Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMichael Mukasey was confirmed late Thursday by the U.S. Senate to serve as the nation's 81st Attorney General. This means that, despite the fact refused to commit during the course of his confirmation hearings to abide by the Constitution or to hold the president accountable to the rule of law, the former federal judge will now serve as the country's chief law enforcement officer.
Mukasey's nomination was cinched when two Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, New York Senator Chuck Schumer and California Senator Dianne Feinstein, decided to accept the nominee's assurance that he would respect a law specifically banning the torture tactic of waterboarding. The assurance was meaningless, as Congress is unlikely to pass such a law and President Bush would veto it.
But, as bad as Schumer and Feinstein's votes may have been, at least they cast them when the Mukasey nomination came to the Senate floor.
That's better than can be said for New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the four members of the chamber who are seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden, all of whom had been critical of the Mukasey nomination, chose to keep campaigning rather than to honor their responsibility to approve or reject presidential appointments.
Running for president is, to be sure, a big deal. Candidates who happen to be members of the Congress probably cannot be expected to show up for every vote -- although Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Texas Congressman Ron Paul do a remarkably good job of it.
But the debate about who will be the Attorney General of the United States ought to merit a brief turn off the campaign trail.
As it was, Democrats could muster just 40 votes against Mukasey. A united front of Republicans, joined by the Democratic indefensibles Schumer, Feinstein, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mary Landrieu or Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and the always-in-his-own-category Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
Had the Democratic presidential candidates bothered to show up, the Senate could have registered greater opposition to Mukasey than to any of the president's major Cabinet or Supreme Court nominees -- with at least 44 votes go against the president's pick. That would have sent a signal regarding the concerns raised not just on the torture issue but on the broader question of whether Mukasey will take any steps to reign in a lawless executive branch.
As it was, the new Attorney General was approved with less opposition than Democrats were able to muster for John Ashcroft (42 votes against) or Gonzales (36 votes against).
It is certainly true that votes against Mukasey would have been symbolic, as the nomination was going to be approved.
But in the tug of war between the executive and legislative branches, shows of strength are meaningful. It matters to send the right signal. Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden made it harder to send the right signal about the wrong pick for Attorney General. In so doing, they failed the Republic and the cause of Constitutional renewal that should be more important than any presidential campaign.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
ya wish and ya wish...
FLASH NEWS! DEMS MUSTERED 2 MORE VOTES AGAINST NEW FASCIST AG THAN FIRST FASCIST AG! THE REVOLUTION BEGINS!!!!
NEXT: IMPEACHMENT - NOT IF BUT WHEN!!!!
i dont know...
well, how bout the congress overriding the prez's veto on the water bill?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 11:50am
i mean...in grudging possible respect to stenny pelosi fienstien reid and company, we may be getting a large repug crossover on some more legislation here that would never have happened had there been an (unsuccessful - count the votes) impeachment...
who knows?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 11:53am
Gotta agree. Let there be a law put forth banning it and see who the real rats are.
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/09/2007 @ 11:57am
Forty-four votes would have sustained a filibuster. Not one senator even bothered to try. Never mind that there were just barely enough votes to sustain one. This country is f***ed, because those in positions to do something to save it refuse to try.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 11/09/2007 @ 12:07pm
ok...54 votes...filibuster...then what? buschco puts up another mukasey...54 votes...filibuster...
all the while the assistant ag is running the show, and of course the assistent ag is nothing more nore less than...THE SAME AS THE OLD AG...
so eventually bushco either finds some 27 year old with no record or someone perfectly ok with baldfacedly lying to congress ("i'm against all forms of torture, senator congressman - trust me..") who will do whatever bushco wants anyway...
and moderate repugs refuse to join dems on veto override votes to come!!!!
BRILLIANT!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 12:22pm
well, one would have to be naïve to think they would actually show up to vote for something that would show they have opinions.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 12:23pm
Our new AG is well acquainted with the "war on terror" and all the trappings that go with it. He has presided over several cases specifically dealing with "terrorist" issues. He knows full well what water boarding is. His answer to Congress was blatant evasion hiding a more private agenda for the executive branch. This answer I am sure would make even Gonzo happy.
Our Congressional presidential candidates named in this article as missing the vote on the AG was done for obvious reasons. They don't want to be held accountable. You can bet they would show up for a vote on something that their campaign donors supported - maybe like the resolution on classifying Iranian military as terrorists. Now there is an important vote. How the Justice Department is run and protection of our Constitution isn't as important as avoiding the issue.
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2007 @ 12:26pm
More than anything, this is further evidence of the insanity that is the Presidential campaign calendar. Campaigning should not be allowed to begin until no earlier than February of the same year as the election. As a result, presidential contenders that are also current office holders can spend more time doing what they should be doing in their elected capacity. With publicly financed elections, they would have to spend less time raising cash as well. Its a win-win for everyone (excepts the lobbyists of course, but that's the point).
Posted by BlueTexan at 11/09/2007 @ 12:30pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/09/2007 @ 11:50am
Yeah...without the CAPS! or sarcasm...
does THIS "John Nichols" read the stuff of the OTHER "John Nichols"?
Why does he expect the same Senate Dems who just gave Mukasey a pass...to stay together AND get SEVENTEEN Republicans to join them in removing from office Dick Cheney?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 12:39pm
What this says to me is that the Presidential Elections have started far too early.
Because of this, you have several people who should have had their asses in the Senate, doing the people's business, campaigning instead.
Personally, this tells me that everyone, not just these senators, has their priorities skewed. I know that there are many of us who wish that the Bush Administration could end already, but there's still some fights that need to be waged with it and you can't wage these fights if you're too busy applying for the job.
I know that it's impractical, but I think that presidential candidates should follow the lead of Philadelphia's new Mayor-elect, Michael Nutter. Nutter, who was a sitting City Councilman, resigned from Council to pursue the mayor's office because he knew that he couldn't serve two masters effectively. That the Senate's presidential candidates blew off such an imporant vote to campaign shows that they can't either.
Posted by edwriter at 11/09/2007 @ 12:45pm
This country is f***ed, because those in positions to do something to save it refuse to try.
Posted by ARCHANGEL_M 11/09/2007 @ 12:07pm
Agreed.
The signals swarming the air at this point are almost deafening. Pelosi's five famous words will likely reverberate like the X-Ray cries from the a black hole's fringe.
Hang on, people. I can hear the clickity-clack under our seats as we slowly round the crest.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 12:49pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/09/2007 @ 12:58pm
what is it about the jews that pees you off? i dont get it. religion? race? what?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 1:12pm
what is it about the jews that pees you off? i dont get it. religion? race? what?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/09/2007 @ 1:12pm
CAREFUL IBB. And please keep your hands and fingers away from the bars!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 1:15pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/09/2007 @ 1:15pm
i love staring into the abyss cage! and feeding the monsters!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 1:17pm
to MORKCANYOUBELIEVEIT.
Einstein was a jew.
Gershwin was a jew.
Friggin' jesus was a jew.
what the fuck is wrong with you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 1:26pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:25pm
yep. the perfect leader. someone who wishywashes their way through focus groups.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 1:28pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/09/2007 @ 1:26pm
i'm going on a date with a mexijewess tonight...that must be double bad! lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 1:31pm
Whom can we thank for this?
Who else but the kind of people who write for and edit The Nation.
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/09/2007 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person
Yeah, sure Canyon; how often do you read Ari Berman in the Washington Post or NYTimes? The Nation operates outside the boundaries of acceptable national discourse, and only sees the light of day pending the needs of some mainstream journalist requiring information from a respectable source not readily available among the banal stenographers of corporate canon, thus we occasionally see a glimpse of some Nation writing retrieved from Orwell's black hole of information.
The Republicans themselves buried this guy just as they are attempting to liquidate Larry Craig from their ranks.
Oh,yes, I probably should not have used Berman as an example since it could potentially inititate more of your Jew-hating diatribes.
Posted by Oustbush at 11/09/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/09/2007
mexijewessliberalstalinistzionofascistwetbacker, i hope.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 1:35pm
markcanyon is a jew.
markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew. markcanyon is a jew.
ñah ñah ña ña ñah!!!!!
btw 'scuse the off topic; this guy goes back on ignore
* click *
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 1:39pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:40pm
you've got to stop watching 24
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:25pm
Jeezus H., Frank.
Now your blind schoolboy crush has you imagining "24" scripts like some kind of BushCo armchair intelligence operative.
Mask may be right. (Ecchh!)
You seem to be morphing into the kind of person you used to reject.
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:40pm |
NO! lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 1:46pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/09/2007 @ 1:35pm |
and a country girl too! only in the south! lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 1:47pm
...this guy goes back on ignore.
* click *"
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/09/2007 @ 1:39pm
Same here.
I can deal with ignorance, intractability, even bald-faced lies. But I reject the hate.
In fact, I only have RESE on ignore for the volume of his posts.
If I thought he had to rub elbows with MARKCANYON in there, I'd bust him out.
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 1:52pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:40pm
you've got to stop watching 24
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:25pm
Now your blind schoolboy crush has you imagining "24" scripts like some kind of BushCo armchair intelligence operative.
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/09/2007 @ 1:45pm
that's cool.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 1:56pm
If I thought he had to rub elbows with MARKCANYON in there, I'd bust him out.
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/09/2007 @ 1:52pm
Why bust 'em out when you can bust a move?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 1:57pm
Our new AG is well acquainted with the "war on terror" and all the trappings that go with it. He has presided over several cases specifically dealing with "terrorist" issues. Posted by ONEVOTE 11/09/2007 @ 12:26pm
Yep. Mukassey was the judge in the trial of the "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdul-Rahman, who was convicted of being the mastermind behind the bombing of the WTC in 1993.
Some of you may recall that bin Laden's two main demands prior to declaring war on the U.S. were the removal of U.S. military from the holy lands of Saudi Arabia, and the RELEASE OF ABDUL-RAHMAN.
I expect Islamic militants to take Mukassey's appointment as top cop to be a major, arrogant slap in their faces. I further expect reprisals from them.
Shame on the Dems who either voted for Mukassey or failed to vote at all. Their actions/inactions WILL affect my voting.
Posted by Radscal at 11/09/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/09/2007 @ 1:47pm
actually, i had quite a few amigos judeos en méxico.
and that's cool because there are only about 40,000 mexican jews.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 1:59pm
CPT is next.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:57pm
C'mon Frank, you can't dis the Cap'n. He used to be my favorite breakfast cereal!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:00pm
"Why bust 'em out when you can bust a move?"
Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/09/2007 @ 1:57pm
Dude.
I'm old and white.
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 2:00pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:59pm
well, in a frosty-run world, we wouldn't get nearly that far, having instead taken on the root causes in place of trying to squish people into democratic submission.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 2:02pm
C'mon Frank, you can't dis the Cap'n. He used to be my favorite breakfast cereal!
Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/09/2007 @ 2:00pm
yeah, one thing is to be wrong. the other is to be trash.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 2:03pm
I'm old and white.
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/09/2007 @ 2:00pm
so's my dad. and he can still dance a fancy jig (even after the by-pass).
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 2:05pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:04pm
well, president frosty, upon taking office, would get on the phone and have a palestinian nation ready to go by noon.
that's what i'd do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 2:06pm
He's about as much a patriot as Rush Limbaugh and you all know what I think of him. Limbaugh likes to say he has one half his brain tied behind his back. That explains it.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:03pm
And that brings me to another old companion to the Saturday morning cartoons, Froot Loops. Although I'm sure we'd all prefer the cereal version to the AM radio version.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:10pm
Especially with our nuke subs capability to destroy the world.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:12pm
And a placid Hillary at the helm.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:14pm
There's a lot of FUD here.
Many senators who would have voted "nay" didn't bother to vote because it was clear the confirmation was going to pass.
You should be taking to task the 53 who voted yea, they're the ones who support waterboarding. Hillary and Obama both opposed Mukasey's confirmation, their absence doesn't change that - an abstention is not a "yea".
Posted by ccorbell at 11/09/2007 @ 2:17pm
To my way of thinking, he's certifiable. Yet he prospers. How odd.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:14pm
It's enough to make one self-contemplate. I'd hope.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:18pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:11pm
huh?
¿peace = destruction?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 2:18pm
Now the president has an able man in that post, to push his agenda, who is on top of it all, a Jew.
Whom can we thank for this?
Who else but the kind of people who write for and edit The Nation.
Posted by MARKCANYON 11/09/2007 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person
Ah....this explains the Schumer - Feinstein support eh MC?
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:55pm
I would like to think that I would respect our Constitution enough to bring in trained professionals like Malcolm Nance, in the hope that his expertise could elicit actionable intelligence before it was too late. (Read what he and other credentialed experts in the field have to say about their respective track records, and the efficacy of torture.)
Torturing someone to get faulty intelligence is not going to save any lives.
Additionally, unlike Bush43, I would not ask for the job if I did not think I could face being accountable for such decisions.
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 1:55pm
OK, Pakistan sells a nuke to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda decides to detonate it in the U.S.,(no problem bringing it in, they just walk across the border), You're the president and intell says they got a guy who knows all about the details. What would you do?
Let's put aside the rank implausability and start talking about outcomes other than the equally improbable outcome that you will get the information you want in time to stop it.
1. You end up torturing the wrong guy who says nothing.
2. You end up torturing the wrong guy who makes stuff up.
3. You end up torturing dozens of wrong guys and keep them for years is secret prisons based on possibilities imagined by the intelligence community.
4. You end up torturing the right guy, who decides to tell you to get stuffed or take a deep intake of breath during your water-boarding.
5. You torture the right guy, track down this bomb and discover the device doesn't actually work.
6. Use your imagination of all the possible outcomes that are much more likely to happen than the outcome that justifies the torture and tell me...what would you do?
I'll leave aside the deontological argument that torturing isn't right under any circumstances. However, this argument doesn't even work even if we use your framework of utility and look at the consequences of the probable outcomes of making this decision.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:21pm
Just goes to show how close Democrats and Republicans are in practice. It must give you warm fuzzies inside.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 2:25pm
I never thought I'd see the day when Frank in an attempt to explain HRC's position actually posits the position of the Bush Administration and Rudy, Fred T, and Romney.
Someone please forward to Frank my congratulations on his wakeup to reality (at least for a moment). He keeps me on ignore so he won't see my compliment.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person
You need to read more carefully LL. We've all been telling Frank that HRC is BUSHCO warmed over. Maybe you will consider a vote for HRC?
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2007 @ 2:26pm
You should be taking to task the 53 who voted yea, they're the ones who support waterboarding. Hillary and Obama both opposed Mukasey's confirmation, their absence doesn't change that - an abstention is not a "yea".
Posted by CCORBELL 11/09/2007 @ 2:17pm
That's simply not feasible. No question we've got an entire Republican Party that has effectively gone rabid. What are we gonna do? Shoot them all with tranquilizer darts and release them in the far north of Canada? (sorry Frost)
No, the best we can do is hold the wayward, dumbass Donkeys accountable and possibly a few vulnerable vile pachyderms.
But I suspect the time for that is probably over too.
The entire system really is FUBAR. Change is coming in the form of a massive self-correction event ala Chalmers Johnson's "Nemesis".
She's in the building big time. You can feel her hot breath.
And she's not real friendly.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:30pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/09/2007 @ 1:59pm |
well, this one's also half southern redneck/cherokee too...or something...i get confused...
and i speak spanish better than her...but she's got jew woman smarts, mexican looks, and southern redneck/cherokee nuttiness...great combination...
and she likes big henry rollinsesque whiteys like me and has a kid by one...
who knows? might be a keeper...if she can put up with me...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 2:30pm
Hillary wouldn't be placid, especially with Bill advising her.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:27pm
Too bad, I like her better placid.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:31pm
"Another way to look at it is that Mukasey, having presided over the aforementioned trials, was unable to give an answer on waterboarding because he knows that there is a need NOT to tie the hands of the interrogators who look out for all of us."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:01pm
I'm curious, Frank.
At breakfast this morning, did you notice a smiling face on your juice pitcher? Did the beverage taste sweeter than usual?
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 2:33pm
I think an intervention is called for...
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 2:33pm
Torturing someone to get faulty intelligence is not going to save any lives.
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/09/2007 @ 2:23pm
Yeah, but it sure scares the shit out of people.
Including Americans.
Which is why its happening.
Which is why I recommend Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine".
Which is why it's time to wake up or now, or get tortured later.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:26pm
Interesting that you choose to make up a position for me - and not a particularly imaginative one, two options that are the same.
Let's not think about the fact that if you knew enough to say one guy had all the information needed, you probably have enough intelligence to stop it without resorting to torture.
No consideration of the fact that torture isn't an effective technique for getting information.
Just sheer fantasy world - much like the hypothetical example itself.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:29pm
I stop everyday to consider the fact that the politicans that "lead" this country are not significantly different from one another.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 2:39pm
"...defend America and her citizens. That happens to be the number one priority for a president, no matter which party they belong to."
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:29pm
Well, actually, each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 2:41pm
Ah, life and times during a dic'tatorship. The dem candidates merely understand what has already happened and did their part to be a part, of it.
Get used to it, we currently have no congress. No judicial either. Well, not that are independent from the exec, nor co-equal. They are now extentions of the exec and don't know it yet. Well, some don't know it yet. We, the people, are now merely its subjects-- how does it feel to have no voice? But we'll get crumbs as long as we bow down to the United Corporations of the Americas.
But we can still sit up real straight, move our fingers vigorously-- and type to one another about it.
For now.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 2:42pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:38pm
Zeta-Jones is Welsh. But I don't disagree with the fact of her beauty.
Barbara Streisand though?
Why not Bathsheba?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:43pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:33pm
Torturing people is wrong, Frank. Period. Life is always more complex than this simple scenario that you have painted - and even within the context of your example, you are assuming that your torture would get you what you want and you are not accounting for the long-term implications of that action.
For example, let's take you example and change it slightly and say you had a very close relative of someone that knew all the details in custody and you KNEW they would contact you to talk to stop you from torturing them. Still do it?
We could go on and on and on. You go down that road then you are no different than those that would be detonating the atomic bombs in this scenario.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 2:48pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/09/2007 @ 2:37pm
Took that one along on a trip to Massachusetts a couple of weeks ago.
Harder to pry your face out of than a stripper's money clip.
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 2:50pm
Well then correct me. If you aren't willing to 1)take whatever steps it requires to extract the information or 2)you would do nothing, or 3) you would take action afterwards, what would you do?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:44pm
Ginger or Mary Anne?
In your case "LeaveLibertyBehind", perhaps Alan Hale is more to your liking, No?
He'll be smiling softly at you when you arrive at your cell in Gitmo.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 2:53pm
Another way to look at it is that Mukasey... knows that there is a need NOT to tie the hands of the interrogators who look out for all of us.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:01pm
Hiya Frank. The problems with torture for interrogation include: 1) it's illegal (US laws and UN and Geneva Conventions); 2) it negatively affects perceptions of the U.S.; 3) our doing it permits our enemies to rationalize doing it to our soldiers, but most fundamentally 4) IT DOESN'T WORK. Victims of torture either become even more resolved not to "squeal, or they LIE.
On a side note, I find the term "water-boarding" very troubling. As Bill Mahr pointed out, it sounds like fun! As in: I love to take my ski boat out on the lake and let the kids water-board in tow. Applying such a euphemism for slow drowning makes it more palatable to a credulous public.
Posted by Radscal at 11/09/2007 @ 2:54pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:38pm
see ya frank...lol.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 2:54pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:44pm
That's the lie in this little scenario. It pretends that torture is the only answer - and it never is. Since we don't have the full context, we don't know what the other options are for preventing it.
It's akin to saying, "Does your mother know you beat your wife?" Answering the question doesn't deal with what is assumed within it - and that's the point.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 2:56pm
Oh God, please don't tell me I inadvertantly said something that Liberty agrees with. I need to take a nap.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:35pm
It really does put ol' FRANK in the "cultist" status on Hillary, when, in order to defend, not her so much, but her "potential" Veep selection, Evan Bayh....he agrees with LVLIBERY!!!
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 2:59pm
Took that one along on a trip to Massachusetts a couple of weeks ago.
Harder to pry your face out of than a stripper's money clip.
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/09/2007 @ 2:50pm
Glad to see that you've read that one. No question it deserves a mass audience.
If you haven't read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" it's another can't-put-down eye-popper.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 3:00pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/09/2007 @ 1:31pm
Burritos with Manischewitz?
Posted by leftofcenter at 11/09/2007 @ 3:06pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 11/09/2007 @ 3:06pm |
matzahburritos and grits...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 3:12pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 3:03pm
If you provide the premises, you dictate the conclusion. I don't support torture or the people that support torture - categorically, under any circumstances. Period.
I think your hypothetical scenario is about as real as asking my opinion on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 3:12pm
The way I read it, SRJ would do anything but torture.
(Not real complicated.)
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 3:15pm
"well, this one's also half southern redneck/cherokee too...or something...i get confused..."
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 11/09/2007 @ 2:30pm
(And the odds that you will live long enough to sort it all out are slim, at best.)
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 3:26pm
But the Democrats forced him out. They deprived themselves of a perfect target. They relieved Bush of a handicap and stigma. Now the president has an able man in that post, to push his agenda, who is on top of it all, a Jew. Posted by MARKCANYON 11/09/2007 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person
Help me out, but is your contention that Mukasey's Jewishness is the reason why he can't discern whether or not waterboarding is torture, or do you just have a problem with Jewish people?
In any case, it's offensive, and I'd say that even if there weren't a Jewish guy in California walking around with a piece of my heart.
I don't think that Mukasey's ethnic background has anything to do with his inability to call a spade a spade on this issue. You dilute your arguement seriously when you add ethnic slurs to it and I say this because until you got to the "he's a Jew" part, I sort of agreed with you.
Posted by edwriter at 11/09/2007 @ 3:31pm
Another way to look at it is that Mukasey, having presided over the aforementioned trials, was unable to give an answer on waterboarding because he knows that there is a need NOT to tie the hands of the interrogators who look out for all of us.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person
And by golly if we need to force a confession from a suspected terrorist because we've got a lack of objective hard evidence than that should be one of our tools in our war on terror. Very good Frank! Just like NSA not spying on regular old Americans. You believe that? God...what has this country become. Any chance that leaving open water boarding as an option might be used against you someday?
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2007 @ 3:35pm
And Frank,
If you really want me to reconsider my lack of support for Hillary Clinton, please do yourself and her a favor.
Be quiet.
You do your candidate no favors by saying shit like this: "Another way to look at it is that Mukasey, having presided over the aforementioned trials, was unable to give an answer on waterboarding because he knows that there is a need NOT to tie the hands of the interrogators who look out for all of us."
Personally, if someone is torturing people in my name, I'd like for them to stop it, please.
Or does it matter to you at all that folks will use our support of torture as justification for torturing one of our soldiers should they become a prisoner of war?
Posted by edwriter at 11/09/2007 @ 3:37pm
well, in a frosty-run world, we wouldn't get nearly that far, having instead taken on the root causes in place of trying to squish people into democratic submission. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/09/2007 @ 2:02pm
'Zactly, Frost.
As for Frank's observation that we already have many enemies, it would be important to make a powerful new policy statement to the entire world. Of course, simply saying "I'm sorry. I promise not to beat you up again," wouldn't (and shouldn't) convince our hard-core enemies. We'd have to take actions that both improved the lot of those who could otherwise be convinced to attack us and symbolized a renewed committment to justice.
Possible actions could include requiring Israel to pull back to the pre-1967 borders under threat of stopping all military aid, tying international trade agreements to human-rights and worker-rights requirements, taking substantial steps to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) use of fossil fuels, and accepting responsibilty for - and paying restitution to - those groups whom we've trampled on our way to world domination (egs. Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexicans, Hawaiians, Filipinos).
We need to admit that we've helped to overthrow democratically-elected governments in Guatemala, Chile and Iran (among others) and take steps to mitigate the effects of our "foreign escapades."
Such substantial changes in our foreign (and domestic) policies would defuse much of the anti-U.S. rhetoric used by those who foment violence against us. Would they guarantee that we're never attacked again? Of course not. But neither does torturing both real and imagined enemies. And, unlike torture, these actions would actually reduce the number of new enemies we create.
Posted by Radscal at 11/09/2007 @ 3:47pm
I know that. I was just noting the irony that Frank cannot see that point, even with this absolutely perfect example.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person
Liv...Frank is here to pedal HRC as progressive and liberal. We both know that she is far from that. This is the biggest damn farce on those who do sincerely believe in a progressive agenda. With both Republicans and Democrats sucking up to the same political donors, there really isn't much of a choice anymore regarding substantive issues that really matter. The Democrats problem is that they are suppose to be the party of the people and not special interest groups. They have got to put on the facade that they really care about the people. Real progressives are relegated to the left wing of the Democratic party and paid little attention to by the Big Party leadership.
Posted by OneVote at 11/09/2007 @ 3:48pm
LL,
You mangy dope. As always you're here to re-new your vows to idiocy and barbarism when not jackbooting, calling us non-believers terrorists or anti-American rubbish, or simply pelting the audience with that perverse flavor of dreck you call Holy Writ. While there are no doubt some connosoiers of buffoonery here who take your phillips seriously, most in fact do not and see you for who you are - a fundamentalist heel whose view of the world has no kinship with fact. You're a crummy tale-bearer with the brains of a village drunkard. Despite your occasional splurts of clarity, for the most part you are a spigot of hackneyed propaganda (and lunacy) sponsored by a dishonest and dishonorable state. There are very few minds on this blog so inhospitable to reason. I often wonder if you write from the nexus of a cookoo's nest…
But let's talk torture. Since you highly recommend the practice as being acceptable and inescapable when it comes to utilizing every weapon in your spook-chasing arsenal, let's say I have your firefighting son (who I believe lives in California) and threaten to go medieval on him with some pipes, pliars, blowtorches, powerdrills, hacksaws, glowsticks, rusty machetes, waterboarding, and incessant reading of your posts on the Nation unless you admit to being a humbug who falls out of his rocker on a daily basis. While you'd never admit to being a loon, you'd tell the renditioners what they want to hear so they'd stop torturing your son.
But if I wanted to torture LL the demigod I'd simply clone you and lock you and your double in a windowless room while I blasted Slayer and al-Jazeera all day...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/09/2007 @ 3:52pm
Posted by DRHAMMER 11/09/2007 @ 3:26pm |
yeah...but who wants to live forever? lol...
better than gettin run over by a steam roller or drooling to death...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 4:01pm
The only 'reason' to move towards the use of torture is precisely because there is the use of no 'reason':
" I do see their mutual understanding of the critical importance of reason in wartime to be a very important message for our time. Perhaps the most critical message we now need to hear. Check out the echoes between the two. Gore first:
For the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War.
It is too easy -- and too partisan -- to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?
Faith in the power of reason -- the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power--remains the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.
Now read this passage from Adam Gopnik's piece about Honest Abe:
Lincoln believed in legalism. One of his first public speeches, the Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum, in Springfield in 1837, declared a radical insistence on "reason" to be the only acceptable form of public discourse; the cure for the prevalence and epidemic of violence in American life would be "hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason": "Passion has helped us, but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason--cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason--must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence."
We must revive this vision - this quintessentially American vision. Before it is too late."
http://tinyurl.com/2wpuez
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 4:03pm
BTW, LOC and IBB....
how about Lisa Edelstein from "House"?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 4:06pm
It is too easy -- and too partisan -- to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. Have they all failed us? Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS
You've been watching too much tv.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 4:09pm
The people deserve much blame, for they've watched the little power they had fritter to nothing. What is worse, those who see this are too afraid to risk their little creature comfort lives to raise their fist and demand change.
Posted by chimichenga at 11/09/2007 @ 4:14pm
Traded apathy and fear for comfort and fantasy. And ended up with more apathy and fear...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 4:18pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/09/2007 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person
Watch out for the fuzz in the airport bathrooms. They're hip to the toe-tapping and wide-stance invites for stall stimulation..
Posted by chimichenga at 11/09/2007 @ 4:20pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS
Just get a lobotomy and you'll be as ignorant, happy as libertyliar.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 4:20pm
Why has America's public discourse become less focused and clear, less reasoned?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS
You've been watching too much tv.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/09/2007 @ 4:09pm
Or not enough. There's never enough.
Especially when one throws it out the window...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 4:21pm
Posted by MASK 11/09/2007 @ 4:06pm
oh yeah...
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 4:38pm
thanks. just remember that when i rip into yer girl, hrc...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 4:41pm
Being happy or having freedom, is that what the trade is supposed to be about now? How can anyone be happy without freedom? If one has no voice, no privacy, no rights, can be tortured for a contrary point of view, has no representation with taxation and the promise of indentured servitude for our progeny for generations to come, will one become happy once again fighting for freedom from the House of Hangover?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 4:43pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 4:39pm
then she gets bit by the chupacabras...oi...
chupachupa [en.wikipedia.org]
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 4:44pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person
Al-Qaeda? Give me a break. There are no secret cells, only bugbears. But your illusory fears have ramifications in the real world, so you justify torturing real people because the fear of ghosts gives you the creeps. Cotton Mather is alive and well. Let the witch hunts continue!
Posted by chimichenga at 11/09/2007 @ 4:52pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 4:45pm
i dont agree with every stop the o-train makes, frank...so you can say "i dont agree with 50 foot queenie on this and this and that and the other too, but i'm still voting for her" and people will still respect/like you...here even more, probably...
u r not an official 50 foot queenie paid mouthpiece are you?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 4:54pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS
You're rationalizing torture.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 4:57pm
Wasn't it like 75-85% of the tortured and those killed from torture, ended up not even being terrorists, but innocents? And aren't the laws now written so even US citizens can be secretly spied on without a warrant and picked up/ never to be seen again,,, This is no longer our country.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 5:01pm
Hey Empty....tell HSUB if you'd vote for Al Gore if he ran in 2008?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 5:06pm
This is a liberal blog yet there are more and more goose-steppers all the time. Talk about a refuge of morons. Americans don't deserve democracy. Hell, they don't know what it is. Sadly, they also don't realize what fascism means despite the fact that it is insidiously taking over their lives every day...
Posted by chimichenga at 11/09/2007 @ 5:07pm
Hey Empty....tell HSUB if you'd vote for Al Gore if he ran in 2008?
Posted by MARY
Shut your dickhole, mary. The Dem candidates abstaining from the vote only serves to demonstrate what I've been trying to help you understand. Dem or Rep, our rights are going down the drain. You can't sustain a functioning democracy with such huge disparities in the distribution of wealth. It just doesn't work that way.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:11pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/09/2007 @ 5:07pm
i wonder how many can find iraq on a world map? too bad candidates cant use this as a slogan...
"HEY STOOPID! VOTE FOR ME!"
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 5:12pm
Posted by MASK 11/09/2007 @ 5:06pm
yeah! shut yer dickhole!
oh man...the blog response pits are rowdy today! pit fiends growling and screeching and clawing and biting. oh this is awesome!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/09/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS
Rationalizing.
If the government can do it to a suspect today, it's only a matter of time before they begin doing it to all of us. That's the way it works.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:40pm
Freedom isn't free. It demands sacrifises. Trading "security" for freedom isn't much of a deal.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:46pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS
fg,
i've generally respected your opnions (despite this odd appreciation of hrc),
but now i ask,
"¿have you become tony blair?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 5:47pm
Soon we'll be doing it to each other just like most child molesters do it because it was done to them and so on and so on... it never stops just gets worse.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 5:47pm
And Frank,
If you really want me to reconsider my lack of support for Hillary Clinton, please do yourself and her a favor.
Be quiet.
~EDWRITER
Or just be quiet, period.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:48pm
"...which I believe under our Constitution..."
Posted by FRANKGRITS
You condone torture while celebrating the Constitution? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
I take that back.
Frank's stuff here is actually some of the more entertaining......in an "Apple Dumpling Gang" sort of way.
Sort of charmingly naïve.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 5:53pm
Our security has never been so threatened
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
it seems like everybody else's, too.
but are you sure you've chosen the right path?
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 5:55pm
my civil and human rights won't mean anything if they go up in a mushroom cloud as some 6th century neanderthal shouts ,"Allah Akbar".
Case closed...
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
JoMa is scared therefore we can commenst the torture and child-molesting each other... so a mushroom cloud won't kill our bright future full of torturers and molesters. Truly a case.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 5:58pm
You'd like me to be quiet and leave you all to the mercy of the wingnuts who post here.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 5:55pm
UNCLE!!!
You win Frank. Just don't EVER terrify me again with talk of leaving me at the mercy of the wingnuts.
JEZUZ H CHRIST!!!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 6:02pm
Wrong...Prestige and economy are fine...better than anywhere else on the planet. Period.
Posted by JOMOMMA 11/09/2007 @ 5:57pm
Uh.....okay?!
Have a nice Christmas by the way. Plan on burning your greenbacks for warmth.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 6:06pm
You'd like me to be quiet and leave you all to the mercy of the wingnuts who post here. I don't think so. But you all need to check between your legs and see if your balls are still there. For you women, this doesn't apply of course. Later.
Posted by FRANKGRITS
Balls? You want to talk of balls? Balls involve gutting it up, refusing to do the easy thing. All these red, white, and blue, freedom loving fools--the first second they feel threatened they forget all about the Constitution, the higher ideals it represents. Only if a large enough percentage of the population tolerates, condones illegal behavior can the government get away with it.
If you think this corporate sponsored bitch, HRC, is going to change much of anything you're severly misinformed. She is to the right of Nixon! That's the country we live in. There is no left, only right of center hacks, funded by corporate America; and the press refuses to call the radical right in this country what it is, pretending, instead, that it's just "right of center."
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 6:06pm
my civil and human rights won't mean anything if they go up in a mushroom cloud as some 6th century neanderthal shouts ,"Allah Akbar".
Case closed...
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
It reminds me of Christians rationalizing killing. I'd rather get vaporized than live in a police state.
Posted by mtspence05 at 11/09/2007 @ 6:11pm
my civil and human rights won't mean anything if they go up in a mushroom cloud as some 6th century neanderthal shouts ,"Allah Akbar".
Case closed...
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
It reminds me of Christians rationalizing killing. I'd rather get vaporized than live in a police state.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/09/2007 @ 6:11pm
But then we can't overthrow the police state... oh, forgot that it's full of cowards-- blow it up.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 6:14pm
"...If our intel agencies had ironclad intel that an attack was imminent..." Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 5:35pm
Who gets to determine whether or not this intel is "ironclad?"
"Manhattan has been targeted once before... Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 5:35pm
Actually, Manhattan has been the site of several terrorist attacks. The WTC in particular has been attacked twice (1993 & 2001). On Sept. 16, 1920, terrorists set off a bomb in front of the Morgan Bank in Manhattan (the scarred facade was never repaired, so you can still see it). New York, Chicago and other U.S. cities were targeted by multiple terrorist bombings in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
One could fairly argue that the American Revolution encorporated terrorism by blowing up or torching official British buildings and the homes of Loyalists.
We've survived terrorism before, and if we defend and live up to our Constitution, we'll survive this wave as well. If, on the other hand we descend to the level of these terrorists...
Posted by Radscal at 11/09/2007 @ 6:39pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElIjbIY2eeI
Was hsuB prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of thousands of Americans?
No. He choose to vacation and to torture brush. There are other 'intelligent' ways to gather actionable information than using a vacation or torture to prevent another 9/11. Unfortunately we have dumbass molesters in our exec.
"They were both petulant, arrogant, and convinced that they were doing God's work. They were both out-of-control, power-mad leaders. As youngsters, they both enjoyed torturing small animals. Both spent their ruling years engaged in horrific wars against Islamic nations. And despite their cruel, bloodthirsty and savage ways, both have fanatical supporters who defend their actions to this day.
Who am I talking about?
George W. Bush and Vlad The Impaler."
http://tinyurl.com/3azun5
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/09/2007 @ 6:45pm
With 55 votes wrapped up in favor of the nomination, do you get more political value by making a symbolic stand or continue campaigning?
I personally do not like Mukasey at all and see him as a Gonzales-lite AG. But even if the vote were not symbolic, do you really think another failed AG nomination would result in anyone better than Mukasey or the interim AG?
And perhaps more to the point, with only a year left, how much damage can Mukasey really do, especially if impeachment is OFF the table as it appears to be?
Posted by Metteyya at 11/09/2007 @ 6:57pm
i'm now endorsing kucinich
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2007 @ 7:04pm
i'm now endorsing kucinich
Posted by DARLADOON 11/09/2007 @ 7:04pm
What took you so long Darla?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 7:08pm
metteyya, though you make a valid point, i think the american people deserve better. a lot better.
that we're even debating torture is really quite an extraordinary development in american politics....
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2007 @ 7:09pm
b_kool_66.....
took me so long? it's 1 year before the election!
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2007 @ 7:10pm
I'm now endorsing Dennis sounds like you had someone else endorsed prior.
Personally, the only machine politician I could consider voting for is perhaps Edwards. Let's just hope something happens soon to at least shake Hillary out of the running.
Maybe a Hillary sex sca......
No, not likely. Maybe a Hillary campaign finance scandal in light of the recent Nation piece on Hillary's hedge fund supporters?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 7:19pm
well, the field was open. obama or edwards or kucinich.....but not any longer.
i want a man or woman with principles, even ones that may end up 'costing' more. heck, i probably would vote for ron paul (minus his stance on abortion) over edwards or obama....or clinton.
Posted by darladoon at 11/09/2007 @ 7:22pm
I agree.
The candidates I've liked have been Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul --as well as Dodd's stand on the constitution.
Obama's long stretch of saying very little of interest has worn him thin for me, and I've even begun to wonder about his sincerity in light of his foreign policy views --especially regarding Israel where he appears to have taken a Hillary-like cave-in to AIPAC approach.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 7:30pm
On the topic of Blackwater USA here is a very interesting piece by the author of "Murdered by Capitalism", John 'Eye on Mexico' Ross, from Counterpunch today.
excerpt:
Blackwater USA is attracted to the San Diego area because of the heavy concentration of military bases such as Camp Pendleton in the environs that could produce a windfall of security and training contracts from its pals in the Pentagon. Blackwater USA was founded by ex-Navy Seal Eric Prince who cultivates close ties with the military.
One of Blackwater's most rah-rah backers in the Potrero venture is local congressman Duncan Hunter, ranking republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a dark horse candidate for his party's presidential nomination. Hunter is considered one of the most virulent anti-Mexican immigration voices in congress and is a political architect of the separation wall that now lines California's border with Mexico.
The dispute over Blackwater's proposed Potrero training camp is not just a NIMBY-type confrontation. Siting the facility a stone's throw from the Mexican border internationalizes the proposition. By any stretch of the imagination, Mexican president Felipe Calderon ought to be nervous about the encampment of the world's largest private army on his conflictive northern border, particularly one that is not accountable to either the Geneva Convention or U.S. and Mexican military and civil law. Yet Calderon has not publically protested the proposal.
Full text here [counterpunch.org]
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/09/2007 @ 7:51pm
Americans don't deserve democracy. Hell, they don't know what it is.----Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/09/2007 @ 5:07pm
But remember folks, CHIMI is NOT "Anti-America"!
just "anti-Americans"!....heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 7:55pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/09/2007 @ 5:11pm
Hey, Empty....notice you didn't answer the question....
If HSUB is right (don't worry, he isn't), and Gore were to run next year....
would you go out and vote for HIM? Or is he a corporate shill too?
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 7:57pm
We've survived terrorism before, and if we defend and live up to our Constitution, we'll survive this wave as well. If, on the other hand we descend to the level of these terrorists...
Posted by RADSCAL 11/09/2007 @ 6:39pm
congratulations!
you've just won today's medal of sanity!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/09/2007 @ 8:54pm
I'd rather get vaporized than live in a police state. Posted by MTSPENCE05 11/09/2007 @ 6:11pm
How unAmerikan of you! Next, I suppose you'll be saying things like, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death," and "Live Free or Die."
Posted by Radscal at 11/09/2007 @ 9:12pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
for me, I like SPOCKS philosophy...the needs of the mant out weigh the needs of the few"...
You'll recall that Spock sacrificed himself...
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/09/2007 @ 5:52pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 9:46pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/09/2007 @ 5:55pm
Explain to me how it is anything other than fear that brings you to the point where you would sacrifice constitutional principle.
Fear of "Islamofascists".
Fear for the safety of you and your loved ones.
Fear that the bulk of the world's myriad dangers are beyond your control.
Suck it up, Frank. Anyone who purports to guarantee your safety is a fucking liar.
And your talk of testicles borders on the comical.
Posted by drhammer at 11/09/2007 @ 10:33pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 11/09/2007 @ 9:46pm
Okay, new philosophy....I'll sacrifice myself for others....
but they have to bring me back and let me direct the next two movies!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/09/2007 @ 11:03pm
Posted by MASK 11/09/2007 @ 11:03pm
Good work if you can get it. Perhaps that's what some think of as "heaven".
Posted by srjenkins at 11/09/2007 @ 11:37pm
Posted by DARLADOON 11/09/2007 @ 7:09pm
The problem is the same Senate is not able to pass anti-torture legislation that is veto-proof. Which means all of these votes are symbolic.
And do you really think Bush is going to nominate someone with different views if Mukasey had failed? He would just keep nominating the same kind of person and be content with the interim AG who shares his views if his nominations continue to fail.
The problem is with the Democratic leadership and the AIPACers in the Democratic party, in particular. As long as Feinstein, Lieberman and Schumer continue to join the Republicans, nothing is going to change.
The AIPAC-Neocon alliance must be broken first to bring about real change.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/09/2007 @ 11:56pm
But in the face of a definite threat. Yes, do whatever it takes. Take no prosoners. I'd feel the same way if it was you're daughter. Keep in mind that I have a son who served in Iraq and faced the threat of being captured and tortured. This is and was a very real issue for me.
Just for the record, I live in New York. The point is that you can only come up with a justification for torture by posit and absurd hypothetical. You then defend HRCs abstention by citing to that. If she truly astained on such a basis, that is a count against her having the judgement to be president.
Posted by brunowe at 11/10/2007 @ 12:48am
But let's talk torture. Since you highly recommend the practice as being acceptable and inescapable when it comes to utilizing every weapon in your spook-chasing arsenal, let's say I have your firefighting son (who I believe lives in California) and threaten to go medieval on him with some pipes, pliars, blowtorches, powerdrills, hacksaws, glowsticks, rusty machetes, waterboarding, …….But if I wanted to torture LL the demigod I'd simply clone you and lock you and your double in a windowless room while I blasted Slayer and al-Jazeera all day...
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/09/2007 @ 3:52pm |
Ha Mr.Chenga so English is not your first language? Or were you in the throes of a sadomasochism session when you created this very troubling piece? "But let's talk torture" as you say but what relish and chop licking enjoyment, follows; how depraved; how revealing.
You derive far too much pleasure from your gratuitous enumeration of the implements of your pleasurable torture, as you, no doubt, survey that den of iniquity in which, we can only assume, you are chained to one of its wall with pliars (sic) torturously pleasuring your private parts, possibly with a "glow stick" up your backside or those of your accomplice(s).
Have you thought of applying to the US military for some rendition work?
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2007 @ 01:18am
Brunowe is exactly right, Frankgrits.
Furthermore: Justify torture by means of a fantasized and hypothetical nightmare scenario, and you open the door for others to project their own fantasies of fear and control onto the world, as well. Others will justify their own abuses accordingly.
It was thus we paved the road to Abu Ghraib.
Posted by maddox at 11/10/2007 @ 01:59am
Hey now, I think we all rationalize to a certain extent. Both sides rationalize one way or the other that if our nation is ok or not with torture that all-shit will befall us-- just for very different reasons:
One side's argument is- we fear attack therefore torturing the enemy makes us safer. The anti-torture people rationalize that that route will lead us to becoming like our enemy, lower our moral threshold as a civilized people; descend once again to the dark ages where we burn witches and essentially fear our own government and neighbors to a point of innocuous conformity.
The other side's argument is- we will not torture because it is inhumane, cruel, the least accurate form of intel surveillance techniques, makes us cowardly to even consider it. Yet the pro-torture people rationalize that unless our country tortures, sacrificing the few (even if most have been proven to be innocent) is worth our safety and only prudent; without torture vital intel will be lost because it ties up the hands of interrogators, thus allowing another 9/11, the enemy wins and we are forcibly converted to radical Islam.
UUuhhmmm, so which is it? Both are emotional, both are rationalized to a certain extent, both based on human nature-- in that one reminds us of what we survived and the other of what we want to attain beyond survival, how we want to survive.
Everything being local and personal, I look at my daughters and think of how do I want them to remember me. What kind of a world do I want to leave them: Is it one that is worthy, that I wish they would want to fight for or one in which they must succumb to? Will they see me as one that would fight to the death to protect them or one that would poke at a weaker person to create a fight, a bully?
If I were a bully, naturally I would want to hide that from my daughters, not wanting to be remembered in that way. Plus I would not want them to emulate me, go around picking on others as I cannot be around them 24/7 to protect them from all my enemies much less the ones they create; plus there's always someone bigger, as they say. Thus as a bully I am setting up my daughters for a downfall.
If I am not afraid to fight to protect my daughters, I live with confidence wherever I go and in whatever I do with them and everyone knows I am not afraid and neither are my daughters. My neighbors know that they can count on me also and I them. When I am dead, I know my daughters will help and be willing to fight beside others if they have to and will take care and be taken care of as well.
So as a bully I am scared for several reasons of the enemies I create. And as a courageous person of moral service I live and die unafraid.
Wow, that's some choice.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2007 @ 11:44am
Moral of the story: A bully will never win because even if the bully kills all enemies, it is in the bully's nature to create more enemies. The courageous individual is strong and thus respectful of others, being a role-model to emulate, creates strong bonds of friendship everywhere.
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2007 @ 11:57am
The courageous individual's enemy is usually defeated before an attack occurs because the enemy realizes that one unprovoked attack on a courageous individual is an attack on all courageous individuals, courageous friends everywhere and unwinable. Thus a bully will not normally attack a courage individual with lots of courageous friends, but will attack other weaker bullies.
Thus our dilemma, how can our nation be courageous with bullies in the our HW?
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2007 @ 12:26pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 11/10/2007 @ 12:36am |
Is her name "Avra" (your sister in law)?
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2007 @ 1:56pm
Maybe instead of having newly elected officials swear in their oath of office to "defend the Constitution," we ought to have them openly acknowledge what appears to be their true feelings about that "quaint" document by letting them just swear AT it. Either way, the oath seems to mean nothing to them anymore.
Posted by lawlessone at 11/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
Maybe instead of having newly elected officials swear in their oath of office to "defend the Constitution," we ought to have them openly acknowledge what appears to be their true feelings about that "quaint" document by letting them just swear AT it. Either way, the oath seems to mean nothing to them anymore.
Posted by lawlessone at 11/10/2007 @ 3:09pm
The not so weird symmetrically transformational adoration of a bully:
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Nov. 1-5, 2007. N=1,509 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5. RV = registered voters. LV = likely voters. Except where noted, results below are among all adults.
"Now I'm going to read you the names of several public figures and organizations, and I'd like you to rate your feelings toward each one as either very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, or very negative. If you don't know the name, please just say so. George W. Bush."
Date___________Very Pos____Some Pos_____Neutral____Some Neg___Very Neg__ Unsure
11/1-5/07_________17___(34)__17 ________ 10________14___(56)__41_______1
12/8-11/06________19___(38)__19_________10________15___(52)__37_______-
10/8-10/05________21___(41)__20 ________ 11________17___(48)__31_______-
10/16-18/04_______36___(50)__14__________6________13___(44)__31_______-
5/03_____________ 41___(63)__22 _________ 9________10___(28)__17_______1
6/02_____________ 43___(71)__27_________11________10___(19)___9_______-
12/01____________ 54___(80)__26 _________ 9_________6___(11)___5_______-
1/01_____________ 25___(50)__25_________18________13___(32)__17_______2
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/10/2007 @ 3:14pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/10/2007 @ 3:14pm
As always HSUB, your data is inarguable....nobody can dispute that..
George Bush will find it nigh impossible to get re-elected with those kind of numbers!
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2007 @ 7:44pm
This was a disappointing article. The article singled out the wrong senators. The crux of the issue wasn't those "Not voting" or those who voted "Nay," or but those that voted "Yea."
Clearly Schumer (D-NY) and Feinstein (D-CA) telegraphed their votes already from the Committee results.
Lieberman (CT), the alleged "independent," has lied enough to foretell which way he was going to vote.
So the "shame" for voting "Yea" falls upon the following senators: Bayh (D-IN) Carper (D-DE) Landrieu (D-LA) Nelson (D-NE) These are the senators the author should be addressing.
Our nation needs leaders with integrity, leaders willing to stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law, yet these are the senators that failed the American people along with the entire senate minority with the exception of Alexander (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), and McCain (R-AZ) that also did not vote like Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), and Obama (D-IL).
Probably a more interesting article would have been an article addressing why Alexander (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), and McCain (R-AZ) did not vote with the rest of the minority?
Again, the issue is who voted "Yea." Those voting "Yea" are the ones that failed to represent the people and support and defend our Constitution.
Posted by Madeka at 11/10/2007 @ 9:28pm
Bush will find it nigh impossible to get re-elected with those kind of numbers!
Posted by MASK 11/10/2007 @ 7:44pm
Frita still has her Friday night blond wig on.
hsuB don't need no stinkin election, hsuB's a stinkin dic'tator...
Posted by hsuBfools at 11/11/2007 @ 02:23am