Tim,

The committee chairmen when the GOP controlled Congress.

You know, of course, there is an eerie parallel between Watergate and what’s unfolding before us. A trickle of information that builds and builds. Eventually the MSM will get the scent of blood and they’ll let loose the Whippets. This would be delicious if it didn’t reflect a world-wide tragedy.

Is their justice? Is their accountability? We shall see.

Interesting that the article in the NYT does not clarify which lawmakers were privy to that information. It is my guess that the list would include Dems as well as Republicans and this is why there is no listing. Poor reporting throughout this piece with plenty of references to off record comments and anonymous sources. It is hard to trust the NYT’s anymore and clearly they have had it in for this administration from the beginning. Hard reporting should include hard, documented facts.

Man,

You mean like Woodward and Bernstein when they exposed Watergate?

In watergate there was a breakin, a crime, for the purpose of re-election. In this there is an allegation of “enhanced interrogation” to get information from those who would like to fly a plane into the shopping mall your kids go to on weekends. See the difference? The people who cut the heads off of our jounalists like Daniel Pearl would laugh at water boarding, or slapping, as being torture.

Merk,

They’ve already done that.

The argument that a ‘slap in the face’ for the ‘greater good’ may sound plausible, but the issue here is that no one can be trusted to refrain from excess. That’s been demonstrated repeatedly by our own people. And if the administration can wink and look away, they are tacitly telling people who have NO business interrogating, that ‘anything goes.’

These ‘rules’ that we argue have not been defined capriceously (sic). They have evolved over the years from experience. Experience that has revealed that even the best of people can not be left without restrictions. The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions.

As to the ‘they are worse,’ argument, I really wish you wouldn’t go there. Again, history has shown that ‘rationales’ like that lead to atrocities of the worst kind. The standards by which this country has tried to establish its greatness do not allow for such lapses of discipline. It is a precursor to collapse. Please reference all the ‘empires’ who came before for substantiation.

If you read the article it is pointed out that everytime the courts or congress has acted against the administration, they have changed tactics to comply. They are, perhaps, flirting with the edge but have not crossed the line of legality. And it is being done to protect the citizens, not to advance a personal gain.

you can be certain there are dems as well as republicans on that list. The authorization to use force in iraq was an almost unanimous vote in both chambers, same with the patriot act and other laws that should not have seen the floor, much less voted on.
I’m very concerned that the corporations have thoroughly influenced all politicians and their staffs into a myopia that only allows them to see their own selfish interests with a penchant for winning at any and all costs.

The problem with allowing your security services to use torture on others, regardless of their perceived involvement, is that it gives the torturers the impetus to separate themselves from their humanity and moral fiber, and a precedent that gives them the justification and moral numbness to carry out the same tactics on their own population.

Jed:

“The problem with allowing your security services to use torture on others, regardless of their perceived involvement, is that it gives the torturers the impetus to separate themselves from their humanity and moral fiber, and a precedent that gives them the justification and moral numbness to carry out the same tactics on their own population.”

This could also be said of the exectutioner in society. The real question though is are talking about real torture or as the administration puts it enhanced interrogation? There is a difference between water boarding etc. and pulling out fingernails.

Man,

I’ll leave it to the rest of the world to digest your ‘wisdom,’ save for one question.

How in the HELL do you know?

i dont see how a botched burglary and a failed cover up compare to torture and denial of rights of the Geneva convention and The Constitution. Watergate seems like a prank compared.

what powerful responses!! i must say it’s a fine day to exist in cyberspace with most of you.
the down side is mr. taibbi running in front of his own writing. all the pretense and self importance gets to be a drag.

glad we could please you Mr. Mcnary.

Despite the fact that I can see where Dennis and Jed are coming from regarding the moral question of torture and the setting of a dangerous precedent, if a situation arose where a terrorist knew of an imminent attack on a U.S. city and was in U.S. custody, I want a president in office that would be willing to use torture to get that information out of the terrorist in order to save American lives.
I know that this is an unpopular view, but I think it is necessary. The rights provided under Geneva Conventions didn’t stop terrorists from sawing off the heads of Nicholas Berg and dozens of others.

Somewhere: And torturing isn’t going to stop them from sawing off heads either.
Why not offer them all kinds of ‘rewards’ for offering the intelligence? Why is ‘torture’ the ONLY way to get information out of people who are perpetrated to be ‘terrorists’??

And, another thing. This whole “kill americans” rhetoric is being used quite fraudulently. You DO REALIZE that when the president says it, he’s talking about the americans on foreign soil. He’s not talking about the people in America, or he’d be doing more to protect the borders/ports.

SitM,
What does “The rights provided under Geneva Conventions didn’t stop terrorists from sawing off the heads of Nicholas Berg and dozens of others.” have to do with whether or not we should use torture?

Lets make this clear. Torture should be used to help save lives. NOT get revenge. If a person is to the point where they are unable to be reformed back into society then by all means kill them or lock them away for life, but hurting them just for the sake of hurting them is about the last thing a moral country should endorse.

Quite simply, the only rational way to determine whether or not torture is acceptable is to measure the chance of getting information that will prevent more innocents from being harmed and compare it to the harm being done to the individual being tortured. Sounds cold and calculating? It is, but it would result in the best outcome on average.

It certainly makes more sense than rejecting any form of torture against even the most obviously guilty high profile terrorists who very likely know logistical information about the groups they work for. It also makes more sense than torturing detainees that aren’t even proven to be ‘enemy combatants’.

Definition – I completely agree that this President has failed miserably at securing the border and the ports.
But as far as providing “rewards” to terrorists for information, we cannot provide them the pipedream they’ve been promised by the false prophets and liars that espouse radical islam. For six years now we’ve been offering a $25 million reward for Bin Laden and got nothing. These are religious fanatics and worldly possessions mean nothing to them.

Midman,

Careful. How do you know ‘we’ are offering $25M for bin Laden? Because Bushney says so? Think about that for a sec or so.

Two things about torture: 1) people will say ANYTHING to make it stop (I will; you will) 2) terrorists operate in cells so no one knows anything about anyone else. They have NO information.

But that doesn’t stop our snoops. Ask yourself, what kind of person goes into this kind of work? If a person WANTS to work for the CIA, they should be taken out back and pistol-whipped. Then sent home.

Somewhere: How do you know that offering them things won’t work? Sure, it’s not 73 virgins, but why shouldn’t it be looked at as a trade-off. Nobody’s answering the fundamental question: Why is torture the ONLY way?

Dirty D – I understand that many do not trust the Bush Administration, but I honestly do not believe for one second that a) they are not offering a reward for Bin Laden or b) they don’t want to find Bin Laden because then they can’t milk the “terror” threat in the elections. That would be the equivalent of Dems not wanting to find a solution to Global Warming because they want to use that to gain votes.
I understand that under torture people will admit to anything (I’m sure that many of those murdered by the Catholic Church in Spain during the Inquisition were not heretics despite their “confessions”). I also understand that with cells, the left hand doesn’t always know what the right hand is up to. But a high-profile target like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, would be able to provide significant information about an operation. Regardless, if putting some jihadi through harsh interrogation could save American lives, I would support it, as Dem golden boy Bill Clinton has stated he would.
As for the CIA, I think the people that take that job are admirable. I’m sure there are some bad apples in the bunch, just as there are with any job. But they are willing to walk into extremely dangerous situations for the good of the country.

Definition IS – What would you suggest we offer them? We’ve tried offering huge sums of money which have gotten us nowhere. What I don’t think you understand is that worldly possessions mean nothing to terrorists. We as a society are so materialistic, I think it is tough to comprehend how someone could not share those same wants. In the documentary film, Obsession, a radical Muslim cleric says that “Americans love life, we love death,” which speaks volumes. For them, the greatest honor is to become a martyr and spend eternity in paradise (and yes the 72 virgins). There is no “trade-off,” there is no compromise. They are fanatics and one cannot reason with a fanatic. If someone can come up with a better way, I’d be all for it, but unfortunately in this case, I don’t think there is one.

Dirty D – I don’t know what ads are running in the media outlets in the Middle East in reference to the reward for Bin Laden’s head. I can’t imagine Al-Jazeera would be willing to donate air time to the US government in order to advertise a $25 million bounty on Bin Laden’s head. That aside, as far as Bushney goes, I don’t think it is this evil administration. I think they’ve made significant mistakes, and not just with the war, but with policies, spending, etc. But I think the yahoos that walk around with signs saying “Bush is the world’s worst terrorist” are either severely mentally retarded or completely refuse to live in reality.
What happened at Abu Ghraib was criminal and those responsible have been held accountable for their actions. I don’t think that what happened there was torture for the sake of information as much as it was a bunch of pathetic, immature, losers humiliating others to compensate for their own pathetic existence.
Finally, the Bill Clinton remark was not intended to be a derisive label. I don’t personally hold the man in high esteem (although I’m sure if I met him, he would charm the pants off of me), but he is the quintessential politician. He is the Dems golden boy, and if Hillary wins, it will be more because of him and his appeal, than her. I really truly believe that

Ole,

So, you would stop trying. Or is it you would rather leave it to the folks who have already demonstrated their expertise in this matter? You can be facetious all you want but it’s for DAMNED sure Plan A isn’t working. What’s that? B and C, too?

Midman,

I don’t know from amounts, but if all $25M is all they think the folks who died on 9/11 are worth, then I can see why they’re having so much ‘success.’ I think the war in Iraq is presently churning along at $100K a minute. Just as a matter of perspective.

I’m not sure I’d characterize Bushney as ‘evil’ either but the road to perdition IS paved with good intentions. Not that I would credit the Cheney portion of Bushney with any good intentions, other than for himself or his ilk.

It would appear you have a narrower definition of terror than I. I would imagine there are a LOT of folks, say, millions, in Iraq who have felt terror just about every day in the past few years. And you don’t think Bushney deserves a LITTLE bit of credit for instilling that terror in them? How many people in this country have felt terror (from without) the past few years? Just wondering.

I guess I’m not a ‘Dem’ ‘cause Slick Willie was never ‘my boy.’ But I voted for him and would do so again. His IQ is greater than the past three GOP Prez’, combined. But his greatest legacy is he didn’t screw things up. That’s what affairs have come to in this country. He recognized it was the economy and played the game with that thought foremost in mind. He had a LOT of good luck with the dot com explosion, but the fact remains, he didn’t screw up.

No, I wouldn’t stop trying. I would be all over it as I imagine our spooks and the people in their pay are. I just wouldn’t utilize the kind of channels of communication that I am assuming you are implying when you used said “any and all media.” Your emphasis on cost seemed to imply to me some sort of Madison-Avenue advertising firm and spots on all the major networks, etc. etc. Additionally, it seemed as if your incredulity was based on the fact that you have not been on the receiving end of this effort to advertise the reward-offer. I would tend to think that the best way to get the most of such an offer would be a continued targetting of an audience with the highest probability of coming into contact with UBL, for example, people living in Waziristan, as opposed to Wisconsin. I think that even Al Jazeera is probably the wrong channel of communication to utilize in this effort. I think that this probably has to be a word of mouth thing, possibly fliers dropped from aircraft. Although, maybe the internet has unexplored possibilities. Yahoo HotJobs?

All this debate over why we haven’t caught BinLaden?

The CIA has had him cornered on many occassions, while waiting for the okay to pull the trigger.

There are some people ‘in the pay’ that do NOT want him dead, obviously.

It’s obviously hard for some people to believe in those kinds of ‘conspiracies’. But, as our short history has shown us, conspiracies are VERY prevelant. But, somehow, not THIS administration?

Somehow, the patented response of the deniers became “the world’s a much more complicated place. You’re just being cynical.”

A second look into the last 50 years would expose quite a few conspiracies involving foreign policy and civil rights. And none of them, NONE OF THEM, compare to this invasion of Iraq/global war on terror.

Arby,

As I alluded to in the familial connections, I have no problem with the notion of, for lack of a better term, conspiracy. There have been enough acts of perfidy in the history of this country to make even the wildest of assertions plausible. What do you suggest? The nature of a ‘democratic republic’ (Ole’s term) is such that we are rendered feckless when it comes to issues. ESPECIALLY if you have no ‘clout’ (read, $$$$, Jed’s refrain).

We select our representatives and hope they do our bidding. Oftener than not, they don’t. We hope, too, that enough of them have the integrity and huevos to reign in the miscreants. We have ample evidence that our hopes are dashed on that level as well.

And given that enough of the myopic manipulated have been convinced to vote for the Right these past twenty years, we have a court top-loaded with ‘Right thinking’ ideologues to ensure success for the regime.

PS I believe the folks you say don’t want him dead, actually do. Alive and captured, he’s more dangerous. Hell, to Al Qaeda he’s only an inspiration and cash cow. Alive, they’d be hard pressed to keep him quiet and a lot of us would like to hear some of what he has to say.

Ole,

‘Administratio n Speak.’ You work for some Right Wing think tank, don’t you. Your ‘position’ is party line all the way. It’s especially insightful that you don’t even address the main issue. YOUR plan isn’t working. Unless, of course, you think six years is not enough time. You can milk that one for a while and then lapse, easily, into the fallback position of, “…it’s a complicated world,” (nod to Arby) or “…it’s not as easy as you naïve folks would like to believe.”

I expect your retort to include the protestation that you were making light. If one laces their discourse with enough innuendo, that door is always available. The cynical darkness you champion somehow believes the notion of ‘light.’ To wit, “Drop some bombs and kill the people.”

Regarding ‘drop some bombs and kill the people’ MCP editted a post that would have provided a bit more context.

I thought that I addressed the issue quite thoroughly. I really don’t know what the alternative to the strategy that I briefly outlined is – regarding advertising the price on UBL’s head. I just don’t think using mainstream media outlets is really going to be effective. I wouldn’t doubt that there is more that could be done to get the message out, but I’m at a loss as to what this might entail and not sure that it is even necessary. I strongly believe that he will be caught. I think that it is highly probable that he will make a mistake a some point that will render him vulnerable. In fact we know this has happened on several occasions already. At some point, the forces that are pursuing him will capitalize on one of these opportunities. This is probably the best policy. I think that the odds tend to be stacked against fugitives.

I also think that a massive marshaling of inteligence assets to focus on one man would be a boon to would be terrorists who could use such a distraction to their advantage.

DD-
You are the cynical one. You are the one who insists that the unwashed masses can not provide for themselves without the loving support of some government-mediated redistribution of wealth.

that’s not at all what he’s said, nice try at dissembling though. what is being said is that those that fall on hard times should have a safety net to get them back on their feet.
Unfortunately, the system was changed into some amorphous blob that makes people into permanent dependants… kind of like wal-mart, who has become so dependant on tax abatement that it will not open a store in a community without seriously reducing it’s tax burden. When you think about it, this goes totally against the constitution that demands that all taxes be levied fairly and equally. Nothing evidences that wal-mart has an actuall NEED for this special treatment.

Ole,

I insist!!??!! On what!!??!!

You’ll have to forgive me if I gave that impression. Please point out where I did that and I will issue an apology.

By the by, I AM cynical, but NOT towards the great unwashed. I may not want to sit in a car with a half-dozen of them on a hot summer’s day, but I enjoy sharing a beer with them and laughing at the fear that emanates from them what’s afraid to lose what they’ve got.

I save my cynicism for politicians who tout traditional American values and then walk all over those same values. For corporations that accept government money and then lobby that same government for legislation favorable to their economic needs, the populace be damned. For politicians who start wars, fought by the great unwashed, in which the ONLY parties benefiting are the vultures of war. (And I think you know who THEY are.) For doctors who want to ‘see’ me frequently because I have Blue Cross. For people who use patriotism for political ends. For people who defend barbarous aggression as ‘realpolitik.’ In short, I save my cynicism for hypocrites.

PS Sorry you got axed. Would like to have read it. You must have said something REAL bad. Off Topic?

DD-
By ‘insist’ I mean repeated trumpetting of goverment intervention as the best solution to social injustice.

“When you think about it, this goes totally against the constitution that demands that all taxes be levied fairly and equally.”

Agreed, but before we do something about Walmart, I think we need to address the problem that 5% of the taxpayers are shouldering 50% of the federal tax burden, or if you prefer, 20%, paying 70%. Very inequitable and unfair.

funny, I always thought that the more you make, the more you have to pay in taxes.
If you are making millions off of your business while you pay the 5 employees that actually create the value only $60k collectively, how can you expect them to pay the same amount in taxes that you do?
I realize you would want to pay the same amount of taxes as those that only made $12k and have twisted legislation to make it possible, but is it fair?
Well, if it’s fair for 5% of the population to control %80 of the wealth, does it not follow that they would carry a greater tax burden?

Oh wait, you ignored that part of the equation on purpose in order to radicalize your view. BRILLIANT!!!

Ole,

You sure have a hard time understanding me. Is it my poor communication skills? Are you from Pluto and I from Mercury?

If I said that government intervention is the ‘best’ solution to social injustice, I apologize. I meant no such thing. Government intervention is the ONLY solution to social injustice. I hope this clears it up for you and I WILL try to be more explicit in the future.

I like that, pluto and mercury.

Mercury, firstborn of sol, father of the solar system. closest to teh father, fast as a speedy gonzales and definately part of the family.

Pluto, recently demoted to subplanet and according to some theories probably not even an original member of he planetary family. Slow, cold and distant.

I think the analogy fits quite well.

I was pointing out to you, Jed, that the terms ‘equally’ and ‘fairly’ are open to much interpretation. One might interpret equally to mean an equal percentage, another person might interpret it to mean an equal sum. Fairly is an even bigger can of worms. Also, if someone were making ‘millions’ while they paid there workers a paltry $60K, the market would sort that imbalance out very quickly. If you don’t accept that, then I challenge you to find one example where that is the case. You said ‘millions’ – I’ll stipulate 2 millions, find one example of a public company out there where a person with a significant ownership-stake is making that much more than the entire sum or labor-expenditures – i.e. a 2mil:60K ratio. There is plenty of data on the web, I am very confident that you won’t find a single case, but go ahead, don’t take my word for it. Do the analysis yourself. You say that I am dissembling…look at the way you manufacture figures to support your claims. You have no basis in fact to make such exagerated claims.

Jeez Ole, read a little closer. He said FIVE employees make $60K. Now, are you SURE you’d like to make your challenge? And WHAT are the stakes?

Could it be that you are actually reading challenged and it’s NOT my poor communication skills that leads you to such erroneous conclusions? You’re certainly making a case for it.

If you like, I’ll start using mono-syllables and try to avoid the use of compound sentences, they required the maintaining of two, simultaneous thoughts.

Jed,

I’d be more of a phony than I already am if I took credit for any of the imagination you portrayed. Venus and Mars have already been used and Jupiter and Saturn are too big. That didn’t leave much.

I’d like to think that in the deep, dark recesses of my limited resources ’something’ prompted me to select the planets I did in the relationship(s) you diagramed. But it was unbeknownst to me, I assure you.

I love that you’re that deep. Maybe next time I can be deep too.