Durbin Watching
Durbin on June 17, 2005:
Durbin on June 21, 2005:
So, first he says that he won't back off when people are unhappy with his statements, then he apologizes (sort of) complete with tears to those who were offended. Actually, I don't really have a problem with his apology. I like that kind of apology, it allows you to look sincere without admitting any wrongdoing. It's brilliant, really. But if I were one of his defenders, I'd be annoyed with him.
What kind of "attack dog" cries and backs down after getting his wrist slapped? The kind that wants to keep his cushy Senate seat, I guess.
"I'm certainly not going to be intimidated by the right-wing message machine," he said. "If I'm going to back off every time they decide their unhappy with my statements, then I really won't be doing my job. We're going to continue to follow this (and) demand that the administration be held accountable."
Durbin on June 21, 2005:
"Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line," the Illinois Democrat said. "To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
His voice quaking and tears welling in his eyes, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks.
"They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them," he said.
[...]"I made reference to Nazis, to Soviets, and other repressive regimes. Mr. President, I've come to understand that's a very poor choice of words."
"I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy."
So, first he says that he won't back off when people are unhappy with his statements, then he apologizes (sort of) complete with tears to those who were offended. Actually, I don't really have a problem with his apology. I like that kind of apology, it allows you to look sincere without admitting any wrongdoing. It's brilliant, really. But if I were one of his defenders, I'd be annoyed with him.
What kind of "attack dog" cries and backs down after getting his wrist slapped? The kind that wants to keep his cushy Senate seat, I guess.
Posted by Rosemary on
06.22.2005
R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson
Minion
of the Week
Lost in the hoo-ha was the answer (if there was one) to this question:
If you had been told that prisoners had been found in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, in the condition described by the FBI, would you have believed it?
Of course, you would.
The essence of a prison cannot be denied.
When you make point it should have some actual meaning, Ara. Partisan demogoguery which smears our troops should be beneath you.
I've tried to have a reasonable discussion about torture with you, but you insisted on such a broad definition of it that the only people qualified to determine what torture is are the detainees themselves. We can try again if you like. I'm happy to discuss limits on how long a prisoner can be chained up on the floor. I can hold my water for eight hours. Let's start there and I'll throw in some exceptions for known medical conditions and preliminary medical exams to find them.
Yours,
Wince
Please answer my question, not yours.
The question is simple, but I'll ask it again:
If you had been told that prisoners had been found in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, in the condition described by the FBI, would you have believed it?
Yours,
Wince
Durbin asked an important question: "If you read that report, would you ever have thought that it was describing American conduct?"
Don't denounce Durbin for what was in the report.
And frankly, in many of the threads I've been involved in, I'm one of the few people who does say, "Let's discuss what proper treatment is", which was the point Durbin was trying to make. I did it again, here, and you ignored it. But if you want to can the hyperbole and go for it, I'm willing.
Yours,
Wince
Go for it.
OK. I said this, referring to the maximum length allowed for being chained up on the floor: Your turn.
Alice,
Heh.
Yours,
Wince
Should the imprisoned, alleged to be terrorists or terror supporters, be treated with the level of decorum that we as Americans hold to our ideal? I believe this is important, not only for the affirmation that humane treatment of prisoners *IS* what we believe in, but to derail the anti-American sentiment that will result from it among Muslims around the world. Some who may be sitting on the fence as to whether to remain citizens or future terrorists themselves.
The partisanship in this issue is disgraceful.
Democrats see it as an opportunity to demonstrate how evil the treatment (and, by extension, the leadership that permits it, is). Republicans, when confronted with comparisons to regimes in history that all can agree are BAD, react defensively (offensively?) by denouncing these statements as bordering on treason at the worst, and undermining our troops at best. Attack! On both sides.
It would seem to me that the most useful way to confront prisoner abuse is to define what abuse is. Beating people, sometimes to death, is not acceptable. Neither is any corporal punishment that one could not expect to occur in our own jails. Does it happen in our own jails? Sure. To the extent that it does in Gitmo, et. al.? Highly unlikely. The Gitmo volunteer that received a traumatic brain injury during a training drill only serves to support the notion that despite the fact that there are many in these facilities that are shown proper treatment, there are *some* that are not.
And it should be the focus of discussion, in my opinion, that misstreatment of *some* is not acceptable. It is unAmerican in its ideological basis.
Ron
Let's go back a bit further and pick any single one of these detainees and answer the following question:
what are they charged with?
Back to you.
This whole debate seems to detract from what should be the real issue.
The problem is that this whole thing IS the debate because of idiotic , rhetorical/accusatory statements like Durbin and others have made.
We can't have Your debate until we can get the other side to stop acting like whiny crybabies that put our troops at risk by saying things like we are treating our prisoners as bad as Stalin.
Want a real debate? Me too. Write your Senator and ask him to debate the "real" issue and maintain some decorum and respect for our country by not devolving the debate into a rhetorical circle jerk.
No, I didn't ask what YOU were charging them with. I asked what they were charged with by the US. Does anyone know the answer to that?
For the record, I agree with you: there is nothing worse than dressing as a civilian to kill unsuspecting people.
So, I'll ask again: is that what all of these guys are being charged with?
Perhaps, most of them will be charged and tried once we stop taking prisoners in Iraq. I know that many from Afghanistan have been charge and some let go. Traditionally we don't deal with POWs until a treaty has been made.
I thought you knew this. Was your history teacher so derelict in his/her duty? In High School, mine sucked, thank goodness I had a good history prof in college.
I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with it.
Do you think we should let them all go and fly them all back to Afghanistand and Iraq so they get back to killing more of our soldiers and more innocent civillians in the name of Allah?
Not having a hard time at all -- I simply believe that Gitmo is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
re: "in a loosely defined sense"
They're either POWs or they're not -- make up your mind, then we'll discuss this further.
Do you think we should let them all go and fly them all back to Afghanistand and Iraq so they get back to killing more of our soldiers and more innocent civillians in the name of Allah?
Who said anything about letting them go?
Instead of wringing our hands and whining about why they hate us, we must make them ask why we hate them, and let them know why. I hate their guts. They are terrorist thugs and I say they deserve death, not a stay at the Ritz.
I simply believe that Gitmo is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I think your belief is based on a fantasy. It's a beautiful fantasy, though.
They're either POWs or they're not -- make up your mind, then we'll discuss this further.
Why not both? You can be a sort-of POW and a war criminal at the same time. Some people are both bloggers and network engineers, but you don't force them to choose.
Please stop trying to talk Rosemary into logical fallacies in a noble attempt to simplify a complex subject. Instead I suggest you allow her as complex a description as she likes, then you propose a simplification. She may not believe simplification is possible, or that it will hide important facets of reality.
Waves and particles!
Arabs think we are being too soft on these prisoners. I think they are right. We should select some for trial, convict them and sentence them to life without parole. I don't believe in capital punishment, but I would accept execution rather than not have the trials.
Yours,
Wince
I love how you try to muddy and change the direction of the discussion.
They're either POWs or they're not -- make up your mind, then we'll discuss this further.
I don't have to make up my mind. I say they are both.
Who said anything about letting them go?
You should at least try and answer MY question before asking one of your own.
Do you think we should let them all go and fly them all back to Afghanistand and Iraq so they get back to killing more of our soldiers and more innocent civillians in the name of Allah? If not, what should be done with them?
No, I would not be surprised. And I suspect it would not surprise you that the Founders thought war generates all sorts of exceptions to those rights. Consider this portion of the Fifth Amendment: Now explain the due process followed when Japanese pilots were killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
One thing that does surprise me is the nimber of times you seem to expect I'll be surprised.
Yours,
Wince
"Would it surprise you to discover, Wince, that the framers of the Constitution didn't limit their definition of human rights to citizens of the United States?"
Nor did they limit their definition of treason to exclude Communist professors.
This Guantanomo broo-haw-haw is more demonstration that some people don't get what war is...at.all. It is not a tea party. People, soldiers, from your nation are in harms way, big time. It doesn't bother me a bit that some of the prisoners are treated harshly. I've read that about 60,000 of the enemy have fallen into American or Iraqi hands during this "insurgency". To have 25 of them die at the hands of their captors is sad but it is not keeping me awake nights. Good grief, when you capture the enemy, you don't let him go to allow him to turn around and shoot or bomb you one more time. Keeping the enemy imprisoned during the conflict is common sense and has been done in every war that has ever been fought (except for the ones where they just executed the captured enemy fighters on the spot).
The Geneva convention was not designed to adress the status of "terrorists" So we just have to figure it out as we go along. Of all the problems and all the awful stuff going on in this world (remember the Chechyn school attack? Remember Nick Berg?)and all the senseless casualties, here we are nobley flaggelating ourselves over captured Taliban terrorists (who actually skinned their captured enemies alive if they got the chance back in Afghanistan - yes, I saw that in a TV documentary made by a prize winning journalist - can't remember his name but he also wrote "The Perfect Storm"). This war is no different than any other war America has fought. It's ugly. Human beings can be ruthless, even some of us. Jack Nicholson (and Arnold Harris) was right "You can't handle the truth" about harsh reality.