The Dog That Did Not Bark
Very briefly indeed - because, damn it all, I actually am going to attend a VP debate-watching party - I think that Jane may indeed be right about evidence yet to come, but that she also may be missing or understating the importance of what old Sherlock identified as the case of the dog that did NOT bark, and thus by indirection clinched the matter. I have to say that the single most shocking thing to me, not about the torture but the cover-up, was the calm admission that Langley had destroyed so many interrogation tapes. Whence came the permission for THAT? Who was present when it happened? Everybody understands that the deliberate destruction of pre-trial evidence is either prima facie evidence in itself or at least a very strong suggestion of guilt if not by suggestio falsi then at the very least suppressio veri, if that's the distinction I am looking for. In other words, only banana republics burn or shred state papers when lawsuits are impending.
As always,
Christopher
Spoliation of evidence, is a growing problem.
The courts have recently given large punitive awards,
October 2, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the same Chritipher Hitchens, Nation writer, extrotsykist drunk, neocon convert, who bacame a Bush disciple, that helped us into the Iraq war? And he is complaining about the destruction of evidence of war crimes. What did he expect? Of course war is one series of war crimes. That is part of this war. And the big crime is the coverup? Face it fool, the crime is the war. Please go away Chris. You are not welcome here.
October 3, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems quite a few war supporters are back peddling and recreating themselves these days. That's been going on for a while now. I'm sure some have had a change of heart. Do some others just want avoid being discredited so they are able to remain influential to promote more of the same that's wrapped up in a different package?
October 3, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Syvanen, I also disagree with Christopher about the Iraq war, but he is a man of high intelligence who can almost always be relied on to say something illuminating. Of course some people will find his comments disagreeable, someone will always find any given opinion disagreeable. That is the nature of discourse and debate, and it is no reason to chase a person from the scene. Case in point? I find your comment disagreeable. So there. Jeez, talk about your neo-cons . . .hey, I know, let's suppress dissenting opinion. Yeah, that sounds good.
Welcome to TPM Chris, good to have you. I found your debate with the Rabbi Shmuley Boteach most entertaining. If only the Biden-Palin debate had been so brutally one-sided . . .
October 3, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find Mr. Hitchens infuriating. He is smart and courageous, however much he may choose to disagree with me. I welcome his thoughts because, through the years, I have come to know that his opinions are carefully and intelligently considered. He doesn't really do sound bites or stick to talking points. Arrogant? Drunk? I don't know. He's most definitely a serious thinker, and shouldn't be dismissed. I loathe when I agree with him. Would I want to have a beer with Chris? Nope. Do I respect his thoughts? You bet.
October 3, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's already enough evidence to hang Bush and Cheney for war crimes. A little more or less doesn't really matter.
It's more of a problem that so many Democrats ignore the mountain of evidence that's already on the record, and complain about a mole-hill that may be missing.
October 3, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rarely post, but I have been reading at TPM for several years. TPM is for me a primary source of news and political discussion.
I was pleased to see Mr. Hitchens commenting here. He is amusing and insightful, according to his lights.
An ex-trotskyite? Oh dear, mustn't have one of those in here!
October 3, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Hitchens, I am not here to demand your retreat, I am here to invite you to further your own inner discourse wrt the small matter of "the War". What you and the other war-mongers pushed for was not an "opinion" as one of the posters described, it was an act of aggression and violence against another country that did not in any way act in a manner that would merit UN sanctions, not to mention an invasion of epic "Shock and Awe" proportion. In other words, the WAR IS ITSELF A CRIME. You advocated for a CRIME, a Crime Against Humanity. I sincerely hope that you are now writing in atonement, you should because you, along with all the other war advocates, have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi CIVILIANS on your hands.
Till this day, I don't think either you or many of those who did not suffer directly as a result of this war comprehend the magnitude of this tragedy, of the unspeakable mass death and detsruction visited upon a whole nation and people, to prevent the hypothetical, unspeakable crime against humanity of mass death and destruction their one leader was supposedly plotting against Americans. For a blind, God-is-my-co-pilot simpleton like George Bush, it is perhaps possible to attribute his insouciance to ignorance. You, however, are a scholar of politics and history, a journalist and opinion leader by vocation. You have no excuse.
The "J'accuse" after the fact does nothing except to mollify our conscience. Going after those CIA goons who destroyed interrogation tapes after advocating the killing of hundreds of thousands of defenseless men, women and children - it is akin to hanging the pickpockets after an entire town has been sacked, raped and set afire.
http://counterpunch.com/blum10032008.html
When is a Holocaust Not a Holocaust?
By WILLIAM BLUM
October 4, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Qwerty, last I heard, Mr. Hitchens still supports the war in Iraq, and still believes the US should use it's military power to shape world politics. He isn't writing in atonement, but what a victory for "our side" that would be, eh? He is, however, in agreement that torture, suppression of evidence, etc, are a bad idea. Dare we be so lucky that he sees them as War Crimes? Let's hope so.
It does no good to try and convince Mr. Hitchens that war itself is a crime, because that is just not true. You will never convince anyone that when the United States declared war on Germany in '41 that that was a crime. Nor is it necessarily a crime to use force, when all else fails, to end or shorten a war that is already raging; though the danger in either case is that War Crimes may be committed once that war is engaged.
Mr. Hitchens' position is that the United States has not only a right, but a duty, to use it's military power to depose contrary governments, even if that means a "first strike". Which is frankly absurd. That is a crime. To force, through killing, our ideals and way of life onto another society, is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. The false assumptions that lead to that position boggle the mind. First, which is outrageous, you must assume that our ideals and way of life are the best. That is, of course, the mentality of every war monger in history, shared by such wonderful people as the Kahns, the Caesars, the Kahmer Rouge, Hitler, the Catholic Church (though, to their credit, they're not as bad as they used to be), etc. Second, you must assume that the target society is ready for an American style government. Now, I don't think cultural relativity has any merits, but there is such a thing as cultural diversity and a cultural mindset, and not all of those cultural mindsets can accept or implement something such as Democracy or Capitalism. We are seeing that now in Iraq. The thing about democracy is that there needs to first be a fundamental willingness to, at the very least, accept the existence -and the right to exist - of contrary modes of though. As is clear in Iraq, there are two sides and neither believes the other even has the right to exist! You can not have a democracy under those conditions, as is now painfully obvious. That is not to say that they won't be able to accept an/or implement it someday, but to think they can do so now is just foolish. That is where Mr. Hitchens' error lies, that is where he must be shown he is wrong.
October 4, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Random, see my reply at 11.06am below...server glitch.
October 6, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Opps, sorry about italics at the end of the last post, forgot to close the tag.
I also want to point out to Mr. Hitchens the terrible precedent that is set by the use of American military power to force our values on other nations. To wit, if America has the right to force our values on another (obviously weaker) nation, does that then give other powerful governments that same right, also? China, for example, obviously favors it's own system and they are very powerful. Do they, then, have the right to invade other nations, depose the current rulers, and impose Chinese style government there? If no, then please explain why America has that right but China does not.
Mr. Hitchens' assumption that the American system is better, indeed maybe the best, is flatly contradicted each and every time we use our military to invade another nation with the purpose of instating our own system there. It is akin to the hypocrisy of killing an abortion doctor to save the life of a fetus, and it mirrors the my-way-is-correct-and-I-will-force-that-on-you-whether-you-like-it-or-not mentality of the Fundamentalist movement that Mr. Hitchens fights against so eloquently (and, might I add, peacefully).
October 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fools, Mr.Hitch that's you, are backpedaling as fast as their fat little legs will allow.
We can't tolerate it. No mercy. The boatman is calling, Mr. Hitch. You're no longer needed. Goodbye.
October 5, 2008 3:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to see this is a minor thread here at the TPM world. Chris deserves no more. It sounds like he is now crawling back to his original progressive readership (I will admit to being entertained and amused by many of his essays in the past). I am not impressed with his attempts to ingratiate himself with us by denouncing the coverup of war crimes, but not the crimes themselves for which he was such fervant advocate.
Above I suggested he should be shunned. I think a good historical precedent is what happened to Ezra Pound. Of course, Chris is no Ezra Pound, he is a very good essayist that has perfected typical British witticisms in his essays that many Americans find enlightening. Sort of like PBS hiring newsreaders from Britain who sound so refreshing to our ears. But getting back to Ezra. Now here was someone who was a true word smith. But someone with hideous political judgement, such that he embraced Italian fascism and supported Mussolini. After WWII he became a pariah in America though most intellectuals were abe to accept that he wrote some good stuff in his time. But he was still excluded from polite company.
We should recognize Chris in the same way. Yes you have been clever from time to time. But your ideas have gone no where and in your oportunistic careerism you supported war crimes. Until, you can come to grips with that problem please go away. We don't want you here. Your complaining about the cover up to those crimes is not sufficient.
October 5, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The major issue that faces anti-racist activists, world-wide, is what stance to take on the ‘new’ war in Iraq. The ‘old’ war has now ended, so it’s only of historical interest and that’s fine for those who are interested. But anti-racist activists have to address the ‘new’ war to the extent that it has a racial or sectarian underpinning, and it overwhelmingly is so underpinned.
Who the political representatives of the Iraqi masses are has now been conclusively established. It is now clear that the political leadership is not considered by the vast majority to be ‘collaborators’ or any other such term of abuse.
Twelve odd millions of the Iraqi peoples’ voted in an undisputed, free and fair election process ending in all important proportional representation. These political representatives do speak for their constituents, be they Kurds, Arabs (either Shia or Sunni), Turkomen, Assyrians, or various Christians and atheists. The various peoples’ have voted under a constitution that they approved, and that has established the formal equality of all the peoples’, and both sexes, before the law.
A legitimate Iraqi government is now established and this government still calls for continued military and economic assistance.
Local and foreign racists and sectarians of the most vicious kinds from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and so forth together with residual Baathists (with a shockingly racist history) now wage their vicious racist war against the Iraqi peoples’ who are trying to build a country based on their non-racist constitution.
Anti-racist activists, irrespective of what our stance has been up-to-date, now have to come to terms with the new reality. It is as profound a turnaround for some as was the ending of the America First movement after 07/12/1942.
The problem is that current anti war commenters are blind to the real reason the U.S. ruling elite decided to go to war.
Bush is no lefty because he is waging this war in the interests of his class, and it is only incidentally in the interests of the oppressed peoples’ in the Middle East.
He has become a progressive-right-winger because history thrust greatness upon him. He asked the big questions that had to be asked, after 9/11.
What more can they do to us?
...Well, Mr. President they will, if not stopped, eventually get hold of a nuke and destroy Washington or some other city.
What strategy must we adopt to defeat them?
Mr. President we must set down policies to turn every country in the world into a modern (bourgeois) democracy. If all countries look, and smell like Sweden and France, we will have won.
The world needs sewerage systems for the smell, and industrialization for the sewerage systems; it needs education for the industrialization, and it needs basic bourgeois political freedoms to permit the education.
We must stop doing what we have been doing for the whole post WW2 period. We must reverse all our old policies.
These mosquitoes are attacking us because we caused a swamp in the Middle East which breeds them! We must drain that swamp, and then there will be no more mosquitoes.
Mr. President there is no other way of winning this war…. (At least that is what I would tell him if I was in the war cabinet)
If you want to think more about the type of issues that I am bringing up then go to
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/
and have a look at the Draining the swamp thread in the forum, or democracy was intended for Iraq.
Of cause the war was 'illegal' laws are created by revolutions revolutions are not created by laws. Saddam was the lawfull Tyrant of Iraq and overthrowing tyranny is illegal, as is every revolution until that revoltion establishes its law. The UN now recognises the Iraqi government that tried and hanged the Tyrant Saddam!
History lessons about how the US ruling class had to be tricked into a war of liberation with lies is not relevant for anti racist forces who have to deal with the current realities anyway.
The situation is now one of complete collapse of the anti war 'progressive' position because we are dealing with a new war!
Progressives must get behind the masses of the brave Iraqi people that turned out to vote for political representation and deal with those representatives in a respectful non racists manner.
People who continue to be anti war are avoiding the fact that the Kurds (about 20%) and the Shia (about 60%) used to be under the rule of the racist Arab Sunni tyranny. That is 80% of the Iraqi population let alone the democratically minded Sunni Arabs who have been liberated.
There is no other way to win the so called war on terror than to spread bourgeois democracy across the whole planet. Doing things in the old way, that is, since WW2, spreading repression and terror throughout the world is what has failed and those old discredited policies have to be junked like the garbage they are and always were.
Pretending that millions of Iraqis did not bravely vote and elect legitimate political representatives is a racist joke. This voting happened.
And to not notice that the Zionists are being defeated and withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank (on the way to being totally pushed out of the West Bank) is peculiar.
Syria has been forced to get it's troops out of Lebanon and the democratic movement is stirring across the region. But anti-war 'progressives' don’t notice and think that 80% of the Iraqi people are being defrauded of legitimate representation.
If you don’t give a toss about democracy or liberation or the Middle East, fine.
But understand this; it is all being done because it is the only way to defeat the enemy of all modernity that dramatically came to your attention as of 9/11.
The swamp that breeds the mosquitoes must be drained, and the old U.S. policies, that created and supported the existence of that swamp has to be abandoned.
We are not going to just keep killing an endless stream of mosquitoes for ever as people that cannot think strategically would have us do. Nor are we going to pretend that these mosquitoes do not need destroying. They do!!
October 5, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops 1941 of course!
October 5, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I cannot forgive so easily. The writing was on the wall - couldn't be more obvious at the time. Christopher can enjoy his special place in hell next to Tom Wolfe, who couldn't wait to laugh at the liberals departing the country in 2004 (all so his dinner conversations in Manhattan wouldn't be so tedious). I'll leave the gracious vivere in pace stuff to those who can handle the bile. For me, not yet.
October 5, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Syvanen -
I must take exception. Hitchens should be welcomed wherever matters of importance are discussed. He is often wrong and intentionally provacative but he is never dull. He is a brilliant political pugilist. We who disagree with him should welcome the chance for a good clean fight.
Nice to have him on the right side of this issue.
October 6, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Random, It's really good of you to perceive and accept the ideological roots in Mr Hitchens' thinking. It reflects on a purer mind and higher belief in the ideals of mankind.
Me, I'm far more cynical, call me a realist if you will - I have no doubt in my mind that this war was waged for the same old reasons wars were *always* waged by empires, for hegemony, power, conquer, seizing resources, transfer of wealth from colonies to Empire and strategic geopolitical positioning. The project - Operation Iraqi Liberation of OIL.
The NeoCons are frankly not the smartest people to come to occupy positions of power, they are to Politics what today's Lehman Bros. and Enron Executives are to Finance and Business. Their media lackeys? A whole food-chain lower.
It is abundantly clear by now that they KNEW there were no WMDs, they had only Curveball as their pathetic little fig leaf, but they never had much to cover in the first place. However, they needed both the fog of ideological propaganda and the fig leaf of "intelligence" to both obfuscate and scare the average American into supporting the invasion and colonization of another country. Why didn't they go the usual route of getting the CIA in to support a Colored Revolution and install their Puppet, ahem, Democracy, like they do almost everywhere else? I guess it wasn't so easy as Saddam had absolute control over the country. Iraq, however, was low-hanging fruit.
In the end, like Afghanistan bled Russia, Iraq is a costly project after all beyond the wildly optimistic talk of "Cakewalk" and the ridiculous tag of $50 billion projected.
Till this day, they're still putting out propaganda about the "surge" and about how much good "Democracy" and the "Purple Thumb" had been for the Iraqi population, or at least for the half that's left. Presumably for the other half, Hitchens and that "mosquitoes swatter" neocon Patrick Muldowny further down have blithely decided for them that their lives are a small price to pay for the Greater Co-Propsperity Sphere hitched to the fortunes of America.
October 6, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Oops 1941 of course!"
Or do you mean "1984"? Your post is so ridiculously Orwellian with copious borrowings from the "Ministry of Truth" that it risks being derided for plagiarism.
"Progressives must get behind the masses of the brave Iraqi people that turned out to vote for political representation and deal with those representatives in a respectful non racists manner."
Voting in a DEMOCRATIC MANNER, you know, like VOTING UNDER OCCUPATION, VOTING AT GUNPOINT, VOTING IN BOOTHS GUARDED BY A FOREIGN ARMY, VOTING FOR THE POLITICAL LEADERS PRE0APPROVED BY YOUR AMERICAN OVERLORDS.
That's what we Progressives ought to applaud. RIGHT.
The rest reeks so much, I won't even bother to repeat the stench.
October 6, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hitchens is more than anything a raging HYPOCRITE:
FACT: Hitchens wrote an entire book arguing that Kissinger is a war criminal.
FACT: Kissinger is an advisor to ONLY ONE candidate this year. We can assume that he would have a role in consulting or advising a McCain administration.
If Hitchens really loathed Kissinger as much as he claims, we could assume that he would denounce McCain every chance he gets. But most of Hitchen's hitpieces in 2008 have been swipes at Obama. Ironically, Hitchens has all but endorsed McCain and thus is campaigning to get Henry his next gig!
I guess Hitchens is a bit of a coward. He rails against Kissinger for years, and when he gets a chance to really do something about it -- excoriate Mccain and Palin for hiring and associating with him -- he sits on his hands.
Christopher Hitchens: Coward and hypocrite.
October 6, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Qwerty, Did occupation troops bring bourgeois democracy to Japan Germany and Italy? Did they bring democracy to the Confederate States? Why do yo say occupation troops have not brought the same rvolution to Iraq?
I am in no way a neocon. But flinging your attack names about is just shooting the messenger and refusing to deal with the message.
There is no way that you would describe yourself as a supporter of Baathism so what is to be done NOW? You do not support market place bombers so how are the Iraqi people now led by their own government to be supported in fighting them?
How can you nick oil without installing puppets?
you say 'The rest reeks so much, I won't even bother to repeat the stench.' I say you are running away from an issue to difficult for you to deal with. Your position is to abandon the Iraqi peoples to the most reactionary forces on the planet. Fine. Just don't think you can get away with calling yourself a progressive while you do it.
October 8, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink