Your Guess Is As Good As Mine

I welcome all theories that can explain the Hyde-to-Jekyll transformation that has overtaken Kos of the Daily Kos.

One week ago, he was his characteristically charming, gracious self as he waxed on Sen. Durbin's decision to compare US troops to Nazis:

The latest moronic Right-Wing smear attack

TalkLeft first alerted us to the latest cause célèbre of the Right Wing Media Borg -- the effort to defend torture at all costs. And caught in the crosshairs is Sen. Durbin, who had the unmitigated gall to call it like it is...

To the pea brains on the Right, incapable of reading the English language in its most basic, unuanced form, they claim Durbin is calling our troops Nazis. The Wingnutosphere is making that claim. Rush is making that claim. Hannity is making that claim. Drudge is making that claim. Look to Fox News to jump on the bandwagon tomorrow.

...Really, what is the Right trying to accomplish here? Inflict so much pain on Durbin that others will think twice before they levy legitimate criticisms of the war? Are they so hell-bent on their political correctness that any criticisms of the war effort is considered treasonous?

...Instead, they try to shut down a US senator reading from an FBI report. From Bush's FBI. Because the truth hurts. So we must supress it. And we'll do it by shedding crocodile tears for the troops. Because who gives a shit about them, so long as our heroic, do-no-wrong President looks good on the evening news.

Well, I stand with Durbin. Proudly. Because opposing torture is the Right Thing, despite violating the wingnut manual of political correct speech. And the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus better be standing with him as well.

You are either for torture, or against it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Yeah, yeah, the usual calm and reasoned rhetoric from the left.  Nothing new here. 

And yes, one might respond that you are either for comparing our troops to Nazis, or against it, and that a person's view on that issue can be held independently of their view as to the conduct of some of our troops and interrogators in Guantanamo.

But normally, attempting these subtle distinctions is a waste of time.

Anyway, here is the big mystery - a Mighty Change has come over the Mighty Kos.  A mere one week later, Kos is on Durbin again.  After praising an Andrew Sullivan post, he says this:

Remember, this is not an ideological issue. Liberals are always against torture (and were consistently against Saddam's torture when the US was financing him). Conservatives are against torture as well. Remember, it was one of their justifications for this war. What we have are not conservative trying to justify the torture -- or even celebrate it -- it's blowhard partisans.

Huh?  Where have all the moronic wingnuts gone?  All gone, except for a few blowhard partisans?  Shall we thank Mr. Sullivan for what we assume will be a short-lived transformation?

If anyone can tell me what may have prompted Kos to attempt to reposition himself (however briefly) back within hailing distance of the lunatic fringe, I would love to hear it.

Meanwhile, my impression is that censuring Durbin is getting good play amongst the Evil Righties, pardon me, blowhard partisans.

MORE:  Here is the Hugh Hewitt article that inspired Andrew Sullivan.

And on the remote chance that someone is confused on this point - Sen. Durbin was not bravely breaking the latest news from Gitmo.  The FBI files he cited were first reported six months ago.

Comments

[Geek, Esq.]

Both statements are a gross oversimplification. There are those conservatives, a truly courageous lot, who show absolutely no fear in the face of other people's suffering. To them, forcing captives to wallow in their own feces isn't abuse or even mistreatment.

They, of course, are absolutely right. "Excremental assault" is a harmless tactic that one would never associate with Nazis.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/mighty1/essays/erspamer2.htm
http://www.chgs.umn.edu/wroxton/syllabus/GrobSyllabus5281.pdf
http://www.remember.org/auschwitz/bir.php?id=6
http://www.motl.org/resource/curriculum/curriculum_8.htm
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocauststudy2.html
http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/levi.htm
http://www.vbs.org/rabbi/hshulw/cathjew_bot.htm
http://www.daniel-sonkin.com/AF.html
http://www.primal-page.com/war2.htm
http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=md/md451.html
http://www.faem.com/david/holo-10a.htm
http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Banality1.html
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8250

Another group are those who acknowledge it's really bad, but that the proper approach to crimes committed by the US government and its forces is to pretend they never happened. Because covering things like Abu Ghraib undermines the war effort and hands a propaganda victory to the enemy.

Then there are those who just never took Syllogisms 101.

By their logic, criticizing reported conduct by US personnel that qualifies as sexual assault and comparing it to "rape" is the same as calling all US troops "rapists."

And then there are partisan hacks like Bill Frist and Hugh Hewitt, who are biologically incapable of spewing bullshit.

[Geek, Esq.]

Last paragraph should read:

"And then there are partisan hacks like Bill Frist and Hugh Hewitt, who are biologically incapable of spewing anything but bullshit."

[M. Simon]

Well Geek,

It seems Richard "call me Dick" Durbin's rendition of the FBI memos may not be entirely accurate.

There was a guy chained to the floor. All the rest appears to have been Richard "call me Dick" Durbin's fevered imagination.

Fake but accurate of course.

The world needs more courageous folks like Richard "call me Dick" Durbin, willing to speak lies to power.

But yeah. As Mark Steyn says: A terrorist's rights party should have great electoral success.

Brilliant politics.

Just brilliant.

[Cecil Turner]

"They, of course, are absolutely right. "Excremental assault" is a harmless tactic that one would never associate with Nazis."

And the Nazis had guards with uniforms, Dachau had a fence . . . it's practically identical! Except, of course, the one salient feature that made Nazi Death Camps what they were. As has been pointed out before, if you're going to claim the parallel is accurate, you need to come up with a few million bodies. The box score at Gitmo is still a big goose egg.

[BumperStickerist]

-

The notion of being lectured on reading comprehension by the Kos Krew leaves me stunned, gob-smacked really.

I agree with Senator Durbin's point, though provided one condition is added. Were I read just the description in the FBI memo without knowing the location, government, or details, I, like Senator Durbin and Kos and Atrios and Sullivan, might think the letter was describing the Nazis, scenes from a gulag, or even the Khmer Rouge ..... provided I didn't actually know anything about those groups.

[SaveFarris]

Let's have fun parsing Kos:

Liberals are always against torture (and were consistently against Saddam's torture when the US was financing him).

What happened to that consistency when the US stopped financing him? I guess it's fair to say Liberals were against Saddam's torture before they were for it.

[Forbes]

What do we call that Geek, a Freudian slip?

Pretty funny!

[Geek, Esq.]

So, now we have a conspiracy theory that the FBI account is actually a forgery. We'll call that the Tin Foil Hat conservative subgroup of the larger "torture is okay with me" crowd.

Striking that some conservatives simply can't appreciate the idea that American values don't allow for this kind of behavior. It says something about their lack of moral reasoning that they can't comprehend that some people actually believe the US should act out of moral and legal and ethical principles. Liberals don't object to this stuff because we're all that concerned about terrorists' rights. We care about it because we believe in upholding American values.

If borrowing abusive tactics from the Nazis is consistent with American values in your book, I guess you just have a lower opinion of American values than I do.

Again, read Holocaust accounts of what excremental assault does to both the victims and the inflictors.

Excremental assault was used to not only humiliate and degrade and punish prisoners--it was also used to make the job of inflicting other kinds of torture and killing them easier for the guards. It's a desensitization mechanism--cover the captives in their own feces and urine, and pretty soon it's just like taking pigs to the slaughterhouse.

This kind of behavior is sick and corrosive. It degrades the professionalism and humanity of those conducting it. Is anyone surprised that these kinds of tactics found their way over to Abu Ghraib?

But hey, who cares about that? Dick Durbin used exaggerated rhetoric!

[TexasToast]

Just though I'd give you guys a little "screaming liberal". We aim to please!

Dick Durbin – how dare he call the interrogation techniques at Gitmo NAZI-like! We sent all those terrorist to Gitmo because US law doesn’t apply there (and besides, if you don’t see it, it didn’t happen). We ain’t NAZIS!. Those interrogation techniques y’all are cryin’ about are as American as sending blankets covered with smallpox pus to “Native Americans”! Besides, it’s just a few bad eggs in the dark without judicial oversight acting with a bit too much intensity. I mean, really, how do you expect us to get good intel without a little s***?

Besides, Dick is our friend! We can scream bloody murder that he called us names! If we shout it loud and often enough – Pooof! - away go troubles down the drain. After all, we’ve done it before.

Examples? Do ya want examples?

TANG? – We got your fake memos. – They didn’t prove Bush served a day in Alabama, but it doesn’t matter any more, does it?

Multiple Purple Hearts? – We got your Form 180 – Those records Kerry is hiding have got to show that he cheated to get all those medals. How can someone who opposed the war in Vietnam possibly be an actual hero?

Autopsy Report? - We got your 911 tapes from 15 years ago! – Michael S did her in, didn’t he?

No WMDs? - We got some old, deteriorated, useless WMD rounds that prove Saddam was just around the corner from a full-blown WMD program. The threat was imminent – er – growing – er – well uh, Oil for Food means Oil for WMDs, right? Not buying? How about some “democracy promotion”? Yep – that’s it – democracy promotion!

Iraqis will treat us like liberators? – We got your pro-American Iraqis – like Ahmad Chilabi and those other half a dozen guys on the payroll. That insurgency is in its last throws! We accomplished the mission when W landed on the carrier – all the rest is just cleanup. Expensive clean up, but just cleanup.

Downing Street Memos? –Those memos don’t prove that our diplomacy at the UN was a charade! There isn’t any proof we would have invaded if Saddam had just come along quietly. All we wanted to do was stick him in Gitmo with the other terrorists for a few years and drag his a** through the s***. Hearings? We don’t need no stinkin’ hearings! There’s a war on till – like - forever, OK? When the war is over (but not before), we will hand out the due process like candy! After all, we are selling democracy and the rule of law!

[Geek, Esq.]

SF:

Liberals always opposed Saddam's human rights abuses. Opposing the war doesn't mean supporting his human rights abuses.

Of course, let's not forget that St. Ronnie Raygun was a criminal accomplice to Saddam's abuses, going so far as to deny that he gassed the Kurds and looking the other way when he murdered US soldiers on the USS Stark.

Which is why all this talk about "freedom" coming from the party that Reagan built strikes most of us as disingenuous.

[Geek, Esq.]

Oh, and here is the FBI memo, obtained through FOIA, that some residents of Wingnuttia would claim is a fake:

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.5053.pdf

Btw, Cecil:

Saying a certain activity seems like something the Nazis would do is not the same as saying that it's as bad as the worst the Nazis did. And Durbin didn't even say that. He said that the activities in question were more similar to our image of Nazi or other thuggish behavior than our image of ourselves.

Given that excremental assault is strongly associated with the Nazis, he made the unfortunate error of being factually correct.

[Ugh]

I would add to Geek's point that if the underlying prisoner treatment were untrue, the administration would be screaming to the high heavens about it. Instead, there is abject silence on that score, replaced with outrage at words spoken on the Senate floor.

[spongeworthy]

You guys are drifting pretty far off topic now, though I hardly blame you.

When you did bother to defend Sen. Turban, you seemed to do so on the grounds that he was bringing these abuses to light, a noble undertaking. You seem to be without an important fact: These abuses had already been reported and addressed.

Durbin chose to take up this cudgel now for the obvious reason--to beat Bush about with it. Now we all know politics is hardball and no one is quibbling with using every tool at hand in your pursuit of DC scalps. But isn't it a little overboard to hand the enemy the cudgel also and endanger the troops? What is accomplished by referencing Pol Pot except to serenade the moonbat wing of the Democratic Party? Should there be no price paid for such opportunism?

Is this the way it's to be going forward? Durbin accomplished nothing with his rant, nothing positive. He handed the enemy some propaganda and excited you moonbats. Is that worth putting soldiers in this position? Will you be as encouraging when the President has a (D) after his name?

This isn't healthy for the country. Is a lame-duck President really worth alienating the military and a great deal of the country? You guys need to confront this instead of wreathing Durbin in nobility. He saw a cheap shot and took it, nothing more.

[Cecil Turner]

"So, now we have a conspiracy theory that the FBI account is actually a forgery."

I can't find much on forgery claims, but in any event they'd be unpersuasive. (Presumably government investigators had access to the data, and Church specifically mentions being able to match a couple of the e-mail claims with incidents at Gitmo.) However, it's worth noting the imprecision:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left there for 18 24 hours or more."

What's "most times" out of "a couple"? "Urinated or defecated," "18 24 hours or more"? That implies an awful lot of permutations for only a couple cases.

"Again, read Holocaust accounts of what excremental assault does to both the victims and the inflictors."

Leaving someone shackled for an excessive period of time is indeed abuse. However, "excremental assault" implies it's intentional, and so far there's not a single proven incident. And if we're talking about a couple cases, it's obviously not the same as a policy of intentionally insufficient sanitary facilities forcing inmates to live in their own waste. In short, the differences outweigh the similarity, even on that minor point. And again, comparing a facility with a zero fatalities to a Death Camp is obviously inapt.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. "And yes, one might respond that you are either for comparing our troops to Nazis, or against it,"

Actually, in the case of John Kerry, you can reasonably state that he was actually FOR comparing American soldiers to nazis before he was against it. It's really kinda funny, in a strange bizzare fashion.

2. "And then there are partisan hacks like Bill Frist and Hugh Hewitt, who are biologically incapable of spewing bullshit."

Ok Geek, time to put yourself on the record.

Let's say we've got 500+ terrorists who would love to kill Americans in any way they can. Many, if not all, have sensitive information that could be crucial to preventing a terrorist attack.

So. How would YOU get the information? Time to put up or shutup. And provide details. None of this "of course someone will figure out a way" nonsense. You provide the exact and specific methods of interrogation.

Put up or shutup Geek.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Given that excremental assault is strongly associated with the Nazis, he made the unfortunate error of being factually correct."

If someone crapping their britches is "excremental assault" then my nephews have been victims of torture for the past year or so.

[TexasToast]

Spongeworthy

The point is that the policymakers intentionally moved these detainees to a place without outside oversight of any kind. I don’t blame the soldiers in the field in Iraq for some abuse by some bad apples – I blame the policymakers for creating an atmosphere conducive to such behavior. Oversight inhibits abuse. What is the justification for removing basic due process guarantees? What is the justification for torture apologia? Have we been in an “emergency” since 9/11? Will this emergency ever end – or is never ending emergency the new reality? Do we really want to detain “Men in the Iron Masks” indefinitely without habeas rights for the duration of a “war” without end?

Durbin made some noise. Yep – it’s probably political. Is his rhetoric worse than the leadership’s failure to follow our values? How else are we to get back on track?

I like to think we are better than this – and I do mean WE.

[Geek, Esq.]

I agree that the language is imprecise. But, that's the curse of email--it leads to sloppy writing.

Nothing has been proven, obviously. However, the picture one gets from reading that doesn't give the impression that the excremental stuff was unintended. Especially if there were repeated incidents.

Again, Durbin wasn't saying that Guantanamo itself is something the Nazis would do--just that this specific behavior is rather towards that end of the spectrum.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

"Excremental assault was used to not only humiliate and degrade and punish prisoners..."

The 'excremental assault' tactic is used BY the detainees AGAINST the guards at Gitmo. They throw their own feces through the slots they in which receive their meals, at any guard who might walk past.

That's why Durbin shouldn't have run with this. If there truly were detainees who'd defecated and urinated on themselves, it was probably a tactic to stop being interrogated. Or, just a nutjob who believes Allah told him to do it, as well as pull out his hair.

[Crank]

SaveFarris - Great point. Maybe it's just me, but I don't recall liberals making a big stink before 1990 about US support for Iraq. (Did liberals cheer when Israel attacked the Osirik reactor in 1981?) What I mainly recall is liberals since 1990 complaining about it retroactively, when it was too late to make a difference.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'What's "most times" out of "a couple"? "Urinated or defecated," "18 24 hours or more"? That implies an awful lot of permutations for only a couple cases.'

And, how would he know how long the detainee had been there?

[spongeworthy]

Durbin made some noise. Yep – it’s probably political. Is his rhetoric worse than the leadership’s failure to follow our values? How else are we to get back on track?

Who cares if it's worse? And what evidence do you have that the leadership has influenced this behavior?

You guys think we should give Durbin a pass on his ridiculous analogy and you have yet to give us any compelling reason why we should. He wasn't breaking any news, he was making headlines for himself at the expense of our soldiers. Is it really worth it? Is Getting Bush really such a noble pursuit you can throw soldiers under the bus?

Any time you have soldiers dealing with hardcore loonies and killers, you're going to get some bad behavior. And you need look no farther than domestic prisons for your proof. As long as this is being addressed, what is to be gained beyond political advantage for such a heinous comparison? Which of our values are being represented by taking the easy meat that Durbin decided to snatch?

[Geek, Esq.]

Crank:

Your memory sucks. It was the American rightwing that served as Saddam's apologists in the 1980's--up until he invaded Kuwait. It was organziations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and Congressional Democrats that objected to the rightwing support of Saddam.

But, at least you guys had something in common with the French and the Soviet Union--y'all were in bed with Saddam.

[Geek, Esq.]

PRSullivan:

You realize that you just claimed that prisoners chained in the fetal position were throwing things, right?

[Cecil Turner]

"Nothing has been proven, obviously. However, the picture one gets from reading that doesn't give the impression that the excremental stuff was unintended."

I agree. But the verbiage suggests the author was trying to leave that impression . . . and possibly enhance it. (Though admittedly it's hard to tell with e-mail.)

[Ugh]

He wasn't breaking any news, he was making headlines for himself at the expense of our soldiers. Is it really worth it? Is Getting Bush really such a noble pursuit you can throw soldiers under the bus?

He threw soldiers under the bus? From the Senate floor? Amazing.

I'm sure that the terrorists in Iraq had run all out of recruits to attack US soldiers until Durbin got on the Senate floor, then they had to beat them off with a stick.

If you're looking for the person who put threw the troops under the bus, he's at 1600 Penn.

[Geek, Esq.]

And who has done more than anyone to circulate this story and Sen. Durbin's remarks?

Why, the rightwing blogosphere of course! Though Republican politicians and Al-Jazeera run a respectable 2nd and 3rd.

[creepy dude]

Now Kos is linking to his fellow vets Tacitus and John Cole.

You people remind me of the dumbass medieval peasants in the Holy Grail calling for the witch to be burned.

As Redstate Tacitus says: "Make no mistake, it [trashing Durbin] needed to be done: but it is done, and it is, as it always was, a sideshow. The continuing hysteria over it is just that; John Cole is quite right to point out that the time has come to act like adults. And what does that entail? In this case, a bit of reflection, not on Durbin's blundering rhetoric, but on his substance.

[spongeworthy]

Really, the substance has been addressed. That's just a diversion. He may as well have said, "Christ I'm tired of defending this tool. Can we change the subject back to beating Bush over the head?"

NFW.

It was the American rightwing that served as Saddam's apologists in the 1980's--up until he invaded Kuwait.

I know that's something you guys just love to claim--kind of like the Rummy-shake it's taken on a life of it's own. Do you have substantive proof there was any constituency defending Saddam? Isn't history a little more accurately reflected by describing a policy of giving both sides enough to keep them killing each other? In what universe is that "apologizing"?

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"So. How would YOU get the information? Time to put up or shutup. And provide details. None of this "of course someone will figure out a way" nonsense. You provide the exact and specific methods of interrogation."

What no answer? Why am I not surprised.

[SaveFarris]

"Liberals always opposed Saddam's human rights abuses."

I call BS on that. Even if you could find mid 80's documentation of Lefties decrying Iraq's HR violations, what are the recommended remedies? Sanctions? A Furrowed Brow? Show me one lefty advocating regime change! (Clinton-era point scoring, when they knew no action would be taken no matter what the rhetoric, does not count.)

As for Liberals always opposing Saddam, they're not opposing him TODAY. Saddam's just a harmless Dorito-loving guy. And he's certainly no worse than Kim Jong Il. Or Syria. Or Iran. Or ... Gitmo.

[TexasToast]

“Who cares if it's worse? And what evidence do you have that the leadership has influenced this behavior?”

I care – because I happen to believe that due process is a fundamental part of American values. Durbin’s actual inquiry was (paraphrased) – Given these facts, whom would you think of first – us or them? Isn’t the answer obvious? I’d like it to stay that way.

The “evidence” of influence by the leadership is Gitmo itself. Why intentionally locate a detention facility outside of any court’s jurisdiction? Why produce legal memoranda justifying torture or avoiding the reach of the Geneva Conventions? Why take the Pedilla case to the Supreme Court? Why not give the man a hearing?

One just might get the impression that the government sought a “judge free zone”. What message does that send to the interrogators? It obviously wasn’t a good one.

[SaveFarris]

Given these facts, whom would you think of first?

The city of Chicago. (Lest you think these are isolated incidents, we have tons of "troubling" historical precedents)

"Why produce legal memoranda justifying torture?"

Can you produce any?

Lastly, can you answer this question: did all these "abuses" come before or after Daniel Pearl? If you really think sitting in your own feces and having rap pumped into your cell constitues torture, just try doing it without a head...

[Neo]

My first thoughts when I heard of this recounting of the treatment of this "illegal combatants" was of the guy who 8 or 10 years ago went to Philadelphia to hold up placards showing his dislike of President Clinton.

A few Democratic unionist beat the shit out of this guy in center city Philadelphia in broad daylight. The mayor of Philadelphia, now Governor, Ed Rendell said some thing to the effect "what else would you expect ?" The DA dragged her feet with a prosecution.

By a simple accounting, this guy got treated worse that any of these "illegal combatants." Would this make Philadelphia a "gulag" run by Stalinists and Nazis, by Sen. Durbin's measure perhaps.

[Geek, Esq.]

SF and Spongeworthy:

Reagan threatened to veto sanctions bills against Iraq after Halabja. In fact, the Reagan administration blamed Halabja on the Iranians. Poppy Bush and Dole worked together to scuttle similar attempts in the Congress before Saddam invaded Kuwait.

In an ironic twist of fate, now brain-dead leftists are relying on the Reagan administration's propaganda to cast doubt on whether Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja.

Ronnie Raygun didn't so much as flinch when Saddam ordered the hit on the USS Stark. You can look it all up.

Ed: Interrogation is a very complex art, in which subtle manipulations are usually much more effective than torture. Torture is more likely than not to produce false positives--people will say anything and will make stuff up to avoid torture.

[Ugh]

The city of Chicago. (Lest you think these are isolated incidents, we have tons of "troubling" historical precedents).

So the answer to Durbin's rhetorical question is the United States. Hey, this goes on in Chicago, why not Gitmo? We're all about equal opportunity here in the United States of America. Whether you've been arrested by the CPD or detained by the Army, guilty or innocent (but we're pretty sure you're guilty, we've been told so so it must be true), you will all receive the same treatment.

And it's all A-ok because at least we didn't cut off your head.

[spongeworthy]

Yeah, once they'll make shit up, but if you kick the living shit out of them or, even worse, feed them Doritos until they each gain 13 pounds, they'll think twice about it.

Pointing to the loosely described actions of previous administrations hardly backs up your claim that there was some conservative groundswell of support for Saddam Hussein.

TT, why couldn't Durbin put it the way you did? Why did he have to link our soldiers with the worst regimes in history? I'm all for expecting the best from our country, but things happen in prisons all over the world. Describing a few mistakes as emblematic of the most heinous crimes in history is way over the line.

You guys can dress this pig up as principled if you want, but to the rest of us it was a cheap shot.

And as far as Gitmo goes, I cannot help but read these attempts at defending Durbin and thinking of some lefty judge somewhere attempting to make a name for himself by reaching out to terrorists in some domestic federal lockup. No thank you.

[Geek, Esq.]

Speaking of getting the shit beat out of one, have my friends on the right been following the case of the US soldier who was almost killed by other US soldiers while appearing undercover as a captured insurgent. His captors were told he was a troublemaker, and presto! he's in the hospital and nearly comatose.

Not to mention the murders of captives that have taken place around the world--a murder rate much higher than that of prison guards to prisoners.

[Geek, Esq.]

Was there any movement by conservatives to criticize Reagan and Poppy for their pro-Saddam policies?

Didn't think so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

[spongeworthy]

Did you even read your cite?

It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Realpolitik is not applause.

Amazing how the world can turn black/white only when you're patriotically dissenting against Chimpy McHallibushton and his war-mongering predecessors. The world's just nuanced as all hell when you're defending a perjurer or a Senate blowhard, but confront global realities and all of a sudden you're either with us or against us.

[SaveFarris]

Well said, Sponge. Those who criticize Reagan for Saddam's early track record must surely "credit" FDR for the gualags, what with him being nice to Stalin in the early 40s...

[Geek, Esq.]

Under Republican administrations, Saddam's Iraq was our buddy up until mere weeks before the invasion of Kuwait.

Who was it that was selling weapons to the Iranians?

Oh yeah, that was the Republicans too!

[BumperStickerist]

Well, here are some totals - not that context means anything ...

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Imps_73-02.pdf

Apparently, The US's 1% of the total is the difference maker.

[Creech]

Just think how much b.s. could have been avoided if only GHW Bush had eliminated the douchebag Hussein back in 1991 instead of listening to Colin Powell and others who didn't want to march on Baghdad. It would be like Eisenhower stopping once Hitler was thrown back across the Rhine. Oh. Oh. I just likened Powell to
Hitler. Sorry.

[spongeworthy]

No, but you used them in the same sentence. Haven't you learned anything?

[The Kid]

Nazi, schmatzi – regarding Guantanamo, how about Brits? Per Dave Kopel:

The more plausible analogy to Guantanamo is British interrogation of Irish Republican Army suspects in the early 1970s. Then, the British extracted confessions through "the five techniques": wall-standing, hooding, continuous noise, deprivation of food, and deprivation of sleep. The European Court of Human Rights, in the 1978 case Republic of Ireland v. United Kingdom, ruled that the techniques did not constitute "torture," but were "inhuman and degrading," in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Seems about right, no?

[Geek, Esq.]

Yes, they do seem about right.

And those tactics worked sooooooo well for the Brits in stamping out the IRA during the 70's.

Though, it's really not a good idea for US politicians to mention the whole Northern Ireland thing. Touchy subject, especially considering the money pipeline flowing out of Boston . . .

[Lurking Observer]

Yeah, what do those Red Staters in Boston and MA know about terrorism, anyway? If only Democrats were in charge there, I'll bet you'd never see a Democratic politician condoning terrorism in the auld sod!

'Course, the IRA ultimately won in Northern Ireland, just as the insurgents are winning in Iraq. I remember when they killed the last of the Prods as the Brits evacuated their garrison from Belfast. "Ireland's Minutemen," isn't that how Michael Moore described them?

Freedom fighters and valiant patriots all!

[SteveMG]

Geek:
"Which is why all this talk about "freedom" coming from the party that Reagan built strikes most of us as disingenuous."

It would be both instructive and useful if you wiped the spittle off your chin and posted something constructive here.

Were one for whatever reason to engage in a similar contest, one could cite volumes of statements from your progressive friends supporting and defending the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao and Castro and Ho and on and on and on. One could easily, for example, cites the numerous adulatory comments by Noah Chomsky about the Khmer Rouge.

But a spitting contest leaves both parties well, all wet. It doesn't forward the discussion at hand. All it does is engender greater animosity at a time when we need appeals to the better angels of our nature.

It's not my site, of course. I don't make the rules. So, it's your call.

Spit away or get a towel and wipe away the spittle and post something with some originality and thinking behind it.

Again, your call.

SMG

[Geek, Esq.]

Noam Chomsky is a disingenuous, reactionary, Cretino-leftist. As are Michael "Minutemen" Moore and Gorgeous George Galloway.

To suggest that they have as much mainstream acceptance amongst liberals as St. Ronnie does amongst conservatives is absurd.

[SteveMG]

Geek:
Well, you missed the point.

I can quote volumes from FDR's defense of Stalin (or Henry Wallace, et cetera) or a legion of other progressive figures who said some pretty ridiculous things about various despots and dictators over the years.

But where does this get us?

I can spit on you and you can spit on me.

We both wind up with a lot of spit.

Or we can leave the contest to others and talk about here and now.

Like I said, it's up to you. Not my site; I don't make the rules.

No more Miss Manners' posts from me. It's your call.

SMG

[Lurking Observer]

Well, all I know is that Michael Moore got a seat at the Democratic National Convention.

In the Presidential box.

Next to Jimmy Carter.

You tell me how much mainstream acceptance that indicates amongst liberals.

The NYT refuses to give back the Pulitzer Prize won by Walter Duranty for his coverage of Stalin in the 1930s, when he specifically whitewashed, deleted, obscured, or otherwise chose not to report on the purges, the famines, and the overall bloodbath then underway.

Is the NYT not part of the "mainstream"?

As for your "critiques" of Ronald Reagan, it pretty much comes down to the following: In the world of realpolitik, a nation has neither permanent friends, nor permanent enemies, only permanent interests. And in pursuit of those interests, sometimes you have interesting bedfellows.

FDR supposedly fought World War II in defense of the "Four Freedoms." He met with Josef Stalin regularly, sent American sailors to their deaths in order to keep that tyrant in power. Or to fight Hitler. It's all in the spin, innit?

In the early 1980s, the US had the choice of supporting an unsavory dictator (Iraq) or face the prospect of a burgeoning threat in Iran, a state that had, in case you'd forgotten, taken our people hostage for 444 days and which was threatening to destabilize much of the Gulf (to the point that, by 1987, they did the unthinkable and sponsored violence during the hajj).

And just as pointing out that it was Stalin's NKVD who perpetrated the Katyn Forest massacre would have done little good at the time, so, too, in the world of realpolitik, would it have served limited use to have condemned Saddam at the time.

Welcome to the reality-based world.

[SteveMG]

Lurking Observer:
Well put.

The interesting point in this is that Bush has repudiated the realpolitik of previous Administrations and the same folks are _still_ criticizing him.

Here's what I've learned:

If the US makes accommodations with dictators in order to protect our larger national interest, we're accused of abandoning our support for human rights and democracy. If we put pressure on regimes - including the use of force - to help promote human rights and democracy, the US is accused of being a bully and imposing its way on other nations.

Dammed if we do and double dammed if we don't.

And even more interesting is that the critics of Reagan do a double whammy on him. He's criticized for not forcefully criticizing Saddam and for supporting Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. And then he was criticized for his "moralistic crusade" against communism and the Soviet Union ("The USSR is an evil empire?? What simplistic talk from this amiable dunce").

So Reagan was irresponbile for supporting Saddam and also irresponsible for calling the Soviets evil for their crushing of liberty and freedom.

SMG

[Lurking Observer]

Notice the President who is most immune from such criticisms: Jimmy Carter (no, NOT Bill Clinton).

Carter happily criticized our allies (e.g., the UK on the treatment of IRA prisoners). He regularly moralized towards our allies of convenience, in some cases knocking out the props underneath them.

But, unlike Ronnie or even Bill, Carter refused to stare down our enemies. Not to confront the North Koreans (guess who supported withdrawing US troops while North Koreans were butchering US troops on the DMZ?). Not even to free our own hostages---until the last possible minute in a failing Presidential season (and even then, committing "just enough" forces, which meant not enough when Murphy reared his ugly head).

'Course, he did authorize the training of Osama bin Laden---oops, I mean he authorized the initial funding of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan (funny, how it's Reagan, not Carter, who's blamed for training ObL).

Small wonder he got to sit next to Michael Moore. I'd venture that Carter is part of Geek's esteemed mainstream liberalism. "Speak softly and carry no stick."

So, SMG, I'd say that to the likes of Geek, the perfect President is the one who runs down our allies, runs away from our enemies, and is focused on the sins and ills of America (as we see in Jimmy Carter post-Presidency), while happily endorsing Ethiopian and Venezuelan sham elections and writing letters to the UNSC asking them to veto Operation Desert Storm. No realpolitik, there---just "reality-based" liberalism.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Ed: Interrogation is a very complex art, in which subtle manipulations are usually much more effective than torture. Torture is more likely than not to produce false positives--people will say anything and will make stuff up to avoid torture."

Note I did NOT state "torture" I used, specifically, the word "interrogate".

Again I quote myself:
""So. How would YOU get the information? Time to put up or shutup. And provide details. None of this "of course someone will figure out a way" nonsense. You provide the exact and specific methods of interrogation.""

Now list the EXACT methods, with specific details, on how interrogators at Gitmo can successfully acquire the needed information while adhering to YOUR standards.

Put up or shut up.

[JDM]

And yes, one might respond that you are either for comparing our troops to Nazis, or against it,

or, one may discern that, since...

- the topic on Senate floor at time of Durbin's comments was abuse/torture
- an acknowledgment that, given large instances of abuse/torture in concert w/Yoo's legal gymnastics explaining Bush has a perogative to circumvent existing laws and treaties and order this stuff...

that perhaps... just maybe... by some great leap of sytactic dissemination and moral introspection... Durbin was speaking to his perception that this stuff is depravity bee-lining down a slippery slope.

ok wingers, seems the hobson's choice is...
a) There is no abuse; there is no torture; let's gang rape Durbin for not bowing at the altar of "we can do no wrong". After all, he's not a real american.
b) actually acknowledge the 1000lb elephant in room

and that a person's view on that issue can be held independently of their view as to the conduct of some of our troops and interrogators in Guantanamo.

right... so you're an a) guy. who would've figured?

But normally, attempting these subtle distinctions is a waste of time.

tell me about it.
Just spreading freedom and democracy, right?

[Cecil Turner]

"If anyone can tell me what may have prompted Kos to attempt to reposition himself (however briefly) back within hailing distance of the lunatic fringe, I would love to hear it."

Judging from Durbin's rowback, it's probably that they both figured (correctly) it was a loser:

"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."

His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.

[Paul Zrimsek]

- an acknowledgment that, given large instances of abuse/torture in concert w/Yoo's legal gymnastics explaining Bush has a perogative to circumvent existing laws and treaties and order this stuff...

"In concert with" being a masterly bit of weasel-wording designed to insinuate a causal relation while obscuring the fact that Bush, prerogative or no, did NOT order this stuff, and is not in the habit of passing memos offering weird legal advice down the chain of command.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"a) There is no abuse; there is no torture; let's gang rape Durbin for not bowing at the altar of "we can do no wrong". After all, he's not a real american."

By and large most of what is going on in Gitmo is not torture. Unless your definition of torture is extremely loose. In which case getting too much mayo in a tunafish sandwich could probably be termed "torture".

And I notice Geek hasn't posted a response to my challenge.

[JDM]

"In concert with" being a masterly bit of weasel-wording designed to insinuate a causal relation while obscuring the fact that Bush, prerogative or no, did NOT order this stuff, and is not in the habit of passing memos offering weird legal advice down the chain of command.

And you know this by what means?
Somebody ordered it. Junior's the big cheese. But then, where the buck stops with these guys, nobody knows.

By and large most of what is going on in Gitmo is not torture

oh, nice... "by and large". I guess maybe a little here and there, perhaps some roughing up, but "by and large" not much torture I guess.

You guys really seem to be in the pipeline: any word on how much "by an large" torture's going on in Iraq? Or Afghanistan? Do you have breakdowns by US Military vs. CPA contractors?

Just wondering.

[Geek, Esq.]

Ed: I don't debate issues like interrogation techniques with people who lack a minimal respect for human rights. Of course, neither of us is a military interrogator, so the level of discussion would remain quite low.

LO:

If Iran was such a threat that we had to become pro-Saddam, why did you guys sell them missiles? And why did George W. Bush add to his national security team a man who sold missiles to Iran?

Given that you're such a fan of realpolitik, you must agree that Bush's talk about "spreading freedom" is either an incredibly foolish approach or is just a cover for us to destroy our enemies.

And, his condemnation of Saddam's human rights record is completely at odds with the Reagan administration's view that as long as Saddam was only killing Iraqis and the occasional Iranian, we really didn't care.

Also, how do you explain Poppy Bush's continued good relations with Saddam AFTER the Iran-Iraq war? I'm thinking of a word that rhymes with "boil."

I have no use for Jimmy Carter. A very bad President and a bad ex-President.

All I'm asking is that the Republicans stop pretending to be the party of human rights and freedom and democracy. Just say you whacked Saddam because he was our enemy and because of the oil. Don't lie to us and say the real point of the war was to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. Because the Republicans sure as hell didn't give a fig about the Iraqi people until Saddam threatened to interfere with the flow of oil out of the Mideast.

[Jabba the Tutt]

And yes, one might respond that you are either for comparing our troops to Nazis, or against it,

Kos was FOR comparing our troops to Nazis, BEFORE he was against it. ;^)

[Jamie]

Who's a fan of realpolitik? Lurking merely pointed out that within its paradigm you get strange bedfellows, which - in IMHO - is unquestionably true. It is not current policy, thank goodness.

But even in a neocon world, nations' first responsibility is to their own interests; the difference is that from a neocon perspective you try to align immediate national interest with a long-term goal of promoting the kinds of values that tend to produce governments that would rather trade than fight and that don't oppress their people (see the original Dune trilogy for a useful discussion of the effects of homegrown oppression).

In the case of Iraq, success will gain us an ally we can actually deal with in the light (as opposed to those reprehensible Saudis) in a region where allies are thin on the ground, intel from a local perspective rather than intel filtered through the cultural biases of Europe or Israel, the possibility of a highly useful "foreign exchange" program for translators and cultural observers, a big friendly zone cutting off Iran and Syria from one another, and one more reliable source of oil on the market (the more diversification of our energy portfolio, the better). The Iraqis get to elect a representative government under our eyes, such that - unlike Iran's recent election - they may actually get a representative government rather than a geopolitical figleaf, a constitution with protections empirically shown to be successful and long-lived, refurbishment of the infrastructure Saddam neglected and looted, and the baddest best friend on the planet, not to put too fine a point on it. And of course freedom from fear of Saddam, which seems to count to many. High stakes. But potentially a win-win-lose, where the third group is Islamic terrorists and their friend Saddam.

[Paul Zrimsek]

How do I know Bush didn't order the abuse? The flippant answer: the same way you know the opposite. The serious answer: from reading the Interrogation Rules of Engagement. Assuming the abuse in the FBI report was ordered by anyone, one of the things we will learn from the investigation is where, in the long, long chain of command between the Commander-in-Chief and the individual MP, the illicit order was introduced. (By "we" I mean those of us who do not assume a priori that the order originated at the top, and thus are capable of learning something from investigations.)

[JDM]

(see the original Dune trilogy for a useful discussion of the effects of homegrown oppression).

I see you are a student of history. :)

Still why not take an earth bound example, like... oh, say US coup of Iranian democratically elected President Mossadeq, installing of SHAH propped up by CIA supported/trained imprisonmnent of Mossadeq supporters, which bagat... KHOMENI!!!... the father of "IslamoFascism", which begat US support of Sadam, which began Desert Storm, which begat operation Iraqi (cough) freedom.

Funny, it seems US is not so cooperative with Iraqi tribunals who endeavor to put Sadam on trial.

Oooops!!!

How do I know Bush didn't order the abuse? (...) The serious answer: from reading the Interrogation Rules of Engagement.

ahhhh... see no evil.

Well, Yoo's "work" authorized it. Abu Gahraib implemented it. And renditions to Uzbekistan... you know, that democratic little country where we're building oil pipelines and they boil people they don't like, and US vetoes UN condemnations of their shooting political adversaries. Yes, Junior's really promoting democracy/freedom over there.

But given ever vigilant white house legal wizbangs have already figured out how to blame the FBI if they ever get caught, I'm sure they can go on spreading freedom and democracy for some time now.

Assuming the abuse in the FBI report was ordered by anyone,

right... maybe he guy tied himself down?

one of the things we will learn from the investigation

what investigation? White house made it clear yesterday there would be no such thing, saying there's already been 7.

Cruel joke.

[Paul Zrimsek]

A leetle hint, JDM: What you're looking for would be some sort of order issued by the White House, not a memo sent to it.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

"Ed: I don't debate issues like interrogation techniques with people who lack a minimal respect for human rights. Of course, neither of us is a military interrogator, so the level of discussion would remain quite low."

Useless dodge.

You still want to be able to attack the Bush administration over Gitmo without having to go on record with what interrogation techniques you'd find acceptable.

Frankly this is dishonest and I'll simply ignore you in all discussions from this point forwards. I'd suggest other people do the same, but that's up to them. I gave you a very simple challenge, one that is entirely on-topic. Discussing anything further with you would be the written equivalent of self-masturbation.

[JDM]

A leetle hint, JDM: What you're looking for would be some sort of order issued by the White House

Gonzales was white house counsel: he requested Yoo memo. The hierarchy of requests for Yoo memo explained, along with notes that were included re: concerns/defenses against prosecution for crimes.

Hmmm...

Is this an honest legal interpretation, or a justification in response to a request?

US has laws, carefully crafted to embody core constitutional principles, that speak to this. A US President is constitutionally bound to honour treaties. Torture is addressed in Convention Against Torture (CAT) to which US is a signatoree. Reagan signed in '88, ratified in '94. Delay in ratification was time congress need to work out language for the Declarations and Reservations, which made torture a crime under United States Law and provided for jurisdiction by the US regardless of where torture is committed provided either the "the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender."

Article 2 Paragraph 2 states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Beyond that, as has been stated repeatedly, there is no evidence detainees are indeed combatents, and SCOTUS has ordered white house to correct this perception. So far, they've thumbed their nose at that decision.

There's a lot more that follows, BTW... The Draft Walker Working Group memo explains to the president that...

the Justice Department opined in a separate memo dated January 22, 2002, Re: Application of Treaties and Laws to al-Queda and Taliban Detainees, that customary international law "cannot bind the Executive Branch under the Constitution because it is not federal law" and in particular clear executive decisions would be "controlling" law that would trump customary international law.

All clearly illegal by CAT's declarations, and unconstitutional.

Several hi-level JAG's are on record protesting the policy: they said they were presented with it, asked to sign w/out review, and were pushed out of the process if they refused. The 2 links (ABC/NBC news) have scrubbed the links, but summaries are here. A brief excerpt:

Lawyers from the military's Judge Advocate General's Corps, or JAG, had been urging Pentagon officials to ensure protection for prisoners for two years before the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison came to light, current and former JAG officers told ABCNEWS.

But, the JAG lawyers say, political appointees at the Pentagon ignored their warnings, setting the stage for the Abu Ghraib abuses, in which military police reservists photographed each other subjecting Iraqi prisoners to physical abuse and sexual humiliation.

More on JAG/ex-JAG comments here. There's a large body of similar/more expansive public comments from JAGS (Google is your friend).

And we haven't yet touched on all the Gonzalez memos dealing with legal defense for white house/pentagon insiders against possible future prosecution for torture violations. Gen Meyer's has (incredibly) been firm in requiring his personal defense council be present at all top level meetings w/DOD civilians.

There is massive paper trail connecting this stuff to Oval office, but congress won't look. Senate won't touch it.

I'm not so enamoured w/your sleuthing skills, Ed. The only conclusion I can put together is the R's just don't give a ***t, and that seems just right ok w/you guys.

White house said cost wouldn't exceed $50b, and fired people who dissented. Then they said oil revenues would pay for whole thing. CPA contractors are importing cheap labor from outside Iraq while there's +60% unemployment. CPA unveiled an Iraq flag, a carbon copy of Israel's. And detainees have been arrested/incarcerated indiscriminately, with no records or notification to families.

They were wrong about everything.

I can't imagine where your admiration comes from. The whole thing is beyond nauseating.

[Darwin]

Geek, Esq. :

You realize that you just claimed that prisoners chained in the fetal position were throwing things, right?

What the person he's responding to actually said :

The 'excremental assault' tactic is used BY the detainees AGAINST the guards at Gitmo. They throw their own feces through the slots they in which receive their meals, at any guard who might walk past.

The quote in question is clearly not referring to the limited subset of prisoners at Gitmo who are chained in the fetal position. Unless Geek, Esq. believes that all prisoners at Gitmo are chained to the floor in the fetal position at all times?

Reading is FUNdamental, kids!

=darwin

[Thomas Jackson]

I see the usual suspects are hurling feeces since they can't utilize any facts to support their torture contentions. Rove nailed it when he labelled the Left for the terrorist coddlers that they are. One can bet that the same individuals wailing about the torture the detainees are suffering were probably writting letters to the next of kin of soldiers falsely telling them their kin had been killed.

The inability of the Left to differeniate between the goals of the US and our enemies as well as their use of double standards if revealed evry time they spew their MoveOn talking points.