Letters to the Editor
-
the same Congress now takes a flamboyant and purely symbolic (though impotent) stand
Step in your personal wayback machine and dial up your own grade school years. You there? Okay. Remember those bullies who were always picking on you? The mean, loud-mouthed jerks who got their way because they threatened to beat the crap out of anyone who didn't let them, or, more likely, threatened to call you a queer or a sissy or some other worse-than-death name? Okay. Now remember the reaction to those bullies by those who were next in line in the pecking order. After the bullies finished with them, what happened? Did they go after the bullies themselves? Did they band together and stand up for what was right? No. Chances are they turned around and attacked someone on the sidelines, someone who wasn't really involved or to blame, but was isolated and easy to target because nobody really knew who he was or gave a shit about what happened to him. The bloodied hounds got to vent their anger, put up a good front that made themselves feel better, and forget for moment that they're all still simpering puppy dogs with their tails between their legs.
Sound familiar?
While I will genuinely be happy if Mukasey is denied his rubber stamp, I could not equate the event with the democrats actually showing some spine. If they truly are ready to stand up for what is right, and what their constituents overwhelmingly want, they will put their foot down -- all the way down -- and go after the real problem: the sociopaths in the White House.
-
@Sparkatus
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.
I agree with you about what's torture. "Waterboarding," i.e. drowning, is an age-old torture technique. Where I disagree with you is in your suggestion to use Wikipedia as a course. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source; it's an on-line toy, two-thirds of whose administrators are under the age of 25 and one-third of whom are under the age of 18. It is rife with errors, misrepresentations, and scandal.
-
I'm as cynical as Glenn
Except I'm not upset with The Dems. I'm upset with Some Dems. I agree with DoubleDave 27 that DINO Diane Feinstein can be counted on to vote with the GOP.
If they had spine, they'd offer a trade: we'll confirm Mukasey if you release the secret Abu Ghraib tape to the public. Let's see ALL the dirty laundry.
-
Thank Dodd
It's wrong, in my opinion to think this grand stand is because for these Senators, this lawlessness is sinking in. To think that means thinking they were bumbling morons before who didn't understand the consequences of their inaction (or votes for things like the Military Commissions act.)
No, it's a pure copycat move. They watched Chris Dodd take a stand and get rewarded for it. They are pandering to the "We care about the constitution crowd"
Think about that. One Senator actually does his job of protecting the constitution, gets rewarded for it, and then inspires other senators to do their jobs.
I can't decide if this is good or pathetic. I guess it's good that they are finally standing up for something. But it seems bad because of what's motivating them. That GG didn't applaud them is right -- it's their job!
-
O/T Very Interesting
Via Josh and TPM, LOTS more on Qwest and the NSA pre 9/11
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/071102nj1.htm
-
@shooter242
Mukasey was the Democrat choice. Live with it.
This is your favorite rhetorical trick, and your most transparent. It always works the same way:
1) Republicans do something that liberals find objectionable
2) Democrats acquiesce
3) Greenwald attacks the Democrats for acquiescing
4) Liberal commenters agree, attacking the Republicans for their original action (in order to bolster the argument; e.g. look at what the Democrats are allowing to happen); in so doing, they (the comenters) rehearse the moral/legal/political arguments against the original (Republican) action
5) Shooter242 "informs" the liberal commenters of point 2) ("Democrats acquiesce") (in other words, restating Greenwald's original point), erroneously believing that this nullifies the points being made
6) In so doing, shooter242 believes himself to have "won" a point, even though he has managed to ignore and avoid both Greenwald's original point, and, more important, the arguments against the original Republican action.
Let me spell this out with a hypothetical example using the same numbers (so that I can't possibly be misunderstood):
1) Republicans begin looking for a building to set on fire
2) Democrats find the building for them and hand them a match
3) Greenwald excoriates the Democrats for appeasing the Republicans
4) Greenwald's commenters agree, emphasizing how awful it is to set buildings on fire
5) Shooter242 "informs" us of point 2: The Democrats were responsible for selecting the building and providing the match
6) In so doing, shooter242 can "declare victory" ("Get over it") without addressing the correctness of Greenwald's attack or the underlying issue of whether setting buildings on fire is bad
It's a great technique if you don't care about anything except scoring a cheap point that you don't even score.
-
@mattrhames
I can't decide if this is good or pathetic. I guess it's good that they are finally standing up for something. But it seems bad because of what's motivating them.
What matters is the result. I'm figuring that this is just one more headfake by the Democrats to convince the liberal base that they give a shit about torture. Then they'll give in to Bush as they always do. That said, I'd be happy to be surprised for once. If they show some spine because they're scared not to, that's fine by me. I'm not holding my breath, that's all.
-
@Sparkatus
As I recall, from reading other articles on it, the cellophane (actually saran wrap) over the mouth makes the feeling intense because when the water dribbles into the nose forcing a gag and a gasping for air, it is impossible to gasp. It is worth noting that they do the technique on trainees in the CIA, and the average time to breakdown is 40 seconds, even though they know it's a drill.
For a better description of what it actually induces mentally if it is done seriously, here is a letter, in it's entirety from this morning's NYT:
To the Editor:
I had the misfortune to come very close to drowning. I panicked while swimming in a river in England, and was pulled out of the water unconscious by a young woman, who saved my life.
Recalling that experience, which must have lasted a couple of minutes at the most, is still enough to make me tremble; it happened 30 years ago.
It turns my stomach to think that those who act on behalf of this civilized country may be using simulated drowning to question potentially innocent people. Is there no decency left in this ugly so-called war?
Peter Cleary
San Francisco, Nov. 1, 2007
I'm citing it because a principal argument by many on the right is the "lasting mental harm" stuff, and the claim that waterboarding doesn't produce lasting effects. It's precisely your previous feelings of not really understanding why its torture that they are banking on for public support, note that they have suddenly started saying things like, "It's not in the same class with having your fingernails pulled." which produces an immediate mental image. The whole debate is now being fought in the mental image arena, with everybody knowing what kinds of things were done and who ordered them (they no longer argue bad apples like for Abu Ghraib).
Question for lawyers: Fifth Amendment citings are rightly not an implication of guilt. Are calls for amnesty or change in laws in the same class? Or do they imply a need?