Everyone--Dems included--agrees to pretend Bush compromised on torture

[BurtWorm]

By Glenn Greenwald

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/everyone-including-democrats-agrees-to.html


Everyone -- including Democrats -- agrees to pretend that Bush "compromised" on torture
(updated below)

No matter where one stands on the ideological spectrum, there is nothing confusing or unclear or ambiguous about the so-called "compromise" on torture, nor is there a lack of clarity about who won. It couldn't be any clearer. On the interrogation issue, there was only one simple issue from the beginning -- the Bush administration, through the CIA, has been using an array of "interrogation techniques" (induced hypothermia, long standing, threats to harm families, waterboarding) which most of the world considers to be torture. The question was whether the U.S. would be a country that uses these torture techniques (as the administration wanted) or whether it would ban them. That was the only issue all along.

Just last week at his press conference -- does the media have any short term memory at all? -- the President said he cared about only one thing with regard to the torture legislation: "I have one test for this legislation. I'm going to ask one question, as this legislation proceeds, and it's this: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue. That's what I'm going to ask." By "this program," he means the CIA's torture program.

This legislation unquestionably allows the administration to continue to do exactly what it is was doing before. It legalizes those methods. It actually strengthens what the administration was doing because now it provides those activities with statutory authority. Why are the media and others pretending that these questions are murky? They're not.

It's true that the "compromise" takes the indirect, cowardly path towards legalizing torture by relying upon vague standards to define torture and then vesting in the President the sole power (unreviewable by courts) to determine what techniques are and are not allowed by those standards. It is the President who decides whether the "aggressive interrogation" program (i.e., the torture program) can continue, and he has already decided, obviously, that it will.

That is why the President and his senior advisors are celebrating the fact that the "program" can now continue. Because it can. Because the "compromise" allows that. Because the White House won. Because the principled, dissident Republican Senators capitulated entirely on the central question of whether the U.S. will continue to torture people.

[BurtWorm]

1. Who needs GOP commercials when you have Democratic Senators?

<All of these words are by Glenn Greenwald>


"A handful of principled Republican Senators have forced the White House to back down from the worst elements of its extreme proposal for new interrogation rules,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. . . .

And Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised Senators Warner, McCain and Graham as “standing up to the administration” and producing a bill that, “while it has a number of problems, is a substantial improvement over the language proposed by the administration.”


So, according to Sen. Reid and Sen. Levin, Americans should be directing our gratitude to the brave, principled, independent Republicans who stood up to the President and protected us all while legalizing torture. That is a really good, shrewd message to be sending right now.

The only real advantage Democrats have during this election season is that Congressional Republicans are perceived to be rubber-stamping loyalists to George Bush who fail to impose any limits or checks on his behavior. But Sen. Reid and Sen. Levin are here to tell us that this isn't true, that Republican Senators are actually brave, principled and courageous and boldly stand up to the President in order to protect all of us not only from the Terrorists but also from the occasional excesses of the President....

[Skidmore]

2. Burt, I'm there with you.

I'm so disgusted by this and even more heartsick at being told to shut up, get in line, and wait till after the election. It's bad enough that the Republicans who would stand against this caved, but to then have our own Dems join in signing on to this travesty is beyond belief.

What have we become?

[Benfea]

20. F**k the Democrats.

Seriously. I'm this close to voting 3rd party next election.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. You Do Realize That You're On Democratic Underground Right?

Check your browser, you'll see I'm telling the truth. Generally, the members here don't appreciate narrow minded broad brush right wing sentiments such as 'Fuck the Democrats'.

[Rex]

3. I never thought I'd see the day we would publicly condone torture.

From any political party. Then again, I never thought the major news outlets would waste so much time and energy trying to cover up and lie for a president.

Like the guy above me said; what have we become?

[leftchick]

7. the repukes are brownshirts

and the democrats have become nazi appeasers. I am beyond sick.

[Rex]

9. I've pretty much lost it for today.

Time to go outside and pull weeds!

[MarianJack]

4. BUT WAIT! bush DID Compromise!

Instead of changing the Geneva Convention, he just gets to wipe his ass with it like he does with the Constitution (AKA the "goddamned piece of paper"). :wtf:

JEEZ, BurtWorm, Why do you hate America? Is it for our freedoms? :sarcasm:

Thanks for the post! :patriot:

[Solly Mack]

5. pretending props up the illusion

that our system of government is working

and when a system of government that relies on checks and balance to function no longer has those checks and balance - then that system isn't working

Not that there ever should be a compromise on torture...it's dishonest to even pretend such a thing can be compromised on

but there was no compromise...it was all smoke and mirrors

maintaining the illusion serves to appease the people...if the people believe the system worked, then anything government does is seen as "within the system"..or "legal"...or "just"...and if an action is "within the system", how can government be wrong? or guilty? or war criminals?

it's all one big lie

and that people can't see how they are manipulated into accepting the unacceptable is beyond me

[madrchsod]

6. compromised on what? breaking the law?

what ever bush and the congress does doesn`t mean they are with in the law.jesus christ i do have to give them credit for realizing the majority of the congress and the press are either cowards or stupid....lreally it`s just mind boggling

[Eric J in MN]

55. Bush will be within US law as he orders torture if that bill passes.

He won't be within the international law of the Geneva Conventions.

[sandnsea]

8. I haven't heard Dems say anything

I personally believe there's a fight going on about this as we speak, and the reason we haven't heard a word is because it's a pretty nasty fight. I do find those posting without knowing to be quite intersting though.

[BurtWorm]

10. What makes you say that?

What indication do you have that there's a fight going on out of view?

[sandnsea]

11. They have to vote don't they?

If it had been decided, they'd be issuing statements. Nobody is so it must not have been decided. Do you think none of our Senators are discussing this???

[BurtWorm]

12. Find me evidence that any are.

I'll believe you if I see it. I'd like to see a quote from some Democrat suggesting that they want to stop the Republican bills on this, that they have even the beginnings of a plan to counter them. I would love to see such evidence. I'd be grateful for it.

[sandnsea]

13. Why don't you?

YOU started the thread with your assertions that Democrats are compromising on this bill when there hasn't been ONE WORD to indicate that they are. YOU prove your words or YOU stop posting threads like this. Until I hear one way or the other, I'll challenge anybody I want to who posts unfounded threads like this.

[BurtWorm]

14. Glenn Greenwald wrote the original post. and #1.

Just so you're not confused.

You made the assertion that Democrats are fighting the Republicans on these bills. You show me the evidence.

[sandnsea]

15. You posted it

because you disagreed with it but didn't bother to comment to that affect? You started a thread without any evidence to back up your post?

I didn't say Democrats are fighting Republicans. I said they haven't said anything at all so it's impossible for you or anybody else to know whether they're agreeing with this bill. I said their silence on the subject would indicate an internal fight. That's what I said. An opinion that is as valid as the one in the OP.

[BurtWorm]

16. I posted a Glenn Greenwald post.

Listen: You made a claim. You back it up. I'm not going to go out and look for evidence to back up *your* claim. That's your job.

[sandnsea]

18. I posted an opinion

As to why Dems are silent. How can I post evidence on silence?? I can't do it any more than the idiot in the OP can, yet all of DU is ready to jump on that bandwagon - as per usual.

[BurtWorm]

22. "The idiot in the OP..."

I'll just take that to mean you don't know who Glenn Greenwald is.

I know about frustration, even disgust, over DU's many bandwagons against Dems who don't act or speak sufficiently like DUers. I've been arguing for the past two days about Rangel and Chavez. To me, defending Chavez is a losing proposition for the Dems; most Americans don't even know who he is, or if they do, he's the South American dictator who called Bush a devil. Defending Chavez for a politician trying to get elected accomplishes nothing but "feel-good" rhetoric for the left, who may even wind up voting for a Green for all its worth.

But the issue of torture goes straight to the heart of human rights. Democrats can affect that debate. They can come down clearly and strongly on the side against torture, in favor of justice and faith in the constitution. But have they said a damn thing? Not even you, who wants to contradict me, can find any evidence to do so.

[sandnsea]

29. I don't particularly care

But anybody who hurls insults with NO EVIDENCE is an idiot in my book. And that's what the idiot who wrote the OP did - NOT ME. Now I don't know or care why you prefer unfounded opinions that insult Democrats, but it's clear that you do as you prefer to believe Greenwald's insults over a more reasoned approach. It's also nothing new.

[BurtWorm]

30. "Anybody who hurls insults with no evidence is an idiot in my book."

;)

Point taken.

[sandnsea]

32. "No Dems have said anything"

I didn't hurl any insults at Dems, I objected to insults being hurled when no Democrat has said anything - don't you get the difference YET?

[BurtWorm]

44. My charge is the same as your defense.

You have no problems with Dems' silence. I do.

End of story.

[katinmn]

34. Burtworm, don't waste time on "Ignored!"

:yourock:

[BurtWorm]

43. Thanks.

:hi:

[countryjake]

17. Their silence is deafening, don't ya think?

And you are right, that they choose to leave their constituents wondering if they will actually condone the continued breaking of the Geneva Conventions, makes this entire drama very interesting. I've searched for response or comment from one of my Senators, and all I've found is that she will most likely be one of the ones who goes against any filibuster and thinks the "compromise" seems promising.

After personally helping to register a bunch of disenfranchised people, and this year, being the one to assist in the learning about each candidate and the correct way to fill out and mail in the ballots so that their votes might be counted in our primary, you can bet your sweet ass that come Nov., whatever this pro-war Senator of ours does with torture will be watched very closely by our little band of folks who have personal experience with being at the hands of the government of the USA!

Most people I know don't have to weigh this question of "legitimate torture" for very long to know how they feel about it and the ones playing politics with the very idea must not place a very high value on their coveted seats in Congress.

Where I come from, folk aren't scared of the right-wing, one bit. They've fought against it, for real, their entire lives.

[sandnsea]

19. It's disconcerting for sure

And I would agree it shouldn't take this long for any given official to know what they think on this Bill. But respecting their colleagues enough to hear them out on it - that's a different matter which is what believe must be going on or we'd have heard something by now.

[Disturbed]

21. Abuse, Humilation and Torture are all methods of

Subjugation. Under the Geneva Conventions these methods are deemed War Crimes. They are the acts of Terrorists. All those that support these acts are complicit in War Crimes.



Further Evidence Rumsfeld Implicated in War Crimes
Please read this important post by Marty Lederman, Army Confirms: Rumsfeld Authorized Criminal Conduct.
Here's a key section, but there's more:
The Army's charges against Jordan reflect the view, undoubtedly correct, that the use of forced nudity or intimidation with dogs against detainees subject to military control constitutes cruelty and maltreatment that Article 93 makes criminal. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not "torture," as such; nor does it matter whether the armed forces should be permitted to use such interrogation techniques: As things currently stand, they are unlawful, as even the Army now acknowledges.

But then how can we account for the actions of the Secretary of Defense and his close aides?

On November 27, 2002, Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes, following discussions with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, General Myers, and Doug Feith, informed the Secretary of Defense that forced nudity and the use of the fear of dogs to induce stress were lawful techniques, and he recommended that they be approved for use at Guantanamo. (The lists of techniques to which Haynes was referring can be found in this memorandum.) On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved those techniques for use at Guantanamo -- and subsequently those techniques were used on detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani.

In other words, the Secretary of Defense authorized criminal conduct.

...

Today's Army charge under UCMJ Article 93 against Lt. Col. Jordan -- for conduct that the SecDef actually authorized as to some detainees -- demonstrates that Rumsfeld approved of, and encouraged, violations of the criminal law.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/further_evidence_rumsfeld_implicated_in_war_crimes.html

[annm4peace]

25. Print off these pictures on Postcard paper

and send to your Senator's and Reps who are supporting this bill, even send it to their home address to see what their families think about it.
Send to the local press that isn't reporting the bill

[hootinholler]

38. Great Idea! Run their Faxes out of paper with these images!

DO IT!

NOW! LETS GO!

-Hoot

[The Straight Story]

27. My only question about that: Was it seen as criminal and people convicted?

If so, how does that relate to this legislation?

[annm4peace]

23. Democratic candidate for House of Rep, speaks out.

retired FBI whistleblower, Coleen Rowley post this on her website last night.
her opponate, Rep John Kline is co-sponsering Bush's bill.
Coleen's website if you care to donate is http://www.coleenrowley.com/index.php
(we need to find out and support current Senators and Reps, and candidates who are speaking out, it isn't like the media is going to report it)

A Missed Opportunity for Accountability
(The following was co-authored by Coleen Rowley and David Bailey)

After an all-day meeting with Dick Cheney yesterday, Republican Senators McCain, Graham and Warner emerged to proclaim that they had reached a compromise with the administration on military tribunals and interrogation tactics. McCain expressed "no doubt that the integrity and the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved," and Graham insisted it will "take off the table things that are not within American values."

They should know better.



Of the three major flaws in the bill Bush originally presented to Congress, only one has been removed: suspects will have the right to examine the evidence against them, subject to existing rules designed to protect national security. Protection against arbitrary and indefinite incarceration was not part of Bush's proposal, nor is it in the compromise bill. And despite powerful rhetoric about "the integrity and the letter and the spirit of the Geneva Conventions," Bush got his way on that as well. Abuses which were never under discussion --- murder, mutilation and rape, for example --- are now explicitly prohibited; otherwise the President decides what can happen. In other words, this bill would explicitly allow the interrogation practices used at Abu Ghraib, so long as George Bush approved them.

As a 24-year veteran of the FBI, I know that using rough interrogation tactics to overbear a suspect's will is not only wrong ethically, it is ineffective. Subjecting someone to pain and humiliation doesn't compel them to tell the truth; it compels them to say whatever will make the pain stop. This generates bad intelligence. Moreover, when we undercut the Geneva Conventions, we eliminate any motivation for our enemies to treat our captured soldiers humanely. Our goal must be to first disrupt, then detain, interrogate, and prosecute those who would do us harm while remaining true to the rule of law and the principles which have served our country well for more than two centuries. Effective interrogation and intelligence-gathering is not at odds with established legal principles as Bush and Cheney would like us to believe. This is why the FBI forbids the use of torture and rough interrogation methods (like waterboarding), as does the Army Field Manual and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In more than five years since 9/11, Bush's military tribunals have not tried, much less convicted anyone of acts of terrorism against the United States. It is well past time to try those in custody, punish the guilty, and release the innocent. The existing framework for military tribunals is sufficient to this task. But Bush's goal is neither justice nor security; it is power. This bill was clearly introduced as a political ploy in an election year. High political drama you might say when, whatever legislation eventually emerges, Bush can always "interpret" it to his liking via a presidential signing statement, as he has done nearly 1000 times during his presidency. Among these, the most notable was the Detainee Treatment Act --- the last bill on which McCain, Graham and Warner appeared to stand up to Bush.

But now these Senators have decided to compromise, to support legislation which trusts George Bush to do the right thing. Under any other president, this might be acceptable. But George Bush has led this country into war under false pretenses, put incompetent political appointees in charge of rebuilding Iraq, and used the war as a vehicle to transfer billions of American tax dollars to his corporate cronies with no oversight. George Bush is the man who gave us Abu Ghraib. And he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing to trade our American values for two more years in power. Yet instead of exercising their Constitutionally-mandated oversight, this Republican-led Congress, and especially my opponent in November's election, John Kline, has chosen to trust in Bush again and again and again.

Enough is enough. Voters need to hold the GOP lapdogs accountable for their weakness in November, so that a Democrat-led Congress can spend the next two years demanding accountability from George W. Bush.

:yourock:

[BurtWorm]

24. Damn! That is perfect!

:applause:

PS: What are her chances? I want her in the Congress!

[katinmn]

33. Her chances are very good, even if she's running in a suburban area

A Democratic poll showed Kline leading 48% to 42%. Another poll showed Kline ahead by 46% to 37%. Bush and Cheney have raised millions for Kline so his campaign chest is about 4X higher than Coleen's. She was not the DC Dem crowd's choice but they are finally coming around to not dissing her.

Kline was a co-author of the House 'cover-Bush's-ass-for-war-crimes' bill which goes to the floor this coming week.

[BurtWorm]

45. I remember her of course from 2001.

I wish I could vote for her. Are you in her district?

[katinmn]

49. No, but I met Coleen at Camp Casey last year!

The right wing tried to massacre her for going, but she survived. :-)

I've supported her when and where I can.

Betty McCollum is my rep. She's great, although largely silenced when she does speak out.

[bhikkhu]

26. El diablo speaks

Whatever xenophobic or patriotic reactions one might have to the Chavez speech, it could not have been more appropriately timed as an accurate commentary.

[annm4peace]

28. A new chant was added to the Anti-war/Peach march Today

"Who is Diablo ? Bush is Diablo!"
"Who is Diablo ? Cheney is Diablo!!"

:evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown:

[flyarm]

31. if my senator votes for this ..i will not vote for him..no matter what and

i will not do another thing for the dem party..i will not register another person, i will not send another dime ever ..i will be done with anyone who would condone this..period the end!

i have worked my ass off for the dem party..and if they do not stand up for my values this time..i am done!

i will not vote for anyone who would shit on humanity, and human rights, and democratic rights.

fly

[katinmn]

35. According to MyDD, the Dem strategy is to stay under the radar

on torture. Don't want to make a misstep, you know.

It's just politics. :sarcasm:
http://alex_urevick.mydd.com/story/2006/9/20/152658/857

While the Dems have been voting for Warner, Uncle Harry has been pleased to guffaw to whomsoever about the GOP disarray.

One view would be that it scarcely matters electorally what the Dem leadership do as long as it stays below the radar, and the GOP are unable to exploit it. Especially since the most excitable element of Dem support (ie, the lefty sphere) seems more preoccupied with the skin tones of Bill Clinton's lunch guests.

As I mentioned before, though, if the various elements of the GOP are able to reach a compromise, the Dems will be faced with the choice of voting for a bill that offends the sensitive souls of its liberal wing, or rejecting a bill which mostly resembles the bill they just voted for.

(Can you say I voted for it before I voted against it?)

[katinmn]

36. srkp23 on dkos: They're Daring Us (w/poll)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/24/34226/8590
The Republicans are daring us to stand in their way, as if it were a foregone conclusion that this is a political loser for Democrats. I say "Bring it on." Let's take them up on their dare, and stand up for what Democrats believe in: truth, justice, and the rule of law--it's the American way.

We are outraged and frustrated. We're ready to fight. We've been calling our Senators and Representatives. Some of us are demanding filibuster. Others think that the filibuster is but a fantasy, a political impossibility, and seek other means of sandbagging the legislation: poison pill anyone? But I can sense that underlying our tenuous hope is a sinking feeling that this bill will pass: it's just politically impossible because Dems can't look weak on terror this close to the elections.

But we're being played by the Republicans. They are trying to force us to submit to them and "take this issue off the table." Of course they want it off the table, because it can become a political loser for them if we're tough and smart. And anyway, if we don't contest this legislation, we're still being portrayed as weak and "political" by the Republican narrative being repeated in the media.

Who exactly is claiming that voting against torture would make us look weak on fighting terrorism? Republicans are saying that, and, as usual, the media is incorporating that viewpoint into their reporting and repeating it as if it were truth. Thus if they win, the Republicans still get to portray as weak, craven losers who can't fight for what we believe in.

[katinmn]

37. GET OFF YOUR ASS. FILIBUSTER DELEGATIONS NOW!!!

Kossak proposes delegations to visit senate offices.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/23/0058/83112

by dirkster42
Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:00:58 PM PDT
No more handwringing and despair. Let's go crash some gates in the form of offices. This torture crap calls for IMMEDIATE ACTION.

Every Kossack needs to start organizing DKos delegations to their senator's offices now. I'm in the San Francisco area, so you can just respond to this message if you want to visit Feinstein's and Boxer's offices. I'll also put 50 comments out for each state so you can connect that way.

Some questions on the flip.

[Canuckistanian]

42. The poll results are not optimistic

A full 60% believe the bill will become law.

[chill_wind]

62. Great comments! nt

[gully]

39. I guess I'll wait and see what the Dems do before I assume and critique

them. The so called "compromise" just happened at the end of last week, and NO ONE HAS READ IT YET.

[Canuckistanian]

40. "while it has a number of problems...."

If Harry Reid doesn't step up and disown the entire statement that Jim Manley (his spokesman) made, it should be seen as almost a complete capitulation to the torturers.

If this is the best he can do, he's useless.

This is going to be the Scalia confirmation all over again.

[seabeyond]

41. please link what DEMS and what they said. i hear the accusation

against the dems. i am not seeing any quote from a dem. help me out before i attack my fellow dem for suporting torture

i think i at least owe my party the responsibility of knowing the facts before i attack them

[BurtWorm]

46. Look in post #1

It's not Greenwald's (or my) point that they're taking a stand for torture. It's that they're not taking a stand against it.

You could call your Democratic Senators and ask what their position is on the Republican bills. If you like what you hear, support them. If you don't like what you hear, ask them who is going to lead the country away from adopting torture if the Dems do not.

[seabeyond]

47. 2 people and such ambiguous comments. that isn't crap

i will wait to see what comes..... this is nothing. totally open statement that will allow them to study and plan on what they want to do. everything is pen and on the table. i would at least like to wait and see what is up

[BurtWorm]

48. I suppose it depends on how strongly one feels about torture.

If you want to see it taken off the table, you'll want to see some leadership toward that coming from somewhere, preferably from among Democrats (as it won't be coming from Republicans).

[seabeyond]

51. i suppose you want the terrorist to rein free...... the republican said

to me when i challenged bush being allowed to break the laws of the geneva convention.

so..... if i dont approach this with the attitude you deem i ought to, are you suggesting maybe i dont feel as strongly as you do about torture?

if i dont think like a republican does that mean i want terrorist to have free rein?

these are not only stupid ass suggestions, they are also insulting

go on believing you "care" about torture more than others that dont have your attitude, but it is an incorrect allegation and offensive

[BurtWorm]

54. See post #53.

[katinmn]

50. Kos, MyDD and other sites are burning up over this issue

But you can also see the "stay under the radar" quotes in the Times and WaPO.:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092201355_pf.html
Democratic political strategists at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research encouraged Democrats to challenge Republicans on national security issues. Jeremy Rosner, senior vice president, said polling suggests that Bush's focus on security matters in the past weeks may have helped his personal approval ratings, but it has harmed Republican lawmakers by elevating anxieties over Iraq.

"There is much more room than people have guessed for Democrats to engage on this issue, to get heard and even to win," he stressed.

A few liberal Democratic lawmakers attacked the bill yesterday, but none signaled all-out plans to try to kill it. "By using legal mumbo jumbo to obscure the fact that the CIA will continue to be allowed to use torture and will actually be insulated from legal liability for previous acts of torture, President Bush is proceeding ever further down the slippery slope that Colin Powell warned us will endanger American troops in the field by encouraging other countries to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

White House aides are practically daring such Democrats to oppose the legislation. "Now the test is for the Democrats," a senior administration official said. "What are they going to do? . . . This does show that there's a consistent voice now on the subject coming out of our party."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/washington/23detain.html?ei=5090&en=516b315174128e5b&ex=1316664000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said the compromise was “promising,” particularly the provisions on classified evidence.

And Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, praised Senators Warner, McCain and Graham as “standing up to the administration” and producing a bill that, “while it has a number of problems, is a substantial improvement over the language proposed by the administration.”

But Mr. Levin objected in particular to the rules on coerced evidence. The compromise would ban evidence obtained through “cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment” as defined by the Detainee Torture Act going back to when that act was passed, in December. “This approach, which was insisted upon by the administration, would put our own troops at risk if other countries decide to apply a similar standard, and is abhorrent to American values,” Mr. Levin said.

He argued in favor of language originally proposed by the three senators and approved by the committee, which would exclude statements obtained as result of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, no matter when they were obtained.

[seabeyond]

52. so levin went further in comment and burtworm only gave me selective quote

to advance his agenda. dishonest

anyway..... i better understand where the steam and fire is coming from on this issue. los has its place, and it is about agitating.... so be it. not a fan.

but i appreciate the information

[BurtWorm]

53. Your reaction is surprising. I don't appreciate being called dishonest.

The original post and #1 were by blogger Glenn Greenwald, not me. I thought that was clear. It would be dishonest if I misled you to believe I was the author of those words. If you thought I was, I'm sorry for not making it clearer.

I posted this because Greenwald has demonstrated himself over and over to be reliable in reporting on national security legislation and judicial interpretations of it. His analyses have been thoughtful and thought provoking, and he's read widely, not only by regular joes and janes but by his fellow bloggers. If you disagree with his analyses, fine. I think it's an overreaction to suppose there's something sinister about it. I suspect you and others who have reacted as you have are reading it through some filter. You're not giving it a fair shake, and that's making you impute some sinister agenda to him and to me. I really resent that. This is the second time this weekend a DUer has pulled something like this on me for posting something critical of Democrats for not taking the torture issue seriously enough to forcefully oppose it.

In another post, you imply that I was calling you pro-torture, which is not true. I don't view this in black and white, that if you disagree with me you must be pro-torture. I meant that if you feel urgency about the issue, which you evidently don't, then you will be more impatient with Democratic silence and patience than I am. Being patient with the system is not being pro-torture. I think it's risky to trust that the system will work in this case, and I point to 2002 as evidence that it's dangerous to trust Republicans with any thing like this a month before election. But that's just my opinion.

[seabeyond]

56. post 1 was not just in giving the true picture to what levin said

it was unfair to levin. regardless how this man may have interpreted it. i am not out for someones interpretation, i want the actual words from the person being quoted. i only got a piece that fit the agenda to the article. not the rest of what levin was saying. that is wrong, in my book

no, you guess wrong thinking i dont feel that urgency of stopping the torture.

you are wrong in interpreting my reaction to me i want torutre a little more, or am not as agressive in stopping torture as you. the urgency to stop the torture was clear prior to our invasions when bush said he did not have to follow the genevia convention because al qaeda was not a country so we do not have to follow the rules. i have been hounding the torture issue since that day. so you are incorrect there.

i dont accuse and villify and suggest congress members are pro torture because they ..... what, i dont even know what to call it... they have always stodd against torture, levin said many many problems with this and all torture bad.... they havent even had the time yet to go after this so i dont know what they are mounting.... and because i wont condemn them at this point, you suggest i dont feel the urgency you do.

it is that i disagree with you on. not the torture issue

[BurtWorm]

58. You are using words like "villify" and "condemn" to villify a rational

position. No one was "villifying" Levin or Reid. Don't you know the difference between criticism and villification? Maybe you should learn it.

[OzarkDem]

57. Don't drag Dems into this

they don't have a dog in this fight.

[BurtWorm]

59. Human rights is not a Democratic dog?

:wtf:

[chill_wind]

61. WTF? I seriously hope you're joking. nt

[Imagevision]

63. Pelosi commented on thug Chavez but no comment when we need one!

Pelosi agrees to pretend that Bush "compromised" on torture like all the rest!!