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

[CharleyCarp]

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.

I agree with you Jonas about the politics, and the way human nature works. My problem is with the legal fall-out. As a society, a strong majority of us now recognize that the internment of Japanese was a mistake, and a serious failure to live up to our standards. The Supreme Court, though, said at the time that it was OK, and those decisions are still good law. Thus, the power to do exactly the sort of thing that we mostly now find outside the pale, is sitting around waiting for an executive inprincipled enough to use it -- and a populace fearful or angry enough to tolerate it. The same is true of Quirin.

The government's position in the various prisoner cases is outrageous, but because of the way courts defer to the executive in times of war, we'd all be better off if the executive didn't push this line as far as they are trying to do. We may well end up with a vast expansion of executive power, even if not used by this crowd, that remains dormant waiting for Caesar. This is my biggest problem with the Bush supporters. They trust the President, deeply, based on their assessments of his character. I don't share the view, but I accept that they have it. Obviously, though, they are not only empowering this man they trust, but all future executives.

[CharleyCarp]

An example, not from my case, but from a fellow member of the GBBA. Lawyer files suit on behalf of prisoners. Government moves to stay the suit pending appellate review of the rights of 'enemy combatants.' Granted. Court orders government to provide factual summary regarding these prisoners, and government resists. Lawyer finds out that government is resisting because its internal findings are that prisoners are not enemy combatants. Lawyer files motion for immediate release, and government fights it.

If the government wins this, what powers has it won?

[SomeCallMeTim]

They can live with Jose Padilla... but can they deal with a dozen? A hundred? Don't count on it.

Oh please. As long as it's the right people, Republicans won't care at all. I mean, if you think very hard, you might be able to come up with an example of a discrete group that was denied certain basic rights, like voting, in the last 50 years.

Republicans don't believe that there is such a thing as "tyranny of the majority." Their rhetoric since the election has been consistent: if you win, you get to do what you want. No one has any rights except as they are protected by the sympathy of the majority. Welcome to the WWWA problem.

[CharleyCarp]

Court orders government to provide factual summary regarding these prisoners, and government resists.

This is incorrect. The government successfully argued that it should not have to produce the same kind of summary as to these prisoners that is has produced as to many others. It also refused to respond to repeated inquiries as to whether these prisoners were among those reported in the press to have been found not to be EC. They've been held 3.5 years.

I predict that the judge rips someone a new orifice.

Then again, this same judge just got reversed in Hamdan, so maybe he'll be in a deferring mood . . .

[bernard Yomtov]

Jonas: The more abuses, the less people are willing to excuse it. (Exit, stage right)

Katherine: as far as I can tell the more time passes the more people excuse these things. (Exit, stage left)

I agree with Katherine. People become inured. Ask them the abstract question and they may object, but ask them specifically about Padilla, surely an unsavory character, and they have no problem with it, and they have less and less over time.

Further, it's not juat a question of overcoming indifference. There are plenty of people who enthusiatically support these policies. How many listeners does Limbaugh have? (By the way, this is one reason the criticism of Charles on the subject of torture has been extremely unfair. He, like Sebastian, has used his microphone at RedState to criticize the Administration sharply to a fanatically pro-Bush audience. That may have done some good)

But say you're right. Why should there have to be a dozen cases, or a hundred, before there are objections? And how bad do these things have to get before those who object, but normally vote Republican, are willing to hold Republicans accountable at the ballot box? Did you vote for Bush? If so, have there been any revelations since November that caused you to regret it?

[Charles Bird]

Imagine how that must look to someone who’s reading you for the first time.

Perhaps you and first-time readers passed over the preceding paragraph in that 11:40 comment, bob, which read: "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." I don't understand why you think your fight is with me. To expand on the "really dumb" comment, there is no level at which the veto-threatening is not dumb, including moral, ethical, tactical, political, common sense and so forth.

No one has skewed your position on the Bush administration (which was what was under attack).

Au contraire, Jes. You're one of the worst offenders at skewing and mischaracterizing my positions. I've wasted too many minutes and hours countering your misrepresentations.

You've consistently refrained from condemning the Bush administration on its treatment of prisoners.

That is another falsehood that you've trotted out, and it demonstrates how your second sentence has negated your first.

[243]

Jonas, whose efforts are appreciated, states: 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.

So would this be an example in support of your theory?

[ral]

I'm just back from vacation, a glorious week at the Chautauqua Institution that I imagine was a bit like going to piano camp. This is going to be a little digressive, so bear with me.

Arlo Guthrie appeared at the Friday concert, and sang Alice's Restaurant to the delight of the crowd. He also inserted a long and touchingly humorous patter into the middle of This Land is Your Land that recapped quite a bit of the Bible (starting at the story of Joseph) and finally came around to the point that a single person can make a big difference and we may never even know the guy's name. "He went home and his wife probably told him, 'why didn't you give him your name? Then you might have been someone!'"

[Paraphrasing now, try to hear it in Arlo's voice] "Imagine if we lived in a world where everyone was happy, even had enough to eat, no wars, no trouble. It'd be pretty hard to do anything to make a difference. On the other hand, in the world we do have, you don't have to do much to make things better. So maybe this isn't so bad after all."

Are things so much worse today than they were in, say, the Vietnam era? I can't help thinking of some songs from that time, and some of the images that went with them. From Arlo Guthrie, for example, on surveillance, there was the monologue in the Pause of Mr. Claus

During these hard days and hard weeks, everybody always has it bad once in a while. You know, you have a bad time of it, and you always have a friend who says, "Hey man, you ain't got it bad. Look at THAT guy." And you look at that guy, and he's got it worse than you. And it makes you feel better that there's somebody that's got it worse than you.

But think of the last guy. For one minute, think of the last guy. Nobody's got it worse than that guy. Nobody in the whole world. That guy...he's so alone in the world that he doesn't even have a street to lay in for a truck to run him over. He's out there with nothin'. Nothin's happenin' for that cat.

And all that he has to do to create a little excitement in his own life is to bum a dime from somewhere, call up the FBI. Say, "FBI," they say "Yes," say "I dig Uncle Ho and Chairman Mao and their friends are comin' over for dinner" (click). Hang up the phone.

And within two minutes, and not two minutes from when he hangs up the phone, but two minutes from when he first put the dime in, they got 30,000 feet of tape rollin'; files on tape; pictures, movies, dramas, actions on tape. But then they send out a half a million people all over the entire world, the globe, they find out all they can about this guy.

When Abu Ghraib came along, I couldn't help thinking of Tom Paxton's song We Didn't Know

...

"We didn't know", said the puzzled voter,
watching the President on TV.
"I guess we've got to drop those bombs
if we're going to keep South Asia free.

The President's such a peaceful man,
I guess he's got some kind of plan.
They say we're torturing prisoners of war,
but I don't believe that stuff no more.
Torturing prisoners is a Communist game,
and you can bet they're doing the same!
I wish this war was over and through,
but what do you expect me to do?"

So, I come home and I read this thread. The topic is depressing and the arguments are all too familiar. I want to talk with Jonas Cord in particular.

What is important in my experience is that with little exception no one winds up destroying interpersonal relationships in political discussion.

I think I may have lost an old and close friend due to a political discussion before the election. I hope not, and it's too soon to tell, but I haven't spoken with him since.

I keep reading and posting here because I think the discussion has value, but I don't think it's anywhere near enough. I have become more politically active because I think we can no longer afford not to be. Is what we have today "worse than Watergate" (as John Dean would have it)? Nixon's abuse of power was pretty bad, so I don't know, but it's a close question.

Let me add a quick "thank you" to CharleyCarp for all you're doing, including keeping us informed here.

[Donald Johnson]

Bob, if you really meant the stuff about the need for a civil war and sowing salt and so forth, you need to take Nell's advice and calm down. Take a long walk or avoid comments sections for awhile. I have to leave Obsidian Wings for weeks at a time to calm down sometimes. I've found I'm not quite the believer in the virtues of civility that I once thought I was.

OTOH, if you were engaged in hyperbole, you merely need to adjust your rhetorical style a tad, because on the fundamental point you're right. I grew up in the South and know all about southern pride and to put it in Christian terms, it's their deadliest sin. They want to take a boyish delight in Civil War heroics--fine. I like reading about that stuff myself and maybe someday I'll get all three volumes of Shelby Foote and read them straight through. But then I also read Prescott's history of the conquest of Mexico for the same reason--the pageantry of it all. Objectively speaking it's hard to pick out who was more evil--the Spanish conquistadores or the Aztec Empire. I can admire Southern courage in battle the same way I can admire the Aztecs or the Spanish. So I have no problem with people admiring bravery in battle or Lee's military ability (which seems over-rated to me) but southerners who blather on about their heritage can't face up to the fact that their heritage is inextricably linked with white racism and justifications for slavery. I don't think Southern culture is chiefly responsible for most American crimes overseas--that's probably more due to our Puritan heritage, the belief that we're God's chosen, and the brilliant guys who overthrew governments and got us into Vietnam went to Harvard and Yale and not Ole Miss. But at the moment, I think there's probably a pretty close correlation between people who can't face the truth about their heritage and people who can't face the truth about Abu Ghraib.

[dmbeaster]

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.

I am sorry that you, once again, are unable to write the simple words that you condemn the Bush administration for its torture policies.

General platitudes and evasiveness about Bush just don't cut it. Yes, you frequently write strongly against violations of human rights -- bravo (really). Except that partisanship simply makes you mute regarding this sins of the leadership of your party on these issues.

[Anarch]

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.

On the one hand, American foreign policy has always been stained with invisible, or at least unacknowledged, blood. [See, e.g., the extinguishing of the Indians.] On the other, there's a particularly lunatic quality in our recent (say last 60 years or so) altruistic evangelism that IMO goes far beyond any White Man's Burden and into territories not usually found outside the Book of Revelations. Part of it is, I think, the Hollywoodization of politics, a crass hybridization of American exceptionalism and the desire for a really compelling narrative; part of it is that we, as a nation, colossally suck at international empathy; part of it is that we, as a nation, genuinely do believe we're the best thing since sliced bread (irony intended); part of it is that we, as a nation, couldn't find distinguish our collective head from our collective ass.

And all of this, IMO, bears witness to and is born in our resolute, manifest unwillingness to acknowledge the sins of our past. We've done it -- sort of -- on a few things (e.g. slavery) but not nearly enough; and until we have this national acknowledgement, national exorcism, and national expiation, we'll paving our way to hell.

[Catsy]

Via TPMCafe, here's an example of just how morally repugnant Bush's base has become: Club Gitmo wear. For those with a strong stomach, treat yourself to five pages of listener-submitted photos of people proudly celebrating America's most notorious concentration camp.

Yes, Gitmo is such a posh resort.

I would like to believe that insane nihilism like this is limited to the loony fringes. I am rapidly losing my ability to do that. With the Bush administration fighting tooth and nail to retain the right to abuse and disappear anyone they deem necessary in the course of combating terrorism, and with mainstream Bush apologists like Charles still offering mealy-mouthed hate-the-sin-not-the-sinner nonsense in response, at what point do we have to put our foot down and say: "YOU support THIS"?

The Bush administration is supporting unqualified evil. Bush has sent a clear message that he supports human rights abuses in the name of spreading freedom, that he thinks anything up to and including torture is a necessary tool in that struggle, and that any attempt by Congress to forbid his use of these evils is unwelcome.

It's not enough to equivocate with the equivalent of "gosh, that's really dumb, I wish he wouldn't do that". It's not just dumb--it's EVIL. It is of a kind with what we are supposedly fighting against.

I understand that every politician has flaws, and that a person might support one policy of a president but not another, and overlook the things with which they disagree because they feel the other things are more important. You cannot do that here. There are some things which are so horrible, so beyond the pale, that overlooking them for the sake of achieving something else confers upon you the burden of their evil.

At this point, if you know all this and still support Bush, then YOU SUPPORT TORTURE. You support having people "disappeared". You support extraordinary rendition.

It is past time for equivocating. It is time to put up or shut up, and decide whether or not you are willing to tolerate human rights abuses in your name.

[CaseyL]

Wow: what an amazing thread. It's like sitting in on a political science class that segues into one on moral philosophy and then back again.

ral: Things are definitely not (yet) as bad as they were under Nixon. As Katherine has pointed out in other discussions, domestic surveillance of dissident groups was routine and widespread under Nixon.

Peace marchers were routinely beaten, arrested on trumped up charges, and even, on occasion, killed (at Kent State and Jackson State). And many Americans approved. Indeed, after Kent State, there were quite a few war supporters who said not enough anti-war demonstrators had been killed.

Part of the problem then was that Hoover ran the FBI as his private fiefdom, and he had a bat in his belfry about the civil rights and anti-war movements. Another part of the problem was the CIA. This was the pre-Church Commission CIA, when it was - at Nixon's behest - spying on Americans generally and particularly on people who opposed Nixon.

The FBI and CIA between 'em were spying on anyone Nixon and/or Hoover decided was an Enemy; using intimidation, extortion, entrapment and blackmail to destroy lives and reputations. The CIA and FBI were being used as political enforcers, against American citizens. The Patriot Act has pretty much wiped out Church Commission reforms of the CIA and the post-Hoover reforms of the FBI, and so once again they're being used for political purposes.

Anarch: I sympathize with the idea of national atonement, but it comes a-cropper in oh so many ways that I can't support the idea.

One: I have no use for naval gazing for its own sake. That quickly becomes less about apologizing for the past and more about self-indulgent guilt wallowing. It's a handy way of escaping having to think about what sins we as individuals have committed in our quotidian lives, by focusing instead on collective sins of the past none of us actually committed. Reflection without cost, in other words.

Two: there is no justice in visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons, esp. when "the fathers" were around one to three centuries ago, and many of the "sons" are people whose families didn't even live in this country during slavery and the Indian genocide. Punishing people for theoretical complicity in acts tht happened long before their birth is profoundly unjust - and, in fact, only perpetuates a cycle of grievance.

The only two countries I know of whose acts of national atonement were meaningful, useful and enabled them to get on with their national lives are Germany and South Africa. In both cases, the charges/complaints were specific and limited in what was being atoned for, against whom, and what recompense (if any) was demanded. And once it was done, it was done.

I don't see anything like that in the demands for compensation for slavery. On the contrary, I see a lot of scope creep. "Compensation for slavery" now includes "Compensation for slavery and for discrimination in general," and the set of "People who must atone for slavery" now includes "People who benefitted, however indirectly, from slavery and discrimination."

I don't support national wallowing in self-pitying guilt, and I certainly don't support extortion in the guise of expatiation.

[Anarch]

CaseyL: One: I have no use for naval gazing for its own sake. That quickly becomes less about apologizing for the past and more about self-indulgent guilt wallowing.

Nor I, but that's not the point. Part of the reason we're in such trouble today is that members of former administrations who indulged in, at best, questionable behavior were not adequately reprimanded or punished for that behavior. Administrations that should have been raked with a critical eye -- and found wanting -- have instead been lionized and held up as exemplars of executive authority. And as Katherine noted above, people tend to become acclimated to malignity (especially if there's a concerted effort to mask its nature or worse, rehabilitate its reputation) unless it is countered, and openly.

If that's too abstract, let me pick a specific example. Ask yourself this: do you think the present Bush Administration would be as capable in pursuing its goals, whatever the hell those might actually be, if the criminals in the Reagan Administration had actually been tried and convicted? If the nature of their, and by proxy our, crimes had been exposed? If we'd been forced to face up to who and what the Reagan Administration had supported?

Two: there is no justice in visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons, esp. when "the fathers" were around one to three centuries ago, and many of the "sons" are people whose families didn't even live in this country during slavery and the Indian genocide.

I'm not interested in material rectification here, CaseyL, if for no other reason than I too am horrifically queasy about the notion of inherited guilt. What I am interested in is ensuring that we remember how this nation was built, and on who, and how things went wrong. Not in a far-off cerebral way, the motley collection of "white guilt", national pride and mundane trivia that usually comprises such awareness, but a visceral, tangible understanding of the cruelty and anger with which our forefathers constructed this nation.

And why, you ask? It's not navel-gazing at all. It's so that we don't do it again. We can't learn from the past until we both remember and understand it. Right now we're not even past the first stage.

[The flip side, incidentally, is that we have to remember the nobility of our history, too, of the great ideas and the sacrifices that were made to create one of the greatest nations on Earth. As a nation, however, we're so damn good at that I usually don't bother mentioning it.]

I don't see anything like that in the demands for compensation for slavery. On the contrary, I see a lot of scope creep...

OK, I'm gonna stop you here since you're now having a conversation with somebody completely different. I've said nothing about compensation for slavery (see above) nor do I plan to. Ever.

What I will say is that your notion of atonement is far too limited. If I'd meant "material compensation for past wrong-doings", I'd've said so and called something different (probably reparations); as it is, I'm talking about something more abstract, almost spiritual.

Reduce this to the personal level for the moment: suppose, in a fit of pique, you really hurt someone you love. To the point where the relationship is permanently broken and the two of you never see each other again.* To atone for that act doesn't mean running after that person and apologizing profusely. Sure, that's nice; that's also not going to help. At best, you're making yourself feel better without materially changing your ways or the world around you. True atonement, IMO, consists of changing yourself so that you don't do that again; of helping out others who've been similarly hurt; of intervening to prevent others from hurting each other like that; and, from the subtle to the profound, letting your past failure constructively inform your future actions.

That's the kind of atonement I'm talking about for the US. Leave aside for the moment (forever, AFAIC) the notion of material reparations for our past wrongdoings; look instead to what we, as a nation, have done wrong and how we can prevent that sort of thing from happening in future. Let the words "Never Forget" inspire thoughts not just of the Holocaust but of our litany of wrong-doing as well: supporting Saddam Hussein, supporting Suharto, founding the School of the Americas, covering the assassination of Allende and so forth, not to mention the slaughtering of the Indians and the blight of slavery.** Let it inspire them not just so that we don't forget who we are and where we came from -- which, I agree, is perilously close to navel-gazing -- but also so that we don't do that again.

As Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I don't think that's strong enough. We remember some things quite well; we simply don't remember that they were bad, or we remember that they were bad but then don't use that memory to inform our actions in the present. If you'd prefer to use a different lexicon than that of atonement, feel free; on the essential point, however, I stand my ground.

* I hope that this requires intensive research on your part but, since you're an adult, I'm guessing probably not.

** It should go without saying, but probably doesn't, that one should also never forget the scale of the wrong-doing and who did them and why so that one can make meaningful comparisons between them. That's stage two, though, understanding; I'm just trying to get us over stage one, visceral remembrance.

[felixrayman]

domestic surveillance of dissident groups was routine and widespread under Nixon

And is under Bush. Nice own goal. When you are done savaging your own argument, do you have anything to say in support of it, or not?

[CaseyL]

felixrayman, if you think I was defending the current Administration, you must not have paid attention to a single comment I have ever made on this (or any other) site.

Further, if you think the surveillance that was done during the Nixon years wasn't worse than we have so far now, you must not have been paying attention at the time.

And if you think I meant to imply that all is well and sunny in these here United States, you must not have paid attention to the actual comment you were responding to. Because if you had paid attention, you would have noticed I said the surveillance was not YET as bad as it was under Nixon, and you would also have noticed I said that the Patriot Act had undone the Church Committee reforms.

And what the devil "own argument" are you talking about, that I was allegedly "savaging," anyway?

[bob mcmanus]

"if you think the surveillance that was done during the Nixon years wasn't worse than we have so far now"

Well, ya know, back then we had a real war going on; and Nixon had real enemies, people willing and able to do him political damage.

Not much nostalgia, really, it was a horrible time. Arguments were vicious, even sometimes violent, and the moderates were sometimes collateral damage(Metaphor alert!).

But thinking back, I don't think conservatives have changed that much, tho the issues have changed and there may be a few more around. They were a feisty crowd back then, too. Seems to be the liberals have changed a lot. Republicans may whine about bullies, but there aren't any lefties above bantamweight anymore. They all want be nice, even to Republicans...Truman and Meany and Johnson would laugh their asses off at today's Democrats.

And well, policywise, Nixon had his butt kicked on a daily basis by his own party, those to the left of him, unhappy about the war, those to right, unhappy about arms control and a host of other issues. A lot of it behind closed doors, some of it openly. Nixon had to make deals with Democrats, because they could give better offers than many in his own party.

DeLay and Hastert at least grumble on occasion; Frist and the Senators just say":How High?"

Yeah, it feels unbalanced; but it also feels decadent and pathetic, as if I was watching one of those history channel re-enactments. I don't know if anybody really cares anymore, we are just playing roles in a movie.

[Jesurgislac]

Charles: Au contraire, Jes. You're one of the worst offenders at skewing and mischaracterizing my positions. I've wasted too many minutes and hours countering your misrepresentations.

You do waste rather a lot of time trying to claim that you didn't say what you said, yes. Would be easier, if you now regret what you said (or didn't say) just to say you were sorry for it/you've changed your mind since, and move on.

That is another falsehood that you've trotted out, and it demonstrates how your second sentence has negated your first.

Charles, if you can link me to a post either here or on Redstate where you condemn the Bush administration for its treatment of prisoners, I'll apologize. To be the best of my recollection, while you have at times said you condemned the treatment of "detainees", you have at no time actually condemned the Bush administration for its human rights violations - the worst you have said about the Bush administration is that you think their behavior over this has been "dumb" or "impolitic". (I see that Dmbeaster confirms my recollection.) I may have got this wrong - it's possible that you can cite and quote some frank condemnation of Bush & Co that you have written. But I am not lying, and I will thank you not to accuse me of doing so without proof.

(In fact, you have passionately condemned others (Newsweek, Amnesty International) for condemning the Bush administration for its human rights violations.)

[tom-e-lee]

So who decides what is cruel, inhuman and degrading? Some federal judge in a safe courtroom? Politicians?

I think prosecuting lots of soldiers is a really great way to fight the war on terror.

Like duh.

[CharleyCarp]

These guys are laying a lot on the line.

TEL, no one said it was going to be easy. It's clear enough that we can't kill our way to victory here. it's going to have to be won with a combination of hard and soft power.

[bernard Yomtov]

So who decides what is cruel, inhuman and degrading? Some federal judge in a safe courtroom? Politicians?

Aren't courts supposed to decide whether laws have been broken? Or do we all just get to judge our own actions?

"After carefully reviewing the evidence, I've decided I'm not guilty." That makes sense.

Torturing people hurts the war on terror, and prosecuting those who do it, and authorize it, helps to mitigate the negative effects.

[Sulla]

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound? Also in skimming the 120 comments I didn’t see any taxi cab driver references, have we moved passed this fixation?

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: I didn’t see any taxi cab driver references, have we moved pass this fixation?

As far as I know everyone else who posted on this thread is in agreement that beating innocent people to death is a bad idea and that those responsible for beating Dilawar deserve to be tried for murder; and those who decided that the soldiers responsible deserved to get away with murder, deserve (at least) to be discharged. I still haven't moved on past that notion. Have you?

[Gromit]

Sure, Jes, but we never hear about all the innocent cab drivers who weren't beaten to death. Why is that?

[liberal japonicus]

Also in skimming the 120 comments I didn’t see any taxi cab driver references, have we moved passed this fixation?

Ahh, the old 'they won't bother any of the people I hang out with, so what me worry?' syndrome. Certainly helps to show those green nodes where they stand.

[Sulla]

I didn’t see it held up as the chief example of the war on terror and was wondering why that was.

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: I didn’t see it held up as the chief example of the war on terror and was wondering why that was.

You feel that US soldiers beating an innocent man to death is the chief example of the "war on terror"? Or you're just outraged that Dilawar's murder is no longer right at the top of everyone's minds, and wanted to remind us of how American soldiers behave in Afghanistan?

[Sulla]

I was hoping to join the group tut-tut about how morally superior we are.

[Charles Bird]

I am sorry that you, once again, are unable to write the simple words that you condemn the Bush administration for its torture policies.

The Bush administration is included in that very condemnation, dm.

You do waste rather a lot of time trying to claim that you didn't say what you said, yes.

And you waste a lot of time claiming positions that I do not support, Jes.

(In fact, you have passionately condemned others (Newsweek, Amnesty International) for condemning the Bush administration for its human rights violations.)

But see, Jes, I didn't use the word "condemn" when I criticized Newsweek, AI, etc., either. So again, you don't know what you're talking about.

[bernard Yomtov]

Excuse me Sulla, but do you have a point you'd like to make?

[Sulla]

Just the same point I always make that the howling about this issue won’t ever pierce the sound proof padding surrounding the ObWi echo chamber.

[edddie]

Sulla, you could have answered Bernard's question just as accurately, and a lot more succinctly, by just saying "No."

[dutchmarbel]

edddie: I am always slightly suspicious if people use the name of massmurdering dictators as a nickname on the internet.

[edddie]

dutchmarbel, I would be suspicious of that too. Who is doing that? By the way, edddie =/= idi.

[bernard Yomtov]

Edddie,

It's not you.

[Jesurgislac]

Charles Bird: And you waste a lot of time claiming positions that I do not support, Jes.

Nope. I just like to point out the facts.

You've never written a post condemning the Bush administration's pro-torture policies. (If you had, I assume you would link to it to refute me.)

You have written many posts condemning organizations that have criticized the Bush administration's pro-torture policies.

So again, you don't know what you're talking about.

So again, you waste time and wordage trying to claim what isn't so. Why you bother, I don't know: if you really do feel about the Bush administration's policies on torture the way you felt about Newsweek when they ran the story about US soldiers desecrating the Koran*, or about Amnesty International when they pointed out that the Bush administration has set up an archipelago of gulags**, wouldn't it be easier and more satisfying to write one of your notorious rants about the Bush administration?

*which proved to be true, a fact I do not recall your ever acknowledging after your rants claiming it was a lie.

**which you wasted a vast amount of time denying.

[Jesurgislac]

Correction:

1. You've never written a post condemning the Bush administration's pro-torture policies. should read:

condemning the Bush administration for its pro-torture policies

2. if you really do feel about the Bush administration's policies on torture should read:

if you really do feel about the Bush administration for its policies on torture

Apologies to Charles: the original version of those comments made it sound as if he supported the Bush administration's policies on torture (which he has made clear he does not, if only for pragmatic reasons), rather than - as certainly appears - supporting the Bush administration.

Charles is, I believe, a Bush administration partisan who refuses to condemn the Bush administration regardless of what it does, and even when he does not (as he says) support what it does.

[CharleyCarp]

I mentioned this in a comment a few days ago. It's not surprising to me that the reporter doesn't want to look at the shady lawyering by the government here -- the main story is news enough.

It's too bad that the reporter wasn't just a bit more aggressive with the government. The Guantanamo base straddles the bay. The Windward side is where all the main base stuff is -- stores, movie theater, housing, and, at some remove from the rest, the prison. The Leeward side has run-down housing, seemingly inhabited by civilian workers, a sad little galley, and the airfield. When the lawyers go there, we are permitted to travel unescorted on the Leeward side, where we stay in the Combined Bachelor's Quarters, for $12 per night. (The Ritz Carlton it ain't). We are always met on the Windward side by our minders, who make sure that we do not go anywhere we are not supposed to go, or talk to anyone we are not supposed to talk to.

Anyway, any one who has been to the base can see that the non-combatants could be housed on the Leeward side without substantial risk -- there's room in the CBQ -- at least until someone can find a home for them.

[CharleyCarp]

Trying again, I mentioned this in a comment a few days ago. It's not surprising to me that the reporter doesn't want to look at the shady lawyering by the government here -- the main story is news enough.

It's too bad that the reporter wasn't just a bit more aggressive with the government. The Guantanamo base straddles the bay. The Windward side is where all the main base stuff is -- stores, movie theater, housing, and, at some remove from the rest, the prison. The Leeward side has run-down housing, seemingly inhabited by civilian workers, a sad little galley, and the airfield. When the lawyers go there, we are permitted to travel unescorted on the Leeward side, where we stay in the Combined Bachelor's Quarters, for $12 per night. (The Ritz Carlton it ain't). We are always met on the Windward side by our minders, who make sure that we do not go anywhere we are not supposed to go, or talk to anyone we are not supposed to talk to.

Anyway, any one who has been to the base can see that the non-combatants could be housed on the Leeward side without substantial risk -- there's room in the CBQ -- at least until someone can find a home for them.

[Sulla]

“Sulla, you could have answered Bernard's question just as accurately, and a lot more succinctly, by just saying "No."”

If you don’t march in lockstep with the ObWi peanut gallery one has no point- got it.

[Slartibartfast]

No, Sulla, I think they're suggesting that you're being oblique to the point of incomprehensibility. It'd help, in other words, if you'd dial the snark down and simply say what you mean.

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla, you're the Obsidian Wing peanut gallery, as much as anyone is.

[Jonas Cord]

Sorry to have dropped out of the conversation, but I thought this was rather relevant to some points of previous discussion - from the corrections of the New York Times, emphasis mine:

An article on Saturday about a federal judge's order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release.

Journalists, god bless 'em, are sadly not the most knowledgeable folks around.

[Nell Lancaster]

'They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release' because they tricked the judge into agreeing not to issue the order until they "completed the video processing" on July 22.

See this June 19 Hearst article [requires bugmenot or registration] for the fine print of this DoD maneuver. Jonas, spare us your condescension about journalists. This evasive maneuver was reported but its significance not understood until the DoD sprung the second half of the trap (the new motion resisting release.) Key passage bolded by me below:

Pentagon prepares to air more Abu Ghraib images

Federal judge asked to extend June 30 deadline to July 22.

By ERIC ROSENBERG
Hearst Newspapers

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is preparing to release another batch of photos showing prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, a step that is likely to renew criticism of the U.S.

...A federal judge in New York on June 2 ordered the government to prepare to release the rest of the Darby photos in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act.

In issuing his order, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein of New York City gave the government until June 30 to get the photos ready by removing information in the pictures that might identify the victims. The judge said the photographs "are the best evidence the public can have of what occurred" at Abu Ghraib.

David Kelley, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, has asked Hellerstein for an extension - until July 22 - to get all the video and still pictures ready for release.

In a June 10 letter to Hellerstein, Kelley said the government would have the photographs ready by June 30. But "in order to address all of the responsive Darby images at one time," he

Clearly, the Pentagon was setting up for this maneuver ever since the original ruling for releasing the images.

[Nell]

Dang. the bold tags eliminated the key text, which is:

he requested that Hellerstein not order the release of any until the video processing is completed July 22.

[Nell]

In comments at The Poor Man, I've listed the torture-related amendments to the DoD bill that are under consideration. Please look them over and call your Senators today (Wednesday, 27 July).