Unbelievable

by hilzoy

From the Washington Post:

"The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.

Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

It was the second time that Cheney has met with Senate members to tamp down what the White House views as an incipient Republican rebellion. The lawmakers have publicly expressed frustration about what they consider to be the administration's failure to hold any senior military officials responsible for notorious detainee abuse in Iraq and the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

I think it's great that the three Republicans -- John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham -- are pressing for this legislation, and absolutely shameful that the administration is (predictably) trying to block it. But here comes the really unbelievable part:

"The White House, in a further indication of its strong feelings, bluntly warned in a statement sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday that President Bush's advisers would urge him to veto the $442 billion defense bill "if legislation is presented that would restrict the President's authority to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."

The threat was a veiled reference to legislation drafted by McCain and being circulated among at least 10 Republican senators, Senate aides said. No effort has been made by McCain to cultivate Democratic support, although his aides predict he could get it easily. John Ullyot, a Warner spokesman, said that the senator has been working with McCain and Graham on detainee legislation and that "the matter continues to be studied."

A spokeswoman for McCain, Andrea Jones, said yesterday that McCain plans to introduce the legislation next week. McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has criticized the way detainees have been treated by U.S. forces and is said by aides to want to cut off further abuse by requiring that the military adhere to its own interrogation rules in all cases."

Last time I checked, President Bush had yet to veto a single bill sent before him. All sorts of monstrosities have come his way, and not one has been found unacceptable. But protecting his right to subject prisoners to 'cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment', to hide prisoners from the Red Cross, and to have the army violate its own interrogation rules -- that's not just important enough to veto; it's important enough to veto even if it's attached to the Defense appropriations bill, and he has to veto the appropriations bill to prevent McCain's legislation from passing. Or, in short: protecting the President's "right" to do things that are already prohibited under the Convention Against Torture matters more than paying the troops who are risking their lives in Iraq.

Just when I think I've seen it all, this administration always finds new ways to amaze me.

Meanwhile, some of you may recall that the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos were supposed to be released today. The Federal District Court in Manhattan had ordered that they be released by June 30, but the Defense Department had sought and received an extension until today. But guess what? Yesterday they sent the judge a letter announcing their intention to "file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material".

I'm puzzled by this -- not being a lawyer, I had imagined that there was a phase in a legal proceeding in which one gets to file briefs, but that by the time a court order has come down and one's second deadline for acting on it has arrived, that phase is over. Is it OK for people who have been ordered to do something by a court simply not to do it, and send a letter announcing their intention to explain why? I wouldn't have thought so; but then, what do I know?

I'm not surprised that the administration has come up with yet another reason not to make these photos public, though. Maybe next time they'll tell us that Barney ate the photos.

Comments

[felixrayman]

Can anyone still honestly consider themselves both pro-Bush and anti-torture? How?

[2shoes]

If anyone considers American democracy as something "eternal"...

...well...

....sad, but no.

[2shoes]

And that's not hyperbole.

[dmbeaster]

Yes, Felixrayman, our own Charles still fails to write those simple words that the Bush administration needs to be condemned for its pro-torture policy.

He thinks it is sufficient to simply admit we have a torture problem, but then not take to task the cause of the problem -- which is the Bush administration and its policies.

I used to be more restrained about characterizing Bush as pro-torture, but this is such a clear example of their policy in favor of torture. You cannot pretend otherwise -- plus they have now been lying for two years that the torture problem is just caused by a few bad apples and not by any policies or laxity in enforcing policies.

And hiding the photos is just part of the overall cynical strategy of pretending that the problem does not exist if you can keep it out of the public eye. Just non-stop lying and dishonesty.

[idook]

Wow, seems like the WH political machine is really off his game here.

[Catsy]

I have to wonder at what point otherwise decent Republicans will say that enough is enough, that this administration really doesn't think human rights are universal, that they can be dispensed with if the ends justify the means, and that torture and other similar violations apparently don't bother Bush if they serve his ends.

Do we need to see boxcars full of people going to undisclosed locations, or are there less extreme lines beyond which decent people will not step?

[2shoes]

Just non-stop lying and dishonesty.

I don't want to sound hysterical..but IMHO this is one of the most dangerous times in the history of the American Republic. Why?

Surely there have been moments where the Republic has been direly physically threatened...by, oh, military arms and all that (Hello, General Lee and pals), and certainly there times where demagogues and the corrupt have waylaid the foundationstones of democratic principles upon which America was built. And absolutely has there been times where American leadership, in it's 200+ years, has not always been A++ in the competancy department....

...but has there ever been a time where it's, like, all come together in a dreadful symphony of mortal danger, arrogance topped with the cherry of shooting oneself in the foot boob-i-tood?

As one Canadian to all of America: you need to get on top of that sh!t. ASAP

[2shoes]

I sound hysterical....

...nevermind.

[CaseyL]

It isn't "just" the torture. It's everything else.

The almost willful malfeasance in Iraq: the rationale for the war, the feckless misuse of intelligence and intelligence personnel, the way the war is fought and funded, the mistreatment of Iraqi civilians, and the astoundingly mingy stingy treatment of soldiers and veterans.

The staggering lack of serious thought about the "WoT" as a geopolitical strategy, contrasted to the the way it's used as a means of scoring rhetorical points and justifying crackbrained domestic policies.

Basically, the Bush Admin just doesn't give a damn. They don't care about torture. They don't care about the prisoners held for years. They don't care about what they've unleashed in Iraq.

The only thing they seem to care about, as far as the "WoT" is concerned, is not being held accountable.

[NeoDude]

C'mon, the "truly" American will see this as proof, that "freedom is on the march."

[bob mcmanus]

"The only thing they seem to care about, as far as the "WoT" is concerned, is not being held accountable."

Won't be any Democrats in power to investigate or hold hearings in our lifetimes. Or yours, since you are mostly younger than me. No matter what they have to do.

How do you maintain a Republican majority for generations? Well thousands of young Republicans facing jail sentences or nooses if power is lost helps a heck of a lot. They made sure no John Deans would be possible. It was all a plan. As Rovegate demonstrates, everything, everything including WoT torture, has a domestic political purpose.

"It can happen here." It already has.

[bob mcmanus]

Ahh, and it isn't really about "Republicans". Put in quotes cause that party isn't recognizable any more. Nixon made a very bad bargain, the old Republicanism was moderated by the Northeastern and Midwestern Puritanism, as the extremes of left Democrats were moderated by Dixiecrats.

But now Dixie, which really hadn't changed much from 1750 to 1850 to 1950 and we have not much reason to think it has completely changed in the last generation, has a very powerful tool. It is about a "conservatism" that most in the Party can't even imagine, about dynasties that last millenia. It is about a President who is great friends with Saudi Royalty.

It is gonna take another Civil War. This time let's plow the South under, and salt the earth.

[2shoes]

It's not Dixie...it's the proverbial Dixie. It exists in all countries, at all points in history.

[Francis / BRGORD]

Prof H:

IAAL, but not familiar with the briefs or rulings to date. In any other lawsuit, if you sent a sealed brief to the judge on the date you were to comply with a court order explaining why you weren't complying, you had better have some EXTRAORDINARY explanation, like god made herself manifest and took the document. Otherwise, you would face serious monetary sanction (pay money to the other side and the court) and issue sanction (the court makes a particular finding of fact relevant to the material in the hidden document) adverse to you. or simply lose the whole lawsuit.

apparently the admin feels so much contempt for the judicial branch that they waited until the material was due before filing another brief.

please note that the admin did not avail itself of the usual remedies, ie filing an emergency appeal / writ of mandate. oh no, they simply chose to violate the rule of law.

i cannot really express right now just how outrageous this is. it's late in the day and i'm too damn tired. but our entire political system is based on the premise that the executive branch will obey the orders of the judicial branch. If the NYTimes article is correct, our executive is demonstrating a level of contempt for a co-equal branch of govt that hasn't been seen in a very long time. This, not blowjobs, is the stuff of righteous impeachments.

[liberal japonicus]

What did y'all think of the picture they chose to put with that WaPo article and the way they cropped it. To me, kinda disgusting, cause it seems like they want to let all the cool kids know that they think this sucks, but don't want to take a stand.

[John Thullen]

I see the comments box is very roomy in the hips.

Here's what gets me. Just a little thing. Besides all the other big stuff that gets me.

I'm not represented in the U.S. Government, not in any branch, not by any check and balance.

On every single issue, there are no Democratic voices. Just Republicans of a sort talking to the other ones who are unrecognizable as Americans, well described by McManus above.

My representative thinks we ought to bomb Mecca. Do you think a letter or phone call from me might have some traction, unless it requests the immediate roundup of wetbacks?

The man holds me in contempt.

I'm not f------ represented. But I'm taxed.
To pay for the filth in the White House.

[DaveC]

Well thousands of young Republicans facing jail sentences or nooses if power is lost helps a heck of a lot

It is gonna take another Civil War. This time let's plow the South under, and salt the earth.

Well, that looks sort of excessive to me. That Karl Rove guy seems to make y'all really angry. So, the Southern Republicans deserve to be hanged and exterminated? Do you wish Lincoln and the Dmocratic Party, of which he is 2nd only to FDR, at that time had "finished the job" ?

but our entire political system is based on the premise that the executive branch will obey the orders of the judicial branch.

The judicial branch can ORDER the executive branch, and the legislative branch, and the common people what to do and what to think! Well, that's a relief. We don't know any better than to think that Boy Scouts are good, or churches are good. Thank goodness we have the courts to set us straight aand tell us that ordinary people are bad and trangressive people are interesting and cool!

[Catsy]

The judicial branch can ORDER the executive branch, and the legislative branch, and the common people what to do and what to think! Well, that's a relief. We don't know any better than to think that Boy Scouts are good, or churches are good. Thank goodness we have the courts to set us straight aand tell us that ordinary people are bad and trangressive people are interesting and cool!

Let's hear it for completely and willfully missing the point.

It's real simple: do you think that the government is, or should be, above the law? That it should have the ability to pick and choose which court orders and rulings it heeds?

I should hope not. I certainly think better of you. So perhaps you misunderstood what is being done here.

[bob mcmanus]

"Do you wish Lincoln and the Dmocratic Party, of which he is 2nd only to FDR, at that time had "finished the job"?"

Lincoln and the Democratic Party? Whatever.

Yes. I wish Johnson had not vitiated Reconstruction and I wish Hayes hadn't essentially stopped it. I wish Jim Crow han't been tolerated and the Battle Flag had been made an illegal symbol. I wish there were no statues of Lee and Longstreet. I wish Carolinians had no lineages and traditions to take pride in, but instead guilt and grief and shame for centuries.

It is not based on hate or rage or righteousness, but simply that in retrospect it appears to have been necessary.

It isn't as if the Rebels learned their lesson.

[liberal japonicus]

That Karl Rove guy seems to make y'all really angry

Actually, it's not so much Karl, it's the fact that "according to the Bush administration, any attempts by Republican senators to legislate against, say, the sodomizing of detained children are unduly infringing on the president's fight against terrorists." link

I realize it is from the partisan Daily Kos, so if you could explain the WH's stance on this in a way that would explain why inserting language from a treaty that we've already ratified is so problematic, I'm all ears.

[bob mcmanus]

It has a lot less to do wth Rove than you think. I watched Bull Connor spray the marchers, and the Birmingham Church bombing was as much a part of my youth as 9/11 is for a different generation. I had Southern relatives, and it was hard to hate and hard not to hate. I carry a grudge.

You want to tell that Rove and Bush and Frist and DeLay are different people with different attitudes? Bull. I can smell em.
But we are off topic.
...
I remember Katherine saying she wouldn't really worry til they started violating court orders. Well. Now that we are getting serious hard saying what she will have in mind. Most of my thoughts could be called treasonous.

[DaveC]

I wish Carolinians had no lineages and traditions to take pride in, but instead guilt and grief and shame for centuries.

You are forgetting about those darned rebel Virginians. For instance, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

If I said that it would be best if all Yankees were killed, and all Democrats were thrown in prison, would you object to that? Of course you would, and rightly so.

I'm sort of an ordinary, run-of-the-mill guy, and what you all are saying here pretty much alienates me. I am pointing this out in order to be helpful to you. You are not convincing the undecided to agree with you.

[Jesurgislac]

DaveC: I'm sort of an ordinary, run-of-the-mill guy, and what you all are saying here pretty much alienates me.

You're confusing me, Dave. What people are expressing here is their contempt for an administration which (a) is pro-torture (b) in defense of its pro-torture policies, is defying the judicial branch of government.

You say you feel alienated by this expression of contempt. Why's that? Do you feel supportive of the Bush administration's actions, either (a) torture or (b) defiance of the judicial branch?

This isn't - as far as I can see - even Democrat v Republican any more. (And certainly not conservative v. liberal.) It's anti-torture against pro-torture. It's for the rule of law or for an administration that believes it's above the law. Which side are you on, Dave?

[bob mcmanus]

"and what you all are saying here pretty much alienates me."

[Long comment deleted]

Quit your whining, Dave. "Can't we all just get along." No we can't. If you want to get me banned you have friends in high places, but "the nastiness is bruising my virgin ears." is just tedious.

And read more carefully. I am famous around here for violating the spirit of the posting rules while remaining within the letter. I don't like being misquoted or mischaracterized.

[KCinDC]

Jes, I think DaveC is reacting specifically to Bob's "It is gonna take another Civil War. This time let's plow the South under, and salt the earth." Not surprisingly, he read that as a general condemnation of Southerners. I found it offensive myself. After all, Bush is a Yankee.

[Jesurgislac]

KCinDC: Jes, I think DaveC is reacting specifically to Bob's "It is gonna take another Civil War. This time let's plow the South under, and salt the earth." Not surprisingly, he read that as a general condemnation of Southerners.

Ah. *reads back* Okay, yes, that makes sense.

I don't disagree with bob's point, though, that American Southerners who express admiration for the Confederacy ought to be condemned as roundly as Germans who express admiration for the Nazis - by other Southerners, ideally, of course.

[johnt]

eighty three people killed in Egypt and the bright lights and caring souls are in their usual frenzy over Republicans. Well we do have to keep the real enemy in sight don't we. If I said two weeks ago that many liberals[?] hated republicans more than the Islamic killers the rage would be explosive,is that still true? But then,as you may have noticed by now,who cares. It is known and has been reported that one of the religious customs of the prisoners is to fling feces,AKA shit,at the guards. I assume it's religious as everything they do is described as such. Now I realize that the nobles of this site would have no problem with that but still in all you would expect at least a mention of this seemingly harmless if unsanitary practice. You know,just for balance,the "open mind"thing. A closing thought,will the crusaders amongst you lead the war against the south,I mean at the front of the column,where the bullets fly thickest,where you may get your ass shot off. It would be interesting to see who would die for higher taxes,for understanding Islam,and maybe for installing the wife of a rapist in the White House,rape,you know,something like torture. I've got to sign off for now,a boxcar just pulled up in front of my liberal neighbor's house and I promised to help load him and his screaming family into it.

[cleek]

...installing the wife of a rapist in the White House...

yeah... ummm. OK.

[liberal japonicus]

It is known and has been reported that one of the religious customs of the prisoners is to fling feces,AKA shit,at the guards. I assume it's religious as everything they do is described as such. Now I realize that the nobles of this site would have no problem with that but still in all you would expect at least a mention of this seemingly harmless if unsanitary practice.

Thank you for glossing "feces", that was quite helpful. IRA prisoners, most notably on the H block of the Maze prison, also did similar things as well. Fortunately, efforts were made to include the IRA into the peace process rather than attempt to attribute actions to some aspect of their religion. Of course, having an open mind means actually learning about something that you opine on rather than simply making up stuff and if you had some faint acquaintance with Arab customs, you would know that sanitary norms (which is why the left hand is considered unclean) are supremely important, so one gets an idea of how angry prisoners must be to do this, rather than ignorantly classifying it as a bizarre custom of Islam. I note in passing that the nobles on the site seem to have a bias towards reality based posts, which might be why yours would not be regarded too highly.

This review of a book about how prisoners of Robben Island dealt with their conditions. God help us if the Muslim equivalent of Mandela doesn't pop up.

[bob mcmanus]

Nice to see this place warm up a little, was way too nice yesterday. Yesterday's news:Biden hasn't the time to ask Karen Hughes any questions but compensated with a mash note. Hillary travels to job-free Ohio for a DLC lovefest, congratulating herself on elections won and pockets lined. No hope there, no hope there, even if the Republicans didn't have the electoral system under complete control.

I suppose all this meanness distracts from torture, but I am tired of talking about torture. Torture isn't something you are patient about, chip away politely for a couple of decades until, oh, there is ten per cent less torture. When your name is attached to torture you scream bloody murder at the top of your lungs til they stop it.

Tribunals will go forward. Kids may get executed or sent to hellholes in Colorado on God knows what evidence but very likely "evidence" obtained via torture. We will likely never know, will we. Or actually, based on the case against Padilla, who is being held illegally I believe, an American citizen who hurt no-one....tho he might have, maybe he wanted to...we do have a good idea that info from torture is being used in courts. In courts. Not to prevent an imminent attack, but fruits of torture are admitted as evidence in courts of law.

And Davec doesn't think I am being nice.

[hilzoy]

Francis: thanks. I thought that this 'it's the day before our extended deadline, but we've just thought of a whole new argument' thing sounded like something courts would have run into before and completely ruled out, but couldn't be sure. I actually think that something like this will be this administration's undoing: they honestly do not seem to understand the differences between how you can treat the press and how you can treat the legal system.

To DaveC: I don't fancy plowing the South under and salting the earth, myself. Nor do I think that's the point here. Nor (to johnt) is it about hating Republicans. Reread the post: McCain and Graham (at least) are proposing legislation that I think is an unqualified good, and I support them fully. It's not Republicans per se who are prepared to veto the defense appropriations bill to protect the President's ability to torture people; it's this administration, which is fighting against other Republicans. Nor is it Republicans generally who are defying the Courts: I imagine lots of Republicans are in favor of obeying legitimate court orders.

Why didn't I write about Egypt, or for that matter Darfur or any of the other horrible things that also happened yesterday? I don't, and can't, write about everything. With respect to Egypt in particular, I was waiting for more details, especially since there was also a large bombing in Lebanon, and I was wondering whether any connection between the two would emerge. For what it's worth, I have spent time in both Sharm and Na'ama, especially the latter, and love the people there, and the bombings horrified me. Not that I should have to say this.

[bob mcmanus]

"McCain and Graham (at least) are proposing legislation that I think is an unqualified good, and I support them fully."

Yu really trust this, hilzoy? McCain and Warner are running for President, and I suspect Graham has delusions. Is this going to pass the Senate, get out of conference? Would a veto be overruled? It will not happen, so it is definitely just for show. Are you positive they just aren't playing to the queasy demographic?

They could do more, so much more if they were serious. McCain going on CNN and calling for impeachment might actually accomplish something. This current action will just get laughed away.

[Edward]

McCain gets this fully. I watched him on some talk show and his body language said it all. What the Bush administration is allowing, nay, insisting on seemingly, will lead to future American captives being treated more viciously than they might have otherwise. Cheney is a monumental fool and heartless s.o.b. for not seeing this. Forget decency, I've long since accepted we won't see that from this White House...Cheney should just think about the possibility of his grandchildren signing up in the future, being captured, and having their captors point to this very refusal to do the right and honorable thing when given the chance as the rationale for their torturing his own flesh and blood. This enemy need not even be a terrorist...this refusal to take the high road will influence future state enemies' actions.

Short-sighted egotistical immoral freaks.

[hilzoy]

Bob: Positive? No. I'm not positive about a lot of things. Do I think that there's some chance that McCain (who has been tortured) and Graham (an ex JAG, and recall that the JAGs have acquitted themselves pretty well throughout this mess) might think that it matters to stop this? Yes. Do I also think they might be trying to head off Democratic hearings into detainee abuse? Yes. Do I think that makes them completely insincere in doing what they're doing? No.

[Nell]

Bob, I'm a native Virginian who is just as outraged by BushCo torture policy and impunity as you are. My response to your suggestion about a new civil war violates the posting rules. Nonetheless, consider me to be blinking it out in Morse Code with my eyes.

[Charles Bird]

Yes, Felixrayman, our own Charles still fails to write those simple words that the Bush administration needs to be condemned for its pro-torture policy.

I condemn any policy and any act that violates the standard of humane treatment for detainees, dm. I'm sorry you were unable to glean that basic nugget from my writings.

The Bush administration is being monumentally foolish by threatening a veto crossing the McCain-Warner-Graham legislation. Really dumb.

[Tad Brennan]

"It is gonna take another Civil War. This time let's plow the South under, and salt the earth."

Dear Bob Mcmanus--

For what it's worth, I thought this was over the top as well.

I'm with you on most issues--I can show you my credentials as a paid up Bush-hater, and I too find it offensive that the Confederacy is still treated as a worthy of admiration. I turned down an extremely good job at UT Austin in part (a small part, but one part) because of the fact that their Administration building has a statue of Jeff Davis right near the front door.

But. Southerners are my fellow Americans. Regional birth and regional residence are often a matter of accident or economic necessity. We are all Americans, and I just don't like this kind of talk.

Lincoln left us with a charge to bind up the wounds, with malice towards none, with charity for all. We must remain united as a people.

It's the Safires, the Roves and Bushes who want to divide the country. We liberals must remain firm in our commitment to keep it one country.

[Nell]

On one level, King George's veto threat is welcome. It sets the stage to determine what kind of spine Republican Senators have. If the amendments pass, with more than ten Republican votes, there might be something to work with there. If they don't, then there really is no 'moderate' element of the party in any meaningful sense. If they won't even call Bush's bluff, we're all going over the cliff together.

[Jesurgislac]

bob: I suppose all this meanness distracts from torture, but I am tired of talking about torture. Torture isn't something you are patient about, chip away politely for a couple of decades until, oh, there is ten per cent less torture. When your name is attached to torture you scream bloody murder at the top of your lungs til they stop it.

Yeah. OTOH, in demanding that the South be plowed under and sown with salt, you gave DaveC the choice of complaining about your rhetoric rather than joining you in screaming about the Bush administration's pro-torture policies.

dmbeaster: Yes, Felixrayman, our own Charles still fails to write those simple words that the Bush administration needs to be condemned for its pro-torture policy.

And our own Charles takes the opportunity to make it clear (at 11:40 AM) that he's still not going to condemn the Bush administration for its pro-torture policy.

[J. Michael Neal]

The Bush administration is being monumentally foolish by threatening a veto crossing the McCain-Warner-Graham legislation. Really dumb.

Charles, it's this sort of response that some of us find so aggravating. The problem with the administration's reaction isn't that it's dumb; it's immoral.

You seem to be objecting to their pro-torture policies because they are bad politics. I suspect that this is not true, but that's the way that you come across. You failed the test that dmbeaster posed you.

[Gromit]

Native-born North Carolinian here, Bob. I'm both proud of my heritage and ashamed of my culture's crimes. But if you decide to come down and reenact the burning of Atlanta (my current home), you'll do harm to more blue-staters than reds, including many, many descendants of slaves. In short, Tad speaks for me.

Besides, the fiercest battles today aren't fought between North and South, but amongst Southerners.

As for McCain, he has me on a real roller coaster. One day he's defending Karl Rove, who went after McCain's adopted child in the 2000 primary and who put Bush onstage with the man who called McCain the "Manchurian Candidate". The next day, he's standing up to Bush with stuff like this. I fear presidential aspirations are at play here, and my days of taking McCain at face value are rapidly coming to a close. He helped Bush get his mandate for torture in the 2004 election, while his friend Kerry's service was smeared in the true Rove/Sampley tradition, if not literally by those men.

McCain may just be a run-of-the-mill political opportunist after all.

[KCinDC]

Edward, if McCain really "gets this fully", why did he vote for Gonzales as attorney general? Perhaps he believes the right things, but his nerve always seems to fail him when it really counts.

Bob, is the idea that if a state went 51% for Bush, then all its inhabitants deserve condemnation, but if a state went 51% for Kerry they're home free? By that logic, all of us in the US deserve to be plowed under because "we" elected Bush -- but perhaps you believe that too? I think everyone should give the "blue state"/"red state" stuff a rest.

[cleek]

"It is gonna take another Civil War. This time let's plow the South under, and salt the earth."

can i keep my house ? though i'm a Yankee born and raised, i kinda like the weather down here in NC - well, except July and August, but the other 10 months are nice.

[DaveC]

To the best of my knowledge, Waffle Houses are illegal in Indiana and here in Illinois, though you can find a Cracker Barrel here and there. And if you just want to kick back with a Goo-Goo Cluster and a Yoo-Hoo dope, well, good luck finding 'em. And hear tell, they're doing away with the Miss America pageant, or limiting it to dour New England spinsters or some such thing. Call me paranoid, but I don't think what happened to Dale Earnhardt and Elvis were accidents. Could Britney Spears be next?

[Jeremy Osner]

The Bush administration is being monumentally foolish by threatening a veto crossing the McCain-Warner-Graham legislation. Really dumb.

Dumb -- Charles, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps it is your word choice. When I read somebody saying a political figure is doing something "dumb" I usually take that to mean "politically ill-advised", approximately. Is that what you had in mind? Or do you condemn the administration for acting immorally in this regard?

[cleek]

this dKos diary has what are reported to be artists renderings of some of the photos. not pretty.

[vida]

"It is gonna take another Civil War. This time let's plow the South under, and salt the earth."

Seems pretty extreme for this site. Instead, how about we start by returning Texas to its rightful owner, Mexico. That would immediately solve many of our problems.

[Opus]

Short-sighted egotistical immoral freaks.

Thank you, Edward. I was searching for some way to respond to these two actions that wouldn't take the rest of the day and all of my spirit. I'm just going to steal your sentence, because it says it all.

Charles? Isn't it obvious at this point that nothing short of a revolt from the base will get through to this administration on the issue of torture and extraordinary rendition? Democrats have no say. Independents have no say. Moderates in your own party have no say. It may be that the base has no say -- but shouldn't it at least try? Forcefully? Why is this not front page every day on places like RedState until policy changes? You all are the only ones who have a prayer of changing things.

(And while I'm talking about prayer, let me just say that I am appalled by my fellow Christians, including the one in the White House, who display "support our troops" bumper stickers, but fail to protect them in this fundamental way.)

Saying it's "foolish" isn't near enough, Charles unless you support the Bush adminstration's position.

The President wants to be the sole voice on what can be done to prisoners -- no checks by the Congress, no checks by the courts. Is this okay with you? Will it still be okay when it's a Democratic -- or any other President -- who takes a different view on what to do?

[cyprian]

I am not sure why this government is having such a hard time with this. Why would it need MORE legislation that simply REPEATS what is already in the Military Police manual for treatment of POWS? Why can't they just freakin' follow the LAW? Which is here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf

[cleek]

Why can't they just freakin' follow the LAW?

laws are quaint and outdated

[ThirdGorchBro]

It pains me to admit that the Bush administration - which I had high hopes for - has not acquitted itself well at all. What happened at Abu Ghraib and is continuing at Gitmo and other places is dishonoring those of us who have supported this President.

Although Presidents should be granted considerable leeway to exercise their authority in times of war, Bush has screwed the pooch so badly that I find myself coming around to the view that the Congress needs to start forcefully asserting its constitutional powers in this war. The government has a duty to the American people to prosecute the War on Terror both successfully and in a fashion consistent with American ideals, and right now that is not being done.

If the facts of this case are accurate as reported by the Post, then the administration is being both dumb - as noted by Charles - and immoral. There you go, libs. If that's the admission you wanted, you got it.

[DNS]

Why is this not front page every day on places like RedState until policy changes?

Because they don't want to change the policy. Most RedStaters, even if you could prove to their satisfaction that every torture allegation were true, would turn around and say "Good".

Charles is actually from the humane wing of his party: he's merely a weak man, while his fellow conservatives are positively in favor of malice for its own sake.

[bob mcmanus]

Well, you know I have been thinking on this for hours. My background is deep scarlet folks, 20 years in rural Indiana and thirty years in Dallas. Blue is something I se on TV, kinda National Geographic stuff.

I guess I could marshall numbers and facts and anecdotes. I could talk about the utter failure this year in Texas to finance our still segregated (de facto) school system. I could admit that Molly Ivins and me aren't so bad, so maybe all Southerners aren't bad. I could say I meant Southern Republicans, or just the top leadership of Southern Republicans, or something.

I could tell the story about Johnson "losing the South fo a generation" and then watching it happening and wondering why. But if you think Mississippi is like Minnesota only warmer then you are going to be hard to convince.

Why was, and is the "Solid South" solid? There are conservatives and evangelicals everywhere, everybody has had migration in and out.

Aww, the heck with it, I have been living it all my life and trying to figure it out and hearing that I was being unfair and prejudiced and that I just didn't understand.
And watching the Gingrich's and DeLay's and Lotts move the country slowly and steadily in their direction. Maybe you are all Southerners now. Give that ol Rebel yell.

You will see.

[bernard Yomtov]

Why can't they just freakin' follow the LAW?

laws are quaint and outdated

Yeah. Besides, the law says we have to give the detainees gyms and French chefs and free movies and libraries, and organize basketball leagues, and so on.

[hilzoy]

ThirdGorchBro: If it's any consolation, I really don't think this ought to be a liberal/conservative issue at all. (I didn't think that 'fellatio with interns: pro or con?' was either, and thought it was sort of unfair that Gore, who by all accounts is a paragon of sexual morality, suffered because of Clinton's problems in that area.) There ought to be certain things we all agree on, and that torture is both immoral and stupid ought to be one of them. And, as I said, there are Republicans on both sides. It's this administration, not Republicans or conservatives as a whole, that's the problem; although another problem is: the willingness of some people, I would imagine on both sides, to defend literally anything that people on their side do. That, again, is something that (according to me) all of us should reject.

[johnt]

liberal japonicus, I think you shot your rhetorical wad a little too soon. Note the use of the word harmless before unsanitary,S/b be some kind of hint as to the sardonic nature of the comment. The IRA; perhaps it's my ignorance but is their not a differnce between smearing oneself with feces and throwing same at a guard? you may want to talk to a corrections officer or guard about this for guidance. Reality: yes,of course,as above,boxcars filled with people,jail sentences or nooses for republicans,civil war,sardonic I don't think so,comments grounded in a sensible real understanding of the controversies,the nation,the people,afraid not. See yuh.

[Praedor Atrebates]

Look. Give in and finally admit it, as I have, that the great US experiment has ultimately failed. It took 260 some odd years, had a decent run, but it just couldn't continue under the weight of public disengagement, inevitable corruption, and basic human failings. We are "privileged" to see and experience a historic event of epic proportions: the collapse of a superpower and a republic, something akin to the fall of the Roman Empire in scale but likely to be compressed into timeframe like that of Nazi Germany's fall (with likely similar attending destruction).

Rather than simply sitting around and lamenting the fast approaching fall it would perhaps be more constructive and self protective to start preparing for the coming chaos and violence (by the failing state and the defending victims). Become modestly, but effectively, armed. Collect emergency supplies much as you would to be ready for a natural disaster. Be prepared to up and move to a new locale, those territories that were once states within the USA, where the partisans share common cause and beliefs with your ideals of freedom and democracy.

Make no mistake. We ARE on a rapid slide towards civil unrest, even civil war. Just be circumspect and don't simply count on the broken ballot box or common sense to save the day (it is fast becoming too late for that).

[bob mcmanus]

"It's this administration, not Republicans or conservatives as a whole,"

Not to blame an average voter, but hilzoy, yu are cutting the Congress members of both parties a lot more lack than I. Maybe I have just put everone in a generous mood.

But I guess if we say Senators and Congressmen have any responsibility we are starting to move that dangerous ladder.

[Toadmonster]

McCain and Graham (at least) are proposing legislation that I think is an unqualified good, and I support them fully.

McCain gets this fully.

Bull. As Yglesias likes to say, if the so-called moderate Republicans truly cared about this stuff the best thing they could do would be to lose their seats to Democrats. They are more interested in looking moral and maybe in salving their consciences. They have not and will not take a strong stance against the administration or its policies and will never take steps or make statements that would have any kind of effect.

They will not take any risks. Always, always when forced to choose sides and threatened by their masters they shut up and sit down.

[bobzilla]

Man, there’s a lot of anger out here today. I think the dogpile on Charles is being a little excessive. After all, he’s seen an administration that he’s championed for years begin to come crashing down with major scandal after major scandal. That’s a lot for one guy to have to twist his head around.

To his credit, he did call his former heroes fools and he is against torture. Maybe not for the best of reasons, but it’s a start. I just hope, when these pictures are inevitably published (and they will come out eventually) he can still live with himself. But then, I’m just compassionate that way.

[Charles Bird]

You seem to be objecting to their pro-torture policies because they are bad politics. I suspect that this is not true, but that's the way that you come across. You failed the test that dmbeaster posed you.

Respectfully, JMN, but what a steaming pile. My last post on the subject emphasized first and foremost that the inhumane treatment of detainees is wrong. I've repeated that very emphasis ad nauseum here and elsewhere. And I'll repeat it yet again: I condemn the Bush administration's policy and I condemn any acts to the extent that they violate the standards of humane treatment for detainees. The reasons are simple: Such practices are wrong and immoral.

[Opus]

Thank you, Charles. I know it must be a pain for you to have to repeat it when you feel you've made it clear, but you'd agree -- I'm sure -- that it can't be said enough.

So what do you think about the idea of "the base" pushing for policy change? Do you agree that it's probably the only thing that would have any chance of having an effect?

[bobzilla]

Charles (from redstate link): First, because our mistreatment of prisoners/detainees is wrong. Second…

You should have stopped after that period.

[John Thullen]

When actor and Southerner Andy Griffith heard the news in 1963 that JFK had been murdered in Dallas, he said: "The g-------- South!

I don't believe he had all of his cousins in mind personally, nor was he thinking Dave C. had gone and done it again. He was lamenting something.

Tis a repeated lamentation. Made the worse in recent history by Ronald Reagan trekking to that little town to announce his candidacy
in 1980 and Andover Yalie boy attaching fake cowpies to his loafers and calling himself a Texan.

Democrats search far and wide for somebody, anybody below the Mason-Dixon to appeal to the tender mercies of the place which, historically, like Baghdad, has to repeatedly be forced to apply a Constitution to everyone. And then works overtime for decades to reverse the progress.

Like James Carville wanting to be reincarnated as the bond market, so that all policy makers could kiss his a--, I want to be reincarnated as the South. I want to be demagogued to for a change.

Soon.

[bob mcmanus]

"Man, there’s a lot of anger out here today"

Anger! You think I am angry!!

Nah. My air conditioning coil froze up at ten am. In Dallas that means I am typing this at 87 with a probable heat index of 92-93. In my study. With at least two hours of work to go, and another three hours of cooling I could be looking at a 100 indoors.

I. Love. The. South.

[DaveC]

Two words, bob:

Movie. Theater.

[CharleyCarp]

This seems like a timely spot to suggest reading James Webb's book Born Fighting. It's not the South, it's the Scots-Irish. And they're everywhere (including, to a not-insignificant degree, this keyboard).

[Nell]

Look, Bob, no one here is denying the existence, even dominance of hateful, racist yahoo-ism in the U.S. south (and big swaths of the U.S. north). It's as near to me as the house across the road. But, angry as my bigot neighbors make me, I can't accept that the solution is to make war on them and salt their gardens (whose tomatoes are looking today as if someone already did that...)

Your red-region credentials don't make your call for civil war more credible, only even stupider.

If you can't see what's wrong, offensive, and counterproductive about your first comment, maybe it's time for you to take a rest from the keyboard. Go for a walk. Reflect a little more deeply. I've been seeing the need to give up comment sections myself; your contribution has hastened me to a decision.

[Jonas Cord]

Look. Give in and finally admit it, as I have, that the great US experiment has ultimately failed... We are "privileged" to see and experience a historic event of epic proportions: the collapse of a superpower and a republic, something akin to the fall of the Roman Empire in scale but likely to be compressed into timeframe like that of Nazi Germany's fall (with likely similar attending destruction)... Rather than simply sitting around and lamenting the fast approaching fall it would perhaps be more constructive and self protective to start preparing for the coming chaos and violence... Become modestly, but effectively, armed. Collect emergency supplies much as you would to be ready for a natural disaster. Be prepared to up and move to a new locale, those territories that were once states within the USA, where the partisans share common cause and beliefs with your ideals of freedom and democracy... Make no mistake. We ARE on a rapid slide towards civil unrest, even civil war.

If the perpetual question here of why more opposing views are not found here in the comments of this site is to be answered, this would be a fine example of why one would not bother. Not to mention the unrelenting mockery and harassment of the one definitively partisan conservative poster and commenter here.

Between this, and the calls to restart the Civil War, there is no reason why most thoughtful people would want to participate in the conversation.

[SomeCallMeTim]

I hate the Southern Republicans as much as anyone. But we aren't anywhere near a civil war, and claiming otherwise sounds overwrought and unhinged. (Sorry, bob.) Moreover, it's worth noting that everyone that I and many others really wish was President today, save Dean, is Southern: Clinton, Gore, Clark, and Edwards. The South has a murderers' row of Dem talent.

That said, can we please stop pretending that regional (alt: urban/rural) differences couldn't possibly be a driver in this chasm between our understanding of what ought be and theirs? Couldn't 100-odd years of building and maintaining a police state with the explicit intent of controlling fellow citizens differentiated entirely by race have an effect on the surviving culture? Couldn't defining your "heritage" as precisely the effort to avoid changes to that police state have an effect? Isn't it possible that it makes you a bit more comfortable with authoritarianism, violent responses to infractions of social norms, and demeaning behavior towards people who look different?

Southern Republicans are still Americans, and decent people, yadda yadda.... We have to deal with them somehow, but it's worth wondering what sorts of deals we should feel comfortable entering into with them.

[Gromit]

Jonas Cord: If the perpetual question here of why more opposing views are not found here in the comments of this site is to be answered, this would be a fine example of why one would not bother. Not to mention the unrelenting mockery and harassment of the one definitively partisan conservative poster and commenter here.

Oh, good grief. Never mind that the post you quoted is hardly representative of this site. RedState, whose conservatives have exclusive control over the front page and whose more extreme right-wingers face no sanction for heaping vitriol and vicious personal insults on anyone who is insufficiently sycophantic, for some reason feels the need to purge itself of all the liberal gadflies dropping in to argue politics. Yet at Obsidian Wings, whose front page has posters from across the political spectrum, and whose moderators do a pretty good job of keeping the tone civil, the liberal commenters are somehow capable of driving conservatives away with the power of their snark alone?

[Praedor Atrebates]

Between this, and the calls to restart the Civil War, there is no reason why most thoughtful people would want to participate in the conversation.

Heh, I'm a liberal from the West. I have suffered while being stationed at a military base in the South. The Civil War I refer to is NOT a rehash of THAT war by and for bigots. I am simply stating what appears to be fact. The US Republic is failing and has been on a slide, with glimpses of reason, since Nixon. I mean, c'mon! Our civil liberties are under very real attack via this current Administration and its "Patriot" Act and its calls for even stronger (more drakonian) powers "to fight terrorism". Our Reps from both sides are proving to be only too happy to ablige. Our government practices torture, denies it, then threatens to veto any bill that essentially bans torture directly! We have a Supreme Court now becoming overfull with cretins that think that we all do NOT have a right to privacy, and that, by extension, the guv'mnt gets to invade our nonexistent privacy and regulate any and all parts of our PRIVATE lives. We have a dominant political party hell-bent on revision of US history to support the false notion that this country was always intended to be a "christian" nation based on biblical law.

We have a President declaring a war that can never end because the terms of the war are purposefully ambiguous; so he claims "emergency powers" that, by virtue of the neverending and intentionally ambiguous nature of the declared "war", can only be perpetuated and expanded - and our Reps from both Parties are, yet again, only too happy to ablige.

How much do you honestly think the People can stand of this sort of civil liberties abuse and de facto prisoner abuse (and the ability of the guv'mnt to declare American citizens "terrorists" or "enemy combatants", pack them off to invisible detention centers, etc)? I don't think there is much room left for this shit to continue before the fabric of the society DOES begin to rip and lead to civil war.

There is nothing magical about our democracy that makes it immune to failure. NO society can last forever. I have read that it appears that the max historic lifespan for democratic-type societies is (empirically) about 300 years. We're pretty damn close to that historic failure point. Our society has become more and more polarized, with the active pushing of the current politicos (particularly the current form of the GOP) that paints ANY who vary from their particular political, social, and moral views as "traitors", "unAmerican", "evil", etc. Instead of seeking consensus, they seek utter destruction of any who disagree with their narrow point of view and they are willing to use ANY means to accomplish this.

The situation is not getting better, it is getting worse. This is not the 17th century anymore. It isn't the 18th century anymore. It is not the 19th century. Trying to force the current nation into some mythical (never existent) form of such a society via one-Party rule by "god's own party" WILL lead to civil war. The lies and felonies being committed by the current Administration with the FULL support of every single member of the GOP in the House and Senate, PLUS a good fraction of the Dems in both, will not lead to a "more perfect union" or stability. It will lead to collapse. It will lead to civil war.

Some people are fully willing to fight such a fight if their civil liberties are taken from them and they can no longer even count on the courts to correct the wrong (Roberts on the Supreme Court with Thomas and Scalia are just waiting to trample all over civil liberties, the separation of church and state, the 4th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, etc). When all branches of the Federal government are working in lockstep to chop deeply at civil liberties, then the only resort left is...

Make no mistake. What they are seeking is a society in the form of "A Handmaid's Tale" melded to a horrific 19th century Robber Baron economy where women are subjugated and there is absolutely no environmental protections whatsoever. They are also very much after eliminating the very idea of a right to privacy. Why? So they can outlaw abortion, outlaw birthcontrol, outlaw "living in sin", outlaw homosexuals. They are just so strongly focused and obsessed with controlling everyone else's sex lives (their private lives). This is not a recipe for anything but civil unrest, riots, etc.

[ThirdGorchBro]

I find that my blood pressure rests easier when I ignore the most egregious "Republicans = evil" and hysterical "This is the end of American democracy!" posts.

As to the latter: if American democracy survived the kind of massive civil rights violations that took place during the Civil War, the two World Wars, and Jim Crow, then it will survive the Patriot Act and POW torture. Heck, Nixon and LBJ violated civil liberties more than Bush has, and yet the Republic somehow survived.

As to the former, I'd like to thank hilzoy and the other liberals here who are willing to engage in reasoned debate. ObWi is still the best place I've found for it, despite the leftward tilt (hey, it's good for me to be out of my comfort zone anyway). For those who would rather congratulate themselves on their moral superiority to us evil conservatives, well, I hope it was good for you. Have a cigarette.

[Jackmormon]

And there's the fact that I don't recall seeing Praedor around here before. I was going to reply to him/her that most sensible people, particularly those living in target areas, should already have emergency supplies onhand,* but that seemed like dignifying fear too much.

*I just changed my emergency water stash for the year after discovering that yes, it can go bad. As I did so, thinking of Teresa NH's advice, I checked on my batteries, candles, emergency contact list, and first-aid kit. No weaponry, no plastic sheeting: I'm preparing for your average emergency, not for Armageddon.

[KCinDC]

That said, can we please stop pretending that regional (alt: urban/rural) differences couldn't possibly be a driver in this chasm between our understanding of what ought be and theirs?

SCMT, there's a large difference between "urban/rural" and "regional". And "urban/rural" leaves out "suburban", which is where the real problem may lie.

My point is that in most Southern states, at least 40% of the voters went for Kerry in 2004. In some the percentage was nearly as high as that for the country as a whole. That's not some negligible proportion of the population, and pretending those people don't exist doesn't help us out of our current mess. And Montana, Utah, Indiana, and plenty of other red states are not Southern.

[Jonas Cord]

Gromit,

Oh, good grief. Never mind that the post you quoted is hardly representative of this site.

You are absolutely right that is not generally representative. It is, however, an absurd exaggeration of the sorts of usual comments that accompany any post rightfully attacking the Bush administration.

Rather than discourse, we usually have dozens of commenters coming in to commiserate about the miserable, tragic, and hopeless depths to which this country and its President have sunk. And I know, despite not sharing that particular attitude I usually have little or no interest in entering that particular debate, because it usually winds up overshadowing the pertinent issues at hand.

Rather than discuss, for instance, precisely what means of regulating prisoner treatment is needed, who is doing enough and who isn't, or what crosses the line and what doesn't - we will rather be forced to argue whether the Bush administration is merely poor or rather the end of democracy - or whether conservative commenters who have already agreed with the criticism of the administration are sufficiently outraged enough.

RedState, whose conservatives have exclusive control over the front page and whose more extreme right-wingers face no sanction for heaping vitriol and vicious personal insults on anyone who is insufficiently sycophantic, for some reason feels the need to purge itself of all the liberal gadflies dropping in to argue politics.

I don't quite know what this has to do with anything, but it sounds to me like the conservatives at RedState have truly succeeded in building the bizarro-world DailyKos they professed to want.

Yet at Obsidian Wings, whose front page has posters from across the political spectrum, and whose moderators do a pretty good job of keeping the tone civil, the liberal commenters are somehow capable of driving conservatives away with the power of their snark alone?

To make it simpler, I do think there would be more discussion from everywhere on the political spectrum if the issues were specifically discussed, rather than laundry-lists of wrongdoing demonstrating the complete and total immorality of the administration. Just sayin' ;-)

[Praedor Atrebates]

As to the latter: if American democracy survived the kind of massive civil rights violations that took place during the Civil War, the two World Wars, and Jim Crow, then it will survive the Patriot Act and POW torture.

It goes well beyond "mere" POW torture. In any case, please explain the logic behind an argument that there can be no new civil war that uses, as one of the supporting examples as to WHY we can't/wont have one, THE CIVIL WAR!

We were operating under the very same Constitution we are using today. Yet we had a civil war. I'd also wager that if a few more incidents like the Kent State massacre by government forces back in the good old 60's had occurred the country would have been brought quite close to open civil unrest bordering on civil war.

Again, we have already empirically seen that this very nation with the very Constitution we have today is fully capable of suffering a civil war. There is nothing magical going on today (except a creeping police state) that would prevent another if/when the government goes too far in its ethical, moral, and legal abuses against the People.

[Charles Bird]

So what do you think about the idea of "the base" pushing for policy change? Do you agree that it's probably the only thing that would have any chance of having an effect?

(a) I'm all for it, and (b) not the only thing, to answer both questions, Opus. Republicans should step up and support McCain-Warner-Graham, since they are also part of our base, but it's not like non-Republicans have no influence. The American people also have a say, and they have the ability to influence their representatives. The media also has a say, and so do Democrats. Importantly, the Republican Senators should not back down.

You should have stopped after that period.

No, bob. You shouldn't stopped after "second...", because right after that I wrote "and less importantly".

[bobzilla]

Jonas Cord:
it sounds to me like the conservatives at RedState have truly succeeded in building the bizarro-world DailyKos they professed to want
That’s got to be the best one sentence review of a website I’ve ever seen. A concise summation as to why I no longer read comments at either site (to say nothing of posting). There’s ridiculous stuff going on there.

[bobzilla]

Charles, allow me to be clearer. I won’t question your belief in the fact that torture is wrong. However, the fact that you feel you have to add further justifications (beyond the sheer immorality of torture) to an intended audience of (mostly) like-minded compatriots speaks volumes.

Some comments from your redstate post:
They are not soldiers and are not entitled to the Geneva Convention or any of its protections. The military would be well within the laws of war to try them and then shoot them.

I echo your concerns that this attitude is just simply bad politics.

When some liberal or other critic starts going off about torture, then conservatives can gently steer that soul to the Detainee Report, where he can find for himself that the charges are overblown and overexaggerated, and that concrete steps have been and are taken to fix the problem

I know it’s slightly unfair to cherry pick posts, but you’re the one who directed us to it in your own defense. The last post is a reply, by you, to others in that thread. I think you can see how some of us here might doubt your claim that repudiating torture is more than just being politically expedient. That it’s more than just trying to fend off another tiresome criticism.

I won’t do the Karnak routine, but you may want to consider how the comment thread might have looked if you’d stopped writing right after “torture is wrong”.

I do thank you for unequivocally stating that earlier this evening though.

[Phil]

I think Charles has made it clear enough what his feelings on torture and prisoner mistreatment are; my only problem is that he refuses to go so far as to condemn or denounce the Administration or the architects of the policies which appear to have lead to these things, instead continually referring to the policies and acts as being dumb, or immoral, or what have you.

Policies and acts aren't immoral -- at least not without context, and even then, they're at best amoral. People are immoral. And it is the people, not the policies they've promulgated, who deserve the condemnation. No people, no policies.

I understand why Charles finds it difficult to do this -- he supports Bush, probably even likes him as a person. But that's where it needs to go, from Charles and a lot more like him.

Praedor, given the far-reaching implications of the postbellum Constitutional Amendments, and a whole slew of federal jurisprudence since then, we are arguably under a very, very different Constitution from the one we were under in 1860. (That said, I think the states should have had the right to secede, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear. I also think that the reasons they wanted to secede for were wholly monstrous, and the people behind them moral cretins.)

[liberal japonicus]

You are absolutely right that is not generally representative. It is, however, an absurd exaggeration of the sorts of usual comments that accompany any post rightfully attacking the Bush administration.

Rather than discourse, we usually have dozens of commenters coming in to commiserate about the miserable, tragic, and hopeless depths to which this country and its President have sunk.

Well, sure. Did you think this was some sort of discussion group that could recommend appropriate prisoner treatment to the administration? Or that we have some sort of stovepipe to the powers that be to recommend things like not supporting Karimov, or actually spend the money committed by the Millenium project. It is telling to me that the number of specific recommendations is quickly dwindling. At some point in the not so distant future, I am thinking that there will be nothing to do and we just have to wait for someone on the other side to provide the kind of moral leadership that used to be our specialty (something I really don't see happening, so please save the outrage at my suggestion that 'they' are better than 'us'). At that point, we will only have our frustration and anger and I will expect you argue that we should just shut up because we obviously haven't done the groundwork of building support for our ideas (cf: Party of No). At some point, I have to wonder if the anger at our anger (or the anger at a throw away line about salt and the South) is just a way to avoid having to acknowledge supporting an administration that is not remotely interested in anything but maintaining power.

I believe that a number of the left-leaners on this site have discussed what needs to be done to make sure that conservatives can make their voices heard. You are welcome to dismiss that as empty gestures, and view the expressed anger as our true selves, but a failure to address the causes of that anger (causes which I think are profound and troubling) merely reinforces the impression that you aren't interested in the problems, and you think it rude to point these things out at all.

[bernard Yomtov]

To make it simpler, I do think there would be more discussion from everywhere on the political spectrum if the issues were specifically discussed, rather than laundry-lists of wrongdoing demonstrating the complete and total immorality of the administration.

OK, Jonas. Let's discuss.

We have a President who seems to be defying a court order. What should happen? Should he be held in contempt and jailed? Impeached? Allowed to get away with it?

We have a President who claims that his role as Commander-in-Chief grants him unlimited powers. Do you agree? If not, what steps should be taken when he abuses his powers? If you agree, what is to prevent him from becoming an absolute dictator?

We have a President who threatens to veto any restriction Congress places on his authority to torture detainees. Does that seem OK to you?

That's a start.

[SomeCallMeTim]

KC:

My point is that in most Southern states, at least 40% of the voters went for Kerry in 2004.

Which is great, but that and a cup of coffee still won't deliver electoral votes. Of the states in play, the easiest ones (excluding FL) for us to flip are outside the South.

Politics is about coalition building; given the structure of our electoral college, it's about geographic coalition building. As Democrats, the primary questions we have to answer are: (1) with whom can we make a deal, and (2)what are the outer limits of the terms of a deal with which we can live. I'm arguing that we should look to do a deal with the more libertarian West (i.e NM, NV, and CO) because it is easier, and culturally, I'm more comfortable with the terms we would have to offer.

Easier is obvious - the vote shares were closer in the West. More comfortable because I am suspicious of claims that Southern Bush voters have the same commitments and priorities that I have. I don't know that a deal is possible, because I just think we see the world very differently. I can't convince Charles (whom I assume is from the South) that he is hysterical about the threat to the country from Islamo-whatevers; he can't convince me that I'm hysterical about asaults on basic liberties and norms. These aren't proveable truths; we each have an essentially preset comfort with different types of risk, and I can't argue him off of his risk preference. (Or the reverse.) We evaluate the risks differently, we see the same historical events differently, etc. All he and I can do is talk past one another. And I suspect that is a function of culture.

[matttbastard]

(whom I assume is from the South)

Er, AFAIK, Charles is from the Pacific Northwest.

(I'm assuming you're referring to Charles Bird - if not, please disregard the preceding comment.)

[Jesurgislac]

Charles: : I condemn the Bush administration's policy

But, as Dmbeaster pointed out, you still don't condemn the Bush administration.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Matt:

I did not know that! So scotch Charles as an exemplar. We're still not winning in the South, and we still can't offer them what we'd need to offer in order to win.

[Charles Bird]

However, the fact that you feel you have to add further justifications (beyond the sheer immorality of torture) to an intended audience of (mostly) like-minded compatriots speaks volumes.

That's not it, bob. Several have distorted and skewed my positions on the treatment of detainees, starting with dmbeaster, and I refuse to let them get away with it unchallenged.

FTR, I live in the Seattle area, born and raised.

[bobzilla]

Several have distorted and skewed my positions on the treatment of detainees

The above is the reason for my mention of the dogpile mentality earlier in the thread. You’ve put up some controversial posts in the past and it’s generally understood (I think) that there’s going to be some history that colors everyone’s comments.

All that aside, re-read your 11:40AM post:

The Bush administration is being monumentally foolish by threatening a veto crossing the McCain-Warner-Graham legislation. Really dumb.

Imagine how that must look to someone who’s reading you for the first time. I’d submit that a better choice of language would have substituted “foolish” and “dumb” with “immoral” and “wrong”. I think that would alleviate concerns that you’ll be an apologist for the administration if they’re found guilty of wrong doing. I also believe that’s a fair concern given the treatment of some other high profile issues that have arisen lately. In this particular instance, I’m a stickler for semantics.

Not that you're bound to prove anything to anonymous internet users. For the record, I'm glad conservatives post here. It'd be dreadfully dull otherwise.

[CMatt]

There are a considerable number of Bush supporters who would take Bush's side of the prioritizing question instead of Hilzoy's. For many (we can hope most) it isn't because they approve of torture per se. It is because they can look at Bush's veto threat as prioritizing national security above all else. That is because they genuinely feel that "stressful" interrogation makes large contributions to our security. This begs the question:

How many of our successes so far in Iraq and Afghanistan come from tips/cooperation and how many from "stressful" interrogation? What is the ratio, and which are responsible for the bigger successes? We found Saddam, Uday and Qusay, and a significant number of the weapons caches we have uncovered via tips. Are there some larger and more important successes that have come as a result of "stressful" interrogation?

Do this administration's actions make future successes more or less likely? Do advocacy of harsh interrogation and extraordinary rendition, or "fight them over there" speeches (not even just management) make any sense even on the very grounds that the administration claims to be making them? YMMV.

Perhaps suspending disgust at a "necessary evil" and just discussing effectiveness would bring in the commenters from elsewhere on the political spectrum that Jonas mentioned. I sort of doubt it.

[Jonas Cord]

liberal japonicus,

Did you think this was some sort of discussion group that could recommend appropriate prisoner treatment to the administration?

The thing that refreshes me, when discussing politics with normal people - not political obsessives like ourselves here - is that people do presume to think exactly what the right policy is, regardless of whether our parties have bothered to do so or whether those in power have proposed it. Citizens tackling issues means the right things ultimately get done; citizens believing that they are powerless and have to fight for the sake of fighting does not.

At some point in the not so distant future, I am thinking that there will be nothing to do and we just have to wait for someone on the other side to provide the kind of moral leadership that used to be our specialty (something I really don't see happening, so please save the outrage at my suggestion that 'they' are better than 'us').,

I'm not quite clear on what you're getting at, but it's fascinating - do explain ;-)

At that point, we will only have our frustration and anger and I will expect you argue that we should just shut up because we obviously haven't done the groundwork of building support for our ideas (cf: Party of No).

It's been nothing but frustration and anger since Bush got elected the first time. I've probably said so before, but I always feel like this is karmic payback for the gleeful giggling I did at my conservative friends expense back during the Clinton era when that's about all they had going for themselves.

I believe that a number of the left-leaners on this site have discussed what needs to be done to make sure that conservatives can make their voices heard.

They have, which is the only reason I made the comment earlier, as I thought it might be helpful to communicate why I, as a kinda Clintonish DLC-type, don't feel like participating in many discussions.

You are welcome to dismiss that as empty gestures, and view the expressed anger as our true selves, but a failure to address the causes of that anger (causes which I think are profound and troubling) merely reinforces the impression that you aren't interested in the problems, and you think it rude to point these things out at all.

I am interested in the problems - above all else, really. I don't care about partisan point scoring, I don't care which side winds up looking good and who looks bad. I want to figure out what the solution is, and I can't do it on my own.

bernard Yomtov ,

We have a President who seems to be defying a court order. What should happen? Should he be held in contempt and jailed? Impeached? Allowed to get away with it?

You got ahead of yourself. It would seem that the Defense Department has filed some extension with the judge. Please debate this with our many lawyer friends here, but I can't jump on the "Bush Department is defying a court order" bandwagon just yet.

We have a President who claims that his role as Commander-in-Chief grants him unlimited powers. Do you agree? If not, what steps should be taken when he abuses his powers? If you agree, what is to prevent him from becoming an absolute dictator?

I don't remember him claiming to have unlimited powers. Rather he's claimed some powers that I find rather unacceptable, as do many others. Now we could focus on that, or we can get on the end-times bandwagon.

We have a President who threatens to veto any restriction Congress places on his authority to torture detainees. Does that seem OK to you?

Okay? Hell no. But it's going to be a long time before the unfortunate fact that this kind of nonsense happens in wartime doesn't happen at all. And I'm not crapping my pants because in all honesty I thought it was going to be about a hundred times worse, socially and politically.

[Jonas Cord]

CMatt ,

How many of our successes so far in Iraq and Afghanistan come from tips/cooperation and how many from "stressful" interrogation? What is the ratio, and which are responsible for the bigger successes? We found Saddam, Uday and Qusay, and a significant number of the weapons caches we have uncovered via tips. Are there some larger and more important successes that have come as a result of "stressful" interrogation?

This is what I wish I had an answer to as the result of debates here. I have a suspicion as to what the answer is - that this "stressful" interrogation is completely overrated - but I just don't know.

Perhaps suspending disgust at a "necessary evil" and just discussing effectiveness would bring in the commenters from elsewhere on the political spectrum that Jonas mentioned. I sort of doubt it.

Keep in mind these conversations we have here, as I alluded to before, is exclusively between us political obsessives who are far more decisive and stubborn than your average citizen, and we do so in completely anonymous comfort. For all the talk of politicians polarizing the publc, I dare say we're doing a pretty good job all by ourselves.

I'm only an optimist about this because the vast majority of arguments or debates I've had tend to be far more constructive in real life, I find.

[liberal japonicus]

Jonas,
but it's fascinating - do explain ;-)
I personally believe that the US now has very little moral standing in the world. Whether we deserve some credit for past deeds is, in a sense, beside the point. This is why Japan has to justify its deployment in Samarra in terms of precisely the international effort that the US seems to have completely rejected and the US has to pretend to go along with it.

We know that [the SDF deployment] was a threshold to cross for the Japanese government and the Japanese people. It is not an easy thing for them to be there. But we think that their contribution is making a difference, and it is a contribution that they can proudly say they are making on behalf of the international community, and not because the United States is there... All of us have to do things that we would prefer not to do from time to time.
Ambassador to Japan Tom Scheiffer link

Seeing Condi flit around and have it portrayed as meaningful doesn't seem to cut it. Perhaps for others, it is enough to point to the fact that a black woman is Sec of State, but it seems clear that the words she mouths are empty of content. I can't really point to a figure within the US government who could step forward and take a leadership role. Certainly Americans have not been called on to sacrifice, and one might be forgiven for thinking that privatizing Social Security is as important as finding OBL.

It's been nothing but frustration and anger since Bush got elected the first time. I've probably said so before, but I always feel like this is karmic payback for the gleeful giggling I did at my conservative friends expense back during the Clinton era when that's about all they had going for themselves.

I wish you'd leave the rest of us out of the karmic payback. I realize that there was a lot of anger at the election, but in the days after 9-11, there was solidarity and a true opportunity. Perhaps it is karmic payback for the US that Bush was not up to the task.

You also say that the discussions here are simply between 'political obsessives', by which I guess you mean that they don't really count. Not to put too sharp a point on it, this sounds like a 'well, no one wanted that stupid toy anyway' kind of argument.

The reason why we have these arguments in the anonymous safety of the internet is because, on one level, it is not worth destroying our interpersonal relationships over these things. The odds of being directly injured in a terrorist attack are exceedingly long. The odds of being affected on the order of 1 or 2 degrees of separation are certainly greater, but I imagine we balance out that versus the possibility that our neighbor would make it a point to pretend that we didn't even exist ("I'm sorry, I really don't want to speak to anyone who thinks that Islam is not a threat to our civilization/thinks that we need to violate the civil rights of all Muslims because of the actions of a tiny few") We weigh that opportunity of putting forth our heartfelt political opinions with the much greater possibility that the relationship we have with the person next door, or in the neighboring cubicle, or who we play tennis with, if damaged, would have a greater impact on our daily lives. Now, I don't know, maybe everyone else on this board is putting these opinions with equal fervor IRL, buttonholing friends, asking for references, sharing new information. It might be that I am just in a strange position, in that I don't hang out with Japanese rather than foreigners and the foreigners I do hang out with are non US, so there's already a remove there.

I say in one sense, because I really believe, as some have suggested, that the US has lost its way. I guess my ultimate point is that if you simply dismiss this post and the comments to it as angry outbursts, you are missing the function of those outbursts. Just because commentors here are angry does not necessarily mean that this is partisan point scoring.

[bernard Yomtov]

he's claimed some powers that I find rather unacceptable, as do many others. Now we could focus on that, or we can get on the end-times bandwagon.

He's claimed the power to detain an American citizen indefinitely on the basis of his own say-so and nothing else. I assume that's one of the things you find unacceptable, and I'm glad you do. But bear in mind the basis for the claim: that his power as C-in-C overrides Constitutional limits on executive power. That's pretty close to claiming unlimited power - too close.

But say I'm wrong and all he's claimed is that he can have either you or me arrested and held without trial as long as he likes. I'd say that justifies some of the anxiety you dismiss as the "end-times bandwagon."

[liberal japonicus]

in that I don't hang out with Japanese rather than foreigners and the foreigners I do hang out with are non US

Sorry, that should be I hang out with Japanese rather than foreigners. Intoxicated by the roomier comment box, I guess.

[Jonas Cord]

liberal japonicus,

I personally believe that the US now has very little moral standing in the world. Whether we deserve some credit for past deeds is, in a sense, beside the point. This is why Japan has to justify its deployment in Samarra in terms of precisely the international effort that the US seems to have completely rejected and the US has to pretend to go along with it.

This is a whole can of worms, which I'm happy to discuss if you care to on Sunday. But it's late and my feeble mind can't possibly address this very pertinent issue right now.

You also say that the discussions here are simply between 'political obsessives', by which I guess you mean that they don't really count. Not to put too sharp a point on it, this sounds like a 'well, no one wanted that stupid toy anyway' kind of argument.

No, that's not what I mean at all. They do count, of course, in a unique way given the nature of our obsessions. But I'm merely weary of extrapolation to the general population of how stubborn everyone is based on the deliberate fighting we all do here.

I say in one sense, because I really believe, as some have suggested, that the US has lost its way.

I'm going to guess that the difference in our perpectives is that I've always felt like the US has been constantly struggling to find its way, never mind being able to lose it. And I think we've done a better job than anyone could have reasonably expected, and still do. It's an odd perspective that I have for certain, probably rooted in that I am sufficiently impressed by moral progress made within my lifetime, and consequently baffled by any lionization of the past that ignores what were the major moral failings of the past. To be precise: I think we are better now than we were in the past. Is it good enough? Oh, definitely not. Have we lost ground because of the Bush Administration? For certain in some regards, but nothing that seems insurmountable or unstoppable. But I can't bemoan the loss of some great moral civilization, as I'm insufficiently conservative ;-)

The reason why we have these arguments in the anonymous safety of the internet is because, on one level, it is not worth destroying our interpersonal relationships over these things.

To tell you the truth, I'm probably not as down on these online discussions as I may have let on. I figure I got rather cranky reading some of the absurd depths that wound up being explored in this thread, but it's not that important.

What is important in my experience is that with little exception no one winds up destroying interpersonal relationships in political discussion. Thats the way it might feel here, but in real life, usually no one is sociopathic enough to engage in the personal attacks that go on online, and even if things do get heated, it's in that way that you figure people are entitled to believe something politically and it's not some major character flaw. I don't think I'm quite articulating this properly, but I hope you get what I mean.

[Jonas Cord]

Bernard Yomtov,

But bear in mind the basis for the claim: that his power as C-in-C overrides Constitutional limits on executive power. That's pretty close to claiming unlimited power - too close.

Too close to unlimited power? You and I agree completely. And if I may futilly attempt to reassure you, the more time passes, the less these various notions are accepted by those who are unreasonably blasé about such abuses of power. In my experience, at least. The more abuses, the less people are willing to excuse it.

There are thresholds for everyone and they tend not to be binary on/off positions. They can live with Jose Padilla... but can they deal with a dozen? A hundred? Don't count on it.

[Katherine]

So, yeah, open defiance of a court order, it would appear. I wonder if the judge is going to be pissed enough to hold them in contempt. Unlikely but not impossible.

Jonas, as far as I can tell the more time passes the more people excuse these things. Hence everyone felt the need to denounce Abu Ghraib, but it's been curtained off from everything else--descriptions of practices that seem more or less identical to some of those photos are now cited as evidence that we're running a wonderul resort.

I don't think it's worth attacking conservative posters--it's misdirected anger, largely; they're not the most deserving targets so much as the most convenient. But I have little patience for being told we're making too much of this. There is almost certainly a line that can't be crossed, but I honestly have no idea where it is and it seems to be moving. And every ounce of outrage by the outrage helps to move it.

With all due respect for McCain and Graham and Warner, I think they are at some level sincere (well, perhaps not Warner) but if so they've been utter cowards up until now. I am tired of being grateful for small favors. I will be pleased if they actually do something, but I will also be surprised. Talking about introducing an amendment does not count as doing something. Actually introducing amendment is something, but it is not going to be sufficient and they certainly know it. So, we'll see. I appreciate even a minimal effort by GOP Congressmen, but I'm not exactly ready to fall all over myself in gratitude.

[liberal japonicus]

This is a whole can of worms, which I'm happy to discuss if you care to on Sunday.
Since your Sunday is my Monday, and I'm going to be out of touch for the next month, I have to give that a pass.

No, that's not what I mean at all. They do count, of course, in a unique way given the nature of our obsessions. But I'm merely weary of extrapolation to the general population of how stubborn everyone is based on the deliberate fighting we all do here.

Fair enough, and apologies for being so blunt. I'm not sure what linked people here being angry with extrapolation the gen pop, so sorry about missing it and misreading you.

It's an odd perspective that I have for certain, probably rooted in that I am sufficiently impressed by moral progress made within my lifetime, and consequently baffled by any lionization of the past that ignores what were the major moral failings of the past.
That's an interesting point. Yes, we have made great strides, but those strides are all basically domestic. I don't think we've really come to grips with what we've done to the rest of the world, both positively and negatively. In fact, our inability to grasp exactly what it is that we have done positively (rather than trite mottos about bringing liberty and justice) has made us take the foundations for those accomplishments for granted. It's also interesting because in a large part of this thread, Bob has been taken to task for precisely refusing to lionize the past (namely the Civil War)

To tell you the truth, I'm probably not as down on these online discussions as I may have let on.

No worries, I probably take what people write in these discussion too seriously for my own good.

What is important in my experience is that with little exception no one winds up destroying interpersonal relationships in political discussion. Thats the way it might feel here, but in real life, usually no one is sociopathic enough to engage in the personal attacks that go on online, and even if things do get heated, it's in that way that you figure people are entitled to believe something politically and it's not some major character flaw. I don't think I'm quite articulating this properly, but I hope you get what I mean.

I do, but what bothers me (and this is another Can O' Worms) is that the ability to compartmentalize these things may be a hugh problem. I understand the impulse to get along, but I wanted to also suggest that by getting along, we have implicitly raised the bar for meaningful action. Why is one Jose Padilla, or one innocent taxi driver, or whatever, not enough? And what does it say about us that it isn't enough?

[Jesurgislac]

Charles: Several have distorted and skewed my positions on the treatment of detainees, starting with dmbeaster, and I refuse to let them get away with it unchallenged.

No one has skewed your position on the Bush administration (which was what was under attack). You've consistently refrained from condemning the Bush administration on its treatment of prisoners. (Furthermore, until fairly recently, you found it necessary to attack anyone who attacked the Bush administration with regard to their treatment of prisoners - Newsweek, Amnesty International, etc. It's only recently that you've stopped doing that.)