When you start pulling at a piece of thread......
April 16, 2009 3:56 AM Subscribe
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: -
The interview was conducted by Avi Lewis for his program "Fault Lines".
"They Tortured" "Maybe I should have Resigned".It is not certain whether this interview will be aired in the US because cable and satellite providers have declined to work with Al Jazeera English.
The interview was conducted by Avi Lewis for his program "Fault Lines".
I'm glad he admits it, but the controlling and defining organization, the International Red Cross, already says that torture happened. All we need now is indictments. Armitage isn't having a change of heart, he's taking advantage of the lull before the storm to cover his ass.
posted by DU at 5:03 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by DU at 5:03 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Love that shit. He didn't know. Hell, I knew. I guess that during the period when Armitage was Deputy Secretary of State, I was just more engaged with politics than he was. He was probably getting more done on his graduate degree though, so I guess it all balances out.
I also love the whole "looking forward" thing. Oh god, just let me use it once. I'll just rob ONE bank, and we can all look forward to making sure that no one robs any more banks, rather than pointlessly wasting time with trials. Like, we could pass laws against robbing banks, so that it's illegal in the future. Right now, the law is too murky ---who knows where the line is??? I promise my robbery will cost significantly less than a few $trillion, and no one will die. Okay, maybe, like, a couple guys, if a security guard looks at me funny, or I need to show I'm in charge. But no one important, and no naked pyramids, for sure.
posted by Humanzee at 5:08 AM on April 16, 2009 [16 favorites]
I also love the whole "looking forward" thing. Oh god, just let me use it once. I'll just rob ONE bank, and we can all look forward to making sure that no one robs any more banks, rather than pointlessly wasting time with trials. Like, we could pass laws against robbing banks, so that it's illegal in the future. Right now, the law is too murky ---who knows where the line is??? I promise my robbery will cost significantly less than a few $trillion, and no one will die. Okay, maybe, like, a couple guys, if a security guard looks at me funny, or I need to show I'm in charge. But no one important, and no naked pyramids, for sure.
posted by Humanzee at 5:08 AM on April 16, 2009 [16 favorites]
I predict that as a result of this, and indeed the whole series of events, nothing of any consequence will happen to anyone of consequence. I'll even take bets.
posted by Dysk at 5:08 AM on April 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 5:08 AM on April 16, 2009 [8 favorites]
Admissions like this don't provide any ass cover. At best the admissions are occurring because they think that now is the most favorable time to be charged given the traditional leniency of democratic leaders trying to appear to tough.
posted by srboisvert at 5:10 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by srboisvert at 5:10 AM on April 16, 2009
Can the US be charged in international court, even if Congress takes no action?
posted by DU at 5:15 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by DU at 5:15 AM on April 16, 2009
At best the admissions are occurring because they think that now is the most favorable time to be charged given the traditional leniency of democratic leaders trying to appear to tough.
Naw. Someone's got to be tossed under the bus as a way of redirecting attention from the fecal matter based weather system. He's going with the idea that if he's 1st the bus will be light in weight and without direction as it starts to move so the damage to him will be minimal. Once everyone is on the bus and the chanting mob inspires a direction - you won't wanna get with that bus.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:16 AM on April 16, 2009
Naw. Someone's got to be tossed under the bus as a way of redirecting attention from the fecal matter based weather system. He's going with the idea that if he's 1st the bus will be light in weight and without direction as it starts to move so the damage to him will be minimal. Once everyone is on the bus and the chanting mob inspires a direction - you won't wanna get with that bus.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:16 AM on April 16, 2009
Brother Dysk: " nothing of any consequence will happen to anyone of consequence"
Oh, I don't know. There may be a sternly worded letter at some point.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:18 AM on April 16, 2009 [4 favorites]
Oh, I don't know. There may be a sternly worded letter at some point.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:18 AM on April 16, 2009 [4 favorites]
Also, I really love the defeatism and cynicism in this thread and on this topic generally. If history has shown us anything, it's that the best route to results is low expectations.
posted by DU at 5:24 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by DU at 5:24 AM on April 16, 2009
DU: " I really love the defeatism and cynicism in this thread"
No one ever went broke betting on American exceptionalism.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:28 AM on April 16, 2009 [7 favorites]
No one ever went broke betting on American exceptionalism.
posted by Joe Beese at 5:28 AM on April 16, 2009 [7 favorites]
The American Left has used snide remarks and sarcasm to try to effect policy change for at least 50 years. Hasn't done much good so far. Maybe it's time to try something else?
posted by DU at 5:30 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by DU at 5:30 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
DU: "The American Left has used snide remarks and sarcasm to try to effect policy change for at least 50 years. Hasn't done much good so far."
Like the snide remarks and sarcasm directed at them when they vote for a third party that actually wants policy change? [As opposed to just having our guy rather than theirs running the empire.]
posted by Joe Beese at 5:41 AM on April 16, 2009
Like the snide remarks and sarcasm directed at them when they vote for a third party that actually wants policy change? [As opposed to just having our guy rather than theirs running the empire.]
posted by Joe Beese at 5:41 AM on April 16, 2009
DU wrote: The American Left has used snide remarks and sarcasm to try to effect policy change for at least 50 years.
That's not quite fair. The civil rights movement has had some major accomplishments (culturally, if not so much economically) in the last 50 years. When real leftists get uppity, "American" leftists get all nervous and wonder why they can't just shut up and be ... civilized.
It seems like right now the "American" left has decided to try fetishizing Obama and bipartisanship. It's tough for those few who might pass for leftists outside the U.S. What do you do when you have conversations with so-called liberals who have a "let bygones be bygones" approach to dealing with confessed war criminals, or find Bush's authoritarian policies palatable when they're carried out by Obama?
I've recently been reading "A People's History of the United States", and it's really impressive how often torch-wielding mobs managed to get real change in the early days. That was before we had a professional military to put an end to that shit. Now we have votes, and words. On the voting front, last election I had the choice between an eloquent imperialist who stood for rebranding the status quo as "change", and a crazy old imperialist who sang songs about bombing Iran. I swallowed deep and voted for more of the change. I guess maybe some progress could be made emphasizing local elections. Leaving us with words. Maybe bitter sarcasm can be a kind of quorum sensing?
posted by Humanzee at 5:48 AM on April 16, 2009 [5 favorites]
That's not quite fair. The civil rights movement has had some major accomplishments (culturally, if not so much economically) in the last 50 years. When real leftists get uppity, "American" leftists get all nervous and wonder why they can't just shut up and be ... civilized.
It seems like right now the "American" left has decided to try fetishizing Obama and bipartisanship. It's tough for those few who might pass for leftists outside the U.S. What do you do when you have conversations with so-called liberals who have a "let bygones be bygones" approach to dealing with confessed war criminals, or find Bush's authoritarian policies palatable when they're carried out by Obama?
I've recently been reading "A People's History of the United States", and it's really impressive how often torch-wielding mobs managed to get real change in the early days. That was before we had a professional military to put an end to that shit. Now we have votes, and words. On the voting front, last election I had the choice between an eloquent imperialist who stood for rebranding the status quo as "change", and a crazy old imperialist who sang songs about bombing Iran. I swallowed deep and voted for more of the change. I guess maybe some progress could be made emphasizing local elections. Leaving us with words. Maybe bitter sarcasm can be a kind of quorum sensing?
posted by Humanzee at 5:48 AM on April 16, 2009 [5 favorites]
That was before we had a professional military to put an end to that shit.
Technically illegal and in any case I think a more powerful deterrent to direct action is the "Seriousness Test". Dirty F'ing Hippies aren't allowed to talk about policy. A Dirty F'ing Hippie is anyone who points out rightwing BS.
posted by DU at 5:52 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Technically illegal and in any case I think a more powerful deterrent to direct action is the "Seriousness Test". Dirty F'ing Hippies aren't allowed to talk about policy. A Dirty F'ing Hippie is anyone who points out rightwing BS.
posted by DU at 5:52 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
DU: if the US had a proper left wing I could support with my words, I would. Since it does not, I'll just fling shit at the right. Okay?
posted by Dysk at 5:56 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 5:56 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can the US be charged in international court, even if Congress takes no action?
Individuals (rather than the entire US) are definitely vulnerable to getting charged in a foreign court, like has happened to Pinochet and a few other high-profile defendants. Since the chances of the US extraditing former Bush officials to a Spanish or other overseas court to face torture charges is basically zero, the practical impact is going to be that a fairly small set of Bush officials and advisers will not be able to travel easily to some countries, so as to avoid being served papers and/or arrested.
It's small potatoes compared to actually being tortured, much less imprisoned for your crimes, but even the small indignity of not being able to travel freely is better than nothing.
posted by Forktine at 5:56 AM on April 16, 2009
Individuals (rather than the entire US) are definitely vulnerable to getting charged in a foreign court, like has happened to Pinochet and a few other high-profile defendants. Since the chances of the US extraditing former Bush officials to a Spanish or other overseas court to face torture charges is basically zero, the practical impact is going to be that a fairly small set of Bush officials and advisers will not be able to travel easily to some countries, so as to avoid being served papers and/or arrested.
It's small potatoes compared to actually being tortured, much less imprisoned for your crimes, but even the small indignity of not being able to travel freely is better than nothing.
posted by Forktine at 5:56 AM on April 16, 2009
Armitage? Let me tell you about Armitage. (All links in Dutch)
First, he told Dutch press that a) the Dutch govt's political support for the US invasion of Iraq "helped" in getting Dutch former FM De Hoop Scheffer appointed as NATO SG and that b) the US had "absolutely" submitted a request with the Netherlands for military support. Both had always been denied by The Hague.
Then, PM Balkenende basically said, "no such thing happened".
Finally, quelle surprise, Armitage withdrew his statement.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:05 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
First, he told Dutch press that a) the Dutch govt's political support for the US invasion of Iraq "helped" in getting Dutch former FM De Hoop Scheffer appointed as NATO SG and that b) the US had "absolutely" submitted a request with the Netherlands for military support. Both had always been denied by The Hague.
Then, PM Balkenende basically said, "no such thing happened".
Finally, quelle surprise, Armitage withdrew his statement.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:05 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
I've been in Asia ten weeks now and watch Al Jazeera every chance I get. Because it's slightly less boring than BBC Asia, and they actually have the balls to roast anyone that appears on their shows. The cable/satellite providers over here also have Fox and CNN on the roster, but after you've watched five minutes of a non-US news broadcast and then switch back to one of the aforementioned propaganda outlets, you begin to realize how easy it was to get ourselves in the mess[es] we're in.
posted by jsavimbi at 6:07 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by jsavimbi at 6:07 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
Maybe he's hoping his contrition will gain him some points with his personal G*d when he dies. It doesn't do much for me.
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:07 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Devils Rancher at 6:07 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
DU: if the US had a proper left wing I could support with my words, I would.
Millions of Americans, all without a movement to join.
posted by DU at 6:13 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
Millions of Americans, all without a movement to join.
posted by DU at 6:13 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
In other news Spain rejects US 'torture' probe .
posted by adamvasco at 6:14 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by adamvasco at 6:14 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
DU: I'm not an American, and am involved with a few movements to varying degrees in my country of residence and origin, thanks.
posted by Dysk at 6:21 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by Dysk at 6:21 AM on April 16, 2009
Armitage tried to have it both ways in that interview. He said that alright, but he kept saying as well that he didn't know. And yet he has a hard time avoiding slipping up there because he as much as admitted he DID know.
The person who disappoints me the worst on this, however, is Colin Powell. He was in on those torture meetings and he should have quit and he should have told the truth about what was going on and he did not.
And his excuse is pretty poor - that he'd do better staying there trying to stop it. Armitage said almost the same thing. What was there to stop if he didn't know?
As far as I'm concerned, this statement by Armitage is too little too late and Colin Powell is guilty, too, because he knew and kept his mouth shut.
Both Armitage and Powell are the Albert Spears of the Bush Administration - lying to themselves as well as to us.
posted by Tena at 6:27 AM on April 16, 2009
The person who disappoints me the worst on this, however, is Colin Powell. He was in on those torture meetings and he should have quit and he should have told the truth about what was going on and he did not.
And his excuse is pretty poor - that he'd do better staying there trying to stop it. Armitage said almost the same thing. What was there to stop if he didn't know?
As far as I'm concerned, this statement by Armitage is too little too late and Colin Powell is guilty, too, because he knew and kept his mouth shut.
Both Armitage and Powell are the Albert Spears of the Bush Administration - lying to themselves as well as to us.
posted by Tena at 6:27 AM on April 16, 2009
It always amazes me that some Americans can look at the last eight years of government and then argue that there's no difference between the two parties. Are you blind?
posted by mhoye at 6:36 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 6:36 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
The American left. The truth of the matter is that we are a bunch of pussies.
posted by notreally at 6:41 AM on April 16, 2009
You can say that turning the military on civilians is illegal, but it ABSOLUTELY happened in the past ( The Posse Comitatus Act didn't pass until after the Civil War). And now we have the National Guard, as well as militarized police forces that are far deadlier than the militias were back in the early days of the U.S. We won't turn the Army on mobs, because there's no need to. If there ever became a need to, Posse Comitatus would go bye-bye.
Powell got lots of practice lying to cover up war crimes in Viet Nam.
Hrmm... I'm looking for someone who said there's no difference. Can't find one. Care to point out who said that? What happened is, we criticized both parties, because they both deserve criticism.
posted by Humanzee at 6:44 AM on April 16, 2009
Powell got lots of practice lying to cover up war crimes in Viet Nam.
Hrmm... I'm looking for someone who said there's no difference. Can't find one. Care to point out who said that? What happened is, we criticized both parties, because they both deserve criticism.
posted by Humanzee at 6:44 AM on April 16, 2009
mhoye, I'm not claiming that there's no difference - just that you get the choice between the right, and then the radically extreme right. No doubt that the right is better than the extreme right, but it's no left wing.
posted by Dysk at 6:45 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by Dysk at 6:45 AM on April 16, 2009
The politics of failure have failed! We must make them work again!
posted by blue_beetle at 6:56 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by blue_beetle at 6:56 AM on April 16, 2009
The American Left has used snide remarks and sarcasm to try to effect policy change for at least 50 years. Hasn't done much good so far. Maybe it's time to try something else?
50 years ago would have been 1959. Clearly nothing of import in the "liberal" agenda has been accomplished in the U.S. since then.
At this point, the democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, and are one vote short of a filibuster proof majority. Obviously people can say that the democrats aren't "real" leftists if they want too, but they are clearly significantly to the left of the republicans, who have lost everything in two election cycles.
I'm not happy with this 'lets look forward, not back' bullshit either, but the pressure needs to be maintained. You can't just elect someone and expect them to do whatever it is you hoped for. There are a couple groups out there that are trying to get more conservative democrats thrown out by the primary process. Accountability now is one group, and change congress (founded by Lawrence Lessig) is another group that's working to reduce the influence of lobbyists.
A lot of people who run around saying "the democrats are terrible too" seem to have no idea that you can actually vote in primary elections and donate to campaigns.
posted by delmoi at 7:04 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
50 years ago would have been 1959. Clearly nothing of import in the "liberal" agenda has been accomplished in the U.S. since then.
At this point, the democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency, and are one vote short of a filibuster proof majority. Obviously people can say that the democrats aren't "real" leftists if they want too, but they are clearly significantly to the left of the republicans, who have lost everything in two election cycles.
I'm not happy with this 'lets look forward, not back' bullshit either, but the pressure needs to be maintained. You can't just elect someone and expect them to do whatever it is you hoped for. There are a couple groups out there that are trying to get more conservative democrats thrown out by the primary process. Accountability now is one group, and change congress (founded by Lawrence Lessig) is another group that's working to reduce the influence of lobbyists.
A lot of people who run around saying "the democrats are terrible too" seem to have no idea that you can actually vote in primary elections and donate to campaigns.
posted by delmoi at 7:04 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
All snark and hipster ironic distance aside... Is there really any chance now that there will be prosecutions in a US court for our torture policy? I don't mean stringing up some hapless corporal with some stupid photographs, I mean someone who coldly, deliberately planned the torture of hundreds of people from his Washington office.
I don't see how the Obama administration can do it. And a military court isn't going to go after their own.
posted by Nelson at 7:11 AM on April 16, 2009
I don't see how the Obama administration can do it. And a military court isn't going to go after their own.
posted by Nelson at 7:11 AM on April 16, 2009
I don't see how the Obama administration can do it. And a military court isn't going to go after their own.
First of all the military courts are part of the administration, but regular courts are not (Regular courts, obviously, are part of the judicial branch of government) Military courts are part of the executive branch, which is why the bush administration wanted to try accused terrorists under "military tribunals".
And furthermore, a lot of these things were done outside of the millitary. They were ordered by suits in the whitehouse (guys like Cheney, Yoo Addington, and others) and a lot of the torture was carried out by "Contractors" and CIA agents, not people actually in the military.
Secondly, obviously the Obama administration could do it, they certainly have the legal authority. Obviously they don't want too. "We need to look forward and not backward" etc.
posted by delmoi at 7:16 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
First of all the military courts are part of the administration, but regular courts are not (Regular courts, obviously, are part of the judicial branch of government) Military courts are part of the executive branch, which is why the bush administration wanted to try accused terrorists under "military tribunals".
And furthermore, a lot of these things were done outside of the millitary. They were ordered by suits in the whitehouse (guys like Cheney, Yoo Addington, and others) and a lot of the torture was carried out by "Contractors" and CIA agents, not people actually in the military.
Secondly, obviously the Obama administration could do it, they certainly have the legal authority. Obviously they don't want too. "We need to look forward and not backward" etc.
posted by delmoi at 7:16 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Some folks took the opportunity of WWI to start neutering the left in this country. McCarthyism finished off what was left.
Starting with Reagan (and possibly before), there was a concerted effort to move the centre of USian political discourse even farther to the right.
Right now, there isn't a Democrat elected at the national level who wouldn't have been a moderate Republican when I was a child. Obama would have been a great Eisenhower Republican, except for the colour of his skin.
So, as has been pointed out, we have a choice between the far right and the extreme right. Standing back a bit, they do look rather similar.
posted by QIbHom at 7:22 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
Starting with Reagan (and possibly before), there was a concerted effort to move the centre of USian political discourse even farther to the right.
Right now, there isn't a Democrat elected at the national level who wouldn't have been a moderate Republican when I was a child. Obama would have been a great Eisenhower Republican, except for the colour of his skin.
So, as has been pointed out, we have a choice between the far right and the extreme right. Standing back a bit, they do look rather similar.
posted by QIbHom at 7:22 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
No one ever went broke betting on American exceptionalism.
Except, you know, the entire world economy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:28 AM on April 16, 2009 [7 favorites]
Except, you know, the entire world economy.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:28 AM on April 16, 2009 [7 favorites]
"The American Left has used snide remarks and sarcasm to try to effect policy change for at least 50 years."
Really? That's a strange thing to say. Where does that put Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?
I think you're giving snark too much credit. It's just part of the background dialog in any partisan discourse.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:34 AM on April 16, 2009
Really? That's a strange thing to say. Where does that put Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?
I think you're giving snark too much credit. It's just part of the background dialog in any partisan discourse.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:34 AM on April 16, 2009
Delmoi, I think I mostly agree, although primaries aren't always so great either. By the time I had the chance to vote in a primary for president, it was between Obama and Clinton, two choices I didn't care for. In fact, the only candidate I was really excited about was Feingold, and well, look how long his candidacy lasted. I think primaries are much more important for local politics, and perhaps a concerted effort at local elections can be part of a long-term program to move national politics. Also, to any greens out there: I'm NOT going to vote for you guys for president, but I'd love to vote for you for local spots. I live in cambridge, MA, and all the democrats either were unopposed, or in a few instances, ran against a doomed republican. I would have voted green in a heartbeat. If you start winning local races, you'll get the credibility to move up.
I don't think bitching on the internet is useless either. At least it helps push the Overton window.
posted by Humanzee at 7:35 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think bitching on the internet is useless either. At least it helps push the Overton window.
posted by Humanzee at 7:35 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
The American Left has used snide remarks and sarcasm to try to effect policy change for at least 50 years.
DU, I see your point, but in a country where 12 million teabags on a tarp in Lafayette Park are taken as proof of serious political engagement and any slight evidence of progressive thought is deemed "socialist" (may Eugene V. Debs rest in peace), it's kind of difficult to see the arrangement of events that would enable the American left to be anything more than the equivalent of a political barnacle.
posted by blucevalo at 7:35 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
DU, I see your point, but in a country where 12 million teabags on a tarp in Lafayette Park are taken as proof of serious political engagement and any slight evidence of progressive thought is deemed "socialist" (may Eugene V. Debs rest in peace), it's kind of difficult to see the arrangement of events that would enable the American left to be anything more than the equivalent of a political barnacle.
posted by blucevalo at 7:35 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
In related news...
The question before the president today is not whether to prosecute his predecessors for war crimes; it is simply whether to release the memos that the Bush administration drew up describing in gruesome detail the torture techniques they authorized - or to cover them up. There are zero national security interests in keeping such information secret. The ICRC report has already detailed what was done to many high value detainees, and the methods are unequivocally war crimes, and known across the world. To directly attach such torture techniques to the specific decisions of the Bush administration merely provides accountability. No more; no less. It provides transparency.
If Obama, for some reason, decides to prevent us from seeing exactly what was done then he will achieve only one thing: he will tell the world that the US has indeed authorized and practised war crimes while simultaneously telling the world that America will not be accountable for it.
He will betray all of us who supported him to restore the rule of law. He will, in fact, merely confirm the worst fears of what was actually done while making himself an accomplice to protecting the war criminals who did it. - Andrew Sullivan
posted by Joe Beese at 7:37 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
The question before the president today is not whether to prosecute his predecessors for war crimes; it is simply whether to release the memos that the Bush administration drew up describing in gruesome detail the torture techniques they authorized - or to cover them up. There are zero national security interests in keeping such information secret. The ICRC report has already detailed what was done to many high value detainees, and the methods are unequivocally war crimes, and known across the world. To directly attach such torture techniques to the specific decisions of the Bush administration merely provides accountability. No more; no less. It provides transparency.
If Obama, for some reason, decides to prevent us from seeing exactly what was done then he will achieve only one thing: he will tell the world that the US has indeed authorized and practised war crimes while simultaneously telling the world that America will not be accountable for it.
He will betray all of us who supported him to restore the rule of law. He will, in fact, merely confirm the worst fears of what was actually done while making himself an accomplice to protecting the war criminals who did it. - Andrew Sullivan
posted by Joe Beese at 7:37 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
The easiest way to watch Al Jazeera in the US is online with LiveStation
posted by tetranz at 7:50 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by tetranz at 7:50 AM on April 16, 2009
"Also, I really love the defeatism and cynicism in this thread and on this topic generally. If history has shown us anything, it's that the best route to results is low expectations."
So, I take it you're using Metafilter as a primary indicator of national political trends and citizen engagement. That's probably not very useful, unless you're mostly looking to take easy potshots and feel superior, you know, snide remarks and sarcasm.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:50 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
So, I take it you're using Metafilter as a primary indicator of national political trends and citizen engagement. That's probably not very useful, unless you're mostly looking to take easy potshots and feel superior, you know, snide remarks and sarcasm.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:50 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
you're mostly looking to take easy potshots and feel superior, you know, snide remarks and sarcasm
It's like you know me!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:53 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's like you know me!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 7:53 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
"We won't turn the Army on mobs, because there's no need to. If there ever became a need to, Posse Comitatus would go bye-bye."
It's not wise to use the military against your own citizens other than very limited, directed actions, particularly in an egalitarian democracy. This is not very effective, particularly considering most recent polls show that enlisted military would largely defy orders rather than turn on their citizens.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:06 AM on April 16, 2009
It's not wise to use the military against your own citizens other than very limited, directed actions, particularly in an egalitarian democracy. This is not very effective, particularly considering most recent polls show that enlisted military would largely defy orders rather than turn on their citizens.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:06 AM on April 16, 2009
no difference between the two parties. Are you blind?
Different as 'every human being is unique, like a snow flake' sure they are different.
Different as in claiming 'national security' for things that so far removed from the security of the nation as to be laughable? No. (I'm thinking of the copyright trade talks going on as an example. ) Or how about the broad 'you stated this was going to be your action when you ran and now you have not delivered'?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:15 AM on April 16, 2009
Different as 'every human being is unique, like a snow flake' sure they are different.
Different as in claiming 'national security' for things that so far removed from the security of the nation as to be laughable? No. (I'm thinking of the copyright trade talks going on as an example. ) Or how about the broad 'you stated this was going to be your action when you ran and now you have not delivered'?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:15 AM on April 16, 2009
This is not very effective, particularly considering most recent polls show that enlisted military would largely defy orders rather than turn on their citizens.
That's what private security firms are for! See also: Katrina.
posted by yeloson at 8:19 AM on April 16, 2009
That's what private security firms are for! See also: Katrina.
posted by yeloson at 8:19 AM on April 16, 2009
voted green in a heartbeat. If you start winning local races, you'll get the credibility to move up.
The Greens or even the Libertarians could move up if they used the networking ability of communications combined with general purpose computing and showed they could deliver on a service.
Like court watching. Or documenting abuses (and victories) of civil servants. Find abuses and toss 'em to the county grand juries. Show they can provide a service and show they can lead.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:20 AM on April 16, 2009
The Greens or even the Libertarians could move up if they used the networking ability of communications combined with general purpose computing and showed they could deliver on a service.
Like court watching. Or documenting abuses (and victories) of civil servants. Find abuses and toss 'em to the county grand juries. Show they can provide a service and show they can lead.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:20 AM on April 16, 2009
I fear that this is going to take a very long time ... the Spanish AG has just declined to file and that was one of our best hopes of bringing these bastards to accountability.
I also fear that our present US government does not have the political will needed to get the ball rolling on this either.
posted by aldus_manutius at 8:36 AM on April 16, 2009
I also fear that our present US government does not have the political will needed to get the ball rolling on this either.
posted by aldus_manutius at 8:36 AM on April 16, 2009
RE: International court (the ICC):
Whether any US official can be brought before the ICC is a tough question. Technically, this court may not have jurisdiction over the U.S. or its citizens (they haven't signed the treaty). But that doesn't mean the ICC (or any court) can't have universal jurisdiction over the most heinous international crimes, such as genocide and war crimes. Whether torture or violations of the Geneva Convention would be considered huge internatinal crimes is actually debatable.
The second issue is practicality. Who's going to serve an international arrest warrant on Dick Armitage? And what international police force is going to bring him to the Hague? We'll see.
A third issue is effectiveness. Even if convicted in an international court, what repurcussions? Will they give him the death sentence? Life in prison? I can guarantee you that the international community will have a lot to say about the power of the ICC to punish. Again, we'll see.
So, technically, yes. He can be tried in an international court. Whether he would have to submit to its jurisdiction is a huge question that affects the sovereignty of the U.S. and every other nation on the planet, as is whether they could actually do anything about it. So, don't count on it.
posted by jabberjaw at 9:05 AM on April 16, 2009
Whether any US official can be brought before the ICC is a tough question. Technically, this court may not have jurisdiction over the U.S. or its citizens (they haven't signed the treaty). But that doesn't mean the ICC (or any court) can't have universal jurisdiction over the most heinous international crimes, such as genocide and war crimes. Whether torture or violations of the Geneva Convention would be considered huge internatinal crimes is actually debatable.
The second issue is practicality. Who's going to serve an international arrest warrant on Dick Armitage? And what international police force is going to bring him to the Hague? We'll see.
A third issue is effectiveness. Even if convicted in an international court, what repurcussions? Will they give him the death sentence? Life in prison? I can guarantee you that the international community will have a lot to say about the power of the ICC to punish. Again, we'll see.
So, technically, yes. He can be tried in an international court. Whether he would have to submit to its jurisdiction is a huge question that affects the sovereignty of the U.S. and every other nation on the planet, as is whether they could actually do anything about it. So, don't count on it.
posted by jabberjaw at 9:05 AM on April 16, 2009
3. That he probably should have resigned, but hung on for fear of how bad policy could get if he and others were not there to fight the battles
I hate this tactic. "Oh yeah, I knew it was bad, but if I didn't stay, it would have gotten worse".
Fuck that! You know what you could have done to help? You could have quit and come clean to the American people. You could have, at the fucking time, said, "hey, I've seen some bad shit going on, I just wanted to let you all know about it so we can put a stop to it." Make it public and highly visible, that is how you fight battles like this.
Staying, and keeping your dirty secrets in the dark just makes you look more guilty.
posted by quin at 9:28 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
I hate this tactic. "Oh yeah, I knew it was bad, but if I didn't stay, it would have gotten worse".
Fuck that! You know what you could have done to help? You could have quit and come clean to the American people. You could have, at the fucking time, said, "hey, I've seen some bad shit going on, I just wanted to let you all know about it so we can put a stop to it." Make it public and highly visible, that is how you fight battles like this.
Staying, and keeping your dirty secrets in the dark just makes you look more guilty.
posted by quin at 9:28 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sorry, let me rephrase that last bit:
"Staying, and keeping your dirty secrets in the dark just makes youlook more guilty."
posted by quin at 9:28 AM on April 16, 2009
"Staying, and keeping your dirty secrets in the dark just makes you
posted by quin at 9:28 AM on April 16, 2009
Or better yet:
"Staying, and keeping your dirty secrets in the dark just makes youlook more guilty."
posted by Dysk at 10:03 AM on April 16, 2009
"Staying, and keeping your dirty secrets in the dark just makes you
posted by Dysk at 10:03 AM on April 16, 2009
Delmoi, I think I mostly agree, although primaries aren't always so great either. By the time I had the chance to vote in a primary for president, it was between Obama and Clinton, two choices I didn't care for. In fact, the only candidate I was really excited about was Feingold, and well, look how long his candidacy lasted. I think primaries are much more important for local politics, and perhaps a concerted effort at local elections can be part of a long-term program to move national politics. Also, to any greens out there: I'm NOT going to vote for you guys for president, but I'd love to vote for you for local spots.
I think here you touch on something of vital importance that gets overlooked time and again in national politics - the impact of local elections.
Probably somewhere in your city or town, there are at least a handful of districts up for grabs in some sense or another. Put in some hard work, hit the pavement, knock on doors, talk to people, get your name and face out there, and you might have a shot. Here you can introduce more progressive policies, have a testing ground for trying them out and, more importantly, can influence public opinion. The echo of the successful enactment of progressive policy can resonate on up through higher offices. Harvey Milk, as one example of many, was very successful in showing how this works.
You said you're reading A People's History. So I'm sure you see what I'm talking about here. Local activism is probably the most effective way to create lasting change for the better. Why is it so often overlooked? I think because offices like city council are seen as small time - you're a big fish in a little pond, you don't get national airtime, your sphere of influence is a soap bubble. Starting locally as a means to effect national policy is a long-term plan. Who wants that when you can shift your focus onto higher offices, and pray that someone genuinely progressive drops from the heavens, right?
Yeah, well, that's not been working out too well, has it? Sure, there have been legendary political figures who swooped in to save the day from Congress or the White House. But historically, our advances forward have started in the streets. Right now, the streets and the broadband connections are filling with conservatives. Might sound laughable now, but they're adopting the same tactics that have worked in the past and could get momentum built. Now is not the time for liberals to rest on their laurels, content that we have Congress and the White House. That was the Republicans' error not too long ago, and a junior Senator from Illinois who knew how to knock on doors proved them wrong. Here's hoping we learn from that, if nothing else. Our attention needs to be at ground level.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:38 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
I think here you touch on something of vital importance that gets overlooked time and again in national politics - the impact of local elections.
Probably somewhere in your city or town, there are at least a handful of districts up for grabs in some sense or another. Put in some hard work, hit the pavement, knock on doors, talk to people, get your name and face out there, and you might have a shot. Here you can introduce more progressive policies, have a testing ground for trying them out and, more importantly, can influence public opinion. The echo of the successful enactment of progressive policy can resonate on up through higher offices. Harvey Milk, as one example of many, was very successful in showing how this works.
You said you're reading A People's History. So I'm sure you see what I'm talking about here. Local activism is probably the most effective way to create lasting change for the better. Why is it so often overlooked? I think because offices like city council are seen as small time - you're a big fish in a little pond, you don't get national airtime, your sphere of influence is a soap bubble. Starting locally as a means to effect national policy is a long-term plan. Who wants that when you can shift your focus onto higher offices, and pray that someone genuinely progressive drops from the heavens, right?
Yeah, well, that's not been working out too well, has it? Sure, there have been legendary political figures who swooped in to save the day from Congress or the White House. But historically, our advances forward have started in the streets. Right now, the streets and the broadband connections are filling with conservatives. Might sound laughable now, but they're adopting the same tactics that have worked in the past and could get momentum built. Now is not the time for liberals to rest on their laurels, content that we have Congress and the White House. That was the Republicans' error not too long ago, and a junior Senator from Illinois who knew how to knock on doors proved them wrong. Here's hoping we learn from that, if nothing else. Our attention needs to be at ground level.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 10:38 AM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
America has a Left?
posted by Artw at 10:43 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:43 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes, they reserve the death penalty for those over 18.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:50 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by blue_beetle at 10:50 AM on April 16, 2009
Humanzee - I am aware of Powell's record on My Lai.
That's why I am constantly amazed at how much resistance there is on the left to the fact that Powell is not an honorable man.
I wish he was; I'd give anything if he was. But he's not.
posted by Tena at 10:55 AM on April 16, 2009
That's why I am constantly amazed at how much resistance there is on the left to the fact that Powell is not an honorable man.
I wish he was; I'd give anything if he was. But he's not.
posted by Tena at 10:55 AM on April 16, 2009
humanzee: I've recently been reading "A People's History of the United States", and it's really impressive how often torch-wielding mobs managed to get real change in the early days.
I picked up that book recently. Not so much an eye opener as a field-of-view widener. I've not been able to get past the first chapter so far though. I was waiting for my rage over Bush to die down a bit so I didn't give myself a stroke out of sheer crying anger, but with Obama going even further than Bush in excusing secret wiretapping, it may be some time before I can let myself get to chapter 2.
posted by JHarris at 11:38 AM on April 16, 2009
I picked up that book recently. Not so much an eye opener as a field-of-view widener. I've not been able to get past the first chapter so far though. I was waiting for my rage over Bush to die down a bit so I didn't give myself a stroke out of sheer crying anger, but with Obama going even further than Bush in excusing secret wiretapping, it may be some time before I can let myself get to chapter 2.
posted by JHarris at 11:38 AM on April 16, 2009
krinklyfig: It's not wise to use the military against your own citizens other than very limited, directed actions, particularly in an egalitarian democracy. This is not very effective, particularly considering most recent polls show that enlisted military would largely defy orders rather than turn on their citizens.
Hey wow. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about our armed forces.
I guess it says something about me that news that they're merely human beings makes me happy. (sigh)
posted by JHarris at 11:56 AM on April 16, 2009
Hey wow. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about our armed forces.
I guess it says something about me that news that they're merely human beings makes me happy. (sigh)
posted by JHarris at 11:56 AM on April 16, 2009
DOJ just released the memos. I'll post link when I find one.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:05 PM on April 16, 2009
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:05 PM on April 16, 2009
Obama's statement ends with:
"The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again."
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:16 PM on April 16, 2009
"A good news-bad news day for civil libertarians."
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:50 PM on April 16, 2009
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:50 PM on April 16, 2009
Talking Points Memo has provided links to the OLC torture memos:
- An 18-page memo [PDF], dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
- A 46-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
- A 20-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
- A 40-page memo [PDF], dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:50 PM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
- An 18-page memo [PDF], dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
- A 46-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
- A 20-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
- A 40-page memo [PDF], dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:50 PM on April 16, 2009 [2 favorites]
“I predict that as a result of this, and indeed the whole series of events, nothing of any consequence will happen to anyone of consequence. I'll even take bets.”posted by Brother Dysk
Or we could put that money into working to make it happen.
“Is there really any chance now that there will be prosecutions in a US court for our torture policy?”
Again – why not work for it? Or give money to people who do. And raise money for them? Plenty of groups out there doing this. Lobbying the president for this. Why does responsibility for it rest with anyone else? Of course there’s a chance. There’s also a chance it will fail. But nothing worth doing is easy, and especially not guaranteed. Howabout – let’s give it a shot? Chance or no chance. Some things are worth fighting for regardless of whether they will succeed. If there’s one thing that’s worth the effort it’s condemnation of torture. Hell, put in a days work on that and tell me you don’t feel better than any day in your life. “Hey, I saw a ball game!” “Really? I fought for human rights and dignity to free us from torture and prosecute the perpetrators of evil.”
“Oh….uh….I got a mini ball bat.”
“Yeah, that’s nice for you.”
I mean, unless someone donated bone marrow that day it’s going to pretty much top everything.
“The person who disappoints me the worst on this, however, is Colin Powell.”
Y’know, what kills me is you have people who are courageous enough to command men in combat, but can’t stand harsh words.
Powell disappoints me as well. And not just because of that. Most people fear public speaking more than death. So social humiliation is a very very powerful force in human affairs. And I see why – although I disagree – he did what he did with Mai Lai.
Powell disappoints me because if there was anyone who transcended artifice and focused on what was real it was his mentor General Hank Emerson.
In Long An Province the 9th divison was grinding away at the enemy but the NVA (and VC) were still doing hit and runs striking more or less at will and it would have taken forever to secure the place. Emerson revamped the division to do aggressive small unit engagements and used superior coordination and air recon to do gang tackle (or dogpile or seal and pile on) operations – effectively being a guerilla when guerilla tactics were being used and bringing force to bear when you ran them down and got a larger unit. Masterful.
And that kind of counter doctrinal thinking – one would think – would have some benefits. At the very least a willingness to buck the system when it was plain that it wasn’t working.
But despite that, Powell didn’t catch on. Or maybe he did, but decided to make the sacrifice for his career. Or he just plain didn’t have the balls.
Having been faced with similar choices, I feel I can judge Powell – in that small regard anyway. I have stood up for the right thing (and manifestly the right thing) against my superiors. And the realness of that moment, in retrospect, is gratifying and was, in retrospect, worth all the shit I went through. Would have been worth chucking it all and winding up in jail. Didn’t come to that. But I think I showed I was willing to go to extraordinary lengths and that settled the matter (then – there’s always payback, and it was a bitch).
Course, I never wanted to be on the joint chiefs of staff. Still, I think he’s an honorable man, in the sense that he serves his country and follows orders to the best of his ability. I think he could have done a great deal of harm openly opposing Bush. But, by the same token, sometimes it’s time.
I mean, I think he’s genuine (as opposed to an outright bastard like Cheney). By the same token he’s flawed. And, I’ll say, limited as an African American.
That isn’t to say he must be. I think though he feels he must be. I don’t think he feels he can be the man he should be, because he feels he’s setting a standard. The first guy in has to be a near-embodyment of the system and can’t really rock the boat.
(I’m not saying this is so, merely what Powell appears to believe – first black Sec. of State, first – and still the only – black member of the joint chiefs – and maybe he’s been used as a stalking horse in that regard. Maybe.)
The Powell Doctrine is an excellent example of the way the man thinks – minimizing casualties and collateral damage by using decisive force and ending the conflict quicky. Pretty much in the box thinking. Pretty much a straight line extrapolation of strategic thought derived from years of scholarly study. Nothing wrong with it really.
But it’s nothing like the dynamic tactical response to the reality Emerson had. That’s what’s such a shame. I mean, sure maybe you keep your mouth shut, play the game to open the door for other people, and bide your time until you get high enough and you can change the system from within.
But at some point you have to – y’know, change the fucking system. Otherwise you’re just part of it. Oh, and you happen to be black.
"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. Then give them immunity if they testify.
I think Obama is off base characterizing this as retribution. If they're not held to account, there are then - no steps that can be taken to insure this won't happen again. They got around the verbiage and bits of paper before. And it seemed pretty damned well spelled out to me.
There has to be the political will to see justice done whether it is damaging or not. And I'll agree - not retribution. But some remedy must be made and someone must be held to account, otherwise laws are exactly that - just words on paper.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:52 PM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Or we could put that money into working to make it happen.
“Is there really any chance now that there will be prosecutions in a US court for our torture policy?”
Again – why not work for it? Or give money to people who do. And raise money for them? Plenty of groups out there doing this. Lobbying the president for this. Why does responsibility for it rest with anyone else? Of course there’s a chance. There’s also a chance it will fail. But nothing worth doing is easy, and especially not guaranteed. Howabout – let’s give it a shot? Chance or no chance. Some things are worth fighting for regardless of whether they will succeed. If there’s one thing that’s worth the effort it’s condemnation of torture. Hell, put in a days work on that and tell me you don’t feel better than any day in your life. “Hey, I saw a ball game!” “Really? I fought for human rights and dignity to free us from torture and prosecute the perpetrators of evil.”
“Oh….uh….I got a mini ball bat.”
“Yeah, that’s nice for you.”
I mean, unless someone donated bone marrow that day it’s going to pretty much top everything.
“The person who disappoints me the worst on this, however, is Colin Powell.”
Y’know, what kills me is you have people who are courageous enough to command men in combat, but can’t stand harsh words.
Powell disappoints me as well. And not just because of that. Most people fear public speaking more than death. So social humiliation is a very very powerful force in human affairs. And I see why – although I disagree – he did what he did with Mai Lai.
Powell disappoints me because if there was anyone who transcended artifice and focused on what was real it was his mentor General Hank Emerson.
In Long An Province the 9th divison was grinding away at the enemy but the NVA (and VC) were still doing hit and runs striking more or less at will and it would have taken forever to secure the place. Emerson revamped the division to do aggressive small unit engagements and used superior coordination and air recon to do gang tackle (or dogpile or seal and pile on) operations – effectively being a guerilla when guerilla tactics were being used and bringing force to bear when you ran them down and got a larger unit. Masterful.
And that kind of counter doctrinal thinking – one would think – would have some benefits. At the very least a willingness to buck the system when it was plain that it wasn’t working.
But despite that, Powell didn’t catch on. Or maybe he did, but decided to make the sacrifice for his career. Or he just plain didn’t have the balls.
Having been faced with similar choices, I feel I can judge Powell – in that small regard anyway. I have stood up for the right thing (and manifestly the right thing) against my superiors. And the realness of that moment, in retrospect, is gratifying and was, in retrospect, worth all the shit I went through. Would have been worth chucking it all and winding up in jail. Didn’t come to that. But I think I showed I was willing to go to extraordinary lengths and that settled the matter (then – there’s always payback, and it was a bitch).
Course, I never wanted to be on the joint chiefs of staff. Still, I think he’s an honorable man, in the sense that he serves his country and follows orders to the best of his ability. I think he could have done a great deal of harm openly opposing Bush. But, by the same token, sometimes it’s time.
I mean, I think he’s genuine (as opposed to an outright bastard like Cheney). By the same token he’s flawed. And, I’ll say, limited as an African American.
That isn’t to say he must be. I think though he feels he must be. I don’t think he feels he can be the man he should be, because he feels he’s setting a standard. The first guy in has to be a near-embodyment of the system and can’t really rock the boat.
(I’m not saying this is so, merely what Powell appears to believe – first black Sec. of State, first – and still the only – black member of the joint chiefs – and maybe he’s been used as a stalking horse in that regard. Maybe.)
The Powell Doctrine is an excellent example of the way the man thinks – minimizing casualties and collateral damage by using decisive force and ending the conflict quicky. Pretty much in the box thinking. Pretty much a straight line extrapolation of strategic thought derived from years of scholarly study. Nothing wrong with it really.
But it’s nothing like the dynamic tactical response to the reality Emerson had. That’s what’s such a shame. I mean, sure maybe you keep your mouth shut, play the game to open the door for other people, and bide your time until you get high enough and you can change the system from within.
But at some point you have to – y’know, change the fucking system. Otherwise you’re just part of it. Oh, and you happen to be black.
"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.”
Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah blah blah. Then give them immunity if they testify.
I think Obama is off base characterizing this as retribution. If they're not held to account, there are then - no steps that can be taken to insure this won't happen again. They got around the verbiage and bits of paper before. And it seemed pretty damned well spelled out to me.
There has to be the political will to see justice done whether it is damaging or not. And I'll agree - not retribution. But some remedy must be made and someone must be held to account, otherwise laws are exactly that - just words on paper.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:52 PM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Maybe I should have resigned
posted by Flunkie at 1:56 PM on April 16, 2009
These are so very hard to read. I literally had to stop.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:15 PM on April 16, 2009
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:15 PM on April 16, 2009
The lede in the DOJ's release is that CIA employees won't face federal prosecutions, but there's fine print that gives me pause after Spain's attorney general refused to support an investigation into US torture earlier today.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:16 PM on April 16, 2009
The Attorney General has informed the Central Intelligence Agency that the government would provide legal representation to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee’s behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.Now I'd like to know the administration's position on past torture by the newly banned interrogation contractors for the CIA, if only for completeness's sake.
posted by Doktor Zed at 2:16 PM on April 16, 2009
What's that German word again? Starts with an S and ends with a chadenfreude?
posted by kldickson at 3:31 PM on April 16, 2009
posted by kldickson at 3:31 PM on April 16, 2009
I love how everyone's calling me out for not doing anything, rather than being a snarky pessimist, but here's the deal: I'm not a USian. I cannot realistically do anything about or for the US. You do it. As a nation. Go on.
posted by Dysk at 6:01 PM on April 16, 2009
posted by Dysk at 6:01 PM on April 16, 2009
Brother Dysk, it'd help if you didn't start with the USian bullshit. And you can still send money, no?
I'm not calling you out for not doing anything. For all I know you're fighting the good fight. Hell, maybe you're dirt poor and you send your last 10 cents to someone. That's great. People do what they can. It's not the 'rather' than being a snarky pessimist. It's, y'know, being a fucking snarky pessimist. I'm damned short on quit and 'can't' isn't part of my general vocabulary. I'm not saying I'm better than you - I'm explaining the perspective.
I've been in situations with people who have said "we're going to die" and one of the things I've learned is there's no percentage in it.
If you do die, if things do turn to shit - what are you going to? Gloat? And if you don't die, now you look like an asshole.
So yeah, maybe they'll get away with it. Maybe they'll piss on all our heads and giggle. Maybe you're right. But don't expect people to fucking LIKE it.
And at that, what do you do to prepare for it? Your snark, telling us what impotent shitheads we probably all are (god forbid you say "American") is supposed to help us deal with some emotional trauma when you expect us to fail? Think you're doing anyone a favor?
Screw that. I'd rather try, fail, and take the hit.
Can't realistically do anything about it. Sounds to me like a lack of imagination. Some folks in Spain seem to be trying. Might not mean much, but it's DOING something. At least they're trying instead of making half ass excuses and pissing on someone else's efforts.
If you don't care, then don't. What, someone needed the magnitude of the task pointed out? We all just figured it was easy taking on elite multimillionaires entrenched in power and your comments gave us a dose of reality? Looking to brighten our day were you?
Pessimism does not equal solidarity just because you broach the subject as well.
Want to make snarky comments? Swell. Perhaps they're funny. But don't say you're somehow on the side of folks working or looking to work to do something about all this.
Hell, you even said you can't.
But thanks for the permission for us to try. We elected Obama. Maybe that's not going to fix this. We'll try something else. It's not like that grassroots network went away.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:11 AM on April 17, 2009
I'm not calling you out for not doing anything. For all I know you're fighting the good fight. Hell, maybe you're dirt poor and you send your last 10 cents to someone. That's great. People do what they can. It's not the 'rather' than being a snarky pessimist. It's, y'know, being a fucking snarky pessimist. I'm damned short on quit and 'can't' isn't part of my general vocabulary. I'm not saying I'm better than you - I'm explaining the perspective.
I've been in situations with people who have said "we're going to die" and one of the things I've learned is there's no percentage in it.
If you do die, if things do turn to shit - what are you going to? Gloat? And if you don't die, now you look like an asshole.
So yeah, maybe they'll get away with it. Maybe they'll piss on all our heads and giggle. Maybe you're right. But don't expect people to fucking LIKE it.
And at that, what do you do to prepare for it? Your snark, telling us what impotent shitheads we probably all are (god forbid you say "American") is supposed to help us deal with some emotional trauma when you expect us to fail? Think you're doing anyone a favor?
Screw that. I'd rather try, fail, and take the hit.
Can't realistically do anything about it. Sounds to me like a lack of imagination. Some folks in Spain seem to be trying. Might not mean much, but it's DOING something. At least they're trying instead of making half ass excuses and pissing on someone else's efforts.
If you don't care, then don't. What, someone needed the magnitude of the task pointed out? We all just figured it was easy taking on elite multimillionaires entrenched in power and your comments gave us a dose of reality? Looking to brighten our day were you?
Pessimism does not equal solidarity just because you broach the subject as well.
Want to make snarky comments? Swell. Perhaps they're funny. But don't say you're somehow on the side of folks working or looking to work to do something about all this.
Hell, you even said you can't.
But thanks for the permission for us to try. We elected Obama. Maybe that's not going to fix this. We'll try something else. It's not like that grassroots network went away.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:11 AM on April 17, 2009
What's that German word again? Starts with an S and ends with a chadenfreude?
Schnitzelchadenfreude?
The feeling of an uncomfortable sausage giving you pleasure?
posted by rokusan at 7:46 AM on April 17, 2009
Schnitzelchadenfreude?
The feeling of an uncomfortable sausage giving you pleasure?
posted by rokusan at 7:46 AM on April 17, 2009
(To be clear - if you're just going for gallows humor - no big.)
posted by Smedleyman at 9:26 AM on April 17, 2009
posted by Smedleyman at 9:26 AM on April 17, 2009
US President Barack Obama has left open the possibility of prosecuting officials who wrote CIA memos allowing harsh interrogation methods.
posted by adamvasco at 12:01 PM on April 21, 2009
posted by adamvasco at 12:01 PM on April 21, 2009
Smedleyman, I don't think it fair to chastise me for not doing anything when I can't. This isn't a place to do anything about the big issues, anyway. This is MetaFilter; this is a place for discussion, and snark.
I was making my comments - that the USian government has some issues with corruption, and that the USian "left" isn't a proper left wing, and people start jumping me for not doing anything about it. I can't. Doesn't mean I can't join in the discussion, though, surely.
posted by Dysk at 2:57 PM on April 21, 2009
I was making my comments - that the USian government has some issues with corruption, and that the USian "left" isn't a proper left wing, and people start jumping me for not doing anything about it. I can't. Doesn't mean I can't join in the discussion, though, surely.
posted by Dysk at 2:57 PM on April 21, 2009
Free the torturers – and the rapists too! If Dick Cheney can trumpet the 'success' of his torture policies without fear of retribution, why can't us ordinary criminals?
posted by adamvasco at 3:15 AM on April 22, 2009
posted by adamvasco at 3:15 AM on April 22, 2009
« Older "Buy art. It makes you feel good!" | Brad Elterman Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
McNamara, now this guy.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 4:19 AM on April 16, 2009 [3 favorites]