- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
He wants to remain "almost consistent with the Geneva Conventions" and call attention to "humane treatment," but still leave that loophole to enable (presumably) brutal interrogations...but he's not able to come right out (as others were) and advocate such. True, that's hardly a profoundly principled position, but hell, compared to some of the bloodthirsty and vengeful talk about "working the dark side" in those days, it's relatively rational. And rational people can learn and change their minds, eventually, based on cooler emotions and considered evidence. I'll take that over a dumbshit ideologue any day.
What's also striking to me is the reminder that we, as a nation, immediately defaulted to the concept of "war" and to trying to fit the 9/11 CRIMINALS into the category of combatants. So you've got people like Holder struggling to apply Vietnam and WWII P.O.W. conventions to a situation that really doesn't fit the mold.
Well put.
The ability of someone to hold an irrational or undemocratic thought, but to clearly change it after a period of reflection is a good sign to me that that is a thinking person, and not necessarily one who is led solely or primarily by political dogma. It's a good sign, but, like Glenn and others, I'll hold out for more background and behavioral evidence before making my final judgment.
