Destroying those tapes was the right thing to do.

Why? Because like the Abu Ghraib pictures it would be leaked, and live forever in cyberspace as the stereotype of all America. While I'm sure quite a few here would like that to occur, our current reputation of being the cruelist, most bloodthirsty, lawless nation in recent history doesn't need embellishment....

Especially if it's undeniably TRUE!!!

There was once a school of thought in slander law that the tort of slander was far more serious if the slanderous statement was actually true; if it was false, no big deal, but there was actually injury if someone pointed out correctly that someone else was a sleazebucket piece'o'shite. A truthful allegation of such did far more damage.

Fortunately, we're past that now, and truthfulness is an absolute defence, at least under U.S. law ... albeit there are still some countries slow on the uptake that take the crime of "slandering the state" (or the religion, or whatever) seriously. Just to put Sh**ter's sentiment here in proper perspective....

Cheers,

Three diverse groups, CHALLENGE EACH OTHER, dance together and walk off together.

ROCKEFELLER: I'm not—I don't comment on allegations. I can't. I can't afford to.

I don't know Rockefeller very well but this strikes me as a sincere expression, and as such it would seem to support ondolette's (and many others') "access whore" theory of Senatorial motivation.

Of course it raises the same question that access whoring always does — if they're not giving you anything anyway, then what do you have to lose by fighting?

Whatever is going on, he's clearly making himself a target for elimination in the next episode of "Progressive Survivor". And hey, that's coming up!

http://www.jay08.com/index.php

Shooter... Destroying those tapes was the right thing to do.

Don't buzzkill shooter's mission impossible fantasy. The tapes self-destructed in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Following the links from Jonathan Schwartz's post leads to a wikipedia article on the very useful concept of "learned helplessness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness). The term refers to a depressive condition that results when a person or animal learns (e.g. through random electric shocks in one of those cruel 1970s-era animal tests) that she/he/it has no control over its circumstances. The key finding of the tests:

In all cases, the strongest predictor of a depressive response was lack of control over the negative stimulus.

It seems to me that this is exactly what the administration and most of the national political establishment (including a good number of Democrats) are trying, consciously or not, to do the American public: convince us, through their non-response to our protests, polls, and votes, that we have no control over the negative results of the Bush years (Iraq, Katrina, the economy, the environment), and thereby induce a collective political depression that keeps us from caring who wins elections. I've heard so many times over the past couple of years that "it doesn't matter who we elect".... That's just what "they" want us to think....

Even by Shooters usual rants...today he capped his own ass.

and one I actually happen to agree with. On the other hand, police forces are not -- with some totalitarian exceptions -- free standing institutions. You don't reform police departments from the inside. You reform the city or state governments which sanction them.

I might also add that police department reforms imposed from the outside which don't change the internal culture of the department usually fail. The revolving door at the LAPD, for example, hasn't changed anything of real significance since Chief Parker first recast it as a professional paramilitary decades ago. In such cases firing everybody, changing the name, the color of the uniforms, the training program, the rules of engagement, etc., might work, but in such a case, what would be gained by denying that you'd actually replaced the institution?

The Administration was abusing classification laws so that Congressmen who were shown sensitive and damaging information about the Administration would have to keep quiet about it or face criminal prosecution if they spoke out. According to Charlie Savage's Takeover Cheney had the illegal wire-tapping program classified as an ultrasensitive covert mission abroad, even though it obviously didn't fit the legal requirements. If Rockefeller had talked to even the members of his staff who did have top secret security clearance he could have been prosecuted. And given the political make-up of the Congress at the time of Rockefeller's 2003 letter to Cheney, and the well-documented authoritarian character of this Administration, it seems likely to me that he would have been.

The Administration abused the Classification laws to make effective Congressional oversight of their activities virtually impossible. If House Members or Senators read secret intelligence bills and talked about them publicly they would be criminally prosecuted or expelled from Congress.

I agree with Matthew Yglesias's take that Civil Disobedience should definitely be an option in these circumstances, but given the Administration's Soviet-thug mentality, it would be a hard decision to make.

If laws have been broken, why isn't the GOP calling for investigations?

Does GOP party loyalty trump the rule of law and the Constitution?

(Oh no! Here come the Pauliacs. It's a police state!).

What would you consider to be the most single most definitive characteristic of a "police state"?

In my mind it is the percentage of the population locked in cages.

"The Land of the Free" leads the world in that category.

We're #1

We're #1

We're #1

I was not present at Davis' interview with Rockefeller, so I am a little reluctant to attribute any particular frame of mind, or emotional state to him. I haven't heard the MP3 audio that is referenced, and I am mindful of Schwarz's caution to hear Rockefeller's tone of voice and moments of hesitation.

Having said that, initially, Rockefeller's response seemed genuine/sincere/honest enough ... but when I got to the snippet you've identified, something began to smell. Whether I smell fear, or evasiveness, or weasel, or muskrat, I can't tell. But, things shifted for me at that point. I'm still sifting for that audio.