Scott Johnson, echoing his PowerLine co-bloggers, faults Senator Durbin's recent remarks comparing some of the U.S.'s interrogation methods with the methods of the Soviets and Nazis. According to Johnson, Durbin's remarks were nothing more than "rabid foaming at the mouth," deployed "in lieu of reasoned criticism."
Johnson is wrong. Durbin's remarks cannot be dismissed with a wave and a few proverbs from the Big Book of Stunning Overreach and Bizarre Metaphors (e.g., Durbin is "al-Qaeda's most popular senator," better fit to "reconstitute the Democratic Party as a branch of the Peoples Temple than to hold high office" or "lead a doomsday cult devoted to drinking poison Kool-Aid"). Nor are they comparable to the moral idiocy recently on display at Amnesty International. Indeed, it's telling that Johnson does not quote Durbin's actual remarks in the course of his criticism; yet, they bear reading, for placed against Johnson's screed, they show the lie in Johnson's thinking. Here is what Durbin said (HT: TalkLeft; emphasis mine):
When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report: On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold.... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Durbin's complete remarks are here (pdf).
If there is rabid foaming in the above, it is by the FBI agent who wrote the report that Durbin quotes on the Senate floor. If there is a dearth of reasoning in the above, it's because Johnson believes that chaining someone hand and foot in a fetal position, denying them food and water, and letting them piss and shit on themselves over the course of 18-24 hours doesn't evoke the tactics of the Nazis and Soviets. If Johnson believes this whole thing to be a lie, or a put-on, or if Johnson thinks the tactics described to be legitimate, then let him stand up and say so.
There's a difference -- and it's not a small one -- between calling U.S. soldiers Nazis or stating that Gitmo is the "gulag of our times" and pointing out that some of the interrogation tactics used at Gitmo could be confused with interrogation methods used by the Nazis or in the Soviet Union. The former is dishonest and smacks of a partisan myopia; the latter, sad to say, is simply telling it like it is.
Anarch: no offense
None taken. ;-) (I'm genuinely interested to see if any of those people will reply to your question.)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 17, 2005 at 12:55 PM
Anarch: I thought it was contradictory statements, not false ones.
In classical logic it's just false statements, largely because in CL all false statements are equivalent: they're false. In fact, though, it cuts both ways: the only way for a statement to be evaluated as "false" (e.g. 2+2=5) is if it contradicts something known to be "true" (e.g. 2+2=4 & 4 != 5) and hence a false statement really is an implicit contradiction. All of this only applies to classical logic, though; once you move into modal/intuitionist/relevant logics, all bets are off.
[And in fact contradiction needn't lead to explosion in paraconsistent logics, which are a whole new kettle of fish entirely.]
You're absolutely right about the poor form of the argument, though, since it's both ridiculously unsound and, worse, "irrelevant" in the technical sense. I was just being irritating :)
Posted by: Anarch | June 17, 2005 at 01:01 PM
Hilzoy: we cannot conclude that George Bush is President based on the argument: the moon is made of green cheese, 2+2=5, therefore George Bush is President.
Anarch: Ahem. That argument is valid, albeit stupid: a false statement (e.g. 2+2=5) implies any statement, true or false.
No need for the "Ahem" -- Hilzoy's original statement is entirely sound. Because the premise is false, the syllogism as a whole evaluates to True, regardless of the truth value of the conclusion. So we indeed cannot conclude that George Bush is President based on the "valid" (i.e. True) syllogism she gives.
Posted by: kenB | June 17, 2005 at 01:16 PM
Have I mentioned recently that I love commenting on a blog where these sorts of discussions occur?
Posted by: hilzoy | June 17, 2005 at 01:17 PM
I'm just waiting for ral to come around and post snippets of this bit.
Posted by: kenB | June 17, 2005 at 01:33 PM
No need for the "Ahem" -- Hilzoy's original statement is entirely sound.
Goodness me; I completely misread her contention, and you're both absolutely right. Mea culpa!
And we wub you too, hilzoy :)
Posted by: Anarch | June 17, 2005 at 01:34 PM
Charles,
Your comment at 10:53 is disgusting. Your reading of Durbin's remarks is wrong. Whether this is out of carelessness, wilfullness, blind partisanship, or some other reason I leave to you and your conscience. There does seem to me to be a reflexive counterattack from the right to any unpleasant truth, and you have made yourself a part of it. Durbin said that certain specific instances, taken from an FBI agent's report, sound like something that might have happened in Nazi or Soviet camps.
That is a true statement - undeniably so. Now comes the right to distort, obscure, and misinterpret Durbin's statement. Why do you join in this?
Let's look at your comment:
If the conditions really were like Nazi camps, gulags or Pol Pot's reeducation farms, the detainees would've been dead years ago, most likely with unceremonious bullets to the backs of heads.
Durbin did not say the conditions were like those in these camps. He said some incidents sounded like incidents in those places. They do.
However Durbin packages it, his image conjuring and moral equation between Gitmo (involving mistreatment of hundreds of enemy combatants) and Nazi-gulag-Cambodia (involving starvation and death of millions of innocents) is disgusting, offensive and bone stupid.
Durbin packaged nothing. He made a statement. The "packaging" is being done by those who want to discredit Durbin by claiming he said things he didn't say. This includes you.
Durbin deserves as much derision as can be ladled out, especially since he is supposedly a mainstream Democratic politician. Because of this nonsensical and, yes, hysterical comparison, the factual information he relayed was drowned out and wasted. It takes the issue completely out of proportion, minimizing the real atrocities that occurred in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and communist Cambodia, and irresponsibility overblowing the treatment of bin Laden foot soldiers.
Durbin deserves praise. The hysteria is from his critics. Did the events happen? Yes? Do they sound like things that could have happened in the places he mentions? Yes. Who is being hysterical?
This is no different from the "gulag of our times" idiocy by Amnesty International.
Of course it's different. There is a vast difference between a general statement and a specific one. There is a difference between "Charles Bird is a cruel prison guard," and "Charles Bird beat a prisoner for no reason."
Judging by the media reaction by AI, it makes me wonder if Durbin did it for that purpose, to get a good hearty media reaction.
So telling the truth about outrageous behavior to get a media reaction is somehow inappropriate? Novel theory.
For those who the believe the reaction is "screeching", fine. There has been, but the original screech came from Durbin himself.
You mean the true screech came from Durbin, and the false ones are coming from his critics.
He may have pleased the hyperlibs with this, but the rhetoric will damage him among the rest.
I'm sure he appreciates your tender concern for his political future, Charles.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | June 17, 2005 at 01:38 PM
Awwww -- GROUP HUG!! ;P
Posted by: hilzoy | June 17, 2005 at 01:38 PM
My last comment, btw, was in response to Anarch's.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 17, 2005 at 01:40 PM
"And we wub you too, hilzoy :)"
Just don't wub her de wong way! :P
Posted by: Dantheman | June 17, 2005 at 01:43 PM
I -- *sniffle* -- wub wuving evwywon!
No, really!
Almost.
But, no, really.
(People often think snarky people aren't full of it, but they're often wrong.)
And, yes, actually, I'm terribly sentimental In Real Life. I weep at films, books, articles, thoughts, observations, and stubbing my toe, all the time. In fact.
Then I go online and smack someone.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 17, 2005 at 01:46 PM
I haven't read the comment since my earlier post, but I think it's important to be consistent here. It is just as disgusting when a Republican makes overwrought hyperbolic Nazi references as when a Democrat does it. There's no reasonable place in political discourse for bringing up images of death camps--where millions were murdered--when issues US governmental policy are being debated. Durbin clearly crossed a line. David Gelernter:
Durbin should know better than to trivialize widespread atrocities and genocide. Santorum apologized for his bone stupid remark, Durbin should for his.Posted by: Charles Bird | June 17, 2005 at 02:05 PM
Jes: "They're in prison: they were arrested: that makes them guilty."
Absolutely not!! The order is entirely reversed! And the likelihood someone relatively innocent is incarcerated? No doubt, it happens all the time. Such is life in times of war. The last time I flew I went through security beltless, shoeless and had to be sure my possessions were in order. And my old middle aged self was reminded not to complain about it. Life's a bitch.
I believe the conditions THM Durbin thought necessary to share was a couple years old - fairly fresh off our experience with those two towers in NY that seems to be fading from memory. Maybe Durbin's time would be better spent reading the list of those who perished (what a great filibuster that would make).
Are conditions like that now? Doesn't sound like it. The Administration deserves kudos not brickbats. And the legal morass at Gitmo will be sorted out in time. I can also appreciate the contribution toward that end by the continuous questioning of this fine troup of patriots - Fox contributers all.
Posted by: blogbudsman | June 17, 2005 at 02:07 PM
"...images of death camp...."
What are you referring to, precisely, Charles? (And, incidentally, if you've responded on that whole bombing Iran thing, could you drop me an e-mail or something with a link, please?)
"Durbin should know better than to trivialize widespread atrocities and genocide."
If he had, I'd certainly agree. I'm pretty sensitive about that stuff. In which words did he do that? Quote, please?
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 17, 2005 at 02:15 PM
You people are unreal. The basic complaint of the Republicans on the Durbin speech is use of distortive analogies. But this equivalence is apparently OK: innocents locked up indefinitely = The last time I flew I went through security beltless, shoeless and had to be sure my possessions were in order.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | June 17, 2005 at 02:18 PM
Charles: I thought we had some decent replies to your earlier post, actually. It might be worth reading them.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 17, 2005 at 02:19 PM
Charles: there were some good responses to your earlier comment, which might (who knows?) have affected the one you just wrote. They might be worth reading.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 17, 2005 at 02:20 PM
(And, incidentally, if you've responded on that whole bombing Iran thing, could you drop me an e-mail or something with a link, please?)
As someone who participated in the discussion (albeit in Gary's illustrious shadow), I'd like a cc on that if possible.
Posted by: Anarch | June 17, 2005 at 02:25 PM
Blogbuds, I often really enjoy your comments here, but how on earth can you be arguing that waiting a little longer on the airport security line is a comparable to indefinite detention and torture, and that if you remove your belt without complaint that frees you to dismiss these things with "life's a bitch"?
Here's the Tribune's editorial on the subject; here's my response.
To the Editor:
In response to your June 17 editorial, “Durbin Said What?”: Senator Durbin may well have made those remarks about Guantanamo because he was desparate for attention. But it cannot have been because he was desparate to be falsely accused, by the Tribune and many others, of comparing Guantanamo Bay to the Holocaust and the killing fields; desparate to be called a traitor by talk radio hosts; desparate to be attacked by his colleagues on the Senate floor; desperate to be condemned by the veterans groups he has worked so hard to support. No politician wants that sort of attention.
If Senator Durbin was desperate for attention, it is because he knew the country that he loves and serves is condoning the torture of prisoners, and he is desperate to stop it. He also knew that his Republican colleagues in the Senate and the media ignore the evidence of this, unless it is accompanied by graphic photographs or inflammatory language that allows them to be “outraged by the outrage.”
You have proved Senator Durbin correct. Your editorial suggests that we ignore Senator Durbin when he speaks on this issue, but the fact is, you wrote an editorial about his remarks. In contrast, you have written zero editorials about the fatal torture of a 22-year old Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar at Bagram Air Force Base in December of 2002. You have written zero editorials about the practice of “rendition,” sending prisoners to be tortured and interrogated in Syrian, Egyptian and Uzbek prisons. Both of these things have happened to men who are probably innocent of any connection to Al Qaeda, but the Tribune’s editorial board cannot be bothered to write about them. It could not be bothered to write about rendition even when another Illinois politician, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, attempted to legalize it last October.
Your editorial board has taken the position that it is worse for Durbin to mention the tortures of brutal dictatorships in the same sentence as Guantanamo Bay, than for Hastert to attempt to legalize sending Guantanamo prisoners to be tortured by brutal dictatorships. And this is entirely typical of the media’s response to the torture scandals.
Is it any wonder that Senator Durbin is feeling desperate?
Posted by: Katherien | June 17, 2005 at 02:28 PM
There's no reasonable place in political discourse for bringing up images of death camps--where millions were murdered--when issues US governmental policy are being debated. Durbin clearly crossed a line.
There should be no place in American policy for treating even a handful of detainees in a fashion reminiscent of Nazi and Soviet camps.
Once that occurs, there is every reason to bring it up, and there is "no reasonable place" for criticism of those who do.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | June 17, 2005 at 02:39 PM
awesome letter to the ed, K...but given the Trib's conservative management, I would be surprised if they publish it...any idea if they're considering it?
Posted by: Edward_ | June 17, 2005 at 02:42 PM
Brav-f***ing-o, Katherine.
Posted by: washerdreyer | June 17, 2005 at 02:45 PM
Most newspapers attempt to publish letters to the editor in proportion to the number they receive in support or opposition to a position. So even if they don't publish your letter, it makes it more likely that another letter supporting the same view makes it in.
The Trib has a conservative editorial board but they're not some Murdoch rag. I assume they follow the standard practice in selecting letters to the editor. Don't know for sure.
Posted by: Katherine | June 17, 2005 at 02:51 PM
blogbuds: Absolutely not!! The order is entirely reversed!
Oh yeah? Prove it, with cites. Show me what evidence you've read that shows you that Bisher al-Rawi is, as you charged, guilty of being a "criminally insane Islamic extremist". Aside, that is, from the fact that he was arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Or do those multiple exclaimation marks indicate that you know as well as I do that he's most likely innocent, and you're just winding me up for the fun of seeing me froth at the mouth? Your absurd comparison of having to wait in line at the airport for a while longer than you used to with indefinite imprisonment without trial does suggest that you are being consciously silly. If so, it worked: you may stand up and take your bow. Don't forget to put your belt back on before your pants fall down.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 17, 2005 at 03:12 PM
Jes, watch out for the Tar Baby.
Posted by: Phil | June 17, 2005 at 03:18 PM
Katherine "... how on earth can you be arguing that waiting a little longer on the airport security line is a comparable to indefinite detention and torture, and that if you remove your belt without complaint that frees you to dismiss these things with "life's a bitch"?
Putting it that way makes it sound pretty bad. And that's what we do a lot of, frame facts and comparisons around our preferred snapshot. We're all affected by the terrorist attacks on our soil and around the globe, more than ridiculous airport procedures. These people have brought the rest of the world down to their level. Actually that's their intent.
Would I be happy to see good old midwestern due process at Gitmo, certainly. Am I comforted because I know people feel passionately for any mistreatment of any of God's creatures - absolutely. Do I feel much of it is misdirected, some intentionally? Afraid so.
I know my stream of consciousness responses contribute less to the discussion here, but I also represent some of the moderation the site claims to strive toward.
And life is a bitch. That's not an excuse, just a fact.
Posted by: blogbudsman | June 17, 2005 at 03:29 PM
I didn't take what Durbin said to imply moral equivalence at all.
Durbin made exactly that comparison, Hil. He used three of the four worst atrocities in human history--by authoritarian governments--in order to make his case about the treatment of detainees. This is isn't about word parsing and sentence diagramming here. This is about a politician deliberately evoking images of wholesale atrocity, genocide and mass murder and pinning those sickening images to the Bush administration and its treatment of detainees. Durbin couldn't have been unaware of Irene Khan's words and the fallout from that. Recounting information from the FBI is one thing. A vehement response to what took place is just fine. But adding the editorial embellishment of Nazi-gulag-Pol Pot to the recounting is odious and unforgivable. For those who desire civil discourse in the political arena, how do Durbin's words help? They don't. They do the opposite. I really fail to understand why you can be so critical of Santorum for saying what he said, but then defending for Durbin's remarks. Far as I'm concerned, both are equally contemptible.
I thought we had some decent replies to your earlier post, actually. It might be worth reading them.
I read them, Hil.
Posted by: Charles Bird | June 17, 2005 at 03:29 PM
So I was going through the Congressional record to see the exchange about Durbin's comments yesterday and I came across this, in remarks by Senator Sessions of Alabama, speaking of the Abu Ghraib detainees:
"Although none were seriously physically injured, as I recall, they were humiliated and handled in a way unbecoming of an American soldier. Those soldiers have been disciplined severely for their errors, and rightly so. I think it is something we should be proud of."
Question: does Senator Sessions actually believe this when he says it?
It's hard to see how he could. To name only the most obvious example, one of the more famous photographs of Abu Ghraib is of soldiers smiling and giving the thumbs up sign next to a corpse. There was also a confidential screening for the Senate in which they saw many, many more of the Abu Ghraib photographs than were released to the public--I don't know if Jeff Sessions actually bothered going, but I know enough of his colleagues did.
Is his ability to not believe what he doesn't want to believe that powerful? That's a scary thought.
On the other hand, why lie about something that is so obviously false and so easily refuted? You would only do it if you knew that there was no chance at all that anyone who mattered would call you on it; no chance of any adverse political consequences.
That's an equally scary thought. I don't know which is worse.
Posted by: Katherine | June 17, 2005 at 03:30 PM
This is about a politician deliberately evoking images of wholesale atrocity, genocide and mass murder and pinning those sickening images to the Bush administration and its treatment of detainees.
Yes, indeed. Did you disagree that the actions Durbin spoke about fitted those regimes far better than it does Hilzoy's image of America? (Or even the image of America that Bush claimed to believe in earlier this year?
. Far as I'm concerned, both are equally contemptible.
And once again, you choose to shoot the messenger. Really, this is becoming a habit with you.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 17, 2005 at 03:40 PM
We're all affected by the terrorist attacks on our soil and around the globe, more than ridiculous airport procedures.
Not in any meaningful capacity we're not. We might be emotionally distraught over them but that's a far cry from any kind of tangible effect.
These people have brought the rest of the world down to their level.
No, they haven't. On this point, if no other, let there be no confusion: we are bringing ourselves down to their level. We are doing so willingly, we are doing so by conscious choice, and we will continue to do so until we stand the f*** up and fight against this moral collapse.
I know my stream of consciousness responses contribute less to the discussion here, but I also represent some of the moderation the site claims to strive toward.
Anyone can claim to be moderate. Whether they can actually attain moderation is another matter.
And life is a bitch. That's not an excuse, just a fact.
I think this was gone over ad nauseum in a previous thread, so to recap briefly: "Life is a bitch" is generally a glib dismissal of mundane woes. The comparison you constructed between the petty inconveniences of having to remove your belt and shoes -- to which I give a resounding "whatever" -- and the torture and death of detainees in American custody warrants none of that.
Posted by: Anarch | June 17, 2005 at 03:53 PM
I find it amusing -- and by "amusing" I mean "sad, predictable and unbecoming a morally cognizant adult" -- that Charles can't see any daylight whatsoever between comparing a political party exercising a filibuster to Nazi soldiers occupying Paris, and comparing torturing prisoners of war to torturing prisoners of war.
Posted by: Phil | June 17, 2005 at 04:03 PM
The latest from PowerLine: Under the heading 'We Love Gitmo', a link to a cafepress store selling 'I Heart Gitmo' clothing.
I mean: I can sorta kinda get my mind around thinking that Guantanamo if a regrettable necessity. I can't get my mind around loving it. Which just goes to show, had I been in any doubt, that the PowerLine guys do not take their words with any seriousness at all. It's all one big gesture, motivated by the desire to stick it to their opponents.
Posted by: hilzoy | June 17, 2005 at 04:09 PM
And of course, hilzoy, you know that if to suggest they voluntarily submit to be subjected to identical treatment, with an identical degree of freedom, their response would be, "We're not terrorists," which of course forces re-examination of who is there and how we know who they are, and . . . >>>sigh<<< it's just too depressing to contemplate anymore. Seriously, I've given up on having adult conversations with people who unquestioningly support the administration's policies. There's no there there.
Posted by: Phil | June 17, 2005 at 04:13 PM
I really fail to understand why you can be so critical of Santorum for saying what he said, but then defending for Durbin's remarks. Far as I'm concerned, both are equally contemptible.
I obviously can't answer for hilzoy, but speaking for myself let me remind you that Santorum was talking about the filibuster, for God's sake. He was complaining about a legislative maneuver. Durbin was talking about the torture of prisoners. If you see no difference between those two topics I can't help you.
A vehement response to what took place is just fine. But adding the editorial embellishment of Nazi-gulag-Pol Pot to the recounting is odious and unforgivable. For those who desire civil discourse in the political arena, how do Durbin's words help?
You know what? I think Durbin would have gotten a similar response from much of the right without the comparison, just as AI would have come under withering criticism if they hadn't used the word "gulag." The response to the torture stories has been consistent: minimize, blame the messenger, "few bad apples," "they're all terrorists," etc. There are too many people who are going to defend whatever Bush does.
Yes. I know you, and other righties here, have been vigorous in your denunciation of these actions. Good. But do you really think Jonah Goldberg, or Scott Johnson, or David Gelernter, or Scott McClellan, share your views? Do you think they are upset just because Durbin said "Nazi?" Don't be ridiculous. They are upset over the substance of the statement. They simply don't want the public to hear these stories.
Let me add something I said on DeLong's site.
In fact, Durbin's statement is pro-American, and strongly so. It says that to him this sort of behavior is un-American, unacceptable, not in keeping with his vision of what our standards ought to be. It is the behavior of our worst enemies, of regimes we revile as evil. We shouldn't be doing it. Period.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | June 17, 2005 at 04:20 PM
Thanks for the plugs, Bob McManus and Liberal Japonicus. I got some visits.
My idiocentrism site is deliberately much- less- political, but I'm finding that only politics and controversy get you a buzz. Funny thing, eh? Everyone says they hate that shit, but no!
On the issue of this thread: besides the actual acts, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the Patriot Act are precedents and signs of what to expect in the future. Conservatives used to care a LOT about precedents.
The fact that most of the Patriot Act has never been used is not comforting at all. It means that we really still have no idea how bad it really is. (Seemingly, it abolishes habeus corpus for anyone who is declared a terrorist.)
Yes, I realize that this thread is about Guantanamo, and not about the Patriot Act. Rep. Sensenbrenner has already told me. Sorry!
Posted by: John Emerson | June 17, 2005 at 05:00 PM
Phil: Jes, watch out for the Tar Baby.
Either that or pig wrestling. ;-)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 17, 2005 at 06:40 PM
And once again, you choose to shoot the messenger.
Er, no, Jes. This is about the quality and tenor of discourse by the number two ranking Democrat in the Senate. This is about a Senator who made a decent point but ruined it by crossing the line with DU-style hyperbole. Baseball Crank explains it well:
That is why Durbin's statements were so counterproductive. He's also made a mockery of himself. From Iowahawk:* I'm in complete disagreement with Crank's anti-American reference.
Posted by: Charles Bird | June 17, 2005 at 07:10 PM
I'm about to leave so I'll pick just one nit from a whole tapestry of vermin here:
And when you call the interrogation methods that have been approved by the Pentagon "torture," you cheapen the meaning of torture.
Allow me to be the first to say: bullshit. The Pentagon is not the sole arbiter of vice and virtue. Its stamp, no matter how ornate, does not dictate what can and cannot be called torture; it only prescribes a legal definition that may or may not accord with our understanding of the term. Sodomizing people with glowsticks is torture irrespective of whether the Pentagon so designates it (and, thankfully, AFAIK it has); likewise for myriad other acts that keep happening under the ever-more-nebulous regulations governing treatment of detainees.
In short: you may be satisfied with subjugating your standards in slavish deference to the powers that be. For me, I have my own moral code, thank you very much, and I intend to use it.
Posted by: Anarch | June 17, 2005 at 07:21 PM
One, you can just keep peddling inflammatory we-lefties-alone-have-the-moral-high-ground rhetoric and engaging in moral self-gratification, and keep pushing complaints about easily mocked hardhsips for vicious killers.
Possibly the problem is actually with those who are working so hard to transform accounts like
into something like
for ease of mockery. Believe it or not, it is just conceivable that people actually find mistreating prisoners to be reprehensible and that, unlike so many of the apologists, some people might be engaged with this issue for reasons other than partisan political advantage.
The moral universe you seem to be living in is not a pretty place.
Posted by: DaveL | June 17, 2005 at 07:30 PM
"but I'm finding that only politics and controversy get you a buzz"
Hey Emerson, if you come back around this way, I left a comment on your blog but I don't see it showing so you might miss it. I found a nice scan of the Berthe Morisot Rose Tremiere painting you were looking for, and left a link under the post.
And I found your essay on hollyhock symbolism in obscure 19th century French poets incredibly interesting.
No, I am not kidding you.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | June 17, 2005 at 07:30 PM
Having missed my bus, I have time for one addendum. And hooray, the hits just keep coming (although it was a while ago and I apparently missed it):
Posted by: Anarch | June 17, 2005 at 07:47 PM
Well, here are another couple of nits found crawling out from the sump of righteously-indignant Durbin-bashers:
"...This tactic is guaranteed to cause people in power to circle the wagons and tune you out...."
"Plus, you wind up driving away people who might be tempted to listen to you."
In the first instance, why on earth would Baseball Crank (or anyone with half a brain) think for a moment, that those "people in power" - presumably he is referring to the Adminstration, Congress, the Pentagon, or folks like that - would not have been "tuning out" any criticism of any of their policies or actions ALREADY? As they have been, since, oh, January 21, 2001 or thereabouts? It is precisely the "people in power" who have been responsible for whatever prisoner abuse has already taken place - they have (as did prior Adminstrations 35 years ago) already "tuned out" and "lumped in" their critics. Pretending that over-the-top analogies (of which I do NOT believe Sen. Durbin himself is actually guilty) are the "real" problem, rather than the underlying issues of torture and/or abuse is, at best, disingenuous.
Oh, and in the second instance: as a glance through the comment threads on this matter (such as Slarti linked to in his other post), indicates that there are too too many folks "out there" who are only too willing to be "driven away" and "not listen", but, as long as any possible questioning of this country's (or its military's actions and/or practices are involved, will gleefully join a firing squad to potshot at any messenger of news they don't want to hear - like how those red stains really got on our "white hats"....
Posted by: Jay C. | June 17, 2005 at 07:58 PM
Me: And once again, you choose to shoot the messenger.
Charles Bird: Er, no, Jes. This is about the quality and tenor of discourse by the number two ranking Democrat in the Senate. This is about a Senator who made a decent point but ruined it by crossing the line with DU-style hyperbole
Charles, is it possible you just don't know what "to shoot the messenger" means? It means, rather than paying attention to the message (ie, to note that Durbin is right to publicly oppose the atrocities committed by US soldiers) to spend your time complaining about the way he said it. In other words, to do just what you did in the two sentences following "Er, no, Jes".
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 17, 2005 at 07:59 PM
Pride goeth before a fall...
I did a quick google looking for an idioms dictionary to link to (and couldn't find one that included "to shoot the messenger" or "shooting the messenger") but I did find enough notes to remind me that I'd got it wrong.
"Shooting the messenger" is reminiscent of (fabled?) medieval monarchs who would torture to death the messenger who brought bad news. Its standard use in idiom means that when you hear what you don't like, you attack the person who said it. Precisely, in fact, as Charles Bird does in his post at June 17, 2005 07:10 PM - all of it except the first three words.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 17, 2005 at 08:15 PM
Charles, are you offended at Iowahawk's implied comparison between the barbaric situation Durbin described (see DaveL's 07:30 comment if you've never actually read it) and a damaged lawn? Is abuse of human beings really on the same level as abuse of azaleas, or is Iowahawk guilty of "moral idiocy"?
Posted by: KCinDC | June 17, 2005 at 09:17 PM
CB This is isn't about word parsing and sentence diagramming here.
As much as I hate sentence diagramming, the ability to read and understand is about word parsing and understanding the how the words go together (sentence diagramming - ycch!).
Seriously, if you are not willing to put any effort into reading what you are commenting on, why should we pay any attention to your reactions thereto?
Posted by: 243 | June 17, 2005 at 09:21 PM
The Trib has a conservative editorial board but they're not some Murdoch rag. I assume they follow the standard practice in selecting letters to the editor. Don't know for sure.
From my reading of it, it seems that they print a pretty decent range. Obviously, I don't see the letters they reject, so I don't know what fraction they publish either way, but I can't imagine they rejecting a letter as well-written as yours, from the left or right.
Posted by: Phillip J. Birmingham | June 17, 2005 at 09:34 PM
Thanks, Bob, I posted the Morisot and the comments are working now.
Posted by: John Emerson | June 17, 2005 at 10:11 PM
Oh, and BTW, Katherine, thanks for the contact numbers. I e-mailed on Thursday and called on Friday, and made sure to express my support, and that I am a voter as well as a constituent.
I toyed with the idea of walking over to the Chicago office, since it's a couple of blocks from work, but decided that they might be a little touchy about visitors about now.
Posted by: Phillip J. Birmingham | June 18, 2005 at 01:23 AM
In my experience, people who say, "Well, I was in a position to be persuaded, but your choice of language turned me off" were never in a position to be persuaded in the first place.
Posted by: Phil | June 18, 2005 at 08:20 AM
Charles, is it possible you just don't know what "to shoot the messenger" means?
Yes, quite clearly, Jes. Durbin accurately relayed the FBI message and I have no problem with that. Durbins's self-created message of Nazi-gulag-Khmer Rouge was the problem.
Seriously, if you are not willing to put any effort into reading what you are commenting on, why should we pay any attention to your reactions thereto?
I read it just fine, 243.
Posted by: Charles Bird | June 18, 2005 at 09:57 AM
CB, I read it just fine, 243.
Perhaps you did, so can you explain how you arrived at the following?
Specifically, where does Durbin equate (morally or otherwise) Gitmo to Nazi-gulag-Cambodia? I think we are both reading the same document, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you can help me out.
Posted by: 243 | June 18, 2005 at 12:28 PM
Charles: Durbin accurately relayed the FBI message and I have no problem with that. Durbins's self-created message of Nazi-gulag-Khmer Rouge was the problem.
So, you shoot the messenger, because you don't want to listen to the message. Why keep denying that this is what you're doing?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 18, 2005 at 01:54 PM