Letters to the Editor
-
Sugerman:"it wasn't criminal when they did it."
Wrong again. The bottom line is that when “water treatment” was practiced against our side, it was called a war crime. That was the ruling against the Japanese after the Second World War by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and by the military courts that tried what were called in the Far East, the “B” and ”C” level war criminals.
When the leaders of Japan were found guilty of multiple and horrific war crimes, one of them was the “water treatment.” Those who actually did the “water treatment” – the officers who directed torture (B level) and those who carried it out (C level) were guilty of war crimes. Some were executed.
-
Sometimes I feel
like a motherless blog.
-
Give it up, Sugerman
The Geneva Convention does not differentiate between "state" vs. other prisoners. Only the Busheviks claim there is a distinction. Moreover, none of the detainees has ever been convicted of anything. The US government doesn't even deny that 8 out of 10, and according to American lawyers and Amnesty International the ratio is closer to almost 10 out of 10 detainees are either totally innocent or petty criminals with no connection to jihadist terrorism. In fact, the US is committing war crimes against people who are mostly innocent, although it's considered a war crime even when the detainees aren't innocent.
waterboarding is a war crime no matter who the victims are, and the regime is guilty of crimes for which others have been executed after committing it against Americans.
-
Zuckerman
Your false modesty and deliberate obtuseness make you an obnoxious boor. Your comments to RMP make you an ass.
-
Now we've seen it all.
Sugarman as a concern troll for the maladministration.
Perhaps Bush has really been channeling sugarman all this time... remember that bulge on his back and his bizarre behavior during the 2004 debates? And then there is the simple matter of their blind loyalty to Israel, no matter who they bomb, innocent civilians or not. And... the rage they each express at being questioned or held accountable for their own actions. And they each seem to be fighting for relevancy these days.
One of those things that make you go: Hmmmm?
-
Just remember who controls the DSCC and DCCC...
If you think those two war chests are used for the sake of world Democracy -you're wrong.
If you think those two war chests are used for the good of America -you're wrong.
If you think those two war chests have been used to further issues dear to the heart of the Democratic party -you're wrong.
And if you think your donations are going for the good of the American citizenry -you'd be dead wrong.
Those two war chests were/are used to bring war with Iraq and war with Iran to a recruiting station near your kids' school.
-
Ondelette
Would you object if I forwarded your so very eloquent post/rejoinder to Shooter re torture a good bit earlier in the thread to my Congressman? It really is of a Olbermann Special Comments caliber. Naturally, I would do the proper attribution to both you and Salon.
-
The DCCC
Too bad that the threads had to be closed last night, even though it was pretty obvious why. When the old commies used to talk about anti-social elements, I laughed, because they were usually talking about me and my friends. Ah well, live and learn, even from stuffy old commies.
On the DCCC, I'm sure the folks there are doing what they think is best, with limited funds, to elect as large a congressional majority as possible for the Democrats. I can also see why they believe that they're better equipped to make judgments about particular races than the rank and file.
From my point of view, though, they're trying to solve the wrong problem. In my own Congressional District, the candidate I believe to be not only the best, but the strongest, is being stiffed by the DCCC, and by the state party, not only because they believe he doesn't match the demographics of the district (a polite phrase for something quite a bit less flattering to them) and because the state party wants to reward someone who has paid her dues.
Since the candidate I support started early, is using a lot of shoe leather, and talking to a lot of rank and file candidates in small and large groups all over the district, the result may be a more open split between the party leadership and the rank and file, particularly the progressives.
If I'm reading sites like FDL and Kos correctly, this is happening all over the country, particularly in the red and transitional states. I don't think that this is good for the party or for the country's future, even if the DCCC's assessments of electability prove to be correct in the end. I think that the party leadership should at least talk to us openly about what they're up to. If they don't, the only one likely to be happy about the outcome will be shooter.
-
@ hazmaq
In one post, you claimed that Schumer is not Jewish, not that his religion should be relevant, his policies are what count, but he is, in fact, Jewish.
http://www.nndb.com/people/109/000026031/
As far as donating money to candidates goes, I hope someone comes along and tells you about the proper way to donate money to the right Democratic candidates.
http://www.actblue.com/
I'm sure there are other places but that's one.
-
@donnaquixote
Yes. I hope it does some good.
-
Timberman on the DCCC
If I'm reading sites like FDL and Kos correctly, this is happening all over the country, particularly in the red and transitional states. I don't think that this is good for the party or for the country's future, even if the DCCC's assessments of electability prove to be correct in the end.
What you describe is exactly MoveOn's strategy this election — if the "same old same old" is the problem with the Democratic Party, then it's time to focus on getting new blood in during the primaries. It would indeed seem to be happening all over the country.
And why is that a bad thing? The Democratic donkey can sometimes be motivated with carrots but sometimes you need a stick. The best way to persuade the party that its membership is actually alert, sober, and capable of asserting its self-interest is by tossing out some of the dead weight in favor of energetic progressives.
Bill Clinton did that as presidential nominee in 1992 as did Howard Dean as DNC chair in 2005. (Tom Daschle did something similar in reverse, by having his ass handed to him the year before.)
Have any of those developments crippled the party? Far from it. Howard Dean and the Clintons are all still regarded with some suspicion by the party's establishment, but that hasn't stopped them from doing a lot of good in terms of advancing progressive causes, and it hasn't stopped the Democrats from retaking Congress. I would go so far as to say that the Democratic Party is competitive today to exactly the extent that it's embraced these feisty outsiders, and I see no reason why that principle won't continue to hold true.