Remember how ages ago, I mentioned that whenever a discussion about free speech gets going, “some idiot” sooner or later misquotes O.W. Holmes and says that free speech doesn’t mean you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater? When the fact is that you CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theater…provided there’s a fire. What Holmes said you cannot do is falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater and cause a panic. And furthermore, Holmes’ comment was attached to a decision that had nothing to do with theaters, crowds, fires or panic. It instead supported a horrific lower court abuse of free speech rights, when a socialist named Schenck was jailed for years and heavily fined simply for advocating the notion that the draft was wrong. You remember the draft: It’s that thing they eventually abolished and now when politicians try to make each other look bad, they claim the other guys are talking about bringing it back.
The Holmes-quoted decision not only jailed Schenck, but dozens of other Americans over the following years because it advocated a fundamental concept: Disagreeing with the US government in times of war was a jailable offense.
You’d think people would learn. And yet there, on the “Daily Show” last night, was Zell Miller, discussing freedom of speech and misquoting Holmes, as if misquoting was a good thing. As if a court decision suppressing disagreement with the government was a good thing.
Thank heavens I was not in the audience of the “Daily Show” last night. Because I just KNOW I would have shouted out, “Holmes didn’t say that, you nitwit!” Which probably would have gotten me thrown out of the theater, but hey, it’s better than falsely shouting “fire.”
PAD
• 
Well, according to Gonzales, if it causes pain but doesn’t leave a permanent mark, it’s not torture.
For me, torture is being forced to watch “The Sweetest Thing.”
There is certainly a line, but what is the line for most of you?
How about: those things which we wouldn’t like to see done to our own soldiers should they become captured?
Not a particularly useful definition, by any means, but I think it’s a statement that truly does cut to the heart of the matter.
David, I respect your credentials, and for the most part your words here have supported them. I, too, have a law degree, and have practiced Federal and State enforcement (civil side) since 1996. So, when you say “No person and no jury could possibly be stupid enough to believe that Schenck wasn’t trying to incite draftees to avoid the draft,” I take professional and personal offense.
Despite my somewhat weekly efforts to disprove the fact, I’m not stupid. I’ve read Schenck’s words, I’ve read Holmes’ opinion, and I’ve read other cases dealing with the Espionage act, and I can plainly tell you, even assuming the Espionage act does not violate the First Amendment, I think that ONLY a person totally lacking in imagination could read Schenck’s words and conclude, as Holmes did, that “we do not see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draft except to influence them to obstruct the carrying out of it.”
Holmes’ dissent in Abrams I think highlights the insanity of this line of cases. In Abrams, Holmes found words that spefically called for a revolution against the US government to NOT violate the Espionage Act, because they were, essentially, “silly.” Because the Abrams pamphlet stood little or no chance of actually causing or inciting the action which it literally called for, Homles would have overturned the conviction. Schenck calls for no such specific action, other than for people to assert their rights. In fact, I’ve seen several references that the action Schenck was encouraging was for notified draftess to sign a petition stating opposition to the draft, not to fail to report.
All of which overlooks the fact that the portion of the Espionage Act giving rise to cases like this was not, as applied in the Schenck case, is totally violative of the First Amendment. This use says that simply telling someone that they have the right to lodge a protest against the draft is illegal.
Here’s a perfect example of a true “activist judge:” “When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Even provided with Holmes’ clear and present danger/substantive evil test, this rationale is so amorphus and prone to abuse that it can serve no function other than to violate guaranteed Constitutional rights of citizens. Holmes himself displays the danger inherant in this approach with his varying opinions in Schenck and Abrams.
Zell Miller surrendered to the Dark Side when he gave the speech at the Republican Convention.
Ah, yes. A Democrat switches sides and he becomes evil. A Republican switches sides (like in the recent confirmation hearings) and he’s “principled”.
To those who say that the GOP is more in touch with America’s mainstream, let me ask this: can you name one single person on the far right who is TOO far right to be supported by most Republicans?
Alan Keyes has already been mentioned. Falwell is another. Pat Buchanan. There’s lots of far right zealots that can’t get out of the primaries.
He lost the election and everyone knew he was going to, sure — but I don’t recall him being “cut off at the knees” by the GOP.
Howard Dean hasn’t been “cut off at the knees” for being too liberal either – he’s head of the DNC now. Pelosi is Minority leader, but I doubt she would get far in a primary.
DEn wrote: “Don’t you ever get tired of making up things and pretending I said them for your strawmen? Where did I ever say that the military were a bunch of mindless zombies?”
Oh, but you most certainly are saying these things if you believe that Abu Ghraib was not an abberration and was the result a sanctioned torture campaign that started at the White House and worked its way down through hundred, or even thousands, of individuals in the DoD — all the way to the guards in the prison. For this to happen, military folks every step of the way would have had to ignore legally enforceable directives, their training, and their moral beliefs. That is, they would all have to be a bunch of mindless zombies.
Every organization has its bad apples, and the DoD is no exception. Abu Ghraib and other scandals over the years have proved that. But the military does have standards, directives and morals that most troops do their best to adhere to. Which is why it turns my stomach to read the Abu Ghraib theories that try to link some kind of secretive presidential edict to the actions of that handful of idiot guards. For such a fantasy to become reality, it would require widespread complicity by the DoD bureacracy at all levels — something that just ain’t gonna happen.
And the your comments regarding my “That you know of” statement are cute, but see my argument above. If there was such an edict, for it to be leagally binding and enforceable, it would be in the form of a directive or official message to the entire D0D, and there ain’t no such animal.
Oh, but you most certainly are saying these things if you believe that Abu Ghraib was not an abberration and was the result a sanctioned torture campaign that started at the White House and worked its way down through hundred, or even thousands, of individuals in the DoD — all the way to the guards in the prison.
Strawman. Strawman. Strawman
Why would it have to pass through “thousands” of individuals. With the way things are outsourced in the military these days, we have interrogators who essentially report to no one on the ground. It isn’t inconceivable that orders were given bypassing the normal channels so as not to leave any fingerprints.
Every organization has its bad apples, and the DoD is no exception.
Yes, and their names are Ðìçk Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz (none head of the world bank), and George W. Bush.
So, then all of the charges of abuse at Gitmo are made up then? And I notice you keep ignoring the issue of extraordinary rendition. Facts getting in the way?
To those who say that the GOP is more in touch with America’s mainstream, let me ask this: can you name one single person on the far right who is TOO far right to be supported by most Republicans?
Alan Keyes has already been mentioned.
And rebutted.
Falwell is another.
Same statement I gave re: Robertson. He is taken seriously by the Republican leadership, and his “following” is frequently courted. Name me the members of the GOP leadership who have publicly distanced themselves from Falwell.
Pat Buchanan.
See above.
There’s lots of far right zealots that can’t get out of the primaries.
And, as I said in a later post, “able to get out of the primaries” is not my definition of being supported. All of the above are able to get heard by upper-level Republican figures, and all of the above have their views repeated by same on occasion (and not in order to rebut). That reads a lot like support from where I sit.
He lost the election and everyone knew he was going to, sure — but I don’t recall him being “cut off at the knees” by the GOP.
Howard Dean hasn’t been “cut off at the knees” for being too liberal either – he’s head of the DNC now.
1) Yes, and thank heavens for that.
2) Hate to break it to you, Mark, but if you look at his record Dean is NOT especially liberal on a lot of issues. If he’s “cut off at the knees” for being too liberal, quite a few other people would have to go as well.
Pelosi is Minority leader, but I doubt she would get far in a primary.
I’m just going to leave the absurdity of that statement alone and assume you meant a *presidential* primary.
TWL
Den wrote: “Why would it have to pass through “thousands” of individuals. With the way things are outsourced in the military these days, we have interrogators who essentially report to no one on the ground. It isn’t inconceivable that orders were given bypassing the normal channels so as not to leave any fingerprints.”
Oh, geez. You watch too many movies.
As far as extraordinary rendition goes, the practice has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib or the DoD — why should I go off on a tangent just because you want to?
I work for the Federal government. I’m a field office specialist. I deal directly with private and local sponsors seeking funds for projects. There are, officially, 4 people between me and the President. My point is, there aren’t hundreds or thousands of people standing between me and the very top of our government. Orders to my agency that have a direct influence on how I do my job don’t pass through a very large or lengthy review chain. Sometimes, all it takes is a few brief moments passed from the President to my Agency’s secretary, then through the other 3 people in the chain of command, and a verbal instruction is given to me. I may never even know where the instruction originated.
Granted, my job is nothing like that of a soldier, and I can’t imagine what order I could be given that might commit me to taking an illegal act like torturing prisoners.
From most reports, many of the lead interrogators at Abu Gharib were civilians, contractors. Where are those people? I’ll tell you, they’re hiding behind the convictions of soldiers like pfc. England (who I know hasn’t been convicted yet, or even currently charged with anything). Would it take an order or a document distributed through hundreds or thousands of DoD employees? Not at all. All it would take is a memo from some general directing the top officer to defer to the civilian experts in all matters interrogation, and to direct the troops to follow them. Or no memo at all. Rumsfeld could call the CO directly, issue the same order, and assure the CO that all was proper, and that the interrogators know the appropriate limits of actions that can legally be taken. No pesky, inconvienent paper trail to mess things up should those photos (that by some accounts were ordered to be taken) ever get released to the public. With no paper with Rumsfeld’s signature on it, it’s easy for him to hide behind kids that volunteered to serve in our army, risking their lives and their futures, while he risks…well, absolutely nothing.
Because we’re talking about an administration that condones and practices torture and that makes it very relevant.
But Bobb, that only happens in the movies, right? 🙂
Oh, and England has been charged. In fact, she entered a guilty plea, but the military judge tossed it, refusing to believe that you can plea to a conspiracy charge even though the prosecution insists that it’s a conspiracy of one.
Oh yeah, there’s nothing being covered up here.
Technically, the charges against England went away when the judge declared a mistrial. She can be re-charged by her CO. I know, I’m nit-picking. but I can do that, since apparantly I live in a movie. It’s Feds R Us. I often say, what a grand, movie-star life I have. Without all that pesky paparazzi, parties, fans, or, oh yeah, the money.
Where do you think movies get their ideas from? I’d almost guarantee, movies can’t even hold a candle to what real-life can offer. Worst disaster movie, ever? Indenpendance Day? The Day After? HHG? Nothing as compared to the power displayed last December. Movies about corporate scandal and corruption? Kid’s stories next to the epic tale of ENRON. If you think there isn’t an atmosphere of CYA permeating it’s way through the government, let me be the first to tell you otherwise. And that seeps down from the top. Those that get to the top are usually experts at pointing fingers (with handy paper trails) to other people.
As far as extraordinary rendition goes, the practice has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib or the DoD
Yes it does, because it’s part of the administrations support for torture which has, at least, trickled down to the privates.
pfc. England (who I know hasn’t been convicted yet, or even currently charged with anything)
She had pled guilty, but a military judge threw out the charge 2 of the reasons he cited were
1) You cannot have a conspiracy of only 1 person, &
2) She posed for the photos because she was told they would be used for training others how to interrogate prisoners.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15194142-401,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/04/prisoner.abuse.england/index.html
Bobb, I work in state government and believe me, I know the CYA culture inside and out. Executes get where they are by making sure they get all of the credit and none of blame. That’s what mid-level drones like me are for.
If anyone thinks there’s any chance of finding a memo that reads, “You are ordered to sexually humiliate the prisoners at Abu Graib prison, signed Donald H. Rumsfeld,” they are being horribly naive.
The movie comment was just a dig at Mr. Maheras who told me that I watch too many movies.
Yes it does, because it’s part of the administrations support for torture which has, at least, trickled down to the privates.
I respectfully submit that “trickled down to the privates” is perhaps not a comfortable choice of phrase as concerns this topic. 🙂
TWL
Yooowww!!!
Den, sometimes my sarcasm gets too thick…I was joining you in the dig on Mr. Maheras. It was meant playfully…because real life really is much more scary than anything I’ve seen in entertainment lately. I think that’s something our older generation that lived through WWI and II were always aware of, but that those of us in the younger generation are only now coming to grips with. Until a few months ago, very, very few people alive would have been able to say how they would have felt knowing that some 300,000 people died as a result of a single natural event over the course of a few hours. And until 5 years ago, I don’t think there were any Americans alive that could have told you what it feels like to have your country’s election for its top official challenged in court…something until that point that only occurred in “other, less advanced” places. Places that needed imparital, experienced American observers to make sure they got it right. Today, I’m halfway conviced that the U.S. should allow international observers to oversee our election,to make sure we get it right.
So thinking that a directive to use force and torture on prisoners could only have occurred through a series of written directives is, in my opinion, niave. We don’t live in a world (and probably never did) where the bad guys go through the formality of writing their plans down for us to discover and expose them. They’re experts at taking the work of the truly talented, claiming it (or the results thereof) as their own, and when some negative consequences come back attached to their actions, there’s always someone else that’s signed the order, or no order at all. I’ll use Bush’s recent statement that there’s only one dictatorship left in Europe. The response is, so what? What did Bush do to bring this about? Are we to assume that, somehow, because of the US actions in the Middle East, democracy is speading like some kind of plague? It seems that if democracy is on the rise in places where we don’t use force to remove the current regime, it has more to do with the will of the people, and very little to nothing to do with the US. Yet there’s our President, spouting off like it’s all his fault that Belarus is the only dictatorship left in Europe. All the while, hiding behind the many, many layers of scapegoats and plausible deniability for Abu Gharib.
Me:
What exactly WAS your point then?
Den:
The point is, Dumbya is strutting around like he’s creating all of these democracies.
What an ášš.
If you can find your point in the article you cited I’d sure like to hear it. Bush saying that Belarus is the “last remaining dictatorship in Europe” and that the United States will work with countries in the region to ensure that the next elections there are free is just not the same as him acting like he is responsible for the recent transitions to democratic governments. No matter how much you want it to be.
Bush makes enough verbal gaffes to keep the jokes coming–there’s certainly no need to grasp at straws to make up new ones. It looks petty.
TIM:
It’s a very real distinction to me, which is why I’ve found Bill’s occasional “you’ll wind up going nuts if you do this every time conservatives are in ascendancy” pat on the head a bit off-putting. I *don’t* react this way most times an election goes the “wrong” way.
I guess part of it is that I don’t consider Bush to be all THAT conservative–he certainly spends money like a liberal. I’m sorry to say that the republicans have figured out that one way to get and keep power is to do what the Democrats have routinely done–buy it. Reagan was more conservative and in many ways so is McCain.
And if McCain wins the next election I’m guessing that a lot of the people who hold him up now as some kind of ideal republican will suddenly find reasons to loath him. But time will tell on that one.
While that may well be true, that’s not quite sufficient to meet my criterion IMO. As I see it, if his advice is taken seriously by at least one major figure in the party that qualifies as “support.”
Time, respectfully, I see that as being a WORLD of difference from the question “can you name one single person on the far right who is TOO far right to be supported by most Republicans? There are plenty of people on the left who aren’t supported by most Democrats (some of whom I think are unfairly maligned, but that’s a topic for another time).”
It’s gone from finding a person who is not supported by most republicans to finding a person who is not “taken seriously” by at least one “major” party figure. Two completely different standards. Since “taken seriously” and “major” are fairly subjective I doubt I’ll be able to do much with the latter question.
And by that standard who exactly are the liberals you mentioned who fit the bill?
I hear ya, Bobb. One thing that I’ve noticed is that this administration never misses an opportunity to take a victory lap whenever there is good news, like the way that Bush strutted over the Ukraine election. As if he had anything to do with that. But, when bad news occurs it’s always someone else’s fault, preferably Clinton’s.
I swear, if they could have figured out how to blame Abu Graib on Clinton getting his knob polished, they would have.
It looks petty.
Five years of being governed by lies and deception will do that to a person.
Is Bush conservative? Well, to paraphrase another president, that depends on what your definition of “conservative” is. Socially, he’s about as far to the right as one can get. Fiscally? No, he spends money like a drunken sailor at Nevada whørëhøûšë. Frankly, I’d prefer a president who is socially moderate and fiscally conservative, so Bush is the worst of both worlds, in my opinion.
As far as the GOP goes, the current trend doesn’t bode well for your party at all. The GOP leadership feels it needs engage in almost constant naked pandering to the extreme social conservative faction, even it means expanding the powers of the federal government to ridiculous levels. Since when do conservatives want to interfere with the states’ ability to issue marriage licenses? Or prevent pharmacies from disciplining employees who refuse to do their job? But that’s the where your party is going and they’ll pay a price in alienation of the moderates and fiscal conservatives.
Of course, right now, the Democrats couldn’t organize a ham sandwich much less a presidential campaign, so maybe it won’t matter.
And if McCain wins the next election I’m guessing that a lot of the people who hold him up now as some kind of ideal republican will suddenly find reasons to loath him. But time will tell on that one.
I rather suspect time won’t tell on that one, actually — I don’t expect McCain to ever get closer to the presidency than he was in spring 2000. But time will certainly tell on that prediction as well.
If he *does* … I strongly doubt that I, at least, am going to “suddenly find reasons to loathe him.” More occasions on which to publicly disagree with him or dispute some of his policies, undoubtedly — but as I keep trying to point out and nobody seems to hear, that’s not the same thing.
I did not support Bush I. I did not support Pete Wilson’s governorship of CA. I don’t support Schwarzenegger’s now. That doesn’t mean I think there are whole swaths of Hëll reserved in their names. I cannot say the same for the top 5-10 officials of the current administration (including Frist and DeLay).
Time, respectfully, I see that as being a WORLD of difference from the question “can you name one single person on the far right who is TOO far right to be supported by most Republicans? There are plenty of people on the left who aren’t supported by most Democrats (some of whom I think are unfairly maligned, but that’s a topic for another time).”
I wouldn’t call it a world of difference, but I agree that it’s shifting the question. That’s not because I’m trying to dodge your answer, though — it’s because the latter is a better way of encapsulating the question I guess I was really trying to ask, which is “are there any IDEAS too far to the right to be embraced by the current Republican leadership?”
I can give a non-subjective definition of a “major” party figure; in fact, I’ll give a list. Bush, Cheney, the next 5 or so people in the executive branch, Rove, and the top 3 or so people in each of the Senate and the House (e.g. DeLay and Hastert, Frist and Santorum). I’ll be generous and not include Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.
As for “taken seriously”, I think I elaborated on that somewhat as well. Do they get meetings with the leadership (as defined above)? Do people who listen to them comprise a major “base” that is courted heavily during election season? Do people in the above list use their ideas?
If that’s still too subjective, then perhaps this can’t go anywhere.
And by that standard who exactly are the liberals you mentioned who fit the bill?
Off the top of my head: Barbara Lee. Dennis Kucinich. These days, possibly even Michael Moore — certainly there were a number of centrist Democrats who said that they were “not in the party of Michael Moore”, which I hope David Bjorlin, Esq. finds just as offensive as others’ statements about Zell Miller.
Hëll, before he managed to gain the DNC leadership spot there were an awful lot of Democrats who publicly disavowed any affiliation with Dean.
I’m sure I could come up with others, but it’ll have to be another time.
TWL
Off the top of my head: Barbara Lee. Dennis Kucinich. These days, possibly even Michael Moore
None of these examples are any different than the ones that you dismissed on the conservative side.
And if McCain wins the next election I’m guessing that a lot of the people who hold him up now as some kind of ideal republican will suddenly find reasons to loath him. But time will tell on that one.
I would honestly consider voting for McCain. Of course, I don’t think he has a shot in hëll of getting the GOP nomination. I mean, you can just feel the love when Bush made the joke about seeing a dog that rolled over but only some of time, so named it John McCain. Har har har.
At least with him, you have reason to believe that what he says might actually have some basis in reality.
Dennis Kucinich is someone who can’t get meetings with the leadership of the Democratic party? The far left wing of the party that supported him is NOT a major “base” that is courted heavily during election season? None of his ideas are used by people in the Democrat party leadership?
Granted, his candidacy was a joke. He still was given the opportunity to speak at the Democratic convention–which should automatically exclude him from any consideration of being on the list of liberals who fit the bill.
As for Barbara Lee, judging form the long list of bills that she is listed as a cosponsor of, it would appear that there are at least some Democrats in congress who welcome her ideas and support. In fact, she is the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, which includes as a member one Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives. She isn’t even close to fitting your own definition.
Well, I did say that list was off the top of my head.
Criticisms duly noted; I’ll try to come up with better examples at some later date. (I do think, however, that people like Kucinich are marginalized by Democrats a LOT more than someone equally far to the right is by Republicans. Sure, he spoke at the convention, at a time when only 12 C-Span viewers were watching. Buchanan and Robertson got prime time in ’92 and were watched by millions.)
Academics are probably a better source of examples on both sides than politicians, since politicians by nature are public figures and have to (theoretically) make *some* compromises in order to survive. Are there any conservative scholars (from the Heritage Foundation or some similar institution) who are considered sufficiently “out there” to fit the criteria I’ve mentioned previously? I suspect I can come up with some left-wing scholars who’d fit the bill, but I’ll have to work on that sometime that isn’t now.
TWL
None of these examples are any different than the ones that you dismissed on the conservative side.
Umm, except for the fact that you have Democrats sitting around and publically condemning these folks.
Which was Tim’s point: the Republicans aren’t condemning the Pat Robertsons of Jesusland for their outlandish comments and whatnot.
If you really think there’s no distinction between you and those in power, you’re implicitly claiming that you agree not only with the public stances they’ve taken, but with the demagogic tactics they use on a regular basis and with their choice on which issues to prioritize and which ones to downplay. Now if that’s really what you mean to say, I’ll agree that the distinction is meaningless — but I’ll also be very surprised to hear you say it.
I think of it as taking responsibility for my own actions. I think any voter is responsible for the actions of the politicians he supported in the election. It’s not the case that “51% of voters were suckered into voting for Bush for another four years so he can complete his destruction of the country.” When voters cast their votes, they do so because they believe that they’re choosing the right candidate, either beacuse he’s the lesser of two evils, as Mr Lynch said about Senator Kerry, or beacuse they genuinely believe that their candidate is an asset to the nation. Most of the people I know who voted for Bush did so because they genuinely supported him, and after a full term in office we had a pretty good idea of what we were getting. We are responsible for his actions, and we are his accomplices. So yes, I think Bush’s actions, his tactics, and even criticism of him redound back on us at least to some extent; even if I don’t agree with them, I’m one-sixty-millionth responsible for them. I don’t think Bush is anything close to perfect, but I’m going to agree with him far more often than I disagree, and I accept responsibility for the choice I made last winter. (I knew who I was going to vote for as far back as when Lieberman dropped out.)
And for what it’s worth, I’m a good deal more socially moderate than Bush, but I am a foreign policy hawk, so based on my reading of your posts over the last year or two, I suspect that a lot of the Bush policies that you find least appealing are policies that I supported at least in part. (I had reservations about the Iraq war, but I’m not sure they were the same reservations other people on this blog had.)
Me: We can agree to disagree, but I won’t moderate my disdain for bailing out instead of staying to fight.
TWL: This, alas, is really not worth much more than a “bite me”. You want to characterize my entire world-view as nothing more than “bailing out instead of staying to fight” without knowing any more of me than what you read here, fine — but it’s frankly conduct unbecoming someone in a profession that’s supposed to stand for well-crafted argument and proper research.
“Bailing out” was actually your word choice. Perhaps it does say something about my world view that I folded that into a “fight or flight” dichotomy. All I can say for certain is that you were the one who mentioned in several threads your inclination to leave the country after the election, and this is my gut reaction to the very idea. I cannot imagine a scenario where I would be so distraught by the state of the nation that I would leave rather than try to reform it, and I’d much rather have you around to debate. If you think I’m navel-gazing in your navel, I apologize, but I didn’t think of it as a “bite me,” at all.
And I know I picked up the “navel gazing in somebody else’s navel” image from somewhere, but I don’t remember where. Think of this as a half-assed footnote.
Which was Tim’s point: the Republicans aren’t condemning the Pat Robertsons of Jesusland for their outlandish comments and whatnot.
I’m kind of a Republican and I’ll do it: Pat Robertson is as much of a loon as Alan Dershowitz. I won’t try to drum him out of the party (q.v. my earlier comments re: hubris and about the Republican party making a more concerted effort to have a “big tent”), but he and I are not, shall we say, in the same wing. I don’t have any problem with accepting their support though. To quote Sen. Vinick, “If you can’t drink their booze, take their money and then vote against them, then you’re in the wrong business.”
Tim,
Fair enough, from the sound of it you need to spend more time packing and less time arguing with some dope on the internet! 🙂
Craig:
Which was Tim’s point: the Republicans aren’t condemning the Pat Robertsons of Jesusland for their outlandish comments and whatnot.
A simple google search gives such results as Rod Dreyer in the National Review Webpage complaining about Andrew Sullivan making a similar claim:
NOT MY DARLING [Rod Dreher]
Andrew Sullivan, pointing to a couple of reprehensible things Rev. Pat Robertson has done lately, calls him “the social right’s darling.” That’s fatuous, and he knows it. Very many of us social conservatives in no way approve of Pat Robertson’s political stands and activities. In fact, today’s Washington Post quotes a prominent religious conservative saying that Robertson is all alone on the Taylor issue. I realize it suits Andrew’s polemical interests to lump social conservatives (specifically, those of us who oppose gay marriage) in with Robertson’s indefensible carrying-on, but it’s unfair and inaccurate, and he should withdraw the guilty-by-association charge.
“I work for the Federal government. I’m a field office specialist. I deal directly with private and local sponsors seeking funds for projects. There are, officially, 4 people between me and the President.”
For that matter, when I was assigned at HQ SAC, there were exactly 6 people between me and the Commander-in-Chief, including the NCOIC. If Reagan had gotten a wild hair up his ášš and insisted on our nuclear plan including an option to drop a 20-megatonner on DNC headquarters, there were only six chances for anyone to countermand that before it landed in my lap – and most of those were career officers, unlikely to endanger their futures over such a “minor” point. (And I’d have never known about it, either – my job was deconfliction, and I never knew what a specific Target Island Number meant. I just knew to make sure that none of the other bombs were anywhere near Bomb A when it went off.)
Incidentally, you’d be unlikely to find an order signed by Rumsfeld – although he has extraordinary power over the flag officers at the Pentagon, the SecDef is not actually in the chain of command. Watch for one signed by the Commander of the Joint Chiefs… 😉
Me:
If you really think there’s no distinction between you and those in power, you’re implicitly claiming that you agree not only with the public stances they’ve taken, but with the demagogic tactics they use on a regular basis and with their choice on which issues to prioritize and which ones to downplay. Now if that’s really what you mean to say, I’ll agree that the distinction is meaningless — but I’ll also be very surprised to hear you say it.
David:
I think of it as taking responsibility for my own actions. I think any voter is responsible for the actions of the politicians he supported in the election. […]
Fair enough. I think you’re perhaps overinflating your place in the universe in terms of assuming every Bush-related criticism is a reflection on you … but that’s certainly your call to make.
And for what it’s worth, I’m a good deal more socially moderate than Bush, but I am a foreign policy hawk, so based on my reading of your posts over the last year or two, I suspect that a lot of the Bush policies that you find least appealing are policies that I supported at least in part.
It’s awfully difficult for me to come up with such a ranked list — a lot of the domestic agenda is stuff I find every bit as unpleasant as the twenty-first century Pax Americana. Anyone as anti-education, anti-dissent, anti-independent-thought, and frankly anti-science as he is is someone I’m perfectly happy to see eaten by fire ants over a period of a few months.
[And anyone saying “he’s not anti-education! look at NCLB!” — save it.]
David:
We can agree to disagree, but I won’t moderate my disdain for bailing out instead of staying to fight.
Me: This, alas, is really not worth much more than a “bite me”. You want to characterize my entire world-view as nothing more than “bailing out instead of staying to fight” without knowing any more of me than what you read here, fine — but it’s frankly conduct unbecoming someone in a profession that’s supposed to stand for well-crafted argument and proper research.
David:
“Bailing out” was actually your word choice. Perhaps it does say something about my world view that I folded that into a “fight or flight” dichotomy.
Perhaps so, yes. Considering that the phrase is usually used in reference to people leaving a sinking ship, I hardly think a fight-or-flight connection is the most appropriate.
All I can say for certain is that you were the one who mentioned in several threads your inclination to leave the country after the election, and this is my gut reaction to the very idea.
It’s an inclination to strongly consider it. It was at the time. It still is, though the various political reverses that have occurred over the last month or so have made me a little more hopeful.
I cannot imagine a scenario where I would be so distraught by the state of the nation that I would leave rather than try to reform it,
Clearly — but with all due respect, your lack of imagination does not equate to me being a coward, which is what your statements have generally implied. I don’t want to get all Back-to-the-Future-ish and say “nobody calls me chicken”, but you’re letting a knee-jerk reaction lead you to ascribing motivations you know nothing about.
You seem incapable of understanding why anyone would ever want to leave this country. Let’s see — just for starters, there’s the fact that we are the only major industrialized nation still trapped in the Dark Ages of struggling with idiots who think evolution is in question. That fact alone means that I am intellectually and permanently out of step with some significant fraction of this country — a fraction that neither understands how the scientific process works nor wishes to. If that fraction becomes sufficiently large that it steers policy (and that’s certainly one way to interpret November’s results) then this country will become one I feel neither remotely akin to nor, as a result, loyal to.
How exactly you think this equates to cowardice on my part is not only puzzling, but frankly offensive.
And I sincerely hope that you give the matter more thought next time before leaping in with the same snap judgement.
but I didn’t think of it as a “bite me,” at all.
I think you misunderstood. I didn’t mean your statement equated to such; I meant it was the only response a sensible person could make to it. I suspect that this post has made that more clear.
TWL
A simple google search gives such results as Rod Dreyer in the National Review Webpage complaining about Andrew Sullivan making a similar claim:
While that’s an interesting result, I doubt I’m the only person who had never heard of Rod Dreher until this very moment. Is there perhaps a more prominent social conservative who’s said something similar — Frist, Santorum, DeLay, Bush, etc.? That would constitute major-league evidence that Robertson’s not accepted.
TWL
Bobb wrote: “Granted, my job is nothing like that of a soldier, and I can’t imagine what order I could be given that might commit me to taking an illegal act like torturing prisoners.”
And that’s exactly the point. It doesn’t matter how long or short the chain of command is, if one is given an illegal order (and personally, in the 20 years I was in the military, I never was), why in the world would they follow it – especially a senior officer or NCO? In the case of Abu Ghraib, the RINGLEADER was a senior NCO Reservist who, in his civilian job, was also a corrections officer! To say he should have known better is a colossal understatement. And where the hëll was the commanding officer while all of this was going on?
In one of your later posts, you yourself said that CYA is normal ops for the government. For any activity, ESPECIALLY one that may be unusual or seems to conflict with directives, there is always a paper or electronic trail to cover one’s behind. In addition, it seems that unusual support requests invariably are spread around through other offices, as the action officer tries to get some second opinions or advice. And, from my experience, if something seems even remotely questionable legally, the general counsel is pulled into the loop as well. And even after jumping the fantasy hurdle of getting a “torturing people is now OK” consensus amongst this relatively small group of military professionals, the policy (which several conspiracy theorists on this thread insist must be widespread) has to be officially disseminated down to the lowest echelons. It would have to go through tens of thousands of experienced officers and NCOs – all of whom have been trained regarding the UCMJ, rules of engagement, etc. – and it would have to order them to ignore all the rules they know regarding enemy combatants, and do something that is clearly illegal. This is just ridiculous, in my opinion.
As far as the “civilians were seen in Abu Ghraib from time-to-time” argument goes, so what? They have their own legal regulations they have to follow – just like you are expected at your federal job.
Den wrote: “Oh, and England has been charged. In fact, she entered a guilty plea, but the military judge tossed it, refusing to believe that you can plea to a conspiracy charge even though the prosecution insists that it’s a conspiracy of one.”
What are you talking about? There are, like, eight people allegedly involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Bobb wrote: “Where do you think movies get their ideas from?”
The same place I get my comic book story ideas, Bobb, I make them up!
Michael Brunner wrote regarding my comment that extraordinary rendition has nothing to do with the DoD: “Yes it does, because it’s part of the administrations support for torture which has, at least, trickled down to the privates.”
Bull, Michael. Just your suggestion that such a heinous “trickle-down” effect is possible amongst the troops in general is a slap in the face to all military members who do their jobs every day with integrity and decency.
Bobb wrote: “So thinking that a directive to use force and torture on prisoners could only have occurred through a series of written directives is, in my opinion, niave.”
And I would argue that your assertions regarding Abu Ghraib are far too cynical.
R. Maheras, I would humbly suggest that you save your outrage for those people involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal, as they’ve delivered a far greater slap in the face to decent members of the military than anyone here. You seem much more “outraged about all the outrage”, to quote (and possibly misquote) Sen. James Inhofe.
TWL
There are, like, eight people allegedly involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Yes, but if the others weren’t charged with conspiracy, and England was, that would make for a ‘conspiracy of one’, which the judge rejected when he threw out the guilty plea.
Just your suggestion that such a heinous “trickle-down” effect is possible amongst the troops in general is a slap in the face to all military members who do their jobs every day with integrity and decency
No, just to the ones who either take part in the action or the cover-up afterward. For this to be a slap in the face of all military members I would have to say that they all either knew what was going on, took part, or helped cover it up. I made no such statement, and only referred to the ones who did.
Also, part of the reason the judge dismissed the guilty plea is that she didn’t know what she was doing was illegal because she was told the photos would be used in a training manual. This implies that someone issued orders.
the RINGLEADER was a senior NCO Reservist who, in his civilian job, was also a corrections officer!
There are also allagations that he engaged in some of this same behavior, though to a much lesser extent, as a prison guard. Also, he worked for a private prison, not a government one, and the company has a reputation for treating the prisoners as they should be.
Tim says:
While that’s an interesting result, I doubt I’m the only person who had never heard of Rod Dreher until this very moment. Is there perhaps a more prominent social conservative who’s said something similar — Frist, Santorum, DeLay, Bush, etc.? That would constitute major-league evidence that Robertson’s not accepted.
Craig’s statement was that, quote, the Republicans aren’t condemning the Pat Robertsons of Jesusland for their outlandish comments and whatnot. Dreyer is a republican and one who writes for a magazine that has considerable influence in conservative circles.
If people want to make claims about what broad groups of people are doing they had best not be surprised when those claims are shot down. If I say that Democrats are doing (fill in the blank) and you come back with a list of democrats who aren’t I’d better have something more potent than “Well, those aren’t the Democrats I was talking about.”
Okay — I figured it was being used as evidence addressing my question as well, but if you’re using it strictly to rebut Craig, it obviously works.
TWL
Just your suggestion that such a heinous “trickle-down” effect is possible amongst the troops in general is a slap in the face to all military members who do their jobs every day with integrity and decency.
Maybe it should be a slap in the face.
You’re spending all this time being pìššëd at other posters here, rather than the policies and leadership that lead to Abu Ghraib in the first place.
And if you’re so unimaginative to think that policies such as rendition, that comments referring to the Geneva Conventions as being “quaint”, that we invaded another nation on a pack of dámņ lies, haven’t contributed to this problem, then there’s no further point in discussing this wtih you.
“Kooks”
That’s funny!
TWL wrote: “R. Maheras, I would humbly suggest that you save your outrage for those people involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal, as they’ve delivered a far greater slap in the face to decent members of the military than anyone here. You seem much more “outraged about all the outrage”, to quote (and possibly misquote) Sen. James Inhofe.”
Sorry TWL, you’re twisting my argument. In one of my recent posts, I clearly said I was shocked when the scandal happened. And, when the scandal originally broke, I made clear my outrage at those involved.
What irked me then, as now, are those who used the Abu Ghraib abberration as a political springboard to attack the president at the expense of the vast majority of troops who have done nothing wrong.
I was just as incensed when a political Web ad, produced on behalf of the Kucinich presidential campaign, flashed the names of all the war dead, up to that point, to make a political statement. This was exploiting the names of people who could no long speak for themselves — and people who, had they been alive, may very well have been outraged to have their names associated with such an ad (as would I) — without the permission of the next of kin. In addition to this blatant exploitation, the ad also outright lied when it said that Bush administration was responsible for the Pentagon policy to not allow media coverage of the caskets of the fallen to be filmed. The policy, for those whio are unawares, was already fully in effect when I was stationed at Dover AFB in the mid-1990s.
If you want to attack your political enemies, fine. I could care less. But do not do it at the expense of the military because if you do, then you no better than the lowest common demoninator of your opposition — either real or imagined.
Craig wrote: “And if you’re so unimaginative to think that policies such as rendition, that comments referring to the Geneva Conventions as being “quaint”, that we invaded another nation on a pack of dámņ lies, haven’t contributed to this problem, then there’s no further point in discussing this wtih you.”
Abu Ghraib is no more the fault of Bush’s Iraq foreign policy than the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans during the Rwandan civil war was the fault of Clinton’s foreign policy (or U.N. member nations, for that matter). But, I suppose, depending on which side of the political fence you are on regarding either event, you could probably argue all day long about exactly how you believe your political enemies were directly or indirectly involved.
Or does your “imagination” only look on one side of the political spectrum?
What irked me then, as now, are those who used the Abu Ghraib abberration as a political springboard to attack the president at the expense of the vast majority of troops who have done nothing wrong.
This is at least the second time you’ve made this claim. Please explain how the troops suffer as a result of critizing the president. Critizing the president for his actions is not the same as saying that the vast majority of troops follow those actions.
Abu Ghraib is no more the fault of Bush’s Iraq foreign policy than the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans during the Rwandan civil war was the fault of Clinton’s foreign policy (or U.N. member nations, for that matter).
Apples & oranges. Bush’s policy is that torture is acceptable. During the Rwandan massacre no one from the U.N. or Clinton’s administration said that mass murder was acceptable.
Critizing the president for his actions is not the same as saying that the vast majority of troops follow those actions.
Makes you wonder what you’re supposed to do if you’re one of those troops who critizes the president.
Apples & oranges.
Agreed.
Michael wrote: “This is at least the second time you’ve made this claim. Please explain how the troops suffer as a result of critizing the president. Critizing the president for his actions is not the same as saying that the vast majority of troops follow those actions.”
How many times do you want me to explain it? Here’s what I wrote earlier in this thread: “Oh, but you most certainly are saying these things if you believe that Abu Ghraib was not an abberration and was the result a sanctioned torture campaign that started at the White House and worked its way down through hundred, or even thousands, of individuals in the DoD — all the way to the guards in the prison. For this to happen, military folks every step of the way would have had to ignore legally enforceable directives, their training, and their moral beliefs. That is, they would all have to be a bunch of mindless zombies.”
In a nutshell, anyone who buys into the widespread torture policy conspiracy theory at Abu Ghraib has to believe that their military as a whole is made up of thugs who do not follow their own laws and directives. That’s crap. Like I said over and over again: You can attack your political enemies all you want, and you can be outraged at the guilty parties involved with Abu Ghraib, but don’t go dragging the entire U.S. military through the mud with your unproven accusations in an attempt to make your political argument against the president and his administration stronger.
You also wrote: “Apples & oranges. Bush’s policy is that torture is acceptable. During the Rwandan massacre no one from the U.N. or Clinton’s administration said that mass murder was acceptable.”
No, it’s NOT apples and oranges. One of the arguments against the U.N. and Clinton at the time was that by not doing anything about the crisis, they at worst tacitly approved, and at best didn’t think it was important enough to intervene. And while you may disagree with those critics, it’s like I said, one’s stance all depends on which side of the political fence one sits on.
There’s a rather large in-between category between claiming a massive conspiracy and exonerating Bush completely, however, and it’s an in-between you appear to be claiming does not exist.
As others on this thread have said, it’s entirely possible for Bush, Rumsfeld, etc. to have created the conditions that made Abu Ghraib much more likely without personally saying “yep, wire ’em up.” One does not have to ascribe malice, simply negligence and incompetence.
Is THAT somehow delivering a slap in the face to the entire military, or does that finally meet your standards for “acceptable” criticism of a government and a president?
TWL
TWL wrote: “Is THAT somehow delivering a slap in the face to the entire military, or does that finally meet your standards for “acceptable” criticism of a government and a president?”
Based on my experiences in the military, I was almost certain after the initial, shocking reports were aired that the Abu Ghraib event was the result of stupid behavior by a handful of troops. But I still kept my eyes and ears open for any evidence of wider involvement (yeah, I DO have an open mind). To date, none has been forthcoming.
However, many other people out there, in their zest to attack this administration, and their apparent total ignorance of the U.S. military, took a totally opposite point of view: They posited from the start — without any proof, and despite the facts — that the whole event was a massive conspiracy orchestrated the White House. It is this sort of bull-in-a-china-shop wishful thinking that led to the shortening of Dan Rather’s career, and that I just can’t stand from political zealots of any stripe.
In other words, you’re refusing to answer the question other than once again posing as the arbiter of all that is good, sensible, and correct.
Fine. Enjoy talkin’ to yourself, dude.
TWL
Oh, but you most certainly are saying these things if you believe that Abu Ghraib was not an abberration and was the result a sanctioned torture campaign that started at the White House and worked its way down through hundred, or even thousands, of individuals in the DoD — all the way to the guards in the prison. For this to happen, military folks every step of the way would have had to ignore legally enforceable directives, their training, and their moral beliefs. That is, they would all have to be a bunch of mindless zombies.
What has been said is that the torture has been carried out by a few individuals who happen to be soldiers, who may have taken their cue from an administration that says torture is okay. By saying that this would only happen if orders were sent down from the top, YOU are saying that they are mindless zombies, because YOU are saying this is the only way those soldiers could carry out torture is if they were told to.
There are plenty of other ways that those soldiers could have received the administrations acceptance of torture. they could:
* Read it in newspapers,
* Hear it on a news broadcast,
* Hear it from others, or
* Watched / listened to press conferences or congressional meetings where torture was discussed.
After doing one or more of the above, those soldiers could have thought for themselves that they could engage in torture & get away with it.
No, it’s NOT apples and oranges. One of the arguments against the U.N. and Clinton at the time was that by not doing anything about the crisis, they at worst tacitly approved, and at best didn’t think it was important enough to intervene.
Comparing an action by U.S. troops that the president approves of with an action by foreign troops that the president doesn’t approve of is comparing 2 different things with nothing in common.
Besides, had Clinton done anything, he would have been accused of “wagging the dog”, “distracting the media”, & “putting troops in harms way for no good reason”. As happened when troops were sent to Bosnia, even though no troops were killed.
Still waiting for an answer to the question “Please explain how the troops suffer as a result of critizing the president.”
How is it if I say ‘the president supports torture & is wrong for it’ do the troops suffer?
But I still kept my eyes and ears open for any evidence of wider involvement (yeah, I DO have an open mind). To date, none has been forthcoming.
* Continued torture at Abu Grahib.
* Continued torture at Guantonamo.
* Continued shipping of prisoners & foreign nationals (including those of our allies such as Canada & Great Britian) to other countries to be tortured.
The mind may be open but it doesn’t seem that the eyes are as well.
TWL wrote: “Fine. Enjoy talkin’ to yourself, dude.”
Yeah, it seems that I am. Too bad.
Michael wrote: “Still waiting for an answer to the question “Please explain how the troops suffer as a result of critizing the president.”
I answered twice — I’m not going to answer again.