking out?
This country NEEDS someone in this position to blow the whistle, not only to save lives and end our nation's disgraceful acts of torture, but also to maintain whatever tattered shreds of our Constitution we have left
Okay, so do you have the power to protect him/her? These guys are thugs, can you stop another INSLAW bathtub scene?
I share your desire to see this out in the open and actionable (to use the current, in vogue expression), but demanding conduct over and above from people is not fair. Give this person the time to get to where they want to be a hero on their own, please, you have no right to demand conduct you don't know you could deliver.
-
Losing the cloak of legality?
They never had it in the first place. Never. Since Day One.
They don't call it the Bush Crime Family for nothing.
-
"Who the hell is this coward and why is he not speaking out?"
He's no one, because Blumenthal, as is his wont, simple invented him out of thin air.
Remember this fact that he conveniently doesn't tell you: the policy of "extraordinary rendition" was started under his boss, Bill Clinton.
-
Addington
One of the key framers of the war paradigm (in which the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances), who a year ago was arguing vehemently for pushing its boundaries, confesses that he has abandoned his belief in the whole doctrine, though he refuses to say so publicly. If he were to speak up, given his seminal role in formulating the policy and his stature among the Federalist Society cadres that run it, his rejection would have a shattering impact, far more than political philosopher Francis Fukuyama's denunciation of the neoconservatism he formerly embraced. But this figure remains careful to disclose his disillusionment with his own handiwork only in off-the-record conversations.
This pretty clearly is Addington. Can his fellow Federalist Sociey members read this and not know that?
It doesn't help to be off the record if you're the only one left. Libby's gone. Yoo is gone. And, now that there is no executive privilege applying to the VP staff--since they are not part of the executive branch--Addington has to respond to a subpoena, right?
-
AFew Words Of Advice (indeed)
<<I could go on … and on … and on … … …>>
Not 'could'. Rather, do. If you speak like you write, I think we could have you pegged as one of those guys we have all seen at the airport . . .
you know, those fellows with the Startrek widgets stuck in their ears, walking around yapping and gesticulating into the ether.
Brevity, my friend, brevity.
-
A Few Words of Advice (Cliffs Notes version)
Sidney:
1) Don't base your argument on "inside" sources. They're not reliable.
2) Don't ignore the evidence you cite in your articles.
3) Don't jump to conclusions that contradict the evidence.
Oh, and one more:
4) Write shorter articles. All the "Anonymous" types want sound-bites, not logic or debate. Reading can be so confusing!
--
PS -- Never respond to losers called "Anonymous."
-
Whatever, Davie . . .
<<PS -- Never respond to losers called "Anonymous.">>
So why did you?
I guess that depends on your definition of 'never' and 'respond'.
As Ian Dury would say, "There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards . . . "
-
Make Believe
As a lifelong television viewer I was taught long ago that what is shown on the tube is not always real. This is something that I have tried to pass on to my own children. However, it seems, that no one has bothered to point this fact out to Justice Scalia. It may have a basis in fact, but it is make believe.
I can only wonder,since there was no coverage, what the other international Judges and attorneys thought of his invoking of a fictional character's, actions in reguard to the rationalization for the justification of torture.
footsore
-
COOL
when can we finally arrest and try him for destroying the USA?
-
War Crimes?
I accept that Bush & Co. will not face impeachment (or any other criminal proceedings) for any of their illegal actions against Americans. Until they're caught, I don't know, molesting a child or something, there simply isn't the political will.
However, is it too much to hope that, shortly after leaving the presidency, they might have to face the music in an international tribunal for their international crimes? What a bold move that would be for our foreign policy! To actually hand over an ex-president to the world and show them no American is above international law! And how better to restore the balances to our own liberties, than to show all of our future presidents what could happen if you claim powers beyond those granted to you by the Constitution and international treaty?
I would NOT like to see this brought up in the presidential or primary debates - surely the candidate who openly supports my fantasy would crash and burn in the polls. And yet I find myself evaluating the candidates based almost entirely on my own fantasy of whom among them could possibly have the will or the gumption to go for it. McCain? Clinton? Obama? Edwards?
Oh dear. I've just confessed to basing my voting preferences on fantasy. I am a bad American.
-
The never ending, continuing war on terror...
... is not the Louisiana purchase or the Civil War. It's one matter to make temporary amendments in times of crisis, or in the face of an unprecedented opportunity for national growth. It's completely another in the context of an apparently never-ending "war on terror."
In the first instance the overstepping of government power is acceptable because the danger is presumed to not last decades, or generations, and poses little risk to altering the long-term functioning of the republic. When the crisis is presumed to be persistent, as is the present case, and possibly neverending, the potential for complete disregard of more and more liberties grows more dangerous. Combine this with the manipulation of public fear by entrenched politicians and an atmosphere of traitor-baiting in the face of earnest criticism, and it looks less and less like a good long term strategy to achieve our goals, and more like a play for a move to some kind of authoritarian structure the Founders never intended, and most Americans don't truly understand.
As far as suspension of habeas corpus goes, we're not in a civil war yet, unless somebody's got plans they haven't mentioned at the last Bircher's meeting. And there have been laws on the books for decades that provide the executive branch authority, with the appropriate oversight (the deficiency of which is the root of my own distrust of the unitary executive doctrine, of which this suicide pact argument is currently part and parcel) to secretly search or eavesdrop on suspects in a fashion otherwise considered unconstitutional. And that's how most domestic incidents of terrorism will be prevented, by surveillance and law enforcement. Hell, pass laws that reasonably lower the threshold of suspicion for terrorism if required. Adapting to the situation isn't the issue. It's the oversight and accountability that matter. There's no reason to take the opportunity, in this day and age, to shred the one document that should bind us together to bits and pieces. It's also our primary ideological weapon against these malicious pricks who want to kill us, and massive acts of hypocrisy only serve to undercut our respect and position in the world at large.
I like it when righties skip over context. But I will be magnanimous and thank you for humbling me in my previous dash to speak before I think. It was most unwise. I'm not that much of a stubborn bastard. I hope.