Amen, forward 'leaning' leadership that drafted these sorts of inhuman policies should NOT be leading and making more poor decisions that shame us.

Posted by: Dornar at January 26, 2005 04:45 PM

The jewel on this issue in the blogosphere today is a top rated diary over on Daily Kos from Hunter.

The committee vote was encouraging, in that the 8 Dems ALL were on board. I can dream we lose 45-55 on the Senate floor, but I fear several D jackasses are going to 'support the President', similar to how Lieberman spoke in support of Rice earlier this week.

Posted by: JD SoOR at January 26, 2005 05:02 PM

I don't want to get slammed here but just to put a slightly different light on the topic I'm reminded of a recent Mark Steyn column in which he points out that,

"To be covered by Geneva, a combatant has to have (a) a commander who is responsible for his subordinates; (b) formal recognizable military insignia; (c) weapons that are carried openly, and (d) an adherence to the laws and customs of warfare.

Islamist terrorists meet none of these conditions, and extending the protection of the conventions to them would simply announce to the world that, from a legal point of view, there's no downside to embracing terror. Blow up a nightclub or a schoolhouse or a pizza parlor and you'll still get full POW status."

Posted by: rclifford at January 26, 2005 05:20 PM

This blog has instructions on how to click your way through a letter to your Senators to protest the nomination of Gonzales:

http://www.anti-everything.us/weblog/archives/2005/01/easy_activism_a.html

Who would have thought that they could have found some one worse than Ashcroft?

Posted by: jcklsgk at January 26, 2005 05:20 PM

I dunno if my opinion counts or not cos I'm irish so tell me its none of my business if you want. Ireland and america have always shared a close relationship so i want to add my bit in cos basically i like the country and its people... this is long but a worth while comment so apologies if im taking up too much space...

Earlier tonight I was looking over pictures I had up on my buzznet account. One of the pictures was of Bill Clinton's first visit to Ireland where hundreds of thousands of people turned out to celebrate his visit here. An american presidential visit in ireland is always treated almost like a public holiday with a kinda st patricks day type atmosphere. This was in stark contrast to President Bush's visit last May. The usually welcoming irish once again turned out in thier droves, however this time there was no celebrations, no public holiday, no st patricks day feeling. This time unfortunately, the atmosphere of the irish people was one of protest. In the biggest security set up that ireland has ever seen, our government spent over 50 million for the mere two day visit to set up what was described as a ring of steel around Dublin. The question that americans should be asking is if the irish who normally love the hell out of america are protesting against the president then there must be something radically wrong. (not that we are always right either)

Prior to Sept 11th, the american administration was respected the world over by most democratic countries. Even though we did not always agree on everything, we knew that our opinion would at least be listened to and most international decisions were made with agreement or at the very least consultation of other democratic counties.

Post Sept 11th, we see that the american admisitration has shut its self off from the rest of the world opinion. Examples are abundant such as the backing out of the koyoto agreement for the environment, disregarding the Missle treaty with Russia, making the UN ineffective, blatantly defying the geneva conventions, allowing the peace process in northern ireland to stall due to lack of intrest... etc... where has it gone so wrong in just 4 short years??

Despite the best intentions of the current adminisration, the people who carried out the attacks on sept 11th, have effectly done what they have wanted to do in first place... to change world opinion of america. The aim of any terrorist act is to change the way people live and think. I would love for the american administration to stand up and say that they want to return to the way things were before sept 11th and wont be bullied by one single terrorist act into changing the american way of life but unfortunately I think the rest of world can count that next four years will be very similar to the last.

P.S. Im not anti-bush I just dislike the way he's running things.

Posted by: Noel Burke at January 26, 2005 05:31 PM

rclifford: the larger issue for me has much less to do with the Geneva Conventions. I'm concerned that if Gonzoles is confirmed, it will affirm that as a country (because the Senate is supposed to represent the American people) we all think that torture is just fine and dandy. As I said in my blog, if we seek to defeat our enemy, we must not become him.

Take a look at theRed Cross report on Abu Ghraib: they estimated that 70-90% of the detainees were innocent civillians. How many of those people were tortured because Alberto Gonzales gave President Bush the legal cover to do it?

Posted by: Wil at January 26, 2005 05:33 PM

Oh, and you shouldn't get "slammed" here. One of the things I really miss from the old days of WWdN is the interaction and discussion in the comments. Hopefully we can bring that back. :)

Posted by: Wil at January 26, 2005 05:35 PM

Hey Wil..
it's good to see you saying something about this..i watched CNN today, and it looked as though they were trying to label the D's as just spoil sports...trying to ruin the Republicans picnic...

torture is wrong.
i can't think of anything worse than to see the US becoming what it used to oppose.
it's a truly sad thing.

cheers wil
Tyson

Posted by: Tyson at January 26, 2005 05:47 PM

I defintely think that once a week you should put up your view on some current hot topic. It'd definetly get a debate going in the comments section and its always a good read to see what the others think. (once people dont go too far and act like jerks i guess) only a suggestion though!

Posted by: Noel Burke at January 26, 2005 05:50 PM

I don't follow politics too much; just on the major issues and things of that nature.

But just by reading about Gonzales, I'm gonna have to agree with you as well. Torture is definatly not a nice thing.

Posted by: beau99 at January 26, 2005 05:56 PM

RClifford, you are exactly right that the Geneva conventions most likely don't apply to the terrorists. However that doesn't mean it should become policy of the US government and Armed Forces. We have survived for the past 200+ years without resorting to it and should continue to avoid such practices.

We shouldn't open ourselves up to the not too foreign possibilities that such declarations on our part could lead to others using such practices on our own troops. We need to be able to scream bloody murder if our troops are mistreated by their captors and not have the rest of the world go, "Yeah. Now they complain."

Alberto Gonzalez is, in my opinion unfit for the office of Attorney General.

Posted by: Paraboombo at January 26, 2005 06:14 PM

While it is vital that we defeat our enemies, we must not become them in the process. As a nation, we must stand united against Albert Gonzales and everything he represents. Torture is not an American value.

ghods yes. I keep thinking that... this is no longer America, this is no longer my country. I protested during 'Nam, but never felt that things couldn't be made better. Now... *sighs*

Posted by: glinda at January 26, 2005 06:15 PM

Wil, sometimes I feel really powerless to do much of anything. It doesn't seem like our current administration listens to anyone, even its own people. My college friend, Greg Goodrich, was killed in Iraq, and it makes me so angry. His death was such a waste. I guess ultimately, I blame Bush for it, even though Greg signed up for the Reserves and seemed proud to serve his country. And the news today... One of my students wrote a very good entry about war in his blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/nadavspi/2005/01/07/ (I am the English teacher he references in the entry).

Posted by: Dana Huff at January 26, 2005 06:28 PM

It seems to me that we're painting all issues with the same brush. What we may be doing down at Gitmo, and whether or not some of the items in the Geneva Convention treaty are still relevant today, are two seperate things.

Sending our enemy's 'POW's' back to their home countries after cessation of hostilities is impossible when the soilders arent representing any particular country while attacking ours, and also when there was no official declaration of 'war' from either side. Hostilities could conceiveably continue ad infinitum.

Actions of physical torture against people we have in our custody is abhorent. To do that is to lower ourselves to the level of our enemy. But to define 'torture' in such a way so as to force us to 'coddle' our prisoners, in an attempt to avoid that definition, is equally as absurd. Prisoners are not supposed to have all the comforts of home. These people left their homes to force their ideas and beliefs, violently, upon us in our homes. By doing so, they have forfeited the comforts of theirs.

The quoted story above doesn't mention the context in which The President was advised that the Constitution doesn't apply to him. As Commander in Chief it does not necessarily apply, when he's acting as the leader of our armed forces during a conflict against non-citizens in foreign lands. That statement drips with out-of-context spin and rhetoric.

The story also makes the statement:

"The policies for which Gonzales provided a cover of legality...inexorably led to abuses that have undermined military discipline and the moral authority our nation once carried."

That's a ridiculous leap. It's like inferring that smoking causes mass genocide, because Hitler enjoyed cigars. To assert that Gonzales undermined several hundred years of military discipline, and an entire nation's moral authority with a few penstrokes is an insult to the American people's intelligence.

There will always be a right and there will always be a wrong, but their definitions will most certainly change over time. I haven't caught any good duels lately on the street walking to the market, but 150 years ago I might have - and it would have been a perfectly acceptable way to settle a major dispute. In this day and age we as a society have agreed to settle our disputes less violently. I don't believe this makes us any more or less moral than our ancestors. Times change, and we need to realize that the world is changing very quickly. Maybe throwing out antiquated treaties and starting over isn't the beginning of the apocalypse. Perhaps some of our citizens need to change the bong water, and wake up to the reality that there are millions of people who have sworn to kill us and change the very way we live our lives.

Are we afraid that men like Mr. Gonzales are single-handedly unweaving the fabric of our morality? Or is he just trying to shift our paradigms fast enough to defend against these new attackers, and what we're really afraid of is that we arent' strong enough to hold on to our morals in the process?

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 26, 2005 06:29 PM

Gonzales bothers me, but he's a hell of an improvement over Ashcroft.

Posted by: Greg at January 26, 2005 06:46 PM

Hey Wil,

I have to say that although I am not typically a political person, I agreed with the issues you have with this. I was thinking the same thing because I feel that the people we elect SHOULD represent good! (And I totally see how defeating our enemies does not mean becoming them.) How can we elect officials that will abandon our most cherished policies, and advocate throwing away the fair and humane ways we TRY and deal with things as a nation?

I commend you for this post, and we do need to fight for things like the Geneva Convention and our Constitution.

Posted by: Quincey at January 26, 2005 07:47 PM

Amen.

Am I the only one who thinks it's time for another American Revolution?

Posted by: Eric in PA at January 26, 2005 07:54 PM

MouseBeast: "But to define 'torture' in such a way so as to force us to 'coddle' our prisoners, in an attempt to avoid that definition, is equally as absurd. Prisoners are not supposed to have all the comforts of home."

Yes, because not electrocuting, waterboarding, sicking attack dogs on and/or any other number of abuses is "coddling" and not having that done to you is just a "comfort of home".

Are you really saying there is no grey area... say... NOT TORTURING THEM... while still being tough on them? The absense of grey and the black and white mode of thinking is what's wrong with our leaders today.

Posted by: Jason (xtra-rant.com) at January 26, 2005 08:17 PM

Mousebeast..
while some of your thoughts are intriguing, they are still fundamentally flawed.
"millions of people sworn to kill us and change the very way we live our lives"?
who exactly?
Iraq was invaded. Not the United States.
a war is going being waged.
again, in other countries, not your own.
the states was attacked.yes. but not by Iraq.

there certainly is an aggressor here. no doubt about that.
care to take a guess who it is?

seems to me, that the millions you speak of are Americans and the way of life they seek to change is that of the islamic nations.

now, i don't hold any special love for radical islam, but then again, i don't hold any strong feelings for hypocrisy either. (not you dude..i mean US foriegn policy)

the facts speak for themselves man...
your way of life has indeed been changed..but it was done by your own countrymen...
take a good hard look at the patriot act.

it sure looks a lot like the kind of thing we used to see a lot of behind the Iron Curtain..

hear that? it's the sound of your personal freedoms being stolen from you..
and not by the islamic boogeymen, but by the neocons you have let run your foriegn policy..
the same nuts that lead you to believe it's ok to entertain the idea of a 'little harmless torture..oh, no..not the bad stuff...just a little 'diet-lite torture' c'mon.how bad can a beating really be?...

i like to think america can be better than that...
i certainly think that the americans i've met are better than that..
but i'm begining to lose hope for your country.

like Neil Young said..
it's like being in an out of control SUV with your drunken uncle at the wheel.

anyhow..you're certainly entitled to your beliefs, and i agree with wil, no one on this comments section should be chastised for what they think...
but what you should do, is really think hard about some things..
primarily, why the hell your country is in Iraq...
torture, unfortunetaly is just one tiny detail in this whole horrific mess

Posted by: Tyson at January 26, 2005 08:37 PM

Jason: The absense of a grey area is exactly my point. One sentence previous I denounced physical torture, because that is definately on one extreme of the black/white spectrum. 'Coddling' would be on the opposite end. We shouldn't be refraining from physical torture merely because some document decrees it as 'wrong'. We should refrain from it because our collective 'moral authority' doesn't allow us to stoop to that level.

I am not claiming to be any sort of expert on Mr. Gonzales or his policies, but from what I have read he's merely trying to wipe some of the slate clean; to darken some of the areas painted bright white by the pacifist minority in this country. To err too far on either side has definate consequences. Either our enemies trample over top of us due to our complacency, or we sacrifice the very morals we're fighting for in order to stop them. Moderation is key.

I am by no means a war monger, but the current enemies of our country do not fit the mold that the previous treaties were cast from. To not have faith that our current leaders - fellow Americans - will not find that grey area, is proof of what our enemies have already accomplished...and of how afraid we truly are.

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 26, 2005 08:50 PM

Hear Hear! Nice to see you speak out against torture. Let's hope that the democrats, and even some republicans will vote no against this facsist. We don't need the world viewing us as another dangerous country.

Posted by: Rook at January 26, 2005 09:21 PM

First of all: Wil, I hope that these comments here embody the spirit of 'interaction and discussion' that you mentioned. Exchange and debate of ideas, in the few good forums that exist, is the best thing left on the internet (aside from the gigabytes upon gigabytes of free, streaming, midget porn! *zing!*...but i've said too much...)

I don't feel slammed at all here, but I feel that I must point out a few things.

Not once did I mention Iraq, or our American foreign policy. I suppose our treatment of prisoners sits partially under the shadow of 'foreign policy', but probably more under 'moral policy'. Whether or not we had any good reason to invade, and to this day occupy Iraq, is a completely seperate issue from whether or not an Al Qaida fighter picked up after shooting a Marine somewhere in Kashmir has a fuckin' prayer mat in his detention cell in Cuba. Everytime America's efforts to thwart terrorism go on trial, it seems that any action we take involving muslims, or muslim nations, becomes fair game in an ad hominem attack against those efforts. I prefer to debate on a more specific, and relevant level.

Having said that, I completely agree with you on the fact that we are indeed trying to change the way of life of the Iraqi people. Depending on which cable news channel you watch, the Iraqi people may or may not be super-excited about this intrusion into their way of life. This does not, however, detract from the fact that there still are millions of people who are currently engaged in jihad against Americans. Both realities, in my opinion, are completely true...and neither are kosher. (I just used the words 'jihad' and 'kosher' in the same breath...boo yah!)

As for our personal freedoms, let me just say one thing. Some people wake up suddenly in the middle of the night after dreaming of falling (and, I assume, landing hard). Some people also awaken in a cold sweat after having dreams where they are drowning, or burning alive, or re-living a painful childhood experience. My nightmares have a both a name, and a face...A 300+ word document called the United States Patriot Act. Enough said.

Da Svidanya

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 26, 2005 09:30 PM

well said mousebeast.
i still disagree with you on a few things..but your last post was pretty on point..
the stuff about 'enemies' and "millions of people who are currently engaged in jihad against Americans" well...i dunno dude....the rest of your thoughts are pretty well layed out, but that stuff is a touch weak.

still tho, most of your points are pretty strong...

i encourage you to read a bit of noam chomsky..
:)

cheers mousebeast
tyson

Posted by: Tyson at January 26, 2005 09:40 PM

Also: The Constitution does NOT have a national security clause. We can't let fear act as an excuse to abandon our core beliefs as a nation.

Posted by: Wendy May at January 26, 2005 09:41 PM

Being both a UK and a US citizen. I *like* to think that I have a good grasp on things.

However, totally flame me if I'm wrong.

I don't think that torturing people gets us anywhere. Torturing someone to make things "better" isn't very logical.

How much hatred stems from this sort of news? A lot more than the good that stems from the information we get from these prisoners.

Posted by: heyjude at January 26, 2005 09:45 PM

My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with torture...please don't read that into it.

Using the practices/tactics of an enemy to gain a tactical advantage over that enemy is _not_ the same as becoming that enemy. To think it is the same is overly simplistic and naive.

Turnabout is fair play. Ye shall sow what ye reap. Also overly simplistic, and just as valid or invalid as thinking we are becoming our enemy by choosing to actually fight them versus rolling over and playing dead.

No other comment, and I take no issue with Wil's stance. Just with that notion.

Posted by: James in S.D. at January 26, 2005 10:07 PM

Thank you Tyson for your kind words. I have probably admired dozens of Chomsky quotes throughout my adult life, but never picked up any of his books. I shall definately be hitting my nearest bookstore soon (right after my my copy of Just A Geek arrives, and after I get done laughing my way through 'America - The Book')

Miss Wendy May makes an interesting point regarding the constitution. In my original post I was merely trying to make the case that 'War is Hell'..blah blah blah, and shit happens (I admit it was kind of weak, although the Kos story was spewing just pure rhetoric at that point...but I digress). I do think, however, that there is a difference between 'Civil Liberties' and 'Human Rights', and that line keeps getting blurred everytime prisoner torture is debated.

Wendy May hit the nail squarely on the head, I believe, by pointing out that it is fear that will drive the American people toward the further erosion of our core beliefs and rights as citizens.

But don't worry too much about it. Soon, N. Korea or Iran will give us something totally different to shit our pants in fear over.

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 26, 2005 10:10 PM

One more comment, a somewhat negative one...contrary to what Wil said in a subpost, I don't think the Senate represents the American people any more than the president or House does. These people, once elected, work for just one thing - to get reelected. They'll do anything necessary to achieve that goal, such is the system we've set up for them.

To those who think otherwise, then if the Senate _does_ confirm this guy, shouldn't that be enough for you? That a Senate elected by America chose to do something should be enough, in a democracy, to get people to move on and look forward.

Posted by: James in S.D. at January 26, 2005 10:16 PM

Gonzales es un hombre malo, but he is a (silent, but in the literature, legitimate) Affirmative Action supporter and ruled against the Texas law requiring parental consent for minors getting an abortion.

He really is better than Ashcroft, but that doesn't mean we should settle for him.

Posted by: tim at January 26, 2005 10:17 PM

i agree

Posted by: Jessie at January 26, 2005 10:38 PM

For over two hundred years the usa has always stood for truth, justice and equal rights it was only lately that of countrys values have be thrown out the window and instead of understand why were hated around the world, we just give them more reasons to hate us.
After world war2 we were looked upon by the world of what should be right, but thanx to the current leadership all is ruined and damaged
unfortunatly John Kerry was the right choice either, but what is need is a fresh face and new untained washington style person to lead us from these days to bring us back to the light and let us hold our heads high again cause after what bush is done were all damned

Posted by: Nick Notarangelo at January 26, 2005 11:16 PM

I am forced to agree with Wil. This man should not be in this position.

Posted by: Termite at January 27, 2005 03:14 AM

Copy-Pasted from my blog (it's under the LJ-cut.)

Before I get into the meat of my rant, a thought: Why is it, that when the media lists interrogation tactics with regards to "torture" they list "playing loud music?" What, are they playing Limp Bizkit? When I think torture I think the rack, I think iron maiden, I think electrical shock to the neither regions, I think cheese graters and salt/lemon juice/hot sause. I don't think about playing rock music very loudly when it comes to torture.

I'm hoping that the abuses that lead to the infamous abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay (god that reads redundantly, but I couldn't come up with a better phrase) are in the minority, when it comes to means of interrogation used against captured terrorists (things can get blown out of proportion both in the mainstream and independant media). As it is, while some Terrorist groups may consider themselves to be soldiers (the IRA and ULA come to mind) this does not mean that being a terrorist makes you a soldier.

Furthermore, in order to take down terroist groups like the ones trying to stop the Iraq election we need HUMINT (Human Intelligence) as much if not moreso than SIGINT (Signals Intelligence). Typically there are 3 ways to get this, the three Is:

1. Infiltration - get someone into the groups and have them sending out information.
   
2. Informants - Either people on the inside, or people watching.
   
3. Interrogation - Get someone to talk.

Due to the nature of islamic extremism, 1 is out. 2 will be very difficult as the terrorists have been striking hard against those who collaborate with the Iraqui government and US forces. Guess what that leaves us with. And asking nicely or even just asking rudely probably won't get answers. Also, there's a reason we're shipping some of our captives to nations that support real torture. Why? Because, for all intents and purposes, every Middle Eastern Nation engages in practices that, to our more "enlightened" western eyes, would be torture. People are dying from terrorist attacks weekly in Iraq, and I'm not just talking from US troops. Now, I admit, leaving would make the terrorist attacks stop, but that would be because the entire Iraqui government we're trying to put togeather would be dead, as would the police force, and there would be an ultra-conservative government put into place in Iraq, again, possibly helmed by Saddam Hussein, again. (And don't say he was elected in a fair election. If that was a fair election, then so were the ones that kept Stalin in power.) However, that is besides from my point.

Using the tactics you see at Abu Ghraib does repulse me. Same with the ones at Guantanimo Bay. We are supposed to be the good guys here, after all. However, just sticking someone under a hot light while drinking from a penguin shaped water cooler (bolded so the text doesn't mess with the flow or over emphesize the statment) won't work either. We're going to need a balance. Now, while Alberto Gonzales's statements regarding torture have been considered too vague and allow carte blanche with regards to torture, getting too specific can be, um, how to put this tactfully, counter-productive. So, as I've said, I abhore the tactics used at Abu Ghraib, but I haven't heard any alternatives.

However, I am open to suggestions.

Disclaimer: In the last election I was registered as a Democrat. Next election I'm probably going to register Independant because I can't find a party that fits my leanings (Moderate)

Posted by: Alexander Case at January 27, 2005 05:54 AM

I agree Alberto Gonzalez is a poor excuse for a human being, but if his nomination is rejected Bush will simply pick a different yes-man for the post. Gonzalez will continue to advise the president, regardless.

I think progressives need to save our energy for some of the more critical fights we will face over the next four years.

Posted by: FNRThomas at January 27, 2005 08:23 AM

Wil, I couldn't agree more. I am a Canadian not an American, but watching things unfold over the last few years has really left me wondering about many things. I am a fan of Babylon 5 and I tell you, when the "Homeland Security" deal was started, I immediately saw a relationship with "Nightwatch" from that show.

I think the war has been a sham from the start, and the more people that get into positions with higher authority, the worse it will be for America, and the world. I recently posted in my own Blog about the proposed $80 Billion dollar budget Bush wants to extend this war for two years... Most people probably don't get it, but they could use that money and literally build a new house for EVERY person that was left with nothing but the recent disasters in Asia.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 27, 2005 08:50 AM

I'm a socially liberal fiscal conservative (which leaves me with zero in common with this administration) with no party affiliation, and I can see valid points on both sides of this argument. However, when I hear stories of waterboarding and testilectrocution (wheee), view the Abu Ghraib photos, and listen to pundits split hairs about what is or isn't "technically torture", my gut (which I can usually trust) wants to barf up lunch. It's a very visceral reaction which I'm certain stems from believing at my core that the U.S. must humbly conduct itself from a certain moral high ground that cannot be abandoned, no matter the circumstances. My inner pragmatist sometimes scoffs at this, calling it quaint and obsolete, but I keep returning to my initial gut reaction when the Abu Ghraib story broke, which was "well thanks a whole farking bunch for doing this in my name, you filthy asshats". Since Gonzales is one of the central asshats in this whole mess, I say no confirmation for him. Overly simplistic? Perhaps, but it feels right.

Posted by: vlad at January 27, 2005 08:50 AM

Gonzales and the things people in America seem willing to give up simply scares me.

Have you checked out the new Not In Our Name statemet:

http://www.nion.us/

Posted by: Unearthed Ruminator at January 27, 2005 09:00 AM

"While it is vital that we defeat our enemies, we must not become them in the process."



I keep getting stuck on this sentence. I've bounced back five times already this morning (I'm in New York) to re-read Wil's post. Each time this sentence gets me.



Must we indeed defeat our enemies? Perhaps my confusion lies in an unclear definition of "enemy". Who are my enemies? Why must I defeat them? Shouldn't I only need to defend myself from an enemy? Or, indeed, isn’t it possible that enemies can co-exist? Must there be a champion?



Is an enemy defined only as those who are actively engaged in trying to harm me? If so, I have no enemies at present. When faced with one, I'll probably endeavor to defeat him/her.



If I broaden the definition to people who wish to harm me, or want to harm or destroy what I stand for, or what I believe in, isn't defense against said harm sufficient? Must I really defeat these people? If I can keep these enemies from defeating me or my ideals, isn't that enough?



If I broaden the definition further to people who detest me and/or what I believe in, and who consistantly wish ill upon me and those like me, I can find no reason to combat these folks at all! There are people I detest, upon whom I wish the greatest of ills, yet I can't believe that they would be justified in attempting to defeat me for feeling this way or thinking these thoughts.



I'm being somewhat purposely obtuse in my willfully limited interpretation of Wil's comment, but I'm been so for a reason. I think we take for granted the idea that there are large numbers of people actively involved in planning and attempting to carry out harm upon us. We fear an unknown mass of people who are different from us, and who we think hate us because we are different from them and, most importantly, that this hatred will implicitly result in them committing violence against us. (This is eerily similar to the racial discrimination within our own country--I seems important to mention that.) It's just not true. Yes there is a terrorist threat to our status quo, but there has been for thousands of years in hundreds of civilizations, and there will continue to be. The belief that we have somehow just become the special case in the history of the world and that we must overhaul our offensive fronts to eradicate a new enemy is nonsense, and dangerous. The number of people sincerely committed to causing violence and death in the United States did not change from September 10th to September 12th. We cannot let our awareness of a problem inflate its realistic magnitude or significance.



We certainly don't need to defeat our enemies; I don't know if one ever truly could defeat an enemy. Defeat engenders conflict anew. We need to know who our enemies actually are and why they are our enemies. A fundamental paradigm shift to that goal might be protection enough in itself.

Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2005 09:08 AM

PS: Sorry about the double carriage returns above. Like that post wasn't long enough as it was, huh?

Posted by: Kristen at January 27, 2005 09:10 AM

I think what a lot of you, including our lovely site owner here, are failing to mention is that fact that you can pass the buck as far up the chain as you want. The fact remains however that those soldiers did not refuse the unlawful orders. As a soldier who was serving during that time, I can tell you that every soldier is trained from day 1 in basic training what to do with an unlawful order. Those soldiers had no more right to do what they did than the Nazis did, but they had every right to say no. They didn't, and that's why they are going to jail. Point at those in charge all you want, but in point of fact they weren't the ones performing the torture.

Posted by: Notthesameguy at January 27, 2005 09:13 AM

Again, this is not about soldiers. This is not about following or not following orders.

This is about Alberto Gonzales, the man who would be Attorney General. As Hunter said at Daily Kos:"Alberto Gonzales, key player in the effort to provide a legal cover and justification for the torture of prisoners of war, including women and children, by American forces, and the decision that the United States of America would no longer be bound to the standards of worldwide law described by the Geneva Conventions, as Attorney General of the United States."

Posted by: Wil at January 27, 2005 09:51 AM

On the torture topic, I agree that the soldiers (undertrained national guard or not) are responsible for performing the acts and for failing to recognize and refuse unlawful orders, but I disagree that "pointing at those in charge" isn't warranted. The fact that there were intel personnel giving orders at Abu Ghraib is worthy of a full-blown investigation, IMO.

As far as Gonzales goes, he appears to be yet another Bush Buddy, one who will likely work to facilitate the same creepy fascist agenda that Ashcroft did, without attracting as much attention (e.g., weird fears of calico cats, burkhas on statues, let the eagle soar...yikes). It's interesting that Gonzales intervened on Bush's behalf to excuse the then-governor from jury duty, which allowed Bush's DUI conviction to remain undisclosed. The administration is crawling with that sort of loyal-old-boy-network type, and Gonzales' lawyerly evasions during his confirmation hearing only solidifies my distrust. I understand that all politicians should be assumed to be liars from the start, but I don't think that means that we should give a free pass to Gordon Gekko when he pops up.

Posted by: vlad at January 27, 2005 10:59 AM

Dana Huff wrote above: "The quoted story above doesn't mention the context in which The President was advised that the Constitution doesn't apply to him. As Commander in Chief it does not necessarily apply, when he's acting as the leader of our armed forces during a conflict against non-citizens in foreign lands. That statement drips with out-of-context spin and rhetoric."

You need *context* to comprehend that telling the President that it's legal for us to torture prisoners and that "that the Constitution doesn't apply to him" is *wrong*?

Speaking of when the Constitution applies, I've been wondering this for a while... Where does it say in the Constitution that the principles stated in it so clearly yet elegantly *only apply to natural-born citizens of the USA*? If we hold those truths to be self-evident, then why doesn't the right not to be detained by the government apply to those being held in Guantanamo Bay? Aren't we just saying that, if we're holding prisoners somewhere OFF the continental US that it's okay to torture them and hold them for YEARS without a trial? Why don't the rights in the Constitution apply to them too?

I know, they hate our guts and would kill us if they could. But isn't this why we're better? Because we DO (or should) follow the Constitution?

Posted by: pbarnes7 at January 27, 2005 10:59 AM

I just recently found this site and I love it! I put pictures of you from teen magazines on my wall when I was younger. But, anyway, ahem.

While I totally agree with you, I don't think what the average American does at this point will do this much good. The Bush Administration, and congress, has already sent a very clear message that it really doesn't care what the almost-majority (49%) of voters thinks. (http://www.rampantchaos.org does a good job of pointing this out) We watch every day as more and more crimes are committed by our country and more and more of our rights are siphoned away from us in the name of preserving freedom.

I would write a letter but as it is I feel powerless against our government (and not only because I am a genuine Florida disenfranchised voter).

Take care!
Helen

Posted by: HelenAngel at January 27, 2005 12:06 PM

Tyson, and of course Wil.
thank you for saying it so well!

Posted by: dave at January 27, 2005 01:13 PM

I'm trying to figure out what exactly an 'almost-minority' is. Sounds alot like a bitter 'absolute minority'.

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 27, 2005 01:40 PM

I’m not one for rhetoric. It ticks me off when I see it. It all started many murky years ago. The exact moment, I don’t recall. I just have a vague recollection of watching a commercial on TV, and listening to the ad-blurb when I realized…the commercial was lying.

There was no direct lie. In fact the specific statement seemed to have no meaning. None at all. Yet it was also clear to me that the commercial was trying, with words and imagery, to convince me that this product did something that it could not possibly do. I also realized that the ad was crafted in such a way as to make it difficult to call the advertisement on the lie. They never said they could do the impossible. That I thought they did must be a simple misinterpretation of their message, right?

As I said, I don’t recall the commercial, but given what I have to say later, I should provide an example. “Natural Male Enhancement.” We’ve heard that one. We think we know what it means; “safe/healthy means to a bigger wang.”

But it’s a lie. Natural does not equal safe and healthy, but we tend to think it does. Crude oil is natural, so is cyanide. I wouldn’t call them safe or healthy. Male Enhancement is really meaningless, but the advertiser could get into serious legal trouble if they tried to sell something on a totally empty phrase. In this case, it means “robust erection”

Natural Male Enhancement says to the consumer “Safe way to make your unit bigger”, but it really means “non-synthetic supplement to boost erection quality”. Can anyone who has seen those commercials really claim they are trying to tell you what their product really does?

Political rhetoric is no different. We’ve all watched politicians, from all parties, utter words that meant nothing. I’ve read more than one opinion piece that tried to assert opinion as fact and ignored everything else (the recent flack of Porter Goss and his memo to the CIA staff comes to mind). Most activism sites don’t bother with the facts of the matter, The anti-Gonzales quote above stands among them.

As far as I’m aware, the US has no policy to abandon the Geneva Convention. As has been pointed out, the Convention does not apply to unlawful combatants. It may seem inhumane, but the Convention is only weakly a humanitarian treaty. The Convention was developed for many reasons. One idea was to prevent the country capturing prisoners from attempting to use said prisoners as a source of intelligence.

That bears reiteration: to use said prisoners as a source of intelligence.

I’ll get back to that. The Convention defines who is a “lawful combatant” and who is an “unlawful combatant”. One reason was to prevent spies from claiming POW status. Any country, ANY, can use the Convention to determine if a combatant is covered under the Convention and use apply it or not as the case may be. Of course, in free countries the people are allowed to debate the reasoning.

In this particular case, Mr. Gonzales advised the President about a point of international law, and he did so rightly. Treating terrorists under the Convention sets a legal president that, by extension grants the terrorists organizations the same status as a Nation. Returning to the above point, it also means the US would have to truly violate the Convention in order to question any captured terrorist about their organization or plans.

Does this make Gonzales a saint? Nope. Indeed, it doesn’t make anything else he might have said or advised “right”. It is simply proof that the Anti-Gonzales campaign is lying. They may even believe their lie, but it doesn’t make it less of one.

To be frank, I don’t agree with policies of the Bush Administration. I often agree with their goals. Saddam had to go. (You are free to disagree with that assertion, that’s a nice thing about America). We need better security. We need to protect our economy and the rest of the world needs to strengthen their markets. To me those things are self-evident. I don’t know if there’s a better way to stabilize the unrealistic currency gap that over strengthens the US Dollar. I know that one of our leading security experts sees our efforts as ineffective and wasteful. I know that lying about our reasons for going into Iraq is bad policy. I just feel that if you are going to oppose lies and deceit, you should probably not use lies and deceit. Indeed, I feel that if you want to campaign for (or against) anything, you should avoid rhetoric and stick to the facts. The facts do have power, and they allow the people to decide. As I understand it, that’s what democracy is all about.

Again, I’m not defending Gonzales. I haven’t been able to wade through the rhetoric deeply enough to find the truths that would let me support him, and I doubt there are enough of them anyway. I’m just too moderate for the Bush Whitehouse.

Activism should be about informing the people and helping them make informed choices, but it’s usually about disinformation. Advertising. Advertising is about mind control. Mind control and democracy seem oppositional to me.

Or maybe I’m just a cynic.

Posted by: Maverick at January 27, 2005 01:40 PM

Blast, multi-posting. Sorry.

To pbarnes7:

I suppose we did “hold these truths to be self-evident”. Unfortunately we did not write that into any laws. It is from the Declaration of Independence, which -- while an interesting historic document -- is not a legal paper.

The Constitution only applies to US citizens. The reason for this is the fact that we can’t really run around enforcing its codes on those who are not US citizens (or non-citizens with-in the US to a lesser extent). We could try, but we’d fail. I recall some ongoing attempts toward extending those moral ideals (most of them found in the first 10 amendments) to China. The effort has been less than stellar.

We DO have a moral obligation to uphold those ideals, in my opinion, but it isn’t a law.

A few other points:

I’ve seen a few overly rose tinted statements from the left here. Given my feelings on rhetoric I’ve got too take issue with some of them.

“The question that americans should be asking is if the irish who normally love the hell out of america are protesting against the president then there must be something radically wrong.”
Honestly, most of the world dislikes the US government. I’ve asked around online. People like the US, but dislike our government. This time it really isn’t a policy issue. Bush just has this magical ability to tick people off. There is often much ado about the message the US sent by re-electing Bush. The message we sent wasn’t so much one of support, but on of “John Kerry is a weak candidate”. I realized he was weak when he tried courting McCain as a running mate (not that that was a bad idea).

“Take a look at the Red Cross report on Abu Ghraib: they estimated that 70-90% of the detainees were innocent civillians. How many of those people were tortured because Alberto Gonzales gave President Bush the legal cover to do it?”
That’s what we call an unfounded accusation. Even the most rabid of Leftwing politicos haven’t gone so far as blame the Abu Ghraib incidents on the administration.

“We have survived for the past 200+ years without resorting to it and should continue to avoid such practices.”
Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of
International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva
from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

Entry into force 21 October 1950

Not exactly 200+ years. 54+ years, assuming there’ve been no violations we haven’t heard about.

Yes, I’m picking a few nits. I still believe facts have more power than spin.

Posted by: Maverick at January 27, 2005 02:32 PM

So many people seem to forget that the Iraqi prisoners have nothing to do with the initial "War on Terror" induced by the 9-11 attacks. The lie about WMDs was used to get into Iraq, and now these prisoners are classified as "unlawful combatants"...
They are neither terrorists nor unlawful combatants. They are freedom fighters or innocent. If China demanded the US was to remove all of their WMDs (really scares me that thought) and invaded the US, then anyone taking up arms to defend their country would be an unlawful combatant and could be locked away in a Chinese prison for nothing??? Bah. I would like to hear what all of the people who blindly stand up for these lies would have to say then.

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 27, 2005 03:48 PM

I wish I had thought of this trite Chinese prison analogy before I wrote 'smoking equates to genocide', in illustrating a ridiculous, off-topic leap in thought.

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 27, 2005 04:10 PM

I know that this post was about torture and the fact that we should not be engaged in it, but to back off that issue the problem come for where we've put ourselves in the world.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

Unfortunately, we are all twisted up in "entangling alliances" up the wazoo. Take the Iraqis for instance. We allied with the Iraqi people but not the "terrorist" Iraqis.

The Saudis are another example: friend, right? However, most of the terrorists on the planes on September 11 were Saudis.

Pakistan: former foe but convenient friend for the moment.

We are also allied with Israel. However, I'm going to take a guess that most Iraqis, Pakistanis, and Saudis don't like Israel. We will conveniently look the other way about that (for now).

In addition, in the 1990s, Russia went from communist to democratic, which means enemy to friend, but is slowly becoming the enemy again, but not when it comes fighting terrorism. So you can call them "enemy-friend" if you want.

Then there is Europe: long time friend, but really pissed off at us for the moment...er well, some of them. The Brits are still our friend (unless you talk to most of the British people).

The point I'm making is that we've spent so much effort to be the world's policeman that we don't know who is friend or foe anymore, which brings me back to the original quote. I will repeat it:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

There is a reason that our founding fathers felt this way, but we've forgot it along the way. Unfortunately, I'm going to venture to say that today we now have more "entangling alliances" than "friendships."

Posted by: hunahpu at January 27, 2005 04:12 PM

Mouse... thanks. Actually it is on-topic as far as I am concerned. Most of these prisoners were not fighting against America until America invaded their country.

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 27, 2005 04:22 PM

i am with you here...this administration seems to shrug of atrocities...by promoting those who condone them...this is not my america.

Posted by: d. burr at January 27, 2005 04:36 PM

I agree that these prisoners wouldnt be there if we had not invaded their country. But we did. They lost. Now they are in our custody. This is the nature of war. Why are so many people blowing smoke over the 'poor Iraqi people' we're detaining? It sounds to me like misdirected anger toward us even being there in the first place, which everyone has a right to feel. Clouding that issue with nonsense about how certain elements of combat actions are 'unfair' sounds both silly, and niave.

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 27, 2005 04:55 PM

TO Glyn Evans:

The prisoners at Gitmo...Guantánamo Bay, Cuba...are classified as unlawful combatants, as are the insurgents (who according to reports aired on the left leaning news services (and not just Fox News) are largely from outside Iraq. We call them terrorists, and rightly so. The war is over. They lost.

I see your point, I hope you see mine. If we fought this (unlikely*) conventional war with China, and they won, and resistance fighters would be considered unlawful combatants under the Geneva Convention and those nations who signatory to it would tend to agree. Doing otherwise would allow those "freedom fighters" who might fight against their own governemts a path to legitimacy.

The prisoners at Abu Ghraib, at least those who were the target of the abuse WERE prisoners of Coalition Military Government, which is why the US soldiers who were involvd have been, and are being, prosecuted. They were not subject to protection of the Constitution or the Geneva Convention, and they will (if they haven't already) become the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

To my knowledge, the US Attorney General did not scantion what happened at Abu Ghraib. The Attorney General's Staff did not sanction it. The President of the United States did not sanction it. The United States Army did not sanction it.

And most importantly, the Army put a stop to it. The whole idea of the "evil" military getting caught with its collective pants around its ankles is so much fun that people like to ignore the name of Specialist Joseph M. Darby.

Look him up. He blew the whistle, to his CO. He took a risk, not knowing if the Army was sactioning this or not. not knowing what it could do to his military and civilian career. Knowing he had a family back home. He took that risk because what he saw was not right. And when step forward, the Army investigated, arrested, and filed charges.

Yes, the Army did not come clean right away, and it resulted in a juicy scoop. The news got to report on how the Army was holding back on news of abuse they had already stopped. Let's be frank, though. If it wasn't the army, but your business, or your family, would you want the rest of the world to know?

They might have tried to sweep it under the rug, if they thought they could. The damage was done, and the wrong doers would face justice... no need for a circus. Or, and this seems more likely, they might have waited until the trials were done, so that they could say "Yes, this happened, and we made it stop. The criminals will be punished."

What they did not do was let it slip by.

The lie, at least in reference to Iraq, is in the information that lead you to believe that the US Army was pursuing a poslicy designed to foster abuse, which te investigating Major General, Antonio M. Taguba, called criminal, sadistic and wanton, in his report. I can hardly call my expose of the facts in these matters "blindy stand[ing] up."

There are problems. The fact is we are holding, without charge or trial, human beings. They may be terrorists who want nothing more than to see you and everyone you know die screaming, but they are humans. We are exploiting a loophole in the law that arose from the fact that we have never really dealt with terrorists as our enemies until now. thus our laws are designed for domestic crime and military action. Terrorism fall between the two.

In my opinion, protesting the President's selection for Attorney General is a waste of time an energy. Go to the source. The Attorney General is a member of the executive branch. He doesn't make the law, he interprests and uses it. Separation of powers. Congress makes the law. If the Law has a loophole, it's up to Congress to plug it.

Take this grass roots effort and campaign to have loophole closed. Write your congress-persons every day. Get others to write them.

CC the media when ever you can. And if they ignore you, don't re-elect them. A good chunck of congress is up for re-election every year. Democracy can work more often than every 4 years.

Posted by: Maverick at January 27, 2005 04:58 PM

To Wil:

I want to take a slight break from pontificating on facts, and say this:

Back in November your comments had the tone of man who'd lost faith. (Not religious faith. I may be conservative, but not because God told me to be. Faith in your fellow Americans, the system and our ability to weahter any stoms, including bad Presidents.) I didn't like that. I don't really agree with your politics, being a moderate conservative, but since my friend started linking you on IRC I've have come to respect you as a writer and a man.

You are thoughtful and passionate. I think that, above all else, is what draws people here to read what you write. I call myself a writer, and it burns me when I get drawn into one of your narratives. I wish I wrote half as well.

America needs thoughtful and passionate people. I may think you have the wrong idea, but I am glad to see that you haven't given up.

Posted by: Maverick at January 27, 2005 05:26 PM

Phew, I am home from work and fed now so I can think straighter it would seem!

To Mouse:
Maybe you are right on that count. I think I am angry at the misdirection we have been fed and how people associate the original intent of the "War on Terror" with the Iraq War. Forgive me. Please continue the discussion!

To Maverick:
You are also a very well spoken man. I humbly agree with you about Wil's writing as well :D

Now you have said this:
"There are problems. The fact is we are holding, without charge or trial, human beings. They may be terrorists who want nothing more than to see you and everyone you know die screaming, but they are humans. We are exploiting a loophole in the law that arose from the fact that we have never really dealt with terrorists as our enemies until now. thus our laws are designed for domestic crime and military action. Terrorism fall between the two."

I agree halfways. And this was my original point about holding these people. We do not *know* they are terrorists. Many of the people *may* be innocent, but are being held with no charges, trial or anything. A government that sanctions this is bad news.

A recent comment I received on my own Blog about this says (in regard to some new British anti-terror legislation):

"Quote: The new control orders will be used, without a trial, where intelligence suggests an individual is a danger. Mr Clarke will be able to order any Briton to be detained at home, subjected to curfew or electronic tagging, or banned from meeting people or using the internet or a mobile. No evidence need be aired in court and some detainees may not know what they are accused of."

In my opinion, this is very similar to some of the occurences that are being *allowed* by the US Administration and people like Mr. Gonzales. My arguement is not with the US Military or it's personnel. There will always be a few "bad apples" in any scenario. The military is doing it's job over there. I pity them and what they are enduring, mainly because of the reasons they are there.

Wow, I have strong political interest it would seem, though I never thought I would get emroiled so deeply in it! I think as opposed to being an avid political debater, I simply like to call what I see. Naturally, you may disagree or agree, that is what freedom and choice is all about...

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 27, 2005 06:23 PM

pbarnes7, you misquoted me above. I didn't say that. That was MouseBeast. The poster's name and other information about the comment appears under it, not over it. I probably didn't need to clear that up -- everyone could go back and read it and see, but it bugged me.

Posted by: Dana Huff at January 27, 2005 06:23 PM

Will, I'm a fan, but give me a break.

You ask "where is my mind?" I have an idea. Same place as your head. Up your ass! Wake up and come back from the deep frontier and back into reality.

Posted by: lsutiger at January 27, 2005 07:06 PM

so much for my Star Trek humor. That should be "final frontier"

Posted by: lsutiger at January 27, 2005 07:08 PM

Glyn,

Now we're almost on the same page. I don't totaly agree with your reasoning, but that's just splitting hairs. This issue is abuse of power. Keeping people under arrest based on the ABSENSE of law is wrong. We have due process so that (in theory) the innocent can be freed.

Link to your blog? I'm always looking for more ways to abuse the company internet.

Posted by: Maverick at January 27, 2005 07:38 PM

I really want to say something rude to Isutiger.

Let's not. The rest of us can stay on the level of thought debate, ne?

Posted by: Maverick at January 27, 2005 07:42 PM

Maverick:

Good call on the rude fella... Some folks.
I have an MSN Space which can be bad as you need a passport to comment and such, but I write about many different things :D

http://spaces.msn.com/members/zaphodsheads/

I trackback the odd post of Wil's as well. I am new to the whole blog thing, so I am thrilled with any responses or ideas :)

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 27, 2005 08:01 PM

I agree with Tom Tomorrow's take on this whole thing:

I noticed that in this wacky satire, written a couple of years back, I have my outrageous conservative saying, "I suppose YOU want to CODDLE the terrorists, DON'T YOU? Well, I think we should STRAP THEM DOWN and TORTURE THEM!" (Or something close to that--I'm paraphrasing from memory.) This was written before the Abu Ghraib revelations. It was meant as over-the-top satire, a ludicrous exaggeration. Once again, reality outpaced satire. What once seemed unthinkable is now commonplace....it's getting hard to satirize the world any more when real life is so crazy.

For his full blog entry see:
http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2005_01_16.html#002007

I still can't believe Bush won (well, I mean, I know he did, but I'll never understand it.) Oh well.

Posted by: Chuck at January 27, 2005 09:09 PM

Glyn,
Thanks. I may never comment (me no likie passport) but I've got ye on me RSS list, so I'll prolly drop by. Anyone who writes a post on the trials and tribulations of the poor Redshirts deserves a look see.

These are my rules...I make 'em up!

Posted by: Maverick at January 27, 2005 09:29 PM

Maverick,
Thanks! I update often except maybe the odd weekend.

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 27, 2005 09:54 PM

and the number one reason for opposing Gonzales... the man has a lovely singing voice, and its a sad waste to stick him away in the dept of justice instead of american idol.

Posted by: drow at January 27, 2005 10:45 PM

Hey,

Just letting you know I emailed the guys at Creation to have you at the next Pasadena show. I got a reply back from Adam saying they love you and will try to get you on. And now I'm sitting next to the daughter of another one of the main guys there who will daughter pressure her dad for it :) So, hopefully I'll see you there...whenever it happens

Posted by: AnthonyM83 at January 27, 2005 11:27 PM

I cannot believe how blind some of these people are! "Oh, you're wrong about so and so." Wake up, people! We're dangerously walking down the road to Fascism and no one seems to care! But then again, the Germans were saying the same thing before Hurricane Hitler swooped down and pulverized Germany.

Don't say that we didn't warn you!!!

Posted by: Scott T at January 27, 2005 11:59 PM

FYI..............

Some sobering insight to our life and times....

Published on Thursday, January 27, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Tell Them, 'Because our Fathers Lied'
by Gilbert Jordan

"The master class has always declared the wars;
the subject class has always fought the battles...."
- Eugene Debs

Almost two years after our invasion of Iraq - an occasion that was to be 'a piece of cake,' one that would be celebrated by Iraqis strewing flowers before our troops - it is well past the point when we should recognize that the Iraq War has become the Vietnam of the 21st Century. As in Vietnam, The Mexican War, the Spanish American War, the pretext for going to war was manufactured by misrepresenting facts and whipping up public fury, usually a simple task when that well known toxin - patriotism - is in the air.

Many years ago Rudyard Kipling wrote in his Epitaphs of the War:

'If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.'
At the same time, one of England's most promising poets of WWI, Wilfred Owen, wrote a famous anti-war poem. After presenting a series of ghastly images relating to the death of a soldier by mustard gas, Owen tells us that if we could witness such scenes, then

'My friend, you would not tell with such high zest to children ardent for some desperate glory. The old lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro Patria Mori.'
For those of us without an Oxford education, the translation of the Latin is, "It is sweet and fitting that you should die for your country."
President Bush and his minions are not unique in riding to war on the back of lies. Presidents Polk, McKinley, and Johnson, among others, were equally guilty. In each case, these presidents embarked on wars that were based not on self-defense but naked aggression and a desire to expropriate what belonged rightfully to others. To mask such pillaging, it is always accompanied by an appeal to nationalism and soaring flights of rhetoric. With Iraq, President Bush kept inventing new rationales for the invasion, all of them evoking some noble purpose. And in his second inaugural speech just delivered, more of the same was dished up supposedly in the service of liberty and justice for all of the world's citizens. Of this tactic, columnist Molly Ivins would say, "It's like putting lipstick on a pig."

While the President can endlessly resort to Pollyanna summaries of the "catastrophic success" of our engagement in Iraq, the truth puts the lie to all of these fictions.

On our side, there have been 1,417 Americans killed in this debacle, with thousands more grievously wounded, many of those facing severely diminished lives from this time on. The cost of the war, according to the ticking meter on the internet, is $152 billion dollars, with another $80 billion requested for the immediate future. Since there is no end to the war in sight, there will be no end of the hemorrhaging treasure to support it. And all of this coincides with staggering budget and trade deficits, a disappearing middle class as jobs are exported to other countries, growing poverty, and a flow of world investment to the Euro as more and more creditors lose confidence in the American dollar. Add to that the insidious erosion of liberties under the Patriot Act. But most distressing is our apparent willingness at the highest levels of government to condone torture as a means of gaining intelligence. With such a departure from international norms, it is not difficult to see that in fighting our "barbaric" enemies, we become more like them with every passing week.

On the other side - yes, there is another side, although from coverage in American media, you would scarcely realize it - it is estimated that 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and far more than that made homeless, jobless, and futureless. Two years after 'Mission Accomplished' the country has descended into unspeakable chaos. In Baghdad, electricity is available only part of the day, clean water is scarce, sewage floods the streets. Fallujah has been reduced to rubble, turning about 100,000 civilians into refugees. The coming election will be meaningless, since violence has forced candidates to remain anonymous, and the act of voting itself is the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette. An assured electoral victory by the Shiite majority is an invitation to civil war, which will make the current misery in that hapless country seem pale by comparison. All the happy talk by the Bush administration does not change these facts. The Washington wrecking crew has created its own tsunami and all of us (Americans and Iraqis) are paying the price of their imperial ambitions.

In Dwight Eisenhower's final speech to the nation in 1953, he warned us of the power of the military-industrial complex:

'Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross.'
We, with our deluded belief that God is on our side and that our new manifest destiny is to control the world and all its assets, must reassess our priorities. Is this ill-fated adventure in Iraq (with hints of Iran to follow) worth the agony it is causing? Do we really want to bankrupt the nation and sacrifice our youth by pouring our resources into wars of folly? Do we really want to leave the rest of the world shaking their heads as they see this country diminishing itself by paying lip service to its Constitution and Bill of Rights but, at the same time, violating the very essence of those documents? It is time for us to awake from a long sleep, take a serious look at the world and this country's place in it, and recognize that we have been manipulated by an unscrupulous band of miscreants who have been following their own agenda. And that agenda has nothing to do with democracy and liberty, at least for all of us living below the tiny sliver of privileged and tax-free aristocrats occupying the top of society's pyramid.

A good place to start our examination is to recognize that Kipling and Owen pulled back the curtain from myths and lies that promote wars. In a real democracy, we should demand transparent government and accountability. Until we do, we are in danger of sacrificing our 225 year old experiment in self-rule. There is a very thin line between democracy and despotism and at the moment we are standing on the razor's edge.

Gilbert Jordan is a retired English Professor from Monroe Community college, Rochester, NY and has been active in the anti-war movement. He resides in in Wyoming, NY. Gilbert can be reached at gfjordan@frontiernet.net.

###

Posted by: Scott T at January 28, 2005 12:29 AM

I guess what I'm stuck on is, "What do you hope to accomplish?" If Gonzalez is kept out, what makes you think his replacement will be any different?

Alberto Gonzalez was just a flunky following orders. He didn't suddenly jump up in class, waving his hand and shouting "Oooh! Oooh! I've got a great idea!" He merely completed the assignment he was given.

He is the symptom, not the disease.

Posted by: FNRThomas at January 28, 2005 02:40 AM

OK, I can accept you're against his confirmation. But instead of bitching about it, offer an acceptable solution.

Posted by: Rich at January 28, 2005 08:08 AM

“He is the symptom, not the disease.”

This is why I could never succeed in advertising. That sums up my argument beautifully. Go after the root of the problem… Congress. Make Congress work for you. I salute you, FNRThomas

Now, for a return to FACT CHECK MODE!!!!!!!

Scott T wrote: “it is well past the point when we should recognize that the Iraq War has become the Vietnam of the 21st Century.”

This is an emotional card that folks just love to play. I am back in fact check mode because I find it personally offensive. My father and my Uncle fought in Vietnam. Both were wounded in action, and both suffered the scars that come from war. They, like our boys in Iraq, were not draftees. They volunteered to serve, because in their day this country, that so many here suggest was pristine before Bush Jr., wasn’t all that fair or accommodating to young black men.

So lets have some facts here.

Iraq: a war begun under false pretexts, which the President may or may not have known about. It has become increasingly clear that the Coalition nations based a lot of their reasoning on bad intel. Information generated by Iraqi expatriates who had ulterior motives. Additionally I suspect confirmation of the bad intel may have been hinted at by the Mossad. Let face some facts, here. Israel has one of the world’s best intelligence services, and had pretty much crippled Saddam’s nuclear program all by themselves. They had an on again off again mission to KILL Saddam that was only shelved when a training accident killed a number of the commandos tapped for the job. The Mossad had reason to mislead us. They are surrounded by enemies. The only reason they have a country now is the fact that they are hardcore, and will do whatever it take to win.

Of course Bush had his motives. Bush has an ego and clearly reacts emotionally to his political opponents. Saddam tried to have his father killed. Frankly I wouldn’t put it past our president to start looking for an excuse to end Saddam either. Beyond that, OPEC has been being stingy with the oil of late, and freeing Iraq has the natural effect of driving prices down simply by freeing demand.

One way to free up Iraqi oil was to lift UN Sanctions, but Saddam never complied with UN inspections. He pushed and pushed until there was a threat of War, and even under that threat he didn’t cooperate. Like many in the Middle east he thought we Americans lacked the will to finish the job we started in 1991. (Keep in mind that that war never officially ended, because Saddam never fully complied with the terms of the surrender).

History will look at these as 2 different Wars, and it will tend to ignore the fact that war in Iraq is over, and the US really is battling insurgents.

For all of this, the Iraq war had a clear goal. Remove Saddam and install a new government.

During this period of War + Insurgency, which has lasted just shy of 2 years, the US has lost some 1421 personnel, while the Coalition, in total has suffered 1582 losses. Granting that you data may have been old, I like to note that you seem to ignore the deaths in our Allies forces.

The LARGEST (and thus likely in error) civilian loss total is 17723, while the smallest is around 15000. Splitting the difference gives us something that is likely closer to the truth, or a total of about 16400 civilians killed.

Other Nations only distantly fund the insurgency in Iraq. Such funding is likely to dry up quick if US is able to trace the money trail. Prime funding is from Terrorist Organizations. Prime source of materials is Iraqi Military Weapons. Iraqi insurgents really do deserve the name Terrorists as that don’t even try to restrict themselves to attack our forces. They will blow up nearly anyone, anywhere. They have no regaurd for the lives of people they are trying to “Free” from our “tyranny”.

Vietnam: The so-called Vietnam War (which was a war, but not officially) began with the end of the French Indochina War. Vietnam, formerly a French colony was granted independence from France and under the terms of the Geneva Accord that ended that war was portioned into two nations, which the UN hopped could be consolidated into on democratic nation by 1956. President Eisenhower, and the leaders of the two Vietnams (Ho Chi Minh, and Emperor Bao Dai [Later Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Deim]) had no interest in allowing this to happen, each “side” fearing the influences of the other. Ho Chi Minh wanted to avoid democratic influences while the others feared communism.

After Ho Chi Minh solidified communist power in the north, his National Liberation Front (know to the US as the Viet Cong) began guerilla warfare into the south. US forces began sending military advisor to the area.

The US truly entered the war when Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964. The first US troops arrived on March 8, 1965 (3,500 United States Marines). By 1968, over 500,000 troops were stationed there, and the toll of American soldiers killed, as reported every Thursday on the evening news, was over 100 a week.

As the war dragged on it became clear that there was no way to determine when it was over. There was no victory condition. The US had to reach the nebulous goal of stopping the NVA and the Viet Cong from controlling the south. Because of clear Chinese and Soviet support for the North, the US restricted operations to the South. Some thought we could “beat back” the attackers without resorting to invasion, but as the war dragged on it became increasingly clear that the US could not win. The skyrocketing death toll continued to erode support on the home front.

US forces did eventually force a peace agreement in early 1973. As part of the agreement US forces left Vietnam in mid 1973.

Shortly afterward the military situation began to crumble. Richard Nixon was unable to build support for further defense of the South while dealing the Watergate fall out. But 1975 Congress had suspended all aid to South Vietnam (little of that aid was going to defense efforts at the time). In early 1975 the North again invaded. They consolidated control of Vietnam on July 2, 1976. The country remains under communist rule.

The US lost 58226 as dead, or MIA. There were approximately 400 Australians killed and 38 New Zealanders. Vietnam claims, as of 1995, Four MILLION civilian losses and one million soldiers. Using the lowest (and obviously false) claims from Vietnam arrives at 1.5 million. Again splitting the difference, returns 3.25 million deaths.

In terms of time Vietnam lasted some 5 years, verse Iraq’s 2 and climbing, currently 250% more time based on the date of first official battle by US forces. In Vietnam the US suffered a staggering 4097.54% greater volume of lost personnel than in Iraq. Presently accepted civilian death tolls were some 22569.54% greater in Vietnam than Iraq.

At current casualty rate the Insurgency in Iraq would have to last another 39 years to match the US death toll in Vietnam. The conflict would have to continue for some 223 years to match the civilian losses.

Iraq isn’t even in the same ballpark as Vietnam. Unless the insurgents get at least 25 times more effective, it never will be.

Given the amount of respect Kipling enjoys in military circles, please, next time you quote an excerpt, link to the whole thing.

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 08:47 AM

Rich:OK, I can accept you're against his confirmation. But instead of bitching about it, offer an acceptable solution.

Is this a new RNC talking point? I've been reading and hearing this "if you think it's so bad, why don't you tell us how to fix it" mantra an awful lot this week.

I'm not being a dick -- I'm genuinely curious. I think it's too much of a coincidence that this sentiment has suddenly exploded all over the place.

To answer: It's not my job to come up with an alternative. That's President Bush's job. I have laid out the reasons I oppose Gonzales, and why I believe the congress should not confirm him. It's not my responsibility to offer a replacement nominee.

Posted by: Wil at January 28, 2005 09:24 AM

Oh, and if you've got something really long to quote, or reference, would you please quote a small bit and link the rest?

I can't tell you all how happy I am that this thread is actually useful to read. Good on ya.

Posted by: Wil at January 28, 2005 09:25 AM

In WW2 it was the hanging tree. The Nazis strung up partisans. Later, partisans hung traitors from this tree. It was left standing as a monument to those injustices. After April 25, 1986 the steam explosion which blew a 1,000 ton cap off a nuclear containment vessel in Chernobyl, the tree became a memorial for that tragedy. It has since fallen and was replaced with an aluminum tree, kinda like a shrine to things that never die...like mass stupidity.

Check these new allegations out at the Guantanamo prison.

Posted by: TheEmperfect at January 28, 2005 10:11 AM

Wow, thread, look at you! They grow up so fast.

I honestly can't tell where this discussion stands at the moment, but I noticed a bit of a comment by Maverick that I'd like to address. Maverick, please don't get the idea that I'm picking on you; I only pursue this because I've seen the same thing stated in many other places.

Maverick said "The prisoners at Gitmo...Guantánamo Bay, Cuba...are classified as unlawful combatants, as are the insurgents (who according to reports aired on the left leaning news services (and not just Fox News) are largely from outside Iraq. We call them terrorists, and rightly so."

That the "insurgents are largely from outside Iraq" appears to be a widespread misconception, as noted in this AP article from May 04, and also in this article at globalsecurity.org, which states that, out of 40K "hard core fighters" and 200K "part-time fighters and volunteers", "roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency". Granted, those are estimates from various sources, but it's safe to say that the insurgents are largely from inside Iraq. Many are former Saddam loyalists, and many are apparently young people with no jobs or prospects because the majority of the rebuilding work has been outsourced.

Anyway, the war in Iraq is covered by Geneva. The majority of the "insurgents" (man I hate that word. what makes someone an "insurgent", anyway?) are Iraqis, so they're not "unlawful combatants". Whether or not you want to call them terrorists is up to you, I guess.

Posted by: vlad at January 28, 2005 10:42 AM

Wil: I think you're absolutely right that it is not our job to come up with an alternative. It's the elected administration's job to appoint these folks. This is why we have the elected body; to make these decisions on behalf of the citizens they represent.

They are elected by a majority, and their decisions usually relfect the will of that majority. Unfortunately, with the country so closely divided, that majority is pretty slight. This is leaving an almost equal amount of citizens who feel disparaged by most of the administration's decisions.

The prevalent response from the right sounds pretty damn weak to me as well. If I were sitting in the majority, defending one of their decisions, I wouldnt throw up a weak-ass statement like "Well, why dont you find a solution? Nyah Nyah Nyah!" There's no 'solution' to be found. The majority is merely trying to appoint their 'solution', and it's a shame that so many people have a problem with it.

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 10:56 AM

Sorry about the length. Verbose isn’t my middle name, but it was considered.

Wil wrote: “To answer: It's not my job to come up with an alternative. That's President Bush's job. I have laid out the reasons I oppose Gonzales, and why I believe the congress should not confirm him. It's not my responsibility to offer a replacement nominee.”

Agreed. And by organizing or joining an organization in opposition to the nomination you’ve taken a step. My contention remains that the step is not enough.

I agree with the IDEAL found in the concept of "if you think it's so bad, why don't you tell us how to fix it?" I disagree with sentiment or spirit of it as you may have heard it. We really should think of alternatives when possible and suggest them to our representatives. They are “Representatives” they can’t represent us if we simply wait for them to make suggestions.

Obviously, that doesn’t always apply. The Chief Executive is NOT our representative in this matter. That is not the job the Constitution gave him in this area. So expecting you to suggest a better Attorney General is not right. To beat my dead horse a bit more, CONGRESS is where our reps are on this one. You should continue to speak out, gather like-minded souls and hammer your desires home to Congress.

If they fail to listen, make them pay. Vote them out.

It’s not about blaming Congress. It is about the fact that you can’t directly influence the President. The nature of the 4 year term means you can’t do much to him unless he’s caught committing a crime. Further, this President has nothing lose. He can’t be re-elected. Congress is different. Every year parts of Congress face re-election.

I’m not talking about a one off letter campaign against Gonzales, but a continuous tide of public opinion. Encourage people to write their Senators and Representatives. Organize groups like the one above and make sure EACH MEMBER WRITES a letter. Send them by post, by e-mail, by carrier pigeon. Copy the Whitehouse and the media. Bury them in your wishes.

In fact, I will make this pledge. I, being a moderate conservative - and at worst - ambivalent about Gonzales, will join you in opposing him, if you will join me in flooding D.C. with American voices and demands for accountability.

I don’t care if every letter you write expresses exactly the opposite view from mine. I just want your voice to be heard, and I want the big wigs behind the Beltway to learn that they do, in fact, serve us!

What say you? What say you all?

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 11:08 AM

On a lighter note, Dick would rather be ice fishing. You can take the boy out of the UP, butcha can't take da Yooper outta da boy, eh? Aw jeez, you betcha.

Posted by: vlad at January 28, 2005 11:13 AM

SIDE NOTE:

I cant help but point out something I just saw on a cable news channel (to remain anonymous).

A dem strategist was asked why she thought the democrats in congress were putting up so much of a fight against Condi Rice's appointment. The person figured that these people were obviously going to be of like mind to the president, and that if he wanted to surround himself with that, it was his business. I guess on some level I tend to agree with that.

The strategist's response was the typical, weak-ass, non-sequtor, democratic response. She immediately pointed out a common opinion that Dr. Rice was one of the architects of the misinformation that led to our invasion in Iraq. Her response had nothing to do with the question. She just deflected the question and responded instead with a shot. Apparantly neither side can stick to the 'facts' anymore. I fear that this whole country is just 'spinning' off into infinity.

I figure that if i'm going to discuss a weak-ass Republican talking point, I might as well point out a Democratic one as well. Fair and balanced, I always say...oops...so much for the 'anonymous' thing.

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 11:20 AM

Interesting point Vlad. I dropped the ball on that one. But that's why I love these little opportunites. It helps me to find the holes in my knowledge and stregnthen my reasoning.

The next question is: Are Iraqi "combatants" actually covered by the Convention? I proposed, based on my interpretation of the text that I linked to earlier, that they aren't. They lack a governing body and clear chain of command. Still the Convention may have provisions that I missed.

The question that follows that is: Are Iraqi fighters being shipped to Gitmo? This one I don't have an answer for. I'll have to see what I can dig up.

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 11:20 AM

Normally, digs at Fox New bug me, because I can't help but note how left baised the other News services are. But that one gave me the giggles, Mouse.

I give you a 9 for delivery, on a scale of one to five.

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 11:24 AM

To RICH

"OK, I can accept you're against his confirmation. But instead of bitching about it, offer an acceptable solution"

If a car company, was having low sales from consumers due to a particular model type, then it would not be expected of the consumer to ask the car manufactuter to off and suggest an alternative model, would it? NO! Instead, the car company would have to come up with an alternative model that would be more popular. If the car company cannot produce an alternative model then a competing company will.

In case any one didnt get my "subtle" message, if President Bush can't provide a suitable alternative to the nomination on his own, then his administration should stand down and let the opposition give it a try, cos thats how democracy works...

Posted by: Noel Burke at January 28, 2005 11:29 AM

Thanks Maverick, I've enjoyed your interpretations on things throughout this post. For the record, I'm a Fox News junkie (I was watching it, to see the report, I should point out). I, too, am sick of the highly left biased reporting on the other channels.

Also, huge thanks to Wil for being such a compelling writer and presence so as to attract so many intelligent people, and incite such thoughtful debate. Buy yourself a nice flowing robe, and you'd have a cult, I swear.

Ok, this is turning into a lovefest. To quote Harvey Keitel: "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet!" Im getting absolutely no work done today, and I truly dont care.

(I can't resist): If you agree/disagree with the Mouse please send your comments to squeakyo@yahoo.com, squeakyo@yahoo.com; name & town, name & town, name & town, if you wish to aupine. Remember, no bloviating...that's Wil's job!

hehe..I so suck... ~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 11:47 AM

Wait, wait, wait, Noel! The President doesn't need to do anything, because the majority of the country (same majority that elected him BTW) does NOT have a problem with his appointment. This is another case of a large, extremely vocal, but still a /minority/, forgetting that they are indeed, the /minority/. The time for the left to make any changes was a few months ago, and the majority has spoken.

~~(__)8>
If people want to make serious changes, I suggest we do as Maverick previously stated. Vote those suckers out of office. THAT'S how democracy works.

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 11:54 AM

Wait, wait, wait, Noel! The President doesn't need to do anything, because the majority of the country (same majority that elected him BTW) does NOT have a problem with his appointment. This is another case of a large, extremely vocal, but still a minority, forgetting that they are indeed, the minority. The time for the left to make any changes was a few months ago, and the majority has spoken.

If people want to make serious changes, I suggest we do as Maverick previously stated. Vote those suckers out of office. THAT'S how democracy works.

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 11:55 AM

Hi and welcome to Vlad Sticks His Ass Out. Tonight I'll be poking that thing over there with a stick. It might be a happy puppy, or a rabid skunk. Either way, it's probably off-topic. Ready? Good.

Maverick, since you're an avowed righty and apparently a good sport, and because you've mentioned the leftward lean of the media more than once, please point out the liberal media for me, and show your work. In the interest of fairness, let's leave out Fox News and CBS.

I only ask because I really don't see it, and in an age when the majority of the print/tv/radio market is owned by a dozen or so conglomerates, the idea that the media is liberal is a tough sell to me. In fact, most of the jabbering heads that I hear condemning the horrible liberal media are in the employ of that selfsame media, in one way or another.

For extra credit, and in the interest of a bigger stink: please explain why anything named Clinton is bad (if in fact you feel that way). And remember, this is for posterity, so... be honest. How do you feel? ;)

Posted by: vlad at January 28, 2005 12:04 PM

My apologies for the double post. I have a hare trigger on my mouse clicker (double rodent entendre). Still not sure why it posted differently both times.

I have further thoughts regarding my last post. To refrain from cluttering Wil's webspace further, you can find them by clicking on my name. Feel free to slam me like a jager shot.

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 12:14 PM

Wil, there's a database of bloggers who've put up statements against Gonzales. Kos noted that he hadn't been able to keep up with everyone who let him know they had a statement up about this, and I saw that you're not currently on the list. There's a form there to add your blog. So, if you want to be counted among the 322+, there's your link!

Posted by: robespierrette at January 28, 2005 12:19 PM

In ireland, even if the taoiseach (irish word for prime minister)was elected by an overwhelming majority, if he/she was incapable of making appropiate decisions then his own party would force him to resign for the good of the party and the country. Thats democracy works round the world outside of america. On side note, some of histories darkest days in the 20th century were due to leaders who were elected by an overwhelming majority and given a free license to do as they please... yeah actually, I think that had something to do with WW2 didnt it???

Taking on board your comments about most of the complaints coming from the minority of people, while that may or may not be true, in his accpetance speech the day after his relection, president bush stated that he would help heal the wounds of the last 4 years both domestically and internationally. With this appointment, he is simply not doing so

Anyways, I think its getting away from the point of Alberto Gonzales being totally unsuitable for the job. Not from a political aspect but on a purely moral one, you cannot elect a guy who has found basically a loop hole in international law to basically run "glorified" torture camps on people whose "terrorist classification" is vague at best

Posted by: Noel Burke at January 28, 2005 12:21 PM

CNN, MSNBC (particularly Slate), and Headline News. These are the most rampant culprits. The left lean is subtle, it tends to be in degrees of spin. The most blatant examples occurred during the actual Iraq War, on about Days 20 to 21. These three services reported often, on those days, that Coalition Forces (read US forces) were stalled and failing to advance on Baghdad. They did note that the Army claimed otherwise, but the reported fairly strongly that it appeared that the offensive wasn’t moving.

Fox News had an imbedded reporter with the 3rd MID who, when I first noticed the discrepancy, was entering Baghdad, and within 3 hours was in one of Saddam’s palaces. All through this time CNN and Headline kept to their version of events. It boggled my mind. Up until that incident I tended to ignore news spin, but since that day, I’ve been fairly hawkish about it.

That said, Fox is just as spin prone as it’s left leaning counter parts. I find that by reading both FoxNews.com and CNN.com, I get a reasonably “centric” view of events.

Further, I’ve found Slate tends toward fairness. They rarely go off into utterly blatant spin, which (as you suggested) CBS does. The spin is there, but it rarely makes me feel as though the writer assumed I was stupid or uniformed. (This is high praise for an admitted opinion site.)

And I don’t Bemoan the liberal media. In fact I tend to take umbrage with those that do. The media may (in general) lean left, but a juicy story is a juicy story. The are equal opportunity jackals in that case. I just like to point out that one right leaning new service that calls itself “fair and balanced” is not the end of journalistic integrity. There are plenty on the left claiming the same thing.

Update: All data points to Camp Delta at Gitmo being used only for “illegal combatants” picked up in the Afghan theater. There have been some reported issues of detainment abuse (i.e. keeping innocents at the camp) but (again) the Army seems to be the source of the info. Army interrogators have, at least once, circulated a list of detainees they felt were innocent.

So far what I’ve found about torture is IMHO mild, given that these people’s brothers in arms cut off people heads. Most referents were to deliberately offending their religious sensibilities. Still the issue is a moral failure on our part. In this case it seems the FBI was on the case before the media.

Almost all reported cases of suspected innocents in Gitmo have come Pakistani or Afghan Security Ops, which tells me that the US needs to start evaluating the Op on that end. None of this mitigates our government’s (Administration and Legislature) failure to close the loophole in the law that allows the detainees to be held indefinitely, but I’ve beaten that horse fairly harshly. I’ll let it rest this round.

Noel:
Our checks and balances system was designed to prevent the President from accumulating that much power. Unlike Hitler, the president can’t take over the country and elect himself Furher. (Of course, Hitler just had his opponents murdered, which I suppose Bush could try, but seeing how the Executive branch is littered with Liberals (see the CIA, NSA) he’d have a pretty had time getting away with it.) I’m not complacent about it. Given enough time and momentum the President could swing Congress, or even the people, far enough to pull off an overthrow. Bush just doesn’t have the Charisma, IMO. He likes to think he’s Reagan, but he doesn’t even come close (Can anyone say Reagan Democrats? Then where are the Bush Dems? Right. There aren’t any.)

“Anyways, I think its getting away from the point of Alberto Gonzales being totally unsuitable for the job. Not from a political aspect but on a purely moral one, you cannot elect a guy who has found basically a loop hole in international law to basically run "glorified" torture camps on people whose "terrorist classification" is vague at best”

I think the key to understanding the man’s moral fiber is on the work he did before he joined the Bush administration. Morally speaking Gonzales had a duty as a lawyer to give an exact and pointed description on what the law said. As I pointed out, He was just doing his job on this one. It was up to Ashcroft, Bush and Congress to deal with the loophole. Two exploited it and the other did nothing.

As one of your countrymen noted “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” (Edmund Burke - Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents 1770)

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 01:23 PM

I would love to hear those neocons who dismiss Abu Ghraib and similar horrors as not so much torture--it wasn't physical after all--it was just softening up the prisoners for interrogation, yadda yadda--if that naked human pyramid was composed of American soldiers. And to claim that all of those prisoners were actual terrorists (or even all insurgents!) is disingenuous beyond the pale. Sure, Wil isn't going to single-handedly derail the Gonzales appointment or even put a bump in its path. He is merely practicing his democratic right of protest and encouraging others to speak out as well. Good for you, Wil.

Posted by: maycomb at January 28, 2005 01:40 PM

Blast, missed the Clinton question.

I didn’t like Clinton. I felt he was dodgy and lacked moral character. That said, he was an okay president, and damn fair ambassador for this country. All and all he rated a solid C- minus on the scale of presidents.

Frankly, I’m probably being too hard on the guy, but in all cases, I have to compare Presidents to the gold standard of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan. No one has managed to come close to measuring up to the Great Communicator. It’s probably unfair to compare Clinton to him. Excluding the Gipper, Clinton rates a B-. He loses points for failing to protect our Defense capability and being unfaithful to his wife. (I like some moral fiber in my Commanders in Chief). He salvaged points on have the sense to pass on warnings about terrorism to his successor (as well as balancing the budget), and loses a few for not getting the ball rolling during his own terms.

Overall, I hold no animosity for President Clinton, and I think he did a good job at the time.

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 01:46 PM

the key to understanding the man’s moral fiber is on the work he did before he joined the Bush administration

Posted by: vlad at January 28, 2005 01:48 PM

Oh man...I was managing to wisely keep out of this, but this one from Maverick just got me:

"I didn’t like Clinton. I felt he was dodgy and lacked moral character....I have to compare Presidents to the gold standard of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan."

Hmmm...on the one hand, cheating on your wife repeatedly. On the other hand, secretly trading guns for drugs. Yeah, I can see how Clinton doesn't match up to Reagan in the morality venue.

So far this has been a pretty decent thread of edutainment. But you just HAD to pull the morality card!

Posted by: Kristen at January 28, 2005 02:00 PM

ok this is my last post on this topic cos ive lots of stuff to do today and you could debate this topic till the next century and still not get agreement...

Its my opinion Alberto Gonzales is not suitable for office with so much power based on his past history (how recent or distance it was is irrelevant) and i hope that americans who feel the same speak up. I assume most people posting comments here, live in a democracy and have rights afforded to them if they are accused of any wrong doing no matter how grave the crime may be. I only wish the same rights were afforded to the people accused of being terrorists. It is far worse in my opinion to imprison one innocent man who has not been afforded the right to defend himself, than to let 1000 guilty men walk free from those same rights being afforded to them.

Maverick:
As regards you quote from edmund burke...in his pamphlet Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770), he argued that although the King's actions were legal in the sense that they were not against the letter of the constitution, they were all the more against it in spirit. i kinda find that ironic since that is what President bush is doing. While Edmund Burke is famous in Ireland for speaking up against the opression of catholics in ireland by the british, a lot of his comments/views are highly flawed and undemocratic in nature, so i wouldnt place much value in his opinions. For example, he was once infuriated at the notion that Britain and Ireland should learn from the French revolution and allow all citizens the vote!

Im out on this debate! Wil, thanks for the great blog and all the comments an all, look forward to next one like this!

Laterz
Noel

Posted by: Noel Burke at January 28, 2005 02:14 PM

Are there any NeoCons in the house?

Has anyone actually suggested that the excesses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are A-ok? I mean on the thread. The conservatives here seem pretty moderate to me, but I might be projecting my feelings on to them.

I think, so far, the worst I've said is that the "torture" I've seen written of at Gitmo is pretty tame compared to what's been done by the jihadists. I still think it's indecent. Of course, some of those "tortures" were just basic interrogation by women. After all, all American women are prostitutes by their standards and it is religiously offensive for Islamic men to be in the presence of "unclean" women.

Of course there were cases where women took things too far, and acted (mildly) like prostitutes, knowing full well what that would do to the prisoner's religious standing.

This creates a real pickle in my mind. Interrogation is interrogation. It's not nice. But how far is too far? What are the limits? I don't know. Should women be allowed to use their sexuality as a weapon? In a truly liberated world the answer is "yes".

Was anyone here aware that we don't keep the Gitmo prisoners in cages, and haven't for some time. We've spent around 60 - 70 million building a full up prison facility, and go to extreme effort to make sure we give them food in keeping with their religious requirements.

I'm not saying we've done everything saintly. I am saying we do take measures to be far more humane than they would be to us. All I want is an end to the exploitation of this loophole in the law. A government that becomes TOO comfortable letting the ends justify the means is a very dangerous government.

All I know for sure is one form of what "too far" looks like. Abu Ghraib. I'm glad our military didn't need outside scrutiny to put a stop to it.

Kristen: I expected someone to pull Iran-Contra out. And I was (even as young boy) disappointed in the President. But as I got older, one thing kept popping up: Why he did it. To get hostages back. The deal, crappy as it was, did something even our Special Forces troops had failed to do. It saved American lives.

The results may not have been worth the price, but I can understand the reasoning.

Did Clinton’s affairs save any American lives?

On the other hand, is a B- really that bad? I gave Bill props on what he did right. I just didn’t vote for the guy. If I had a choice between Clinton and Bush Jr. I’d take Clinton. If I had to rank Presidents since Nixon it’d best to worst: Reagan, Clinton, (Carter/Bush, tie), Ford, Nixon, Bush Jr.

The idea of President Gore makes my skin crawl (I’ll never forget who his wife is), and Kerry didn’t float my boat, but that in no way means I like Bush.

I like Reagan because he lead well, played tough, but was willing to be a Team Player. Is that so bad?

I mean…B-

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 02:32 PM

I write a column for my University Paper and I wrote about this just the other day. Enjoy.

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” — George Orwell

After Sept. 11, we, as a nation, adopted a belligerence that showed a definite change in our approach to the world. America was baring its teeth. Instead of an outstretched hand, the world was seeing the heels of our collective boots. Countries were either with us or against us. In the space of a few short hours, America changed. In short, we became afraid, and we needed to feel safe again.

Had our values changed, though? Were we still the America Norman Rockwell painted? Or had the fear that Sept. 11 brought to our doorstep wrought something much uglier in our national character? I fear that it did. We are becoming a society in which the ends not only justify the means, but also demand and encourage questionable means by constantly redefining the ends. How far are we willing to go in order to achieve security? How much are we willing to redefine our morality? When does the previously unthinkable become acceptable or, even worse, standard procedure?

That answer has already been given, in part, by Army Spc. Charles Graner.

I find our debate regarding Graner’s actions at Abu Ghraib to be strange, though. In our relentless zeal to be right, the debate has shifted from “Is this the right thing to do?” to “Is this really all that bad to begin with?”

Charles Graner posed over the body of a dead prisoner with a smile on his face and his thumb in the air. According to the testimony given by Army Spc. Jason Kenner, this prisoner was brought to Abu Ghraib in good health but was dead the next day. Is this right? When Kasim Hilas asked Graner for time to pray, Graner cuffed him to the bars of his cell window with his feet dangling above the floor for five hours. Was this torture? When a prisoner was forcibly sodomized with a phosphorous light stick while tied to a bed, did that constitute torture? What about when that happens with a nightstick? Is it a form of torture when prisoners are forced to eat their meals out of dirty toilets? Is it a form of torture when devout Muslim men are forced under the threat of pain or death to commit homosexual acts? All these things and more happened in Iraq and were committed by our troops. Can we say that all this is torture? This is the debate?

Of course it’s torture. Under any definition, it is torture. One would have to be a moral leper not to see it as such. But it seems that this new fearful America is breeding a bumper crop of these America Über Alles “patriots” who are more than willing to excuse any act and sink to any level in the name of national security.

This was not the act of one sick individual. This was organized and systematic. We may never know the full extent of what happened at that prison, but authorization for these acts heads all the way up the chain of command. I don’t know if President Bush gave the orders, but as commander in chief, he is ultimately responsible. These soldiers did not think this up on their own. That much is clear.

What does it tell us about ourselves when we try to justify brutality instead of working to end it? I’m sure that because of these abuses to “Joe Iraqi” our image there has become a case of “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Either we stand for human rights as a nation or we do not. Either we stand for justice and freedom or we do not. There is no middle ground. No bünd-rally mentality can erase the wrongs we have committed, no matter how much good we have done — and we have done a lot of good in Iraq. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves as a country, as citizens, and decide if the price of security is worth the destruction of all that we hope to defend.

Once again, I quote the words of George Orwell: “We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

http://www.universitystar.com/current/article.php?aid=39#counterpoint

Posted by: Sean W at January 28, 2005 02:43 PM

Well spoken, Wil.

Our first value as Americans—and really, as humans—is to protect other human lives and human dignities. It's a shame we have forgotten that. In a world of partisan values taking precedence over common morals, our own countrymen take to the streets to support those who endorse violations of the very things that make us human. Party over belief. Policy over value. Government over people.

This is not a Bush administration thing, nor is it even an American thing. That's what makes it all the more unfortunate—with so...many...people who seek power over values, will we ever reverse the trend? What will it take?

Posted by: Ryan at January 28, 2005 03:11 PM

Sean W Wrote:
"This was not the act of one sick individual. This was organized and systematic. We may never know the full extent of what happened at that prison, but authorization for these acts heads all the way up the chain of command. I don’t know if President Bush gave the orders, but as commander in chief, he is ultimately responsible. These soldiers did not think this up on their own. That much is clear."

PuuuLEEZE! I'm sorry, but that insults the intelligence. Do you honestly think that Americans are incapable of commiting gross missdeeds without authorization from up the Chain of Command? Do you think that no murders, gang rapes, or spouse abuse happens in the US without direct orders?

I'm sorry, but the nebulous conspiracy doesn't wash on this one. If there was one, why didn't the Chain of Cammand, or more specifically, the Commanding General, not have the real hero of the sad tale, Specialist Joseph M. Darby, disappeared? It's not like Specialist Darby wasn't... I dunno... in a war zone.

The victims were not saints. Some where bad men with hate in their hearts. others were just men learning to hate us. The guards we just people not trained to do the job they had been given. They let it get to them. Then they forgot their duty, and the became what they abhorred. Now they will be punished for it, and I hope they sufferer to the fullest extent of the law. They deserve no pity. They swore an oath, one that REQUIRED them to disobey any unlawful order, one that required them to act in a manner that brought Honor to their uniforms. They failed in their duty, and given the circumstances they have no excuse.

In every case here mentioned, there is always ample evidence that DoD investigators, or the FBI was on the job, seeking out the wrong doers and making the abuse stop BEFORE the media got the story.

We are trying to be humane, far more so than our enemies. Can we do better? Hell, yes. But don't let the Graners speak for all of us. Don't hold up the the worst of our kind and "Say this is us!"

Look to the worst, the Graners, then look to the best, the Darbys. Then say, "This is what we can be. Choose wisely."

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 03:29 PM

Added to Kristen: Yeah, the Morality comment WAS a cheap shot. On the other hand it IS how I feel, honestly.

Given that I do give Clinton props as the Second Best President of my time, I don't think I was way off base. Even if I leave that part off, I still feel he damaged our National Defense ability and failed to act on the growing threat of Global Terrorism.

At the same time, I understand his politics and his situation, so I don't hold those things against him with rancor. I just dock some points.

Also, when you eliminate Reagan from the Scoring, Clinton becomes the Best President of my Time.

Being the righty, I expect people to expect me to think the worst of Clinton...But I am a MODERATE conservative. I'm open to new ideas.

Back on Topic:

Nice link Vlad, but it raises another question. Who's telling the truth? I really doubt Bush was the first Governer to find a way to get excused from jury duty. Heck a member of the Supreme Court was called up in Massechusets recently, and excused when the found out who he was.

Further, Bush Jr's DUI is either a matter of public record (in which event, the issue in the link is irrelevant), or it is not (in which case, as a cousel to Mr. Bush, it was Gonzales's job to protect him).

So who's being truthful and who is twisting facts to their advantage. Both side have reason to lie, and there isn't enough info to judge.

But Gonzales is a Litigator. He must have some kind of public record. His actions there paint a far broader picture, and asnwer the question; Did he do his job in advising the President, or did he deliberatly seek out the most dubious twist of law he could find?

I don't really care, myself. My issue is with the man in the Oval office. I think the key to dealing with him is on Capitol Hill. I want more people to think that way, maybe something will come of it.

By the way, my "bi-partisan" offer is serious. I will join the fight against Gonzales if just one of you will join me in trying to build leaverage for the People in Congress.

I think "For the People, of the People, and by the People" should be more than just pretty words.

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 04:03 PM

Maverick

I think you might have missed this story

And this one too.

Read my column again. This is becoming systematic in our culture. The good may indeed outweigh the bad, but the bad is doing more talking than the good.

People in the military are conditioned to obey. Add the fury 9/11 wrought and one can justify doing the wrong thing for the right reason. I should also note that Graner's company commander asserted his 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination when he was questioned about these abuses and torture, as did his commander, LTC Stephen Jordan who oversaw all interrogations as head of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center.

Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, Commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade in which Graner served, has testified that she had seen orders signed by Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez in which the physical and psycological abuse of prisoners was authorized to obtain information.

Additional information can be found here These pictures are graphic though.

So we have a clear line from a lowly Specialist to a Captain, a Lieutenant Colonel, a Brigadier General, a Lieutenant General, and then the Secretary of Defense. Above that there is only one more place to go.

The name we use for that line is a Chain of Command

The thing you fail to understand Maverick is this is us. This is how the world sees us. This is how some of us see ourselves. Graner is indeed speaking for us because hardly anyone else is talking. Bush has no credibility left in the international world. Neither does Cheney, or Rice. The only guy who could get his foot in the door just quit. Bush's denials and condemnations carry no weight.

I stand by everything I wrote in that column. In fact I wish I had been harsher.

Posted by: Sean W at January 28, 2005 04:28 PM

Well said, Maverick.



Whil, buddy, I love ya but you got to spend more time forgetting the hyper-idealism and utter hypocrisy of Star Trek, then take a bitter reality pill and realize that the American way of life is built upon pillars of sadism and torture.



After all, we are human.



This appears to paint a bleak picture of humanity, but it does not: the majority of us want peace, but we are at constant war, in all its guises, against those who will kill, cheat and maim to get what they feel is rightfully theirs.



I would like to address one particular fact about the conspiracy theory: there is none. There is no shadow government. There is, however, a dark side that has allowed us as a nation to grow and prosper. The reason you don't see the dark side is because you don't want to see it, so the government, as directed by the people, has hidden it away from you.



September 11th has brought a closer truth to the Americas that it has long been avoiding: the world is a nasty place filled with greed, violence and ego. Do you not think that before this day gruesome acts were taking place to keep you safe? Do you consider Clinton's attempt at assasinating Bin Laden murder? Or would it have been self-defense? Does it appal you the actions taken on the people that bombed the USS Cole? They were taken to justice by losing their lives in a very awful manner: they were beheaded. In other countries what we have done is far from unnecessary.



I live in New York City, Whil. I know too many people that died. What would your opinion be if you had your whole family die in the World Trade Centers? This is what I would like to hear from you.



What do you offer as an alternative to psychological torture and manipulation to those who might take another plane and fly it into your neighborhood? For me, I don't give two hoots about those people.



Try and kill me? No, sorry, my friend, you go first and before I do I'll find out what you know and take out anything else that is trying to do harm to my friends and family.



About Abu Ghraib: if anyone thinks they would leave GIs to tend to torture they would be out of their minds! Why let GIs do it when you have the full power of over 40 years of highly specialized people in the armed service as a resource? If those people were intended to be torture they would have been taken quietly away and then, poof: never seen again. Abu Ghraib was the same as Vietnam and every other war: let young people trained to be killers see their friends killed, leave them alone with the people that represent their hatred, and see what happens...



Please come out of your ivory tower, Whil. The rest of the world is waiting around watching their backs in subways, on buses, at cafes, in movie theaters, in restaurants and in their neighborhoods, comforted by the fact that people are dying (on both sides) to make sure that what we believe in keeps on going.

Posted by: ThatsNotAMoon at January 28, 2005 04:29 PM

NotAMoon:

A life spent in fear is a wasted life. And let's be clear about one thing. Nobody is dying for my freedom. Nobody, period. Our young men and women are dying because Bush and Company have an aversion to telling us the truth. They made up a fairy tale about WMD's and when they were proven wrong they spun another fairy tale about being liberators. I think we all know how that one is working out.

They are fighting and dying for oil, and that, in my opinion, isn't even worth a paper cut.

I didn't ask or expect anyone to go to Iraq in my name. They should not have been sent in the first place. You need to stop wrapping up a lie in a bloody flag. The only place where I feel my freedom needs defending is right here at home.

Posted by: Sean W at January 28, 2005 04:50 PM

Okay, so how are faked suicide attempts torture? (I was alread aware of the story, and I I was aware of the Doctor's complaints. Things that again, would not be possible if Congress would put together a law on this stuff).

Following up, I was aware of the so called sexual abuse artilce as well (in fact if you check my earlier posts, i mentioned those very things). What was sited is hardly what I would call egregious, but that doesn't make it right. It's still a far cry from, beheading people. I'm still not sold on your interprestion of these events. I shall add Kudos to the FBI for staying on the DoD about their complaints.

And we have General Kerpinski. There's a woman with no reason to lie! THat Wikipedia article flat out states the there was an Executive Order defining exactly what measures could be used for interrogation, and physical contact isn't on the list. Neither is sexual humiliation.

I don't believe General Karpinski's story because I know the military, and no General Officer would take an order like that without written confrimation. It would be suicide, and you don't make General with out a lot of help and the ability to detect that kind of thing a mile off. There are too few General slots. One black mark and it's your career.

All you've managed to do is add more names to the list of criminals. There's still no proof of conspiracy. More the opposite. Why would those engaged in a coverup allow an FoI request that spelled out the terms in the executive Order? They could just as easily bury the thing.

Why did General Tagabu write a report that declared these action criminal and then seal the same report as Secret while criminal proceeding began against those named or under investigation?

The Army didn't want this. I'm too pragmatic to think that we can't have any means of interrogation, but what happened at Abu Ghraib was out side of the bounds. Our people weren't even supposed to touch the prisoners.

And for all of this, the worst thing you can come up with Camp Delta is the prisoners have been abusing themselves? It still doesn't hang together. We've released prisoners from Gitmo and their stories don't come near the depravity of Abu Ghraib...and these guy don't like us. If Abu Ghraib was policy, why wasn't the same policy used at Gitmo, where the administration believes it can keep prisoners forever? Camp Delta could be used as blackhole for suspected terrorists, but it isn't.

Finally, I will qoute a man I particularly dislike. Rummy:

"These events occurred on my watch as secretary of defense. I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility, I feel terrible about what happened to these detainees. They are human beings, they were in U.S. custody, our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't. That was wrong, To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. We're functioning in a — with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a war-time situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon."

To you, I'm sure this sounds like a man playing CYA, but to me...the word choice, the sudden shift in the focus of the statement. That sounds like Rummy being Rummy. he doesn't like the military acting in anyway that is counter to his wishes. He gets arrogant and beligerent and lashes out when things don't go his way. (we all remember the Zinger from the reservist about HMMWV armor. Rummy showed his colors that day).

Rummy thinks he's smarter than his Generals, if his Generals don't agree with him, even in private, they get the ax.

I don't like this man. He's bad for the military, but that doesn't strike me as one his falsehoods. he's much more polished when he lies.

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 05:35 PM

Notamoon said:

"but we are at constant war, in all its guises, against those who will kill, cheat and maim to get what they feel is rightfully theirs."

Like Oil. Hypocricy...

I'm with Sean. This is OT as pointed out last night, but there is NO other reason why US troops invaded Iraq IMO.

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 28, 2005 05:45 PM

And to recur to my continuing theme, let's say you are right, and there is a Conspiracy leading to the top. You'll never prove that without a man on the inside willing to leaks some really incriminating documents.

Who can stop it then?

You guessed it. Congress. With one fell swoop of a long and drawn out legislatural session Congress could declare the terms of the Executive Order, unlawful, they could set detention limits for suspected terrorists, and they could draw the line between torture and interrogation.

They haven't. They haven't even tried. They haven't reid because they get no benefit for doing so. But if their seat is on the line they will. They get to sit pretty and let you spend your anger on a man you can't touch, and walk out of it smelling like roses.

Are our law makers any less responsible? If you see a man about to beat a child with a base ball bat an you have a taser in your pocket, don't you have a duty to intervene? Why isn't Congress held responsible?

Because if you are right, and there is a conspiracy, Congress is an accessory after the fact.

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 05:56 PM

Cop out

I just realized where this going. It's a standard arguement format, where you snip at the edges of my point, and Ikeep drifting away from the core until we all foret what we are talking about.

I want to reiterate my core position.

1) the Anti-Gonzales website blurb began with a patent untruth about Gtmo and the Geneva Convention. because of that, I don't trust it.

2) I do not condone, defend or support the abuses carried out at Gitmo of Abu Ghraib, but i do still have faith that our defense and law enforment establishment still contain people of honor who work to prevent these abuses of the law.

3) I believe that going after a second term President is wasteful, as there is next to nothing the public can do. Focusing on Congress is where the ball game is.

4) There is no smoking gun to prove the Administration is people with criminals, so looking for it, believing in it or worrying about it serves only to divert energy from the one avenue that can still affect the nation's policy. Congress.

That's where I stand. We can play this guy wrote this and that guy wrote that all day long, but we won't progress. You can keep attacking my reasoning and I can keep attacking yours.

Or we can try to focus on points of congruence.

We agree that the hole in the law needs to be dealt with, ne? Do you think my proposed method is flawed?

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 06:11 PM

Sean W: This really sucks, because your site is one of my personal favorites, but..

That last post was one of the most fucking un-american things I've ever heard. Those men and women ARE dying for your freedom. The tens of thousands who died in Vietman, or WWII, or any other conflict in the history of our nation died for your freedom. Just because you are a member of the increasingly whiny minority, and you disagree with our current Commander in Chief, doesnt meant that you get to devalue the lives of our soilders overseas simply because you disagree with why they are there.

Their service is not up for debate, regardless of their personal opinion. They have no choice but to fight, and perhaps die. We are all free members of this nation, and remain free because of our fighting men and women. Any one of us can opt out at any time. The fact of the matter is that the majority of this country put our President in office, and we stand by him. An American that makes light of our soilders' sacrifice by using their deaths as fodder in this relentless Bush-bashing is so goddamned un-patriotic it makes me physically ill. They fight, and die, because they're great Americans. They followed orders from a majority-elected Commander in Chief. They are enacting the will of the majority of this nation.

To speak out against the government is not only one of our rights, it's our responsibility. To completely and utterly disrespect our fallen, because you are a minorty who has a politically driven disagreement, is disgusting.

Make no mistake: They believe they're fighting for your freedom, whether you believe it or not.

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 07:24 PM

Woah... slow down a bit. There are still two sides here.
IF you believe the War in Iraq was started to go after terrorist elements that are out to cause North Americans harm, then the troops (who I respect greatly since I am not there or in Afghanistan in the role of Canadian peace keeping) are indeed fighting for your freedom and safety.
Perhaps though, they are as mislead as others, and some believe the former to be true. What choice do they have? If the war was NOT began to fight off terrorists, but for another purpose (like Oil), then they are not fighting to protect your freedoms at all.
This is still OT I suppose. And I am rehashing what everyone already knows and his discussed into the dirt...
Back on track, the same guys who are gaining power now (and were in power before) KNOW what is going on. They KNOW why the war was started even if we debate that for years... To flagrantly throw aside the rights of foreign people based on ethnicity or religion which is basically what is happening IMHO... goes against what Freedom is about.
Well it *was* a good debate I suppose.
I anxiously await the next few days in Iraq. Personally? I fear the worst. Whatever the results.

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 28, 2005 07:53 PM

I'm sorry, I must deke out of this as well for now. I know little of Democrats or Republicans. I onyl see things from a foreign sideline. Maybe I should read on for a while and let things be for a bit. I do enjoy the debate however :)
Good night and may we all rest easy!

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 28, 2005 08:02 PM

I don't think it was unamerican.

A bit innocent, but not unamerican.

The best defense really is a good offense. That won't change until we run out of things to defend against.

But not everyone can accept that. Even when the course is correct, and the reasons are pure, we need those who don't believe to act as our conscience. To say "this is not right."

Being Democratic means listening to those people, and weighing their arguments.

This time the Correctness of the course is debatable, and the reasons are not pure. At times like these we must listen, and we must weigh. If we find that we believe the speaker to be wrong, we must still listen to the next and the next.

Some of those objectors are NOT kneejerk, and they have things to say. We have to listen, or we miss the point.

When it comes to the debate on the use of force, the only thing truly unamerican is silence.

Just my opinion!

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 08:08 PM

People go to my site?

Wow, thanks. I really mean that too.

I must, respectfully, disagree with you. I can only think of a few wars where the protection of personal freedom was a priority. The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, and World War 2 being the notible ones. But Saddam Hussein was not threatining my personal freedom, nor the freedom of anyone I know. I can see how the Iraqis might have felt different but it's their country and they needed to do something about it.

Hussein was not involved in 9/11. The people who flew those planes were Saudis. Iraq could not have delivered a bomb by mule though. That country was in shambles. So when I say that those troops are not dying so that I may be free I am literally telling the truth. Let's not romantisize this any more than is needed. Vietnam was not going to invade the U.S. yet we have a huge wall in Washington D.C. filled up with the names of those who were killed because our leaders were wrong. Just like they are wrong now. These 1400 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines died because someone did not tell us the truth.

I'm not denigrating their sacrifice though. If anything I am mourning it. I feel such sorrow at the uneeded death and destruction, at the thought of the wounded coming home, of the families who are grieving. I feel so bad for all of them, but that sorrow is quickly replaced by anger when I realize that there was no great cause that they died over. They thought they were protection America from these nonexistant WMD's. Our kids were lied to, and because of that lie what should have been a noble sacrifice just becomes a tragic, too tragic, waste of life. These brave souls were thrown away and wasted by a government that believes they are good for only two things, and two things only; Photo ops and acting as cannon fodder.

I don't hate our troops. I know what they go through. I know their dedication. And yes I know that people like Charles Graner are the exception to the rule. I just believe so strongly that they deserve so much better from their government and their commander in chief. I just cannot accept given the reality of the situation that it is my freedom that is being fought for and defended in Iraq. Those kids are fighting for oil, and to be honest with you, I think they know it too.

Such a terrible waste though. It is an awful awful waste.

Posted by: Sean W at January 28, 2005 08:39 PM

I agree. It seems like a waste when you begin to realize the motives for our occupation arent as pure as we first believed. I just dont think it takes away from their sacrifice though, that's all.

..and hell yeah I read your site! You'd probably be surprised how many people do. Just ask Wil. He's an internet writing god now, up for blog sainthood. ;)

~~(__)8>

Posted by: MouseBeast at January 28, 2005 08:51 PM

The sacrifice, in my opinion, is just as pure. When the reasons why the sacrifice was required are revealed as a lie it loses none of its honor and puirity but it does pick up the un-needed baggage of tragedy.

And that really really sucks. It dishonors both the sacrifice and the country that required it.

And it is so nice to know people read my blog. I would ask that people start using the comment threads so I can know it.

Posted by: Sean W at January 28, 2005 08:59 PM

The funny thing about democracy is how often it has to be dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing (civil rights anyone? The sixties, women's rights, protections for gays and lesbians*?). Given the option, the US would have sat WWII out.

Fortunately, for Europe, Gemany and Japan didn't gives the option...Nor, it seems, did Bletchly Park, but that's neight here nor there.

The fact is, Saddam was a bad man, and I won't shed a tear over what happened to him or his supports. I do shed tears over the incompetence of our administration. They thought they could just waltz in, wave the flag and make things better. And they screwed the pooch from day one.

They thought they pull the same trick we pulled with Japan in WWII. Heh. Japan worked because we demonstrated a level of power that they couldn't image. I suspect THAT would work in Iraq too, but Nuking them is just bad policy.

*Yes, I an avowed conservative believe in civil rights for homosexuals. It's not I'm hunky dorry with the preference. I just figure it's none of my business. Also I have a gay friend, and he's a nice guy...once you get past his facination with Elves, native Americans and Nazi Germany (I wish that last bit was a joke.)

Posted by: Maverick at January 28, 2005 09:32 PM

Maverick

You supporting gay rights as an avowed conservative does not suprise me in the least. True conservatism holds that the government should stay out of the personal lives of citizens and be as non invasive legally as possible. Old School political conservatism would want nothing to do with the Gay Marriage Amendment.

If anything I respect you for making a principled stand and knowing, philosophically, where you come from. I wish there were more like you in the GOP.

Posted by: Sean W at January 28, 2005 11:25 PM

Fascinating discussion here, I think solid points are being scored on both sides, including the one I don't agree with. I have noticed, however, that nobody is addressing the true cause for our country's policy ills - the 40-something percent of the population who didn't vote at all in the presidential election.



This philisophical division and the fallout from it is the fault of the apathetic, and the expectation of apathy from those in power. If we can't unite as a country to do something as simple as choosing our representation, what hope is there for us? As the saying goes, you don't get the government you want, you get the government you deserve... and we deserve the mess we're in.



Wil - love the blue hair. Please give us the story behind it sometime when the talk isn't so serious.

Posted by: davelog at January 29, 2005 12:36 PM

I have to disagree with most here. The Islamist terrorists are NOT enemy combatants. Just this morning they launched an attack in Iraq via rocket fire. Under normal combat conditions, the U.S. would have responded by attacking their position in a like or unlike manner, maybe by firing rockets, maybe by a helicopter attack, etc. Under the Geneva rules, that would be fine.

But these extremists are attacking from inside residential neighborhoods. Their actions are those of cowards, hiding behind the skirts and burkas of the same women they oppressed each and every day of their lives. By the "Geneva" rules, should we attack the innocents in the area these bastards are hiding? The answer is clearly no. We cannot attack them like that.

If the enemy behaved as civilized warriors, they would be accorded the rights and privileges of POWs. But they do not. They hide within the civilian population, and use their own people as human shields. They operate closer to the rules of spies. Spies have NEVER been considered POWs. Actually, they're worse than spies. Spies don't use their women and children as weapons and shields.

Posted by: Numbersboy at January 29, 2005 01:30 PM

Glyn Evans:



Let's say the assumption (what it truly is) of the US going to war in Iraq is true, then the only people to blame are the citizens of the US. Hard to believe? Absolutely! But let's look at the facts: in the past ten years, during the reign of any liberal's favourite touchstone Clinton, the United States has taken a direct assault on the oil reserves of the entire planet. The sale of 3 litre plus engines pulling 2-3 ton trucks has more than quadrupled. Yet, the country goes into a depression when gas prices "soar" above $2 a gallon? Give me a break. Count all of your friends, then their friends, then tell me exactly how many 3 litre plus size engines they have in their cars. Most likely you will find the absolute majority with 6 cylinder or 8 cylinder cars and trucks. Where should all this oil come from? God forbid we start drilling in Alaska where no one lives! No, we can't do that! The citizens of the US are up in arms about destroying their own natural resources! Hmmmm. Well, if we don't want it in our own back yard then where...?



The engine of this country is energy in all its forms, but particularly the automobile. Blame yourself and the rest of the country before you let your myopic idealism blind you to the "truth".



That said, profiteering for war was one of the reasons the US was pulled into WWII. Don't believe that? Read your history carefully. We were building so many ships and shipping so much equipment, arms and other sundries to England, etc, that we could barely keep up with demand. We only really started caring about Europe in an idealogical sense once the Wolfpack starting killing people and Japan decided to bring us into the war. Even then profit and power were the deciding factors behind the attack.



Let me address another interesting side not that is rarely discussed: Iraq is a lynchpin. Peace in Iraq could lead to peace in the middle east. We are helping to clean up what Russia, England, Turkey and Germany, among others, started at the beginning of this century: Arabia as a whole was a tribal wasteland in which everyone decided to play for cash because of its only real worth, to the collective us: oil.



Do you not think that the Israel/Palestine debacle is not moving forward because of what is happening in Iraq?



Just take a look at the papers and see how many ex-pat Iraqis are doing.



We believe in this country that freedom of the press equals information. Our reporting system in this country is so closely tied to finances and politics that it is nigh impossible to suss a true and meaningful view of what our true foreign policy is. Learn to read between the lines instead of believing, face-value, everything you read.



So, with my tirade over I now will rest. After writing this I feel purged. I love politics. I love America. I love Democracy. Get out and vote you lazy bastards!



Political discourse will set us free!

Posted by: ThatsNotAMoon at January 30, 2005 12:50 PM

Notamoon...

Sure. I have a big car too. That being said, maybe they could take the $80 BILLION that Bush wants to continue this war for two years,and research alternate power sources... or better yet, build homes for all those homeless in southern Asia...

To stay on topic however, this just in on MSNBC news...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889654/

and a brief quote:

The war on terror "cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years," - U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 31, 2005 09:16 AM

Glyn Evans:


Interesting article. I am certainly not blind to the fact that the treatment of these people is uncomfortable.


What I cannot abide, however, is that there is this point of view that only appeals to the emotional facets of their problem, but does nothing to address a solution.


We have a criminal justice system that is broken. We let criminals go because the letter of the law ties the hands of our prosecutors. Where do we start to have a trial with international assasins?


How does one build a jury of peers with people who are not US citizens, but people that were captured on a random battlefield in the name of Allah? When you apply their rules of engagement, how does Allah enter the equation? If you stack a jury with peers of the prisoners you might likely have a number of Muslims who either simply ignore their religion, or who are secretly sympathetic/militant.


How does one argue the rule of law (reason, logic)when it takes a back seat to Allah (cultism, faith, virgins, etc)?


It doesn't stand much of a chance, I believe.


We can stand on our ideals all day and complain that we must not become what we despise. But how do you feel when a murderer is let go in our courts on a technicality? What if they murder again? What if they are let go and kill your mother/wife/child?


I know what your answer is that those questions. And I know you know mine.


As far as your "alternative energy" statement goes:
Past four years over 2 billion in govt money has gone into it.
While we're on the topic:
1. Nuclear - not in my back yard
2. Oil - not in my back yard
3. Dams - oh, no, we will kill salmon
4. Hyrbrids - good step forward and buys time to nowheresville
5. Solar - good luck with this one. Aint no sunshine when it rains
6. Hydrogen Economy - where does hydrogen come from? Water, mainly. How you get H from H2O? Electricity. Where you get electricity? From #s 1,2 and 3.
7. Electric Cars - where you get electricity from?


How can we, as a country, save ourselves?


1. Public Transportation
2. Stick to 2 Litres in cars/small trucks
3. Have a permit for anything over 3 litres and pay a tax penalty
4. Build more dams! Sure, it kills of some environment, but it is FREEEEEEEEE ENNNNNERGY! It rains, or something, and then we make energy from it. Amazing. Free. Cheap. Continuous. Non-pulliting (but it kills salmon).
5. Switch off lights, demand energy saving techniques in everything we do.


These are solutions.
Lets make the cause go away and there you have a solution.


Do you practice what you preach? I do.

Posted by: ThatsNotAMoon at January 31, 2005 11:45 AM

Very good points of course. Something almost everyone forgets is that Allah is God. There is only one God. To say otherwise is juvenile. That aside, the energy issue is a good one.

I try to conserve energy. Lights are easy... insulation is easy. Walking to the market instead of driving is easy. I agree about nuclear energy. Until it is failsafe... er yeah right... then there needs to be alternatives. If I could have a solar powered car for example, and could actually afford it, then why not? Emissions guidelines are key right now. North America is bad, and where I live, in Alberta, terrible.

Our society is so complex now with every action disrupting some other facet... it is a wonder we will ever get anywhere.

Naturally none of this helps the *supposed* killers that are held in prison indefinately. Even the article I quoted from the news suggests that there will be many more court battles which simply means those folks (innocent OR guilty) will rot in prison even longer.

I offer no solutions. I have none. But I can offer concern.

Posted by: Glyn Evans at January 31, 2005 12:10 PM