Friday Talking Points [58] -- [Expletive Deleted] Blagojevich

The history of profanity in American political discourse is an untold story out there just waiting for someone to research and write about -- although finding a willing publisher might be a bit of a problem. Because it seems we're back to the Nixonian days of "[expletive deleted]."

I speak not just of Rod Blagojevich, but also of those who speak of him. In other words, all who bowdlerize or otherwise sanitize his direct quotes. Quite literally -- in other words.

One of the more amusing historical stories of bowdlerization in American politics is John Nance Gardner's description of the Vice President's office being "not worth a bucket of warm piss." Gardner was F.D.R.'s veep for two terms, so it is assumed he knew what he was talking about. But this quote was changed (and misquoted for decades) to "... a warm bucket of spit." Gardner himself reportedly called one writer who used the cleaned-up version a "pantywaist," proving that he was probably one of those politicians it would be fun to have a beer with (he also sounds like he would kick your ass if you called him by his middle name).

Examples of foul-mouthed politicians abound, from deep in our history up to what was said yesterday by Senator David Vitter on the Senate floor (talking about the auto bailout plan): "Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Isn't that, to use a common phrase, just ass-backwards?"

Also yesterday, Senator John McCain poked fun at the whole situation by telling David Letterman "I don't want to talk about the bleeping campaign. Understand? If you think I'm going to go back to that bleeping situation, then bleep you." If you didn't catch it, McCain did say this with a smile, and was quite obviously joking.

McCain was spoofing Patrick Fitzgerald, who (being a lawyer and all) felt it necessary to continually remind the media that when he said "bleep" he wasn't actually quoting Blagojevich. Here are just a few examples from his press conference where he outlined the charges against the Illinois governor, and had to repeatedly quote the governor's words:

"That's a quote. And the word 'bleep' was not the word he used. ... And the bleeps are not really bleeps. ... Those are his words, not our characterization, other than with regard to the bleep. ... And again, the bleep is a redaction."

While Richard Nixon is the undisputed king of recorded American political profanity, for the sheer volume of "secret tapes" transcripts filled with the euphemism "[expletive deleted]," he probably only earned this title because he taped so much of what he said. It's not really a stretch to imagine a few salty words being exchanged between Bush and Cheney, for instance. Cheney, infamously, told Senator Patrick Leahy to "Go fuck yourself!"-- again, on the floor of the Senate. This one bred the highly amusing pseudo-euphemism still cheerfully used by bloggers today: "Go Cheney yourself!"

But, as Blagojevich shows, strong language is a bipartisan tradition. Incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is known throughout the corridors of power in Washington as being quick to use scathing language himself. And one can only assume that this has been pretty constant throughout American history as well (Consider: what do you think Teddy Roosevelt would have said if he hit his thumb with a hammer?). Even George Washington himself was known for his mastery of profanity (to his troops, mainly).

While some mainstream media mavens (such as Sam Donaldson) profess to be sanctimoniously "shocked" by such behavior, a brave few have stated the obvious. Here's an excellent example from Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm's hilarious column on the subject:

Who are we $#&*/=@ kidding here? You know =)&%9\ well what every one of these $#&*/=@ euphemisms means. Even if we mix up the symbols in each &#$-*@/ phrase, you can @/-$&#* figure it out.

Same on the (bleeping) TV bleeps. It's a royal pain in the bleeping %$*. We don't even allow )%-$ in the Comments section here because that would be $#&*/=@ rude.

And anyone who doesn't $#&*/=@ like that, can go bleeping bleep.

In fact, I would go further.

Since the entire concept of "profanity" is a construct of the way the English language developed, I charge that "bleeping" statements from public officials is classist, elitist, and ethnic snobbery to boot.

To understand my reasoning, we must go back to 1066 A.D., when the Normans overran England. For the next few hundred years, England was ruled by France. Meaning that the court language was French. In other words, the upper classes all spoke French, while the lower classes still spoke English. And French words entered the English language as a result.

But while English was absorbing French, and moving away from its Germanic roots, the language itself got divided into two classes. All the Latin-based words were considered "high class" and all the Germanic-based words became "low class." This still holds true today. There is fundamentally no difference between "defecating" or "feces" and "shit." None whatsoever. The meaning is the same. It still smells just as bad. It's just that a courtesan would defecate, whereas a farmer would take a shit.

Farmers used short, Anglo-Saxon words to talk about just about every aspect of their lives, and we now belittle any of these which talk of bodily elimination (shit, piss) or "naughty" body parts (cock, ass, tits, cunt) as "four-letter words" or "profanity" -- and yet there are "medical" terms for all of these which may be used in polite conversation, even around children. Because the "medical" terms are all Latin-based, and therefore "correct" and "proper," whereas the Germanic terms are "crude" and "obscene."

It is nothing more than ancient British snobbery. It's not even Puritanism, it predates the Puritans. What is being looked down upon is the Germanic base to the language itself. Since I am over three-fourths Germanic ancestry myself, I call all "bleeps" of such quotes to be classism and elitism and jingoist.

And if you don't like it, then in the immortal words of Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: "Why don't you take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut? Why don't you take a flying fuck at the mooooooooooooon?"

Ahem. So to speak. But definitely not "in other words."

 

But enough of that nonsense, we've got some awards to hand out!

In a decision which will surprise some, Michigan's Senator Carl Levin wins this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award this week.

I know, I know, Levin has been the chief enabler of the car companies' absolute refusal to modernize in any way, shape, or form -- for the past thirty years or so. Levin has allowed Detroit to resist such commonsense improvements as airbags and other safety features for decades now. To say nothing of the fuel economy standards he helped kill. He personally bears some of the blame currently being heaped upon the car companies, for facilitating their short-sightedness in the Senate.

But the award isn't for the most disappointing for "The Past Three Decades," but rather for "The Week." And Carl Levin spearheaded an incredible achievement this week that is just not getting the attention it deserves. Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, just issued a non-classified summary of a full report (which is still classified) on American detainee abuse. This is a scathing report, which fully rejects the "only a few bad apples" falsehood which President Bush and others have used to sweep under the rug any talk of their officially sanctioning torture.

From a lengthy statement by Levin, which sums up the report better than any news story yet:

The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody compromised our moral authority and damaged both our ability to attract allies to our side in the fight against terrorism and to win the support of people around the world for that effort. In May 2004, just after the pictures from Abu Ghraib became public, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that the abuses depicted were simply the result of a few "bad apples" and that those responsible for abuse would be held accountable. More than seven months later, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Asked about accountability for detainee abuses, Gonzales said "we care very much about finding out what happened and holding people accountable." Neither of those two statements was true.

. . .

The message from the top was clear; it was appropriate to consider degrading and abusive techniques for use against detainees. Given that message, Secretary Wolfowitz's characterization of detainee abuse as the result of "a few bad apples" is simply false. The Committee, in fact, reached the opposite conclusion.

. . .

The abuses at Abu Ghraib, [Guantanamo Bay] and elsewhere cannot be chalked up to the actions of a few bad apples. Attempts by senior officials to portray that to be the case while shrugging off any responsibility for abuses are both unconscionable and false. Our investigation is an effort to set the record straight on this chapter in our history that has so damaged both America's standing and our security. America needs to own up to its mistakes so that we can rebuild some of the good will that we have lost.

The most stunning thing in this story is that Carl's committee passed the report unanimously. While (being a Republican) he's not eligible for a MIDOTW award, I also have to mention that the ranking minority member on the committee was Senator John McCain -- who assumably was influential in getting all twelve Republicans on the committee to approve the report.

I don't know what consequences this report will ultimately have. But I do know it is an excellent first step to make sure this never happens again. And, no matter what he does to protect Detroit's evil ways, Senator Carl Levin fully deserves this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

Well done, Carl!

[Congratulate Senator Carl Levin on his Senate contact page to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

While I wrote a column yesterday critical of Dianne Feinstein's handling of the inaugural planning (she's the planning committee's chair), this was small potatoes indeed when we look at the week as a whole.

Because Rod Blagojevich just blew everyone else out of the water this week. For singlehandedly putting Illinois in contention with Ted Stevens' Alaska for "most corrupt state in America," and for being so obviously and blatantly corrupt while selling Obama's Senate seat, the Illinois governor (soon to be "former, disgraced governor") wins the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week hands down.

For shame, Rod, for shame.

[Contact Governor Rod Blagojevich on his Governor's contact page to let him know what you think of his actions (but do it soon, as he won't be there much longer!).]

 

Volume 58 (12/12/08)

Because we're running long this week (when does this column ever "run short" for that matter?), we only have an abbreviated three talking points. To make up for the lack, the first two will be longish.

 

   The "National Security" card

Here is a riddle:

Q: Why is it important to save the auto industry?

A: Because you can't buy a 1944 Chevy at any price.

That sounds senseless, but it's not. Classic car enthusiasts know full well that there aren't any American cars of the model years 1943, 1944, or 1945. The reason for that was that the Detroit assembly lines were busy making tanks, airplanes, and other military vehicles. Victory ships and munitions were being built in other factories, as well. In fact, it can be argued that the American production line was key in winning World War II. If we weren't able to resupply our military forces, we might have lost the war.

The automobile industry is one of the last remaining industries in America that actually makes things. There are a few others. We still make airplanes, for instance. But the universe of factories and production lines with American workers is shrinking. And when (for instance) the Chinese buy up an American company, they don't just move the jobs over there, they also crate up the entire factory's production line and move it all over there, too.

Meaning if we were ever faced with a war which required massive production, we would first have to make the machines which make other machines. And that makes it a matter of national security.

I am somewhat surprised that President Bush hasn't advanced this argument yet, since (1) Republicans are always quick to make connections with all kinds of things and "national security" as a rule, and (2) Bush certainly hasn't been any piker at justifying anything under the sun he wants to do as "national security." But just because the Republicans are mostly against the plan and Bush is twisting in the wind of hot air from his own party, that doesn't mean that Democrats can't successfully make the same argument. Because, while the ins and outs of the Detroit bailout plan are much too complex for me to go into here, there is indeed a valid argument to be made here. Make it, and maybe the media will be distracted from blaming everything on the union workers. It's certainly worth a try.

"We won World War II in part because Detroit stopped building cars and started building the vehicles we needed to win that war. If we let the American auto industry die completely, this would put our national security at risk. Remember during the early phases of the Iraq war when we couldn't get enough up-armored Hummers, and later when we couldn't get MRAPs quickly enough? Imagine if America couldn't even produce these vehicles at all. And imagine what would happen if we were in a situation where we had to manufacture such vehicles on a massive scale. This isn't like watching the toaster industry move offshore. Our military, if need be, can eat cold bread instead of toast. But if America is ever forced to wage war on a large scale ever again, we may look back at when we lost the American auto industry as being criminally and disastrously short-sighted."

 

   Torture is a war crime

The Levin/McCain report which I referenced earlier needs a lot more attention than it is getting. It opens up all sorts of questions about what to do next, which the incoming Obama administration is going to have to answer. Should a Special Prosecutor be named? Should a commission be empanelled? One way or another, Obama is going to have to field this hot potato, because just ignoring it and hoping it'll go away is not going to be an option.

The report is long, but any American interested in what was done in their name can read the full thing [PDF version] to understand the magnitude of what happened. If we're going to avoid ever doing this again, then all the details need to be dragged out into the cold light of day.

"Any reasonable person who has read the Levin/McCain report can come to only one conclusion. America tortured prisoners. This torture was approved by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and other high-ranking government officials. Torture is a war crime. It is a crime against humanity. The incoming Obama administration needs to act to insure that this never happens again. America is governed by laws, not by men. The biggest thing President Obama could do to restore dignity and honor to the White House is to get this all out into the light of day, for history to judge. Because this was done in my name and in every other American citizens' name as well. And I, for one, want some accountability."

 

   Blag. A Blaggy week all around.

OK, to end on a somewhat lighter note here, I am picking up my linguistic lance and tilting at the Blagojevich windmill. Or, to be more precise, the "Blago" windmill. Because the blogosphere has apparently (I guess I didn't get the memo) decided on "Blago" as a cutesy shortening of the tongue-twisting full last name of the disgraced Illinois governor. But I think the "O" at the end of that makes it sound a little too cool, and a less of a fool. So I'm proposing two alternatives (in my "moose poop" tradition of trying to inject neologisms into the blogosphere).

The first is "Blag" which has a satisfyingly Cro-Magnon sound to it. It's more of a caveman grunt than the upbeat-sounding "Blago" (try both out loud, you'll see what I mean). Blag. It even has a nice Anglo-Saxon four-letter-word feel to it.

If "Blag" doesn't do it for you, how about "Blaggy" instead? Blaggy sounds like a diminutive schoolyard taunt, which (at this point) seems pretty appropriate.

"I heard the transcripts of ol' Blag begging for money for Obama's Senate seat. Blag is really in the frying pan now. It's going to take some fancy footwork for Blaggy to avoid some jail time, don't you think?"

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

Comments

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

}}}}
McVeigh may be considered an ideologue, but his attack was not "ongoing and systematic."
{{{{

His attacks, personally, were not systematic and ongoing.. Again, thank the gods... But the ideological agenda he was trying to further was and is systematic and ongoing... Hence, the attack was terrorism..

Mohammed Atta's 9/11 attack was not systematic and ongoing. But, because it was furthering the agenda of Al Qaeda, it was definitely an act of terrorism... Granted, conspiracy theorists place Atta everywhere from Prague to having tea in the Rose Garden but the point is, while the terrorist may only have 1 attack under his belt, the fact that it is designed to further an agenda is the defining quality..

Michale.....

[realpolitic]

Czech agents confirmed that Atta was not in Prague. His picture was taken using an ATM in, I believe, Florida when he was supposed to be in Prague. What else are the conspiracy theorists telling you these days?

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

LewDan See Profile I'm a Fan of LewDan I'm a fan of this user permalink

}}}
Chris here, whose comment section we seem to be monopolizing,
{{{

Yea, I tend to do that a lot to him.. The guy has the patience of Job... :D

}}}
They're incredibly easy to rationalize and people have an amazing capacity for self-deception, you simply do not have to be evil to do evil.
}}}

I see your point. But, as I mentioned before, the idealistic side of me tends to think that our leaders would be above that sort of thing...

But I think your last point ("you simply do not have to be evil to do evil.") is very dead on accurate..

There is no doubt that Bush et al has made mistakes in his administration.. In your chosen vernacular, he has "done evil"..

But, as I mentioned in a previous post above (or below, depending on how you SORT) does it just "appear" evil to us because we don't have all the facts?? Or is it doing evil with the best of intentions? Either of those can, and SHOULD, be forgiven...

Of course, you could be right and Bush is Satan incarnate...

I just tend to think that, if this was the case, it would have come out before he took office as the POTUS...

Michale....

[LewDan]

In reciprocity I should've told you that, as I'm sure you've guessed, I too am a specialist. I've been an analyst for 40 years. I'm not just judgmental, I've been earning my living being judgmental and jumping to conclusions for four decades. You may want to hold that against me -- I'll risk it.

I think it did "come out before he took office as the POTUS." I decided against Bush in 2000 based on his record as Governor. In particular I felt his consistent record of refusing pardons in Capital cases, apparently irregardless of circumstances, because "the jury has spoken," showed a lack of empathy and compassion, an indifference to the fate of others, that I found appalling.

To me, the idea of someone who exhibits no compassion and cultivates the image of a "cowboy" as CIC was chilling. There's no evidence proving Bush/Cheney committed War Crimes. But there's enough for me to feel comfortable personally inditing them.

5-6 tours in theater. Guardsmen, who signed up as auxiliary troops for emergency use, used as regular troops. No increase in troop strength sought. The lack of personal and vehicle armor. VA under staffing and under financing. Facts.

Bush's shown no more empathy or compassion with troops than he did with his pardons, as I'd predicted.

I won't go into all the breadcrumbs, but I see a pattern. An Iraq invasion absent justification, callous indifference to casualties, civilian and military on both sides, doesn't surprise me in the least.

[Michale32086]

Again, this is why I really like what you write, my earlier antagonism notwithstanding..

}}}}
There's no evidence proving Bush/Cheney committed War Crimes. But there's enough for me to feel comfortable personally inditing them.
{{{{

This is the kind of statements that are logical, rational and I can understand completely. It is also the kind of statement that is completely at odds with the hysterical Left and all their screams and whines of "War Criminal" etc etc..

They (the hysterical Left) moan and whine and beaches about "rights" and "liberties" but completely ignore the very FOUNDATION of those rights. That an American is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.. Such hypocrisy...

}}}}
I won't go into all the breadcrumbs, but I see a pattern. An Iraq invasion absent justification, callous indifference to casualties, civilian and military on both sides, doesn't surprise me in the least.
}}}}}

But surely you must concede that we see the bare surface of what Bush is all about. I don't see a "callous indifference to casualties", but rather a controlled man who doesn't, who CAN'T, be over emotional about things...

But, again, that comes from my own biases and such. I guess you might call it an over indulgence of idealism that no one, not even Satan herself, could be as evil as the hysterical Left claims Bush is.. :D

Michale.....

[LewDan]

@Michale32086

I agree. My comments were just laying the ground work. Intent is everything and I don't believe Bush's Iraq intentions were honorable or about CT. And paying "bounties" for "terrorists" then incarcerating them for years solely on Bush's word with the lack of accountability and incompetence typical of Bush/Cheney?

I trust the military Don't doubt for a second they perform CT Ops, that they're professional, that their integrity's beyond reproach.

But they follow orders. They trust their fellows and their fellows are trustworthy. But the top of the chain is civilian. People I think aren't qualified, competent, or acting with integrity. And "private contractors...?!"

It isn't the military, my opinions are political. I think we're engaging in "terrorism." At the very least I can see how others could legitimately believe that. I trace our Iran problems to our support for the Shaw. Iran's initial beef, at least, was entirely legitimate, of our own making.

Being black, the idea of the U.S exploiting and terrorizing people, professing complete innocence and responding with outraged indignation to "terrorists" and "insurgents" when victims defend themselves, isn't radical. Its family history. I may be predisposed to see it, but I think I'm simply open to the possibility. Conversely, I know America's predisposed to complete denial.

Americans think America as "terrorist" wholly against American character. I see it frequently reoccurring throughout American history. My point is America's sometimes its own worst enemy, and needs to realize that.

[Michale32086]

This is one of those issues where we will probably have to agree to disagree.. I see Bush et al as making tough decisions with the best of intentions. Neither of us have all the information at our fingertips that Bush has. So, how can we say for sure whether Bush is the saint or the sinner?? Many people said the same things about Abraham Lincoln in his time that are being said about Bush in the here and now..

Who knows how future historians will view these events, once full disclosure is made..

Michale.....

[LewDan]

I can respect that.

POTUS isn't a job I'd take if it was delivered on a gold platter. "Tough decisions" doesn't begin to describe it. And I've basically NO information. We both know how little information is public. What's done is done. I'm more interested in damage control than proving I'm right.

[Mildmannered]

We essentially don't manufacture any "hard" products anymore. We manufacture those "soft" ones, you know the ones which comprise bundling, rebundling, cutting, repackaging various assets, e.g., loans, stocks, bonds, etc. Adding absolutely no value but making the rich wealthier and keeping MBA's and lawyers busy.

Time: (1) for Wal-Mart to say that they are going to give priority to goods made in the U.S. and help their suppliers make them in the US.; (2) for Tom Frieman to recognize the importance of make things in the U.S. which you can touch and sell and not say that it is the natural course of economic events that the Chinese will make everything for us; and (3) for the U.S. government to help us rebuild our manufacturing base, e.g., set up Manufacturing Engineering research centers, set up schools to train machinists, tax breaks for R&D, replace the idiot Patent Office management with those with patent prosecution experience and not just political hacks

[Mildmannered]

let me continue my rant -- Time (4) for us to insist that the Chinese let their currency float to a natural level, to respect intellectual property rights, to produce products which are safe to the user, and to produce products which are environmentally safe to their workers

[LewDan]

Not too found of your 1st point, agree with all the rest. Though I hope they're not in order of importance.

We really must clean our own house if we're to have any credibility making demands of others. And we absolutely have to stop bullying everyone else. This "The Last Superpower(TM)" nonsense has to end.

And even though China did us no favors, and for their own reasons -- they DID finance us while we "shopped til we dropped." I REALLY don't like the ethics of preaching to China until our own hands are squeaky clean.

[LewDan]

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.

Torturing a terrorist for the purposes of obtaining intel does NOT fit the definition, ANY definition, of terrorism..."

@Michale

You realize Mil definitions is speaking a different language from the rest of us? I've dealt with jargon heavy specialists all my life and some're unable to communicate with non-specialists. They haven't a clue what they hear isn't what was said, and what they say isn't what's heard.

When wrote my "definition" wasn't the definition, I took it for ideology, obviously not credible. My dictionary says simply "The act of terrorizing," and there's no single definition. "Torturing a terrorist for the purposes of obtaining intel" does fit that definition.

When I read your background I realized we were speaking past each other because you're a specialist. Your definition is operational, it suits the military. Most obviously, it eliminates military personnel as terrorist targets. I imagine routine security isn't CT. We don't make that distinction. The 9/11 Pentagon attack was definitely terrorism to us. Your definition ignores one-time attackers like Timothy McVeigh. "Innocent" civilians sounds like legalese to differentiate good guys from bad guys. "Political, economical or ideological," how about sexual? A police matter, not CT.

Its the fact vs truth thing. When you criticized my definition you stated a fact, but it wasn't the truth, unintentionally so.

[Michale32086]

I can't argue with anything you posted here.. Really bums me out.. :D J/K

I see what you are saying. Yes, if one takes it down to the basics that terrorism is the act of terrorizing then I see your logic in saying that (again, at it's base) torture is terrorism.

However, many things are terrorizing that are not terrorism. I just watched the new Keifer Sutherland movie last night, MIRRORS (I highly recommend it if you like scary movies) and it was terrorizing. But it obviously wasn't terrorism.

Granted, it's a silly comparison, but it illustrates my point.

The biggest factor that determines terroism (in my not so humble opinion) is intent.. I know that some believe that our intent in torturing terrorists is to send a message to the terrorists. I disagree with that assertion and have seen no evidence to support that assertion. Let me be clear. I believe that torture should only be used in very specific circumstances.

1. Where it is a proven fact that the subject is a terrorist.

2. There is imminent loss of innocent life or lives.

Under these circumstances, I believe EVERY option, short of terrorism itself, should be utilized. Because the overall goal is to save lives..

CONT

[LewDan]

"Granted, it's a silly comparison, but it illustrates my point."

Not so silly. One of the scariest movies I've ever seen is Clint Eastwood's "Play Misty For Me," and it was just about one mentally deranged female stalker.

Since I no longer believe in vampires and werewolves, most "horror" flicks are more amusing than scary. But the idea of some casual personal contact turning into being hunted and terrorized by a deranged psychopath through no fault of your own? Now THAT terrified me, and illustrates my point of "terrorists" who aren't on CT radar.

[Michale32086]

CONT

As far as your Timothy McVeigh reference, yes his specific act was a one time deal for him, thank gods.. But it was terrorism because it was an act of violence against innocent civilians furthering the agenda of an ideology. Referring to the "innocent civilians" part, that is to differentiate between civilians who might be combatants vs truly innocent civilians.

I go into more detail regarding the definition here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-ayers-/terrorism-some-definition_b_144334.html

Getting back the the issue if intent.. It is intent that is very important in the definition of terrorism.

Take two quasi hypothetical situations.

The US bombs a communications center, but accidentally hits a school full of children. Hundreds are killed.

A team of suicide bombers enters a school full of children and detonates. Hundreds are killed.

The exact same act. In the first instance, it's not terrorism. In the second, it most certainly is.

The deciding factor is intent.

Many who point the finger at the US for every act committed and scream "TERRORISM!!" are only looking at the result and completely ignore the intent. But it's the intent that, by and large, is the determining factor..

To sum up....

CONT

[LewDan]

McVeigh may be considered an ideologue, but his attack was not "ongoing and systematic."

[Michale32086]

CONT

To sum up, I don't believe our torturing of terrorists is done with the idea of terrorizing them or sending a message to other terrorists that "the gloves have come off"... I believe that the Bush Administration HAS gone too far in the area, but I don't assign nefarious reasons to these actions. I prefer to think of it as more of misguided enthusiasm in the pursuit of protecting this country. But I grant you, that belief is more rooted in my idealistic side than anything else. I just find it hard to believe that our leaders (who WERE freely elected (Twice), despite claims to to the contrary) could be the depraved and perverse leaders that some would make them out to be.

If you get a chance, read THE LAST PRESIDENT. It's a "what-if" scenario on how a Nixon Presidency might have gone..

Michale.....

[LewDan]

Chris here, whose comment section we seem to be monopolizing, recently reminded me of Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee "Trail of Tears." President McKinley also comes to mind with regard to Native American relations.

As a young man at DOD I saw first hand how easily and casually power can be abused, not for some Machiavellian, Satanic or draconian reason, but because of ego, to save face, repay a slight... Sadly I've no difficulty at all believing our leaders could institute "depraved and perverse" policies. Presidents have done it with depressing regularity. They're incredibly easy to rationalize and people have an amazing capacity for self-deception, you simply do not have to be evil to do evil.

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

}}}}
We could, and should, turn Bush/Cheney over to the Hague for war crimes prosecution under our treaty obligations. But does anyone really think ANY President or Congress would set that kind of precedent? Even if they were willing does anyone believe the current Bush-loving Supreme Court would sanction it?
{{{{

There is a very good reason why Pelosi took Impeachment off the table..

How can you impeach the President when he had Congressional authorization for everything he did?

Since you mentioned the Nixon era, I am sure you are familiar with the statement made that, "if the President does it, it's not illegal." I am sure you would agree with me that the statement is pure bunk..

However, "If Congress authorizes it and the President does it, it's not illegal" is a factually correct statement.

This is why you won't see any trial or any prosecution or any investigation into the President's actions.

Because those who would investigate know fully well their own responsibility in the actions..

Michale....

[LewDan]

I've no reason to believe hypocrisy would deter Congressional action. I think a case could be made the President obtained authorization fraudulently. Both in the case he made to win authorization and in ignoring the conditions on what was a conditional authorization.

But I think the Supreme Court would agree with you on the legality. I happen to agree with you too. Though I also believe (to badly paraphrase Nixon) that if Congress impeached on it, its a high crime or misdemeanor.

I think Pelosi took impeachment off the table simply because there is no way they would win the votes for it. Republicans voting against unanimously wouldn't surprise me, and even if they didn't it wouldn't pass. Democratic defections are a given. They can't support anything unanimously

What's just about guaranteed is that impeachment would shut down government. Nothing else would get through Congress. It would absolutely enrage 25-35% of the public and would accomplish absolutely nothing productive.

[realpolitic]

If war crimes were committed it does not matter who authorized it in an attempt to make it legal. Illegal regimes often construct an elaborate legal mechanism making it legal for them to commit misdeeds and sometimes butchery. We do not have to hand Bush or Rumsfield over. If they travel abroad, they could be arrrested as was Pinochet.

[Michale32086]

Key word there being "IF".... "IF" war crimes were committed.

Do you honestly view your American government as an "illegal regime"???

Seriously??

Michale.....

[Mildmannered]

I'll bet that we could actually bundle our war crimes up into those collateralized debt obligations along with the worthless subprime mortgages, and sell them back and forth, borrowing money from the Chinese to do so, and no one will be the wiser until the "war crimes bubble" hits us in a couple of years.

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

}}}}
I'll grant my statement's bigoted. It just happens to be true, 's not my fault if the facts are bigoted
{{{{

I admire your honesty..

But, I don't deal in truth...

"If truth is what you are after, Professor Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall"
-Indiana Jones

I deal in facts.. And your confessed bigoted statement has nothing to do with the facts..

}}}
Sorry, but welcome to my world. There is a reason that 90% of blacks vote Democratic, and I don't believe its because the GOP is just grossly misunderstood by all of us.
{{{

So, the 10% of blacks that DID vote GOP.. They are wrong??

Or do they just have different beliefs??

Michale.....

[LewDan]

"So, the 10% of blacks that DID vote GOP.. They are wrong??"

Yes, they have different beliefs, they may be wrong. I make my judgments based on the information I have, my own experience and education. I don't pretend to be infallible, I don't claim knowledge or expertise I don't have. I don't believe unanimity of opinion guarantees infallibility anymore than 80-90% agreement. If there is an all-knowing it isn't me. That's not going to stop me from making the best judgments I can.

I won't apologize for being judgmental, I'm not going to stop. I am a thinking animal. I am however open to persuasion and willing to adjust my thinking when I'm satisfied that I'm wrong. You've made a case for situational ethics. I've no disagreement with that, never had one. I believe situational decision making is dealing with reality. Its what I attempt to do.

I do believe in dealing in truth. But I've no reason to believe I've the full truth. I don't know there is absolute truth. I can't guarantee immutable truth. And I may well be mistaken in what I take for the truth. But again, I make no apologies. I do the best I can with what I've got, as honestly as I can, with whatever integrity I can muster. I'm content with that, and the rest of the world will just have to make do with it too. Its as much as their going to get.

[Michale32086]

Despite our differences on core issues, I do like the way you think and I especially like how you make no apologies for how you think..

You're a person I can understand, even if I don't agree with...

"I do not approve. I understand. Which is completely different."
-Spock, STAR TREK, A Taste Of Armageddon

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

CONT

It's not fear or depravity or immorality that leads the men and women of CT operations to torture a terrorist or commit horrible acts, repugnant acts... It's the knowledge that somewhere, some innocent person is alive. A person that WOULDN'T be alive if not for those actions.

Who knows.. That person might have been your sibling... Your spouse... Your parent... Your child...

Would you really condemn those men and women for their acts??

Feel free to pooh-pooh this all away as some 24-inspired melodrama... But, if you are the military person you claim to be (and I have no reason to doubt other wise) you would know that what I have stated is the reality of the world we live in...

American fighters dogfighting with enemies is not something just out of Top Gun...

Just ask Libya...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

}}}}
I'm well aware that MI in particular is sometimes subject to a "the end justify the means mentality, " legal or not, and sometimes that may be unavoidable...
{{{{

Ahhhh

Common ground...

In the field of CT et al, the only SURVIVABLE mentality is the ends justifies the means...

Nietzsche tells us that, when fighting monsters, one must take guard against BECOMING the monster.

However, how do you fight an enemy that nothing BUT a monster can defeat?

THAT is the dilemma that faces the men and women of counter-terrorism each and every day.

My principles and my morals are very important to me.. As I am sure yours are to you..

But.... Are your principles worth someone else's life? A dozen people? A hundred?? How many innocent lives are worth your principles? When do the very lives of innocent people override your principles?

I have done some pretty awful things in my life. Repugnant things, horrible things.. Yet, I sleep like a baby each and every night because I know that I served the greater good. If I have to make a bargain with the devil so that others might live, I consider that a worthwhile bargain...

CONT

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

To all defending the (um) honor of Chicago machine politics as being "#1" -

You're right. Chicago has always been there, quietly under the radar for most of the country, while spectacular flareups happen elsewhere. For Chicago's long and steady tradition of corruption, I have to revise and extend my remarks and say you folks have a valid claim to the title, and always have.

Heh.

Also, I forgot to mention, FTP will be going on our annual hiatus for the next two weeks, as we present our annual ripoff of the McLaughlin Awards. Join us for the next two Fridays as we take a look at 2008 in review. Here's a look at last year's, for those who haven't seen these before:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2007/12/21/my-mclaughlin-awards-for-2007-part-1/

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2007/12/28/my-mclaughlin-awards-for-2007-part-2/

Thanks to all for commeting.

-CW

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

}}}}
After 275 years we're still trying to prove we're Americans. For some reason Republicans, and many other Americans, just don't want to hear it.
{{{{{

With the utmost respect (and I do mean that sincerely) this is a pretty bigoted statement..

Let me show you..

"After 275 years we're still trying to prove we're Americans. For some reason Asian people, and many other Americans, just don't want to hear it."

Do you see how bigoted THAT statement is?

Michale.....

[LewDan]

I'll grant my statement's bigoted. It just happens to be true, 's not my fault if the facts are bigoted

Did you miss the Presidential campaign when the Black church in particular and black people in general were portrayed by Republicans as "other," not regular Americans?

An African-American is elected President for the first time in history, and suddenly, also for the first time, America suddenly notices that he's half-white? When was the last time you heard the word bi-racial thrown around?

Sorry, but welcome to my world. There is a reason that 90% of blacks vote Democratic, and I don't believe its because the GOP is just grossly misunderstood by all of us.

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

}}}}}
Were the people apprehended and held at GitMo caught committing acts of terror?
{{{{{

I don't know for a fact either way..

Do you??

}}}}}
GWB defining someone an "enemy combatant" does not make them a terrorist.
{{{{{

Agreed... But, as the Commander In Chief and with the authorizations handed to the CiC by Congress, he DOES have the right and responsibility to make that determination.

}}}}}
Just calling someone a spy, saboteur, or terrorist does not absolve you of your responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions.
{{{{{

If they are, then it does....

}}}}}
You've justified and supported the use of torture. The whole purpose of torture is to terrify. It does not induce people to talk by making them feel all warm and cuddly. If you can't accept terrifying someone as terrorism, so be it, we've irreconcilable differences.
{{{{{

Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda.

Torturing a terrorist for the purposes of obtaining intel does NOT fit the definition, ANY definition, of terrorism...

Again, I ask you. What is more important? The comfort of a proven terrorist or saving innocent lives???

Michale....

[standard]

"[If] we were ever faced with a war [that] required massive production, we would first have to make the machines [that] make other machines. And that makes it a matter of national security."

Second only to the Bush administration's practice of incarcerating people indefinitely without formal charges, access to an attorney, or access to competent courts of law--in complete and direct violation of several provisions of our Bill of Rights--the Republican Party's current twin, direct frontal assaults on America's principal remaining manufacturing capacity and on its strongest --and, quite probably, cleanest and most influential--labor union is what scares me the most about the legacy of past eight years. America has prevailed in wars and over economic depressions, but has never in living memory faced a war without having sufficient manufacturing capabilities to support our war effort, nor a depressed economy without effective trade unions to protect our workforce.

Thank you for highlighting the manufacturing-capacity matter as the critical national security issue it is.

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}
Then again, I'm prejudiced by actual military service, Pentagon duty, that training on Geneva Conventions and the concept of "mutual disarmament." I've no idea if you've served but your attitude is typical of uninformed ideologue chicken-hawks. Reality's different.
}}}

Do you really want to compare my reality???

I am a veteran of the USAF and the US Army. I was an MI Ell Tee during Desert Storm and had served as an LEO and an FSO for the better part of a quarter century. I have also served as a military and intelligence liaison to about a half dozen different countries, spanning the globe..

Now, if you have comparable CT experience, then we can talk...

If you don't, then you are speaking from ignorance...

Michale......

[LewDan]

Then how is it you don't understand military rights and responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions? What constitutes terrorism? I'm well aware that MI in particular is sometimes subject to a "the end justify the means mentality, " legal or not, and sometimes that may be unavoidable... but if you clearly know, or should know better, what's with the misinformation campaign here? This isn't a pissing contest.

[Michale32086]

Then quit treating it like one with your judgmental attitude...

I DO understand military rights and responsibilities..

I am also very well aware of the fact that terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Conventions.. Therefore, ANY discussion of the Geneva Conventions with regards to terrorists and terrorism is completely irrelevant...

As I stated in my original posting, the situation in Iraq is a quasi military situation and the Geneva Conventions DO have relevance... I admit that this is a change of heart from my previous postings where the situation in Iraq was quite different..

However, it is ALSO true that, strictly operating under the auspices of CT operations, the Geneva Conventions have absolutely NO bearing on the ROE...

Personally speaking, I have absolutely NO problem with terrorists being tortured for intel.. Especially if such intel will save innocent lives..

I mean, what's more important here?? The comfort and convenience of terrorists?? Or the saving of innocent lives??

To me, it's a no brainer..

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@LewDan

}}}}
About my comments on torture's effectiveness, enemy morale, danger to U.S Forces, and international opinion, my "source" is the United States Army. Its information all U.S soldiers (pre-Bush) were given in basic training regarding conduct under the Geneva Conventions, and why. I'll trust the military on military matters until someone proves to me they're wrong.
}}}}

As I have shown, there is NO Geneva Conventions considerations when dealing with terrorists.

}}}}
Believing "might makes right," "the ends justify the means," the life of a fellow's more important than 100 other lives, and inducing terror to elicit information (or any other purpose) is legitimate tactics, IS the definition of a "terrorist."
{{{{{

Really?? Where do you find that definition.. Because that is not the definition of terrorism whatsoever..

}}}}
While YOU'VE no problem condemning OTHER terrorists while supporting terrorism yourself, MY capacity for hypocrisy is much lower. I'm also, unlike you, not so naive as to believe that although WE may practice terrorism to achieve OUR goals we can somehow convince OTHERS to be stupid enough to forgo the use of terrorism as a weapon against US, because WE don't like it!
{{{{

Please cite where I support terrorism...

You can't because I never have...

We won't be able to have a logical or rational discussion if you insist on just making stuff up..

CONT

[LewDan]

Were the people apprehended and held at GitMo caught committing acts of terror? GWB defining someone an "enemy combatant" does not make them a terrorist. Just calling someone a spy, saboteur, or terrorist does not absolve you of your responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions.

You've justified and supported the use of torture. The whole purpose of torture is to terrify. It does not induce people to talk by making them feel all warm and cuddly. If you can't accept terrifying someone as terrorism, so be it, we've irreconcilable differences.