Let’s time, from this moment, how long it takes to find an article where the Downing Street Memo is referred to as “Downingate.”
PAD
Let’s time, from this moment, how long it takes to find an article where the Downing Street Memo is referred to as “Downingate.”
PAD
• 
R., legally speaking, the US is in violation of the Geneva conventions. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are signatories to the GC. This administration has devised a little legal end-run regarding the Afghan, and I’d imagine the Iraqi nationals as well, by declaring Afghanistan as a “failed nation,” meaning the US is free to ignore the requirements of the GC. Additionally, by citing the detention camp outside any recognized US territory, every detainee held there is outside the legal jurisdiction of the US courts. Why should we respect the legallity of laws passed by a fearful government when their actions are so clearly violations of international law and basic human rights? They clearly have no respect for such higher laws, and are blatantly hiding behind weak legal protections in order to carry out their thuggery.
The only reason these enemy combatants fall outside the legal protections normally afforded to POWs is because our government says so, and there’s no check on that power. Except the voters and people of this country. Already, we’re starting to see even other Republicans start to ask questions, and demand answers. The cynic in me says it’s only an effort to secure their own reelection, but the optimist in me (it’s a small part, but it’s there) hopes that it’s reason and sense finally replacing fear and anger.
In the interest of being “fair and balanced:”
http://www.hannity.com/forum/printthread.php?t=7768
http://www.adl.org/holocaust/Letter_santorum.asp
So, here we see the Republican brain in action. Comparing abuse of prisoners to other people known to abuse prisoners is outrageous, but comparing arguing over the Senate’s debate rules to Hitler is perfectly fine.
Bad analogy.
Perfect analogy.
You know as well as I do that legally, these alleged enemy combatants don’t fall into the same category as civilian prisoners.
Why? Because our dipshit attorney general says that some agreed upon rules are “quaint”?
Because the Bush Administration doesn’t see fit to follow the rules that everybody else has followed?
I call bûllšhìŧ. I also call bûllšhìŧ on the notion of Congress having to make changes, because the Bush Administration DOES NOT GIVE A ÐÃMN.
The Bush Admin will continue to hold people indefinately, without charges, because they are getting away with it. Because these people have done nothing, they know nothing.
It’s a dámņ travesty.
So, here we see the Republican brain in action. Comparing abuse of prisoners to other people known to abuse prisoners is outrageous, but comparing arguing over the Senate’s debate rules to Hitler is perfectly fine.
Nope, both are idiots. Agreed? Or do you only thonk Santorum was over the line?
I don’t know what was said by democrats during the discussion of what rules the Senate would follow…however, it’s hard to imagine what a minority power could say in an open debate about procedural rules that could equate to Hitler.
On the other hand, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to compare human rights abuses that are inflicted on prisoners at Gitmo to human rights abuses that were inflicted on prisoners in gulags and concentration camps.
The point is that Durbin is calling the US military Nazis…it’s that abuse isn’t something that should be practiced by the US, ever. We went to war agains the Nazis, partly, because they were an evil, expansionist empire that wanted a good portion of the rest of the world dead. One expression of that evil was how they treated their prisoners. You can say all the good things about yourself, your government, and your country that you want, but what actions that country takes, or allows its government to take, what they do…those are the things that truly provide a definition.
Gah, major EDIT…should be “ISN’T calling the US military Nazis.” That WOULD be outrageous and uncalled for.
Nope, both are idiots. Agreed? Or do you only thonk Santorum was over the line?
I think what Durbin said was over the line, but in the scheme of things, he was at least in the ballpark in comparing abuse of prisoners to abuse of prisoners. Santorum isn’t even on the same planet with his comments.
BTW, one of the first US Senators to condemn Durbin’s comments? Rick Santorum.
The rules regarding enemy combatants is not a new one. During World War II, for example, German prisoners of war were not charged with any particular crime, but, since they were enemy combatants, they were held for the duration of the war. When Germany — a bona fide country with a government and borders — surrendered, the status of the enemy combatants was finally resolved.
Unfortunately, the people at GITMO are enemy combatants who are not members of any country’s regular army, so arguments about POW status and Geneva Convention signatory status just does not apply. This is not a loophole, it is just a situation this nation has never had to face before. Al Qaida is made up of ghost soldiers, is not a nation, has no borders, and is not a signatory of any international laws, treaties or agreements.
You can gripe and moan and stomp your feet about it all you want, but there’s nothing illegal about GITMO. And unless the old laws regarding conventional enemy combatants are changed to incorporate this new reality, these folks, who are part of an unconventional shadow war, will remain in limbo until released, tried or transferred by the folks trying to sort the whole situation out.
Well, R., I disagree. The fourth Geneva Convention (I can’t find a signatory list for that one) applies directly to civilians held by opposing forces. I’d suggest that there’s only 2 states of being for a person: either a military person, one supported by an active government and empowered to act, and civilians, which are everyone else. I know that you’re going to suggest that we’ve created a third category, enemy combatants, which are militarily aggessive individuals acting without the sanction of a recognized government.
Which is all well and good, except that we’ve already got a category to fit these people in: criminals. And whether we like it or not, criminals are citizens, too. Which makes all the detainees at Gitmo civilians or military personnel, and either the accords of the third or fourth Geneva conventions apply to them.
Our abuse of those prisoners, while arguably legal, by some, is growing more and more morally reprehensible to the public.
The abuse at Gitmo is not legal. Period. It’s just being covered by a thin web of lies, deception, and legallese that, if it were to be exposed to strict judicial scrutiny, would be found to be violative of the very applicalbe Geneva conventions. The only thing that allows this to go on is the fact that the nations that normally would represent the detainees have had their governments replaced…by the US. Rather convienent.
Did I say anything about abuse in my last post? No, I did not. My discussion was about the legality of the enemy combatant status at GITMO. The abuse issue is a separate matter, and one I addressed when I earlier responded to PAD.
The line between military and civilian has grayed considerably in recent years because of the emergence of al Qaida, and U.S. law (and the Geneva Convention, for that matter) has not kept pace with the changing face of this new asymetrical warfare. It needs to be legally addressed, in my opinion, and that is the real issue here.
R. my apologies if I overstated your “but there’s nothing illegal about GITMO” to include the abuse.
The problem with what you’re suggesting is that it advocates the position that, in the absence of laws directly on point, we’re free to make up whatever rules we want to apply. There’s no jurisprudential precedent for this. In the absence of laws directly on point, you make do with what does exist, in this case, the Geneva conventions. These agreements are the only internationally binding agreements that govern the treatment of persons not under the direct jurisdiction of a government granted by citizenship. The laws allowing the declaration of enemy combatant status are US laws…therefore, they should have no legally binding power over anyone not a US citizen. We cannot make our own laws and apply them to people outside our jurisdiction simply by passing a law. The Geneva conventions are a legal expression of jurisdiction over people otherwise outside the jurisdiction of the state, during times of conflict. The only international law that even allows us to hold them is their country’s signatory status of the GC. We cannot at the same time say we have the right to hold them, while also saying the GC do not apply to them, simply because some US law grants the apperance of legallity. The power and reach of our laws ends at our borders…unless, of course, we demonstrate that we are going to use military methods to enforce our will. In this case, might does indeed make right. But that doesn’t make it legal, or appropriate, or morally correct.
Well, that’s exactly what I am saying. Laws are almost always reactive. But in situations where national security is an issue, especially when it involves suicidal people whose only goal in life is to destroy you, one has no choice but to come up with an interim solution and let the legal system catch up when it gets around to it.
That people are having this debate is a good thing. Ideally, this debate will spur U.S. lawmakers, and lawmakers abroad, to adress the problem with new or updated laws. Until that time, however, this presidential administration has a right, as would any administration, to intrepret and employ existing laws to prevent any more 9-11 magnitude attacks on U.S. soil.
If this administration did otherwise, say, freeing this bunch at GITMO years ago, and we were again brutally attacked and economically crippled by some of these same characters, I suspect some of you would take this administration to task for its LACK of due diligence.
There’s a big difference between wanting actions that violate the Geneva conventions to stop, and asking for all detainees to be released, although I’m sure there are some involved in the discussion that would demand exactly that. I’m not one of them…I’ve really not that much of a problem with holding detainees that we have some credible evidence that they are connected to some terrorist movement, or have committed or plotted acts agains the US. But I’d also say those people should be charged, tried, and sentenced accordingly. And if an impartial investigation and trial comes up without a conviction, than I do say release them. Our legal morals mean nothing if we don’t stick to them.
I guess, if anything comes out of Gitmo, it is that the situation is far more complex than most of us realize, and if we can’t come to any consensus agreement on what course to take, then one probably doesn’t exist.
Bobb, you raise a very important point. There is mounting evidence that many of the detainees are actually kidnap victims who were captured by our “allies” in Afghanistan and Iraq just to collect on the bounties we’re offering. Many of them may not have any actual connections to Al qaida (not that Bush spends “a lot of time thinking about bin Laden” anymore) or any other terrorist organization.
I know, it’s best just to drink the Kool Aid and pretend everything that our new Caesar says is 100% true.
I guess, if anything comes out of Gitmo, it is that the situation is far more complex than most of us realize, and if we can’t come to any consensus agreement on what course to take, then one probably doesn’t exist.
Yeah, I think you’re right on the money, Bobb. This will be a very difficult thing to work out, made all the more difficult by posers on both sides of the political divide.
One thing that may deserve clarification–it is my understanding (and I’m sure someone will point out to me what a right wing tool of the jackbooted neocons I am if this understanding is incorrect) that all or at least most of the detainees actually HAVE had a trial, of sorts–they went bepfre a military tribunal. This is why some have been released. Ok, now this is not quite the same as being judged by a jury of one’s peers but it seems to me that it is as much or more than was given to, say, Germans in WWII caught in American Uniform, some of whom were shot where captured. (For that matter, the executions of deserters during the Civil War didn’t seem to involve much in the way of lengthy court proceedings).
I can see the need to have something other than a traditional jury trial. Bill Clinton said something much the same, talking about how to do so would involve exposing sources and putting more people at risk. I don’t want to see us abandone all our civil rights to catch terrorists but I don’t want to give these people the knives with which they will slit our throats either.
BTW, it seems to me that the actual closest parallel to Gitmo and the treatment of the prisoners there would be the similar treatment of the IRA members by the British. I recall some of the same accusations made against the British, even the use of loud music. Evidentally the food is better at Cuba since I haven’t heard of anyone starving themselves to death but if I were faced with a lifetime of munching on kidney pudding and spotted dìçk starvation would probably be a viable alternative.
I don’t think that a full blown civil trial is needed or appropriate. The military tribunal system is in some ways superior to the civil courts, and I’ve no doubt that an impartial military panel is more than capable of presiding over a trial of detainees…provided that they also have acces to competent counsel and translators.
You’d think that, if such trials have occurred, and detainees released (I’ve heard something about releases, but I don’t know how many or under what circumstances) there’d be an incentive for Bush to parade that around the publicity tour.
Whatever happened to the Golden Rule? Can you imagine theoutrage we’d have in the USofA if our soldiers were captured by some enemy and made to defecate on themselves, have their Bibles and flags urinated upon, made to stand naked in the fetal position for hours, being fondled by their captors, deprived of sleep by having loud music played incessantly in their cells, yadda yadda yadda?
Can any of the Gitmo apologists honestly say that they wouldn’t be up in arms if the situation were reversed?
Oh yeah, good luck getting any of the corporate-owned mainstream media to cover the Downing Street Memos (plural) in depth. They’re too busy finding the next runaway bride and giving us an 18-part analysis on the Michael Jackson verdict…
–R.J.
Ok, now this is not quite the same as being judged by a jury of one’s peers but it seems to me that it is as much or more than was given to, say, Germans in WWII caught in American Uniform, some of whom were shot where captured.
Maybe that could be the new Bushite slogon: “We’re not as bad at the Nazis. Honest.”
“Maybe that could be the new Bushite slogon: “We’re not as bad at the Nazis. Honest.”
Ummmm…actually, I think the people who shot the Germans in American Uniforms were, y’know, Americans…you’re not supposed pretend to be a different army than what you are.
Hey, I didn’t make up the rules.
Okay, Bill. I misread what you were saying. Sorry.
Still think the slogon is appropriate, though. 🙂
Unfortunately, the people at GITMO are enemy combatants who are not members of any country’s regular army, so arguments about POW status and Geneva Convention signatory status just does not apply.
How many of them were Taliban? Which was, up until the US invasion, the ruling group of Afghanistan.
Or to you is this still nothing more than a case of the US getting to arbitrarily decide who is a POW and who isn’t?
The whole reason we’re having this argument is because the Bush Administration made a decision that guaranteed that those in Gitmo would have no rights.
Late to the debate…….
I love how far off of the point Durbin made every debate seems to be moving. When he said his bit I had to agree with him at the time. Still do. He read a report of torture and said that anybody who heard it without being told who was who would not think that it was being done by us, the U.S. He said that most Americans would hear it and assume that it was from some other, more evil, place or people rather then us. Why? Because we don’t torture people. We passed laws against the use of torture and speak out against others who use it.
I don’t hear stories of torture and think, “good old U.S. of A.” Do you? Seven days out and the debate has been spun and twisted away from the point he made because you can’t argue with it. What are you going to say if you’re on the right? Are you going to say that stories of torture make you think of the U.S.? Are you going to say that you hear stuff like that and, before the story makes clear who is who, you think, “oh, that must be us doing it.” Hëll no. But give the right wing noise machine seven days (or less) to twist something and, presto, you’ve got yourself a foolish debate.
And let me vent here about how stupid so many people in the public and in the media seem to be with this and other torture debates. If I hear one more talk radio idiot, their callers or some TV baboon talking about how we want more torture because it gets us intel and makes us safe and saves soldiers lives and ours then I will reach through the airwaves and *****slap them.
Do you know why we and others stopped doing torture as an intel source? It doesn’t work. Any good intel guy will tell you that. When you torture somebody for information you often get very bad intel. People can be trained to play the game and then stick to a false story after “caving” on their other false stories. They plant bad intel that way. Our side did it in the last Gulf War. Read Bravo Two-Zero. They got tortured and gave false intell after playing the game. So have others in many other conflicts over the ages. You think anybody we torture is going to be 100% honest with us?
People that haven’t been trained? They may tell the truth right at the start. They may not. One thing that many in intel found was that torture victims would tell you what they thought you wanted to hear (and that ain’t always the truth) in order to stop their torture. Again, torture as an intel collection device doesn’t work. The only reason left after that to torture somebody is that you are sick, twisted or evil. To claim in public that you want to see more of this kind of thing shows that you’re sick, twisted, evil or stupid.
Although, another reason for torture is that you are under orders to do so. Bush, his A.G. and the Bybee memo smiled on the concept of torture. They rewrote the meaning of the word to be anything goes and only something that stops life is torture. The abuses came hard after that. When it hit the fan and low ranks stated that they were following orders they were blown off. They went to jail. The men who gave the orders and the man in that big white house in DC who smiled on it to begin with are still there though. Hëll, the guy who was in charge when Pfc. Lynndie England and others did their thing is up for a promotion. Bush wants to promote the guy! She faces jail and he gets to look for a reward from G.W. I guess Bush feels he did a good job with giving torture orders in his prison and ducking the blame. I can see how Bush would like that in a guy.
And the people who keep shouting “support our troops” just keep smiling as our troops are given garbage orders, punished and put in jail for following them while the people who tell them to do it get off and move up. I would think that you could best support our troops by not selling them down the road like the Bush Admin does. But what do I know?
As for the debate that has been created by what Durbin said:
He’s still right. The reports of torture are like what was done in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union with some prisons and with P.O.W.s. Using them as an example does not always have to mean the number of deaths or the extremes (death camps, gassing, etc.) It gives an example of mindset. We, the U.S., should not ever share that mindset. To hear so many of my fellow Americans claim that torture is good, we should be doing more torture and the only thing really done wrong with the torture is that we let people find out about it makes me sick.
It also shows that Durbin was right on more levels then he realized. Like Nazi Germany we have a large group in the public who have bought the party line so hard that they won’t question it and nothing that is done by Bush or his people, no matter how wrong, evil or un-American it is, is wrong as long as they can say that it’s making us safer from the evil outsiders and terrorists. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
My how you run on. All that effort — for an audience of … who? Would anyone actually read that entire rant?
By the way, the situation in Gitmo is very simple. Liberals want to criticize President Bush. Lacking any issue of real substance, they seize on EVERY perceived abuse, and try to build it up into a new Holocaust. End of story.
“My how you run on. All that effort — for an audience of … who? Would anyone actually read that entire rant?”
I did. I have a feeling others did too. And you can’t attack his point, which is simply that because what we are doing isn’t as bad as mass gassing Jews and Gypsies at Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Birkenau, and all the other names on that litany of horror, dosen’t make it right. Rousseau, Locke and other enlightenment philosphers spoke of a higher moral law that we all must obey, even at the risk of disobeying our superiors. This was one of the arguements used at Nuremburg when Nazis tried to wiggle out of war crimes by saying they were “Only following orders.” The Geneva Convention has been brought up. Whether or not these people are strictly POW’s is a moot point. What counts is that they are HUMAN BEINGS. Maybe they are on the other side, but we have no right to torture them. The Geneva Convention Doesn’t apply? Jus au Bellum: the law of war applies. In the “Rules” of war, one of the most important ideas is that all prisoners must be treated alike. We must answer to a higher moral law: the Law of God, the Law of Humanity, call it what you wish. Any person with the least semblence of a conscious KNOWS that torture is wrong. They use it? That is one of the main reasons THEY are the BAD GUYS! If you say, “Hëll, they do it, why not us?” Fine. We can have beheadings with penknives, public stonings, and we can gas whoever we want! We are a civilized nation. If we wish to lay claim to that title, then we must take the high road. Hard? yes. It was too hard for the Romans. Look what happened to them. It was too hard for the Mongols. Where are they? It was too hard for Bismark, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, Nixon, The Antebellum South, and Joseph McCarthy. Where are they now? Gone. Destroyed by their own moral turpitude. if we would survive, one nation “Of the People, By the people and FOR the People,” then we must not make those mistakes. Torture is for barbarians. Is the Right-wing admitting that they are barbarians? Your failure X-ray, is in not admitting that something evil, which the entire truely civilized world has condemned since time im memorium, is in fact wrong. Until the entire world comes to that realization, there will continue to be Gitmos, or Cambodian Killing Fields, or Auschwitzs, or any other gross violations of human rights.
To simplify it for your small brain, X-ray:
Hurting people for no reason is bad. No matter who says it is good, it is bad.
Jerry wrote: “As for the debate that has been created by what Durbin said: He’s still right.”
How can Durbin be right when his public allegation, made without any formal investigation whatsoever, has yet to be proved? You may want him to be right, because he said what you wanted to hear — stuff that reinforces your feelings about the current administration. Like Newsweek, you’ve apparently decided the military people working at GITMO are evil based on hearsay.
Have you weigned the testimony from those military people who work at GITMO? No, because you apparently don’t care. You made up your mind the minute Durbin made his outrageous, irresponsible statement.
How can Durbin be right when his public allegation, made without any formal investigation whatsoever, has yet to be proved?
Gee, sounds like Bush’s reasononing for going to Iraq – Saddam had WMD.
Yet, for all the allegations, it’s never been proven.
Didn’t stop Bush, did it?
Or is that kind of reasoning ok only for the Republicans?
Like Newsweek, you’ve apparently decided the military people working at GITMO are evil based on hearsay.
And like a good little Republican, you’ve ignored comments from the military that the Newsweek article was pretty much spot on – that the military has abused the Koran (I’d think pìššìņg on it would qualify), among other things.
From mark Evanier website:
Today’s Political Rant 04:02 PM
No one will ever give me credit for it but I think, back in the pre-Internet days of electronic bulletin boards, I was the first person to ever make an important point in online discussions. My friends and I used to refer to Mark’s Rule, which is that you’re not allowed to compare anyone to Hitler or Nazis unless they’re actually committing mass murder and genocide. I think this is better that the version now being floated about, which says that you’re not allowed to compare anyone to Hitler at all. If someone is going around and killing thousands of people, or even hundreds, I think it’s okay to make a Nazi analogy or two.
A lot of people are upset because an Illinois senator suggested that certain actions in U.S prison camps could be mistaken for Nazi S.O.P. This is not exactly saying the perpetrators are equal to Nazis but it’s close enough, I guess.
Ðìçk Durbin’s detractors are calling his remarks “treason” and demanding that he be kicked out of the senate or at least censured. Personally, I don’t think spoken words alone ever constitute treason, and the demands for his ouster are empty political threats. It’s like when someone loses a public battle on some issue and says, “You haven’t heard the last of this! We’re going to pass a Constitutional Amendment to reverse this.” That almost always means you have heard the last of it. What’s the current batting average for threatened amendments to our Constitution? I think it’s like one in five hundred million. The stats for getting senators tossed out of office for what they say are about the same.
Might they get him censured? They shouldn’t. But never underestimate the power of the right-wing wackos to force Republicans in Congress to occasionally act on their hysterics. (The Terri Schiavo matter will stand for some time as the shining example but it’s by no means the only. By the way, right-wing wackos should not be confused with left-wing wackos, who are just as wacko though somewhat less effectual.)
Was Durbin in the wrong? Yeah, if for no other reason than that the public discourse is now over his choice of analogy, rather than the actual issue he was trying to get people to do something about. He was raising a very serious matter and one suspects that at least some of the folks now hammering him for the Nazi reference are doing so because it’s easier — and probably more fun — to do that that to address the main charge. Otherwise, I think I agree with Andrew Sullivan, and that must mean something since I so rarely agree with Andrew Sullivan. We need to address the issue instead of shooting messengers. That’s probably all Senator Durbin was trying to make happen and it’s unfortunate that he used a few words that have gotten things off-topic.
R., from what I understand, Durbin didn’t say anything about the veracity of the FBI e-mail. I’ve read only the small section of his statement that appears relevant, but from what I read, all Durbin did was read the FBI e-mail describing the alleged abuse, and then make an add-on statement saying something like “If I had not told you this was committed by US troops, you would have assumed that it was an act carried out by one of history’s eviil regimes.”
How can he be right? Because he’s stating an opinion, and because there are people that agree with him. There are those, I guess, that disagree, and as Jerry says, think “go USA” when they hear about abusive treatment of prisoners. The allegation doesn’t have to be true for the statement to be right. And given that we have proof (and convictions) of prior past abuses, I think it’s a good thing that our elected officials are willing to risk their own political necks in an effort to call attention to the issue.
I for one don’t think the average soldier stationed at Gitmo is evil. I think they’re following orders. I do think an administration that defines tradtional torture methods out of the word torture, all in order to use so methods formerly known as torture in order to punish helpless detainees, is run by evil people. What I also find reprehensible is that a president that essentially won by appealing the christian religious base in this country apparantly has no qualms about using such abusive methods on prisoners in his care. Such abuse is so clearly at odds with the messages found in the Bible that it’s yet one more reason I am left speechless that Bush was re-elected.
Craig wrote: “And like a good little Republican, you’ve ignored comments from the military that the Newsweek article was pretty much spot on – that the military has abused the Koran (I’d think pìššìņg on it would qualify), among other things.”
Obviously you haven’t been following this thread from the beginning. I VOTED for Durbin, unfortunately.
“…you’ve apparently decided the military people working at GITMO are evil based on hearsay.”
No. I just feel that anybody who does that kind of thing or lets it happen by turning a blind eye to it is in the running for the “evil” or “stupid” titles. But the winners for the belt right now are the people calling the shots.
We know that it has been done by our troops and by contractors placed there by the people in The White House in other prisons set up since the conflicts began. We have the proof in the form of photos, sworn testimony and the convictions of the lowest on the totem pole rather then the order givers.
We’ve seen that the people in charge and the majority of their supporters in the media smile upon this type of thing. After all, it’s not really torture. It’s no worse then hazing, frat pranks or the “average” Hollywood movie. It’s just guys in a stressful situation blowing off steam. It’s just a little fun and entertainment. Or it’s vital intel work. To say that it’s wrong and is torture is to be called a traitor, un-American or a hater of our troops. Oh, and real Americans want to see even more of it.
Is it happening at GITMO? We don’t know for sure yet. The evidence that it is happening is very strong. But saying that does not mean I think that the troops are evil. It means that there is a group of people in our military who need their @$$es handed to them real bad. What we, as citizens, need to do is make sure that these things don’t happen in our name and if it has that it does not continue.
Again, I don’t believe that our troops nor the military are evil. I simply have too much respect for our military to sit around with my mouth shut and do nothing while a handful of loose screws and a few power players with questionable brainpower stain our military’s honor and name further.
And, again, Durbin is still right. I don’t think of our military as a first choice when I hear tales of torture. No one should ever get to that point either. That’s why we must do something to preserve their honor rather then stick our fingers in our ears, keep our mouths shut and pretend that as long as we, our elected officials and our media never mention it that the rest of the world will not report on any real abuses and torture done by a handful of fools.
Jerry wrote: “And, again, Durbin is still right. I don’t think of our military as a first choice when I hear tales of torture. No one should ever get to that point either.”
Durbin can’t possibly be “right” until his allegations are proved. He was irresponsible for publicly making those allegations without checking them out first. He is a public official who has great influence both at home an abroad, and he should not be thinking with his mouth. His unproven comments were big news in the Middle East, serving as a PR boost for the insurgency, and thus making it even more difficult for the troops on the ground in country.
In addition, as someone who is a student of history, I think his comparisons — even if later found to be true — are ludicrous.
And unless he heartfeltly apologizes for his gaffe, I can never, in good conscience, vote for him again.
R., with this current adminstration, the alleged abuse described in the FBI memo/e-mail read by Durbin will never be proven, unless the public is gavlonized into demanding an accounting. Should we silence all allegations of abuse until they can be “proven?” Our own government reports (like the FBI reports basically corraborating the Newsweek accounts of Quran flushing a week after Newsweek was forced to refute it’s story) are saying the same thing Durbin is telling us. How many different sources have to come out before it’s ok to talk about something?
Bobb wrote: “R., with this current adminstration, the alleged abuse described in the FBI memo/e-mail read by Durbin will never be proven, unless the public is gavlonized into demanding an accounting. Should we silence all allegations of abuse until they can be “proven?”
What Durbin did on the Senate floor the other day, waving around a piece of paper and making very serious, yet unproven accusations, reminded of the darkest days of McCarthyism. If that’s the type of person you want representing you, then fine. But not me.
“What Durbin did on the Senate floor the other day, waving around a piece of paper and making very serious, yet unproven accusations, reminded of the darkest days of McCarthyism.”
In what way? McCarthy believed (and to a limited extent, was correct) that the US had been infiltrated by Communist spies, and he took efforts to uncover them. In his zeal, he engaged in dubious, maybe even illegal tactics, and eventually didn’t know when to stop, turning the machine he had created to target those that had no credible ties to Communism, but were political or moral opponents.
If anything about Durbin should remind you of McCarthy, it would only be the beginning…where there was real, credible evidence of some corruption in our government, and demanding that some action take place to stop it.
If there’s anything going on right now that should remind you of the “darkest days of McCarthyism,” it should be the abuse of detainees that’s been ordered and approved of by this administration…using unethical and illegal means to achieve a political goal, even if the incentive to use those means is a good one.
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/news/world/8623955.htm
This is from last year. And to borrow from something PAD has said in the past, calling a stinking pile of poo a “rosey mound of clay” doesn’t make it smell any better, look any better, or be anything other than what it is.
And we’re not talking about some unsubstantiated FBI memo, either. We’re talking about State Department orders issued or signed by Rumsfeld himself…what more do you need to substantiate the FBI descriptions that this kind of activity if going on, every day, down at Gitmo and around the world, carried out by US troops?
Well, I think this horse we’re beating is just about dead — suffice to say, I don’t agree with you.
Obviously you haven’t been following this thread from the beginning. I VOTED for Durbin, unfortunately.
I have. Unfortunately, you’re spending so much time bìŧçhìņg and moaning about the single quote from Durbin, rather than the loads of bs coming from the Bush Administration, that you come across as a right-winger.
If that’s the type of person you want representing you, then fine. But not me.
And yet it was somebody speaking for the Bush Administration that said, in the days after 9/11, that “people need to watch what they say.”.
I don’t see any Democrats or liberals making claims that to be moderate means you’re going to have your political career torn out from under you, as some have threatened with McCain and the other Republicans who compromised on the judicial nominations.
Now, there’s a word one side has forgotten the meaning to… compromise.
Sounds like you’ve picked the wrong side when discuss who’s best at McCarthyism, to me.
Now, there’s a word one side has forgotten the meaning to… compromise.
Only one side????
Where do you see compromise coming from either side?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101193.html
To the list of people who think that Durbin should apologize we can now add…Ðìçk Durbin!
“Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line,” the Illinois Democrat said. “To them I extend my heartfelt apologies.”
An emotional Sen. Durbin apologized Tuesday, June 21, 2005 for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures.
His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.
“They’re the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them,” he said.
…”I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I’ve come to understand that’s a very poor choice of words.”
…”I’m sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.”
Frankly, Durbin showed more class and good sense than many of his defenders. His apology should be accepted. If the Democrats decide, as the republicans did with Trent Lott, that the apology is fine but they want someone in a leadership position who is less likely to screw up so spectacularly, well, that’s their choice.
Bill M. posted the following from the Washington Post story regarding Durbin’s apology: “Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line,” the Illinois Democrat said. “To them I extend my heartfelt apologies.” An emotional Sen. Durbin apologized Tuesday, June 21, 2005 for comparing American interrogators at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to Nazis and other historically infamous figures. His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.”
Apology accepted from this Illinois voter.
So, I guess we’ll be hearing an apology from Santorum for comparing defending the filibuster to Hitler’s invasion of France any minute now.
Yep.
Anytime now.
No hurry.
Anyone?
Bueller?
You asking for an apology from Santorum is just like Hitler.
“Mark’s Rule, which is that you’re not allowed to compare anyone to Hitler or Nazis unless they’re actually committing mass murder and genocide.”
—-
What fantastic insight “Mark” has!
Before “Mark” was born, this used to be called “common sense.”
So, I guess we’ll be hearing an apology from Santorum for comparing defending the filibuster to Hitler’s invasion of France any minute now.
Yep.
Anytime now.
No hurry.
Anyone?
Bueller?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/05/20/national/w085317D29.DTL
Santorum Regrets Making Hitler Comment
Byrd came under fire in March for comparing Hitler’s Nazis and the Senate GOP plan to block Democrats from filibustering. Santorum, a Pennsylvanian, criticized Byrd’s remarks at the time, saying the Nazi references “lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate.”
But on Thursday, Santorum said that Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator seizing Paris and then saying: “I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It’s mine.”
Santorum later said in a release that his remark “was a mistake and I meant no offense.”
The Republican Jewish Coalition applauded the statement. “Sen. Santorum is sensitive to the effect of his words and the inappropriateness of the analogy,” Executive Director Matthew Brooks said.
This was all May 20th.
He’s still a nitwit, though.
Calling him a nitwit makes you like Hitler!