Simple JUSTICE - Not a witch hunt
It's time to restore JUSTICE. The Department of Justice. The meaning of Justice. And the carrying out of justice - which includes Habeas Corpus and the right to counsel, innocent till proven guilty and trial only after careful investigation and judicious prosecution.
True Justice does not involve a witch hunt. Nor does it involve a media circus. It need not distract the country - for years or even days. It is the quiet, boring gathering of evidence. The tedious and painstaking sifting of information, attention to the law, and the filing of briefs, the briefing of grand juries, the slow, methodical plodding of quiet feet on the well-trodden road of our judicial system.
There really is no way to argue against justice. And We the People have every right to demand it. We have every right to demand redress. And we will only know our justice system has returned to its roots and its values, once we know that it turns once again for us and not against us.
I will continue to call for Justice.
I will not call for a witch hunt. For that way is no justice. That is a straw man, a fool's errand.
The sad thing is that even Justice will not necessarily bring all the crimes to light or adequately address our anguish, our horror, our shame - at what has been done in our name, against our will. Likely a few signature crimes will be enough. Maybe only one. Because a case for war crimes need not indict for every war crime. Just as a mass murderer need not be tried for every murder. But these crimes cry out for Justice. National and international law and even common decency cry out for Justice.
It will take a long time to remake the Justice Department - to erase the injustices perpetrated in the name of expediency and dirty politics and cowardly fear. I have no doubt that the Obama administration, under the able direction of those he has appointed to the Justice Department, will be able to restore that Department to its former place as a beacon of hope for those especially who lack the power and influence to advocate for themselves.
But we cannot move forward unless we insist that Justice look backward. Backward to redress crimes against people who lacked power and influence, who, being totally alone in cells without food, warmth, clothing, sleep, or common human decency were bereft of every legal protection, guaranteed under our laws and by international law.
Put yourself in the place of just one of those poor souls - in Guantanamo or god knows where. Alone. Totally alone. Cold. Hungry. Wet. Unable to escape the cacophony of noise or subjected to an absence of sound, sight, touch, smell. Totally alone. Without human companionship. Unable to call for help. Or any Justice.
We cannot hold our heads up till we allow Justice to take its slow, plodding, exacting course. And no amount of fixing the Justice Department will suffice if Justice is not served.
Whether justice will be served via a Special Prosecutor or some other Prosecutorial method is up to the new Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel. I leave it to the wheels of Justice to decide. But decide they must. And transparency must be served as well. I await the public notification of that. It must come soon. And it surely must come.
Or I, for one, will not let this go. NOT EVER.
True Justice does not involve a witch hunt. Nor does it involve a media circus. It need not distract the country - for years or even days. It is the quiet, boring gathering of evidence. The tedious and painstaking sifting of information, attention to the law, and the filing of briefs, the briefing of grand juries, the slow, methodical plodding of quiet feet on the well-trodden road of our judicial system.
There really is no way to argue against justice. And We the People have every right to demand it. We have every right to demand redress. And we will only know our justice system has returned to its roots and its values, once we know that it turns once again for us and not against us.
I will continue to call for Justice.
I will not call for a witch hunt. For that way is no justice. That is a straw man, a fool's errand.
The sad thing is that even Justice will not necessarily bring all the crimes to light or adequately address our anguish, our horror, our shame - at what has been done in our name, against our will. Likely a few signature crimes will be enough. Maybe only one. Because a case for war crimes need not indict for every war crime. Just as a mass murderer need not be tried for every murder. But these crimes cry out for Justice. National and international law and even common decency cry out for Justice.
It will take a long time to remake the Justice Department - to erase the injustices perpetrated in the name of expediency and dirty politics and cowardly fear. I have no doubt that the Obama administration, under the able direction of those he has appointed to the Justice Department, will be able to restore that Department to its former place as a beacon of hope for those especially who lack the power and influence to advocate for themselves.
But we cannot move forward unless we insist that Justice look backward. Backward to redress crimes against people who lacked power and influence, who, being totally alone in cells without food, warmth, clothing, sleep, or common human decency were bereft of every legal protection, guaranteed under our laws and by international law.
Put yourself in the place of just one of those poor souls - in Guantanamo or god knows where. Alone. Totally alone. Cold. Hungry. Wet. Unable to escape the cacophony of noise or subjected to an absence of sound, sight, touch, smell. Totally alone. Without human companionship. Unable to call for help. Or any Justice.
We cannot hold our heads up till we allow Justice to take its slow, plodding, exacting course. And no amount of fixing the Justice Department will suffice if Justice is not served.
Whether justice will be served via a Special Prosecutor or some other Prosecutorial method is up to the new Attorney General, in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel. I leave it to the wheels of Justice to decide. But decide they must. And transparency must be served as well. I await the public notification of that. It must come soon. And it surely must come.
Or I, for one, will not let this go. NOT EVER.
Advertisement
When cries for "justice" start with a presumption of guilt what we have is a witch hunt. We need to understand going into this process that the answers may not be so black and white. That questions of quilt and innocence may require the taking down of a whole host of complicit politicians who abdicated their Constitutional responsibilities.
We must look into what happened these last eight years honestly and without rancor, but we must be willing to accept the outcome of that investigation - even if it determines that no laws were broken or that crimes were given legitimacy by the cowardly acts of a Congress not held accountable by the people. We must also understand that more than half the country probably doesn't see it as a matter of crimes having been committed. The continuing division of the electorate makes matters of guilt and innocence a much more rocky path than would otherwise be found in a court of law.
At the end of the day, these crimes (and many, many others along the path of American history) were committed in our name with our full approval and complicity, if only by our silence or inability to turn out and vote twice a year, every two years. To really achieve justice, we must also be willing to take responsibility for the part we played and acknowledge the structural problems that make this sort of thing possible.
Like many generations before us, moving forward and achieving great things requires us to swallow medicine that would otherwise be intolerable because we are at least partially responsible for the government we condemn.
Thomas Paine said it best in Common Sense:
January 21, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice delayed is justice denied. It is up to the Justice Dept to pursue this. You seem to presume nothing has happened. We have statements that torture occurred by no less than a judge.
January 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I presume nothing is true until I know all the facts. Seems to be a justifiable manner in which to live my life. It seems a better process than jumping to conclusions ahead of a full accounting.
If Congress passes laws making "torture" legal or abrogating some of our responsibilities under certain treaties, then no laws were broken no matter how immoral the act may be or how much my conscience is offended. I have worked hard this last year to divorce my ideology from my ideals.
I don't want to be too disappointed if the Bush Junta was smart enough to cover their tracks. I also don't believe prosecuting them is worth dividing the country more than it has already been these last forty years. Moving forward and succeeding as a nation may in fact require inhuman powers of forgiveness on the part of many progressives.
This may be a moment where "justice" delayed delivers for more benefits to our country than justice delivered.
January 21, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice is blind. To call for justice is to call for it's slow, steady pursuit of as much truth as can be ascertained.
I'm calling for justice.
January 21, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
its - not it's...
But justice, for sure.
January 21, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as liberals can keep a presumption of innocence going into the process, I am sure that conservatives will view the resulting proceedings as being motivated by justice. Otherwise, what we will have is more division and distraction at the very moment we need unity and purpose.
January 21, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where in the blog did it call for anything other than a lawful process?
All I'm calling for is that the Dept of Justice do its work. It's quiet, methodical work. I am absolutely insisting that the process not be some kind of public media circus, but instead must be carried out quietly, behind the scenes - with the exception that there be transparency that "something" has been initiated.
I want nothing less than blind Justice herself, with her scales in her hand.
January 21, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to imply that you were, only that certain turns of phrases imply you have made up your mind.
In fact, the very last sentence in the blog says you will never let it go. Is that really true? What if the Justice Department determines that no laws were actually broken? If what actually happens as a result is that we learn what laws need to be undone vice who is going to prison? Will you still not let it go? If not, then justice is not what is being called for.
I am simply offering what may be a different point of view than that normally found in the choir. I figured you would appreciate feedback on places where the "other side" might not understand where you are coming from, even if they agree with the underlying principle.
We see things from two very different perspectives in this country. A handicap that isn't likely to disappear over night, no matter who is president.
January 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will never let this go until I am certain that DoJ is pursuing an investigation. How they do it matters not. But they must pursue one. That's all I expect. And we must be informed that such a judicial and judicious investigation has been ordered.
I am satisfied to leave it to the Justice Dept. I assume that once the public is notified of some type of Special Prosecutor or whatever they want to call it, that we will hear no more until such an investigation has been concluded.
I am free to call something torture if I want to, but you may have noticed that I did not even use that word once in the blog. Not once.
I would be very upset if any investigation operated like a witch hunt. That is not justice. And you will admit, I hope, that even my title was chose in view of that end. Simple Justice. In my first paragraph I noted a presumption of innocence etc.
The Dept of Justice must be free to do its work. But it must do its work. Obama himself wants a government "that works."
January 21, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. As I suspected, we have no quarrel on this issue.
January 21, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see little agreement here myself. But I can clearly see the import of this blog to you. It encourages me to keep on this.
January 21, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Therein lies the essential conundrum for this country. Even when "conservatives" and "liberals" agree on what needs to be done, they can't agree on how to do it. I suspect we will be working through this handicap for the entirety of Barack's two very successful terms in office.
January 21, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lots of platitudes there. I just want investigators to roll up their sleeves and get to work. I'm not asking if they're liberal or conservative. Patrick Fitzgerald would suit me just fine!
January 21, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't speaking of the investigations themselves, just the tone used when calling for them. You said there was little agreement that you could, while I see mostly agreement even if we approach it from two different directions. That was really what I was commenting on.
January 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're trying to make it look as if we're in agreement. There's a bit of agreement only is what I'm saying.
January 21, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 22, 2009 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it does distract us, I don't foresee that happening for years. A thorough investigation will likely take years.
Most of a trial will likely be so boring with details that many people will tune out.
We'll have to see how this plays out. Sounds like you're assuming this will happen. I hope your prediction is right.
January 22, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you miss the last 8 years entirely?
Conservatives don't ever consider anything to be just if they don't like it. They're the biggest hypocrites on earth! They excoriate gay activity by Senator Craig but the highly illegal, long time use of prostitutes by Sen. Vittert is okay as long as he says he has asked the Lord for forgiveness. Please! There's nothing that can be done to satisy those people. Nixon was given every benefit of the doubt and treated more than fairly. They still are outraged at what happened to him (and he got off scott free!). They think Oliver North who was a rogue (engaged in and convicted of multiple felonies on the part of the Reagan White House) got picked on! They think we are under no obligation to observe international law unless we like the law and it favors us. They think the UN, which we created, is a plot against us. They think They think CNN is liberally biased for God's sake and that the Libby pardon was obligatory despite the man's clear guilt in outing a CIA officer! They think Ted Stevens should have been pardoned too!
You're only kidding yourself if you really think anything would satisfy the lunatic conservatives of the Republican Party (which is all of them by the "conservatives" by the way).
January 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make my point for me once again.
Your version of "justice" is to string everyone up who claims to be conservative or a republican and truth be damned. They are all guilty! That, pal, is a witch hunt. If "conservatives" truly never change, Barack Obama would have never been elected.
You call yourself a "liberal" yet you're rhetoric is everything but liberal. It is dogmatic and vengeful and refuses to envision an America that stretches back further than the culture wars of the 1960s.
This is the precise reason I caution democrats to reign in their far left wing. Otherwise, we will simply continue on as a bitterly divided country, accomplishing nothing over the next four years and making President Palin a distinct possibility instead of a Twilight Zone nightmare.
January 21, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Psssst... Jason! I think if you check it out quick there's a chance Rush might still be on the air in your area. If not, Hannity is no doubt going to be on soon. Your impression of their sad tactics is pretty good, but needs some work before you become a full blown dittohead. Keep workin on it bud!
January 21, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically enough, it is you are who are doing the fair impression of far right blowhards. Love the ad hominem attacks, though, that help make my point for me.
January 21, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, he hasn't offered any indication of reading what you are writing or even thinking about it. He's just starting off assuming you're wrong without showing how or why. He's caught in a classic partisan delusion.
January 22, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for noticing, Mike. I may not always agree with everything that is said around here, but I try to give every opinion the respect and consideration it deserves. The truly ironic thing is that I agree from a purely philosophical standpoint with the most liberal of liberal positions. I simply think we need to find a new way to accomplish such substantive change and have found that way of thought embodied in our new president way more often than the party faithful.
January 22, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your righteous anger is more than justified, oleeb! And eloquently expressed.
January 21, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, I write this knowing how closely we agree on the vast majority of topics and how good your intentions are. Please understand why some of us (just as angry at the Bush administration as you) suspect that this way lies madness and suffering enough to dwarf the preceding eight years.
As you tell Jason at the near-outset, above:
Yet in your post, you write with the moral certitude of a foregone conclusion, which is anything but "blind Justice":
Further, you justify ad hominem attacks against your opponents:
I am sorry, TheraP. You seem to be leading a lynch mob. Justice is never obtained that way. Our rule of law has as much to do with process as crime and punishment.
It pains me to say all this. Yet you toy with a Pandora's box of further woe.
January 21, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it bad to be angry and want to see criminals punished when over 100,000 people have died as a result of those criminal acts? And even if it was one person only that has died due to the lawbreaking of the Bush regime, why is it bad to be angry about that murder? Would you see this as a lynch mob if it were your son or daughter who died or was maimed or driven to insanity? It is morally and legally wrong to engage in the acts we know for a fact were committed. How do we turn our heads and act like it didn't happen and claim to be in any way concerned about such things happening again? Perhaps next time it will be your son or your daughter.
January 21, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper, if you think I'm leading a lynch mob, you are sadly mistaken. I've done many, many posts on this. And you never accused me of a lynch mob in those posts. So why this sudden accusation?
We are obliged by law to investigate War Crimes - if any have been committed. It's as simple as that. A lynch mob is lawless. I am urging that the Dept of Justice must look into this.
I am private citizen. If I want to call something a crime, I can do so. I don't work for the Dept of Justice. I want them to investigate. And others too have used the words "war crimes."
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree over this.
I want to see the Rule of Law restored. I want to see the Constitution obeyed. Our Constitution mandates that treaties be obeyed. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against torture - which mandates that countries pass legislation in conformity with the convention against torture - which has been done. Thus we're mandated to investigate.
It's our law. I want it enforced. How can that possibly be called a lynch mob? But accuse me of that if you want. I can't control how you view my words. And that will not in any way change my view of things. Indeed, the outcry here only strengthens my convictions that this must be looked into.
Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But I know I'm not alone in my view. That I know. No less than Eric Holder called "waterboarding" torture. No less than Dawn Johnsen, the new OLC, has said war crimes must be addressed. A case was just dismissed at Guantanamo because of "torture" being used during interrogations.
Once a Special Prosecutor, or whatever, is named to look into this, it will all happen quietly behind closed doors and it may be years before we learn the results of any investigations. That's all I'm asking for.
January 21, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said, TheraP.
And I would react strongly to any accusation that I seek a witch hunt in demanding accountability from my President. But I do want our priorities to be set straight. Our President swears an oath to defend, preserve, and protect the Constitution. In his oath, we ask virtually nothing more of him than that, but we also expect nothing less. When it appears that the oath may have in fact been wilfully violated at considerable cost to the rights of others, it is appropriate that we pursue Justice as our primary order of business. We have no choice. It is not a negotiable policy choice, but rather a responsibility to our sacred Constitution and to the world community in which we live.
And it should be accomplished, as TheraP keeps insisting, in an orderly way in accoradnce with our Constitution. Let DOJ pursue this without prejudice - one way or the other.
January 21, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, SJ! Bless you.
Yes, we're looking at something very simple here. Simple Justice - as I put it in my title.
January 21, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with Ripper regarding your commending of Oleeb's "righteous anger". His anger was expressed in terms of they and them - all conservatives in one fell swoop. I do not believe that is the message of your posts, or the belief that you hold. You wish for justice regarding those specific individuals who have committed alleged crimes. On both sides of the aisle and ideology. Let us all hope for the truth to prevail. However - quietly and behind closed doors may be wishing for a wonderland scenario. Once the public and the media are made aware, as you necessitate, the doors will be blown off their hinges and the noise deafening. Perhaps worth the collateral damage, perhaps not.
January 21, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I do not castigate everyone. Not at all. (and sometimes I can be accused of skimming, but I honestly think oleeb has his heart in the right place) Thanks for your comment, stilli. Mine is not really anger. It's a moral duty we have. To call for action. I await word from DoJ. As soon as we have an AG. Once we have that, I can relax.
January 21, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, barefooted, I erred in calling you stilli.
January 21, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the spirit of your posts, does having one's "heart in the right place" negate the actual words? Or deeds (not inferring Oleeb)? Many defenders of Bush, especially during the days following September 11, 2001, when fear had a cold grip on all of us, would likely use those very words. We'll give up our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our very rule of law to follow him because although we're too frozen to think straight ... his heart's in the right place. He'll take care of us and get the bad guys. Members of Congress were the first in line. But we all cheered.
January 22, 2009 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've read many, many of oleeb's posts - I'm not going on just that one. I view oleeb as a prophetic voice here. Reminds me of Jeremiah, not known to be a man of reasoned speech, but calling Israel to account with great rage and lamentation.
I respect your feelings here, barefooted. And yes, your voice matters (I saw your blog). Very much. Each of us has our own voice. Each our own limitations. Not every comment is perfectly crafted - hardly any actually. But if my support for that particular comment of oleeb's offends you, then I sincerely beg your pardon.
As for oleeb, I don't endorse his every word - I endorse his voice. Just as I endorse yours. You are a tender soul and it concerns me that you feel disturbed by this issue or the conflict it generates. (And we haven't elected oleeb, so I have no fears that his voice will damage the country. There's a huge difference when someone is writing on a blog and when they're president, in terms of doing damage.)
I thank you for returning here to discuss this further.
I extend my hand in peace. Namaste.
January 22, 2009 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to be clear that I was not referring to Oleeb in my second comment regarding Bush. Simply the phrase you used to describe him. Nor did I ever intend to give the indication that you followed Bush at any point - up to and including the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.
By now, you have read my post with a different eye than previously. You know I was not speaking of myself, but of us all. Pieces of a whole.
The comments here are that, as well. All worthy of consideration, all a part of the pattern that binds us. We do an injustice to ourselves and each other when we let righteous indignation - no matter how steeped in truth - divide us.
All voices matter. It is simply more difficult to listen to those that we don't immediately understand.
January 23, 2009 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
barefooted, I got everything you were saying, both here and in your post. You did well to say what you did. And I apologize for being in a hurry or distracted. I appreciate your voice. I heard the rebuke. I've accepted it in the good grace it was given. I hope this satisfies your concerns. And I thank you for your graceful presence here.
January 23, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, let's be clear: I never followed bush.
Not even after 9/11. I was proud my Senator voted against the Patriot Act. And many other of bush's policies as well. I did everything I could to try and prevent the war on Iraq.
January 22, 2009 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I reread that particular comment of oleeb's, yup, I think he kind of lost it there. It does no good to paint everyone with a broad brush. Particular people, but not everyone in a group.
January 22, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame TheraP for my disgust at JEM and his tedious right wing blather. I'll be happy to take the blame. Furthermore, it is all the conservatives and Republicans and enough of the Democrats along with them that are the problem here. Our politics has for far too long dispensed with common decency and morality in favor of playing "the game" of politics and it is high time we returned to enforcing some kind of standard for moral conduct on the part of our leaders when it comes to serious violations of our laws, our constitution and our international treaties. That's the bottom line here. It's quite simple really. The only complications come from those who want to avoid facing the truth and dealing with it.
January 22, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, dear oleeb, let's hear it for moral conduct!
And you do remind me of Jeremiah at times! :)
January 22, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, tedious right-wing blather is what I have been writing here. I am surprised people can even tell me apart from Savage or Rush.
Your lack of understanding is only surpassed by your inability to think reasonably and rationally about anything that doesn't confirm or conform to your very narrow view of reality.
Sure am glad that much more than the democratic base is working to help Obama succeed or we would be well and truly screwed.
January 22, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ruby Ridge? Waco? Who brought up that business and tried to equate it with war crimes? Nobody talks about that stuff but wingnuts and dittoheads. Nobody. You just became a Republican in August and you are not a right winger? Please! We aren't all that gullible. There's no one left in the Republican Party but right wingers. And your whole argument on this topic is nothing but pure psuedo-intellectual sophistry. You would make a great commentator on FOX.
January 22, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I equated those things to the same arrogance and conceit that led us to Iraq. How many Iraqi children did Bill Clinton kill through sanctions instead of solutions. Again, partisan nonsense that anyone can smell a mile away.
January 22, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a presumption of guilt.."
JEM, you are mistaking the PRESUMPTION of guilt with with the SUSPICION of guilt. The evidence leads most of us to suspect guilt, but we do not presume it until it is proven.
When evidence creates suspicion, then investigation should follow.
An investigation is neither an innocent or a guilty verdict, it is the public's tool to deal with the SUSPICION of guilt that is created by evidence.
Anyone who suggests there isn't evidence that Bush and Cheney committed war-crimes is either in total denial or they are working for Darth.
An investigation would end the denial. And you jumped to "presumption" without even acknowledging "suspicion", which makes me suspect, and even presume you are listening to Rush and Hannity.
Dumb and Dumber, leading the blind off towards the ditch...
January 22, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, because I am a republican or because I disagree with you? Both your suspicion and your presumption is wrong, which leads me to believe you aren't even reading what I am writing.
If I was on a jury panel and the defense attorney asked me: "Do you suspect this man is guilty of his crimes?" an affirmative answer would disqualify me from serving on that jury just as surely as if I had said I presumed he was guilty.
I am not sure why you need to descend, as so many before you on this thread, to casting aspersions or putting words in my mouth.
January 22, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I presume nothing is true until I know all the facts."
I know of very few events in life where all the facts are known. I believe that knowledge of some facts—as long as they are substantive—is sufficient for presuming it is true.
Ugly things happened in our name. We did not give approval for these things being done, because we were not given even a few of the facts. We were given obfuscations and misleading rhetoric. We were misdirected as much as a good magician misdirects the audience to perform a trick.
We have plenty of "known knowns" left over from the last eight years. It will take work to find out what the "unknown unknowns" and even the "unknown knowns" are.
But unless we want another set of magicians misdirecting us in our government, we had better find out what happened and ensure it will never happen again.
January 21, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo! Thanks for commenting. :)
January 21, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we were so convinced that we were being lied to and led astray, then the voters should have turned out en masse to protest. If that didn't work, then politicians should have lost their jobs every two years until they did our bidding.
As long as we refuse to accept responsibility for our role in our own debasement, nothing will ever change. We are all responsible for those things done in our name. Some may even have agree with many of them. None of this is so black and white. Deep in the shades of gray is where the truth usually resides.
Making up my mind based on myths and supposition is what I refuse to do, all the hair splitting aside. We can't presume guilt because what was done offends us. If we collectively accept responsibility, then perhaps collectively we can change the system that allowed these things to come to fruition.
This is hardly a new tale, despite the new characters and the modified plot. We have long been a nation of laws that were mandatory for common citizen and purely advisory for those in power.
January 21, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boy, you sure are working hard against sunshine.
January 21, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Advocating personal responsibility on all our parts isn't fighting against sunshine.
To say that this was all done against our will and without our knowledge is rewriting history. To say that our goal is to never let this sort of thing happen again and then totally ignore a key fact that led to it happening is fooling ourselves at best.
At worst, it is making sure we fail before we ever get started.
January 21, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture was done with our knowledge? Please....
January 21, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have been "torturing" people since we started having secret operations aimed at thwarting other secret operations. That this came out into the open is the only unique part of Bush's years in office. Plenty of rendition going on during Clinton's years in office as well as every president since the end of World War II. I am not saying it is right, but to think that this is all new seems ridiculously naive to me.
January 21, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say what you will, I'm calling for justice! Your sidetracks won't sidetrack me!
January 21, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I am right there with you! When we are done with Bush, we can start heading backward until we run out of guilty presidents. Does it matter if they are still alive or not?
January 21, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, sadly, is true. If we want to pursue Bush-Era crimes, mustn't we pursue Clinton Era ones? I believe rendition started under Clinton.
I'm leaning towards JEM's perspective on this, only because at this point I think most people calling for JUSTICE (not you necessarily TheraP) are only thinking in a vacuum of things done by GWB these past 8 years. If we want JUSTICE, we need to be prepared to accept that we weren't living in a perfect world on Jan. 19, 2000.
January 21, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not telling any prosecutor where to start or what to rule out. I just want to be sure we obey the law. And the law says that War Crimes must be prosecuted.
Let them investigate War Crimes wherever it takes them!
January 21, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, and I wholeheartedly agree.
In fact, for any such investigation to overcome the hew and cry from the right and be successful, it would have to turn a harsh eye on more than just the Bushies.
January 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But with a nod to Jason, having voted for Clinton, I feel partly responsible for Rendition.
January 21, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are responsible for what our country did - even if we did not vote for the perpetrators.
It was done in the name of America. It was done in my name. And therefore I will not stand idly by and leave my name sullied. I am seeking redress, by my country, for what my country did!
January 21, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pursue them all, but you will find without any question that the level and degree of criminal behavior during the Bush years outstrips anything previously known by a very large margin. The problem with this handwringing is that people who make this claim that we will somehow be obligated to look into every President, etc... is that it is a false argument. Because we investigate crime a that we know occured, do we need then to investigate the possibility of crime in all instances in the past? No.
We know these crimes occured. that is indisputable. The question is who was involved and at what level? The truth is that we have had such investigations in the past that were very useful and productive and that helped our nation. You seem to be unaware of them.
The Church Committee, for example, went into great depth on the illegal acts of our intelligence agencies and the Executive Branch from the inception of the CIA through the moment they were in. They exposed activities that were obviously immoral but not, in numerous cases, technically illegal under US law or in some cases not clearly illegal so they passed laws making such activities indisputably illegal. Many of those laws were broken in siginificant degree for the first time under W. Extensive investigations and prosecutions took place in previous wars and in previous eras of illegal government activities.
Prosecutions have occured in the past for such crimes, but direct involvement by high ranking officials at the policy level was not the issue then. It is notable that in Viet Nam when US Personnel were prosecuted for the war crime of torture via waterboarding and other illegal methods there was no coverup that we're aware of. Those methods were illegal and not endorsed at either the policy level or by the military commanders. We are not operating in a vacuum with no history here. The idea that the widespread criminal activity of the Bush administration should somehow be ignored is what begs disaster. TheraP is calling for closing, not opening Pandora's box.
January 21, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goerge Bush lost two effing elections! The first one, he got appointed by the Supreme Court! The second one was finagled in Florida and Ohio! Ask Mike Connell -- oh, never mind --
What were you saying? Because the evidence died with this guy. Go here: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/Killed_GOP_pilot_suspected_plane_had_1222.html
January 21, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, how impolite of you to bring up such messy details! After all, it isn't as though people who seize power illegally are any different from those duly elected!
January 21, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about what we think happened, it's about what can be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Sorry for pointing out the messy fact that these guys may have covered their tracks so well that convicting them may not be possible or even desirable to Obama's DoJ. I am simply advising that we not be surprised (or disappointed) if that is the case, because they aren't getting away with anything that many presidents before didn't get away with in spirit if not degree.
January 21, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, you have to know who's complicit before you take action. We know some things occurred, but we need to know more. And, except for people like Addington, Yoo, and Gonzales—over whose jobs we had no power—it's not yet clear who knew what.
Remember the warrantless wiretapping that the Gang of Eight apparently approved? Well, from what came out even then, there were things they weren't told.
It seems that you're faulting an ignorant electorate for ignorance that was mostly unavoidable. We can't all spend our days ferreting through government documents, and even if we could, please acknowledge just how much has been kept secret the last eight years. Much of what we've learned has come from people who spoke out at risk to their careers, because their consciences finally made them.
Having a thorough investigation into torture, at the very least, will allow those who did not have the courage to step forward during that administration a venue in which to reveal what they know.
January 21, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am blaming a mostly ignorant and complacent electorate for not holding our leaders accountable.
Ignorance can be cured by reading books and paying closer attention. At a minimum, if your life isn't better today than it was when you voted someone into office, it is your duty to show up and vote them out of office.
Americans have never taken their part of the Constitutional compact all that seriously.
January 21, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you not understand how specious your argument is? Fer Pete's sake, man, you will make yerself dizzy for all the circles you spin.
Those of us of perhaps the less schizoid persuasion have always had great difficulty turning out en masse, there being only one of me and all that, you know?. In trying to raise the alarm, however, we individuals have known keen frustration in encountering milquetoasts who insist instead that "we should simply vote them out of office."
Pretty difficult to accomplish with an electorate that will not listen or who fails to share the sense of alarm and will not entertain arguments otherwise. (NOTE: "Campaigns" usually precede elections, and what are campaigns if not the airing of grievances such as TheraP and others have tried to accomplish here.)
Beautiful prose wrapped around bunkum.
I believe TheraP is indeed accepting responsibility and is attempting to get others to see that they have a responsibility here as well. And yet you continue playing games. It is as if someone yells at you to come help carry the pail of water, because their neighbor just lit the house next door on fire. Your response? Sit and watch the house burn, and then declare that we all share equal responsibility for the basement fire because none of us were effective in putting the fire out. If you can't see how ludicrous your logic is here, then your comand of english prose is greatly offset by your deficit in english comprehension. Deep in the shades of grey? Fer chrissakes, man, read what you write!
In other words: "You might tell me that the house next door is on fire, but how can you know this before it is officially decreed? We can't just assume the neighbor is the culprit, even if we saw him with the gas can and matches and he has bragged about torching the place. If we collectively accept responsibility, then perhaps collectively we can put the fire out. Meanwhile, you'll have to do better than that to get my fat ass out of the chair to help you carry that pail of water."
"Hey, the world is full of wisened fat asses like me who can't be moved to action in any circumstance. Why try now? Don't worry your pretty lil' head about such matters. If it is meant for the fire to be extinguished, then someone will surely get it done."
"Meanwhile, pipe down with all your alarmist talk won't you? Your scaring the women and children."
Incredible! What next?
January 21, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise that you don't get my argument and use bluster in place of logical framing to "refute" it.
Perhaps if you could develop something resembling objectivity you would understand what I am saying. As it is, I fear liberals such as yourself will be a continuing thorn in the side of the Obama administration as they try to get something down instead of drive us further apart.
Sorry to say it, but the boomers are becoming more trouble than they are worth.
January 21, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, as sleepin and I both said, in response to your comment that if we don't like a leader we should vote them out:
SEE ABOVE:
BUSH WAS NEVER ELECTED! IT IS EXTREMELY HARD TO VOTE SOMEONE OUT WHO WAS NEVER VOTED IN!
January 21, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell that to the half of the country that believes he was elected. Twice.
We have standards of reasonable doubt for a reason. The freaking Supreme Court legitimized his election the first time and there was not even a whiff of investigation the second.
I am not saying it is right. I am simply saying it is what it is. Unless you want to fight yet another civil war, understanding that more than half the electorate disagree with your stance is an important fact to understand.
January 21, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of the country believes that adam and eve car-pooled on saddled-up dinosaurs? Since when does the prevalence of ignorance have anything to do with what is true?
January 21, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille, as I've said in the past, your humor really cracks me up! Bravo!
January 21, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Derision and hyperbole doesn't make my argument any less true. There is what you know and what you can prove. Only the later matters in a court of law.
January 22, 2009 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, that's offensive to me. People are entitled to their opinion, as you are entitled to yours for certain. But you are pleading for people to raise the tenor of the debate and here I believe that you are failing.
I'm not a boomer and I am still trying to figure out what I think about investigating the Bush administration. I'll tell you though, the more I listen to the arguments against investigation, the more I think I'd like to see investigations take place. The arguments of you and others that I have heard are not convincing.
You argue that presumption of innocence is the keystone to our justice system and you're right, but I think you're confusing the time where that presumption of innocence begins, and that is at the trial. Of course there's a presumption of guilt in the beginning. Otherwise, nobody would ever be arrested for anything. It's the jury that is instructed to begin with the presumption of innocence. Not the investigators and not the general public.
You argue that citizens should have protested en masse. Some citizens did protest fairly loudly. But the mechanism set up to determine whether those protests were valid failed us all. No one should be above the law. The Bush administration appears to have broken it and then used the Justice Dept to stifle any and all investigation of criminal activity. We elect officials and pay taxes to see our government work for us. It's ridiculous to suggest that we should protest when we want to see justice done. The system is not perfect, but it exists to execute justice on behalf of the citizenry. When I see a crime committed, I call the police. I don't stand on a street corner holding a sign in protest.
January 22, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You would have to read the entire thread to put that comment in context. Obviously it isn't all Boomers, but many are stuck in an Us versus Them mentality that will not let go and is hardly helpful or representative of what Obama is talking about.
I am not arguing against investigations. I haven't said that once. But SOME of the hue and cry from the left makes one think they are going into this with minds made up and the gibbets ready to fill with them evil repugnicans. It doesn't include the blog author, but it certainly includes many of the people I have been going back and forth with on this one and many other things involving their ideological opposites.
We should investigate under the assumption that the Bush administration is innocent of crimes that will certainly put a strain on this country anew should they be true. If they are guilty, they should be punished according to the law. If they are found innocent or not enough evidence is found to seek an indictment, liberals need to let it go.
That was my only point, as confused and corrupted as some have sought to make it.
January 22, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Investigators don't investigate under the presumption of innocence. They assume everyone is a suspect and they go about collecting facts. Until they have them, I believe they are not supposed to rule anything out.
I have read the whole thread and I think you may be round the bend on this one. I see you doing the lion's share of the name-calling here and dogmatic thinking here. You're convincing me of exactly the opposite of what you're arguing.
January 22, 2009 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Show one place where I called anyone a name. Unless, of course, you find the word liberal or democrat or progressive to be an example of name calling.
I, on the other hand, have been tagged with just about all of them. I think this is yet one more example where you guys get "offended" before you understand what I am saying and start firing with both barrels because it is how you've been conditioned to act. I am the "enemy" and away you go. I find it ironic and hypocritical and kind of sad that a "liberal" would be arguing for guilty until proven innocent as the standard mode of attaining justice.
We just got rid of that mindset and you want to bring it back?
January 22, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get a grip, Jason. First, I'm not arguing for guilty until proven innocent and I think you are willfully misunderstanding my point.
Second, please cease playing the victim card. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean it's because you're not a member of your party or their "tribe" as you so condescendingly put it. People who hold a different opinion than you do aren't necessarily stupid or blinded by their allegiance to their party.
You don't have to pretend for the duration of the Obama administration that everybody that disagrees with you is doing so because you've joined the republican party.
Finally, you asked for examples. You attacked a person and not an argument here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/simple-justice---not-a-witch-h.php#comment-3346750
And here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/simple-justice---not-a-witch-h.php#comment-3346536
You can express your views however you want, but lecturing others on their tone out of one side of your mouth while insulting them out of the other isn't just condescending. It's hypocritical.
January 22, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really, two barely examples that came after several frustrating back and forths and only after the person started attacking me first. Great examples. I think is you all that need to get a grip. If only the choir is welcome, then why bother having pews?
January 22, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
What church do you think you're in here, since you at least twice have mentioned "choir" and now mention pews?
If this were the church of truth and reason, what would be your contribution if you were in the choir and not a troll?
January 22, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There it is. The last refuge of the hack. Calling me a troll. The "choir" is the democratic party. The echo chamber. Why do you pretend to be much dumber than you actually are?
January 22, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not in the Democratic Party, for one thing.
You post like a troll, that's why I asked. And you answered like a troll, instead of answering the question asked. Easy.
January 22, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 23, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Remaining civil when you write these sorts of screeds is becoming more and more difficult. Since I post under my own name, I am required to be a bit more measured and logical than you are with the ad hominem attacks and name calling. If this is the way you have presented your arguments all your life, no wonder "liberals" haven't accomplished much during the Boomer generation's tenure.
January 21, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If'n you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
And I'll tell you what... The beautiful look I saw on those faces on the mall yesterday? This is one liberal who will take some degree of pride in having done my part in helping to make it all possible. Truth be told, I've accomplished a great deal in this lifetime in alliance with many other liberals, and your pissant whining about "nothing being accomplished by libruls" says more about your personal inadequacies than anything found to be true in the real world.
And one more thing: I will match my rhetorical skills and my logic and my reasoning against anyone, and I usually enjoy the exercise regardless of the political philosophy of the opponent. But understand that I do not suffer fools gladly, nor do I shrink from my responsibility to compel others to defend their arguments using reason and common sense - similar to what I expect of myself. And if that makes you uncomfortable, then I suggest you might want to stay on the porch rather than try to run with the big dogs.
And lastly, the name is Jeffrey Raymond Pieterick. Hopefully that will preclude any future whining about how handicapped you are to be known as jason everett miller. But make no mistake about it - I am proud to be known as SleepinJeezus, and you will know me by the straightforward honesty in my discussions.
January 21, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEM, sadly, you've described yourself:
January 21, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
ooops... that was of course meant for JEM, to whom it is addressed, not for you, SJ, and I applaud your comment above!
January 21, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that is all you take from what I write, then it is you I am sad for. For an educated and empathetic woman, you really do get caught up in your tribe's antics sometimes.
January 21, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that is not all I take from what you write. But you keep engaging in what you accused someone else of. I was quoting your very words, Jason.
That's all I was pointing out.
January 21, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quote an ad hominem attack that I made. I didn't once attack the person rather than the argument they were making. When a person is communicating in an arrogant and condescending manner, pointing it out is not ad hominem.
January 21, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You came in here and started ascribing beliefs to me that I do not hold. I stand by my statement that "liberals" have been preaching progressive ideals for more than forty years and we are still fighting the same battles today. There is not a substantive record of achievement for your side to stand on over these last few decades.
You can blame it on whatever you choose, but the simple fact of the matter is that despite whatever small successes may have happened, your tactics have been mostly ineffective. Until Barack Obama came along.
Without moderate republicans, John McCain is president.
Without Barack Obama, the democrats still can't win in a country whipped to within an inch of its life by Baby Bush and Darth Cheney. That to me says there might be a lesson to be learned from your new president, but you simply engage in more partisan crap that has nothing to do with what my point was.
If I was still an independent or had joined the democratic party this August, both you and Oleeb would "tolerate" my views like many of the other moderate democrats around are tolerated. But because I am a republican, you hit with both barrels blazing as if you can't help yourself.
I will continue to fight against that sort of "liberalism" because to me it is not progressive and not helpful and will eventually drive those moderate republicans away. That is something we can't afford if our long-term goals are true, progressive change.
I am not sure if you wouldn't rather be right than do what is necessary to deliver on your stated principles.
January 21, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm....
Now that you mention it, there is an exquisite irony in taking criticism from a Republican on how to be a liberal.
And therein lies your problem, jason. You are all over the map. Tacking your arguments is an exercise in nailing jello to the wall. When you get cornered, then you resort to old, settled arguments - such as this chestnut that liberals have accomplished nothing in the last 40 years. Although such a claim is laughable on the face of it, I granted the courtesy to you of pursuing that argument some time ago to great effect. It's been firmly settled, and you know it.
You are the self professed "liberal" (oh, excuse me, I mean "Progressive") who chose to align with Republicans after eight years of Bush/Cheney. Forgive me, but it is indeed difficult to follow that kind of trajectory, and your efforts to justify it as some sort of wonderful intellectual experiment causes you to tread all over the map and to lose any consistency in your positions.
You call it nuance and wisdom and claim your vision to be intellectually superior to all political thought that has come before it. From here, it looks quite simply like a case of the one who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
January 21, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you claim I choose to align myself with Bush and Cheney and the modern incarnation of the GOP. You base your entire understanding of me based on a logical fallacy. That make understanding impossible. It's not a hard argument to get: the republican party comes from progressive roots and needs to return there.
As a self-professed liberal you are terribly judgmental and lacking in empathy.
My positions don't change and the simple fact is that liberals do need instructions on how to be liberals. Obviously. Obama won because he communicates 180 degrees out from most liberals. That requires democrats to take a round-turn on their methods. You seem to think you can keep up the same sarcastic and scolding tone and somehow get different results.
I am way more liberal than most liberals on this site. My arguments have nothing to do with ideals or policies. I am 100% behind the platform that Obama ran on. I simply believe (and have years of history to prove) that there are other methods that can be used to reach those ends.
Barack is the embodiment of that idea.
January 21, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hold the damn phone a minute . . .
Oh boy oh boy oh boy....
Those scary nasty talking "libruuuuuuuuls" of the baby boomer era have offered nothing worthwhile in the eyes of the poor ol' blustery babbling bullshit spewing self-anointed middle of the road right-winger?
Well well . . . do tell.
Good God ya'll!
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see the list of things accomplished over the last forty years.
I have been hearing about the environment and living wages and health care and pay equality and all the rest for my entire life. It wasn't until a new generation started to take over that things started to get done on those progressive fronts. The problem is the culture war you have been living since the 1960s. It keeps your generation lined up along ideological divides, firing for all your worth and not giving a damn about collateral damage.
I suppose we could chalk it up to coincidence, but that is too much of a stretch for me.
January 22, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Uh . . .
I think the blustery big-bossman should sit on his thumb and munch on plum.
I'm not anyone's servant-boy...
Maybe he should hire someone else do the research for him.
Hahahahaha . . .
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There it is. The obligatory suggestion for some sort of rude act having to do with my ass. You are tiresome, Billy.
January 22, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, SJ!
January 21, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you missed it, let me slow down what I am saying using your overwrought metaphor: Standing on the curb shouting and screaming that we must track down the alleged arsonist before we extinguish the flames is stupid.
Assuming we know any or even most of the facts before we even begin investigating is the shortest way toward dividing the country just when Obama brought us together. Using the right wing's methods toward different ends doesn't make them anymore right in the left's hands.
Sarcasm and arrogance is not a recipe for being understood.
January 21, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Logic usually works for me.
Where in anything that I've written (Or TheraP or others on this topic) can you find anything other than a call for due process to be engaged in a criminal investigation of alleged crimes based upon a reasoned suspicion that these crimes have been committed.
It is you who introduces all these qualifiers concerned about half the people in the country who "might not like this," or the fact that it might not be real convenient to pursue justice at this time, or whatever other contortions you can cook up just to polish bullshit with a patina of faux wisdom and knowledge.
There is plenty of detail on record to at least convene a "Grand Jury." And there should be a plain understanding that we will not stop short of pursuing these alleged violations of human rights and our Constitution for any reason. Without Liberty, we have nothing, and so there is no greater charge for our government and ourselves than the defense of Liberty, regardless of how politically unpopular it might be or how inconvenient it is to exercise this solemn responsibility.
January 21, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I win the prize for being the 100th post?
January 21, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'll give you a prize!
January 21, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I might add, no matter how high or low the persons who might have abridged our liberties or been the object of such abridgment.
January 21, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not debating the need for investigations nor the need to establish a clear preference for the rule of law, but to do so without clear understanding that this will be the first time in American history that we have done so may lead to a tone and tenor that comes off as anything but just.
It's not a qualifier. It's not justification for not looking into things. It is a simple acknowledgment that if the goal is justice then the path must be narrow and straight. I never claimed that Thera was seeking vengence, only that certain phrasing may come off as such from many people we must seek to convince of the processes legitimacy.
I would really appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth every time you offer a rebuttal to what I am writing.
January 21, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you wrote is a thing of beauty. Bravo!
January 21, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, oleeb. I kinda' had a feeling you would appreciate it. :O)
January 21, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Mutual Adoration Society in full force.
January 21, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Stop the frickin' crying . . .
Someone get a hanky, quick.
I can't stand seeing snot running out of a supposedly grown man's nose.
Unless it's at a funeral...
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise that OGD joins the circle jerk.
January 22, 2009 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Ooooo . . .
Circle jerk?
Now the blustery bag of bullshit has sunk into accusing a group of mass masterbation.
Wow! Such high and mighty discourse from such a progressive right-winger.
And I'm not surprised that this clown looks upon masterbation as something "dirty" and "uncouth." I bet this yo-yo isn't even aware that female self-masterbation often relieves migraine headaches.
He ought to try it sometime.
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely response. Just goes to show you are just as incapable of self-reflection as the "right wingers" you so like to denigrate.
January 22, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: It is in fact mental group masturbation when all you do is stand around and congratulate each other on how astute and intelligent your contributions are. Seems you are the only blustery bag of bullshit around here. The irony is you will never see it for yourself.
January 22, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey . . .
Sit and spin butthead!
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This assumes that the laws legalizing torture or abrogating treaties pass Constitutional muster.
Given that we signed treaties which explicitly criminalize torture, and further explicitly require that such crimes be prosecuted to the fullest extent of lay, and more importantly that per the Constitution, those treaties once signed are the law of the land - they CANNOT pass Constitutional muster.
I.e. Laws were broken. And would have been under your hypothetical as well.
I'd also like to point out that the public declarations of a federal judge on legal status fall pretty close to what can be deemed indisputable facts.
Justice, nor fairness, does not requiring bent over backwards contortions to construe behavior in the best, most legal light possible. It requires treating the statements of victims and perpetrators with equal credulity, colored by discovered facts.
January 22, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, should the decision that comes out the other end of a fair and sober process find that treaties and laws were broken, I don't think anyone would find fault with that outcome.
To enter the process with preformed conclusions, though, is supposed to be against the rules. Many of us didn't agree with the Supreme Court putting Bush into office, yet our system allows for the SC to decide what is or isn't Constitutional.
I don't agree with it, but that is the system we have. The only place were guilt is self-evident is in dictatorships. I would prefer we avoid making Obama a benevolent dictator to counter Bush's malevolent dictator in some sort of plan for evening the scale of justice.
I am simply advocating calm and reasoned discourse as we discover who did what to whom.
January 22, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of WWII combat veterans are still alive. Maybe you ought to start in on them first. After all, the longer you wait, more and more of them will escape your justice just by dying. Then the Korean war vets, lots of them dying now too. Better get crackin'!!!
January 21, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can be sure I've been arguing politics with my 91 year old repub dad since I was 15 years old! Yet I certainly honor his Naval service.
January 21, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
pssst...Thera ( she says in hushed tones) don't feed the troll...
January 21, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, dear stilli! (I try hard not to. But your advice strengthens my resolve. How could I not listen to you?) :)
January 21, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"At the end of the day, these crimes (and many, many others along the path of American history) were committed in our name with our full approval and complicity, if only by our silence or inability to turn out and vote twice a year, every two years."
Jason, I usually have a great deal of respect for your reasoning, but this is bullshit! I never approved of these crimes (belligerent invasion of Iraq, detainee abuse, warrantless wiretapping), I made a lot of noise about it (to my elected reps among others) and I voted my conscience every chance I had. And that goes for a hell of a lot of other people, too. So don't you try to tell me I provided ANY approval or complicity.
January 21, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand how it may seem counter-intuitive on blog for political junkies, but that you did your best does nothing to change the fact that Americans are still complicit for not holding our leaders accountable.
In a representative democracy, the collective "we" are responsible for everything our government does. With 96% of incumbents being re-elected each election, an average of 18% turnout for primary elections is a pretty key statistic in my mind and contributes directly to our misery. Our guilt is as a group, no matter how many individuals may have done what is right throughout the years.
As Paine noted, we are responsible for the means by which we suffer in a representative republic - either by action or inaction.
January 21, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if dissent is not unanimous across the populace, my actions mean nothing? Hogwash. I've gotta say you're coming across as sanctimonious on this one.
January 21, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said dissent means nothing, only that collectively we are responsible for the actions our government takes if we refuse to turn out and vote in big enough numbers to keep them honest. I am not sure what is so controversial about that statement.
Call me whatever names you choose, but that doesn't change the facts.
Maybe if "liberals" had been more effective then none of this would have happened? Maybe if "liberals" had found a way to talk to "conservatives" without being condescending and scolding then we would have all come together and demanded more from our leaders. Maybe if "liberals" had actually supported Jimmy Carter instead of cannibalizing themselves we would be in a different position today.
Call it sanctimonious if you will, but I try not to blame other people for my mistakes.
January 21, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you'll note, I did not say you ARE sanctimonious - I said you are coming across that way. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but that's how your comments are striking me. Your tone seems condescending and dismissive.
January 21, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically enough, so does yours. Where does that leave us? I still say that we must become the change we seek. For progressives to finally bring substantive and sustainable changes to this divided country, we may have to take responsibility for things that may not even be our fault. I freely admit that it is a bitter pill to swallow, but one that may be necessary nonetheless.
January 21, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem taking responsibility for what's happened in our name. That's why I also am taking responsibility now and calling for justice! Let Justice be served, I say. And I completely want every lawful protection - including the presumption of innocence - something which was never given to persons taken to Guantanamo - at the time they were incarcerated there.
January 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree. We must restore constitutional protections to everyone equally, if they are to have any meaning for each of us individually. That goes double for our "enemies" - both at home and abroad.
January 21, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the point of my blog!
January 21, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, I have 2 avatars/identities. Putty is an alter ego and we usually don't hang out together on the same threads.
January 21, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you both!
January 21, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw shucks, thank you, ma'am! You're the best!
January 21, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As are you - in both guises!
January 21, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you at least be honest and admit that you accidentally posted under the wrong avatar?
January 22, 2009 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
January 22, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Geez . . .
What's the big frickin' deal? Did that "mistake" take any bread off your table?
Speaking of which ...
Stuff a loaf in that overactive piehole of yers...
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Disingenuous as always.
Some of the people here remind me of the commentators on FNC. Certain acts are "okay" if they approve of who makes the acts.
Double personalities are considered poor form, especially when both get involved in "serious" debates.
Of course, people here forgive that act since they like TT. Ironically, we see that "justice" is hardly blind -- even in this trivial example.
Instead, you reserved a personal attack for me -- and I committed no abuse of the board. Interestingly, you never asked the obvious question of TT/Putty: "why did you need two IDs?"
Again, the hypocritical nature of some here is quite apparent.
January 22, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hey Meester Perfecto. . .
Wrap your arms around yourself and give yourself a big ol' kiss...
You're just too damn perfect for this world to not feel loved.
~OGD~
January 22, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT - OK, I admit that I accidentally posted under the wrong avatar! And I immediately acknowledged the fact that I have 2 avatars, before anyone noticed or called me on it - didn't try to hide it.
January 22, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And now we know CT was also Pirate Peet. (just putting this here for the historical record)
February 2, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And here's that link:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/01/can-americans-be-happy-with-le.php#comment-3358769
And see above it.
February 2, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How on earth do you hold them accountable if you don't use the mechanisms that are in place to do so such as law enforcement, prosecutors who investigate and determine if charges should be brought. Your logic makes no sense at all.
Your genuinely weird argument, if applied to Nazi and Japanese war crimes would mean that we should not investigate the men we know committed certain acts because it is really the German people and the Japanese people as a whole who need to be held repsonsible. Such absurd logic!
January 21, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have some serious comprehension problems.
January 21, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, as a matter of fact, I don't. Keep trolling man! Someone somewhere is probably wanting to read your sophistry, but not here.
January 21, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sophistry and trolling? That's all you have? Sad. No wonder you guys kept losing until Barack came along.
January 21, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason is not a troll. He has some great ideas and great insights, and I often learn a lot from him. I think he has a burr under his saddle with this thread, and has gone a little overboard in his reactions, but oleeb, this guy is no troll.
Jason, I often disagree with you, but I defend the fact that what you bring here are truly your ideas; not just talking points; and not just stuff to stir the pot.
January 22, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice that you like him. Your right.
I've just lost patience with his half-witted, adolscent arguments particularly when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about as in this thread. My right.
January 22, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why you can't have a civil conversation. Ever. You assume that if someone doesn't agree with then they must be idiots.
January 22, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I went overboard on a few comments, but still maintain I never pushed back until I was pushed. Hard. Repeatedly.
Even then I try to maintain a sense of decorum in the face of "troll" and "butthead" and "Rush" and all the rest. Sorry to be the one who mentions it, but the far left is as dogmatic and aggressive and unfair as the far right has been if this blog is any indication.
Barack Obama and the democratic moderates will have as much trouble with them as they will have with Hannity et. al.
January 22, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
“In a representative democracy, the collective "we" are responsible for everything our government does.”
LOL, what a complete farce that statement is. All this talk of election turnouts is nonsense and a diversion. Had Bush been elected with 95% turnout it wouldn’t have changed anything that happened since then so cut the crap. In case you hadn’t realized, the single member district system BY DESIGN suppresses voter turnout – but I digress.
The people aren’t directly responsible for what is deliberately kept from them or when government acts illegally. Our only responsibility is to hold them accountable at the first opportunity whether they be in office or not.
Who shall guard the guardians? Certainly not those under the direct control of the criminals at the top. Now that the Department of Justice is liberated from under the rule of the Bush crime family it’s time to do exactly what Paine suggests - take action. So why are you advocating inaction?
January 21, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have the chance to turn elected officials out every two years. That is the system we have.
You can call it a farce if you like, but had an additional three percent turned out in 2000, the same extra percentage that Obama brought tot he polls in 2008, Al Gore would have been president without a hitch. We are entirely responsible for the government we have. I am very used to hearing how it is all someone's fault other than ours, but forgive me if I don't live my life by shifting blame to other shoulders.
It amaze me that many "liberals" on this site apparently don't listen to our president when he blames our collective failure for the place we find ourselves.
January 22, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
JEM wrote: We must also understand that more than half the country probably doesn't see it as a matter of crimes having been committed. The continuing division of the electorate makes matters of guilt and innocence a much more rocky path than would otherwise be found in a court of law.
This is a very disturbing. It wreaks of fascism if we allow a majority of people to determine what justice is. Were that so, we would never have civil rights. Justice must be served. It must be explained and hopefully people will come to understand it. It is how civil rights have become less contentious by the majority of the people now. But it did not begin that was. It was a rocky path, but well worth the effort. It brought us Obama.
January 21, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, GregorZ!
I would never have thought the idea of justice could be so misunderstood. (yes... fascisim in any of its guises... is to be repudiated)
January 21, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Gregor. You are rarely so reactionary or polemic when gray areas may require more nuanced understanding or explanation.
This is not a civil rights issue or a description of fascism. We are talking about "war" and "protecting the nation" from further harm. That is less a matter of the majority creating a tyranny of injustice and more a matter of people of good faith viewing the same set of data and coming to different conclusions.
Many folks on the right and toward the middle may not see this as such a black and white issue is all I am saying.
January 21, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was thinking the same kind of thing as GregorZ when I wrote this a little ways down. I don't think it's being reactionary at all to warn of the dangers of the many controlling too closely the destiny of the few.
January 21, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that the majority has sometimes been known to dominate the minority in various and sundry ways, though the inverse is usually the way these things happen, with a small minority interest dominating the majority.
January 21, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ain't it great though! That razor line exactly between Ochlocracy and Olagarchy keeps our minds clear and our moral compasses dusted off :-) The True Path lies somewhere in between mob rule and dictatorships...
January 21, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your point here is what, exactly?
You would seem to propose that we are a government under rule of politicians rather than a government under rule of law; that any action - legal or otherwise - that is perpetrated in bi-partisan fashion is sanctioned by definition.
That ain't my reality. I have little problem at all declaring violations in black and white, regardless of who or how many are involved. And don't give me that bs about "witch hunt." I have never proposed anything other than due process be granted to the accused. But there's nothing less starkly outlined in black and white as our responsibility as citizens than the defense of our Liberty.
Okay, Perry Mason. Since when does one branch of government (in this case the Exec) receive absolution for violation of our civil rights if it can be shown that another branch (Congress) was complicit in the crime?
Or since when is the interpretation of our Bill of Rights determined by a jury of our peers or the popular vote?
As a supposed "pragmatist," you sure make all this democracy stuff a whole lot more complicated than it is in reality.
January 21, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, genius, name a single president who didn't violate the constitution. Name a single one. You can't because that president doesn't exist. OK. Maybe Jimmy Carter is one who didn't do something in violation of the law.
However, the country you mythologize has never existed in most respects.
You want to make decisions in a vacuum independent of history or precedent. If we are truly going to change this country we need to acknowledge the truth of the matter and not the myth we have told ourselves to make us sleep better at night.
How do you negotiate your way out of the house with such a limited grasp of reality?
January 21, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using your logic, if a cop gives me a ticket for running a red light, I shouldn't have to pay a fine because other drivers ran red lights!
Nonsense!
January 21, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've hit the nail on the head TheraP. Another name for this is typical Republican hooey! They just can't grasp the qualitative difference or the difference in magnitude. They genuinely seem unable to grasp the vast gulf that exists between a grave crime and say, lying about a blowjob for example.
A simple illustration...
Person walks in a room and sees his/her entire family slain and the blood-covered murderer standing their holding a gun in one hand and bloody knife in the other. The person exclaims:
"Why, you've killed my entire family you murderous creep! You'll pay for this crime you've committed!"
To which the villain replies:
"So what, you've broken the law too! You didn't wear your seatbelt! So you're just as bad as I am."
January 21, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell ya, oleeb. I am proud to be attacked for simply wanting to see the Constitution and the Rule of Law upheld. It's strange to see it happening, but stranger things have happened in this country. Like a president betraying his oath of office. He should get away with that? The issues are so simple to me. The obfuscators wan to muddy the waters. Or throw sand it would seem... Hmmmm I seem to recall Patrick Fitzgerald talking using a similar metaphor.
January 21, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that wasn't my logic.
Using your metaphor and my logic it would be more like - A cop gave you a ticket for running a red light, but you should pay your mortgage first and dispute the ticket in court if you think it was in error.
It has nothing to do with other drivers paying or not paying their tickets.
January 22, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty simple, really. I follow the laws of physics, mechanics, etc., that guide me from here to there.
The important question is, jason, how do you negotiate your way in common society without a firm grasp of the law? To insist that there is no law because others have allegedly violated it is to advocate anarchy as a more responsible system of governance than is our Constitutional Republic. Your welcome to it, but please take it outside. It ain't welcome in our house.
January 21, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You only welcome the choir. I understand the tendency because that is what demagogues do when they seek to quash contrary opinions. You have yet to accurately quote my point. Ever.
I know it is easy to get because many other people have gotten it. They tend to see what I am saying exactly. You and Oleeb appear to be in the minority, at least on TPM, who don't understand what I am saying most of the time.
I am sorry if you are slow, but I didn't figure I had to slow it down too much given the number of words you throw around here.
Let me slow it down even further:
We have a fire to put out. It is important to catch who is responsible for lighting the fire to ensure they don't light more fires in the future.
They may not have left enough evidence behind for us to convict them of arson, but in either case, we still have to put the fire out even as we start the investigation.
Half of the fire fighting team think the suspected arson is innocent, but we need them to help put out the fire. We can't be screaming about investigations in the midst of hooking up hoses, even though everyone knows to preserve evidence and be prepared for the facts to come out.
No analogy is perfect or even close, but I don't know how else to put it that will help you understand.
January 21, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to pile on you Jason - I'm pretty sure I've replied to your comments on other posts, and if I haven't come across as respecting your views, that's poor communication on my part rather than rancor. But - what the fuck does the division of the electorate have to do with anything relating to facts or justice?
January 22, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a country that is divided as ours has been, finding and punishing the guilty must be done with an even hand, devoid of partisan rancor.
If the DoJ finds evidence of wrong-doing, brings that evidence to court and attains a conviction, the process needs to be above reproach. Despite the neocons being in charge of the conservative half of the country, many republicans are more than ready to accept such a finding if they don't sense that the process was tainted by politics.
To achieve all of Barack's very ambitious and progressive goals, he'll need a portion of the republican faithful pushing their representatives to support his agenda. If the prosecution of Bush and Cheney is seen to be a witch hunt by democrats, the likelihood of gaining that support is slim.
I am simply trying to point out some of the other stakes besides one more president getting away with murder.
January 22, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"with a presumption of guilt.."
No, you are mistaking the PRESUMPTION of guilt with with the SUSPICION of guilt. The evidence leads most of us to suspect guilt, but we do not presume it until it is proven.
When evidence creates suspicion, then investigation should follow.
An investigation is neither an innocent or a guilty verdict, it is the public's tool to deal with the SUSPICION of guilt that is created by evidence.
Anyone who suggests there isn't evidence that Bush and Cheney committed war-crimes is either in total denial or they are working for Darth.
An investigation would end the denial.
January 22, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prosecutors operate on the suspicion of guilt, of which I have no problem. Obviously they must suspect someone before they investigate them. I am cautioning against the presumption of guilt and the rush to judgment by the democratic faithful. That typically gets someone removed from a jury in our system of justice and does nothing to add legitimacy to the process.
January 22, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are a nation of laws, and we must prosecute crimes. In order to determine what crimes may require prosecution, we need to investigate accusations.
January 21, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
January 21, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regrettably, I must agree with JEM on this one, though my conscience, too, cries out for justice.
Despite the enormity of suffering and encroachment on rights that may be laid squarely and rightly at the feet of the Bush administration, there still exists no "smoking gun" of evidence that the former president or his administration engaged in specific crimes that might actually BE redressed (i.e., corrected) by any action we might undertake now.
True, justice need not be limited to the end of correcting errors, but the punishment would fall more heavily on the entire nation than on the individuals whho might have committed crimes. This result would be as unjust as the acts themselves.
January 21, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture has been used, according to Eric Holder, our soon-to-be AG. And according to Susan Crawford:
By law we must investigate. That is the law!
See (among other writers):
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/18/prosecutions/index.html
January 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link to the WaPo article re Crawford:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html
January 22, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
1)
That's a pretty nice example of an opinion disguised as a fact: there has yet to be an investigation into alleged crimes, so a bold declaration of no evidence seems presumptuous at best and something of a WAG at worst.
2)
If, as you and Mr. Miller suggest, that the nation is collectively responsible for acts done in our name, how then would the collective punishment for these crimes be disproportionate (bordering on "unjust") to the responsibility?
January 21, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, wise owl!
January 21, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, thank you for pursuing this cause!
I have to run, so I don't think that I will be able to address any possible replies. However, just to give you an idea of where I was headed with the collective responsibility / guilt thing:
I have serveral German friends none of whom were old enough to be Nazis but some of whom had Nazi ancestry not many generations ago. Each of them take it as a point of pride that Germans have collectively faced up to their national responsibility for the Nazi atrocities and each of them insist that only constant vigilence against such poisonous thinking and acting (consider the neo Nazi movement and the manifest rejection of it by larger German society) including investigation and punishment of modern fascism will 1) keep such disease from ever infecting their society again and 2) allow them to sleep at night while paying off such an onerous historic karma. They didn't get to this state of expiation by burying their collective head in the sand.
January 21, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have German ancestry and I know exactly what you are talking about. For many years, though born here of a dad (also born here) with a 100% German background, I too felt that sense of collective guilt for what the Nazis did. I feel the same now. We should all feel the same! Just as the Germans faced their collective guilt, so must we. Thanks for stirring comments!
January 21, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the "cure" is potentially worse than the "disease" then we should be very careful in how it is administered. Calling for probity and caution as we seek the truth is not the same thing as calling for everything to be swept under the rug.
January 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
And are you alleging that DoJ will not exercise probity and caution? For shame!
January 21, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DoJ isn't the ones I worry about. I fully expect them to do their jobs competently and without prejudice. However, when the democratic faithful are screaming off with their heads, the process tends to be tainted in the eyes of the rest of the country. Was the investigation and impeachment of Clinton so long ago that we have forgotten what that kind of rank partisanship can do to our country?
January 22, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"off with their heads" - that's what the right would have us believe we're saying....
See Glenn Greenwald today:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/22/torture/index.html
The polls dispute your assertion.
January 22, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald is hardly an objective voice, but even taking that poll at face value leaves a lot of questions unanswered and is hardly a slam dunk given the way the numbers break out.
January 22, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, one dance before I go, but then I truly must run:
Not sure what degree of "cure" you're prescribing, but I suggest that a good emetic or colonic every now and then is good for the system, particularly one as lethargic and apathetic as ours.
Agreed, but if the crime is done on behalf of all of us, then shielding us from the guilt, responsibility and any punishment is no action in the cause of justice. Let's be judicious in our actions, but first, let's agree to act.January 21, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument that we should act. We simply need to do so in a way that ensures legitimacy and minimizes push-back from those who are just as convinced that Bush did no wrong or was acting in good faith. Accusations of guilt are not the same thing as proof of guilt.
January 21, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
As TheraP suggests, I somehow have come to the conclusion that the DoJ is more than eminently qualified to conduct a legitimate investigation and of prosecuting thorougly fair war crimes trials as necessary. I also don't think that acting judiciously is equivalent to adopting a glacial pace. There are times when wisdom and justice require the Ian Malcolm nostrum, "must go faster!"
January 21, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Push back? Those who are convinced bush did no wrong will push back no matter what.
I'm not worried about push back. I'm sick and tired of your fear-mongering. What are you scared of?
January 21, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. At least half the republican party is ready to accept a return to the pursuit of justice and rule of law. This is going to be the test case by which the entire Obama administration will be judged by moderate conservatives. I think they are an important constituency to convince if we want to get a bunch of expensive progressive programs passed.
January 21, 2009 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think much of the "push-back" is from those who know very well that what Bush/Cheney did was against the law. They just don't want justice. They just want them to get away with it.
Why? So that if/when -- perish the thought -- they ever get in power again, they can step right back into the dark chamber this administration left behind: torturing, eavesdropping on all of us, presidential 'signing statements' that allow him to break the laws he just finished signing. If this stuff isn't brought up, and actions aren't taken, we can expect history to repeat itself over and over, with the Constitution getting thinner and thinner with every republican administration we have the bad luck to endure.
January 22, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So well said, CVille! And what fascinates me today is that exactly what happened here on this blog on Wed is what Conyers is facing, and likely anyone who seeks to ensure that the law is enforced:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/john-conyers-letter-slamming-newsweek-as-glib-and-cynical/
So here I was conducting (for a bit) my lonely struggle... till others finally piled in as well, when it turns out that the nay-sayers are clearly just spouting talking points being fed to them by the repubs.
I honestly have to laugh at how they're trying to portray this as a lynching. It doesn't seem to be working, given the polls out at WaPo (see Glenn Greenwald on that today).
Cheers! Clearly the other side is sweating!
January 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 22, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, May I respectfully suggest that you look in the mirror before posting such remarks, and then edit them according to your professed standards?
You're Welcome In Advance!
January 22, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may request whatever you like, but I hardly see where taking exception to being called a republican troll is somehow out of line. Perhaps you should read more closely.
January 22, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're not posting as a republican troll, what kind of troll are you then?!
Nice imitation anyway...
January 22, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, trolls post under their own name and are unfailingly polite until massively provoked. I have no problems with what I write while you hide behind three initials and sling insults.
January 22, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Jason, I'm not hiding, am not slinging insults, and some trolls may use their real names but still troll. You don't seem at all interested in moving beyond rank partisanship. :(
January 22, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think those who are sure in this path don't like being accused of leading a witchhunt any more than those of us who are unsure of the wisdom of this path like be accused of things like this:
Neither is a fair portrayal.
January 23, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like you're actually responding to CVille Dem's comment, Hillary. Those are her words.
January 23, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Sorry. Clicked the wrong button. ;)
January 23, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's gotten to be a pretty confusing thread to post on, has it not? ;)
January 23, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a tad. But one of the most prolific discussions I've seen around here in a long time. Kudos. ;)
January 23, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many thanks. I wish you well.
January 23, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, when Eric Holder's appointment is held up because he won't promise to leave the Bush administration alone, why do you think that is? I didn't say that every person who wants to let them go believes that they are guilty and doesn't want them to pay. Good people can certainly disagree on that point.
But I stand by what I said, which is that MUCH of the push-back is from people (like the ones who lauded Bush on the floor the other day, as a 'lion walking among us') who doubt that the facts would exonerate them. I will concede this much: They also probably think the President can do anything, and that if he does it is legal, but we'll see if they are consistent in that believe with our new President. Regardless of all that, this is as true as it was with Iran-Contra et al:
They want them to get away with what they did.
January 25, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schmedley,
Allow me a few corrections to your rabid thirst for justice:
per your 1. I never said "no evidence" exists. My comment says what I wrote, not what you wrote. If I am in error and a smoking gun of evidence exists, please cite all the undisputed facts of the crime matched with the concurrent U.S. Code it violates. No opinions, please.
per your 2.
You are conflating my words with Mr. Miller's (whose central point I still support). Nor did I suggest that the injustice of the collective punishment would be anything like "borderline." (But don't let facts stop you from misquoting me.)
The schism you propose to open in this society would be sufficient to halt the entire agenda of the Obama presidency remaining at the time a Congressional inquiry or special prosecutor is established. That means a virtual shutdown of economic, social and environmental initiatives. In that event, say hello to W's third term minus a few bells and whistles.
Idealism is fine. If only real-world choices were so easy.
January 21, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper:
Thank you for reminding people of this.
January 21, 2009 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here for your consideration is a snippet of a conversation that could well have taken place in a small southern city 50 or so years ago. An unrealistic liberal was causing problems for everyone in town and the authorities had a friendly talk with him to straighten him out, try and put things back in order so people could get on with their lives. It probably went something like this:
"Yes, that's all very interesting. You've got a lot of smart ideas you brought back from college don't ya? Well you see boy, uh, I mean, "Rev." King, we would like to grant your request but it isn't as easy as all that in the "real" world. Now why don't you tell all these people to go on back home now, stop makin all that noise with the singin and start riding the buses again tomorrow morning like they did before? Isn't better if we all just concentrate on getting along instead of creating all this fuss? What you are asking for is just unrealistic and it isn't going to happen see? I think everyone, including all "your" people, would get along a whole lot better and we'd all be happier if you let things get back to the way they've always been just as soon as possible. Things will only be worse if you keep stirring up trouble. Is it really worth all this trouble to you? I mean, what do you think you're gonna get out of it anyway boy? After all, we both know ya can't win. Why are you wasting everybody's time? If ya get your way things will be worse not better!"
January 22, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice strawman argument, oleeb.
Let me point out more clearly what I meant: most people here have no clue about how politics works. They may have marched or stuff envelopes, or worked phone banks, but that haven't really been involved in the political process.
One of the reasons why Obama got elected is that he understands how politics works. You may consider that cynical. But it's the real world.
I find many of the arguments here rather tedious. You know what? Most people would want everyone living in comfort and free from worry. However, resources are finite, money is finite, not every one is willing to work and apply themselves to the same degree, time is finite, and a host of other issues prevent the simple-minded utopia espoused.
Anyone can point out a problem. Most people, however, don't want to properly bound their solutions by reality. But that's the difference between real progress and dreaming. It's not about compromising a vision, it's about giving the vision a toe-hold from which to grow.
January 22, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just how comfortable do you suggest we must become before we can afford to defend Liberty and Freedom?
I leave the answer to others:
January 22, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both those quotes suggest you didn't read what Ripper or I had to say.
January 22, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Au contraire!
I think both of these quotes respond precisely to the arguments that were presented. To now try to deflect the direct hit by the "read what I meant, not what I wrote" tactical argument contributes little to the discussion.
As I've said earlier, it is frustrating trying to nail jello to the wall instead of actually engaging in an honest discussion in a point/counterpoint type fashion.
January 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I wrote was that we should approach this process with a sense of propriety and dignity that has yet to be found on the far right.
I said we should conduct any investigation in such a way as to not further inflame our divisions or in a way that would lead the other side to think this was a witch hunt. I said that finding truth and reconciliation can sometimes be at odds with each other and that we have a historical context that must be understood and appreciated.
I didn't say we should absolve the guilty in the interest of money or a false sense of security or hero worship or whatever else you meant to imply. You responded to something I didn't write and didn't mean.
January 22, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, please explain where you and I are in disagreement on this issue. And if you dare insist that I advocate a witch hunt, you better be prepared to cite an example or suffer being presented with your very own asshat.
What I have seen in this incredibly circuitous discussion is TheraP stating the importance of investigating and holding accountable the past Administration for alleged crimes. She has been very specific that this should occur within the system provided for it (DoJ and the rule of law).
And what I have seen in response is some kind of "Whoa, there! Not so fast" arguments that are all over the map.
Read my synopsis of TheraP's argument in the second paragraph, and then please explain where you object to the simple specifics that are presented.
January 22, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you go all the way back to my original comment to this blog, I was simply advocating what I stated in response to your comments. No more and no less. I will stipulate that TheraP (and you if that matters) doesn't advocate a witch hunt, but when you have to preface remarks with a qualifier, that implies a certain understanding that said argument could be taken that way.
Our disagreement stems from the idea that I am somehow not entitled or encouraged to add nuance to a discussion if it doesn't toe the party line. This is not the first time I have ran into that seeming intransigence on the part of self-professed liberals around here. I don't fit neatly into the little boxes you stacked up on your ideological shelves, yet you insist on shoving me into them at every turn.
The only time I tend to get into riffs and tiffs like the ones found on this blog is when the democratic party begins to look like the very thing they have fought against for so long. I am not sure what is so controversial about reminding the choir that they should look to the pastor for guidance every now and then.
January 22, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm unaware of how you're using "smoking gun of evidence"; as a measure of the depth or quantity of evidence, or instead as an indication of the existence of evidence. That ambiguity notwithstanding, let me slake your rabid thirst for ad hominem sniping by pointing out that your declaration of "no smoking gun of evidence" cannot be asserted at this point because no investigation has been executed and is therefore unworthy of further debate.
I addressed your agreement with Mr. Miller's central point, not your words. As for "misquoting" you, perhaps the term for which you're grasping is misrepresenting. There is a difference, as I'm sure a hair splitter of your caliber must know. If I've somehow minimized the degree to which you deem collective punishment to be unjust, then please be more precise about that degree so that I can avoid further misquotation....uh, I mean misrepresentation.
Perhaps you're responding to another of my posts, but to be clear: in this instant post, I asked a question of proportionality. I proposed no schism, but rather queried whether the American people taking responsibility for the government that purports to act on its behalf would somehow be unreasonable. Your doomsday scenario of political paralysis is no more real than your missing smoking gun. Please don't try to palm off that chimera as my creation.
What is easy is cowardice. Dressing it up in the veneer of fustian realpolitik makes it no more palatable.
January 22, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We wouldn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over Tehran now would we? No time to delay. Best to investigate and prosecute criminals now I say. To prevent the mushroom cloud scenario that is.
January 21, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! :)
January 21, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My deepest fear in regard to the prosecution of BushCo's war crimes is that the status quo will be allowed to prevail. As soon as popular sentiment starts to dictate our direction in the pursuit of justice, we're lost. The majority will NOT defend the rights of others. The majority will NOT guarantee safety to anyone not part of the majority. Equal protection under the law only works when the defense of those protections in not in the hands of the many. Populism and public opinion not only have no place in the justice system, they are anathema* to it.
*Well that's a bit strong. Many laws are a reflection of the sense and sensibility of the population at a given time in history ("blue laws"). The larger theme though I will defend: Basic rights of Habeas Corpus and Equal Protection cannot and must not be influenced by the majority.
January 21, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: TheraP, By Tosa do you mean Wauwatosa? If so, it's right up the street. If you mean the theory of attaining enlightenment, I can't help you ;-)
January 21, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know the word had anything to do with the theory of enlightenment. And yes, I was using the "nickname" as a way to talk privately about how "close" we are.
Perhaps, one of these days, we can set up a meeting place. I think we should join forces. :)
If enlightenment is part of it, that would be nice, but it's not a requirement.
January 21, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ain'T it tHe way thOugh here I cOulD 2@ have made such great use of your expertise in your professional capacity but noW just between yesterday mornI.ng and today my depRession has lifted the suicidal ideology is no longeR. manifest and there is no traCe of thOse lingering psychoses and fringe personality issues that were so evident over the last Maybe 8 years or so
January 21, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope my "paper airplane" gets to its destination.
January 21, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I gather maybe right now you're at work.
January 21, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... If you call what I do with your money "work"...
January 21, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No :-( The heck with convolution!
thood2@wi.rr.com
:-)
January 21, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Resent the paper air plane!
Somehow I missed one "."
You should get it soon.
January 21, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP good post. On cable two minutes ago, our New President just announced an executive order directed to all Federal Agencies. He announced that information heretofore hidden from Americans will soon be open to scrutiny.
I mean his first order was to halt all proceedings in Gitmo. I have not read the order and I certainly could not give an opinion on it, but to make the assertions he just did as far as openness would leave him open for an awful not of media criticism.
I dunno. 24 hours and I am seeing a change.
January 21, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pleased to see that the first orders are for transparency as well as a review of any pending govt policies, procedures, whatever... that's been left over from the previous administration.
Thanks for your kind words and all our joint efforts to see justice done.
January 21, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell Congress to support HR 104 and investigate wrongdoing by the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping. If we let Bush and his cronies escape accountability, then we invite similar abuses of power by future administrations. GreenChange.org makes it easy to ask your representatives in Congress to support an investigation; just go to http://tinyurl.com/85zrq4
January 21, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, greenferret, for your comment and the link.
January 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I note with great joy the make-up of the coming DoJ:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/impressive_new_team_taking_shape_for_doj.php
And I note TPM's comment re Marty Lederman:
With every appointment, I see us one step closer to Justice being restored:
Amen to that!
January 21, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this from Obama:
And I say: Amen!
January 21, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this in TPM Muckraker:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/gopers_worried_about_torture_prosecutions_delay_ho.php
Repubs - worried about torture prosecutions.... I wonder why they're worried. If they did nothing wrong, they have nothing to worry about.
January 21, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get this! No less than:
Article and many links here:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/01/hbc-90004250
January 21, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another important link - over at emptywheel:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/21/carl-levin-on-torture-investigation/
January 21, 2009 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now this, from Glenn Greenwald today, reporting how majorities of Americans want Guantanamo close, no torture "under any circumstance," investigation of all this, and would have opposed the issuance of pardons for those who authorized and directed these things:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/22/torture/index.html
January 22, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I agree with the sentiments here in full.
My own preference is that the biggest of the crimes: the illegal war of agression against Iraq be the primary investigation because of the pointless deaths of so many and thus once justice is done the message is far beyond partisanship. It becomes an international message to every tyranical, criminal war effort on earth.
But frankly, I think every crime that took place needs investigation and let the chips fall where they may. This administrations crimes are legion and it is the widespread nature of these crimes and their seriousness that demand justice be done. These guys went whole hog from fighting illegal wars to paying off contractors/supporters with massive no bid contracts, to distorting public policy for private gain on a widespread basis (Abramoff), and much, much more. The corruption of the Bush regime is unparalleled in modern history. You have to go back to the robber baron era to find this level of corruption. And thus, there must be investigations and wherever the law was broken, the people who broke must be brought to justice.
This is very simple in my view with respect to whether or not the investigations should commence and the guilty brought before the courts as in any other criminal case. Politics should not enter into it, particularly partisan politics. Was the law broken? Of course, we know it was broken. Well then, why is there any debate regarding finding out precisely who broke the law and the extent of the crimes?
To fail to investigate these crimes and then to take the investigations to their logical conclusions makes no sense and really is a green light to future lawbreakers. If prosecutions are called for then let's have them. If they are not, then we should be told why they are not warranted. If a murder took place in a building, and we had suspects but no proof in advance of which of the suspects committed the crime would we not proceed with the investigation? Of course we would because a serious crime took place. We don't throw our arms up and say we shouldn't investigate since we have already decided "someone is guilty"?
Politicians and those who are faint of heart prefer to avoid the messiness of political crimes committed at the highest levels unless it's simply quid pro quo graft such as the Gov. of Illinois is accused of. But the cases where it isn't simply graft that beg most urgently for action because of the abuse of power and breaking of the public trust that occurs in crimes such as conducting illegal wars and torture or using our justice department for political persecutions to eliminate or punish political rivals unjustly. All of that and lots more has gone on. You can't put a stop to it by sweeping it all under the rug anymore than you should ignore a child molesting uncle that you know has abused your children. The only way to put such behavior to a stop is to investigate the crimes and prosecute. It's strictly business and it certainly is appropriate for the American people to expect that criminal activity at the highest levels of our government is treated with the same gravity as a bank robbery or any other common crime. But the value of the investigation and prosecution is far more than just putting away the perpatrators. This is where deterrence is real. When similarly inclined and ethically challenged officials of the government are tempted to commit similar crimes they will, of necessity, have to think twice before going through with it because they'll no they will not get away with it in the end.
Keep pressing the issue! If we don't, who will?
January 21, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can be sure I will keep pressing this issue. As I am sure will you. And we are not alone! What's interesting is how worked up some people are getting - and that tells me the whole idea of pursuing these crimes is really making some nervous. It's about time!
Solidarity, oleeb!
January 21, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised at the level of ferocity some of us (I include myself) jump to when it comes to holding the bad guys feet to the fire. For the sake of debate it's good that some of us are on different side of the fence or it becomes a rather confusing echo chamber. I'd try to mix in another metaphor but I'm all out.
On this issue I argue several sides. We must (for our own souls) hold our leaders accountable. That said if holding them accountable begins to transmogrify into taking revenge, we're in deep spit.
January 21, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is why I said no witch hunt. Just justice.
January 21, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I updated my profile for you BTW...
January 21, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting. I'm following you - but it doesn't show up in your profile that I'm following you.
I did check your profile.... and also I think I flew a paper airplane your way.
January 21, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I "miss" things, so maybe I'm not "getting" something.
January 21, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you're missing anything...
Road Runner from Time Warner is not the most reliable service I've ever used...
I'll see if it's just getting delayed. If I don't see anything when I get to work in the AM I'll leave another address in my profile :-)
January 21, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I got it right. (but I left out the word "I" - thinking maybe it didn't belong as part of the string)
Usually if something is not deliverable, I get a message about that right away. And that didn't happen.... so we'll see.
I did not know DoD had facilities here! On the other hand I guess they wouldn't advertise that, would they?
January 21, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be so much easier if we just pretended today was Day 1 of the Universe, and went from there?
January 21, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then we'd have to do that every day! Justice is obliged to look back. Or you're suggesting that no one ever be tried for any crimes. Unless it's on the day the crime was committed.
January 21, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tongue in cheek.....but I was also thinking how it feels like a new day under President Obama, and how nice it is to imagine starting anew, without all the baggage of the past. But in my heart, I do agree we need an accounting of torture, rendition, etc. Maybe overwhelming grassroots pressure is the only thing that can force action. I'm ready to sign up, but I want to make sure we don't get sidetracked and start a political fight that slows down progress on the immense problems facing us, and our future.
(Of course, at this point, the little voice in my head pipes up and mentions that without an accounting, and a true committment to our values, and the Rule of Law, can we ever fix this country meaningfully, and for the long haul.)
January 21, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I misunderstood the comment, Dorn.
I absolutely think there is no need for us to have to have a political fight about this. So the sooner we got a Special Prosecutor and some indication that DoJ is looking into this, the sooner it any public attention can die down. I don't want this in the public sphere. I want it within the DoJ, where it belongs. Who among us can really pursue this? The professionals need to given a task and left alone to do their work.
I understand the need for Obama to go forward. I don't want the Congress to get involved as they are too likely to muddy the waters.
For that reason, I trust the branch that is charged with investigating crimes.
The current outcry tells me the criminals are scared. As they should be.
But we are obliged by law to investigate, and if it's warranted, prosecute war crimes. We have no choice about that.
But public theater, no thanks! That would never serve justice.
January 21, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tain't nothing going to happen about any 'war crimes', maybe some token stuff as a scrap to the lunatic fringe of the democrat party. (and that's the bulk of it's membership) But nothing like what you envision. Forget it.
January 21, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's wait and see... unless you can prove you are good at predictions.
January 21, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much to your chagrin, I got one right here lately, didn't I?
January 21, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that was?
January 21, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you claim to be a Democrat if you have so little respect for the party? Oh. That's right. Because you aren't.
January 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm on board. Just posted my latest musing on the subject with much more brevity and depth than you. For me, it's freakishly simple. The worst crime in my lifetime is not going to go unpunished if I can help promote justice for humanity.
Enjoy.
January 21, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice for humanity. You put it well. Kudos!
January 21, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responded to you from earlier, above, Thera, hope you see it, and have a chance to respond. Great post, and one of the most thought provoking and difficult issues facing President Obama.
(It's just great to be able to call him that!)
January 21, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so agree re President Obama! I'll look above for your response, Dorn!
January 21, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, I believe with a level of confidence approaching certainty that if legitimate investigations were held that there would be ample evidence found to convict many Americans from Bush on down of war crimes and of other violations and subversions of the Constitution. I hold Bush and quite a few people below him in total contempt, not just for what they did but for being the kind of people who could do some of the things they have done. That is, that they had the character and psychological makeup that would bring them to do what they did and then allow them to show no apparent pangs of conscience when the horrible evidence of the affects of their actions become obvious. I too want justice. I don't believe in hell which is the only reason I think he won't go there. In a sense, I think the only way true justice could ever be served would be if Bush was hooked up to a conscience machine and made to feel some tiny fraction of the grief he has caused.
I posted on this same subject today.
January 21, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for posting, Lulu. I'll read it and I already rec'd it. For others, here's the link to Lulu's post:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/lulu_strauss/2009/01/we-gotta-do-something.php
The more posts we have on this the better.
I myself have done 4 or 5 by now. And until this is resolved with DoJ initiating "something," I will keep posting and posting. And I hope you will too!
Thanks for your comment here!
January 21, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lulu, click my name and go back and read all my blogs on this. You'll see why it's both a legal and moral obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
January 21, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ack!
Nor should any red blooded American, damnit. We stand for SOMETHING, and no torture is one of those things. It goes to our very roots as a Nation. Just ask the Father of our country.
Just sayin'.
January 21, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, I think I want to kiss a chicken!
Amen. We stand for something! Yes! I'm tellin' ya, I'm ready to call for the "granny brigades" to march with pots and pans, like they did in Argentina.
Thanks for your comment! I think you're turning out to be more an eagle! With your watchful eye.
January 21, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is good isn't she? From now on its 'turkey ala king'
January 21, 2009 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she likes being a chicken... but turkey, eagle, she's up there as a fowl!!!!
Perhaps she'd prefer Queen!
January 21, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ack! I prefer being one of the mob. They are my peeps and I love them.
January 21, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful poem!
January 21, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful poem Bwak!!!
January 21, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's Sandburg. One must say it aloud. Like the rutabaga stories......
Where oh where is our Sandburg?
January 21, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate these senior moments! I'm thinking of another American poet that poem reminded me of....
Help me out here! He was gay. He wrote things like "I sing of America... " or something. When I was kid up in the attic (where my brother and I slept) there was a book of his poems. I can see the book.... and the name?
January 21, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saul?
January 21, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shel Silverstein?
January 21, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walt Whitman!!!
I love his poetry! And Sandburg has a similar cadence, I think.
January 21, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Song of myself! was thrown by "attic" and "kids"
LOL
January 21, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the attic and the kids.... I was talking the early 50's.
Another century!
My parents had a small library then. But I read and reread everything... including lives of the saints (and their tortures...). I suspect that affected me. Animal Farm - read it many, many times! Dangerous literature!
January 21, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need my big crush, Psuedocyants. He knows the passage I'm thinking of. It's just that so many people have commented on George Washingtons upright morality regarding PoWs, (or as they called them, "unlawful combatants, as they weren't brits, and were foriegn nationals working for pay,) that it's dang near impossible to easily google the source material. I did try, but it's late, and I gots a looong day tomorrow.
I am hardly an eagle, but I like to think I know the difference between right and wrong. George Washington was right. Anything less than that is wrong.
I am an American, and I want to be proud of that distinction, once again. I think Obama will help to heal that wound in our National consciousness, that Bush and his apologists have done so well to muddy, (judging from the comments of those that should know better). I pray to all that is good and worth fighting for in this world that it will be so.
Torture? Zero tolerance. Not even the appearance of it shall be tolerated.
Thank you so much, dear one, for this opportunity to say so.
January 21, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, dear bwak! And hopefully our PCA will weigh in, as you wish.
January 21, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the poem. I agree that it is best read aloud. I'm going to do so until I can get the cadence and emphasis right and then read it to someone I know.
January 21, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sandburg meant for us regular folk to "speak" his poetry. He was the editor of the great Chicago Tribune, if I remember correctly, so his punctuation should be taken literally. I read his rutabaga stories to my own young'un plenty of times. Lots of run-on sentences in those, but there is none of that here. He loved America and Americans. Most of them.
He was one of us. :) I don't believe I've read you before. But I like you already.
January 21, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most poetry is best read aloud. Time to savor the words. And easier to understand when declaimed. I loved that poem yesterday. I loved hearing her savor all the words and phrases.
January 21, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, I was so glad LisB posted it. She's a treasure, as are you, ma'am.
I'll see youse later. Pleasant dreams
January 21, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
jason doesn't like us fraternizing... but... as you know, I want to kiss a chicken!
yeah... pleasant dreams...
January 21, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truth has now become clear. There are two hotspots: Single payer univeral health care; and the duty to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
For some reason, these issues really bring out the comments and get under the skin of trolls and those who profess to be "reasonable."
Why is that? Why these two topics? Both relate to fairness. Both involve healthy - one benefits health; the other detracts from health. And both are in some way moral issues, that some people oppose, no matter how righteous the case being made.
I make this deduction on the basis of LisB's post on single payer health care and this post. A tiny sample to be sure. But the number of comments... Will this too become a post that will not die?
January 21, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
justice deferred is justice denied. i agree with your diary. don't be bullied into not seeking swift justice. hopefully with it, we'll have more transparency in our government.
there's a big push out on conservative/corporate networks to not prosecute bush, and actually to build up bush's "legacy" as a good one. you can betcha that there's a warehouse full of shredded documents and communications between government officials and corporations somewhere.
they are trying to hold justice back on purpose, to cover their tracks, plain and simple. if we have evidence we must pursue it. we do not need a smoking gun and never did. they are hoping that inertia in public will against prosecution will buy enough time to cover their tracks...the same thing that skepticism towards global warming does, it buys time.
January 21, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your support and encouragement. In many areas I'm pretty forgiving. But in this one, attempts to bully me will be counterproductive.
Obama has said today he is for transparency and the Rule of Law. He's a Constitutional scholar in addition.
Naturally bushco wants us to forget about this or cave in to their fear-mongering. I've seen this movie before - and it didn't convince me the first time.
Let us hear more from you! :)
January 21, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Post TheraP. While I do understand where JEM is coming from, the evidence of torture given by GWB himself is impossible to ignore. JEM's rightful quote of "innocent until proven guilty" only works so far as the accused does not actually admit with pride that he actually committed those crimes for a supposed good reason.
Keith Olbermann did a scathing special comment about this very subject and I just posted it here.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mageduley/2009/01/we-are-guilty-of-torture-in-ou.php
January 21, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my first paragraph I mentioned the presumption of innocence. Of course I want every iota of protection to be given to any of those accused. If justice is to be served, she must be well served - according those rights to anyone who is accused that they refused to give to those they incarcerated and tortured.
Thanks for your kind words. Mage. It means a lot.
January 21, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP:
Actually, you are leading a lynch mob... on TPM.
You have done everything to stifle debate and nuanced arguments on TPM the past few weeks, including trying to get TPM to "punish" me for comments sometimes made to others or for false claims of "cyberstalking".
You have also been intellectually dishonest: when I took heat from you, for example, by pointing out that "the people" are not a "fourth branch" -- you refused to even believe it with a Wiki reference. It wasn't until others her pointed out how over the top you were being, that you backed down that particular slogan. Of course, you never acknowledged or thanked me for helping educate you -- yet you post a reply to any trivial "co-sign" of others. How will I ever know you are correct, if you can't admit you are wrong about something -- even if you dislike the person who educated you? That is the intellectual dishonesty -- and given your educational background, I know you know better.
It's clear from looking at this particular thread, that post-election, a small vocal group will be able to purify these boards. I don't expect JEM to want to deal with the general screeds forever. (Hell, even Ripper pointed out what is going on.) I see many of the comments made to me in the past ("condescending", etc.) now applied to JEM. Isn't it amazing? One who dares defy the cozy little groupthink here is by definition condescending?
Meanwhile, we see posters like TT screw up and post as an alter ego "Putty". That weakens the intellectual discourse here as well since it's not about politics but performance art. (And Putty isn't amusing like MonicaL, idiot, Pirate Peet, and Crankypants... he's simply another poster that tires to shout down others.)
I'll only point out that most of the posters that used to be around here have gone away to where there are more intellectual and non-echo chamber discussions. Personally, I find your constant cross posting of your TPM blogs into the comments on other blogs rather tedious: does TPM have to be all TheraP all the time?
Of course, now you've been making the pre-ad homium attacks that those with differing views are "trolls". Yes, you are a popularly followed poster... and you, like George W. Bush, has shown us: power corrupts absolutely. As you can see: your methods are no different than those you wish to punish. As always, something to think about.
I leave you with no malice and a gift:
http://www.worldometers.info/
where you can watch the world population increase until the human race, itself, bursts, and our oil supplies shrink to nothing.
Obama gave an excellent speech, full of sober intent, including the admonishment to put away childish things.
Single minded ideology and lack of a nuanced discussion is a childish thing.
January 21, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, I respect your opinion. I want to know what happened over the last eight years. I am for full investigations by the DOJ, by the Senate and by the House of Representatives. I want more investigations in individual cases by individual DAs.
For eight years there has been a cover up. Obfuscation and outright lies.
I want documentation. I want documents. I want testimony under oath and when someone lies, I want them prosecuted.
The past head of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ is just one good example. Perjury, under oath, in Congress, and no prosecution.
Laws broken. Laws that the Civil Rights Division was set up to enforce.
I want to know who attended the hidden energy conference with dicky. Who was there, what was said and what effect did that meeting have on an eight year energy policy? I want to know the answers to these questions.
I want to know how many scientific papers were redacted and by whom in the last administration.
I want to know what the EPA has done over the last eight years. How many times did they break the law. Laws passed by Congress.
I want to know about hiring policies in every single department within the ambit of the Executive Branch. I want to know all campaign activities performed in government offices in contravention to established laws.
I want to know the contents of over 400 phone calls from the Vice President's office during the first week of the invasion into Iraq.
I want to know how much money was paid by Haliburton to Cheney or anyone related to Cheney over the last eight years.
I want to know why Haliburton changed its citizenship, reneged on promises to their original homeland. I want to know all taxes that it 'escaped' through corporate obfuscation and if, in fact, that corporate entity still owes us money.
I want to know how much money every single one of the 72 generals, hired by w to spew his propanda, received from the taxpayers, from their pensions, from cable networks and radio networks and web networks and how much money they received from defense contractors.
These are just of few of my areas of concern.
January 22, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. You want to thoroughly investigate the past 8 years. And really, why stop at 8? After all, Clinton issued nearly twice as many presidential pardons as Bush and had some shady dealings with the Chinese that were never thoroughly vetted. Indeed, why stop at 16? Let's start by going back to the 1950s and uncover the abuses of the US government by the CIA in Latin America? Why stop at the 1950s? Let's go back to the 1930's as FDR helped the US divvy up the mid east oil rights despite Britain having a large domain there.
Here's the deal: examine (say) Watergate or Iran-Contra and consider the Congressional resources spent on relatively simple cases.
Now: what would you like the Congress to do in the meantime. How about deal with the economy? The 2 wars we are fighting? Health care?
Your concerns are fine. But now you have to make a list of priorities. Do you really want a thorough investigation of the past 8 years -- which will do much to irritate part of the constituency you need to help you pass these bills? Or do you want to look towards the future?
I suggest you think of Jake Gittes: "Forget it, it's Chinatown."
January 22, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
After all, Clinton issued nearly twice as many presidential pardons as Bush and had some shady dealings with the Chinese that were never thoroughly vetted.
Just what the hell does TherP's post have to do with pardons, or with a relative pardon count? If I were president, I would immediately pardon every person who is imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses, including sales and distribution. I believe that presidential pardons are woefully underused. As for Clinton's pardons, Rich got his as a favor to Ehud Barak, and a futile effort to keep the bastard Sharon from running Israel. The FALN commutations were not out of line. None of the 16 who got them had been convicted of causing anybody bodily harm, and had been sentenced to between 35-105, years, and they were supported by many Nobel Laureates as well as some high-end Catholic clergy. This was wafting mendacity from the Party of Public Potty Peepers. There were some valid concerns about access given Hugh Rodham, but president's brother-in-law comes with the territory. Now, do you actually have any evidence to back-up your claim of "some shady dealings with the Chinese", or are you hurling unsubstantiated innuendos at an easy target?
Of course, none of this is on thread, which is about assuring that Bush Administration officials, whose response to their miserable failure, and dereliction to the primary Executive Branch's duty of defending this Nation on September 11, 2001, was to wage war upon the very Dreamtime America, along with gang-banging dishonourable breaches en masse of their freely sworn oaths to defend and uphold the United States Constitution, Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.
They deprived humans of the benefits of Trial by Jury; they transported humans beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences; they abolished the free System of English Laws on a neighbouring island Naval base, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, with the intent to enlarge its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into Our Nation. They transported large armies of corporate mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation. A President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.
Your response causes me once again to choke back the bile which rises up into my throat concomitant with the feelings of nostalgia I get thinking about an Idyllic America past, when our president's lies were only about acts of consensual sex, and tobacco products with exotic aromas. The only tenable conclusions that can be made from your argument is: 1) Contemporary Conservationism's morality was stunted at the age of 10 years old. (But Mom, BillyJeff did it First); 2) Two Wrongs Do Indeed Make A Righty; and 3) Real Republicans cannot understand why so many Americans are offended by the use of forcible sodomy with a blunt instrument as an interrogatory methodology, because to them, that's just an authorized use of compassionate conservative force.
January 22, 2009 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've done the founding fathers proud. Bwak too, I bet!
January 22, 2009 5:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I so wish you were there in Holders hearings to smack down these republicans asshats. This comment is spot on!
January 22, 2009 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mage:
Nice invective. Call an outside voice a Republican "asshat".
First, please don't use the word "asshat". If you don't have the guts to call someone an asshole, don't call someone a name at all.
Second, if you read my post, you would have seen that I used examples of abuses from both parties.
January 22, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT, I have defended your comments on more than one occasion. However your indignation to my current comment is unwarranted. I was merely admiring PCA's arguments and wishing that the same would have been stated to those republicans in the Judiciary committee hearings who want to beat Eric Holder over the head with the pardons.
In short, my comment was directly to PCA and had nothing really to do with you. I am sorry you took it personally.
Oh by the way, Asshat is a slang word. I used the word Asshat deliberately (not Asshole) since the word's definition is precisely using one's ass as a hat. For a visual, click here.
January 22, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mage:
I stand corrected and apologize if I misread your comment. However since you replied to Pseudo who was trying to lambaste my comment, it should come as no surprise that I took your comments about me in particular.
January 22, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, PCA! This essay you have written here in response to the "b-b-b-but Clinton!..." argument is profound. It even received a fist pump from me as I read it.
Please consider re-writing as a blog entry. The points you make here - and the effective presentation - really warrants wider circulation, including copy/paste/send to every lawmaker on the Hill.
Thanks for this great stuff!
January 22, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign!
January 22, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pseudo:
Isn't it amazing how some people's reading comprehension goes out the window if the word "Clinton" is used in a post? I mean from both the left and the right?
I took pains to point out abuses on both sides of the aisle -- and none had to do with blow jobs and other trivialities. Of course, it plays better to people here to not recall history, but rather their own memory, so you choose to build your entire argument on "well, don't prosecute Bush because Clinton did things wrong as well" -- which is a stupid argument, I agree.
That's why I didn't say anything close to it.
May I suggest you re-read my comment? Thanks.
January 22, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just need to go back a second.....why do you have a bug up your ass about TheraP AGAIN?
Stop being a boor. In no way has she stifled dissent or started a mob.
January 22, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will agree she hasn't incited a mob, but she has surely stifled dissenting opinions. At least, my dissenting opinion. Maybe it has something to do with my party affiliation.
January 22, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What dissent? You've merely criticized the delivery of the message, not offered an opposing message, Jason. Or did I miss a grain of gold in all the dirt here?
January 22, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What dirt? This whole victimization and holier than thou thing on the left is just as tiring as it has been on the right.
I made a very simple point that as we pursue investigations that we keep our very justified anger in check or else we pollute the legitimacy of the process. I also made reference to historical trends that have made legal all sorts of immoral practices by both parties throughout our 230 year history. I suggested that a truly objective process may in fact lead no where because these guys are hardly stupid enough to leave a trail of evidence that will hold up in court.
That isn't dirt, but it is apparently so controversial that you guys have bent yourselves into rhetorical pretzels disputing points I never made.
January 22, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, but I hope you enjoyed imagining those imaginary contortions!
January 22, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Synchronicity was kind enough to drop a germane article into my news stream this morning.
The article then goes over the Great Wall with its analysis of the reasons for Bush's popularity in China, saying that his free-trade policies helped their economy continue to grow rampantly, that he reined in Taiwan's vehement nationalistic former president who wears a magic bullet deflecting sports coat, Chen Shui-bian, and his support for the Beijing Olympics, including his visit, when many other many other world leaders felt that a boycott might be appropriate in response to China's dismal human rights record.
The real reason for Bush's Chinese popularity is that one has to travel all the way back to Nixon to even come close to finding an Administration that handed America's ass to Mainland the way GW did. Kissinger presented Red China a Grade A U.S. Prime Rump Roast when he gave Mainland the keys to Saigon on his Particularly Loquacious Day, June 20, 1972, in a secret Beijing meet with Chou En-lai. He clearly laid out the time-line and rule-set to effectively play-out a decent interval between US disengagement from Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese's victory over the South. For 30+ years, this memorandum was hidden from public view, while the left took all of the blame for the Fall of Saigon.
GW Bush managed to under perform Kissinger's Peking Duck. Bush is appreciated in China for much more than playing free-trade with them. He doesn't belong in the majors, and instead belongs on a single A team from Middling, Texas, because he his rank and defiled amateurishness. The Beijing Gang gave their client-sided pyretic pygmy of Pyongyang a little bit extra slack on his chain, and he succeeded rattling GW into his Axis of Evil Contender's Corner. Bush took his eye off of the ball, marching America's military away from the good fight in Tora Bora into an unjustified War Upon Iraq, all tge while paying far too much attention to Iran and North Korea. China made giant strides into Africa, stabilised their relationships with Russia and the former Soviet breakaways in the Central Asian Steppes. In November 2004, when APEC met in Chile, Hu Jintao showed up two weeks early for a South American sweep, picking up future agriculture production contracts, and the mineral resources slack that the American economy was no longer demanding, paid for out of Dollar denominated reserves. Bush showed up for a one day series of photo-ops, and to get a worthless piece of paper signed lightly condemning Kim Pyong-il for his nuclear program. We got our asses kicked, by the Chinese, playing our own game in our home hemispheric stadium. Bush's appointed U.S Trade Representative, Robert B. Zoellick, was a miserable failure, yet Bush double-bumped him up, first to Deputy Secretary of State, and then to be world Bank President, proving once and for all that the Peter Principle is a fable, as far too often, bureaucrats, both public and private, do get promoted past their level of incompetence.
Bush didn't put out the fiery rhetoric of Chen Shui-bian in Taiwan. I'm willing to wager that he cannot even recollect that former leader's full name. What took Chen Shui-bian down was his faked assassination attempt to get elected, his utterly corrupt administration, and his never-ending yammering about Taiwanese independence which was interfering with the big-boy Taiwanese capitalists getting their own free-trade zone sweathsops, like Hong Kong has, set up across the strait in their own personally capitalised enclaves.
Bush's Olympic antics in Beijing were an embarrassment to America, and the Chinese derived great humour from his oafish drunkenness, even if he was in reality only on a dry drunk.
Wait! Look Out Behind You! It's the Arkansas Hillbilly, and his fly is open again! Careful now, don't gaze long enough to get an accurate estimate of enormity! Just one furtive glance is enough to know BillyJeff is no Contemporary Conservative.
January 22, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also.
January 22, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your obsession with focusing on the Clintons' rivals that of people like Rush.
Fascinating.
January 22, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My obsession? You were the one who brought up the off-threaded topic, after all, in a lame attempt to obfuscate just where the bloody boot-tracks of responsibility for acts of humanity perpetrated upon persons detained Under The Colour Of Authority Imparted By the American Flag (my flag, and I'll not stand down).
It was you whose response was strongly indicative of Clinton Obsessive Disorder (COD). You strayed far afield with unsubstantiated innuendos of pardon improprieties and shady-dealing with the Chinese by W.J. Clinton. At the very least, you could offer evidence that you pseudo is not brutally ironic by laying down some citations to back-up your FREEPing Foolery.
My second post wasn't about Clinton at all, excepting the last paragraph riff. It was instead my opinion about Bush's miserable failure engaging the Chinese, and again I inform: it wasn't I who brought up to topic, but was instead yourself.
As to your perception that I obsess on Clinton, I direct you to return again to my first response in this thread, and reflect clearly upon what I wrote. It can hardly be construed as approbation. I never voted for Clinton, nor did I vote for either GHW Bush or Bob Dole. If your electoral decision was based upon a relative decision between the lesser of two evils, then you have self-evidently chosen evil. I'm quite content wasting my vote upon a candidate that I believe would be qualified to hold the contested office, and if none meet are up to snuff, then to skip over that vote. In Nevada, all state-wide and Federal Offices are required by law to have a "Non Of These Candidates" choice on the ballot. It was the third highest vote getter in the Presidential race last November. I was not a fan of Clinton's, and rate his presidency somewhere on the upper-side of average in comparison to all Presidents. anyone who would lie under oath about receiving consensual fellatio places an exceedingly low valuation upon their personal honour.
Yet what is the lesson to be learned from the last eight years; the BushII Presidency and the GOP Gone Wild In D.C. 2002-2006? It is that Contemporary Conservatives are dishonest despicable hypocrites, who do not really believe in accepting personal responsibility for the effects of their past actions, fiscal responsibility, smaller less intrusive government, Defending the Constitution, or Liberty and Justice For All. In truth, Contemporary Conservatism is a parody of True Conservative Political theory, jacked by New-Righty Radicals and Former Trotskyites, driving Conservatism into its still continuing decay in the well of moral relativism. The proper lesson learned is the Democrats are not in fact the lesser of two evils within the bipolar polity; they are the lamer of two evils, and the lamer of evils is a valid electoral choice.
January 23, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lordy! How you do go on, Pseudo!
In the thousands of words you let rip from your fingers, you still haven't even gotten to the point of my comment. I mentioned Ike and FDR in addition to Clinton... AND I mentioned scandals in the Nixon and Reagan administrations... but like so many with the Clinton obsession, you simply saw "Clinton" and spewed from there. This time comparing him to GWB.
I'm still not sure you read my comment, but it's been impressive how much verbiage you've generated as a result of my use of the c-word. The fact is, my comment was totally on topic -- although your spasm of reaction is addressing something I didn't go into, so it's not surprising you didn't see the connection, dear sir.
January 23, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see you, Ant!
January 22, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Epitaph for the "Cheney" Administration, supplied by TPM headline:
"A Triumph Of Obfuscation"
January 22, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP - First a meta comment: Congrats on a post which has attracted at least 211 comments.
I'm for Justice, but as a pragmatist, not at any cost. It seems that your focus is simply having a legit investigation, the opposite of sweeping all the dust under the rug. If so, we agree on that much.
I think you and Jason talked past each other a whole lot. I think you win that in the sense that your brevity trumped his verbiage.
For myself, I want some revenge along with justice. But I recognize that and hold those two as separable in me, and I would probably settle for justice without revenge. I feel betrayed by Bush, Cheney and Powell in particular, since 2003. I don't feel betrayed over Gitmo, and I don't feel betrayed over torture. But I do believe that immoral conduct occured, sanctioned and promoted by high level members of the Executive Office and with the knowledge and concurrence of at least some members of Congress.
Jason has his head on backwards if he really thinks the American people are as culpable as those who largely in secret proposed, developed, "justified", and engaged in conduct which violates conventions or treaties to which the US is a party. Ditto to unConstitutional activities such as extra-legal extensions of FISA etc.
I'm mostly interested in those at the policy level, but there are sound arguments that "good soldiers" are not immune. If necessary, non-US investigation and perhaps prosecutions, such as now rumored re the UN.
January 22, 2009 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, eds, for your reasoned comments, all the more laudable because of your desire for revenge - held in check. (Revenge goes nowhere but to more revenge, does it not?). I guess I don't feel betrayed by bushco, but then I never trusted them to begin with. If you did, then I can surely understand where that sense of betrayal would come from. (The argument with Jason, I agree, was in some sense futile and wasted, like swatting gnats - so I take your critique of that with good grace. He was, I believe, trying to sidetrack the post to other issues of his choosing - and I was trying to bring the topic back to, yes, the central issue, to Justice.)
It matters not to me whether this is investigated by DoJ or an international court, but the latter might cause more of an outcry than a homegrown investigation. (I would trust an international court myself. It's a different system of justice, with judges doing the deciding rather than a jury - but nonetheless venerable and historical in its type. Indeed, if we do nothing here, that could well come to pass eventually.)
This is a painful blot on the nation and it must be dealt with. Indeed, it is our legal and moral duty - as I've said here and elsewhere. I too am mostly interested in the policy level. That is where the potential for future danger lies if this is not carefully dealt with now.
January 22, 2009 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
By policy level, I mean The Principals and those who designed and rationalized the policy. Just to be clear.
January 22, 2009 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a gnat,a troll, a nuisance, a distraction and unreasonable in my opinions.
Does that somehow equal effective communication in your world, doctor? I would have thought you would be able to resist the group think through dint of training and earlier bouts of reasonable commentary.
I see that was the exception and not the rule.
January 22, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't simplify my argument beyond recognition. We have a system that is corrupt and corrupting. It has been that way for 230 years.
Voters, either by direct action or through pathetic inaction, are responsible for this sorry state of affairs. If they weren't, we would have more than 18% turnout for primaries and 96% of incumbents wouldn't be elected.
Many unconstitutional activities have happened along our historical journey. I am all for finding a non-partisan, process-oriented way to roll back all of those things that make our ideals so much higher than our reality. If along the way there is evidence of guilt that can find convictions in a court of law, great, but to pretend that investigations with the same tone and tenor as those that Clinton survived would somehow be helpful to our cause is a naive belief in an America that has never existed.
Flame on.
January 22, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, You seem to be replying to my comments. The problem I had reading your long exchange with TheraP is that you really did seem to be trying to deflect from the point in favor of some other point of your own. It may be that the citizens are wimps overall, but that's not a reason not to investigate the conduct of individuals in positions of power, in search of the truth with an eye to justice.
Given that all power corrupts, so what? You yourself "simplified" beyond recognition here. Or are you saying that your argument is shallow, is aimed at mere appearance rather than deeper truth, with that remark?
January 22, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was not trying to deflect the blog to another point nor was my non sequiter about power the point I was making.
I was simply pointing out that as we investigate, it is incumbent upon those doing the investigations to retain legitimacy by being calm, cool and collected during the process. That at the end of the process, should the outcome be prosecutions and jail time for those that are convicted in a court of law, legitimacy of the process will be the only way it doesn't tear this country further apart.
For Obama to get anything done that is substantive and sustainable, he needs to build on the conservative moderates he gathered during the primaries and general election. A process that is viewed as excessively partisan won't help him do that.
We only have to look at what happened during the Clinton witch hunt to see how such a thing can be used to tear us apart rather than bind us together.
January 22, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep seeing what another poster called "sophistry" in your comments, Jason. If you don't intend your remarks as such, perhaps phrasing your ideas differently could help you communicate them.
The problem in this case is that there will always be those who "view" an activity as "excessively partisan" (some people will love what Bush did, to their graves, and thus see any search for justice as excessively partisan against Bush, for instance), and thus you in effect if not intent argue for doing nothing. One solution is to not place "viewed as" in the focus of your thinking or remarks. I don't believe TheraP is calling for going through the motions as empty lip service to justice, so "viewed as" just isn't the main point.
Can you simply articulate your valid point without the excesses?
January 22, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, if all you want is how this is viewed from the choir, why should I bother commenting at all?
My comments are not sophistry nor are they really all that subtle. It is a legitimate concern for the 46 million people who didn't vote for Obama and is something the president himself has taken great pains to avoid. We have recent history where a process was tainted by excessive partisanship and how that made the "persecuted" react in response.
I never, not once, argued that TheraP was being partisan in her call, but did note very specifically where her verbiage might indeed lead some to believe that she was. It wasn't until she further refined her point that the true meaning became clear, yet somehow mine was lost.
If the left is as uncaring in their pursuit of "justice" as the right has been all these years, I am not entirely sure how we are going to solve any of problems, let alone ones that depend on perspective and precedent and proof (vice supposition.)
January 22, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your issue is merely with the messengers (the words of the left and/or TheraP), not with the message?
January 22, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The message is sound, though the delivery is flawed in many respects.
Especially when it comes to defending that message from respectful disagreement or even a request for clarification. I have no personal animosity for anyone in particular, though the tone of many on this thread could certainly have led many conservatives to dig in their heels even further.
That doesn't seem to be the message Barack is trying to deliver.
January 22, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not confuse Obama with posters here. When we chide each other for minor excesses of language, if we do it with good humor and/or forward-looking clarity, that might be something we, and Obama, could approve of.
Of course, one man's forward may be another man's reverse!
As said before, some conservatives will take exception to anything forward looking, so your criticism while well-meant still seems sophistic and specious, no offense.
January 22, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, any criticism around here is sophistry if the choir doesn't agree. Forgive me I don't take your hypocritical advice.
January 22, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since I have not offered any hypocritical advice, I am not insulted by your reply!
If you're feeling a bit hot under the collar here, smile!
January 22, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of your comments to me are nothing but sophomoric sophistry taking offense at things I never said. Your comments are as hypocritical as they are unwanted and unwarranted. By all means, take the ad hominem route (hot under the collar, etc.) rather than responding to something I actually wrote. Seems to be par for the course around here.
January 22, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Your comments are as hypocritical as they are unwanted and unwarranted."
If that is an equation, then they were wanted and warranted, so I will say, "You're welcome despite your odd and partisan phrasings!"
When I say "If" I generally mean it, Jason. There was no 'ad hominem' fallacy, because I wasn't offering that remark as argumentation. Rather it was a friendly test of your ability or willingness to affect, if not experience, warm friendliness instead of cool partisan rhetoric.
I apologize if it came off otherwise to you.
January 22, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am more than happy to speak intelligently and dispassionately about a great many things, but to pretend that sarcastic remarks should be taken as friendly banter is pushing intellectual dishonesty.
I have yet to be partisan other than having the temerity to suggest that many of you are. I have held the same opinions for my entire time at TPM, yet it wasn't until I became a "republican" that I had to face the sort of rancor I have met with on this blog.
Sublimate all you want, but I am not the one who has pushed this conversation into places that it didn't need to go.
January 22, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not sublimation to note that you just confessed outright to being intellectually dishonest.
January 23, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really need to work on reading comprehension. I was noting that suggesting sarcastic comments is friendly banter is intellectually dishonest. I'll admit my syntax was odd, but it surely couldn't be reasonably construed as admitting to intellectual dishonesty. This is just getting absurd now. Have fun with whatever last word you choose to leave.
January 23, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, eds, Li'l ol' TheraP has now been defined as a "danger" to the repub party. Not what I say, but who I am. Now on one level, that just cracks me up! That they could be that afraid! And on another it tells me: Wow, they're investing me with a lot of power here! They fear my voice!
So... I'm gonna use it!
January 22, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep up the good work!
And now this thread is well past 300 comments so I hope Jason has had enough of it, if not enough of justice. I've had enough of the former, not enough of the latter!
Go Obama!!
January 22, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, buddy!
January 22, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad I could be of service. "I'll make you famous."
January 22, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've refrained from posting on threads of this topic because I thought I might find myself the lone voice of dissent. I've half-written responses, only to find I didn't know exactly what I wanted to say. Which leads me to the essential point: I am horribly, inextricably, torn on this issue.
I find myself in agreement with much of what is written here about justice and truth, and admire the certitude with which so many here articulate their views, but find myself in a place of absolutely no certainty.
So please forgive me as I stumble through an attempt at explaining myself.
I am angry. I am disgusted, furious, and saddened by the places this country has gone. I am also tired. Tired of being dragged down by division and deceit, tired of watching those that I love try to keep their heads above water while an ineffective, ill-advised, and corrupt government does nothing to help, but instead hinders.
Justice. Yes. I want justice as well. I suppose one of my questions here is what form does justice take? Is it Bush and the many, many persons who would possibly be implicated in investigations behind bars? Is justice only true if it is retributive? Can the punishment ever fit the crime here? Will it deter those who, in the future, seek to commit the same crimes? That's a frequent argument for investigations. That to not do so would be a green light to future criminals in power. But does it work? Does justice ever exist as simply truth?
Maybe a better question is, at what cost? A while back, I was doing some research on the situation in Darfur, and I came across an interesting article. Peace or justice, it asks, describing the potential difficulties in peacemaking attempts arising from the indictment of al-Bashir. I can't help but wonder if the same question doesn't apply here, in a different sense, perhaps. Obama has a huge amount of political capital right now. What will the cost be of going forward with this? I know the arguments for the cost of not doing it, and I agree with many of them, but with the same hesitancy. I can't help but suspect that those who say this would be something that would divide the country are right. And I suspect we'd have to give up something to follow this path, as usually happens when you choose one path over the other. What would it be here?
Health care? There are many of us who are long past our breaking point here, who can't wait another hour let alone the time we already know it will take to make progress on health care, who are already watching our loved ones drown in a sea of bureaucratic bullshit, inadequate care, and skyrocketing personal costs threatening their livelihood.
Education? I don't want to give up the hope for a better system of learning for my son and all his peers, and all their children. I don't want to continue on with the miseducation of those who hold the keys to the future.
Some say those who are wavering in their support of pursuing this wish only to sweep another national failing under the rug. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my case. I wish to see the truth, to know it and teach it to all those who will be the leaders, the voters, the people of the future, so that they might learn from the mistakes of the past, so that they might learn the dangers of sacrificing liberty for fear. Perhaps it is true what they say, that the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. But I will probably never give up on my ideal that the best hope for true, full, and sustained liberty and peace is an educated populace, from which we draw both the future leaders and future electorate.
If you haven't already read them, I recommend these three essays on this topic. Of particular interest to me was the final one.
All of my other questions regarding this are essentially legal ones, the breadth of which I can’t get into at this moment.
Again, don’t take this as total disagreement with you. It’s merely an admission of my own troubled confusion over the matter.
January 22, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillarym99, you have posted an astonishingly honest and beautiful comment! I commend you for wrestling with all these painful issues. And for admitting you are torn. I think back to when I was in college and I could argue one side of something and within minutes turn around and argue the other side of it.
I honor each and every one of your feelings, as best you could describe them. And I guarantee I will follow up on your links.
I certainly want health care and education for all. I can only imagine what's it's been like for your generation - to have gone through these awful years... with no sense of groundedness perhaps, as we, who grew up in the 50's and early 60's had for a while. I grieve for what you've been put through! And what you must still face, because your generation has fewer possibilities in many ways than ours did starting out. (we could major in things like philosophy or literature and still get a job in corporation in addition to going to grad school - even changing major areas as I did - to psychology)
Let me say that until I understood - with a thunderclap of realization - that it was our legal duty to investigate and prosecute war crimes, that I too was torn, thought about a truth and reconciliation process, and so on. So I can totally understand your dilemma. For me, it was resolved by clear legal duty. And for me that became a moral duty. (maybe you read that blog where I talked about feeling "blown away by a letter to the editor)
So from my perspective, we cannot really ask the question "at what cost?" because we have a duty. Like parents who give birth to a child, they don't ask: At what cost? They know it 's going to be many years and big expenses and most parents do it gladly. Or maybe we can come up with other analogies. But in this case, the costs of not stepping up to the legal demand for justice risks our standing in the world for not honoring treaties and international law - but I'm sure you know that...
That you are troubled and confused, painful as it is, is a good place to be. Not that I envy you of course. But it's a good place to be because you are searching. You are open. You strain forward to try and resolve these painful issues.
I, myself, have no doubt that should the law be obeyed, yes it will be painful. But at the same time cathartic, I would hope. And I also hope our new president, a teacher of great gifts, can help to explain and encourage us through this process and maybe damp down the media circus. And no one will be alone going through such a process. You have people here and I'm sure in your life as well.
But even though I am not torn, it's best that you remain exactly where you are right now, painful as it must be for you, until you resolve things in your heart and mind.
You, my dear, have a wonderful future, I feel. Your intellect. Your true emotions. Your willingness to struggle. You are the kind of person I want to bequeath our country to. I trust honest struggle. And yes, I think you have your heart in the right place. And I feel a tenderness toward you, for the painful place you're at now and whatever lies ahead - for I fear our country is facing very dark economic days and we don't know what that will be like.
Finally, I'd like to ask you to consider putting your comment up as a blog. It really gets to the heart of how each of us has to struggle. And how we may resolve issues differently - but we can respect the struggle and the honest concerns that come with that. And be assured, I respect what you've written immensely.
I give you my Peace and my Blessing. And I thank you for sharing so honestly.
January 22, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, you might misunderstand the notion of cost, also in your response to Hillary... We don't have a single duty, the moral problem is that we have many duties and finite resources. Justice is not our only "duty". The parents who bring a child into the world don't suddenly lose their other children.
That is why I phrased my earlier comment, "I'm for Justice, but as a pragmatist, not at any cost."
January 22, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make a good point with regard to multiple duties. If they compete, that is a problem. And has to be resolved somehow. But mostly duties can be carried out simultaneously.
However, maybe we can leave it at that.
January 22, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe. I can see how Justice as a poorly treated child over much of history (incl much of the past 8 years) might deserve more rather than less attention and action now. By "cost" I'm not implying a rigid limit to how much attention and action it is "worth" to pursue specific investigations.
Multi-tasking is definitely an option.
January 22, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to hear that, eds!
January 22, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's precisely what I meant. Conflicting moral obligations. Some say we have a moral obligation to treat the sick, some say we have a moral obligation to teach our children.
Individually, we all have moral obligations to care for our children, families, and loved ones.
Myself included, I know of many for who the abysmal state of health care in this country is infringing on our ability to care for those people. Therein lies the true essence of a moral dilemma. How can we choose which is more important? Of course, for each it may differ, as while we all share some values, our own definition of morality may be slightly different.
But what if they can't?? Perhaps this is really the root of our disagreement. I don't think, in this instance, that they can. I think there will be a political cost to prosecutions. Which is why the idea of a truth commission appeals to me. I think health care is going to prove to be the biggest domestic battle ahead. So if the choice comes down to, health care or prosecutions, which would you choose?January 23, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like you, Hilary, I am ambivalent about which is the right course of action, at least as it is vehemently argued in this thread. ;-)
I don't think you are confused at all about what is ultimately right, however.
First and foremost, President Obama needs to lead by example for the entire country, not just for his longtime fans. Not everyone is fanatically faithful to him, not everyone trusts him, and the corruption of our government is as vast as it is deep. Before Obama can right anyone else's wrongs, he must take steps to honor the moral promises he made to the American people.
Communicating publicly (as he did yesterday) the standards of ethics he expects from his staff and from himself is a wise first step. Removing some of the business-as-usual sources that tempt our government into corruption—lobbyists, Gitmo, the use of torture—is fair and just in itself.
Finally, before President Obama can utilize the mechanisms of justice, he must restore them. So far, he is on the right road.
January 22, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
For someone "readytoblowagasket" - your words are measured and admirable. Who can ask more than that? Like you, I agree she has her priorities in the right place.
Maybe you'd like to do a blog too. Your comments are a good starting place. I like them. :)
January 22, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. Gasket is awesome. His heart has always been in a place I consider to be just perfect.
He got pummeled by many here. I hope that changes, because I have missed his voice. A lot.
January 22, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, have a VERY soft spot in my heart for Blow, and hope to see him/her around more often!
January 22, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bwak and still. You're my homies! ;-)
January 23, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, as usual, you have written a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece. At this risk of sounding simple-minded, my response to your main point, which is (I think) that the cost may be too high if it risks diluting the other things that we need to tackle:
Not following this, and not seeking justice (which could also be to exhonerate) would entail a huge cost. Just here on this thread there are those who believe our former President and Vice President committed war crimes. Many of us believe they acted in direct contravention of our Constitution.
If we don't take a look and get an answer the stain of doubt will remain. If we find that, although some disagree, what they did were not crimes, then at least we will know that the facts were examined. If the facts show crimes, then those who committed them should pay.
The cost for NOT doing this is to lose our national soul.
Tuesday was the beginning of a renewal, but unless the truth is out, it will become stale and will pave the way for the next group who will confidently rip our laws and Constitution.
January 22, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have written a very well-reasoned post here that presents the dilemma we face in a very understandable fashion. I read and re-read this carefully, and I appreciate the conflicted spot you are in as I've been there myself.
As you've undoubtedly noticed, ;O), I've taken a pretty extreme position on this. I truly believe we have no choice but to pursue investigation/prosecution of these alleged crimes.
First, as TheraP has stressed, we are obligated to do so under the Geneva Conventions and other treaties signed in our name.
But the most important reason to draw a line in the sand here is because failure to do so promotes the continuation of a system of Goverment wherein even our elected Members of Congress no longer understand their duty to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Their cowardly retreat from fundamental principles that allowed them to fold before the assault on the Constitution by Bush/Cheney has been really tough to watch. (see: Approval of Iraq War Resolution; Patriot Act; Military Commissions Act; etc.) God save us, we cannot continue such debasement of our Constitution with any hope of remaining a democratic republic as gifted to us by our Founders.
As to the discomfort such a bold defense of Liberty engenders, I ask you to consider an extreme but relevant example. Can you imagine the internal arguments that occurred in South Africa following the collapse of Apartheid? There was good reason to question whether the State of South Africa could survive the turmoil of a "look backwards." If ever there was a case wherein it would be understandable to believe that too much work needed to be accomplished to allow for a good house-cleaning, this was it. But South Africa nevertheless underwent a wrenching cleansing that is now seen as an absolute necessity in hindsight that strongly contributed to the present health of that country.
I would argue that after years of compromising the principles of Freedom and Liberty protected in our Constitution, we are now at a point where it is necessary to say "No more!"
In my interpretation of what it means to be a citizen in a free society, there are few "absolutes" that must be embraced. Primary among these, however, is the responsibility to defend our Freedom and Liberty at whatever cost.
No one ever said it was going to be easy. In fact, most records from the days of the first Continental Congress show quite plainly that our Founders understood just how difficult a charge it is to remain vigilant of our Liberty and Freedom.
But I ask that you please consider the following words of Samuel Adams. God love him, he was a rabble-rouser of his time who presented us with much to be thankful for in his willingness to take on even the King of England himself to gain Liberty for his contemporaries and the generations who followed:
Please meditate upon these words, and then ask yourself if you in fact can turn your back and walk away from the challenge implied in Sam Adams' words. I, for one, cannot - regardless of the inconvenience such a course may present.
Not much wriggle room here, I'm afraid.
January 22, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
In that third essay, it actually cites South Africa as an example, and goes on to describe how the exact model wouldn't work for us, but a similar model would. But it wasn't justice born of prosecutions, but rather out of truth and the airing of it, as I read it. (Though I'm far from an expert on South African history. I'd like to get some more time to read up on it though.)
January 23, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary,I rate this response very high. Thanks for the links. I usually read the NYT Op-Eds but was on the road for three weeks until a few days ago so I missed these. I listened to a lot of AM Talk Radio during that five thousand miles of driving so that might explain my thinking if I am, in fact, over worried that a criminal prosecution of W would cause a terribly divisive split in this country at a time when we can least afford it. Maybe I will decompress and see thing differently.
My current thinking aligns very closely with yours on this subject in regards to uncertainty as to how to move forward amid a pull between different ideas and passions, but I think the third essay makes the strongest argument. That is, in my opinion, the argument that should carry the day. I wish I could come to hold a rock solid position on which I had unwaivering faith as being the right position, or the only moral position, or the inarguable legal position, but I have only, so far, come to what I think is the best position to take on this subject. “Best” in this case includes, for me, a measure of pragmatism. All three essays make strong arguments and they make them well, as does TheraP.
I believe that we have been lead by an administration that has created monstrous harm on a monstrous scale and of course they should be punished, but if they were to escape legal punishment as part of the only way that most of the truth was to come out we would, after all, have only a few more humans walking free on the planet, among millions more, who are willing to do monstrous things. At least these particular monsters will have been unequivocally identified for what they are, but more importantly, progress will have been made towards making it more difficult for leaders of our country to repeat their crimes.
I share the enthusiasm, the hope, and a measure of the faith, that so many have in Obama, but if our country survives as a democracy it is virtually certain that we will one day elect W's equivalent or worse so the more important thing for us to do now is to take measures that will insure that he has not established a legal precedent immunizing the next fascistic monster who might come to power. The more we can find out about the actors and the details of their actions, the stronger the safe-guards we can put in place. Since we cannot change the past our best course is to try to guide the future and preemptively prevent the abuses of the past.
January 22, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been both a painful, yet enlightening thread. There are plenty of good points on both side. I respect most of you very much, and some of you I even love, so I've listened, rather than insert myself into the dialog.
Hillary, although you said it much better than I EVER could have, my feelings are mixed, as well. I think I could now put together a pretty reasoned position for each side.
I suspicion this topic will be debated over and over again over the next few months, and it will certainly be interesting to see which road the Obama administration decides to go down. I'm sure similar discussions are occurring within the administration as we speak...I'm glad it's their decision and not mine.
January 22, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Sargent's first post at his new blog addresses the very issues raised here and presents a letter from John Conyers to Newsweek, from which I'd like to quote - as Conyers own reasoning echoes similar themes from the post above:
You can read whole letter here, posted at Greg's
new blog:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/john-conyers-letter-slamming-newsweek-as-glib-and-cynical/
January 22, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sparkling, at the end of the thread, has been this wonderful post by Hillary. And the responses to it. Some of us are older and seem more able to face what should come. Others are younger and more uncertain. But nonetheless wrestling with the important issues.
Lovely to behold.
January 22, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
And some of us are older and understand fully the consequences of the course you seek.
January 22, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please spell them out, oh prescient one!
January 22, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wouldn't understand, eds. As TheraP has pointed out, those with whom we disagree are obviously younger and, by implication, less sophisticated in their thinking. Having seen your comments, I know it would be hard for you to grasp.
January 22, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'd make the effort if you would!
January 22, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, eds, I don't play tag team against the disadvantaged. Besides, already gave you enough clues. You'll have to learn how to connect dots better....okay?
January 22, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper,
Once again, I agree and appreciate your comments -- especially since you have a high degree of respect for TheraP. (And I know you probably wince that I am in agreement, but there you have it.)
January 22, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel somewhat...what's the word? dirty...agreeing with, CT. But alas, I believe we both tend to call 'em as we see 'em. Thanks for some of the rare gracious comments in this thread. And yes, I have great respect for the majority here, though I disagree on this one.
January 22, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, some are older. I remember that people were saying that Reagan was older and therefore had less of a stake in what was coming in the future as a result.
Pulling up age is poor form for an argument. Boomers have been doing this for years. First it was don't trust anyone over 30. Now it's don't trust anyone under 50. Enough already!
January 22, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the compliments, Thera. I may put it up as a post later on.
But I have to address this:
With all due respect, please don't chalk it up to age. It then becomes a wisdom vs. naivete argument, and I truly don't think the division here lies on generational boundaries.
I've written previouslyon the wisdom of youth. I honestly respect the wisdom that often comes with experience, with years on this planet. But age is no guarantee for that wisdom, for knowing the right path to choose, any more than youth is a guarantee for getting it wrong.
I am constantly amazed by the ability of very young children to see things more clearly than we often do, as adults. I have, in my personal and professional lives, as well as throughout society, seen times when the wisdom of the young has "trumped" the wisdom of the older. We all have something to learn from each other, and that is blind to age.
January 23, 2009 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was meaning "age" in any other way than on this thread, Hillary. It was an observation and should be taken in context, not out of it. It seems that many are looking to attack me on small, inconsequential matters, little phrases or sentences, when the meat of the post has nothing to do with those things. We all post in haste on a blog. Nothing is perfect. I certainly do not disdain youth nor do I venerate age as abstracts. Attack the sentence if you will. It was merely an observation of what seemed to be occurring on this thread among those who seek justice - and I gather you are among them - but are divided about how justice should be served.
I wish you well in figuring that out. The issue of "age" has nothing to do with that - since many who are older are not wiser and many who are young are certainly wise.
Peace be with you.
January 23, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
First sentence lacked the word "not"
Should read: I was not meaning age in any other way than on this thread. etc.
January 23, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps I jumped the gun on that one, but the assumption (even if it is only perceived on my part) that older contributors can see what "should" be as opposed to youth is one of my few buttons. ;)
I honestly didn't mean it as an attack though. Just a thought, in the spirit of agreeable disagreement. You've started and carried through with an important discussion here and in past threads, and I'm glad for it.
January 23, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you noted my response carefully, I made it clear that I am happy to have people like you coming along behind me, Hillary.
No need to quibble here. I love youth, all the down babies.
January 23, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Tibetans have an unusual way of disposing of their dead. They place the bodies out on mountain ledges for the buzzards. Buzzards swarmed to this post, though none were dead, picking over comments, looking for carrion to feed on. But the post above lives, pristine.
January 23, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Buzzards? Or people who don't agree with you?
If you want to control the look and feel of your blogs, may I suggest you turn off the comments section? That would at least be honestly expressing how you feel about others' input.
January 23, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoy TPM and reading people's comments. I don't comment much unless I have reason to. I have reason to here. It appears some of you and mostly clearthinker, you are on a witch hunt of your own with TheraP.
I was attracted to this site because of the seemingly intelligent people that blogged here and the 'friendly' arguments. But Clearthinker you seem well nasty.
TheraP for what it is worth I think you speak with passion and strength. Keep it up!
January 23, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Ava. I hope you'll stick around. And I appreciate your kind words.
January 23, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink