Letters to the Editor
-
Shooter...does this mean...
No, the CIA does not waterboard any longer.
Really? How do you know? Because they say so? That's enough? No proof needed, just a liar speaking a lie? I want PROOF.
Second, you forget something. It WAS illegal and is illegal still today to torture. Waterboarding is torter. Ergo, the CIA admits it WAS acting illegally before to ban waterboarding "now" vs before. By your logic, I can get off free if I am a bankrobber by simply declaring, "I don't rob banks any longer!", forgetting the fact that I used to rob banks. "I don't rape women any longer!" Does that work too? Past rapes are OK so long as you don't do it any longer?
Anyone and everyone that had a hand in torture, from those at the bottom that conducted the torture to those at the very top that OK'd the torture, are criminally liable for their criminal acts, even if they don't do it any longer or no longer OK it.
-
Now I understand what waterboarding is...
I have to admit that after all this time I didn't get from the descriptions I see in the press just why waterboarding was such an effective way to torture someone and how it simulated drowning (ie today's NYT linked via my sig):
"Waterboarding, a centuries-old method that simulates a feeling of drowning, has become a symbol of the larger debate over the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program, and the Mukasey nomination has become a kind of proxy fight for that battle."
Elsewhere its frequently described as covering the face with a cloth or cellophane and then pouring water on it, somehow inducing the gag reflex. Finally, I've seen a description of how this was done during the Inquisition and it all clicked:
a cloth is stuffed *into the victims mouth* and then water is poured onto the cloth. Water seeps through the cloth and the victim either a)breathes it in or b)swallows it, because the cloth prevents him from spitting it out.
Drink or die. Now that is effing torture. But you never see it described that way anywhere in the press, probably because it is a hell of a lot more visceral description...and haven't noticed it in liberal rags/blogs either. Perhaps you can help on that Glenn as you write about the subject.
Check out wikipedia on the subject.
-
Live with it!
I agree with Chartreuse @ 9:21 who said, "Bring Nixon back!!!"
I think a painted bust head of a clump of molded beeswax would be wonderful. Then I'd believe in some Good is happening in DC.
Beeswax is fragrant and the White House would stink much less.
I think some day we will all be dead. I don't think humans rule. Fools. Why put any human bust on a pedestal? bastards.
The matriarchal honey bee is almost dead since these malady laden gops, of bad patriarchal origins, 'um are black-yellow-jackets came to foul up a better world?
O, yes.
Woe do they stink up all of DC., and a Heaven would agree.
O, I'm not even a betting person. A bubble gum wad would rule better than any GOP.
O, said: a stink "Live with it"...gads. stink is right.
O, how did stink brains get to be a president? gads.
Are we in the mortuary yet? O, a red-radish, carved and lit like a shamed lantern head-face, on a red-hot future arse plug will do better, imho.
-
The real fight
Agreed, Glenn. But the bigger question that I think you’re getting at is: how can Democrats turn this battleship? How can they start to stand up to the broader Republican "vision" which is the war on terror?
The reason Democrats have such a hard time is that they have accepted the "war on terror" and have not offered a better vision for our country. Once you accept that we are at "war," it makes sense to many people to do anything possible to win this war. Over and over again we’ve seen Republicans hammer Democrats from this simple foundation.
The logic goes somewhat as follows. If we're at war, shouldn't we be trying to win the war? Shouldn’t we do anything possible to win? Keep in mind, I'm not saying that any of the Bush tactics are right, what I'm saying is that once we accept the war vision, an "ends justifies the means" reasoning comes into play.
If we want to change this, I strongly believe that the Democrats need to come up with a better vision as a first step.
Perhaps, for example, the vision could be "A Safer America". In a Safer America vision, many of Bush's tactics don't make as much sense. In a Safer America, diplomacy makes more sense. In a Safer America, does it make as much sense to authorize torture? Does it make sense to invade other countries?
This is just an example, but I think what you're getting at in your article is that the real opposition needs to be at a much more fundamental and visionary level. This has been my biggest disappointment with the Democrats. Democrats talk policy while allowing the Neo-con vision to stay in place.
The Mukasey argument sounds weak because it sounds like Democrats are merely against a specific tactic, but they are still for the war on terror. The argument gains strength if you state that you are for a Safer America and that torturing people leads to a lack of credibility in the world and potential retaliation against American troops. (NOTE: I’m sure there’s people out there better than I who can come up with a better vision, but this serves to make the point. Ask yourself, what is the vision of the Democratic party? If you can't answer in 3 simple sentences then it is not clear.)
As many polls indicate, people are ready for a change. But until someone comes along who can offer a better vision (and keep it short – 5 bullet points or less), the fight is going to be held at a lower procedural level as in the Mukasey opposition.