Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Why do Feinstein and Wyden sound much different on the torture issue now? The two Senators spent the year emphatically insisting that the CIA's interrogators comply with the Army Field Manual. With Democrats in control, they're not so emphatic any longer
The letters thread is now closed.
  • @Feliatrix

    I agree, DiFi has to go! Now!!

    But then I remember who was elected Governor of California. DiFi will retire before losing an election in Cali. (Thankfully she's like 80 and the time could be soon; but not soon enough!)

    Cheers.

  • emaydon

    And I do accept the point that that she is backsliding on the AFM principle, but not as clear she is backsliding on the more fundamental point on a torture ban.

    This is exactly the conversation (at least part of it) I just had with Wyden's office. Everyone agrees on a "torture ban." The problem is: what does that mean?

    Democrats always had a clear answer: allow nothing except what's in the AFM. Everyone could look at those techniques and they were clear and allowed for no manipulation. That was their clear, emphatic statement.

    By now saying they no longer want to be confined to that, they're completely abandoning what they said all year. The fact that they continue to say they favor a "torture ban" is, to me, no more comforting than when George Bush says that. Why can't they just do what they said all year they were going to do?

    I'm not directing this at you -- I know you're basically making this point -- but I couldn't believe how Wyden's spokesperson called me all angry and aggressive about how I had misunderstood and distorted his point, and then when I kept asking what his view was, she kept describing it EXACTLY how I characterized it.

  • illegal interrogation methods <i>were</i> inspired by "24"

    They been watching that "24" garbage. Maybe that's the problem

    From Torture Team by Philippe Sands

    Ideas also came from other sources and Beaver mentioned one that surprised me. I noted the words "24 - Jack Bauer," but didn't immediately follow this up with her. It was only when I got home that I realized she was referring to the main character of Fox Channel's popular series 24, which everyone watched. Jack Bauer is a fictitious member of the counter-terrorism unit in L.A. who helped prevent many terror attacks on the United States; for him torture and even killing are justifiable means to achieve the desired result. "Rules don't apply to Jack Bauer," another character says in one episode, "he does what he wants, when he wants, and he doesn't care whose life it affects." Bauer had many friends at Guantanamo Bay, Beaver said, "he gave people lots of ideas." Later on I watched the second season of 24, that started broadcasting in October 2002, with my son. The first episode opened with a scene of a man being tortured, apparently with chemicals. The information he divulged - that a nuclear device was to be exploded in Los Angeles within the next twenty-four hours - was the basis for the series. The message was clear: torture works. I raised this with Beaver when I next saw her. "We saw it on cable," Beaver explained, "people had already seen the first series, it was hugely popular." She believes the scene contributed to an environment in which those at Guantanamo were encouraged to see themselves as being on the frontline - and to go further than they otherwise might. Nowadays she can't watch 24 anymore.
  • @Pedinska, kovie

    Posting "NUMEROUS 'serious', 'practical' postings concerning the BEDROCK issue" is not the same as offering a solution. If you had any kind of 'dick' yourself, then you'd be offering solutions, but you'd rather rant and spray the threads with the spittle of your righteous anger. [...]I'm leaving town for a business meeting, so spew away guerrilla-boy. Just remember it's less messy if you face downwind. -- Pedinska

    Thanks. I've been tired of that poseur/whiner for as long as he's been posting here. Even adnauseum is less of an ass (although his inability to spell Courts Martial is a bit tiresome; I expect that from the idiots, but not from an ex-Marine.)

  • That must feel good

    Having the Senator's spokesperson call you all aggressive and angry. I take it she didn't alter your position. Did she seem, ultimately, to understand it?

    Umbrage: I guess we don't share the same "humor sensibilities".

  • speaking of Sands

    He would be a fantastic guest to have on Salon radio if possible.

  • Matthew Alexander

    Glenn writes, responding to a reader's query:

    I think Alexander was just on Democracy Now.

    My addition:

    Alexander was also interviewed on Keith Olbermann's show, just last night.

  • I just read steve andersen's link to Thinkprogress

    And if that is what Feinstein meant to say, I would say its an improvement on her position, not backtracking. I do loathe her still, but the real problem--one created by design--of basing techniques on the field manual, is that it can be changed without any public oversight. In this full quote--and again, if that is actually what it is and not some spin--Feinstein is putting our legal obligations by treaty above the manual, which is the most important thing I think.

    "However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/04/feinstein-nyt-torture/

  • I am almost gone... Wild, and ' Nice ' Beer Barrels wardrobes. Fun? Monkey Business Entertainment. Capital Howl Silly Cooks:`Burnt Kidney & Navy Bean Soup. We be okay.

    I will wear a beer barrel and wobble about with Timothy3?

    Timthy3. You got me asking too many questions. Ah, okay.

    This is a 'nice; gang of motley beggars. It's a tease barrel?

    Money, monkey business. ill-got-gin. Bathed in majesty.

    The analogy of a beer barrel. Just drink gin-drunk skunks?

    Stout, and courageously tout. Tote right.`Bull Moose Party?

    It's a past Taft & Theo Roosevelt era, and Ya a Rush Loons?

    Old parties were sad:`No real soul, only a husk,`ay artificial.

    Campaigns assail, and boss pays to control dark characters.

    T.R. (not Ted Rooster, or Pete the hen layer) said Taft # ten.

    He was branded too "conservative" and Dark Horse Wilson?

    Woodrow Wilson split logs? Split Republican votes, Mooser?

    I need to brush teeth. Brush up on history. Brush for guest?

    Roosevelt whined about cheap beer? And Privilege-Politics.

    People need to address the vital issues or we need rubbers.

    Protection measures. I'm confused. What distinguishes Oy!.?

    Well, maybe we buy breeches and do falcon to fetch supper.

    Pelf. Paltry. Find the poultry bird and get the caste iron pot.

    Speak wisely, and fearlessly. Remember Timothy3. no tease.

    There was a Mr. Didier. He was yelling to protect the people.

    He told a story:`Preacher said:`Go home. Browse Howl Bible.

    Preacher needs a job too. He ordered worship folk:`Mark 17!

    The next Thursday meeting @ the barn howling hay bail joint,

    Preacher ask:`Who read Mark chap. 17? Most all raised hands.

    A DoJ spieler was shocked. The passage in question? chap 17?

    There's no chapter 17. Maybe we can drink barrels of stout ale?

    People cancan boogie, go rest, read, gulp:`The Arabian Nights.

    I know. Not historically accurate. A human make mess-blunders.

    Bad reign forecasted? Shine shin, auto hubcap, ay, cry o grey sky?

    Beethoven sipped red beet soup, and made brash sound with Ale?

    Mozart lost a head. Who has my hat? Mozart never liked split peas?

Most Active Stories

Read More

Letters Help

Daily Delivery

Salon headlines in your mailbox